The Labor Department reported this morning that American payrolls grew by 215,000 jobs and unemployment held steady at 5 percent. Today would be a great day for a good-economic-news White House PR offensive. For more on the baseless economic pessimism, see TAS economic editor Brian S. Wesbury's column in the Wall Street Journal. Daniel Henninger makes similar, though more general, points about the White House's failure to communicate effectively.
The Spectacle Blog
The Washington Post has outdone itself in disingenuous reporting. Today's front page, above-the-fold headline "Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting as Illegal" is the one of the most agenda driven news stories of the year. Dan Eggen only finds news at the Justice Department when career employees complain about decisions made by their political appointee superiors. Funny, these stories never appeared when the Clintons were in the WH and Janet Reno was opening day-care centers and stopping FBI criminal agents from talking to the intelligence folks who could have clued them into terrorist plots. Why? Because the majority of "career" employees at DOJ are Democrats who agreed with the radical liberal Clinton policies and who are opposed to all things Republican/conservative. And the Civil Rights Division is the worst of the lot. It is populated with the most activist, liberal Democrats in the federal government -- acolytes and former staff of John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, etc.
The Liberals got a no-confidence vote earlier this week, and it looks like the Tories have a real shot at forming the next government up north. Good news: It means that the US-friendly Stephen Harper, whom Colby Cosh introduced to TAS readers during the last election a year-and-a-half ago, could be Prime Minister.
I'll be on with David Asman (who's subbing for John Gibson) tonight about 5:30, talking about the Pentagon plan to have US forces do reconstruction. Do we need a Colonial Office? Methinks not.
Contra Saletan, the Church pastorally cares and prays for people who struggle with disordered desires. But she should not jeopardize the mission of the priesthood by ordaining those who are thought likely to succumb to such desires.
Cardinal Grocholewski, head of the dicastery issuing the instruction, puts it this way: "It is not discrimination, for example, if one does not admit a person who suffers from vertigo to a school for astronauts." More precisely, it is discrimination, although not in the pejorative sense of the term. I suppose it is possible that somebody with a transitory, or even deep-seated, problem with vertigo might be a successful astronaut, but as a matter of policy you don't want to put the possibility to the test.
That's what Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick accuses the Supreme Court of in hearing arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood yesterday.
Just to be clear about what's happening today: No one is talking about reversing Roe v. Wade. But I can't count five people willing to apply the holding in Casey to these facts either. Instead most of the court is doing constitutional loop-the-loops to try to save the New Hampshire law, even though they are almost all bothered by the lack of a health exception. Mostly they try to graft a health exception back on, whether or not the New Hampshire legislators wished to have one. The larger point is that New Hampshire nipped and tucked the so-called right to an abortion when it passed this law, and most of the court thinks that is just fine.