Study: Homophobes are pretty gay

Interesting, but follow the link and read the fine print and you’ll see that it’s really more a study of the effect of authoritarian parenting on sexuality than some sort of unified field theory about “homophobia.” In fact, it’s not fully clear to me from the news summary what would qualify as “homophobia” for purposes of the research. Sounds like they’re chiefly concerned with visceral dislike for gays, but I’m not sure; maybe, given the obvious political uses to which these results will be put, polite opposition to gay marriage also qualifies.

In which case, it’s a shame that we have a homophobic president, huh?

To explore participants’ explicit and implicit sexual attraction, the researchers measured the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during a split-second timed task. Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of “me” with “gay” and a slower association of “me” with “straight” indicated an implicit gay orientation.

A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.

Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements like: “I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways,” and “I felt free to be who I am.” For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to items like: “It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian” or “My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.”

Finally, the researcher measured participants’ level of homophobia — both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and implicit, as revealed in word-completion tasks. In the latter, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind, for example for the prompt “k i _ _.” The study tracked the increase in the amount of aggressive words elicited after subliminally priming subjects with the word “gay” for 35 milliseconds.

The theory is that kids with gay tendencies who grow up in very strict households may be so frightened of mom and dad’s disapproval that they compensate by developing a passionate aversion to gays themselves. Again: Interesting, but it’s a theory limited to a specific type of “homophobe,” not a universal explanation for why all critics of gays believe as they do. (As Live Science notes, “Ryan cautioned … that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.”) Meanwhile, I’m curious why they didn’t use a more conclusive test of arousal, maybe involving, er, strategically placed sensors, to see which sex a given subject was most attracted to. Could be that that wasn’t possible with this test group simply because, if there were secretly gay members among them, they might have objected to a more invasive test for fear of being found out. But I don’t know. To the psychologists in our readership: How reliable are tests of “implicit” sexual attraction like this?

Exit question: Would the “authoritarian parent” explanation for vehement dislike of a particular group apply more broadly than just to sexuality? If, for instance, you’re raised in an authoritarian household that’s strictly religious, would a child who finds himself doubting his faith compensate with a powerful contempt for atheists/agnostics? If you don’t like that example, use a political scenario instead: In an authoritarian household that’s stridently liberal or conservative, would a kid who finds his sympathies trending the other way grow to hate that group to please his parents? (If so, does that mean some “true conservatives” have — gasp — latent liberal tendencies? And if so, doesn’t that mean the RINOs are the real conservatives? Good lord, suddenly I feel like the lost heir to Reagan.) I can think of reasons why sexuality might be unique — it forms earlier in most people than firm political/religious sympathies, it’s “felt” rather than thought through and therefore less amenable to being rationalized, and the social taboo against being gay is greater than the taboo against being liberal/conservative or atheist/agnostic (although maybe not dramatically so for nonbelievers in some communities). But I don’t know. This is why I ask.

Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech

Give the Union of Operating Engineers full marks for creativity — and perhaps an even higher grade for unintended transparency.  The Indiana union has filed suit to block the state’s new right-to-work law, claiming that making dues payments voluntary rather than a requirement for working in a union shop infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech.  How?  Why, it cuts their funding for free speech:

Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, attorneys for a union challenging the law contend, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.” …

“In this case, the state of Indiana restricted a channel of speech-supporting finance,” the union brief maintains. “The Union legitimately utilizes dues money collected through the agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements, in part, to finance political speech The Indiana Right to Work law prohibits agency shop agreements, and that prohibition restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow.”

Well, then the union infringed on my free speech by never advertising on Captain’s Quarters back in the day!  See how this works?  Free speech, according to this view, depends on funding.  What’s next?  A government mandate to buy a newspaper subscription?  After all, if you don’t get a dead tree delivered to your doorstep each day, you may be infringing on a newspaper’s rights to free speech and liberal editorial policies!  (Wait — maybe I shouldn’t give this administration any more ideas on mandates …)

Here’s an in interesting question to pose in response to this argument.  Even if one accepted for argument’s sake that the First Amendment guarantees an income stream to fund whatever speech one wants to make, what about the employee’s right to free association, which is implied in the First Amendment’s right to peaceable assembly, as noted in a number of Supreme Court cases?  Some employees may not want to associate with the union and participate in their speech; why should they be forced into an association with them?  It seems to me that this would be a stronger argument than the “free speech requires an income stream” argument.

We’ve noted this a number of times when people mistake private editorial choices for infringement of the right to free speech.  The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech.  The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself.  It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else.  Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

Obama’s job approval ticks up a point in March, while poll shows he leads “swing independents”

Long ago, when I competed in pageants (and I think I’ve referenced this before), a coach told me shrewdly, “You don’t necessarily have to impress the judges. You just have to make them like you.” It’s sad, but true — and as sad and as true when applied to politics as to pageants. (Electoral politics, after all, has a kind of pageantry all its own.) If a judge likes a candidate, he’ll overlook a halting response to an interview question, a slight trip on the stage, an imperfectly fitted dress. Similarly, if voters like a politician, they’ll overlook unimpressive speeches, poor policies, blatant politicization of even the least political elements of our culture. The reverse is also true. If a judge dislikes a candidate, he won’t be impressed with clean execution in competition. If anything, a flawless performance will make him like her less, perceive her as “too perfect” and somehow not “all-American.” If voters dislike a politician, they won’t hand him an election on the basis of an impressive record and impeccable campaign trail performance.

The likability factor just might be Barack Obama’s trump card. Today offers two signs that Obama is as likable as ever.

Firstly, Obama’s approval rating ticked up a point in March, according to Gallup.

President Obama’s average monthly job approval rating has been inching up since last fall, rising from 41% in October to 45% in January, and reaching 46% in March. As his approval rating has expanded, and despite the variety of issues that have emerged at different times during his presidency, most of the demographic patterns of support for Obama seen at the outset of his presidency remain fixed. Groups that are above average in support for the president have stayed at roughly the same level above his overall approval rating from month to month, and those below average have also stayed roughly the same distance below his overall rating.

Secondly, a new poll by Global Strategy Group for Third Way shows that swing independents in 12 key states consider themselves closer ideologically to Mitt Romney than Obama — but still like Obama better. Politico reports:

Obama won 57 percent of this group in 2008. In this poll, which took place in mid-March, he led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent.

Yet when asked to assign a number on a scale of one to nine (one being liberal, nine being conservative and five being moderate), the swing independents put themselves at an average of 5.2 — slightly right of center — ranking Romney at 6.1 and Obama at 3.9.

“There’s definitely some good news for Obama. It’s not shocking to any of us that he’s very likable … Romney’s ideology is much closer to where they see themselves, but the likability factor isn’t there for him,” said Lanae Erickson, the deputy director of Third Way’s social policy and politics program, who has written a 12-page memo on the results.

