JustOneMinute

Memorial Day

Enjoy the holiday and a bit if Americana.  Today we pay tribute to our nation's fallen heroes, and double tribute to those who have gotten back up again.  Some lib columnist was whining that Obama should have gone to Arlington National Cemetery today, but who knows what he would see or say?

UNRELATED,  BUT:  Here's to the next meme to die - how little attention will this story linking Rahm Emmanuel to the BP media consultants get?  Here is the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner client list, which still includes BP.

The History Of Corn

This story about the history of corn is interesting in a character-building sort of way. My first attempt to condense it into diverting cocktail party chit-chat was an EpicFail, but you know what they say - Dare to be Dull!

Hey, Look Over There!

Elisabeth Rosenthal of the NY Times explains that the BP oil spill has shaken our faith in technology.  Technology?!?  What about our faith in the ability of Big Government to solve every problem? 

And isn't our "faith" in man-made global warming climate change based on science?  Has the failure of all these experts left us wondering what else they are wrong about?  And aren't we relying on new-fangled technology to verify the proposed Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty - should we be more skeptical of out ability to detect cheating by the likely cheaters?  Hmm...

MY GOODNESS:  Frank Rich makes the faith-in-government point in a column titled "Obama's Katrina?  Maybe Worse":

Of all the president’s stated goals, none may be more sweeping than his desire to prove that government is not always a hapless and intrusive bureaucratic assault on taxpayers’ patience and pocketbooks, but a potential force for good.

...His credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf. And this in an election year when the very idea of a viable federal government is under angrier assault than at any time since the Gingrich revolution and militia mobilization of 1994-5 and arguably since the birth of the modern conservative movement in the 1960s.

No worries that libs will leave Sunday brunch with excess stomach acid, however - he eventually bashes Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION:  Ms. Rosenthal links to a fascinating Pew poll on American attitudes in 1999.  My faves:

The public is more consistently optimistic about racial matters. Two-thirds (68%) think that race relations will improve, and 76% believe an African American will be elected president by the middle of the 21st century, which is almost as many as think that a woman will be elected.

And:

Fully 64% of the public thinks that a terrorist armed with weapons of mass destruction will probably or definitely attack the U.S. in the next 50 years, compared to 41% who say the same of nuclear war.

Worth keeping in mind: 31% thought we would be hit by an asteroid and:

A significant 44% of the population thinks that Jesus Christ will likely return to Earth during the first half of the next century. One-in-five (22%) says Christ will definitely return, a view held by 40% of African Americans and more than one-third of white evangelical Protestants. 44% think . 

Maybe we need a follow-up poll to see whether Obama's ascension scored wins in several of those categories.

Traditional Sunday Morning Open Thread

Have a great Memorial Day weekend.

That Might Help Win A Vote Or Two...

The NY Times front page links to Charles Blow's column exhorting Obama to be more visibly emotional and empathetic.  OK, the notion is ghastly enough, but the Times link justifies the subscription price:

Blow: Obama, Give Them Something They Can Feel

Hmm, does the Times want a President who feels our pain or... oh, I am moving on.

BUT SERIOUSLY:  Blow, who is the Times other race-grievance columnist, exhorts Obama to be more visibly angry.  But I bet if I reprised the campaign coverage I could find many articles noting that Obama had a special burden to stay cool and avoid the unfortunate Angry Black Man stereotype that lurks in our collective conscious. 

So which is it - should Obama be cool, or angry?  Beats me (although I Boldly Bet that "calm and effective" would trump "angry and impotent").  But I am disappointed that Blow missed this obvious opportunity to blame Obama's seeming detachment on the prejudices of white America.  What kind of race grievance columnists is the Times running out there these days, anyway?  Oh, well - Frank Rich can pick up this slack tomorrow.

Think "Jackie Brown", Not "Jackie Chan"

Dodd at Outside The Beltway darkens my morning:

Today In “Imagine If Bush Said It…”

President Obama asks a reporter to show him the tar balls in his trunks, which sounds more like a Bones episode title than a colloquy with the President of the United States:

New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes was skeptical: “Can you be sure these oil tar balls are from the oil spill? Because when I used to swim on the Gulf in Texas, I’d get tar balls in my bathing suit all the time.”

Allen and Randolf, the parish president, confirmed that tar balls do wash up at other times, though these, they said, were likely from the spill.

But the president was distracted. “At some point, Jackie, we’ll want to hear more about those tar balls and your bathing suit,” Obama said, as reporters laughed.

Har de har, Mr.President.  But Jackie Calmes is a woman (she had a question about the departure of the MMS head at Thursday's presser), so really, we are being asked to imagine the reaction if Bush had joked with a female reporter about what was happening inside her swimsuit.  I don't want to do that.

There's Obama's Story, And There's History

John at Powerline debunks Obama's claim that the BP oil spill was a top priority from day one:

Obama's principal revisionism lay in his account of how his administration responded to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. To hear him tell it, the administration anticipated the worst from the beginning and reacted accordingly:

The day that the rig collapsed and fell to the bottom of the ocean, I had my team in the Oval Office that first day. Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred. ...

Q. On April 21st, Admiral Allen tells us, the government started dispatching equipment rapidly to the gulf. And you just said, on day one you recognized the enormity of the situation. Yet, here we are 39, 40 days later, you're still having to rush more equipment, more boom, there are still areas of the coast unprotected.

Why is it taking so long? And did you really act from day one for a worst case scenario?

OBAMA: We did.

The rebuttal is provided by the NY Times:

The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.

The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.

The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful. 

Well, that was then - now the Times is more or less parroting uncritically Obama's resolute soundbite:

Mr. Obama brushed off the Katrina comparisons, arguing that the government has made “the largest effort of its kind in U.S. history” and was in charge of BP’s response. “Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don’t know the facts,” he said. “This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred.”

...

Still, there were uncomfortable echoes of Katrina. Just as Mr. Bush cast aside Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mr. Obama addressed reporters just hours after S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, his director of the Minerals Management Service, resigned under pressure.

Just as Mr. Bush was criticized for being on vacation in Texas when Katrina bore down on New Orleans, Mr. Obama has been criticized for golfing, fund-raising and, on Thursday night, heading to Chicago for a holiday weekend while oil laps up in the marshes and beaches of Louisiana.

Hmm, if they really want to make the Katrina comparison they could simply cite their own reporting - the spill was not declared an event of national significance for days.

Nor did the Times laugh out loud or provide appropriate context in their coverage of Obama's resolute Gulf visit:

At a news conference in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Obama said he was angry and frustrated about the catastrophe, and he shouldered much of the responsibility for the continuing crisis.

“Those who think we were either slow on the response or lacked urgency, don’t know the facts,” Mr. Obama said. “This has been our highest priority.” 

A Straw In The Wind For Sestak

The official White House talking points on the mysterious Sestak job offer have been released.  The gist - they never discussed Secretary of the Navy with Sestak, the chosen emissary was Bill Clinton, and the "jobs" were unpaid advisory board positions which would have allowed Sestak to raise his profile and keep his House seat.  Early press coverage (contra some later stuff) does suggest that the contact with Sestak was indirect, so the Clinton connection may actually be the truth (or at least part of it).  And Sestak was a Hillary supporter, so one presumes a Clinton bond was forged during the Clinton Administration when Sestak was on the NSC.

Now, Bill Clinton is not "the White House", so recent Politico coverage such as this becomes puzzling:

Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.

The White House was backing incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary. Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law - but has not offered any specifics on conversation.

So why do they think the job offer came from a White House official?  I am not going to be able to track down every utterance of Sestak, but he was a bit vague in his "bombshell" interview with Larry Kane and my understanding is that he has not advanced the story since them.  Here is some early coverage from Feb 20, 2010 which tilts Sestak's way:

In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a "high-ranking" government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary.

"I was asked a direct question . . . and I answered it honestly," Sestak said in a Fox News interview. "There's nothing more to go into."

Sestak made his startling claim Thursday during the taping of Comcast Network's Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a public affairs show televised on Sunday evenings.

"Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?" Kane asked near the end of the 30-minute interview.

"Yes," Sestak answered.

"Was it Navy secretary?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak replied.

In response to follow-up questions from the host, Sestak said the job was offered by the White House. He also nodded when asked if the offer was for a high-ranking post.

Here is the Fox coverage; it sounds like a windy "no comment, but if someone could find that Fox transcript and dump it in the comments that would be lovely. 

Let's note that nodding when asked if the job was offered by the White House is not the same as saying the offer came from a White House official; if Clinton met him as a White House emissary, Sestak's response would have been reasonable.  We also note this:

The Washington Post reported yesterday [link] that Sestak, in a separate interview Thursday about White House pressure, said, "There has been some indirect means in which they were trying to offer things if I got out."

And the initial Philadelphia Inquirer coverage was more clear about the haziness of the contact:

After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.

"I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.

Well, Sestak didn't say it was not a White House official.  But it was clever of him to leave the door open for Clinton even last February.

As I read this, Sestak told the WaPo that the approach was indirect; he was vague with everyone else, but (at least initially) does not seem to have claimed that the approach came directly from a White House official.

All helpful for the Dems, and one can see why Sestak wants to leave his former C-in-C out of it.

Sestak - The Cover-Up Is Coming Together

Joe Sestak explains that his brother (and senior adviser) is coordinating their job offer story with the White House, so its all good.  A pre-Memorial Weekend file dump is predicted:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) said Thursday his brother has spoken with White House officials about the congressman's allegation that he was offered an Obama administration job if he would stay out of a Democratic Senate primary.

...He told reporters Thursday that he would not expand upon his prior statements until the White House releases its report on the matter. President Obama said in his news conference such a report would come "shortly."

Sestak expects the White House script to be available Friday.

Jon Chait of TNR provides a generic example of the current lib defense - the White House behavior might be legal, so let's assume it is.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has less imagination - he thinks we might need to know the facts before reaching a judgment.

