David Chase, the creator of "The Sopranos", speaks about the end of the series and the controversy it has generated.

In Japan, a grand-daughter of Hideki Tojo calls for the scrapping of the U.S.-drafted constitution and a restoration of Japan's army. If it were ever to come to pass it would cause a great deal of anxiety among the neighbors.

Some conservatives have drafted a litmus test for potential GOP presidential candidates. They want to limit presidential power and, so far, they only have Congressman Ron Paul on their side among those running for the nomination.

Speaking of conservatives, Newt Gingrich blasts the Bush Administration for attempting to revive the immigration bill. Gingrich may yet jump into the race.

Anne Applebaum reminds us of the seemingly forgotten threat.

Today's must-read, from the op-ed page of The New York Times. "After the Bomb" discusses why the Federal Government should begin planning on how to deal with a small nuclear blast in the heart of an American city. I have been preaching from that hymnal for some time now. I am convinced that the Islamofascist terrorists are working very diligently to try and acquire a nuclear weapon. Once they succeed, they will use it. So I agree with the authors that we should begin planning for that day, and the day after. Many lives could be saved with adequate planning. But what the authors fail to do is take into account the emotional, political reaction in the rest of the country. They seem to discount retaliation, which is the standard line in these exercises, "Well, who would we retaliate against?", goes the common refrain. To that, I simply ask one to recall the reaction of Americans on the day of and the days after 9/11. Imagine that reaction multiplied several times. After 9/11 the President had to retaliate, and he chose Afghanistan under the logical assumption that Osama bin Laden was being given sanctuary there. After the nuclear 9/11, the American President will once again need to retaliate. He (or she) will pick a target (Iran, anyone?). The people in the targeted nation will suffer, the innocent and the guilty alike. A conflagration will be sparked that will cause millions to die in the years thereafter. Which is why I believe the efforts of our current President need to be seen in that context. While Iraq has turned into a political blunder, it was carried out with the best of intentions. The President and his people believed that the way to prevent the spread of Islamofascism and, therefore, the exponential increase in the likelihood of its fanatic adherents obtaining and using a nuclear weapon, was to spread democracy in the Islamic world. So far, it is not working. Future historians may very well speculate about the course of history if it had succeeded, a course that would have been far more peaceful than the alternative.