So why do they both look like Tim Pawlenty? Is there a connection here we should know about?

And so the logic of The Bell Curve is revealed as not a racial thesis, but a race-neutral thesis. The momentum of stable, intelligent, educated families - regardless of race - carries them in the opposite direction from dysfunctional "urban" black culture. To the extent that arguments over the nature of "blackness" (which was hinted at with President Obama's campaign) will become more vigorous. This is a precursor to a much larger debate that will play out over the next several generations.

Mr. Freedman,

First, thank you for calling out the critical distinction of Constitutionality versus desirability. There can be no reasonable Originalist argument that capital punishment is Constitutional. Alas, even smart conservatives often confuse that distinction, if they wish badly enough for a specific policy end..

As to the desirability, I fall into the Dennis Prager school of thought on this: that refusal to countenance Capital punishment is actually a declaration of how lightly we take the value of human life.  Christians are prone (especially of the left wing stripe) to wince at " an eye for an eye".  Too Old Testament. But the truth in that attitude is less a matter of revenge than a proper accounting for the value of the thing lost. If we mete out the same qualitative punishment for heinous murder as for burglary, then we are saying something about how we view those crimes. As qualitatively the same.

Civilizational excellence is a hard thing to maintain. I believe that a willingness to forego capital punishment is one of the key signs that a society is losing its civilizational self-confidence.   

"I also can't help thinking that there's something increasingly small-minded, risk-averse, and fearfully paralyzed by a culture that keeps trying to sand the edges off of life." 

That, Sir, is as apt a statement as I have seen in a long time.  Well put, for a funny guy.

I am unalterably opposed to the relentless silly anthropomorphism that pervades our society.  It is a sign of a decadent and profoundly unserious culture. Pets should not sleep on beds! The only thing worse is our apparently incessant need to fret about every goofy detail of life.

I blame both on the feminization of the culture. (duck!)

A little heresy if I may:

1. In my amateur opinion, Kelo was rightly decided. The action at issue was execrable. But it is not the Supreme Court's job to define what "public purpose" means. That is precisely what democratic institutions must decide. This is the temptation of judicial activism: we see a wrong perpetrated, and we find a reason for the Court to overturn it. That's not the Court's job.  It is the legislature's job.

2. Related, and really heretical: Brown v. Board of Education belongs in the top five. For the same reason as #1. It was a substantive triumph in that it righted a horrible wrong.  But it was a procedural disaster that set the table for almost every horrible decision of the last 50 years. Much as with Roe, I believe that by "forcing" an inorganic decision and forestalling social evolution, Brown probably set the cause of racial integration back in the doing run. 

Interesting theory, Claire. But I find it all a bit overwrought. No, the cries for "civility" are not a result of displaced anxiety. They are a deliberate political tactic on the part of the squishy left designed to disarm the right. "More civility" simply means "shut up". 

Why do we need to get more caught up in it than that? I may be a simplistic Reaganite, but it seems to me that sometimes things are no more complicated than they appear.

One note of caution - we conservatives should know what it feels like for one bad actor to be used as a club with which to beat an entire group. This situation is appalling on its face, but take care not to conclude too quickly what it represents in the larger abortion industry.

That said, this is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to happen when ideology becomes the overriding consideration. For some reason, the ideological blinders of serious abortion advocates force them to violate why that is.the most basic precepts of oversight or compromise.  I would really like to understand why that is.

Well put, Pat. From the most civil man in public life.

What the left has done here is to - as usual - actively seek to rub out meaningful distinctions because they are inconvenient.  There is an important difference between spirited, noisy, even martially-themed, political give and take on one side, and scurrilous. libelous and violence promoting rhetoric on the other. For most of our history that distinction was pretty clear. The left now conflates them.

I agree with Pat wholeheartedly.  These are remarkably civil times in which we live. But the left believe to their very souls that the right generally - and the Tea Party in particular - have deeply nefarious motives. Regardless of what we actually say or do, they have to believe that we mean evil. Because they lack the imagination to understand that we could come to such benighted views in good faith.

I don't understand why the SCOTUS attends at all. It by definition creates a false sense of subservience to the Executive Branch. The Constitution says that the President must advise Congress of the state of the union.  The Court has no business getting in the middle of it, and nothing good can ever happen by their participation.

Personally, I like Self Absorbed, Arrogant, Elitist, Establishment Media, but SAAEEM doesn't have the ring of MSM.

I actually agree with the notion that we have an opportunity to redefine what is "mainstream".  And it is us.  I also like Duane's "Legacy Media" label.  It paints just the right picture of an outmoded but still self-regarding outfit who do not realize they have become irrelevant.

The lesson here is that modern technology has made it more and more difficult to do one thing in Washington and say another back home. The sharpening of ideological party difference is itself a reflection of this, and in turn it makes it more difficult to "hide".

I think this works in favor of Republicans.  Because the overall media/news culture leans left, the old dynamic favored Democrats. The new dynamic favors redenning the red states to match the blueing of the blue states. In other words, it gets us back to a fair fight.   

I think it is a splendid example - perhaps the ultimate example - of the thing we call the "Culture War".  Sarah Palin is everything the Elites are not. She is a strong, vibrant, successful woman who exhibits none of the characteristics that define the Ruling Class.  She doesn't buy into any of the premises of urban sophisticate liberalism.  In fact she defies them. And yet she succeeds! How is this possible? If she is what American women can be, how does the liberal/feminist narrative of the past 50 years hold up?

Abortion may be the most obvious single component of this difference, but it is not the cause. That thing we call the "Elite" cultural view is a big old tangled web of assumptions, prejudices, lifestyle preferences and cultural tastes. And Sarah Palin is the contrary to every one of their beliefs. She is the "other", and as such cannot be tolerated. Which is exactly why those of us who deeply believe in the virtues of  pre-60s American culture must stand by her side.   

If we succeed in making hockey a safe game in which all players treat each other with delicacy and compassion, then we will no longer have the game that we know as hockey.  This is "mother suffocation", pure and simple.

First..... Booyah! Change requires energy, energized people tend to get, shall we say, enthusiastic. Undue devotion to civility breeds appeasement.  

Second..... hard decisions demand a "simplistic" approach. I am fond of "turning back the clock" . Pick a date in the near past - say 2000. Make it a goal to return federal spending to 2000 levels across the board. Was life so tough in 2000? Pick a "simple" goal, and have the fortitude to pursue it relentlessly. Simple. And hard. The only way to make it work. 

Some, rarely talented, people have a knack for cutting through rhetorical clutter and forcing us to readjust our thinking. Lincoln was the master. Palin is an idiot savant in that regard (no insult intended).  She has a remarkable ability to slice through conventional wisdom with a few simple words and rearrange how we think about things. That is her appeal, and it is why she engenders such hostility by the left.    

Mr. Klavan (does anybody ever accidentally call you Cliff?),

I agree with all the above, but my point in writing here is PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT FEED THE GRAMMATICAL ATROCITY REPRESENTED BY "EPIC FAIL"!.  It is not a "fail".  It is a Failure. 

We now return to our regularly scheduled enlightened commentary..............