Typically, disputes like those over the U.S. attorney and terrorist-surveillance program are worked out by compromise. If a president wants to protect his prerogatives, he also wants to preserve a working relationship with Congress. But this particular relationship can’t be saved. Comity is impossible with a Congress bent on doing all it can to destroy what remains of the Bush administration. In the matter of the U.S. attorneys, the administration has provided Congress 8,500 pages of documents and numerous officials and former officials have testified. This isn’t enough for a Congress that won’t stop until it has run-down every outlandish conspiracy theory about the firings that -- even if clumsy and ill-advised -- were perfectly within Bush’s power to make.

And so, the administration was justified in saying both, "no more," and "see you in court." There, it can hope to get a decision that strengthens the executive’s ability to protect its deliberations for a long time to come.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

Can anyone seriously doubt that a man who spent 5-1/2 years being tortured by the Viet Cong hates war? But one can simultaneously hate war and think it preferable to allowing despots to gain nuclear weapons.

I’m not sure undermining the United Nations, which has been virtually useless at preventing wars or enforcing its own Security Council mandates, is necessarily inconsistent with hating war. Regardless, McCain isn’t seeking to undermine it but rather augment it with a “League of Democracies,” which he has described as a “SEATO-type” ad hoc coalition of states with similar values. Indeed, pressed by this author on the question, he specifically said that he did not envision this as a military alliance ala NATO. Whose existence, oddly enough, hasn’t undermined the UN.

Nor has McCain advocated “new cold wars with Russia and China.” Rather, his critics, like Fareed Zakaria, have posited that as a likely outcome of the League of Democracies.

In America, drivers are fuming and politicians are demanding explanations because gasoline has hit about $3.50 per gallon. That's less than half the price being paid by motorists in most industrialized countries. High to us is low to them. Then there are the oil refiners. Relative to the $120 price of crude, $3.50 for gasoline is so cheap that their margins have virtually disappeared. So "high" in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Oxford, Mississippi is "low" in similarly named cities in the UK, and "high" for motorists is "low" for refiners. It depends where you live, and at which point in the supply chain you find yourself.

But assume that prices are "high", which indeed they are by historic standards. We are mistaken when we think these "high" prices are causing inflation. High oil prices can force consumers to spend more on gasoline and heating oil, at the expense of other purchases. Ask any suffering restaurateur or clothes retailer if you doubt that. But high oil prices can't trigger a rise in the general price level -- inflation -- unless someone pumps money into the economy so that, to use an oldie but goodie from the economists' lexicon, there is more money chasing the same amount of goods.

If you want something to blame for inflation, don't look at oil prices, look at the billions the Federal Reserve Board's monetary policy gurus and their confederates at the U.S. Treasury are pouring into the economic system. The cost to taxpayers of saving the financial services sector from ruin is not only making good any collateral the Fed has accepted that might prove worthless, but the run-up in the rate of inflation.

It seems one reason both Wright and Obama are in this mess is they share a way of thinking about themselves and their respective projects. Obama expressly said that Wright represents the "black community." Wright says an attack on him is an attack on the "black Church." Obama often suggests that a vote for him is a vote for "change" and for moving beyond division and discord and all bad things. And while he's wisely refrained from expressly saying that his skin color is the medium of exchange for this grand world-historical purchase, that's certainly been the subtext for him and the plain text for many of his supporters.

The problem with this sort of thing is that people aren't abstractions, they cannot in fact "personify" anything, not really.

We have all become used to candidates appearing at events where the audience is made up of ideologically sympathetic supporters. Most candidates for president know all too well how to get cheers of approval from their bases with well delivered poll-tested partisan talking points. However, it would be a different situation entirely if candidates had to consistently appear in front of people who are not inclined to be in agreement with them. Add to that, someone from the other party who will challenge their positions, then add to that someone from the media who knows how to cut through the rhetoric. Now, that is a much more substantial challenge and one likely to produce a much better quality of meaningful dialogue about how to meet the many challenges facing the country.

Such a level of meaningful exchange is critical to our democratic process. First and most importantly, it requires candidates to know what they stand for. A candidate must know more than talking points; he or she must know the substance of the material. They must be able to draw on historical parallels to support their arguments. They must know the audience and understand something about their worldview in order to relate to them. Candidates must be clear. They must provide real solutions to our challenges. But even all of that is not nearly enough. They must persuade.

Persuasion is what counts in a free society. If you cannot persuade, you cannot succeed in solving America's challenges because in the end, the American people must support your solutions or nothing can get done. It's time for a new model.

Video game popularity and real-world youth violence have been moving in opposite directions. Violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since. School violence has also gone down. The U.S. Secret Service intensely studied each of the 37 non-gang and non-drug-related school shootings and stabbings that were considered "targeted attacks" that took place nationally from 1974 through 2000.

The Secret Service found that there was no accurate profile. Only one in eight school shooters showed any interest in violent video games; only one in four liked violent movies.

On the other hand, reports of bullying are up. Our research found that certain patterns of video game play were much more likely to be associated with these types of behavioural problems than with major violent crime such as school shootings.

For many children and adolescents, playing video games is an intensely social activity, not an isolating one.

The innocence factor can't but plummet under conditions like these, because the beauty that makes Miley's picture possible and that makes this commentary possible is manufactured; yes, she herself has something to do with it, but hardly all and probably not most. So what we are worshipping turns out to be less Miss Cyrus' marvelous fresh fecundity and youthful radiance and more the erotic appeal of a giant confection. In an earlier era, this picture would in fact be a painting of a nameless young girl, and it would be a work of art. In this era, it's a brick in a long, high wall.

Pity. I've argued before that our problem isn't honoring the sexual power of young women, it's in aggravating that power for the purposes of dishonoring it. Miley's evocative portrait alone doesn't contribute to this problem. But the premise of the picture, and so much of what brought it into being, does. So people decry its classic pose and echo of nobility while smiling away at this getup. Tell me: which is cheaper?

It's going to take a long time to untangle the psychosexual web this culture's woven. Maybe forever.

Wright ended on a note straight from the 1960s: “I believe a change is coming.”

But is it the same kind of change Barack Obama promises? They may share the same economic populism that blesses marching on the picket line, but Wright’s views on race don't seem to have much in common with Obama's public statements to date. Wright’s separatist message is hardly post-racial, while many have acclaimed Obama as embodying that unifying ideal. Obama said in his Philadelphia speech on race that “the profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is... that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made.”

In that March 18 speech, Obama expressed the conviction that he represents a new generation of post-grievance black leadership, ready to take on the challenges that confront blacks in places like Detroit today: Crime and family disintegration.

But his good friend and pastor of 20 years is a symbol of how much of the black establishment still revels in old-school demagoguery.  

Al Sharpton is back in the news with his vow to close New York down to protest the acquittal of three police detectives in the death of Sean Bell. The AP story somehow omits to note that two of the three NYPD detectives against whom Sharpton now seeks to lead his lynch mob are are black. So far they have been protected from the likes of Al Sharpton by due process of law.

Sharpton's long career as the race hustling leader of lynch mobs is one of the continuing disgraces of our public life. How is it that Al Sharpton has assumed this position of leadership in matters allegedly pertaining to race? Though he is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party by politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life.