Jonathan Adler made some kind and interesting comments about my column on federalism yesterday. I've been out of commission and so was unable to respond, and will be again for a while. But here's my further several cents' worth.

Jonathan says that it is fair to call conservatives hypocrites on federalism when they oppose the federal gun-free schools act as unconstitutional while supporting the federal medical-marijuana ban as constitutional. I will admit that it is hard for me to think of a rationale to distinguish these cases at the moment, and I have become more persuaded by Jonathan's position on the medical-marijuana question since the last time we exchanged comments about it. (I still maintain that the demand that John Ashcroft give up on attempts to enforce the federal law in advance of a definitive judicial ruling on its unconstitutionality was, if anything, more hypocritical coming, as it did, from people who ordinarily believe in judicial supremacy.)

No doubt Adler is correct that many conservatives adopt "constitutional or theoretical rationales for or against federal involvement on a fairly ad hoc basis." Of course, most people, including most conservatives and, I would add, most libertarians, cannot be expected to have fully thought-out, perfectly consistent theories of federalism. If someone wants to argue that most supporters of a ban on partial-birth abortion have not thought through the constitutional and federalist issues involved, I will concede the point without a qualm. If someone wants to argue that the partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional or is not consistent with a sound theory of the limits of the federal government, I will engage him in that debate. But if someone is saying that a person who calls himself a federalist and supports the ban (or, say, supports a federal judicial ruling against state laws on sodomy) is a hypocrite--well, the point of my essay was to explain why I thought that claim is false.

Here's my review of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment in that other magazine.

The current issue of Commentary has the letters-to-the-editor in response to Josh Muravchik's outstanding essay on the prevailing campaign of idiocy, asininity and slander towards "neocons" (real and perceived). Some of the letters seem to score real points until you read Muravchik's response. Muravchik thoroughly, incisively and almost brutally smacks back all of the nonsense thrown at Neocons from lefty critics and supposedly objective journalists. In my opinion he only let's one pitch get over the plate. Jacon Heilbrunn writes in an otherwise thoughtful and even-tempered letter that:

"Obviously, [Leo] Strauss does not provide a blueprint for neoconservatism. But it seems fair to say that while not all neoconservatives are Straussians, almost all Straussians are neoconservatives. All of which suggests that neoconservativism may be more complicated than some of its adversaries care to admit.

After addressing many of Heilbrunn's other points Muravchik deals with this one by responding:

"As for Mr. Heilbrunn’s interesting claim that almost all Straussians are neoconservatives, I wonder how he knows."

This was clearly an attempt at civil sarcasm toward a less than adversarial critic (who often writes for Commentary himself). But Muravchik is really giving Heilbrunn something of a free pass. Without getting far into the weeds on what constitutes a Straussian, to say that "most" Straussians are neocons would require a level of uniformity among both neocons and Straussians Heilbrunn cannot demonstrate. Bob Goldwin, Walter Berns, Harvey Mansfield, Martin Diamond, Harry Jaffa, Peter Schramm, Ken Masugi, the late Allan Bloom, to name just a few can fairly be described as Straussians. They can all also be described as conservatives. I can think of nothing that makes them particularly "neoconservative." Indeed, if neoconservatives are supposed to be particulary devoted to foreign policy (another misconception in my book), I'd be at pains to figure out how these guys are neoconservative at all. And, as William Galston's example might indicate, I'm not even sure Straussians are even necessarily conservative, let alone neoconservative.

In other words, when it comes to most Straussians, the conservative ones get called "neoconservative" simply because they fit a journalistic -- i.e. not an analytical or conceptual -- preconception.

If Mr. Heilbrunn would like to send me a note explaining what specifically makes Straussians neoconservatives, I would love to see it and post it here.

"Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims' families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended."

From a longtime African-American reader of NRO (I know because he's been sending me smart emails for years):

I was born and raised in Chicago, not the Caribbean, but I consider Kwanzaa a load of pseudo-African rubbish, cobbled together in 1966 by an ex-convict with a lavish imagination and time on his hands. It has nothing to do with any established African cultural or religious tradition, and it wouldn't matter to me if it did, because I'm not African--I'm American. My folks came over from Africa, to be sure, but I came from Chicago. My beloved sister celebrates Kwanzaa, God bless her, but I can scarcely think of it without sneering. Puhleeze!

From a reader:

The other reader's response was good, but it skipped over the most offensive notion, common to most Afro-centric ideas, that Kwanzaa supports - that the varying cultures of the entire continent of Africa can be swept into a singular celebration. It never ceases to amaze me how the general population allows Afro-centrists to paint with such a broad brush. It strikes me as a curious form of reverse stereotyping generated by a segment of the African American community that demeans the legitimate cultural heritage of blacks in the United States. Even if that heritage is one that includes slavery.

BBC has been told that Libya had nuclear programme and enrichment of uranium. Also stocks of chemical weapons, aerial bombs loaded with chemical weapons. Biological weapons programme was less well developed. Long range missiles of up to 1,000 km were being developed (in future the range will be no more than 300km). The full accounting of the WMD programme will be very interesting.

