Author: Andrew Sullivan

A team of young gymnasts take Simon Cowell's breath away.

Contra Josh, R.L.G. at DiA thinks Palin will run:

Mr Green is right; she is building a brand. But just so she can be a television hostess? How long would that brand shine if she rebuffed those who will (with very real passion) beg her to run? Yes, she's uniquely successful at infuriating or terrifying liberals—but that's because they think that she might still just become president. How does that 2013 contract look when she's refused to enter the fight? This is hunch-blogging at its most speculative, I confess, but I think she's in. So over to you. I don't see someone who's preparing for a book-writing and lecture-circuit career. What do you see in the estimable Sarah Palin?

She has wanted to be president for much of her adult political life. She wanted it well over a decade ago. She risked a huge amount in saying yes to John McCain, a gamble of monumental proportions, in the pursuit of that goal. She believes sincerely that she is on a mission from God, that she is the Esther of the End-Times. Why is any of this hard to understand? By her words and her actions, she wants to be the GOP nominee. And at a time when Republican extremism is the brand, who better represents the party than she?

(Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

From here.

Larison's diagnosis:

Where movement conservatives enable their political leaders to do more or less as they please, progressives seem far more willing to challenge and question “their side.” The siege and persecution mentalities that movement conservatives have long cultivated as coping mechanisms for their long history of domestic policy defeats and losses in the culture wars tend to make them far less willing to break with “their side,” which is why there is such importance placed on conformity and “team” loyalty. That means that movement conservatives typically have had to stifle, mute or otherwise water down any objections they do have to Republican policies under Bush. Then, once Bush is gone, for the sake of “the team” they feel they have to exaggerate their objections to Democratic policies and politicians to the point of absurdity to create sharper contrasts with the dismal record of Republican governance they just spent the last decade making possible.

Anoymous Liberal responds to Dreher:

Those on the right who value facts and intellectual integrity are often quick to dismiss the epistemic closure problem as being a phenomenon that plays out on both sides of the political spectrum. And that's true, to some extent. But it plays out very differently. The reality is that the liberal intellectual community does an infinitely better job of policing the problem. There a far more people on the left who are willing to call out reality denial when they see it, even among their own ranks. This just doesn't happen nearly as often on the right, and those who engage in it — see, e.g., Manzi or David Frum — get ostracized.

Chait comments on the Levin-Manzi foofaraw:

Writers at the American Scene or the Frum Forum might disagree with each other, but they're not going to call each other wingnuts, as Manzi did to Levin. You can admire Manzi's courage in speaking truth to power while acknowledging that NR's denizens weren't totally out of bounds in taking offense at his manner.

Of course, this points to an inherent problem with maintaining a blog that functions as a bulletin board for the conservative movement. The standards of entry are extremely low, and the number of contributors is vast. The practical effect of this is to force a huge number of conservatives to grant each other collegial deference. This makes it harder for a conservative like Manzi — who, for all his flaws, does craft arguments with data gleaned from outside the hermetic universe of conservative talking points — to actually call a spade a spade.

And Bernstein seconds Ambers.

James Doty finds the profiling section of the Arizona law vague and unconstitutional and thus unlikely to survive the courts:

The most likely outcome of the legal challenges to SB 1070 may be that the bill survives, shorn of its most offensive parts. This is obviously a good result for civil libertarians, but it's also good news for their frequent adversary, police officers. In requiring officers to check immigration status but providing them no clear guidelines on when or how to do so, SB 1070 places policemen on the razor's edge of violating Arizona law on the one hand and infringing on constitutional rights on the other.

William A. Jacobson, on the other hand, counters concerns that the profiling section is race-based. And Allahpundit plays down fears that IDs would be checked routinely. But when even Tom Tancredo has misgivings, you may have gone a tad too far.

 Bryan Caplan thinks that "that adoption is a noble, generous act, and admire those who do it" but he personally doesn't want to adopt. Jason Kuznicki is offended. Tyler Cowen is confused:

I think Bryan understands the selfish reasons for having children differently than I do, though I will defer to his own statement of his view.  I put a big stress on how children help you see that a lot of your immediate concerns aren't nearly as important as you might think, and how spending time with children brings you closer to — apologies, super-corny phrases on the way — The Great Circle of Being and The Elemental Life Force.  In some (not all) ways, adopted children may be teaching you those lessons more effectively than do biological children.  It's an oversimplification to say that "children make you a better person," but they do, or should, improve your ability to psychologically and emotionally integrate that a) you want lots of stuff, b) what you end up getting remains, no matter what, ridiculously small and inconsequential, and c) you can't control your life nearly as much as you think.   

I would sooner say that these realizations are gifts which children give to us rather than calling them "selfish reasons" to have children.

(Image: Getty)

Immigration law professor Kevin Johnson outlines his ideal bill. He wants simpler laws:

I am not calling for simplicity for simplicity’s sake. Nor do I advocate the immigration equivalent of some kind of simple, if not simplistic, “flat tax” system. My point instead is that the United States would benefit from a streamlined, less complex, and clearer body of immigration laws.

Along similar lines, the United States often has been unclear in the overall goals of its immigration laws. Consider the exclusion grounds, which have grown over the years to respond to the perceived immigration demons of the day. Accretion of reforms upon reforms has made the immigration laws pull in dramatically different directions, lack any modicum of consistency, and simply have become unwieldy, cumbersome, and excessively complex.

Today on the Dish, Andrew assessed the sustained surge of Nick Clegg, polling continued to look precarious for Labour, Cameron played up civil liberties, the gay vote swung to the Lib-Dems, Massie considered a Lib-Tory deal, Martin Ivens impressed Andrew with his analysis, and a reader explored the need for electoral reform. Round-up of commentary here.

Andrew took a long look at a profile of Palin and her newfound fortune. Reader response here and here. Andrew also checked in on the difficult situation in Iraq. On the immigration front in Arizona, Fallows contrasted the situation with China's and we put together a comprehensive look.

In other commentary, Reihan was pessimistic on the economy, Chait tried to understand the GOP on financial reform, Drum did the same, Daniel Engber criticized the military over its approach to fat, Farhad Manjoo sized up Facebook's plan for WWW domination, and Dan Ariely explored the roots of hypocrisy. Frum interjected in the Manzi-Levin spat, Manzi shot back at McCarthy, and Ambinder picked apart Gingrich.

Andrew mused about the spiritual component of playing and shared some footage of his beagles and husband at play. The Simpsons stood with South Park, Thoreau struggled with his caffeine addiction, and R.L.G. at Democracy In America did the same with polling on Israel. Yglesias award here and cool ad here.

— C.B.

With a major money quote that I don't understand at all.

Many emails. One reader writes:

Good grief. Your beagle videos first made me feel a bit better (I'm rather sickish right now), made me smile, and then cry. You have done much to make me believe  that not all beagles are dangerous. I gotten bitten as a child, (by a beagle very unlike your own) and still have the scar on my left ankle. But your "kids" are so sweet, and obviously so loved. A universal thing that can cheer a person up.

Then I realized how much you must miss them..and then I started thinking about my son–who now lives in another state again. Hence, the tears. But thankfully in our "modern" age we can connect via methods so wondrous.

Anyway, thanks for making Charlie Brown seem right after all.