Well, let's see what the Friday afternoon holiday weekend file dump will bring, and how long it takes Chris Matthews to laud Obama's candor and pronounce himself fully satisfied.

UPDATE:  Blame Bill Clinton!?!  Per the White House statement, Bill Clinton was their emissary to Joe Sestak.  That is not absurd, since Sestak supported Hillary and was on the National Security Council under Bill Clinton.  It is also consistent with Sestak's early description of his job offer - see this post.

Hmm - even if Clinton was the first contact, that does not mean he was the only contact.  Still, this will probably be enough to rally Obama's base.

This Wouldn't Be Happening If Obama Were President!

Peggy Noonan thinks Obama ought to dial in to the reality show known as "Life in America":

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.

Obama's governing theory is that he knows what the people want and they deserve to get it, good and hard.

Obama In Charge

Obama tells us he is in charge at his press conference, then goes off-message by claiming he was a mere bystander to the dismissal of the head of the Minerals and Management Services.

NY Timeswoman Jackie Calmes asked a skeptical follow-up about this, so we will see how much BS the press can swallow.

The last question is on Sestak!  We will get an official Administration whitewash response "shortly".

CARTERESQUE:  Cue Roger Staubach - So great is the White House focus on the Gulf spill that First Daughter Malia asks Obama each morning whether he has plugged the hole yet. 

IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE YOUR OWN DAUGHTER... Jeff Zeleny of the Times:

The president almost seemed that he, himself, wasn’t convinced that his administration has shown the American people that he is on top of the matter. Why else would he close with an anecdote from his daughter, Malia, asking whether he has closed the hole? That seemed like an odd way to wrap up an event designed to show that he was fully in charge.

The Joe Sestak Job Offer

The mysterious Joe Sestak job offer continues to make news - Jake Tapper reports that all seven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have asked Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor.  As if.  I am not a lawyer but this law seems clear enough:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Well, maybe this is the Washington equivalent of driving 70 in a 55 zone.  But you know Dems are nervous when even Greg Sargent admits there is a problem (he says it is Sestak's problem, but it won't be Sestak getting investigated for breaking the law).

My guess as to what is happening?  Dave Weigel inadvertently provides a possible answer with his absurd argument that Sestak, a retired Admiral, could not have been offered Secretary of the Navy because that had already been offered to Ray Mabus, a former boy-wonder governor of Mississippi who had been in the Navy for a cup of coffee in 1970-72.  From Weigel:

For obvious reasons, the story would have been worse for all sides if the callow White House was politicizing the military.

Sestak is arguably more qualified for the Navy slot.  Why only "arguably"?  Sestak would have brought his own perspective, his own alliances, and his own enemies; SecDef Gates might have preferred someone a but more compliant, like Mabus, who would presumably be a strong administrator without strong opinions.

That said, if Sestak was offered SecNav, the full conversation would have had to include a promise to renege on the Mabus appointment and re-purpose him; given Mabus' extensive background in government that should have been easy enough, but it would no doubt be embarrassing to the White House (and Mabus) to re-hash that now.

OVER/UNDER: How many Sestak questions will be asked at Obama's press conference today?  I'll bet none - waltzing with Gibbs is part of the job, but actually embarrassing Obama on national television imperils valuable access and possible book deals.

AN ADDITIONAL WRINKLE: I read somewhere (and have not verified) that Sestak would be subject to a five year freeze-out before being eligible for Secretary of the Navy.  He left in July 2005 (under a bit of a cloud), so the (hypothetical) plan would have been to let Mabus keep the seat warm for a year, then appoint Sestak in 2010.  Is there a point?  Well, if (IF!) the job in question was Secretary of the Navy, the discussions would have required a fair level of detail as to timing and moving Mabus.  Which means there is a lot to cover up now, since revealing that Mabus was mooted as being reassigned after a year would be a bit awkward.

There may be even more to cover, since the same Admiral Mullen who dumped Sestak in 2005 is now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and might not be keen to see Sestak running the Navy.

That Opens The Door!

Barney Frank is not a chess player:

Tongue firmly in cheek, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Tuesday afternoon called on reporters to demand to see the birth certificate of new Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii).

As Djou (pictured here) was being sworn into office, Frank walked the hallway of the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor calling on the media to "do your job" and review Djou's papers. 

It was a small bit of payback for the enormous amount of attention some conservatives (and the media) paid to the is-the-president-really-from-America controversy.

if Djou was interested in being my hero for life he would request from the Hawaii Dept. of Health his full vital records file (which they make available to amateur genealogists and family members preparing, or battling over, estates).

Mr. Djou could then release the full file and tells us how long the process took, just so we could all see how easy it would be for Obama to scotch this birther silliness.

It may not happen, of course, since the press would switch to bitterly denouncing this as a cheap stunt, Barney Frank's bon mot notwithstanding.

That said, if any enterprising JOM reader was born in Hawaii (or knows someone who was), please give some thought to volunteering as a crash dummy.  Obviously, any file actually released would be heavily redacted, but still.

INSHALLAH:  Don't vex me with reality.

If They Can't Indict, It's Alright

An investigative reporter has rented the house next to Sarah Palin.  Ms Palin takes umbrage.  The increasingly implausible Dave Weigel explains that if this were tasteless or rude it would be illegal; since it isn't, Ms. Palin should pipe down.

But assuming he's rented the house near the Palins for some period of time, assuming the Palins know he's there and that he's writing a book, then what, exactly, is wrong with this?

If you have to ask, you've probably never had neighbors.

And this is from the next dimension:

Politicians don't have veto power over who gets to write about them, or how they research their stories, as long as they're within the bounds of the law. It's incredibly irresponsible for them to sic their fans on journalists they don't like.

Hmm - I seem to recall Obama siccing his fans on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  I'll have to check the Weigel archives to see his bitter denunciations of that.  Or maybe I shouldn't bother, since the rules are no doubt different for right-wing opinion-mongers who aren't journalists.

Senator Roberts: Prez Not Sufficiently Sedated

Obama had a testy meeting with Senate Republicans, which prompted a call for chill pills from Sen. Roberts:

“He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans..."

I know the feeling - sometimes I need a good belt myself before listening to El Rushbo, which can be awkward if I am tuning in on the car radio.

A bit more context makes it appear that Roberts thinks Obama was channeling his inner Paul Krugman:

"The more he talked, the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

That must have been fun, listening to Obama rant about greedy, racist tea-bagging Senators in the pockets of the corporate fat-cats.

Sestak's Job Offer - Even The Lap Dogs Get Whiny

My goodness - not even the NY Times is willing to carry water for Team Obama on the brewing Joe Sestak job offer mystery:

For Sestak Matter, a ‘Trust Us’ Response From White House
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

...

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “trust us” response from the White House has not exactly put the matter to rest. With Mr. Sestak’s victory over Mr. Specter in last week’s primary, the questions have returned with intensity, only to remain unanswered. Mr. Gibbs deflected questions 13 times at a White House briefing last week just two days after the primary. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral, has reaffirmed his assertion without providing any details, like who exactly offered what job.

...

Even if the conversations were perfectly legal, as the White House claims, the situation challenges President Obama’s efforts to present himself as a reformer who will fix a town of dirty politics. And the refusal to even discuss what was discussed does not advance the White House’s well-worn claim to being “the most transparent” in history.

I'm sure that one reason the press is pretending to look is that they are confident they won't find anything.  On the other hand, Obama must be on some sort of a modern record-setting pace for fewest press conferences.  Maybe a press tantrum will get his attention, after which the expected fawning will resume.

I Love A Mystery (Climate Change Division)

I love a mystery!  This is not one, but the NY Times is puzzled:

Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

Gosh - I am not an international sleuth for the NY Times, but I would cite ClimateGate (where Britain was Ground Zero), the IPCC debacles in the Himalayas and elsewhere, the collapse at Copenhagen where it finally became obvious that China and India would not play along, and the ghastly global economy which makes sacrifices now for the benefit of those living in 2010 seem a bit misdirected (Call it the "What have my great-great grandchildren done for me lately?  Or ever?!?" syndrome).

After many paragraphs of headscratching, the Times finally hits upon ClimateGate and the IPCC.  They also note the cold winter in Europe, which I missed.

Here in Britain, the change has been driven by the news media’s intensive coverage of a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November. These include the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from prominent British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that skeptics cited as evidence that researchers were overstating the evidence for global warming and the discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.

Two independent reviews later found no evidence that the East Anglia researchers had actively distorted climate data, but heavy press coverage had already left an impression that the scientists had schemed to repress data. Then there was the unusually cold winter in Northern Europe and the United States, which may have reinforced a perception that the Earth was not warming. (Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a United States agency, show that globally, this winter was the fifth warmest in history.)

We get reassurance that properly earnest libs are still on board:

It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.

As long as it is just right-wing papers!

In January, for example, The Times chastised the United Nations climate panel for an errant and unsupported projection that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The United Nations ultimately apologized for including the estimate, which was mentioned in passing within a 3,000-page report in 2007.

Then came articles contending that the 2007 report was inaccurate on a host of other issues, including African drought, the portion of the Netherlands below sea level, and the economic impact of severe storms. Officials from the climate panel said the articles’ claims either were false or reflected minor errors like faulty citations that in no way diluted the evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

No, the fact that they hype the evidence and fail to review critically their own work doesn't reflect on their credibility at all.

Neither Copenhagen nor the economy get a mention.  Why not?  Now that is a mystery.

And If Bill Clinton Read More

Up at Yale Bill Clinton spoke out against the media cocoons in which we envelope ourselves, but used an inapt example:

“The only place where we’re bigoted now is we only want to be around people who agree with us,” Clinton said. “In our media habits, we go to the television shows, we go to the radio talk shows we go to the blog sites that agree with us. And it can have very bizarre consequences.”