It’s a bit of a mystery as to why Barack Obama appeals so strongly to so many voters on a personal level. He’s a Harvard-educated, Chicago-honed, aloof politician. He’s not so different in those respects than the Harvard-educated, Boston-honed, aloof Mitt Romney.

It’s hard to gauge how politicians acquire fixed descriptors. The “likable” Obama and the “distant” Mitt Romney are caricatures of both men. Obama is often condescending and insulting, Romney often self-deprecating and awkwardly endearing. The key, I think, is for conservatives and Republicans to stop disparaging Mitt Romney as unable to connect with the average American. He’s far above average in every respect, it’s true — but he has a respect for hardworking Americans that Obama often seems to lack and he has far more leadership experience in both the private and public sector than Barack Obama did when he became president. At this point, we have to be willing to say it: We like Mitt Romney

Game on … message off?

I like BuzzFeed, but their latest on the Obama campaign hype is just a wee bit too credulous to take seriously.  It’s been one year since Team Obama opened its headquarters in Chicago, and David Axelrod wants everyone to know that it’s now “game on” … as if the campaign hasn’t been producing ads and attacks on Republican opponents over the last several months.  Nonetheless, BuzzFeed seems unusually eager to report the anniversary of the launch as a big important deal:

And now that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee, the Obama team has flipped the ON switch for its reelection machine.

The Obama machine’s singular goal: to keep the president in his job by raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to recreate the momentum of 2008. There are now close to 700 hundred full time employees, an entire floor of office space, thousands of volunteers in well over 100 field offices across all 50 states, and the most impressive digital team a presidential campaign has ever assembled. There’s been experimentation—the tech team figured out a way to make the Obama website display perfectly on any device, a feat that wouldn’t have been possible even a year ago—and the entire office was designed to resemble a Silicon Valley start-up. More than half of the headquarters staff works for the campaign’s digital department. Messina even consulted with Palo Alto execs to find the “best practices,” says an Obama official, including carpets (quieter), mixing the staffs on the floor into teams rather than departments, bouncy balls, and communicating with instant messages and Twitter. “We ensure maximum collaboration so people don’t sit with their departments, they sit in teams,” Messina told BuzzFeed.

There’s a small warehouse of cool Obama gear for sale to the staff, all made in America, with an iPhone cover running for $40 (discounted to $35 for staff). A Ping-Pong table, state flags, ironic mementos on desks. The office does have sights that are more familiar to an old school campaign, too, like the speechwriters’ office, where a bar well stocked with Jack Daniels sits in front of the window. The 1.8 million donors, 50 percent of them new, according to Obama officials, have given $157 million through the end of February, with hundreds millions more to come. …

And now the Obama campaign is going to be part of the spectacle. “I walked into this headquarters a year ago and it was this big cavernous space, and it was symbolic in many ways of what we had to build,” Axelrod told BuzzFeed. “There is a sense of anticipation that this thing is entering a new phase. Game on.”

I looked through this article for any hint of real news, and didn’t find much.  They’ve had a year of fundraising and hired a bunch of people, created a lot of merchandising, and are prepared to fight the general election.  And … so? They didn’t face a primary fight, which means that they’ve had a year to focus on the general election — and we’re supposed to think that it’s news that they’ve prepared to do that?

Interestingly, there isn’t a mention in this article about the less-than-impressive fundraising efforts of Team Obama, which has fallen behind the pace set by George W. Bush in his 2004 bid, despite having Obama attend three times as many fundraisers in the same period of time.  A little over a year ago, sources in the campaign suggested that Obama could raise a billion dollars, a pace which they have utterly failed to match.  Wall Street donors have turned their backs on Obama.  None of this gets mentioned in the “game on” spin of the anniversary of opening the campaign HQ, although BuzzFeed does mention that they now expect to get outspent in 2012 by Romney and super-PACs.

Contrast this to the coverage at Politico, which wonders why the campaign hasn’t even managed to come up with a slogan, despite having 700 or so people employed and a year to figure out what their message should be:

Everyone knows what Barack Obama’s campaign slogan was in 2008. No one seems to know what it will be for 2012.

The White House has been cycling through catchphrases since announcing his reelection bid a year ago: Winning the Future, We Can’t Wait, An America Built to Last, An Economy Built to Last, A Fair Shot.

They seem to be looking for one to resonate — and the constant unveiling of new ones suggests that so far, none of them have. To communications experts, the kaleidoscope of slogans is the latest reflection of the difficulties finding and marketing a message that Obama has faced almost since his inauguration — another challenge that came with the shift from insurgent outsider to sitting president.

They can’t use the real subtext of the Obama campaign, which is More Of The Same.  Even their ads look like relics from 2008.  This is not a campaign that relishes running on the so-called accomplishments of the incumbent; almost 70% of voters wanted the Supreme Court to partially or completely overturn his signature legislation, and the economic stagnation of the last three years means he can’t run on pocketbook issues.  The only way he can win is if the election becomes another referendum on George W. Bush, which is exactly the message that Obama’s ads try to send.

It’s hardly “game on” at Team Obama.  So far, they can’t even figure out what the game is going to be.  The RNC hits this in their newest video spot:

Romney to hit PA with ad blitz this week

With Mitt Romney’s sweep six days ago of primaries in Maryland, Washington DC, and the battleground state of Wisconsin, the Republican frontrunner continues to build momentum in the Republican presidential nomination sweepstakes.  In the official RNC count of delegates, Romney just crossed the halfway mark to 1144 with 573 delegates, far ahead of Rick Santorum’s 202; counting all of the non-binding contests, Romney leads by a slightly larger amount, 656 to 272.  The next binding contests come two weeks from tomorrow, and Santorum will only be competitive in one — and Romney is loading up for a knockout blow there:

Republican Mitt Romney will air presidential campaign ads in most of Pennsylvania starting on Monday, when candidates return from their Easter break, a source close to the campaign said on Friday.

The $2.9 million advertising campaign will run in the Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Erie, Altoona and Philadelphia media markets until the April 24 primary election.

Within a week, the ads will run in the Pittsburgh market. The Romney super PAC Restore Our Future is airing commercials on cable channels statewide.

The campaign’s ad buy reinforces the former Massachusetts governor’s determination to win the home state of ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Santorum grew up in Butler County and owns a Penn Hills home, Gingrich spent childhood years in the Harrisburg area and Paul is a Green Tree native.

It’s not just advertising, either.  Since Romney should have little trouble winning in the other four states that go to the polls on the 24th — New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, the latter of which is a winner-take-all primary — he can spend almost all of his time stumping in Pennsylvania.  That makes the fight uncomfortably similar to Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which Santorum was perceived as having a lead or an edge, and both of which fell to Romney in the end.

As the LA Times points out, Pennsylvania is Santorum’s firewall, at least on credibility:

The former senator from Pennsylvania has resurrected his career after a shattering 2006 reelection defeat. Dismissed as a hopeless long shot when his presidential run began, he’ll finish no worse than second for the Republican nomination. At 53, he’s one of the nation’s leading social conservatives, and his long-range future has never looked brighter.

