Eric Holder, Emersonian -- UPDATE, Wrong Man of Letters, Sir

UPDATE:  Oops -- I got confused. It was Emerson, but rather poet Thomas Gray who offered the lines "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Shouldn't really blog before I've had my coffee.

The great 19th Century American thinker Ralph Waldo Emerson offered many brilliant observations, including this one, which is sometimes misunderstood, "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

As it turns out, "where" turns out to be the Justice Department, where ignorance is a growth industry, as newly minted skeptic Dana Milbank notes:

As the nation’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder is privy to all kinds of sensitive information. But he seems to be proud of how little he knows.

Why didn’t his Justice Department inform the Associated Press, as the law requires, before pawing through reporters’ phone records?

“I do not know,” the attorney general told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday afternoon, “why that was or was not done. I simply don’t have a factual basis to answer that question.”

Why didn’t the DOJ seek the AP’s cooperation, as the law also requires, before issuing subpoenas?

“I don’t know what happened there,” Holder replied. “I was recused from the case.”

Why, asked the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), was the whole matter handled in a manner that appears “contrary to the law and standard procedure”?

“I don’t have a factual basis to answer the questions that you have asked, because I was recused,” the attorney general said.

This didn't pass Milbank's smell test:

In a sense, the two topics that dogged Holder most on Wednesday — the AP phone records and the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups — were one and the same. In both cases, Americans are being punished and intimidated for exercising their right of free expression — by the taxing authorities, in the conservatives’ case, and by federal prosecutors, in the reporters’ case.

I believe the term we're looking for here is "abuse of power."

Now it's hard to blame Holder for taking the Emersonian Gray stance here. Given what we already know about how things go in the Justice Department, it would be better for Holder not to have first-hand knowledge of how his underlings are behaving.

The Value of Superior Forecasting

Everyone agrees that plans work better if you have an accurate forecast of what to expect before it actually happens. I have to assume that it was brilliant forecasting that led to this plan of action:

Top IRS officials have been saying that a “significant increase”in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using such politically loaded phrases as “Tea Party,” “patriots,”and “9/12.”

Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

Emphasis mine. Yep, it had to be forecasting.

The Glass Menagerie

Go, then! Go to the moon-you selfish dreamer!

“Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.”

-- Tennessee Williams, "The Glass Menagerie"

So we got a look at the plans for the new Vikings stadium the other day and it's very,well, glassy:

The nearly billion-dollar Viking stadium that will rise from the ruins of the old Metrodome will be big and bold, and it will put fans closer to the action than any other venue in professional football.

It’ll have giant pivoting glass doors that open to the downtown Minneapolis skyline and a roof that, while not retractable, will let in so much sunlight come game days, fans will feel as though they’re sitting outdoors.

I don't know why, but that level of hype always makes me think of this song:

We're supposed to be wowed by the nifty artists' renderings and whatnot and not think too much about the cost and that we still don't have a way to pay for this thing. We can choose to live with our illusions, but that reality doesn't go away just because we have cool looking pictures.

And about that paying for it part:

First, e-pulltabs virtually collapsed as a revenue source for the state’s share of the new Vikings stadium.Now the sports memorabilia tax, once thought to be a fallback plan, may also be doomed.

The deuce you say? Why would that be?

With only six days left in the legislative session, Senate leaders on Tuesday declared the idea of taxing sports memorabilia nearly dead, because of the effect it might have on a single corporation: Target.

Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearwater, said Tuesday that because the tax would be levied at the wholesale level, it would have a disparate impact on Target, which warehouses the sports memorabilia for its more than 1,700 U.S. stores in Minnesota.

Yeah, I suppose slapping a wholesale tax on gear that Target would ordinarily sell in Colma, California or McAllen, Texas, might be a wee bit of a problem. So now what?

“We’re hearing there’s this supersecret plan to fund the shortfall in the Vikings stadium. The governor hasn’t said what it is,” said Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, the ranking minority member on the Taxes Committee. “We don’t know what their plans are. It seems, six days out, they would have a better framework at least for the close of session here.”

Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said he’s not worried. “I think they can find $25 million or whatever it takes” to fill in the gambling shortfall, he said.Legislators are looking at a wide range of other solutions, including corporate taxes, income taxes or even cigarette taxes to help fund the stadium.