The former president pointed to the “birthers” an example of one of those “bizarre consequences.”

“Hawaii, the state where President Obama was born, has done everything they can to debunk this myth that he wasn’t born in America,” Clinton said. “They’ve done everything but blow up his birth certificate, put it in neon lights and hang it on the dome in the Capitol.”

Strictly speaking, he is correct - the State of Hawaii has done all they can, since state privacy laws oblige them to sit on the full Obama vital records file.  Obama, of course, could get the complete file tomorrow and release the whole thing, but apparently prefers to keep this "controversy" alive in order to score political points.  Transparency and bringing people together will happen later in his Administration.

Andy Barr of The Politico plays along with Clinton's pretense, which is pretty normal for the MSM, although the Times had a crack in the wall in this recent story.  From The Politico:

Responding to rumors during the presidential campaign about Obama’s place of birth, Hawaii state officials posted his birth certificate online.

The move, however, did not stop lawsuits and other queries examining Obama’s birth, prompting Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, to recently sign into law legislation allowing state employees to ignore requests for proof of the president’s citizenship.

So why the Obama coverup?  My official Editorial Wild Guess is that Obama is concealing this from force of habit - we haven't seen his college transcripts, his senior thesis, his law firm billing records, or much of anything else documenting his past.  His team wants to maintain tight control of the Obama brand, which rests on his glorious biography as told by Obama.  Actual facts and evidence will only confirm or undermine that story, but they won't enhance it.  Beside, Obama will want fresh material to justify his eight-figure post-Presidential book deal, so maybe we will see this file then

That said, my Official Editorial Back-up Guess is that Obama is hiding something awkward in the file - maybe he changed his name from "Barry" to "Barack" during his quest for authenticity in high school, and forgot to mention that minor detail in "Dreams From My Father".  (FWIW, the contemporaneous birth announcements don't mention a name, and the newly released Certification of Live Birth would, presumably, reflect his current name rather than his given name at birth.)

If we don't see it in his upcoming books I assume Barack or his heirs will eventually get that file moved to his Presidential Library, so this mystery will be solved one day.

ONE WONDERS:  How would Bill Clinton's theory explain the Truthers?  They weren't fueled by Hate Radio, unless he thinks Air America had that much clout. 

No Kidding

From the AP:

Obama's Big Wins on Bills May Not Help Democrats

...After winning a landmark health care overhaul earlier this year, Obama now stands on the brink of seeing Congress approve the most far-reaching overhaul of Wall Street regulations since the 1930s. Democrats aim to put it on his desk by July 4.

Yet with the economy still wobbly and the stock market retreating, Americans remain nervous about the possibility of a double-dip recession. They have seen few concrete benefits yet from the slow-to-unfold health care law. Likewise, it may be some time before Obama can point to results from the advancing legislation to rewrite the rules that govern Wall Street.

And speaking of health care reform:

Study Points to Health Law’s Penalties

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — About one-third of employers subject to major requirements of the new health care law may face tax penalties because they offer health insurance that could be considered unaffordable to some employees, a new study says.

The study, by Mercer, one of the nation’s largest employee benefit consulting concerns, is based on a survey of nearly 3,000 employers.

It suggests that a little-noticed provision of the law could affect far more employers than Congress had assumed. 

...

As they study the law, employers are discovering another provision that got much less attention. If a company offers coverage but requires any full-time employees to pay premiums that amount to more than 9.5 percent of their household income, the coverage is deemed unaffordable, and the employer may have to pay a penalty.

A goal of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support, is to give all Americans access to affordable insurance.

The Mercer survey found that one-third of employers had some workers for whom coverage might be “unaffordable,” meaning that the workers’ share of premiums — in the absence of federal assistance — would consume more than 9.5 percent of their household income.

Since it is household income, if a spouse loses his job at a different firm, the employed spouse may subject her employer to penalties.

MORE:  From Rasmussen:

Health Care Law

63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Obama's theory of democracy is that the people don't know what they want but deserve to get it - good and hard.  On to November!

Obama And Accountability

The NY Times covered Obama's commencment speech at West Point:

Obama Offers Strategy Based in Diplomacy

By PETER BAKER

WEST POINT, N.Y. — President Obama previewed a new national security strategy rooted in diplomatic engagement and international alliances on Saturday as he essentially repudiated his predecessor’s emphasis on unilateral American power and the right to wage pre-emptive war.

Speak softly and carry a big teleprompter - you know the Times loved that, but even they raised an eyebrow here:

Mr. Obama all but declared victory in Iraq, praising the military, but not Mr. Bush, for turning it around. “A lesser Army might have seen its spirit broken,” he said. “But the American military is more resilient than that.”

The US Army has spent four years teaching these young officers the importance of accountability.  One wonders what lesson they took watching their commander-in-chief duck his role in opposing the successful surge.  Or was it successful? Last we checked, Obama had never said the surge worked, but he wanted one in Afghanistan.

Obama is in a bit of a political box on Iraq and wants to avoid a 'heads Bush wins, tails I lose' situation - like any relief pitcher coming in with a lead, Obama will have a hard time getting credit for a win in Iraq, but he is more likely to get blamed for a loss if he praises Bush for securing the situation.  But that comes with the job - Obama provided a miserable example of leadership for the newly-minted Army officers, but an excellent example of Washington buck-passing.

Here is what he said:

For many years, our focus was on Iraq. And year after year, our troops faced a set of challenges there that were as daunting as they were complex. A lesser Army might have seen its spirit broken. But the American military is more resilient than that. Our troops adapted, they persisted, they partnered with coalition and Iraqi counterparts, and through their competence and creativity and courage, we are poised to end our combat mission in Iraq this summer. (Applause.)

Even as we transition to an Iraqi lead and bring our troops home, our commitment to the Iraqi people endures. We will continue to advise and assist Iraqi security forces, who are already responsible for security in most of the country. And a strong American civilian presence will help Iraqis forge political and economic progress. This will not be a simple task, but this is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign and stable and self-reliant.

And as we end the war in Iraq, though, we are pressing forward in Afghanistan.

FINDING SOME ROOM FOR AUTO-BACK-PATTING:  I like this:

But this is a different kind of war. There will be no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey's end - no armistice, no banner headline. Though we have had more success in eliminating al Qaeda leaders in recent months than in recent years, they will continue...

He's doing a great job, isn't he?

Not In Front Of The Kids

Forget the Alamo - Ann Althouse makes a heroic stand against the marauding WaPo and their attempt to massacre the new Texas educational standards. Apparently Texas tilts right and lefties are troubled, so you know we can go barrel-fishing in the NY Times for similarly silly coverage.

And here we go, as the Times braces for the approval of the new standards:

Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions
By MICHAEL BRICK

AUSTIN, Tex. — After facing months of protest, conservative members of the Texas Board of Education were expected Thursday night to vote to teach schoolchildren a version of American history that emphasizes the roles of capitalist enterprise, the military, Christianity and modern Republican political figures.

Hmm - emphasizes "modern Republican political figures"?  Let's stay with that; it is picked up a bit later (second paragraph):

While many of the changes to the science curriculum used coded language to advance conservative principles, some additions to the history standards were more overtly political. Board members planned to add language requiring high school students of the civil rights movement to “describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo.”

In another passage, the board would require students to explain the roles of “Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association.”

Dare we ask - the roles of Phyllis Schlafly et al in what context?  From the social studies high school standards linked by Prof. Althouse we see this (p. 5 of 42):

(10) History. The student understands the impact of political, economic, and social factors in the U.S. role in the world from the 1970s through 1990. The student is expected to:

(A) describe Richard M. Nixon's leadership in the normalization of relations with China and the policy of détente;

(B) describe Ronald Reagan's leadership in domestic and international policies, including Reaganomics and Peace Through Strength;

(C) compare the impact of energy on the American way of life over time;

(D) describe U.S. involvement in the Middle East such as support for Israel, the Camp David Accords, the Iran-Contra Affair, Marines in Lebanon, and the Iran Hostage Crisis;

(E) describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association; and

(F) describe significant societal issues of this time period.

Was there a conservative resurgence from 1970 to 1990?  Maybe!  I don't know how it could be discussed without noting the significant contributions of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter (who gets a Camp David nod), and I am sure Rush is fuming, but I am not sure how the Times would sustain its objection. 

Just for contrast, in earlier standards we see this:

(9) History. The student understands the impact of the American civil rights movement. The student is expected to:

(A) trace the historical development of the civil rights movement in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, including the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments;

(B) describe the roles of political organizations that promoted civil rights, including ones from African American, Chicano, American Indian, women's, and other civil rights movements;

(C) identify the roles of significant leaders who supported various rights movements, including Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, and Betty Friedan;

(D) analyze the effectiveness of the approach taken by some civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers versus the philosophically persuasive tone of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech and his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail";

(E) describe presidential actions and congressional votes to address minority rights in the United States, including desegregation of the armed forces, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

(F) describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo;

(G) evaluate changes and events in the United States that have resulted from the civil rights movement, including increased participation of minorities in the political process; and

(H) describe how litigation such as the landmark cases of Brown v. Board of Education, Mendez v. Westminster, Hernandez v. Texas, Edgewood I.S.D. v. Kirby, and Sweatt v. Painter played a role in protecting the rights of the minority during the civil rights movement.

No Malcolm X?  Well, I would need a helpful lefty to tell me whether this passes muster.  Apparently the Times would prefer a section on Civil Rights history in which Faubus, Maddax, and Wallace and other civil rights opponents never existed.  That might be a better world but I doubt it would be better history.

