Newsweek Blogs

Mosque at Ground Zero Is Just the Latest in Long Line of Controversial Proposals

Ben Adler — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:25:09 GMT

When the community board in lower Manhattan that controls the area near Ground Zero approved a plan to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center a few blocks from Ground Zero on Wednesday, the reaction was, sadly, predictable. In the words of the New York ABC affiliate's evening news program, "Critics view it as a slap in the face." Presumably, those critics are a bunch of atheists who would react exactly the same way to building a church or synagogue downtown, right? Why else would anyone be so offended by a house of worship?

Well, the plan does include a culinary school, performing-arts center, and swimming pool, so maybe that's the objection? No. The problem is that, as one protester put it, a Muslim edifice is a "shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11." The distinction between the various strands of Islam practiced by the vast majority of the world's 1 billion Muslims, and the Wahhabist jihadism of Al Qaeda, was apparently lost on her. Another concerned citizen described the mosque as a "house of evil" that would be "the birthplace of the next terrorist event."

But New York City's 600,000 to 850,000 Muslims should take heart: it isn't only anti-Muslim bigotry that is stirring up controversy. Almost as soon as the dust of the Twin Towers had settled, alas, New Yorkers were fighting over the future of Ground Zero and its environs. Rudy Giuliani famously made an economically unrealistic plea to not build anything on the site of the former World Trade Center in his farewell address from City Hall.

The city and state have fought over control of the redevelopment process; celebrity architect Frank Gehry caused a furor by refusing to submit a proposal for the design competition, citing inadequate remuneration; Daniel Libeskind's inspired but controversial "Freedom Tower" proposal was accepted, then scaled back for financial reasons. The site, meanwhile, has become one of New York's most visited tourist attractions. While that seems appropriate, it can also be slightly disturbing: tourists ask locals for directions to Ground Zero with no more solemnity than they do for the Empire State Building.

New Yorkers have complicated feelings about the site of the worst terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil. This New Yorker thinks the proposed Islamic cultural center would be a testament to the tolerance, diversity, and vitality of this nation and its greatest city. Given that so little progress has been made on the reconstruction of the Ground Zero site, such developments in the neighborhood, and the message they send of New York's ability to constantly reinvent itself, should be welcomed.

Conservative writer Andrew McCarthy disagrees: he noted defensively on Fox News that there are 2,300 mosques in the United States, but no churches or synagogues in Mecca or Medina. Well, touché.

'We Need to Train an Army of Ninja Cats': A GOP Site Gets Hijacked

Nick Summers — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:04:41 GMT

Be careful what you put on the Internet, Republicans. The Internet just might use it.

Yesterday, the GOP unveiled America Speaking Out, a Web site that promises to "change the way Congress works by proposing ideas for a new policy agenda." Visitors, presumably of the Republican persuasion, are invited to make their own suggestions in four broad categories: American prosperity, fiscal accountability, American values, and national security. The idea is that citizens can speak up on these topics, vote up or down on each others' proposals, and the best thoughts will bubble to the top—maybe even becoming part of the Republican platform come November.

Visitors haven't exactly been playing by the rules.

As Dana Milbank writes in today's Washington Post: "House Republicans, meet the World Wide Web." Though the architects of America Speaking Out, including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R.-Calif.) and Rep. Peter Roskam (R.-Ill.), are touting its technical sophistication, by midafternoon Wednesday the site had been overrun by prankish submissions. The few high-minded ideas about the federal budget and terrorism have been drowned out by submissions that are inane, racist, absurd, physically impossible, and other qualities that aren't what the GOP hoped to hear.

While many are obviously jokes, some walk a hard-to-detect line between satire and slightly unhinged. The site is almost too bogged down to load currently ("A very high volume of Americans are speaking out right now," an error message reads), but if you can click through, here are 10 of the silliest submissions hijacking the service:

"We need to train an army of Ninja Cats. Cats are natural born hunters and predators, and it is known that they indeed have 9 lives, many more than the typical human life (being one). They are also excellent at hiding themselves and would be ideal for sneaking into countries and assassinating communist leaders to lessen the ever growing threat of communism, finding key terrorist leaders and shattering the global terrorist network. In fact they could be potentially useful in the current Korean crisis. Loyal to their trainers, the cats could rain destruction and fear throughout the world, and if ever captured would never tell who they are serving. Finally, after they have solved the worlds problems, they could serve as border patrol and show unflinching resolve at keeping illegals where they belong, anywhere but here."
"Sometimes when I get to the bottom of the yogurt cup, the shape makes it harder to get the last bites. I tried using both a spoon and a fork, with some luck. I think Yoplait should redesign their package so it's easier to get to the bottom of the yogurt."
"I know this guy in Nigeria he says he's going to inherit a lot of money, but he needs our help to get it. All we have to do is wire him some cash and in return he'll give us part of the money that he will be inheriting. This would be a good way to balance the national budget deficit."
"STOP STEALING OUR WATER! I was watering my plant the other day and I noticed all the water disappeared! WHAT has the state of LIBERAL politics gotten to when your water is vanishing from everywhere!! Sometimes I go to the bathroom and there's no toilet paper either, they should FIX that!"
"Make iPhones available through Verizon! AT&T has fairly poor service and coverage, and a lot of Americans would love to own an iPhone but would not sign up with AT&T." [Ed.--Actually, this is a very reasonable suggestion.]
"Give a pair of truck nutz to all americans! Because there's nothing more manly and american than a pair of balls hanging from your pickup truck. Take THAT Al Qaeda!"
"Require all Muslims in the U.S. to wear ankle bracelet transponders so we know where the terrorists are at all times."
"End the LYBERAL MITH OF EVOLUSION. My granddaddy wasnt no monkey."
"We're wasting our time protecting the sanctity of marriage by merely targeting gay marriage. We should immediately criminalize divorce."
"A ‘teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish! And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

DSCC Posts, Then Removes Embarrassing Biden Quote About Richard Blumenthal

David A. Graham — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:54:21 GMT

A screen shot from the DSCC Web site.

Most Democrats—like, say, the Richard Blumenthal for Senate campaign—probably cringed when they read a blog post this morning in The Hill, with comments Vice President Joe Biden made during a barbecue at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Here's the gaffe-prone veep:

"I didn't serve in Vietnam. I don't want to make a Blumenthal mistake here," he said according to a pool report. "Our attorney general from Connecticut, God love him."

Later, he said, "I have a bad habit of saying exactly what I think."

As conservative blogger Erick Erickson wrote, "It's enough to make you wonder whether the White House wants the Democrats to keep Dodd's seat."

Not so the DSCC, which posted the article on its news center of stories about Democratic Senate candidates—an odd choice. (It has since removed the post—replacing it with an ironic filler: "[Contentless Rant]"). Was it an intentional decision? Does the committee just have a bot looking for stories on candidates? Or was the DSCC as amused as everyone else by Biden's remarks?

We've reached out to the DSCC for comment, but it hasn't been able to get back to us yet. We'll update when it does.

U.S. Intelligence Sees Scant Evidence That North Korea Is Preparing for War

Mark Hosenball — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:26:18 GMT

Despite all the recent huffing and puffing from Pyongyang, U.S. officials say they've seen little physical evidence that North Korea might actually be preparing to go to war. Just hours after Seoul blamed the North for the March 26 sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il publicly ordered his armed forces to get ready for military action, according to sources quoted in The Guardian. But two U.S. national-security officials, asking for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, tell Declassified they're not aware of any intelligence reporting on significant military mobilization or redeployments inside North Korea. The North Korean military is always on the move somewhere, one of the officials said, but at the moment whatever movements are being noted by Western intelligence agencies are regarded as not particularly threatening. A third U.S. foreign-policy official, who also asked for anonymity, told Declassified that U.S. agencies are picking up "nothing of extreme concern" in what North Korean forces are currently up to.

Pyongyang could still launch some form of surprise military action if it really wanted to. For one thing, South Korea's capital and largest city, Seoul, is only 30 miles south of the Demilitarized Zone, within easy artillery range. The North Koreans keep their forward artillery batteries stocked with enough ammunition to do serious damage, one of the officials points out. But there are no indications that the North is preparing to embark on any such adventure, which would almost certainly risk a wider conflict. There's also the possibility that Pyongyang might try to intimidate its neighbors by setting off another missile or nuclear test. And although the North might be able for the most part to conceal preparations for an underground nuclear explosion, the Western nations' detection equipment would probably pick up signs that the North was planning a major new missile test, and according to one of the officials, no such preparations appear to be underway.

With little hard information as to what goes on inside the minds of Kim and his top associates, Western intelligence agencies can only guess at why the Cheonan was hit. As we reported last week, however, one theory gaining currency among U.S. experts is that the attack was retaliation for a naval clash last November in which a South Korean ship allegedly fired on and damaged a North Korean vessel. U.S. officials confirm a New York Times report saying U.S. agencies believe that Kim personally authorized the attack on the Cheonan. The officials point out that Kim made a visit to China after the incident, apparently proving that despite reports of questionable health he was mobile and alert enough to undertake a relatively strenuous journey.

Will the Justice Department Sue Arizona or Not?