This is an interesting and significant development which vindicates both US and UK foreign policy post September 11. Israeli intelligence, which had long claimed that Libya had a nuclear programme, has been vindicated.

From a reader:

Now, what the heck is that, Jonah? You tell me. I'm Caribbean born, and I despise Kwanzaa. Non-sequitur, I know. Kwanzaa is just a secularist bid to rend the black American community from Christianity (which many wrongly view as a European religion) and shovel them into either socialism (check out the principles of Kwanzaa), or Islam (why many BAs believe historically has nothing to do with slavery. Ignorance is bliss, I say; dangerous bliss).

Sending Kwanzaa greetings won't gain President Bush one single vote. Instead, it makes him complicit in the canard about the racism and genocidal tendencies of Christianity and in the fragmentation of American society to which BA racism has been contributary.

That's my bloody .02 worth on the bloody topic! Yes, I'm frosted.

[Name withheld]

[The initial] finding, and the total absence of evidence or argument to support it, struck many as bizarre. Having read the DCSD's report, we ourselves concluded, “The panel's ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.”

On December 17th, Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the DCSD's finding. It is more politely expressed than ours, but comes to much the same conclusion. The ruling is thrown back to the DCSD with instructions to think again. Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and...the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”

A Kwanzaa greeting (shouldn't "Kwanzaas" have an apostrophe?) from President Bush:

Presidential Message: Kwanzaa 2003

I send greetings to those observing Kwanzaa.

Celebrated by millions across the world, Kwanzaa honors the history and heritage of Africa. This seven-day observance is an opportunity for individuals of African descent to remember the sacrifices of their ancestors and reflect on the Nguzo Saba. Kwanzaas seven social and spiritual principles offer strength and guidance to meet the challenges of each new day.

During this joyous time of year, Americans renew our commitment to hope, understanding, and the great promise of our Nation. In honoring the traditions of Africa, Kwanzaa strengthens the ties that bind individuals in communities across our country and around the world.

Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a joyous Kwanzaa.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Daniel Ortega comes to Saddam's defense.

Talk about standing by your product:

A traditional doctor in central Nigeria has been shot dead by a patient who was testing the potency of an anti-bullet charm the herbalist had prepared for him, police said on Wednesday.

Ashi Terfa died when patient Umaa Akor fired a gun at his head two weeks ago in south-central Benue state, police spokesperson Bode Fakeye said.

"Akor went for an insurance against bullets and contacted Terfa to prepare it for him," he said.

"To confirm its efficacy, the herbalist tied the charm around his neck and insisted that Akor should fire a gun at him. The experiment proved fatal for the herbalist and his skull was shattered," he added. "He died immediately".

Fakeye said the suspect had appeared in court for culpable homicide, but had been release on bail.

"The motive to kill could not be established against the suspect since the herbalist asked him to shoot to test the charm," he added.

The belief in withcraft and charms is rife in Africa.

Did you hear what the troops were calling the Sikorsky Blackhawk which Hillary used to tour Iraq? "Broomstick One"

From a reader:

Shirer was absolutely convinced that Hitler and the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag and most historians now think it was the just the work of the insane Dutchman.

I don't know why, but I always had the impression that the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer was a tough slog. One reason might be that I tried to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at too young an age and I somehow conflated the two in my mind. Regardless, I'm a couple hundred pages into R&F of the TR and I must say I think it's great, entirely accessible and a real joy to read. If there are any historians out there who know if and how Shirer is considered out of date in some way -- particularly on the subject of Fascism (I don't much care about, say, the military analysis) -- I'd love to hear from you. My own book isn't a historiography so I don't have much time to read about the historians I read, but I would be curious nonetheless.

Just got back from CNN and am digging out. Found something close to 7,000 catalogs (Pottery Barn, Victoria's Secret etc) in my mail. I am astounded that paper, printing and postage are so cheap so as to make sending 5 copies of the same catalog to one household cost efficient -- particularly when we buy nothing from 9 out of 10 of said catalogs.

Have any DC-area residents noticed how inane the moving walkways at Reagan National Airport are? They have a recorded announcement which blares constantly "Caution! The Moving Sidewalk is Ending!" The only problem is that it's so loud and the various sidewalks are so close together, there's no way a blind person could know when the sidewalk is actually ending. It must be a living terror for blind folks. I know it's a pain for the sighted.

"Bottom of the scream" should read "Bottom of the screen." I suspect you typed this as CNN makes one want to scream!

Dear K-LO,

I had to write to let you know my terrific experience ordering these books[The NR Treasury of Classic Bedtime Stories and the two literature volumes].

First, some background: my wife reads to our two sons (6 & 9) just about every night. They are working through the Harry Potter stories. It's a very special time for them.

My wife laments that she isn't into soccer and can't play it with the boys like I do. She said that their nightly reading is the best, most fun thing she does with the boys.

Well, if that wasn't enough to trigger your 'suggestions' from The Corner to purchase said books! I mean, Wow! Talk about the PERFECT gift!