And mysteriously unmentioned by the Times is more catnip for progressives:

(5) History. The student understands the effects of reform and third-party movements in the early 20th century. The student is expected to:

(A) evaluate the impact of Progressive Era reforms, including initiative, referendum, recall, and the passage of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th amendments;

(B) evaluate the impact of muckrakers and reform leaders such as Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells, and W. E. B. DuBois on American society; and

(C) evaluate the impact of third parties, including the Populist and Progressive parties.

I assume the Times wants a special section devoted to the Age of Barack, but maybe we can let Texas wait another year or two.

JEALOUS MUCH?  The Times' Big Finish:

One opponent of the changes, Benjamin T. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P., vowed to take the fight to other states.

“The biggest danger is we’ll end up with children who don’t understand history,” Mr. Jealous said in a telephone interview. “The school board members are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

Uh huh.  Texas could end this whole controversy if they simply titled their project "The History of Liberal Virtue and Virtuous Liberals".

ERRATA: Phyllis Schlafly gets a second mention:

(24) Citizenship. The student understands the importance of effective leadership in a constitutional republic. The student is expected to:

(A) describe qualities of effective leadership; and

(B) evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Hector P. Garcia, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, and Hillary Clinton.

OK, who is her publicist? 

And I will admit that Texas has me beaten down with one of these names - Hector P. Garcia is "A Texas Legend" and a great American.

Traditional Saturday Evening Post

Wow - I just got back from 'Robin Hood', and had no idea Ridley Scott could make a film so ponderous.  Cate Blanchette was good, and it was fun to see William Hurt after I figured out who he was (some members of our group were suggesting it was Kevin Kline, so we were clearly experiencing Mini Fails during the Epic Fail.)

Especially galling was that the theater next door was playing Iron Man II at roughly the same time, but the consensus pick had been for Robin Hood.

"History Happened"

Praise for the Soup Nazi and a discussion of why that is the wrong way to think about the Civil Rights Act.

Inshallah.

Blumenthal, Treading Water

I'll be darned - contra the NY Times reporting, Richard Blumenthal was on the Harvard swim team, although never a captain.

Bob Somerby, who has followed one or two faux scandals, adds this:

On the other hand, the Hartford Courant’s Colin McEnroe contacted a wide range of Connecticut political reporters about the Blumenthal matter (click here). McEnroe says he “asked reporters, anchors and columnists” to tell him “whether they could remember Blumenthal ever claiming to have served in Vietnam” and “whether they had been under the impression...that Blumenthal had served in Vietnam.” Again and again, these experienced reporters told McEnroe that they had never seen Blumenthal misstate his record, and that they never believed that he had served in Nam. This tracks the earlier statement by Christopher Keating, the Courant’s Hartford bureau chief. On Tuesday evening’s NewsHour, Keating told Judy Woodruff that he had attended many veterans events at which Blumenthal spoke, but he never heard him misstate his record (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/20/10). 

One experienced observer after another say that he has never heard Blumenthal misstate his record. If the New York Times was trying to present a full picture of this marginal matter, it’s hard to know why evidence like this was missing from its original, massive front-page hit piece.

FWIW, back in 1977 the NY Times spoke with Blumenthal when he was the 31 year old wunderkind recently appointed as US Attorney for Connecticut.  He claimed he swam a mile a day at the YMCA, had been on the swim team at Harvard, and was in the Marines for six months and the Marine Reserves for the following 5 1/2 years.  Since he entered the Marines in April 1970 and entered Yale Law School in the fall of 1970, there is no mystery as to whether he went to Vietnam.

LORD RICHARD:  I am becoming a bit outraged by my lack of outrage on this.  I think Blumenthal has the occasional Lord Jim moment where he regrets not having gone to Vietnam.  But he has mostly told the truth on this, and I don't think his public persona rests on his Vietnam veteran status.  That would be by way of contrast with John Kerry, who cashed in his war hero status to denounce the army of Ghengis Khan.

Shut Up, He Explained

Gun thug Mayor Daley brandishes a rifle to make his point about the importance of banning them.

Welcome To Bagram

From the AP:

Judges Rule Against Detainees at Afghan Base

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The United States is holding the detainees at the military prison on Afghan territory through a cooperative arrangement with Afghanistan, three appeals court judges said in a unanimous decision turning aside the request of a Tunisian and two Yemeni prisoners.

Geez, and all the lawyers who would have done pro bono work for these guys have been hired by Eric Holder's  Justice Department.

Rand Paul Supports The Current Law!

Tear out the front page - discrimination is legal.

Rand Paul is taking heat for a 2002 letter questioning portions of the Fair Housing Act.  Page One Kentucky did a good job in breaking this (and a lesser job in researching it).  Dave Weigel naturally pounced, again with no attempt to provide a legal context.

Here is Weigel:

In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin." (Hat tip: Page One Kentucky. I have purchased the letter from the newspaper's online archives, but will not post it here out of respect for the copyright.)

"The Daily News ignores," wrote Paul, "as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."

And for more drama, here is Page One:

He’s on the record being in support of the right of individuals and businesses to openly discriminate against people – and violate their basic human rights.

Dare we ask as to the current state of the law? It turns out that reality is a bit blurrier - discrimination is not allowed as a business model, but individuals have that very right.  This is from the Fair Housing Council of Philadelphia, who ought to be authorities on brotherly love:

Fair housing law makes it illegal to discriminate in any type of housing related transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, familial status, disability and age.

Well that doesn't support Rand Paul.  But get me Mrs. Murphy!

Exemptions

• "Mrs. Murphy's exemption": If the dwelling has four or less units, the owner lives in one of the units and does not use the services of a real estate agent
• Qualified senior housing, which is exempt only from the familial status provision of the Act. To be a qualified senior community you must meet the following standards:
  • 100% of the community is 62 years or older, or
  • 80% of the households have at least one resident 55 years or older
• Housing run by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy solely to members, as long as the organization does not discriminate based on race

So under the current law owner-occupied units are not covered at all, age discrimination is allowable in some contexts, and religious organizations can apply a (non-racial) religious test.  Paging Page One!

Adam Liptak of the Times wrote about this in 2007 in the context of roommate match-making services - it is entirely legal for an owner to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, smoking habits, musical taste, or anything else in selecting a roommate.  However, it may not be legal to advertise one's preferences, which may seem a bit odd - Craigslist passed muster in the Seventh Circuit, but Roommates.com failed in the Ninth.

And can we relate this to Rand Paul?  Weigel highlighted a couple of points:

"a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

I believe "whites-only" and "men-only" private clubs are still legal.  How Rand Paul would relate that to housing is not clear to me, however, since a "whites-only" block association that attempted to bar sales to minorities would not be legal.

Next from Rand Paul via Weigel:

"The Daily News ignores," wrote Paul, "as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."

An owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast would be covered by the Mrs. Murphy exemption; retirement neighborhoods and churches also have exemptions.

Where Rand Paul can get into trouble is with an expansive view of "private".  A real estate mogul such as Donald Trump could not legally, as a business strategy, brand his privately-held properties as white-only, although an owner-occupied landlord could.  The examples Paul offered all pass muster, but his logical position might be that Donald Trump could do whatever he wants in all his many buildings.

Norris On Credit Default Swaps

Chuck Norris doesn't need credit default swaps,since no one is going to default with Chuck Norris around.  But Floyd Norris of the NY Times is half glib and half savant in his column on the topic.  Let's go glib:

Naked Truth on Default Swaps

...Because swaps were unregulated, calling insurance a swap meant those who traded in them could make whatever decisions they wished.

That decision, perhaps more than anything else, enabled the American International Group to go broke — or, more precisely, to fail into the hands of the American government. Had it been forced to set aside reserves, A.I.G. would have stopped selling swaps a lot sooner than it did.

Ahhh!  By the end of 2005 AIG Financial Products had more or less stopped writing the housing-based swaps that failed so spectacularly in 2008.  Had they been forced to set aside reserves, there would have been a monumental intellectual debate in 2006 as to the appropriate level of reserves for AAA securities.  Obviously, by 2008 the more bearish viewpoints would have been vindicated, but in 2006 the level of collateral AIG would have posted on these swaps would have been negligible. 

Finally, as Norris ought to know, AIG lost nearly as much on its boring, regulated securities lending tied to housing bonds as it did on its glamorous, sexy, unregulated credit default swaps.

On to the semi-savant:

There is another, little noticed, possible impact of credit-default swaps. They can undermine bankruptcy laws.

Normally, a creditor wants to keep a company out of bankruptcy if there is a decent chance it can survive. If it does go broke, the creditor wants to maximize the value of the company anyway, so that more will be available to pay creditors.

But what happens if a major creditor, who might even control one class of bonds, has a much larger position in credit-default swaps?

Will he not have interests directly at odds with those of other creditors, since he will do better if the company ends up with less to pay its creditors? Might that creditor seek to, and perhaps be able to, sabotage the company’s best hopes for revival?

At a minimum, such things should be disclosed, but that gets tricky when one part of a megabank (the one with the bonds) claims it is run independently from the other (the one with the swaps).

These conflicting incentives are hardly hypothetical - since Mr. Norris had already mentioned AIG, this would have been a lovely moment to ruminate about Goldman Sachs and their role in the AIG crack-up. 

Goldman claimed to have fully hedged their AIG exposure with offsetting credit default swaps.  Assuming that to be true, it would have made no economic sense for Goldman to volunteer any sort of debt relief to AIG at all; Goldman's logical economic position would be that either AIG formally defaults, in which case Goldman's offsetting default swaps are triggered, or AIG pays up, in which case the default swaps are unnecessary.

I have belabored that previously.  The key point is that the government negotiated the terms of the AIG bail-out with some firms that, although formally creditors, had little actual stake in an AIG default.  Awkward.

Rand Paul And The Civil Rights Act

Senate candidate Rand Paul engages in some theorizing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Rachel Maddow and a Kentucky newspaper.  He is mostly supportive, but opposed some of the bits requiring private businesses to modify their practices:

INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

...