Bakk can't "find" $25 million. But he can take it out of our wallets. And that's what's going to happen.

Wake Up And Smell the Chicago -- The Thread of Narrative

Taken individually, the trio of scandals that are now bedeviling the Obama administration don't make a whole lot of sense. Why would anyone serving the President think it would be possible to get by with:

• Running with a cock and bull story about a YouTube video being the cause of an obvious terrorist attack in Benghazi; or
• Using the power of the IRS to audit and otherwise harass Tea Party organizations; or
• Using the power of the Justice Department to seize phone records of the Associated Press?

The answer is narrative. It has long been evident that the Obama administration is all about maintaining a narrative and winning the news cycle. My suspicion is that the one true thing that Obama and his people know is how to mount a campaign. Successful campaigns are able to manage the flow of information and establish a narrative about the candidate. To a certain extent, all organizations try to do such things.

In each instance, gaining control of the narrative must have seemed quite important. In the case of Benghazi, it's important to remember that Obama's campaign had just spent a lot of time bragging about how al-Qaida was on the run. What happened in Benghazi made those boasts seem pretty hollow, so it was important to establish a story that made it less about the usual proclivities of terrorists and more about provocations by others.

Similarly, the Tea Party certainly has been a threat to the Obama agenda and in 2010, it was certainly making significant progress in motivating people to get involved in the political process, in many cases people who were in opposition to what Team Obama was trying to do. The temptation must have been quite great for people in the administration to rid themselves of these meddling priests.

While it's early, the reporting on the AP case indicates a similar pattern. The reason that Justice went after telephone records is that it was trying to figure out who was leaking information. Establishing who was contacting AP reporters would be key in stopping the leaks.

All of these moves are understandable. If your goal is to maintain your power base, adverse publicity is a real problem. And let's face it, damage control is no fun -- it's always better to be on offense, so the temptation to use available power to hamper your opponents is always tough to resist. Unfortunately for the president and his team, taken together these moves look pretty Nixonian. And members of Obama's own party are starting to notice:

Outraged Bay State Democrats are blasting President Obama for exhibiting a Nixonian abuse of power after the stunning news that the Department of Justice secretly obtained Associated Press phone records and the IRS targeted conservative groups — new scandals emerging against the backdrop of heightened Benghazi criticism.

“There’s no way in the world I’m going to defend that. Hell, I spent my youth vilifying the Nixon administration for doing the same thing. If they did that, there should be hell to pay,” U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) said about the IRS scandal. “Not only is it bad government and bad to society, it is horrendous politics. The worst thing you can do is give your opponent an easy hammer with which to hit you.”

“It doesn’t seem to be a couple rogue employees. This appeared to be a systemic issue,” said U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-South Boston), who wants to investigate the matter as a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee already has scheduled a hearing on the issue for this week, Lynch said, adding, “No American should find themselves the target of the IRS or any other federal organization because of their political beliefs.”

Hard to argue with any of that. If politicians in deep blue Massachusetts are worried about these things and willing to issue full-on blasts of this sort, there's likely more revelations to come.

One last thing -- the AP scandal is the one that Team Obama is most likely to regret, because the MSM has been willing to accept and promulgate the Team Obama message all along. It's one thing to use your power against your enemies, but when you mess with your friends, you are asking for trouble. I suspect that the AP is going to be a lot less amenable to helping out Team Obama going forward. Don't spit in the face of your water carriers, kids.

Justice in Philadelphia

Kermit Gosnell is going away:

Former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of three babies authorities said were born alive before having their necks cut with scissors. A jury found Gosnell not guilty of first-degree murder in a fourth baby’s death.

In addition to the murder charges, the 72-year-old was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of former patient Karnamaya Mongar.

Gosnell was also found guilty of several other crimes including one count of infanticide, two counts of conspiracy, 21 of 24 counts of abortion of an unborn child of 24 weeks or more and 208 of 227 counts of violation of informed consent of an abortion.

In all, Gosnell was found guilty of 237 crimes. He will now face the death penalty in the sentencing phase, which will begin a week from Tuesday.