But as he resumes a do-or-die Pennsylvania primary effort this week, he’ll need all his local connections and considerable campaign talents to survive what could be the final showdown of the 2012 GOP contest. Polls show him with a small lead over Mitt Romney, who’d like nothing more than to finish off his main rival in the April 24 election.

After a day spent traversing the state’s steeply eroded ridges, studded with redbud blossoms and trees just greening up, Santorum expressed satisfaction at returning to “familiar territory, where I can say, ‘No, no, there’s a shorter way to get there’ to the drivers.”

He’s all but said that a primary loss would end his candidacy. “We have to win here,” he told reporters during a stop at Bob’s Diner in Carnegie, a Pittsburgh suburb he represented as a young congressman in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately for Santorum, failure in Pennsylvania might spell the end of not just the current political campaign, but any future in electoral politics.  It took an extraordinary effort to bring Santorum back from that large 2006 defeat in his home state, and if it happens again in a Republican primary, it might take even longer to get past it.  That puts more pressure on Santorum to defend the state if he chooses to continue, and polls are showing mixed signals at how well he’s managing to do it at the moment.

The delegate math is becoming more and more untenable, too.  Santorum’s camp released an argument last week that the media (and the RNC, apparently) has the delegate allocations all wrong, and that he’s actually much closer to Romney.  In part, that argument was based on a claim made by Newt Gingrich in February that the RNC would force Florida and Arizona to proportionally allocate their delegates.  Even the RNC admits that they can’t dictate state allocations, and in any case they don’t appear inclined to try, as their own scorecard shows.

On Tuesday, 159 delegates will be allocated in the four other states, the vast majority of which will go to Romney, while Pennsylvania’s 72 delegates will probably be closely split between Romney and Santorum regardless of the order of the finish.  There is a good possibility that Romney can pad his delegate lead by 100 or so on the 24th in both counts.  May’s nine contests look more promising for Santorum in a vacuum, but with Romney having perhaps over 800 delegates overall or 700 in the bound-only count, this race will hit a tipping point soon regardless of whether Santorum can win a squeaker in Pennsylvania — and states like Indiana and Oregon will probably fall Romney’s way, while Texas’ big prize will be proportionally allocated anyway.

Plus, the Des Moines Register reports that the few superdelegates in the GOP have begun to move towards Romney:

The Associated Press has polled 114 of the 120 superdelegates, party members who can support any candidate for president they choose at the national convention in August, regardless of what happens in primaries or caucuses.

In the latest survey, conducted Tuesday to Friday, Romney has 35 endorsements, far more than anyone else but a modest figure for the apparent nominee. Gingrich has four endorsements, Santorum has two and Texas Rep. Ron Paul got one.

RNC members have been slowly embracing Romney. He picked up 11 new endorsements since the last AP survey a month ago, after the Super Tuesday contests. Over the course of the campaign, however, Romney methodically has added endorsements from every region of the country. In the U.S. territories, where voters help decide the nominee but can’t vote in the general election, Romney has dominated.

Santorum will have two weeks to decide whether he wants to roll the dice on his future in a Pennsylvania primary for a nomination in which the math looks almost impossible to overcome, or take his gains and play for the future while the opening for a gracious and party-building exit remains in play.  He’s overcome a lot of long odds to put himself in that position, and perhaps Santorum will feel that the risks are still worth taking.

Gingrich: I’ll support Mitt Romney if he becomes the nominee

Well, I should think so. After such a long campaign to beat him, then stop him, then force him to “earn” the nomination, though, I guess it wasn’t always guaranteed that Newt Gingrich would support Mitt Romney if he becomes the nominee. It’s now confirmed, though. Gingrich said it himself on Fox News Sunday:

    “I think you have to be realistic, given the size of his organization, given the number of primaries he’s won, he is far and away the most likely Republican nominee,” Gingrich said …

    “If he does get to 1,144 delegates, I’ll support him and I’ll do everything I can this fall to help him defeat Obama because the primary goal of the entire Republican party has to be to defeat Barack Obama,” he said.

    “This makes this maybe the most important election of our lifetime.”

Gingrich also said he’ll return to a “post-political” career if (when?) he doesn’t secure the nomination — but it’s hard to know exactly what he has in mind. Gingrich’s health care think tank recently declared bankruptcy, while his record-setting political action group, American Solutions, shut down in July 2011. Gingrich Productions, which Callista runs, is still operating, and I’m sure Newt has a book or two or three in him yet.

In the meantime, he’s turned his attention to affecting the platform the eventual GOP nominee will adopt, pushing robust energy policies, a plank to explicitly defend religious liberty and private Social Security accounts. The question still stands, though: Why will he not drop out? He must think he’s in a greater position to influence the ultimate platform while he can still steal delegates from Romney than he would be otherwise. He’s recovering his dignity by changing his focus to the platform rather than the horserace, though, and by acknowledging the reality that Mitt Romney will be the nominee — and, at this point, has pretty nearly earned it.

Cardinal Dolan defends Santorum’s comments on JFK church-and-state speech

On “Face the Nation” this morning, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said he agreed with both Rick Santorum and J.F.K. about the separation of church and state: While the church should not run the state or vice versa, faith should certainly impact individual politicians’ decisions.

    “Senator Santorum had a good point, because, unfortunately, what John Kennedy said in September of 1960,” Cardinal Dolan said, “has been misinterpreted to mean that a separation of church and state also means a cleavage, a wall, between one’s faith and one’s political decisions, between one’s — one’s moral focus and between the way one might act in the political sphere.”

    “I don’t think John Kennedy meant that,” the cardinal said.

    Saying that Kennedy “did mean a wall between state and church, and I’d applaud that one,” he went on to say: “But I’d agree with Senator Santorum that, unfortunately, that’s been misrepresented to mean that faith has no place in the public square. That I would, with Senator Santorum, say is a misinterpretation.”

Rick Santorum has been criticized for once saying that he “almost threw up” when he first read the text of Kennedy’s landmark speech. Dolan’s remarks provide some cover for Santorum’s comment by making the remark less a reaction to Kennedy’s words than to the way they’ve been interpreted. While Santorum clearly was reacting to the text of the speech itself, he likely read it with the common interpretation in mind.

In his TV appearance this morning, Dolan also reiterated his opposition to the administration’s contraception mandate and noted that it represents precisely the sort of intrusion into the life of the Church that separation of church and state is supposed to prevent. As the bishops have noted repeatedly, the mandate intrudes on church territory primarily by defining what constitutes ministry for the purpose of conscience exemptions. By refusing exemptions to church-affiliated institutions and limiting exemptions strictly to churches, the administration has adopted the narrowest possible view of what constitutes “church.” Will it be just a matter of time before the administration says even some churches are not churches? Say those that don’t offer worship services of a certain duration or particular sacraments?

