Beware, writes David Brooks:

What would happen if Obama sidestepped the fruitless and short-term stimulus debate and instead focused on the long term? He could explain that we’re facing deep fundamental problems: an aging population, overleveraged consumers, exploding government debt, state and local bankruptcies, declining human capital, widening inequality, a pattern of jobless recoveries, deteriorating trade imbalances and so on.

These long-term problems, Obama could say, won’t be solved either with centralized government or free market laissez-faire [...] the president could lay the groundwork for a whopping second-term agenda: tax simplification, entitlement reform, a new wave of regional innovation clusters, a new wave of marriage-friendly tax policies. [...] A chill sweeps over me: Gosh, what if the Democrats really did change in that way?

Conventional wisdom on the right is in danger of hardening into a kind of grim glee, certain that Obama will triple- and quadruple-down on policies so unpopular and deeply leftist that he'll be run out on a flaming rail come 2012. ...

What is it about this era that we seem to be surrounded by such hubris? Whether it’s Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, oblivious to the danger in which he puts the lives of Afghans who trusted us, or Dr. Donald Berwick and his blithe willingness to be the arbiter of everyone’s medical decisions and practices, or the proposal --- coming from the same Congressional clowns who created the mortgage mess -- that it’s the mortgage brokers ought to be finger printed, there’s an entire class of people that is convinced that they are smarter, wiser, and more moral than the rest of us – when in fact precisely the reverse is likely the case.

I attended the Newt Gingrich speech that James Pinkerton writes about below, and had a slightly different reaction. I thought Gingrich's presentation and bearing clearly signaled he intends to run for president. (He could always get cold feet before next spring, though.) He was serious, he was clear, and he had his wife introduce him to the audience in what seems to have been a way to raise her (appealing) profile. Watching Gingrich, there was no question in my mind that he takes ideas seriously and would be a formidable contestant in any debate. That's the good Newt.

The bad Newt shows up when we discuss his style. Gingrich's rhetoric is tart, sarcastic, and occasionally pedantic. He has a tendency to ramble -- the speech went on for more than an hour. You'd be forgiven for having the impression that Gingrich likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

On substance, there are similar problems. Gingrich has clearly adopted the most-right-wing critique of radical Islam, framing the debate in terms of the threat sharia law poses to the United States. I'm sorry, but I see no danger of sharia coming to America anytime soon (things are different in Europe). ...

The Ricochet discussions here, here, and here reminded me of an article I read last year in The Atlantic and which I found incredibly moving. It’s the kind of article that I continue to send, apropos nothing, to friends and family and I am not exaggerating when I say that this piece—the most viewed online article in The Atlantic’s history—is a literary masterpiece. But you judge for yourself.

It asks, simply, what makes us happy?

At Harvard, in 1937, psychiatrists decided to answer this question by tracking nearly 270 well-adjusted, confident Harvard sophomores (all men) from their college days through the following decades. The Grant Study, as it is called, "is one of the longest-running—and probably the most exhaustive—longitudinal studies of mental and physical well-being in history." The study tracks the likes of a former member of the presidential cabinet, a best-selling novelist, a US president--John F. ...

Like Ursula, I don't generally think of myself as a precious girly-girl. But while scanning through our local newspaper so better to serve you with valuable insight into Turkish high politics, I came across this item, to which I am not having the most manly and stoic of reactions:

Istanbul residents are facing concerns about the quality, not just the quantity, of the drinking water in the city’s dams following a report of dark, foul-smelling liquids flowing from a pipe into a key reservoir.

The origin of the pipe has not yet been identified, reporter Tahsin Aksu wrote in daily Milliyet on Thursday, noting that the body of a sea gull was found on the shores of the Alibeyköy reservoir near where the liquids were being discharged, and that white foam was observed on the water as well.

I pause now to shriek, call for the smelling salts, and fan myself until I regain my composure. That is disgusting beyond words.

In other news from the daily Turkish news blotter, the General Staff is refusing to hand over the 102 allegedly coup-plotting military officers--including some 30 active-duty generals--for whom arrest warrants were issued last week. ...

Here's the latest episode of Murky in Turkey. David Cameron apart, I'm getting the sense that the rest of the world is beginning to appreciate that the Mavi Marmara was not, in fact, on a humanitarian mission, particularly given that there were no humanitarian aid supplies whatsoever on that ship. But this news has not been reported at all here, so far as I know.