No matter what you think about abortion, or Roe v. Wade, or anything else, there was no defending this guy, who is a straight up monster. I have come to oppose the death penalty but it's cases like this that make it tough to maintain that stance.

The link, which comes from NBC News in Philadelphia, provides a very good synopsis of the particulars of Gosnell's many, many crimes. You should read it all, although I think most people would find the particulars horrifying.

Wake Up and Smell The Chicago -- Associated Press Edition

So you don't think Benghazi is much, and maybe you're not sure that siccing the IRS on Tea Party groups rises to the level of something or other. How about grabbing two months of phone records from the Associated Press? Mind-boggling:

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

There's a lot more at the link, which I'd excerpt, except that AP doesn't like it if you do that very much. Go read it in full.

Answering a Question That Isn't Being Asked

This is called framing the argument:

But this is my point: utter madness is what today’s Republicans do. You can present to me every logical argument you desire. Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office.

That's the voice of Michael Tomasky, an ace purveyor of conventional wisdom, emoting about the possibility that Republicans are gonna try to impeach Barack Obama. It's almost nostalgic, the "doesn't rise to the level high crime" stuff that we heard over and over again, 15 years ago now, when ol' Bill Clinton was in office. Those rat bastard Republicans are at it again!

Ann Althouse makes the salient point:

Why do people say "logic" when they are obviously not talking about logic? He's talking about what the facts are, how to characterize the facts, and what the standard for impeachment is. None of that is pinned down. We always only have evidence of what the facts are, and currently we don't even have all the evidence of the facts. Whether the facts say "tragedy" and "confusion" and "mistakes" or something more nefarious hasn't been resolved.

I suppose there's someone, somewhere, calling for Obama to be impeached. There's no reason to believe it would ever happen, because:

• Harry Reid would stop any effort in the Senate cold; and
• If Obama were removed from office, Joe Biden would be president, and that would hardly be an improvement

My interest in Benghazi and whatever happened with the IRS is actually pretty simple -- I want to find out the truth. There are any number of questions that we haven't even approached yet. With respect to Benghazi, we need to find out (a) why Ambassador Stevens was there, especially since he had to know that he wasn't going to be protected; and (b) who decided to make the Nakoula video the key talking point that Susan Rice offered on the Sunday talk shows, and why. I have my guesses on both questions, but they are only guesses. It would be better to know the truth.

And as for those who are squawking about this being an effort to "get" Hillary Clinton, I'd say this: I don't much care about her, or her ambitions. If she's implicated in something that destroys her chance to run for president in 2016, too bad. One would think that the Democrats would have little difficulty finding another candidate to be their standard bearer.

Mother's Little Helpers

Most people spend Mother's Day by spending a little quality time with their mothers. Maybe they take Mom out to lunch, or buy her some flowers or a nice gift.

That's not what happened on Mother's Day in St. Paul:

DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Democratic legislative leaders reached a budget agreement Sunday that calls for $2 billion in new taxes and boosts spending for schools and property tax relief.

The Democrats are relying on a tobacco tax hike and the governor’s long-sought income tax increase on high earners to pay for the new spending. The budget outline scraps a proposed sales tax on clothing, but lawmakers continue to consider resurrecting at least part of a heavily criticized plan to tax businesses services.

We've been through this enough times to dispense with the arguments. All that needs to be said was said by Dayton himself:

“It’s a budget that is going to work for Minnesota. It’s going to put Minnesota to work,” Dayton said Sunday afternoon. “It’s going to fulfill our promises to invest in education and infrastructure. We’re going to see a better Minnesota as a result of this budget.”

Fortunately, we're only about 18 months away from having a chance to weigh in on whether or not taxing and spending more actually delivers a "better Minnesota."

"Wake up and smell the Chicago."

That's the apt summation given by Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds as he offered links to a number of stories concerning the news that the IRS was targeting Tea Party-affiliated groups for additional scrutiny.

As alert readers of this feature know, I spent five years in Chicago, from 1987 through 1992. When I first came to Chicago, Harold Washington was the mayor. By the time I left, the Daley restoration had taken place. While it would be an overstatement to say that Washington was a reformer, he had made some efforts to change the long-standing system of spoils, patronage and intimidation that is the hallmark of Chicago politics. By the end of 1992, the spoils system was back in high gear.