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

Lots of religious guests on tap for Easter Sunday morning, including Cardinal Dolan of New York discussing Obama’s contraception “compromise” on CBS and Rick Warren sitting down with Jake Tapper on ABC. If you’re dead set on politics, though, Ron Johnson and Kent Conrad will battle over Paul Ryan’s budget on Fox and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will turn up on CNN to repeat whichever Democratic talking points her operating system has been configured to run this week. Expect lots of “war on women” nonsense in keeping with Obama’s recent pander-monium.

The line-up via WaPo:

    NBC’s Meet the Press: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Sen. John Kasich (R-OH); Archbishop-designate of Baltimore William Lori; daughter of Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz; United Methodist Pastor Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); Executive Editor at Random House Jon Meacham

    ABC’s This Week: Pastor Rick and Kay Warren; George Will, ABC; David Chalian, Yahoo!; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Chrystia Freeland, Reuters; Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

    CBS’ Face the Nation: Cardinal Timothy Dolan

    Fox News Sunday: Sen. Kent Conrad, (D-ND); Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI); Brit Hume, Fox News; Mara Liasson, National Public Radio; Steve Hayes, The Weekly Standard; David Drucker, Roll Call

    CNN’s State of the Union: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL); Mark Penn, pollster; Linda DiVallKen, pollster; Starr, former Solicitor General; Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General; Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network

Pander-monium: Obama’s got a fever and the only prescription is more “war on women” crapola

It takes real nerve to insist that “women are not some monolithic group, women are not an interest group” at an event entitled “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” so good for you, champ. There are voters in every demographic group who enjoy being reduced to an “identity” and then patronized for it; you earned ‘em today in the demographic you’re targeting with this unctuous display. Special congrats on the ol’ crowdpleaser about how Congress would get more done if only it had more women and less of those darned men. I’ll bet Hillary, especially, enjoyed that rhetorical consolation prize after falling short in 2008.

Even ABC, in a straight-up news report on the event, couldn’t refrain from wincing:

    In a much-publicized event at the White House, Obama, who has already called the liberal Georgetown student harangued by Rush Limbaugh, joined the fray again. As women from around the country crowded into an auditorium to hear Obama speak, the president told them that they don’t amount to some political “interest group” and that “you shouldn’t be treated that way.”

    He then pandered to them by reminding them that he signed into law a bill that works to help women get paid as much as men do for the same jobs, and that he appointed two women to the Supreme Court…

    There was little nonpolitical about the ordeal. Even Holder, who conceded in a workgroup with a couple dozen women that he’s not supposed to veer into politics as attorney general, said that “at the end of this electoral process,” women would be better served by having Obama and Vice President Biden in charge to work on issues important to them.

That’s today’s event in microcosm — nonpolitical, yet ridiculously political. No wonder Holder lapsed into campaign mode. Why bother keeping up the charade? They needed to organize something at the White House that would give the media an excuse to keep blathering about the “war on women” and this is what they came up, replete with a few soundbite-ready lines for The One (including a gross exaggeration about Planned Parenthood offering mammograms) so that cable news would have some footage to air as an intro to yet another navel-gazing segment about Republican misogyny. Case in point: After you’re done here with O, go watch the predictably hackish hit piece on Bashir’s show this afternoon that left Mediaite aghast. Or read this paint-by-numbers attempt by lefty Brent Budowsky at The Hill to tie the Supreme Court to the “war on women” theme. Lots of water-carriers for Obama out there in the media. Today he refilled their buckets.

Exit question: In honor of O’s attempt to reduce women to a monolithic interest group based on gender, here’s one for the moms out there. How do you like it that this chump keeps dropping anvils of debt on your kids’ heads and then, when asked to stop, the best he can do is offer this pathetic travesty?

No “Hollywood victory moments” in the budget fight

On Friday, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that made Wisconsin the 49th state to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Walker had tried to get the bill passed for years while a state legislator, but his Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle,
and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:

In one stroke, the legislation takes Wisconsin from being one of the final pair of remaining holdouts on concealed carry to having one of the more permissive bills in the country.

The proposal, which takes effect Nov. 1, joins other long-sought measures that Republicans passed this year, including requiring photo IDs from voters and making health savings accounts tax-exempt.

Signing the bill in Rothschild, near Wausau, Walker noted the length of the fight over the legislation, which he had once also supported as a lawmaker.

“By signing concealed carry into law today we are making Wisconsin safer for all responsible, law abiding citizens,” he said in a statement.

The measure includes provisions requiring training and permits, which were sought by both Walker and Democrats. Some Republicans unsuccessfully pushed “constitutional carry” bills that would have allowed people to carry concealed guns without permits.

Protesters shouted about the threat to public safety facing Wisconsin residents that has been seen in, er, how many carry states? Zero. In fact, most states see a decrease in crime after the enactment of such legislation, as Rep. Cliff Stearns noted in 2009:

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.

But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.

Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”

Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

John Lott wrote about the dynamics of self-defense in his seminal book, More Guns Less Crime, which is in its third edition (and is available on Kindle now, too). Here in Minnesota, opponents also warned about the return of the Wild Wild West and blood flowing in the streets, and the scare tactics turned out to be entirely false. That’s because going through the training process provides a sobering douse of cold water on gun owners about the realities of using a firearm for self-defense. My late friend Joel Rosenberg’s excellent book on the subject Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Gun in Minnesota and his most recent effort The Carry Book gave an entertainingly dire warning to those who thought that a carry permit was the same thing as a Junior Deputy badge.

Law-abiding citizens who seek out and receive the necessary training to get the permit know exactly the stakes involved, which is why (besides the fact that they were law-abiding in the first place) these states don’t see increases in crime rates, especially in relation to permit holders. But having law-abiding citizens carry firearms may be why criminals suddenly take less interest in victimizing them, which may well be the reason for the drops in crime seen after adoption of carry-permit laws.

We’ll be celebrating Joel’s life and work at the MOB Day at the Range this Thursday evening, as well as raising funds for his family. Looks like we can also celebrate the fact that our neighbors to the east have won the right to protect themselves, too.

Obama’s reaction to jobs report: More of the same deflection

President Barack Obama still refuses to take any responsibility for delayed action on the budget, to acknowledge that, perhaps, he could have led differently (and more effectively) on this issue.
This morning, when he gave his brief reaction to today’s dismal jobs report, he implied he has been doing everything possible to strengthen the economy and again deflected blame to Congress, calling on the House and Senate to take action “right now” to alleviate the economic hardship of millions of Americans.



“The economic challenges that we face weren’t created overnight and they’re not going to be solved overnight, but the American people expect us to act on every good idea that’s out there,” Obama said.

The president says he knows that includes “rein[ing] in our deficits and learn[ing] to live within our means” and he again praised the deficit reduction meeting he hosted yesterday, but he gave Congress little to no credit for driving the debt ceiling debate.

“We had a good meeting yesterday … but real differences remain,” the president said. “We agreed to meet back here on Sunday. … The sooner the markets know that the debt ceiling will have been raised, the sooner we have a plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner we give businesses the certainty they need to grow and hire. … I’m ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work over the next several weeks and next several months.”
He’s right, of course, but it all just seems like “too little, too late,” given how perseveringly Republicans in Congress have clamored for a concrete plan from Democrats.