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

Let me just note that sometimes regulations can be empowering.  As a theoretical matter, it may be that free choice leaves each of us at a local hilltop on the grand utility-maximization curve, but not at the global optimum. And circumstances may be such that no one person (or small group) can plausibly make the (metaphorical) trek across the valley to the global optimum, but all could move there under the force of law.

So for example, back in the South it may be that no one idealistic white businessman can afford to integrate his establishment - he may gain some (mostly poor) black customers as well as the friends and relations of Atticus Finch, but lose many others to a possible (probable?) white boycott.  Letting the free market sort this out could have taken generations.

For examples closer to home, consider Bloomberg's ban on smoking in restaurants.  The argument is that now everyone enjoys smoke-free restaurants where we can actually smell the food.  So why, if the ban is so popular, weren't there a plethora of smoke-free restaurants prior to Bloomberg's law?  Such a restaurant could only survive on knowlegable (and repeat) customers; folks won't be going to a restaurant with the boss or the out-of-town guest if they aren't sure about who enjoys a cigar or cigarette after a meal.

The French are making the same argument with their burkha ban - this will, they say, empower Muslim women currently constrained by social and religious pressure.

I see that Bruce Bartlett is saying the same thing, more succinctly.

IF RICHARD EPSTEIN IS WITH ME...:

"To be against Title II in 1964 would be to be brain-dead to the underlying realities of how this world works," said professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. "In 1964, every major public accommodation that operated a nationwide business was in favor of being forced to admit minorities." National chains, he explained, feared desegregating in the South without the backing of the federal government because they feared boycotts, retribution and outright violence.

Meet Joe Blank

The NY Times splashes much ink and many pixels on their profile of Specter-slayer Joe Sestak, the new Democratic candidate for the Senate from Pennsylvania.  We learn that he is a smart, hard-working, hard-charging retired Admiral.  And his political views?  Well, we learn that he is a smart, hard-working, hard-charging Admiral.

White House Embraces Upstart Who Beat Specter

We do get half a sentence on his politics:

How a relatively obscure member of Congress, with a consistently liberal voting record, made it this far says a great deal about who he is.

Consistently liberal?  Geez, if even the Times thinks so, he might be a socialist.  Let's see - Admiral Sestak led a Navy group off of Afghanistan a few years back.  What is his "consistently liberal" reaction to Obama's troop build-up there?  This story won't tell you.  As to his views on ObamaCare, TARP, or the stimulus bill, we can only guess.

Now He Tells Us

Landis, Admitting Doping, Accuses Top U.S. Cyclists

VISALIA, Calif. — After maintaining his innocence for four years amid doping charges that ruined his reputation and caused him to be stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title, the American cyclist Floyd Landis has admitted using performance-enhancing drugs for most of his career, according to emails sent to several cycling officials.

In those emails from Landis, which were described Wednesday by two of the officials who received them, Landis wrote that he had used performance-enhancing drugs or methods since 2002, his first year racing with the now-defunct United States Postal Service team, once led by Lance Armstrong. The officials did not want his name published, citing ongoing investigations, including by federal authorities, into the content of the emails.

In those messages, which were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Landis also detailed the performance-enhancing drug use of other top American cyclists on the U.S. Postal Service team, including Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France champion. Other cyclists named in the emails were current U.S. road racing national champion George Hincapie, three-time Tour of California champion Levi Leipheimer and five-time U.S. time trial champion David Zabriskie. 

...Landis, who served a two-year ban for doping and did not return phone calls for this story, told ESPN.com that he has no documentation to prove most of his claims.

...Federal authorities have spoken with Landis in recent weeks about the information in the e-mails, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Doping in professional cycling?  Hold the front page.  Of course, he can't prove its true and the people he is accusing probably can't prove him false.

I Infer That Haze Surrounds The Word "Imply"

The always excellent Jim Geraghty believes Richard Blumenthal. 

But I don't believe this:

I believe that when [Blumenthal] said “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse,” he didn’t mean to infer that he himself had experienced that.

I am not sure what Blumenthal's listeners may have inferred.  But as to what Blumenthal meant to imply, well, that's tricky.  Per the version of reality not experienced by the hard left, anyone in uniform was a possible target of Stateside abuse.  Since Blumenthal was in the Marine Corps Reserve, he may have had first hand experience of that (although it would not surprise me if he did not.)   Or he may remember hearing fellow soldiers complain about it.  I would score that passage as ambiguous.

And the Times had some praise for Blumenthal from veterans:

As it turned out, Mr. Blumenthal never served in Vietnam, but over time, his identification with veterans of war became so strong that some of those around him, like Mr. Shays, just assumed he had. He made it a point to attend the funeral of every active soldier from Connecticut killed in the line of duty, and he rearranges his schedule so he can speak at the ceremony for soldiers about to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

As attorney general, he created a special division focused on veterans’ affairs and has become a national spokesman for veterans’ rights.

“Oh my God, this guy is relentless; he is nonstop when it comes to veterans,” said Michael Pizzuto, a veteran of the first Iraq war, who has spoken with Mr. Blumenthal at parades and news conferences for veterans in Connecticut.

...

Politicians have always shown deference to veterans, but for Mr. Blumenthal, it seemed to be a calling. Colleagues said he relished marching in Veterans Day parades and visiting veterans halls, where he would chat about their tours of duty.

Far from hiding his military résumé, as some who did not see combat might do, he highlighted it. The biographical page of his Senate campaign Web site prominently displays a photo of a young Mr. Blumenthal, in his crisp blue and white uniform.

In Hartford and in Washington, Mr. Blumenthal’s advocacy for veterans’ rights is unyielding. He has lobbied the General Assembly to grant unemployment benefits to the spouses of military personnel, and advocated for the creation of a Hispanic affairs advocate within the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs.

The father of a Marine, he frequently speaks about the experience of attending the funerals of local service members who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The ceremonies are a powerful combination of wrenching grief and soaring pride,” he said in 2006.

In 2007, when he set up the veterans advocacy division of the attorney general’s office, he declared, “My office will fight for those who fought for us.”

In interviews, several veterans from around the state said the office had helped them penetrate the thick bureaucracy of the state’s benefits system, and applied a personal touch.

When Paul Kingman, a Navy veteran who lost feeling in his feet after chemotherapy, called Mr. Blumenthal’s office in 2007, he was trying to get a hearing for disability payments from the Social Security Administration. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Blumenthal himself got on the line.

“He’s a nice guy; he was cordial,” Mr. Kingman, 50, said from his home in Naugatuck. “Busy people like him, with all the rest going on in the state, I was surprised he’d have time for little old me.”

A week after his conversation with Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kingman learned that his hearing, which he had been trying to get for nearly four years, had been scheduled.

“I don’t know who he talked to, but next thing you know, I had a hearing,” said Mr. Kingman, who at the time was living on $200 a month and food stamps. “He stood up for me.”

Cecelia Louis had a similar story: after five years trying to obtain health care from the Connecticut Veterans Affairs Department for her 78-year-old husband, a Korean War veteran, she reached out to the attorney general’s office, which resolved the issue in a matter of weeks.

“He realizes, especially now with all the veterans coming home with great needs, how important this is,” she said.

This is not John Kerry using his veteran status to denounce the army of Ghengis Khan.

MORE:  The original Times piece had this version of Blumenthal's statement:

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

Still ambiguous at worst.  Now, if he had mentioned coming home from Vietnam, well, that would be troubling.

Elena Kagan, Young Activist

Elena Kagan's thesis from 1983, during her Oxford days, brings us an activist judge in waiting.

WASHINGTON — As a young graduate student, Elena Kagan wrote that it was “not necessarily wrong or invalid” for judges to “try to mold and steer the law” to achieve social ends, but warned that such rulings must be rooted in legal principles to be accepted by society and endure.

The Times gives us some phony assurance that she really does intend to follow the law, at least a bit:

The analysis reflected the views of a nearly 23-year-old Oxford student who had not yet gone to law school, and her thinking may have evolved. Indeed, when she was made solicitor general last year, she rejected the role of courts in leading the way toward social justice. “It is a great deal better for the elected branches to take the lead in creating a more just society than for the courts to do so,” she wrote.

Saying it is better for the elected branches to lead is hardly the same as rejecting the notion that the courts can leap into a legislative abyss.

MORE:  The Times has some of her notable writings available here.

I Can Literally Feel My Head Exploding

The incendiary Reverend Wright accuses then-candidate Obama of attempted homicide:

When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" he wrote.

I feel the old aneurysm acting up again...

Primary Prep

It's raining in the greatest city in the world so we may not be able to enjoy another Red Sox Fail tonight.  But thanks to the Politico we have our primary prognostications, and maybe we will enjoy a Specter Fail.  (OK, that could be a Specter Spectacle...)

A Family Values Republican Admits Affair, Resigns

From Fox:

Indiana Rep. Mark Souder Resigns After Affair With Staffer

The staffer was a woman, which I am counting as a small victory.

Elected as a family values conservative as part of the Republican revolution in 1994, Souder survived a tough re-election challenge in 2008 and survived a contested primary two weeks ago.

Does the seat stay open until the November election?  Does the governor (a Republican) appoint a stand-in, perhaps the primary runner-up?

The Fog Of War

The NY Times swiftboats Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, who sometimes embellishes his non-service in Vietnam.  Maybe John Kerry can come down from Massachusetts and explain that people forget, they exaggerate, and anyway, what Blumenthal remembers should trump actual, tedious facts.

The Times lead:

Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

The Times eventually notes that some of his other comments are ambiguous, and that sometimes he tells the truth, as here:

An aide pointed out that in a different appearance this year, Mr. Blumenthal was forthright about not having gone to war. In a Senate debate in March, he responded to a question about Iran and the use of military force by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort, nor do we want to mortgage the country’s future with a deficit that is ballooning out of control.”