It was in this time frame that Barack Obama came to Chicago and began his political ascent. We have heard that somehow Obama wasn't really part of all the usual corruption and self-dealing, that somehow he rose through the system without becoming tainted by it in any way. We saw a variation of this claim from Ace Commenter Rich earlier this week:

First off, let me thank you for printing the litany of failed Conservative Talking points you guys have been peddling for 5 or 6 years now. It's quite amusing, and gives me a warm fuzzy when I go down the list: TUCC-fail!, Bill Ayers-fail!, Khalidi-fail!, Daley-fail!, Blagojevich-fail!, Wright-fail!, Pfleger-fail!, Jackson-fail! and now, we can add Benghazi! Almost chronological too.

Yeah, it's all warm and fuzzy stuff -- all those nasty Republicans stepping on rakes. Since "The Great Gatsby" is on our minds again because of Baz Luhrmann's movie version being out in the theaters now, I'm reminded of this exchange from the book:

Who is he anyhow, an actor?" 

"No." 

"A dentist?"

"...No, he's a gambler." Gatsby hesitated, then added coolly: "He's the man who fixed the World Series back in 1919."

"Fixed the World Series?" I repeated. 

The idea staggered me. I remembered, of course, that the World Series had been fixed in 1919, but if I had thought of it at all I would have thought of it as something that merely happened, the end of an inevitable chain. It never occurred to me that one man could start to play with the faith of fifty million people--with the singlemindedness of a burglar blowing a safe. 

"How did he happen to do that?" I asked after a minute.

"He just saw the opportunity." 

"Why isn't he in jail?" 

"They can't get him, old sport. He's a smart man."

For a long time now, that's been the conceit. They can't get him, old sport. There's nothing to all these stories. It all happened a long time ago. What difference does it make? Forward. Yeah, it's easy to see why that would make people feel all warm and fuzzy.

It's never occurred to a lot of people that one man could play with the faith of a lot more than fifty million people. And it's taken a lot of enabling to get to this point. We've seen assertions like this:

President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn’t received much attention: He’s honest.

And this:

You can't even say it's election-year politics because the Republicans have been pounding this thing for over a year now. And not just the Republicans in Congress, the entire right-wing media propaganda empire has really seized on this because President Obama, his administration, has been remarkably scandal free. Really.

And this:

But I do think there are a couple of things that are character-logical that will guard against some of the common flaws of second terms. First, he’s a man of high integrity who has run a very clean administration. You can argue with this or that or behavior. There have been signs of insularity and arrogance, but there have been no scandals. And the rate of scandals plaguing second terms is extremely high. I think he’s less prone to that.

Did you believe those assertions? Or have you received this message?

Maybe Ace Commenter Rich's triumphalism will prove out and he'll be able to add this week's revelations to the list of "fail!" that makes him feel so warm and fuzzy. I'm not so sure, though, when you have the Washington Post weighing in with this level of outrage:

One line of questioning should focus on how the IRS’s procedures failed to catch this “shortcut” before its employees began using it. Another should center on how this misguided practice came to light, and on what the IRS planned and plans to do about it. Ms. Lerner was responding to a question when the news first came out; it’s not clear whether the government intended otherwise to disclose what had happened. Nor have officials been clear whether disciplinary measures have been taken.

Did some officials hope never to reveal this wrongdoing? Did others hope it could quickly get lost in the weekend news cycle? Misguided, if so. We hope to hear Democratic leaders as well as Republican ones loudly saying so.

Democrats holding this administration to account? Now that would be a reason to feel warm and fuzzy.

Reassuring

A happy reminder from National Journal:

The Internal Revenue Service’s admission that it inappropriately targeted conservative political groups for special scrutiny during the 2012 presidential election only gives congressional Republicans more ammunition as they try to defund and weaken the agency.

For the past few years, Republican lawmakers have sought to slash the funding of the IRS. Reducing the agency’s budget makes it more difficult for it to collect taxes and audit individuals. (Score one for Republicans who dislike high taxes).