I had the pleasure of watching Stephen Strasburg make his MLB pitching debut last month. It was one of the best games I've ever seen -- 14 strikeouts, 7 of them in a row. Strasburg is still bringing in crowds and tens of thousands came to see him pitch on Tuesday. Except he didn't make it to the mound. His replacement, Miguel Batista, was booed as he took the mound. If these so-called fans were actual fans, they'd know that there are only "probable" pitchers in baseball, not sure things.

In any case, Batista was booed and after the game he brushed it off, saying:

"Imagine if you go to see Miss Universe, then you end up having Miss Iowa, you might get those kind of boos," Batista said.

Great quote. Unless you're Miss Iowa. The media did its best to make a mountain out of this molehill. But Miss Iowa, for her lingerie-clad part, didn't get offended as so many reflexively do. ...

James Poulos just dropped me a note to ask what I made of David Frum's theory about David Cameron's astonishingly unctuous Ankara speech. (Actually, it's not Frum's theory, it's Frum's secret cynical French informant's theory, but that train of possessives would be hard to follow.) To appreciate just why the speech was so egregious--if it isn't already self-evident--I commend to your attention both Melanie Phillips' perfectly correct observations about it and those of Michael Weiss.

His cynical French friend, writes Frum,

suggests that I overlooked the likeliest motive for David Cameron’s flattering speech in Ankara:

British enthusiasm for Turkish entry into the EU is not a serious proposal, but a cunning wrecking mechanism.

Turkey will never be admitted to the EU, for at least 3 reasons:

1) Germany will not accept being demoted to the second-biggest block of delegates in the EU Parliament;

2) France and the poorer Central European countries will not accept ultra-low-wage competition from Turkish migrant workers;

3) Security services across the continent will not accept the risk of millions of Middle Eastern travelers crossing borders into Europe visa-free.

So why advocate what’s never going to happen? ...

Back in the bad old days, publications such as Playboy exploited women by presenting erotic photos of them for the titillation and gratification of men. Now, thanks to the efforts of women’s groups, when famous females appear in magazines without their clothes, it’s a sign of their empowerment. They’re proud of their bodies, and they want to make their own decisions.

If that seems a bit confusing to you, let me explain. Well, actually, I can’t. It appears to be mostly a matter of what year you decided to strip for the cameras. Before the women’s movement, it was exploitation; afterwards, it was empowerment.Well, at least men are still gratified and titillated.

Some things never change.

Re: Emily's post on depressed Californians - according to this, they're inordinately happy.

LONDON (Reuters) - An updated edition of a mental health bible for doctors may include diagnoses for "disorders" such as toddler tantrums and binge eating, experts say, and could mean that soon no-one will be classed as normal.

Leading mental health experts gave a briefing on Tuesday to warn that a new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is being revised now for publication in 2013, could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder.

Citing examples of new additions like "mild anxiety depression," "psychosis risk syndrome," and "temper dysregulation disorder," they said many people previously seen as perfectly healthy could in future be told they are ill.

"It's leaking into normality. It is shrinking the pool of what is normal to a puddle," said Til Wykes of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London.

The shrinking pool, the puddle, the leaking - sounds like someone has hydrophilic simile fixation. ...

Newt Gingrich delivered a strong speech today at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, denouncing Islamic Sharia law and further denouncing those non-Muslims who would allow Sharia to emerge in the West--in the name of tolerance, multiculturalism, or just plain woolly-headed-ism. The former House Speaker also repeated his call to block the building of an “Islamic center” just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.

The reaction within the room was extremely positive, but the reaction from the MSM is likely to continue to be negative. Time magazine’s Joe Klein, who has occasionally had nice things to say about Gingrich in the past, recently called him a “a complete jerk.” Over at The Atlantic, Max Fisher rounded up anti-Gingrich commentary under the headline, “With War on NYC Mosque, Has Newt Gingrich Lost It?”

But what did Gingrich actually say earlier today? Was it that bad? He said, for openers, that “the failure of homeland security is a national scandal.” Continuing, he added that “our elites are hiding from [their own] catastrophic failure. ...

As reported in the wonderful "First Things," Gothic spook writer Anne Rice claims she's still a Christian but she's evidently fed up with organized Christianity and the Catholic Church. She gave a list of reasons like she refuses to be anti-gay, anti-democrat, anti-science.

Wow, she was really getting some bad information if she thought you have to be those things to be Catholic. She doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism if she hasn't figured this stuff out yet. Who needs her? We don't. Cuckoo, cuckoo....

Don't be fooled by people asserting this is the first step toward a nationwide ban in Spain or France. To the rest of Spain, this will have the same impact as a ban on pet shops in San Francisco would have on Texas.