On the other hand, they add a "serial prevaricator" touch with this swim team mystery:

On a less serious matter, another flattering but untrue description of Mr. Blumenthal’s history has appeared in profiles about him. In two largely favorable profiles, the Slate article and a magazine article in The Hartford Courant in 2004 with which he cooperated, Mr. Blumenthal is described prominently as having served as captain of the swim team at Harvard. Records at the college show that he was never on the team.

Mr. Blumenthal said he did not provide the information to reporters, was unsure how it got into circulation and was “astonished” when he saw it in print.

Let's credit an intrepid blogger, who busted Blumenthal on the swimming thing last April.  I'm green (which is not my color...).

Let me toss in one wrinkle - this is an example of what I would consider an ambiguous declaration by Blumenthal:

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

Ahh!  He served, just not overseas.  And he may even have been taunted while in uniform.  But that notion was somewhat controversial, at least among a certain type of lefties - Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam war protestor turned professor, insisted that anti-war protestors were never anti-soldier.  He was clearly inspired by the Gulf War and was engaging in a politicized attempt to rehabilitate the anti-war movement; he caught some traction during the Iraq War but Jack Shafer of Slate, his biggest booster, eventually backed down.

However, proper libs like Krugman never got the memo, so Blumenthal may take fire on this from his left flank.

Last thought - it is nearly impossible to go to a charitable event in Connecticut without meeting Richard Blumenthal.  A number of good friends of mine consider him to be intelligent, honorable, and indefatigable in support of their causes.  So he may survive this, and maybe he ought to.

SPELLCHEK, THAT UNSTEADY ALLY:

From Matt Yglesias:

For quite a long time now people have been urging Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to run for hire office...

"For hire" as in, "private sector"?  His time may be coming!

Monday Morning

AllahPundit brings us a nominee for Greatest Poltical Ad Ever".

Subcontracting The War On The AfPak Border

The NY Times continues to peck at the most transparent Administration in history:

U.S. Is Still Using Private Spy Ring, Despite Doubts
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — Top military officials have continued to rely on a secret network of private spies who have produced hundreds of reports from deep inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to American officials and businessmen, despite concerns among some in the military about the legality of the operation.

Earlier this year, government officials admitted that the military had sent a group of former Central Intelligence Agency officers and retired Special Operations troops into the region to collect information — some of which was used to track and kill people suspected of being militants. Many portrayed it as a rogue operation that had been hastily shut down once an investigation began.

But interviews with more than a dozen current and former government officials and businessmen, and an examination of government documents, tell a different a story. Not only are the networks still operating, their detailed reports on subjects like the workings of the Taliban leadership in Pakistan and the movements of enemy fighters in southern Afghanistan are also submitted almost daily to top commanders and have become an important source of intelligence.

The American military is largely prohibited from operating inside Pakistan. And under Pentagon rules, the army is not allowed to hire contractors for spying. 

Military officials said that when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in the region, signed off on the operation in January 2009, there were prohibitions against intelligence gathering, including hiring agents to provide information about enemy positions in Pakistan. The contractors were supposed to provide only broad information about the political and tribal dynamics in the region, and information that could be used for “force protection,” they said.

Fortunately it is neither George Bush nor Richard Nixon running a secret war and violating an ally's border.

And the larger issue is that the program does provide valuable intelligence.

This sounds like the sort of program that Candidate Hope and Change would have railed against in 2007.  I guess we will find out how his energized base likes it now.

Traditional Preakness Open Thread

They're off!

Sign Of The Times - Law & Order Cancelled

Law & Order has been cancelled after twenty years, although yes, it seems like much longer.

In related news, let me just say that the revised "Law & Order - Criminal Intent", with Jeff Goldblum replacing Vincent D'Onforio, is unwatchable.  And I say that as a fan of Jeff Goldblum going back to the Big Chill. 

In this incarnation Goldblum's character is so low key that after I flip the show on at night I find myself wondering - did I decide to stay up for a bit of television, or am I already in bed, asleep, and having a tedious dream?  Somewhat disorienting.

So forget "Criminal Intent".  "Justified", starring Timothy Olyphant and based on characters created by Elmore Leonard, is riveting in a Seinfeldian "Nothing is happening but these people are fascinating" sort of way.  Not to suggest it is a comedy - it has some shockingly violent moments and the parental warnings are entirely appropriate, but I am loving it.

Kenya Believe it? NY Times Toddling Towards Truth On Obama's Birth Certificate

We have previously derided the Times coverage of the "birther" controversy around Obama's birth certificate - they love to peruse polls suggesting that all birthers are daft but shy away from even hinting at a few basic facts.

But the recent signing in Hawaii of the so-called "birther-bill" allowing the Hawaii Dept. of Health to ignore repeated requests from the same people has prompted the Times to put some of the basic facts in evidence.

So today, a careful Times reader learns that:

 - during the 2008 campaign Team Obama released a summary form known as a "Certification of Live Birth", suitable for driver's license applications, passport applications, or framing;

 - a more complete file is available at the Hawaii State Dept. of Health;

 - that file could be released to Obama or a relative (and no doubt will be when he inks his eight-figure book deal).

What the Times continues to avoid is a seemingly obvious question - why doesn't Obama just request the file and then release it?  Surely the most transparent Administration in history has nothing to hide?

As to what that file might reveal, my favored guesses are nothing, or perhaps some embarrassing tidbit, like a legal name change from "Barry" to "Barack" as a teenager (in a quest for authenticity left unmentioned in "Dreams").  As a wild longshot, I have ruminated about the possibility that the evidence of Obama's birth is Hawaii is nothing more than affidavits from his mother and her parents. 

If these affidavits are honest and accurate, they will probably describe a quick, unexpected labor and delivery somewhere in Honolulu.  If the three were lying, their motivation would have been to establish American citizenship for Baby Barry (or Barack!?!) against the day when Stanley Dunham might be waging a nasty custody fight in Kenya over a black baby born in Kenya to a Kenyan father.  But the three (hypothetical) affiants are dead, so they won't be available for cross-examination except by John Edwards.

The notion that there is a more complete file available at Obama's request will come as a revelation to some in the media - Andrew Sullivan, for example, wrote this in explaining the dust-up to the Brits back in 2009:

"Obama did all he could to make this go away."

That is simply not accurate, and even the Times now says so:

By Hawaiian law, birth records can be released only to people with “a direct and tangible” interest in them — a person born in the state, say, or certain relatives or their estates.

So why won't Obama just release the file?  My guess is that there is nothing of interest or consequence in the file, but that Obama is concealing it simply because he conceals everything.  His political success is centered on his biography and he controls the presentation of that biography the way the Walt Disney people control Mickey Mouse.  As a matter of brand management Obama won't release his birth files, his college transcripts, his law firm billing records, or anything else - go buy a copy of "Dreams From My Father" and he will tell you his story, and thanks for asking.

And the politics have worked for him - "Look how crazy my opponents are!" has been a successful message.  To flash back to Andrew Sullivan as a classic dupe, in his article Sully admits to having no understanding of the birther controversy, demonstrates his ignorance, and explains that it is due to anti-Obama racism.  Uh huh. And that has been the default Times posture up to now, as well.

But is it ever so slightly possible that the Times is taking a more questioning view of the most transparent Administration in history?  They do have that special relationship to protect, and I have no doubt that some of their reporters value their special access as they work on their book deals.

On the other hand one of their star reporters, James Risen, has been subpoenaed in a "tell us your sources" case.  And today we sense a note of frustration in their story about their attempts to cover the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination:

White Houses traditionally put a muzzle on their Supreme Court nominees, to keep them from saying anything that might jeopardize Senate confirmation. But the Obama White House has taken it one step further. It is limiting, if not blocking, access to the nominee’s family.

The reporter was going to watch Ms. Kagan's brother teach a high school class and then chat with him, but the White House put the kibosh on it.  And there was this:

A cousin of Ms. Kagan, Gail Katz-James of Minneapolis, was quoted in a profile in The Times the day after the president announced the nomination. She described the “verbal sparring” around the dinner table in the Kagans’ Upper West Side apartment, saying that the family “just really enjoyed debating and discussing everything.”

But two days after the article appeared, when contacted again by the same reporter from The Times, Ms. Katz-James said: “I’m sorry. I’m not able to talk to you.” She was asked if the White House had directed her not to talk to the press. “Nope,” she said, and hung up the phone.

In happier days the Times would have denounced the anti-Semitism of anyone with any questions at all about Elena Kagan, and then denounced the racism of anyone wondering about Obama's choice.  This is a little crack in the wall.

And lest we forget, a bigger crack is their front-pager about putting Americans, specifically the American Muslim cleric in Yemen, on the drone kill list.  We can't eavesdrop on his cell phone without a court order, but we can blow him up.  Troubling.  And interesting - picking up the Times is almost like reading a newspaper sometimes.

SINCE YOU ASKED:  My official editorial position is that Obama was born in Hawaii and anyway was endorsed by the Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution when they accepted the results of the Electoral College.  As to the Death Drones, if Bush did this targeting Americans we would read about nothing else, and I would support it.  But don't look for me to exert a lot of effort splashing pixels on Obama's behalf - he can deal with his crazed base himself.

How Bad A Beat-Down For Democrats?

My main man Karl Rove prognosticates the November elections.  His bottom line:

While a lot will play out over the next six months, there's no question good Republican candidates running effective races will make this a memorable, perhaps even epic, election for the GOP. Obama Democrats should beware.

Epic fail.

I don't mind waiting; we can enjoy the summer, watch the Yankees defend their championship, and then commence the trouncing of the Dems.

And What Did They Find Out?

Nine people were indicted for sniffing around Obama's student loan information:

Nine employees of an eastern Iowa education contractor accessed President Barack Obama's student loan records in violation of federal law, prosecutors announced Wednesday evening.