But, more importantly, the IRS is also one of the key agencies that will implement the Affordable Care Act. Much of the funding stream for the incoming health care law, arguably the president’s signature legislative achievement, comes from two tax increases: a 3.8 percent hike on investment income for wealthy individuals, estates, and trusts, as well as an additional Medicare tax.

Don't you feel better now?

Just a suggestion

Maybe the Lege could go back to the gay marriage thing instead of doing things like this:

Defying the wishes of the governor, DFL senators Friday afternoon amended a transportation finance bill to include increases to gasoline and sales taxes for state highways and metro transit.

The move, if it survives further Senate and House action and resistance by Gov. Mark Dayton, would raise the gasoline tax by 5 cents a gallon and increase the metro sales tax for transit by a half-cent.

When **Mark Dayton** thinks you're raising taxes too much, it's like the comparison that Triumph the Insult Comic Dog makes at about 3:20 in this clip, which is needless to say NSFW:

Seriously, folks -- go work on that gay marriage stuff instead. Really.

Nice work, kids

That second term thing isn't going so well for President Obama. The Benghazi situation is not going away soon and this story looks to be a very big deal:

Lois Lerner, the director of the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged that the agency had singled out nonprofit applicants with the terms “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their titles in an effort to respond to a surge in applications for tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

She insisted that the move was not driven by politics, but she added, “We made some mistakes; some people didn’t use good judgment.”

And how! Yep, mistakes were made, all right. If you're going to tell folks that the IRS "singled out" Tea Party organizations and then in the same breath insist the moves aren't driven by politics, you're going to be hooted off the stage.

Someone decided that auditing Tea Party groups was a good idea. I think we can safely assume that we'll find out precisely who that someone is. And it won't go well for them. There's a lot more at the link and it's worth your time.

Gay Marriage in Minnesota

It's going to happen:

A bipartisan coalition in the Minnesota House passed a measure Thursday to legalize same sex-marriage, setting in motion what could be a historic turning point for gay and lesbian rights in Minnesota.

“All Minnesotans deserve the freedom to marry the person they love and we are proud to take this historic vote to ensure same-sex couples have that right,” said House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFLMinneapolis.

The dramatic vote came after a sometimes passionate, three-hour debate that culminated when four Republican members privately wrestling with the issue joined a majority of Democrats to pass the measure 75-59. The debate raged as hundreds of advocates from both sides gathered outside the House gallery chanting, waving signs and praying.

Two thoughts:

• If we're going to have gay marriage, it's far better that it come through the legislature than through a judge's edict. You can argue all day long whether the majority of Minnesotans actually support gay marriage, but what matters is that a majority of their elected representatives do. We sent these folks to St. Paul and they have decided the matter on our behalf. That's how the system works and if you really believe in the system, you have to let it work even when the results aren't amenable to your wishes.
• My guess is that, in the short term, not much will change. What happens in the long term is a more interesting question. As I've said before, gay marriage is a longitudinal societal change with ramifications that will become evident only after many more years. And many of the people who regularly read this feature are likely to be pushing up daisies by the time the evidence is in.

Why bother?

Understanding the world requires some effort. Understanding what happened in Benghazi requires even more effort. Here's a screen shot of the Star Tribune's "Latest News" on their website this morning:

All the news that's fit to print

What this tells you is that, at least in the view of the largest local media outlet, Benghazi is less important than nine other stories and that the events of yesterday's hearing were talking about "confusion" and that there really wasn't any malfeasance at all. Just confusion..

There's no confusion at all about the larger meaning, really. Benghazi is a story that we are not supposed to acknowledge, except in passing. As we've learned repeatedly, it happened a long time ago and what difference does it make?

So why continue to talk about the story? Why beat your head against the wall and pretend that the pixels that fly around a lightly-read website will make any difference at all? Isn't just all a futile gesture, a fart in the wind?

For me, it matters because we need to establish the truth of what happened and to document it, even if the truth is ignored because it isn't especially helpful to people. We need to learn what really was going in Benghazi because there are still a lot of questions left to be resolved, including a crucial one -- what was Ambassador Christopher Stevens doing there at all? Even if we set aside the blame game, there's an important question involved in why an ambassador would be put (or put himself) in harm's way. This is a question that has yet to be answered. Maybe someday we'll find out.