The president also again disingenuously mentioned various stalled free trade agreements as though Congress has been the only hold-up, when the president procrastinated sending the agreements to Congress in the first place. He even included a jab at state budget cuts — citing those cuts among reasons unemployment is up.

In which I defend Michele Bachmann

It’s funny sometimes how the plastic, contrived world of national politics can mimic the real world. While it is surely of little interest to the readership at large,
I have a friend who is a local musician. I don’t know if he’s ever going to be showing up on any top ten lists, but as a local blues / folk guy he’s pretty good. Last summer he had a show scheduled at a local bar which is fairly popular with the denizens of our area.

Unfortunately, the date coincided with an annual street festival in the city which features a major music event in the park with many talented groups. The bar wasn’t expecting much and went so far as to offer two for one drinks for ladies in a vain effort to draw in a crowd. My friend was resigned to playing to an empty room, but I said I’d drop by anyway in a show of moral support. (Even if I didn’t qualify for the free drinks.)



That summer, the weather gods turned a dim eye on the festival with rain drenching the area for two days before and predictions of more to come for the next 48 hours. The local paper’s “scene” reporter happened to catch up with my friend and half jokingly asked if a major rain-out of the street festival might help attendance for his show at the bar.

“Gee, I sure hope so,” he quipped.

Later he admitted to me that he felt awful about saying it. (Particularly after it was printed, though nobody really made a fuss over it.) He didn’t really want anyone’s good time ruined. But if it was going to be too rainy and miserable for folks to be out in the park anyway, they might as well come hear him, right?

I was reminded of that story for some reason when I saw this headline today.

Bachmann: ‘I Hope’ Higher Unemployment Will Help My Campaign

Appearing on CNBC this morning, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked about this morning’s dismal jobs report and whether higher unemployment rates might help her chances of winning in 2012. “Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up, your chances of winning office also go up?” host Carl Quintanilla asked. “Well, that could be. Again, I hope so,” Bachmann replied.

That’s a pretty provocative title and lede, isn’t it? What a horrible thing to say! So this POTUS candidate is actually cheering for American’s to suffer more just so she can edge out a couple more points in an electoral battle? You… You… #(*&#ER#

But… no. You won’t have to look far around these digs to discover that I am far from one of the “Bachmanniacs” in terms of the 2012 GOP field, but things are once again not as they seem. That headline and now widely touted story (I already saw it on MSNBC) is actually far from an accurate report. If you watch the entire video, Michele Bachmann is answering in very much the same way as my musician friend did last year. Nobody – including Bachmann – wants to see high unemployment numbers. But if government policies continue to fail to correct this critical issue and it works to the benefit of the challenger, no candidate would fight to drive off voters. They would remind them that high unemployment is a bad thing, then go on to point out the policies they would implement in office which would hopefully correct that situation.

That’s all that’s happening here, folks. Move along. Nothing to see.

Oh, and if you have a chance to hit any jazz / folk festivals this summer and it’s not raining, stop by. You’ll be doing yourself a favor.

Update (Allahpundit): Via Think Progress, here’s the clip.

From: hotair

Cambodians cheer Pacquiao victory

pacquiao-finalstats

By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 15:55:00 11/15/2009

MANILA, Philippines -- It's not only Filipinos who are shouting in jubilation over Manny Pacquiao's victory.

Cambodians are also cheering for the Filipino boxer, who has gained a following in the Southeast Asian country, according to journalist Ung Chamroeun.


Chamroeun said in a live chat with this reporter, that the match between Pacquiao and Puerto Rican Manuel Cotto was broadcast live on free TV on the Cambodian Television Network (CTN). The airing was also uninterrupted by commercials. The match was also shown on two cable channels.

Chamroeun said Cambodians had gathered in coffee shops to watch the much-awaited match.

Has Pelosi been marginalized?

Time’s Jay Newton-Small asks this question after former Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked a question that made her appear completely out of touch in the debt-ceiling debate. Despite losing the midterm elections on the issue of spending and deficits, Pelosi wondered aloud in a White House strategy meeting why debt-ceiling negotiations had to involve spending cuts at all, surprising everyone else in the room:

At Thursday’s White House meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out in stark terms the awful economic repercussions of allowing the debt ceiling to lapse. Everyone in the room agreed that defaulting on U.S. debt would be disastrous and that something must be done. At that point, Nancy Pelosi asked: Why couldn’t the debt ceiling be decoupled from deficit reduction?

Her query, after so many weeks of reports and talks centered on deficit reduction tied to a debt ceiling deal, visibly surprised some leaders in the room, several Republican and Democratic sources say. Obama politely informed the House Minority Leader, those same sources say, that that train had left the station weeks ago.

As the leader of a House caucus in a clear minority, Pelosi has already become largely irrelevant, especially after losing the midterms in such spectacular fashion. Now Newton-Small says that Barack Obama might make her even more obsolete by directly dealing with her lieutenant, Steny Hoyer, to get the moderate Democrats on board any deal:

But some Republican and Democratic sources point to Pelosi’s question in Thursday’s meeting as one that highlights how out of touch Pelosi has become on policy as she crisscrosses the country fundraising and recruiting candidates, working to regain the majority and her speakership. The President, these same sources suggested, could rely on House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer to deliver moderate Democrats to help pass the debt ceiling, thus circumventing Pelosi.”I think it’s clear she is not taken seriously by White House, Senate and Republican leadership,” said one Democratic member on the condition of anonymity. …

Boehner will likely need Democratic votes to get a debt ceiling increase passed, which is why Pelosi last week demanded a seat at the negotiating table. She has drawn a line – and made it clear to the President – that she would vehemently oppose cuts to entitlement benefits. Of all the participants in negotiations, Pelosi has the most to lose if Boehner and Obama pass a sweeping grand bargain. Such a move would burnish Boehner’s credentials as someone who can get things done, while shoring up his Tea Party support by cutting trillions of dollars from the budget. His success would undercut her argument that America would be better served with Democrats running the House.

True enough, although that train left the station long ago, too. Pelosi and the DCCC tried using a Republicans-are-Tea-Party-extremist-nutjobs campaign in 2010, and it didn’t exactly work out too well for them the first time. Republicans managed to craft a deal on the FY2011 budget within weeks while only controlling one chamber of Congress, something Pelosi couldn’t do all year with total Democratic control in Washington.

Still, I expect that this report from The Hill that provides some corroboration of Boehner’s increasing stature will make a lot of conservatives … nervous:

The relationship between Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama is building as they head into a critical meeting aimed at ending the impasse over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Since their high-profile golf outing last month, Boehner and Obama have held two private meetings to discuss a debt-limit remedy. Details of the meetings weren’t leaked to the media, and the White House has even refused to confirm they occurred.

After successfully navigating the first major legislative battle over a measure to fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year, the two men have been “building” their relationship, according to a source close to Boehner.