A federal grand jury in Davenport indicted the workers for "exceeding authorized computer access" at their office in Coralville, prosecutors said in a statement. The company was identified only as a U.S. Department of Education contractor.

Prosecutors say the employees viewed Obama's student loan records at various times between July 2007 and March 2009, before and after Obama was elected president.

Do remember that Iowa was Ground Zero for the Presidential nominating process.  These nine might be Obama boosters, Edwards or Hillary backers, or crazed Republicans with uncanny prescience (Why investigate Obama in July 2007 and not Hillary or Edwards, if you are pulling for a Rep?).

As to what they found, I assume we will never know.  I am sure we have all seen the speculation that Obama got some financial assistance from the Ayers family, wealthy Pakistanis, wealthy Indonesians, or whatever.

Well, relax - Obama will tell us everything that helps his brand management when he signs his eight-figure book deal after leaving office.  No, I doubt he will title it "You Can Fool Some Of The People...".  But he might!

All The News That Fits The Narrative

Tear out the front page - an Upper West Side liberal is not sympathetic to gun owners and their rights!

OK, the Bloomberg story on Elena Kagan is not surprising - back when she was clerking for Thurgood Marshall in 1987 she urged him to take a pass on a case where a gun owner wanted to challenge the Washington DC gun ban. 

And as we continue our search for non-surprises, let's see how the Times covers that same time period and what they glean from her clerkship with Marshall.  Let me excerpt everything they had to say about her sense of gun owner's rights:

That was easy!

The most effective cocoon is the one you don't even know exists.  Times readers on the Upper West Side wouldn't consider Kagan's view at all controversial, so the Times won't even vex them with the possibility of a looming confirmation controversy.

Meanwhile, out here in America (OK, Connecticut...), there is great interest in whether the 5-4 Supreme Court vote which eventually overturned the DC gun ban will be upheld, extended, or restricted in future Court decisions.  At which point, Times readers may be brought up to speed on the controversy.

And yes, their theme will be that gun crazies are afflicting their sensible New Yorker.  I can hardly wait.

Kevin Drum's Strangely Incomplete List

Kevin Drum wonders: why has the media has been kinder to Obama than to Reagan in covering unemployment?  Really, I think he is serious:

Does the Media Care About Unemployment?

His puzzlement was prompted by Brad Delong noting the contrast between the desperate mood in Washington in 1983 when unemployment was around 10%, versus the seeming calm today.  That prompted this from Kevin:

But it's true — or at least, it's my impression that it's true — that the media focused way more on economic hard luck stories in the early 80s than they do now. I have a strong memory of being practically bombarded with this stuff back then. Today, though, not so much. It's not that coverage of unemployment is absent, just that it strikes me as much less urgent than it was in the early 80s.

I don't know why. Maybe Brad's reasons are the right ones. Maybe it's just been crowded out by other financial news like bank bailouts and subprime ghost towns. Maybe the social safety net is more effective now than it was 30 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that today's stubbornly high numbers are concentrated among the long-term unemployed, as shown in the chart on the right. Maybe the rise of two-earner families has reduced the pain of unemployment somewhat. Maybe nobody really believes any longer that the government can do anything about this, so it's not worth reporting on. I don't know. But like Brad, it strikes me as quite odd.

Wow.  There is not a righty in the world that can't suggest a reason for the media's posture.  In fact, even before the election it was a truism that the tone of the press coverage of the economy would change to smiley faces the day Obama was sworn in.

Kevin is puzzled as to why the media back in 1983 (pre-Fox, pre-Rush) felt comfortable bashing Reagan, that stupid heartless conservative cowboy.  Yet today, the media is giving a pass to Obama, determined not to give aid and comfort to the racist tea-baggers who question his economic policies.  Gosh, I wonder what's going on.  Couldn't be media bias, since in LibWorld that doesn't exist - they are owned by evil corporations, some supported the invasion of Iraq, and anyway, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, neener, neener, neener.

Just to add to the laughs, check this out from today's NY Times, and try to imagine it being written in 1983:

In a Job Market Realignment, Some Left Behind
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Many of the jobs lost during the recession are not coming back.

Period.

For the last two years, the weak economy has provided an opportunity for employers to do what they would have done anyway: dismiss millions of people — like file clerks, ticket agents and autoworkers — who were displaced by technological advances and international trade.

The phasing out of these positions might have been accomplished through less painful means like attrition, buyouts or more incremental layoffs. But because of the recession, winter came early.

Yeah, so get over it, jobless has-beens!  Next we get a description of creative destruction that any Reagan-era Republican would have welcomed:

This “creative destruction” in the job market can benefit the economy.

Pruning relatively less-efficient employees like clerks and travel agents, whose work can be done more cheaply by computers or workers abroad, makes American businesses more efficient. Year over year, productivity growth was at its highest level in over 50 years last quarter, pushing corporate profits to record highs and helping the economy grow.

But a huge group of people are being left out of the party.

Millions of workers who have already been unemployed for months, if not years, will most likely remain that way even as the overall job market continues to improve, economists say. The occupations they worked in, and the skills they currently possess, are never coming back in style. And the demand for new types of skills moves a lot more quickly than workers — especially older and less mobile workers — are able to retrain and gain those skills.

There is no easy policy solution for helping the people left behind. The usual unemployment measures — like jobless benefits and food stamps — can serve as temporary palliatives, but they cannot make workers’ skills relevant again.

"There is no easy policy solution", so don't even think about pestering Obama.

The Times approaches thin ice here:

Ms. Norton says she cannot find any government programs to help her strengthen the “thin bootstraps” she intends to pull herself up by. Because of the Wal-Mart job, she has been ineligible for unemployment benefits, and she says she made too much money to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid last year.

“If you’re not a minority, or not handicapped, or not a young parent, or not a veteran, or not in some other certain category, your hope of finding help and any hope of finding work out there is basically nil,” Ms. Norton says. “I know. I’ve looked.”

"Not a minority"?  Well, she said it, but I'll deplore the implicit racism on their behalf.  Also the sexism, orientationalism, and any other evil '-ism' in this woman's heart.

Here is all of their coverage of Team Obama's response:

The White House has publicly challenged the idea that structural unemployment is a big problem, with Christina D. Romer, the Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman, instead emphasizing that stronger economic growth is what’s needed. Still, the administration has allocated dollars for retraining in both the 2009 stimulus package and other legislation, largely for clean technology jobs.

Yeah, that coverage is sort of like the Reagan era.

FOR PEDANTS:  Reagan signed tax increases in 1983; that was when "deficits as far as the eye could see" were going to ruin the American economy.  Believe it or not, some of the usual suspects in the economic field have been able to rationalize the Obama approach.  Well, time is a useful teacher.

DARE I OFFER A GUESS?  Presidents usually get too much credit and too much blame for the economy, but that is compounded by a media that prefers to credit Democrats and blame Republicans.  The press coverage of the Bush 41 jobless recovery helped Clinton get elected, at which point the jobless recovery disappeared from the news (job growth was only slightly improved from 1992 to 1993; adjust the dates on this BLS chart.)

And Clinton gets all the credit for the late 90's boom, even though Gingrich and Co. forced a commitment to deficit reduction that might have otherwise been lacking.  

As to the current debacle, the run-amuck at Fannie and Freddie was a bipartisan mess, but my 20/20 hindsight tells me that Bush/Greenspan/Bernanke could have done more with the regulatory tools at their disposal.

Milbloggers On DADT

A group of milbloggers has called for the repeal of DADT.  Here is Q of Q&O:

I've also come to understand that it isn’t going to be the activists or those who want to flaunt their homosexuality who are going to seek to serve their country. Being a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman is a hard, dirty and dangerous job.  Those that choose to serve are not going to do it because of who they love, but simply because want to serve their nation and the military is their chosen method of doing so.

This is a cultural change thing.  And the culture has been changing for years to more and more acceptance of homosexuality in terms of offering equal rights and protections.  This is simply an extension of that.  If I thought it would seriously effect readiness, I’d probably oppose it – but I don’t think it will.  Will there be some problems and some objections to overcome?  Yes.  But the military can and will overcome them.

And on the lighter side, from Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive:

"If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there."

That ties in to something I wrote a while back.  My *guess* was that the repeal of DADT would actually be easier in wartime when soldiers are focused on more important issues such as not getting blown up.

If You Can't Believe Eliot Spitzer...

The Politico hears from friends of Elena Kagan who are pushing back against the "gay (NNTTAWWT)" rumor.

Meanwhile, Back In Iraq

From the Times:

Coordinated Attacks in Iraqi Cities Kill More Than 100

BAGHDAD — A series of attacks in Baghdad and other cities across Iraq on Monday struck police and army checkpoints, as well as markets, a mayor’s office and a textile factory. The violence appeared to be a coordinated rebuttal of assertions by Iraqi and American commanders that Al Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist groups had suffered debilitating blows in recent weeks.

The attacks, which killed at least 101 people and wounded hundreds more, occurred amid a protracted dispute over the results of the country’s election more than two months ago. Even as the violence continued to unfold across the country through the day, officials blamed the political impasse for creating a security vacuum that extremists hoped to exploit.

Worried?  So is the US military:

APNewsBreak: US Reviewing Iraq Troop Pullout Pace

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Worries over increased violence fueled by Iraq's political instability have forced U.S. commanders to reconsider the pace of a major pullout this summer without overstepping a deadline to cut the military's presence by nearly half by the end of August.

More than two months after parliamentary elections, the next government has still not been formed, and militants aiming to exploit the void have carried out attacks like Monday's bombings and shootings that killed at least 119 people, in the country's bloodiest day of 2010.

The insurgent threat has prompted military officials to figure how to keep as many troops on the ground, for as long as possible, and still withdraw all but 50,000 U.S. troops by Aug. 31, as ordered last year by President Barack Obama.