I've never thought that Benghazi would turn into Obama's version of Watergate, or even his version of Iran-Contra, because there's little appetite among the chattering classes to do the investigative work necessary to explain the story to people who are otherwise engaged in things like the Arias trial or the discovery of the missing young women in Cleveland. We really don't have a national conversation of the sort that was possible in 1973, when most people got their news based on the editorial decisions of the New York Times and the Washington Post, filtered through the national news broadcasts of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and the like.

Having said that, the editorial decisions of the MSM still matter quite a lot, which is why the Benghazi hearings received less coverage yesterday than when Sally Field, Sissy Spacek and Jessica Lange testified before Congress about farm issues back the day, because they'd all happened to be cast in movies that were about farming.

So it goes. If it falls to a bunch of penny ante bloggers to talk about these issues, that's what we'll do. At least I will.

Apologies to Ernie K-Doe, the Yardbirds and Warren Zevon, among many others

Well there's a certain revenue source that Gov. Dayton's been sweet on, a long, long time.

What's its name?

He can't tell you. (Awwww.)

Gov. Mark Dayton said Wednesday that state officials are working on a new source of money to pay the state’s share of the new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

Dayton would not reveal the source of money, but said the plan does not include the team paying a larger share of the new $975 million stadium to be built on the site of the Metrodome

He can't reveal its name, until it's his.

What's its name?

He can't tell you. (Awww.)

He tried to use e-pulltabs time and time again

(Yeah...)

Still no revenue appeared in the end

So there's a certain revenue source he's sweet on a long, long time.

What's its name?

He can't tell you. (Awww.)

I'm afraid not.

Shut up, Brian Lambert explained

So yesterday I gave an endorsement to our pal First Ringer's take on the Chris Kluwe affair. Oddly enough, local media snark merchant Brian Lambert wasn't as impressed and inveighed against FR over at MinnPost:

On the topic of Kluwe, who last time I checked had no problem attaching his name to everything he said, “First Ringer” on the conservative blog site “True North” says: “Kluwe’s tactics are the epitome of his generation — foul-mouthed personal attacks against anyone who disagrees. ... In truth, the media needs Chris Kluwe’s release to be about his vocal and abusive activism. Because admitting to solidarity with Kluwe’s political views, and his ability to deliver good copy to sportswriters and sports radio networks, is harder than portraying the SoCal punter as a victim of a 1st Amendment NFL crackdown. Does anyone seriously believe that if Kluwe had come out passionately against gay marriage (ala Matt Birk), and saw his production dive, that those arguing against Kluwe’s release today would be defending his penchant to ‘hanging 10 on any issue that stirs his emotion?’ … Here’s hoping that Chris Kluwe finds the time to focus on realizing that being a public relations bully to those who don’t share his worldview isn’t the best way to advance what’s left of his career.” So help me out here. What comes first? "First Ringer's" bravery to speak out? Or his anonymity?

Okay, Brian, I'll help you out. The merits of FR's arguments aren't affected in any way by whether or not he writes under his own name or a pseudonym. I'd also mention that it's not especially brave to use ellipses to remove the context of what FR is talking about when he uses the term "foul-mouthed" to describe some of Kluwe's deep thoughts. I'd further  suggest that Lambert consider (a) the difference between bravery and bravado, and (b) whether FR's observation that "being a public relations bully to those who don’t share his worldview isn’t the best way to advance what’s left of his career" might also apply to a guy who works for MinnPost, too.

Clutching those pearls

Obamacare is still a dicey proposition politically and that seems to bother some of our betters, who are worried about the nefarious plots of scheming Republicans or something. Sounding the alarm, The New York Times breathlessly announces that water is wet:

A number of health insurance changes have already taken place, but this fall, just as the 2014 election season heats up, is the deadline for introducing the law’s core feature: the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where millions of uninsured Americans can buy coverage, with subsidies for many.
      

For the third time, Republicans are trying to make the law perhaps the biggest issue of the elections, and are preparing to exploit every problem that arises. After many unsuccessful efforts to repeal the law, the Republican-led House plans another vote soon. And Republican governors or legislatures in many states are balking at participating, leaving Washington responsible for the marketplaces.