“They are getting to know each other better, they’re talking more often,” the official told The Hill.

Shouldn’t this be good news? After all, Republicans only control the House. In order to get any of the GOP agenda enacted, it will have to get Obama’s signature, as well as passing the Senate. The House cannot dictate policy, after all, and Republicans need cooperation at some point to succeed in getting spending reductions and other major goals of the party in this session. In order to get that kind of cooperation, Boehner needs to build a relationship with the President, who is never irrelevant, as Democrats discovered in 2007-8 when they controlled both chambers of Congress.

Still, Boehner has never really enjoyed the full trust of conservatives, not even when he held the Republican House caucus in unity against the Obama agenda in the first two years. The perception will be that Boehner is likely to get rolled rather than accomplish the rolling himself. People will point to the resolution of the FY2011 budget and their dissatisfaction with the meager level of cuts, and not without some justification, but it’s also true that Boehner has led a sea change in the terms of the debate on Capitol Hill. The debate is no longer whether to cut, but how much and where.

I’m neither encouraged nor discouraged by this development; I’d call it expected. Boehner needs to get cooperation from the White House before he can accomplish anything, and he’s doing his job — and it’s the changed political environment that has Obama suddenly seeking a cross-aisle relationship. Pelosi’s downfall demonstrates how effective Boehner has become in avoiding marginalization himself. Indeed, Democrats seem more suspicious of this development than perhaps conservatives are:

Democrats, meanwhile, have been growing more frustrated with the president for not consulting them more.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a respected member who rarely speaks out against the White House, warned the administration this week that it should not take Democratic votes for granted.

In an interview with The New York Times, Whitehouse said called it “a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it.”

Some Democrats are very worried that Obama will blink in his negotiations with the GOP. Some of them contend that Boehner got the best of Obama in the negotiations on tax cuts late last year and the fiscal 2011 budget showdown.

Well, he did, in large part because the terms of the debate changed among voters. The midterms delivered that unmistakable message, and Obama needs to respond to it in some credible manner. Democrats in the Senate ignore that reality at their peril, including Whitehouse, who has to stand for re-election in 2012. Rhode Island is usually a reliable Democratic stronghold, but even there voters may be tiring of the spendthrift federal government and those who continue to enable it.

The New York Times: Lying For The DFL

The New York Times opts to toss facts under the bus in an editorial this week about the Minnesota Shutdown:

How far will Republican lawmakers go to protect millionaires? Those who think a default on the federal government’s credit seems implausible should take a sobering look at the “closed” signs dotting Minnesota. The Republican Party there readily shut down the state’s government on Friday by refusing to raise taxes on the 7,700 Minnesotans who make more than $1 million a year.

Well, no.

The GOP refused to raise taxes. Period. Dayton chose to make it about “millionaires”, and before that “the rich”. Had Dayton chosen to raise, say, the gas tax (like the DFL majority in 2009 did), a terribly regressive tax that squats all over working-class prosperity, the GOP would have opposed that, as well.

For the Times to turn the GOP’s opposition to a tax into ”protecting millionaires” is a craven bit of rhetorical dishonesty.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, campaigned for office last year promising to raise taxes on high earners, so it was no surprise when he proposed a tax increase on families making more than $150,000 a year to help close a $5 billion budget gap. In negotiations with the Republican majority in the Legislature, he compromised and reduced the increase to those making $1 million or more, but Republicans are refusing to consider any income tax increase.

Note the rhetoric: Dayton keeping a campaign promise? Good. The GOP? Can’t be good, can it?

Like Republicans in Washington, they have the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts.

The Times’ “editorial” was apparently written by the MNDFL’s chair, Ken Martin. The GOP budget is the biggest spending increase in Minnesota history.

The governor proposed more than $2 billion in cuts but refused to slash billions more from education, health care and public safety programs.

All of which the GOP compromised on, meeting Dayton much more than halfway.

The Legislature also wanted new abortion restrictions and a voter ID law that Mr. Dayton had already vetoed. When he said no, lawmakers allowed the fiscal year to end without a budget, and state government officially shut on July 1.

The Times apparently believes the GOP should “negotiate” like a Saturn dealer; start with their “final offer” and work backward from there.

Also unmentioned by “the Times” editorial writer: Dayton walked out of the negotiations every time. The GOP Legislature was waiting in the Capitol, ready to negotiate and/or pass a “lights on” bill, to keep govermment running

More than 40 state agencies have closed, including the state parks over the July Fourth holiday. Courts and public safety agencies are operating, but essential services for the poor, like food pantries and child care subsidies, have evaporated. Many parents say they may have to quit their jobs if state-subsidized child care does not resume quickly. The shutdown will cost the state money, since many of the 22,000 laid-off workers will receive unemployment benefits and health insurance, while the treasury is unable to collect on tax audits, lottery tickets and park fees.

Unmentioned by the Times (or any of the Twin Cities media); the evidence is overwhelming that Governor Dayton rigged the shutdown to cause as much pain as possible, specifically to drive those dependent on state employment or services to try to push moderate Republicans into wobbling.

As painful as the closure may become, the governor is right not to yield to the extremist ideology the Republicans are pursuing in St. Paul, Washington and across the country.

“Extremist ideology”.

The GOP ran very openly on a platform of holding the line on taxes and spending. Perhaps you remember the Tea Party – it was in all the papers, including the Times.

Extremist? Governor Dayton won with 43% of the vote; the GOP majorities had, by definition, over 50% of the state’s voters pick them (since the third-party challenges were virtually nonexistant in legislative races in 2010). Can a policy chosen by over half the voters be “extemist?”

----
from: hotair

Charlie Rangel on debt: What would Jesus do? Huckabee to Rangel: Well, for starters, he’d pay his taxes

To cleanse the palate, via Mediaite, an easy joke but a gratifying one.

We’ve actually reached the point of class warfare in American politics where Rangel’s pander isn’t even the dumbest one this week.

Quotes of the day

“House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:


“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

***
“I got this from a GOP congressional source later in the afternoon:

“WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price. It is increasingly likely that we aren’t going to see a ‘big’ deal if the WH doesn’t budge. Speaker looks to be holding strong…

“[Update 7:39 PM] Appears that the basic framework for future tax reform could not be resolved.

“The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.”

***
“Tax reform is a worthwhile policy goal, and Mr. Boehner is right to pursue it. But the only way he can avoid being taken for a ride by Democrats is if all parts of any deal are negotiated, voted on and then implemented immediately. Two men, one deal, once. Promises of future action aren’t credible.

“Even if Mr. Obama is sincere on tax reform, he can’t guarantee he can deliver Senate Democrats who are desperate to keep their majority in 2012, much less Nancy Pelosi. We’re told that in Thursday’s White House meeting, Mr. Obama promised to veto any short-term debt-limit deal to give the two sides more time to negotiate. If that’s true, then the President isn’t serious. It means he is using the pressure of the August 2 deadline to bull-rush Mr. Boehner into a bad deal.