I ordered on Monday and the books arrived Wednesday.

Super fast service - and yes fellow NR readers -- There IS still time!!

Now if only I can manage my 10 thumbs to properly wrap this...

Thanks! All the best!

comes from a college friend whose judgment I respect:

"I must admit that I was surprised to read your Corner post re: gays in the
military. As you well know, i've been opposed since college. In seven years
in the military I've seen nothing to change my mind.

"The morale problem is insurmountable. No, no, I don't mean anti-gay
sentiment. I truly fail to understand how front-line leaders such as myself
can be expected to keep horny 18-year-olds away from each other. I can't get
these yo-yos to come to drill sober, let alone keep their mitts off of each
other if sexual attraction is present.

"This problem is present with women, too, and for that reason I'd cheerfully
endorse an all-male military. But women are easier to keep segregated. We
can have women's rooms, women's bathrooms, etc., and women can be easily
identified as such. Precisely how do we work showers for gay soldiers? And
when Private Boy and Private Girl spend lots of time alone, common sense
tells us that something's afoot. When Private Boy and Private Openly Gay But
Swears He'll be Chaste slip away...are they pals, or something more? And if
it's Private Boy and his supervisor, Sergeant Openly Gay, Etc., then what?
What can a leader do?

"Too trivial? After four lonely, dirty months in the field, it wouldn't seem
so. And my understanding of human sexuality doesn't support the notion that
18-year-olds can shower in the nude with other 18-year-olds to whom they are
sexually attracted, and not have bad things happen. The left might buy the
idea that the sexual urge can be flipped on and off like a switch - off when
at work, on when at home. The right should know better.

"It does no good to point to the rules against fraternization, sex with
subordinates, etc. Those rules aren't obeyed among the heterosexuals, and,
as noted earlier, we have strong measures in place to help hetero soldiers
avoid temptation. And still we have awful problems.

"And do let's keep in mind that all of these problems are quintupled in the
stress of a deployment, and quintupled again in combat. . . .

"I'm not acquainted with the British experience. But I'd take it with several
grains of salt, as a) the p.c. juggernaut has likely squelched any evidence
that a pro-gay policy has failed, just as the p.c. juggernaut routinely
squelches evidence in the U.S. that women in the military is a failed
policy; b) I've heard that many foreign militaries quietly track gays into
non-combat positions, and c) what the hell do Europeans know about fighting
contemporary wars anyway? Britain is the least bad of the bunch, but acting
as the American Army's valet doesn't really demand the same uncompromising
quest for the military excellence that we demand out of, say, the 82nd
Airborne.

"It's probably true that, in a garrison, rear-eschelon environment, gays
(like women) can do as good a job as anyone else. But the military
recognizes that the garrison environment is not the true military
environment. The Army, at least, demands that every soldier be able to fight
like an infantryman under combat conditions, regardless of their 'real Army
job.' Every soldier must meet that standard. A soldier sexually attracted to
other soldiers cannot meet that standard.

"Sorry to belabor the point, but I've spent much time examining the issue -
and for me, the point is far from academic."

A few quick points before I get on a plane. First, where are all the Democrats denouncing these leaks from Saddam Hussein's interrogation room? I mean we were told that leaks are terrible, especially pertaining to intelligence operations, right?

More important, I'm kind of at a loss as to why all of these reports of Saddam being defiant and arrogant are being taken at face value. Keep in mind I've read little news while I've been here and am only going by the cable news networks.

Since when does the CIA -- who's handling Saddam -- leak how super-important interrogations are going? In other words, any news that's allegedly coming out of Saddam's pie hole is news his handlers want leaked. My most hopeful guess is that Saddam's actually singing like a bird but the Americans don't want the bad guys to know it. Normally, you keep even the capture of an important asset secret so you can roll-up all of his contacts without them flying the coop. Since that was impossible, my hope is that the Americans are saying he's not cooperating even as they have all of these successful raids. Doesn't that seem plausible?

And if he is spilling the beans, then we may be in even much better shape than things seem.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Ohio Law Restricting Partial-Birth Abortion

In a ruling with possible national significance, Ohio’s law restricting the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion was upheld today by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. The Ohio statute generally bans killing a live child who has been delivered outside the body of the mother at least past the baby’s navel (if he or she is being delivered feet first), or whose entire head has been delivered outside the body of the mother (if he or she is delivered head first). However, there is an exception to the ban “to preserve the life or health of the mother as a result of the mother’s life or health being endangered by a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

The law was challenged by Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell, whose 1992 instructional paper on how to perform this method of abortion touched off the national debate over partial-birth abortion.

Today, in Women’s Medical Professional Corporation v. Taft, a three-judge federal panel upheld the law. By a vote of 2-to-1, the panel rejected the arguments of abortion advocates that the Constitution requires that partial-birth abortions must be allowed when the health risk to the mother is only negligible or transient.

James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), commented, “The court rejected -- as most Americans reject -- the outrageous claim by pro-abortion advocates that the Constitution guarantees a right to kill a child who is hanging halfway outside the mother’s body for negligible and transient health reasons.”