The deuce you say! Really? Why would they do that? Well, the Times spells out the reason later on:

The stakes for the president are high. The ultimate success of the law, and in turn his domestic legacy, depends on how well the insurance marketplaces operate, and whether enough young Americans enroll for coverage.

While Friday’s event at the White House will draw attention to the law’s benefits for women who already have insurance, aides say that increasingly Mr. Obama’s outreach will be to uninsured Americans and those who buy their insurance because they do not get it from employers.

He will especially urge healthy young adults, those up to 35 years old, and minorities — groups in which he has “a lot of cachet,” Mr. Pfeiffer said — to sign up starting Oct. 1 for the new exchanges. Beginning Jan. 1, most Americans must have insurance or pay fines.

Without the participation of that generally healthy young population, insurance premiums for everyone else would increase — threatening support for a law already short of it.

Walter Russell Mead gets to the heart of the matter:

In short, the success of the ACA wholly depends on President Obama’s ability to persuade young people to voluntarily subsidize the old. If young people don’t agree to sign up for expensive plans full of benefits many of them don’t need, the oldsters won’t be able to afford the high cost of their plans.

Yep. Which is why there are fines John Roberts-approved "taxes" involved. Back to Mead:

This is an especially bad deal for younger generations, not least because the rapidly growing costs of health care (which the ACA doesn’t do enough to control) pretty much guarantee that they won’t be able to have the same kind of benefits as today’s middle aged by the time they reach their 50s.

The Democratic plan to make Obamacare work apparently boils down to a hope that the President can successfully abuse the trust that young people have placed in him by convincing them sign them up in large numbers for a bad deal.

Not just apparently.

Not sure if

this makes Congress any more slimy than it already is:

Disgraced ex-South Carolina governor Mark Sanford won his bid for redemption on Tuesday night, defeating Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch for his old seat in Congress.

Sanford, a Republican who admitted an extramarital affair in 2009, was ready to quit politics for good if he was not victorious in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District. He will replace Republican Tim Scott, who was appointed to the Senate.

One thing seems clear -- it takes more than being a comedian's sister to win a seat in Congress in South Carolina. No word on whether the victory party took place on the Appalachian Trail, either.

il miglior fabbro

First Ringer has an excellent synopsis of the events surrounding the ashcanning of Chris Kluwe, former Vikings punter and all-around social media maven. He's done such a good job of explaining the matter that there's little reason for me to do anything except to offer a tip of the hat and a pull quote:

Kluwe’s value to the Minnesota Vikings was as a $1.4 million a year player at a reasonably expendable position. Simply put – you don’t get to be a distraction if you’re easily replaceable. And by every definition, Chris Kluwe is a distraction. Kluwe has run his mouth on issues beyond gay marriage. He’s been fined for “campaigning” for Ray Guy to get into the Hall of Fame. He’s appeared on the website Deadspin several times over the 2011 NFL Lockout where he attacked numerous players over their views.

Worse, Kluwe’s tactics are the epitome of his generation – foul-mouthed personal attacks against anyone who disagrees. Pro-lockout players are “douchebags” who stand for “pretty much the definition of greed.” His opponents are “a**hole f**kwits”, which also suggests he’s a plagiarist since I’m sure he stole that from Oscar Wilde.

I was thinking Dorothy Parker, but you never know. Anyway, go read the whole thing.

No mystery here

Megan McArdle notices something that shouldn't surprise anyone:

It looks like the Marketplace Fairness Act--the official name for a proposal to allow states to collect sales tax on internet sales made to their residents--will pass the Senate sometime today. It will have a tougher time in the House, where Republicans still aren't keen on supporting anything that smacks of higher taxes. Still, it's remarkable, at least because it shows that under the right circumstances, you can get at least some members of the GOP to support a tax increase. I wrote about this plan a couple of weeks ago, noting that the biggest issue with the bill is the disproportionate burden it will put on small businesses. Amazon can afford to pay a small army to hassle with states who claim that Amazon isn't paying enough tax. Mom's Cupcake Bakery and Cable Store cannot.

Yep. At this point, Amazon has achieved huge advantages in the economies of scale that collecting taxes for the gubmint can be fit easily into the ol' P&L. Eventually, we're all rent seekers.