“If Mr. Obama is sincere about a long-term spending and tax reform agreement, he’ll take the time to get it right. If he insists on issuing ultimatums, then House Republicans would be better off passing a debt-limit ceiling for a few months with comparable spending cuts and letting Senate Democrats do the same. Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.”

***
“In the latest salvo in their campaign to portray Republicans as extremists for not wanting to accept tax increases as part of a budget deal, liberal bloggers led by Ezra Klein have been promoting a chart showing that in the past, the GOP has been willing to accept deals that are far less generous than what President Obama is supposedly offering them. Yet as Conn Carroll pointed out earlier, there’s a big difference between budget deals as negotiated, and budget deals as implemented. The reason why today’s conservatives are much less tolerant of deals that include tax hikes is that they’ve learned from history that the reality of such agreements is that taxes go up as negotiated, but Congress doesn’t deliver the promised spending cuts. No past deal poisoned the well more than the 1990 budget pact, in which President Bush infamously broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge…

“Back in 1990, the establishment was saying the same things about the need for a ‘balanced approach’ in which all sides sacrifice something to reduce the deficit. Yet what we ended up with in reality was a deal that raised taxes and slashed military spending (in other words, the liberal approach) while entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending rose by an even higher amount than was projected before a deal. Is it any wonder that today’s conservatives are deeply suspicious of budget deals in which Republicans agree to raise taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts?”

***
“The media will initially be all excited about the deal, but will turn almost instantly towards declaring it has no chance to pass, seizing on every criticism of the package or declaration of opposition as sure-fire signs the proposal is dead. The outcry against the package (both before and after the details are known) will be intense on both the left and the right. Interest groups from all quarters will denounce the measure as unacceptable. National security conservatives, for example, will declare that the Pentagon cuts will eviscerate America’s ability to defend itself; liberal groups will deem the entitlement reductions unacceptable. Thumbs down will also come from Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh, and every Republican running for president in 2012…

“As the House prepares to vote, the media will declare again that there is virtually no chance of passage. Strange-bedfellow allies, including prominent elements of Big Business and Big Labor – plus, inevitably, Bill Clinton – will make the ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ argument in public and in private. As the measure’s details become more known, there will be another round of fly-specking from webizens of the left and the right, declaring the package the worst thing ever considered by Congress in American history. Obama will give some blockbuster speech explaining why the bill must pass. The measure will appear dead both before and immediately after his speech. Then a handful of liberal and conservative House members will come off the fence and declare themselves in favor (some might even flip from declared opposition)…

“And, then, the bill will heart-stoppingly pass the House, with some secret backroom deals and lobbying that will be revealed (if ever) only long after the fact. Reps. Bachmann and Pelosi will vote against. And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”

***
“Politicians have always postured in public and played poker in private, but as both sides dithered over the debt ceiling, even grizzled veterans grew disgusted. ‘My side’s just as guilty. I think we’re going to have a crisis because politics is going to trump the good of the country,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. ‘It doesn’t sound like there are any real adults any more, including in the White House.’”

***

Shep Smith: C’mon, do we really need a new law aimed at Casey Anthony situations?

Via Mediaite, a screechy follow-up on “Caylee’s Law,” which I touched on in yesterday’s post about the deep, deep thoughts of the Anthony jury. This could have been an interesting segment: See, for example, this survey in Salon of laws passed in response to specific crimes and how they’ve fared in practice. How often will police and prosecutors need Caylee’s Law? Will it do more harm than good by exposing the innocent to unfair charges? Shouldn’t there be a cooling-off period of reflection before writing legislation in response to an infuriating event? (“Yes!” say Patriot Act opponents.) Good questions all, but we never get to them because Shep’s too busy trying to parse whether Caylee Anthony was ever really “missing” when she was almost certainly dead from the start and mommy dearest knew it. Except … mommy dearest insisted that she didn’t know it and she got 12 people to kinda sorta believe her on that. From the jury’s perspective, Casey did think Caylee was genuinely missing and just didn’t care enough to report it. That’s what the law’s designed to address. Would have come in handy once all the other charges fell apart, no?

Maybe all Shep’s saying is that it’s unlikely the law will deter anyone. Any innocent parent will report their kid missing the instant they know about it whereas any guilty parent who’s responsible for their kid’s disappearance either won’t report it, notwithstanding Caylee’s Law, or will report it only after they think the incriminating evidence is gone. Fair enough, but deterrence isn’t the point. The point is to give prosecutors a fallback charge in cases like Anthony’s where there’s good reason to believe that a parent’s killed or abducted their kid but not enough evidence to convict them of one of those more serious crimes. How often that unusual set of circumstances obtains, I don’t know, but unless you think we’re in for a wave of future child killers refusing to call the police because they saw how that strategy worked for Casey, the effect will likely be negligible.

Oh — since we’re on the subject, you’ll be pleased to know that the first million-dollar interview offer has been withdrawn by “The Jerry Springer Show” after an immediate backlash. That’s how toxic she is. Too toxic for … Jerry Springer.

Crude oil whiplash? Blame the banks

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• Print
• Comment

By Colin Barr June 16, 2011: 6:37 AM ET Want to see the plump financial tail wag the scrawny economic dog? Look no further than the wild, wooly oil markets.
Crude futures for delivery next month tumbled $4 and change in New York Wednesday, marking their biggest decline in a month. The recession obsession being what it is, the selloff was taken as confirming poor prospects for U.S. growth and rising risks that Europe will melt down.

But why now?