In Baghdad and Washington, U.S. officials say they remain committed to the deadline, which would only be pushed back by Obama to deal with a severe worsening of Iraq's security.

Elena Kagan

David Brooks sees a perfect student on the perfect stealth career path:

About a decade ago, one began to notice a profusion of Organization Kids at elite college campuses. These were bright students who had been formed by the meritocratic system placed in front of them. They had great grades, perfect teacher recommendations, broad extracurricular interests, admirable self-confidence and winning personalities.

If they had any flaw, it was that they often had a professional and strategic attitude toward life. They were not intellectual risk-takers. They regarded professors as bosses to be pleased rather than authorities to be challenged. As one admissions director told me at the time, they were prudential rather than poetic.

If you listen to people talk about Elena Kagan, it is striking how closely their descriptions hew to this personality type.

She keeps everything close to the chest:

One scans her public speeches looking for a strong opinion, and one comes up empty.

...

What we have is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess. Arguments are already being made for and against her nomination, but most of this is speculation because she has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out.

There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.

And speaking of her focus on image management, Andrew Sullivan defends his evolving view on closeted and de-closeted gays.  I have to take his side here - whatever Sullivan may have thought in 1991 has surely been overtaken by subsequent cultural shifts.

I also agree with him that the idea that she is entitled to simultaneously keep her sexuality a secret while pursuing a lifetime appointment to our highest court is daft.  Geez, who's Obama's next pick, Greta Garbo?  If Ms. Kagan wants to preserve her privacy, she shouldn't seek such public positions.

Let's wave in Joe Conason for the "Don't Ask" side:

According to Andrew Sullivan, "it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue," although precisely how the orientation will affect the judgment he cannot tell us. But even if Sullivan's reasoning is weak...

Uh huh.  Yet Obama has repeatedly emphasized the importance of biography and life experience, both in voting against Roberts and nominating Sotomayor.  Any number of libs (presumably including Conason) believe that, for example, a black brings a different perspective to the court. Yet now it is weak reasoning to suspect that a closeted gay judge would have distinctive views on one topic or another?  

Let's think out loud here - suppose Ms. Kagan is in fact gay (we've heard the rumors, but who knows?).  Why is she keeping quiet?  Well, maybe she thinks that outing herself will close various professional doors (I have heard the rumor that her orientation cost her the Harvard Presidency.)

So that suggests her thought process is what - 30% of Americans will never accept me as a judge, so I will just lie to them?  For the next forty years?  And neither the National Enquirer nor anyone else will out me?

Please - the Supreme Court won't need the sort of crisis of legitimacy that would ensue if she misrepresents her sexuality, is seated, and is then outed.  The message that sends is deplorable.  And by the way, if she really does believe that she will never be accepted by an important slice of the public, that reveals a great deal about her.  If she doesn't trust the American people, why should we trust her?  And did Thurgood Marshall figure that since there were bigots who would never accept a black judge it would be better if he did something else?

OK, let's re-think this: maybe she has no intention of lying (she hasn't yet), and is simply hoping no one will ask.  That might work - I assume the left is gearing up to denounce as a bitter homophobe anyone, including Andrew Sullivan, who does ask.  As Sully noted, the NY Times is not even going to admit that there is an issue.  As members of the liberal elite, the Times is quite comfortable keeping certain types of secrets from the Great Unwashed.

This ongoing secrecy creates its own problems, since a person with a something to hide is a person susceptible to pressure.  I suspect Ms.Kagan's "secret" is a somewhat well known in Harvard Law circles.  So wouldn't that that create an opportunity for aggressive attorneys (pardon my redundancy) to gain a bit of an inside track with business before the Supreme Court?

I assume it won't be anything as crude as "Vote our way now or you're outed" blackmail.  I picture something like this: "Hello, Elena, I just saw [ex-secret lover's name] last week and she says hello.  And I do hope you will take a long look at our very careful and well-reasoned brief requesting a Supreme Court review of our appeal.  I'm sure you'll find our arguments compelling..."  And she will get the hint.

That can't happen?  Or she would have reviewed their brief anyway?  Well, maybe the appearance of impropriety at the Supreme Court will never develop.  Maybe! 

So where this is headed, if Ms. Kagan is confirmed while closeted?  She will spend forty years handing down gay-friendly rulings most (or hopefully, all) of which are utterly unobjectionable to conventional liberals.  And we will have to spend forty years with the media studiously ignoring her orientation and pretending that her being gay has nothing to do with her decisions.  And that view will be eminently defensible, since plenty of straight liberals would have reached the same decisions. 

But it will still be forty years of BS and forty years of the liberal elites keeping secrets because the rest of us can't be trusted with the truth and forty years of people muttering that judges can crawl all over our lives but we can't talk about judges.  This is not a great way to run a democracy.

My guess - her hearing won't normally be for eight weeks, which is several forevers in media time.  The Administration will hope she gets outed before then, and may even give the process a nudge.  I don't see the Senators wanting to let this hearing turn into a circus, but I don't see them all agreeing to duck this, either.  So the bombshell will be defused before the hearings.

But my other guess is that Team Obama can't possibly want to ignite a culture war the summer before the election.  Their current position is a mix of "Trust us" and "You rubes can't handle the truth".  That strikes me as unsustainable.  But is "She's gay, get over it" the winning ticket for the Dems?  Especially when, if the revelation follows two or three weeks of tooth-pulling, it will come off as, "She's gay, get over it you bigoted homophobes!  We were only blowing smoke for your own good!"?

OK, I'm baffled but not undecided!  My Bold Prediction - Ms. Kagan is either outed or out before she gets to the hearings.  Her withdrawal announcement will be awkward, since she can't say she wants more time with her family.  But we won't start her hearings with this issue unresolved.

LEST I FORGET:  Eugene Volokh praises her scholarship, which is encouraging.

UNCONVINCING!  From Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones:

The weird thing about all of this was astutely pointed out by one of Sullivan's commenters, who noted that the ever cautious, drama-free Obama would be uncharacteristically stupid to lie about something so easily discoverable as whom Kagan has slept with.

Right, because Obama has never lied about anything that could easily be discovered by our watchdog press.  For another view, I'll open the bidding with his Bill Ayers entanglement.   The original story was that Ayers and Obama had kids in the same school; later Ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood, then a guy Obama had met when Ayers hosted Obama's first fund-raiser and political coming-out.  Eventually (and these were not state secrets) we learned that Obama and Ayers were working together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge prior to the fundraiser.  Obama had probably been hand-picked by Ayers based on a previous relationship, but the official story has not yet unraveled to that point yet.  And, not by coincidence, no one at the NY Times or Mother Jones has any interest in establishing the actual truth, as opposed to ObamaTruth.

I wouldn't be shocked if the White House vetters just never considered the question of Kagan's sexuality to be appropriate (although if Rahm was involved it's hard to see him being shy...). And I am sure Obama figures he can bully the press into silence on this one; so far, he has the NY Times so cowed they won't even mention the rumor, let alone the denials.

And speaking of those White House denials, here is the Kurtz column airing them.  Here we go - first, we hear from Anonymous Source:

An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

Compelling!  Then Anita Dunn, not officially with the White House:

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

And Ben LaBolt, who is with the White House:

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges."

If the "No, she isn't" story changes the only White House official who might be poised for a ride under the bus is LaBolt, who can claim he was misinformed.  Or is there wiggle room there?  Maybe "Not a lesbian" means she has a bisexual history.  In any case, there is nothing here from Obama.

And how does Ms. Mencimer characterize these denials?  She calls them "unambiguous statements from the administration that Elena Kagan is most definitely straight."  Well, maybe she has different statement in mind; if she could provide a link that would be lovely.

This will be our media in action, saving the judge from the Great Unwashed.

TO WHICH I SHOULD ADD:  If Ms. Kagan is gay and out, good for her.  We appointed black judges with complete confidence that they would be asked to judge civil rights related cases, that they might bring a special perspective, and that their might be some bigots deeply opposed to their presence on the court.  Obviously, having a stealth black candidate who refused to address the question of his race is hard to imagine, but the principal of addressing real or imagined bigotry head on should apply.

I have lost the link but some silly right wing site claimed Ms. Kagan was unqualified because she was gay.  Wrong, and I dissociate myself from their remarks.  (Geez, I am like Johnny Profile in Courage, repudiating comments I can't even find or link to...  Developing!)

However, I am not interested in enduring forty years of a liberal media tap dance.

All that said, if she is not gay, I really don't know how she will prove it.  No videotape, please!  This is the sort of problem that could have been resolved back in the day when we had a trusted media or some trusted politicians who could look us in the eye and expect to be believed when they vouched for her.  Oh, well.

INSHALLAH:  From AllahPundit:

If identity’s that important to judicial philosophy in the liberal imagination, then by Obama’s own standards, Kagan’s identity should be fair game. Problem is, as fun as it’d be to watch him squirm over this, to press him on it would jeopardize a moment when most of the right and left seem prepared to ignore the ambiguity about Kagan’s orientation and judge her on her qualifications. That seems like a good place for society to have reached; it ain’t “she’s here, she’s queer, get used to it,” but “she’s here, she may be queer, and it’s no big deal” ain’t beanbag. Do gay-rights supporters want to endanger that sentiment with an identity politics passion play at the hearings, replete with a Category Five media clusterfark?

I agree that the Senators will push hard to avoid a clown show at the hearings (one Thomas/Hill debacle, complete with panels of character supporters and assassins, is enough for several lifetimes), but I don't think "She's closeted, we can't talk about it in polite society for fear of riling the rubes, move on" will fly.

STILL WAITING:  Has anyone yet said that Ms. Kagan is being "swift-boated"?  Just a matter of time!  And its fine by me, since for righties, "swift-boating" basically means "swamped by inconvenient truths the liberal media would rather ignore".