When people tell me that Barcelona is their favorite part of Spain I say, "really, it's my least favorite." Sell-outs!

Peter Robinson points out that people don't much remember the Cold War anymore. I am concerned that in a few more years nobody will remember the Constitution either.

Consider the following news from Massachusetts -- no, not the brouhaha over John Kerry's failure to cough up $500K in sales tax on his yacht, this is real news:

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

“What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America,’’ Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said as he introduced the bill on the Senate floor.

I understand that many people hate the Electoral College. Fine. But isn't the Constitution clear on how it is to be amended?

Maybe John Yoo and Richard Epstein can weigh in with their opinions: Can a state legislature or a group of state legislatures effectively amend the Constitution by statute?

It's one for the ages as Robinson, Long, and Lileks are joined by conservative thinker, writer, climatologist, Obama Administration Czar, and some TV game show hosting thing he does on the side, Pat Sajak. In fact, we'll skip the traditional summary and rundown this week and just say that If you've never heard Pat talk about the issues of the day, you're in for a treat. After you've heard it, come back and discuss it here.

Links from this week's show:

• Carla Bruni nails it in 35 takes. Lileks covers it at PopCrush.
• The "Daisy" commercial used to defeat Goldwater in 1964.
• Pat's server-melting global warming post on Ricochet. His complete Ricochet oeuvre here. ...

I posted here earlier today about how 20% of Californians think they need mental therapy. The conversation that ensued took an interesting turn toward religion, suffering, and human happiness. So, per Ursula's recommendation, I'm starting a new post that opens the issue up to the wider Ricochet community and asking ...

Does religion, God, and/or morality help us overcome depression/anxiety/sadness/suffering and make us happier people?

That question came up thanks to a comment made by Ricochet member G.A. Dean:

Humans inevitably face sadness, anxiety and nervousness, and other dark emotional states, and cultures cycle between beliefs on the best cure. Some turn to God, or to the bottle, others prescribe hard work and others just uproot and run off to a fresh start. These things are like fashion. The ancients sought the advice of the oracles; we go to shrinks, or to yoga class.

I'm curious about what Ricochet readers, commenters, and contributers think: do we lose something by finding therapeutic cures in secular sources, like therapists or yoga--or prescription drugs--rather than religious or transcendent ones?

Does religion ultimately help us cope with suffering, leading us to find deeper meaning in life? What are its limits? ...

USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Local governments are at risk of losing more than $1 billion in foreclosure relief funds they can't spend quickly enough.

With use-it-or-lose-it spending deadlines weeks away, cities and counties are scrambling to shore up neighborhoods by buying foreclosed and abandoned properties — but are often stymied by market forces, federal regulations and a lack of staffing [...].

Curse you, market forces!!! And, er, federal...regulations...

Ricochet member Confucius, the Œcumenical Volgi, just sent me this video clip from 60 Minutes. It's extremely important--I hope you'll all watch it.

A former member of a Muslim extremist group tells Lesley Stahl the reason for the increase in home-grown jihadists like the U.S. Army major accused of shooting 13 at Ft. Hood is an ideology called "the Narrative," which states America is at war with Islam.

This is very compelling to me. I live in an Islamic country, and he's right: It is a common belief here, and certainly a radicalizing one, that the West is determined to destroy Islam itself. All the Islamists I've spoken to in Britain and France share this belief. I don't agree that it's the only reason for their radicalization, but it's certainly a significant part of it.

We can't do much about it if people are determined to believe lies, other than countering them with the truth. But I get the sense sometimes, from comments posted here, that some of us believe that the narrative should be true. And that view, I would submit, is really not helpful.

We’ve all seen the surveys—the ones showing how poorly informed Americans are about basic stuff like history, civics, science, and geography. So let’s pretend Rob and Peter decide to take this problem into their own hands. Let’s help them create a Ricochet College entrance exam for 17 year-olds.

Can you think of some sample questions that would uncover a young student’s basic grasp of history, science, art, and music? (Perhaps there’d be a separate test for math, literature, and grammar, and we could add an essay at some point.) But let’s start with some short-answer questions/requirements.

I’ll start. Feel free to argue against any suggestion as too easy or hard (I don’t have a 17-year-old) or tweak my wording. Let’s try to remember, however, that we want solid but broad understanding. We’re not necessarily out to trick anyone. Okay….

Applicants should be able to:

1.) Identify the first three, and the last five, U.S. presidents.

2.) Label all the countries of the world with 90% accuracy. (Say there are 195 countries. That would mean an applicant would need to identify 176 correctly. ...