But what Wednesday's plunge actually shows is how the bankers and their buddies are having their way with the economy yet again. Financial types – starting with the big banks that so graciously lean on our tax dollars, but also hedge funds and asset managers that sell index funds and the like – have spent the past half decade or so flooding into commodities. These markets are supposed to serve producers and consumers, but lately have served as much as anything as a profit center for deep-pocketed speculators.
That mismatch helps to explain why the price of crude oil, which is broadly driven by slow-moving global supply and demand trends, has been whipping around so viciously. Yes, demand is rising and supplies are on the tight side, but let's face it, the global economy looks more or less the same now as it did at this time last year.
Yet the price of London-traded Brent crude has risen by half in the meantime, to a recent $117. This is, needless to say, not a salutary development -- at least for those of us who buy our petroleum products by the gallon rather than the thousand-barrel contract.
Fundamentals? With the casino crowd in control, who needs 'em?
"What's going on in crude is just crazy," says Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research in Chicago. "A 5% fall in the front-month futures contract in a day? How? Demand is certainly not going to fall that much between now and then, and supplycan't increase enough to justify it either."
The notion that the banks and other financial types have perverted commodity markets isn't a new one. A United Nations report released this month concludes that multiplying financial interests have pushed up prices and increased market volatility. The recent recovery differed from previous ones, the report says, in that the prices of oil and other goods rose in anticipation of, rather than in response to, rising demand.
This speculative shift exposes the global economy to false inflation shocks and overreacting central bankers (this means you, Jean-Claude Trichet).
The U.N. concludes that at the very least, regulators must enhance transparency in the markets for goods such as grains, metals and energy. They should also, needless to say, tighten regulation of big trading firms.
As it happens, the United States last year passed a law called the Dodd-Frank Act that aims to do these sorts of things, at least to some degree. But Americans like nothing better than stuff that is bad for us, so congressional Republicans are pushing back -- the banks have given us so much, after all! -- and regulators are putting off making the rules stand up.
Hey, why defuse the weapons of financial mass destruction when doing so would squeeze big political contributors' bottom lines?
"We have passed a 2,100-page law that can't even be enforced because no one can agree on how to do it," says Simons. "People are going to look at this and say, here's the gang that can't shoot straight."
The gang that may be able to shoot straight but chooses not to is the banks, which have spent the past year calling for big spikes and steep selloffs, often in the same breath. If you didn't know any better you might think this is the work of guys intent on goosing trading revenue at the expense of all else.
As always, the unshining example of this is Goldman Sachs (GS), whose commodities researchers have been freely revising their take on oil price trends much the way Sen. John Kerry used to change his vote on Iraq.
Goldman was telling clients to buy oil futures last fall as the Fed-fueled rally in riskier assets started. It then warned in April that the rally was overdone – before changing again in May with a call for a new spike.
This spin-like-a-top routine is particularly notable because Goldman is the E.F. Hutton of Wall Street oil desks. It can say practically anything and people will listen.
"It's just irresponsible to know you have that sort of influence and go throwing it around that way," says Dan Dicker, a longtime oil trader whose recent book, Oil's Endless Bid, shows how financial firms have changed the energy markets, and not for the better.
Dicker says the Pavlov's dog reaction to Goldman's many oil calls illustrates a concept that plays prominently in the U.N. report – the "intentional herding" that takes place when traders latch onto a new price trend. The herding tends to unmoor prices from fundamentals, giving producers and consumers false signals and distorting investment decisions. That means gains for traders who get in early enough -- at the expense of the rest of the economy. Your tax dollars at work.
This results in, among other things, gasoline at $3.80 a gallon at a time when "there is no good economic reason for the oil price to be as high as it is," Dicker says.
That arrangement is undeniably bad for you and me. But you could swear that what Congress cares about is what's good for the Goldman Sachs energy desk, and until we see oil at $180 a barrel or something who's going to argue?
"I don't see the political will to turn the tide on this," says Dicker. "The forces making money doing this are a lot stronger than the people trying to contain it."

Crude oil whiplash? Blame the banks

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• Print
• CommenBy Colin Barr June 16, 2011: 6:37 AM ET Want to see the plump financial tail wag the scrawny economic dog? Look no further than the wild, wooly oil markets.

Crude futures for delivery next month tumbled $4 and change in New York Wednesday, marking their biggest decline in a month. The recession obsession being what it is, the selloff was taken as confirming poor prospects for U.S. growth and rising risks that Europe will melt down.

But why now?

But what Wednesday's plunge actually shows is how the bankers and their buddies are having their way with the economy yet again. Financial types – starting with the big banks that so graciously lean on our tax dollars, but also hedge funds and asset managers that sell index funds and the like – have spent the past half decade or so flooding into commodities. These markets are supposed to serve producers and consumers, but lately have served as much as anything as a profit center for deep-pocketed speculators.
That mismatch helps to explain why the price of crude oil, which is broadly driven by slow-moving global supply and demand trends, has been whipping around so viciously. Yes, demand is rising and supplies are on the tight side, but let's face it, the global economy looks more or less the same now as it did at this time last year.
Yet the price of London-traded Brent crude has risen by half in the meantime, to a recent $117. This is, needless to say, not a salutary development -- at least for those of us who buy our petroleum products by the gallon rather than the thousand-barrel contract.
Fundamentals? With the casino crowd in control, who needs 'em?
"What's going on in crude is just crazy," says Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research in Chicago. "A 5% fall in the front-month futures contract in a day? How? Demand is certainly not going to fall that much between now and then, and supplycan't increase enough to justify it either."
The notion that the banks and other financial types have perverted commodity markets isn't a new one. A United Nations report released this month concludes that multiplying financial interests have pushed up prices and increased market volatility. The recent recovery differed from previous ones, the report says, in that the prices of oil and other goods rose in anticipation of, rather than in response to, rising demand.
This speculative shift exposes the global economy to false inflation shocks and overreacting central bankers (this means you, Jean-Claude Trichet).
The U.N. concludes that at the very least, regulators must enhance transparency in the markets for goods such as grains, metals and energy. They should also, needless to say, tighten regulation of big trading firms.
As it happens, the United States last year passed a law called the Dodd-Frank Act that aims to do these sorts of things, at least to some degree. But Americans like nothing better than stuff that is bad for us, so congressional Republicans are pushing back -- the banks have given us so much, after all! -- and regulators are putting off making the rules stand up.
Hey, why defuse the weapons of financial mass destruction when doing so would squeeze big political contributors' bottom lines?
"We have passed a 2,100-page law that can't even be enforced because no one can agree on how to do it," says Simons. "People are going to look at this and say, here's the gang that can't shoot straight."
The gang that may be able to shoot straight but chooses not to is the banks, which have spent the past year calling for big spikes and steep selloffs, often in the same breath. If you didn't know any better you might think this is the work of guys intent on goosing trading revenue at the expense of all else.
As always, the unshining example of this is Goldman Sachs (GS), whose commodities researchers have been freely revising their take on oil price trends much the way Sen. John Kerry used to change his vote on Iraq.
Goldman was telling clients to buy oil futures last fall as the Fed-fueled rally in riskier assets started. It then warned in April that the rally was overdone – before changing again in May with a call for a new spike.
This spin-like-a-top routine is particularly notable because Goldman is the E.F. Hutton of Wall Street oil desks. It can say practically anything and people will listen.
"It's just irresponsible to know you have that sort of influence and go throwing it around that way," says Dan Dicker, a longtime oil trader whose recent book, Oil's Endless Bid, shows how financial firms have changed the energy markets, and not for the better.
Dicker says the Pavlov's dog reaction to Goldman's many oil calls illustrates a concept that plays prominently in the U.N. report – the "intentional herding" that takes place when traders latch onto a new price trend. The herding tends to unmoor prices from fundamentals, giving producers and consumers false signals and distorting investment decisions. That means gains for traders who get in early enough -- at the expense of the rest of the economy. Your tax dollars at work.
This results in, among other things, gasoline at $3.80 a gallon at a time when "there is no good economic reason for the oil price to be as high as it is," Dicker says.
That arrangement is undeniably bad for you and me. But you could swear that what Congress cares about is what's good for the Goldman Sachs energy desk, and until we see oil at $180 a barrel or something who's going to argue?
"I don't see the political will to turn the tide on this," says Dicker. "The forces making money doing this are a lot stronger than the people trying to contain it."