Eve Conant — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:16:02 GMT

Law-enforcement officers from cities in Arizona and a half dozen states met today with Attorney General Eric Holder in an hourlong, closed-door meeting to share their frustration with the new Arizona immigration law, saying it will make their jobs more difficult and even increase crime.

The question on many people’s minds, however, is whether Holder will sue Arizona over the law. “He did say the Justice Department was seriously considering what they will do and that a decision will come soon,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, who took part in the talks. Los Angeles Chief of Police Charlie Beck said that Holder had listened closely to their concerns but “was not committal” on legal action. (Supporters of the Arizona law argue that it was carefully crafted to combat any legal challenges). The chiefs said they were not in Washington to urge the Justice Department to seek legal action, but to air their concerns. Fox News has reported that a team of Justice Department lawyers has drafted a challenge to the law and recommended action.

John Harris, president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said the new law puts police in an impossible bind: On the one hand they can be accused of racial profiling. On the other hand they can sued by citizens who feel they are not enforcing the law strongly enough. “This puts Arizona law enforcement right in the middle, which is not where we want to be. Especially for something we feel is a federal issue.” The police chiefs, many in charge of regions with large immigrant populations, said they feared crime could rise, in part, because immigrants would be afraid to report suspicious activity or come forward as witnesses.

A case in point: in North Carolina an illegal immigrant called 911 as a police officer tried to fondle his girlfriend during a traffic stop. The man, Abel Moreno, now has six months to prove why he should not be deported even though local police have acknowledged that the call helped them uncover a dirty cop who had assaulted several other women. (The sheriff’s office that held Moreno is one of several dozen local law-enforcement agencies that are allowed to apply Section 287(g) laws that make it possible to enforce federal immigration laws).

Arturo Venegas, project director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative and a former Sacramento police chief, says the Justice Department “must weigh in.” He says that, among other problems, the DOJ’s civil-rights division will be overwhelmed with cases. “This is becoming a national phenomenon with a dozen other states contemplating similar laws,” Venegas says. “This will become a constitutional crisis.”

The Problem With James Carville's Criticism of Obama

Ben Adler — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:00:02 GMT

As the political wheel turns the inevitable has happened: political pundits are debating whether President Obama has responded to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with sufficient urgency. First Hardball host Chris Matthews criticized the president on The Tonight Show, saying, "When is he actually going to do something? And I worry—I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it." Then Democratic strategist James Carville blasted Obama on Anderson Cooper's show last week, and again this morning on Good Morning America. Obama's "political stupidity is unbelievable," Carville said.

At least Matthews was talking about the actual substance of the response. Carville's criticism of Obama is entirely political: that it looks bad for Obama not to have stood at the proverbial ground zero with a bullhorn. GMA host George Stephanopoulos asked former Bush administration staffer Matthew Dowd whether he agreed with Carville's analysis, and, remarkably enough, he did. Dowd acknowledged that there is no evidence in Obama's poll numbers that the public actually feels this way but warned that it may show up soon.

Why is an issue of lives lost and environmental degradation being reduced to a question of political calculation? Television news had a proud moment around Hurricane Katrina because it actually went and covered what was happening. Eventually, the fact that the Bush administration had mishandled the response affected Bush's poll numbers and that was duly noted, but Anderson Cooper wasn't standing in front the Superdome saying, "This looks really bad for President Bush and might hurt his poll numbers." Everything has political ramifications, but not everything needs to be reduced to an analysis of the political winners and losers.

Obama's response may indeed deserve criticism on its own merits. Why did it take a full month to establish the Flow Rate Technical Team to determine oil-flow rates from the spill? Why is the water toxicity not being tested? Carville's criticism that Obama would have made his response look better by physically appearing in the gulf would be a smart internal Democratic National Committee memo. But the news media should focus on what is actually happening, and let the public decide how to judge it, rather than prognosticating how the public will respond. The latter is cheaper and easier, but the former is what we call journalism.

Sarah Palin Real-Estate Watch, Vol. II: Palin's New Neighbor, Journalist Joe McGinniss

David A. Graham — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:01:30 GMT

On Monday, we looked at the mysterious hangar-office-studio that Sarah Palin is building next door to her house in Wasilla, Alaska. While more detail on the building is still not forthcoming, we do have news on the Wasilla real-estate front: investigative journalist Joe McGinniss, a noted Palin basher, is renting the house next door to the former vice presidential candidate.

McGinniss is reporting a book on Palin, tentatively titled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously, but he's written lots about her before. Gawker points out that he broke the story that Palin's supposed bus tour in support of her memoir, Going Rogue, was a facade—her entourage roughed it on the bus while the talent flew from stop to stop. McGinniss also wrote a lengthy article for Portfolio magazine about Palin and the Alaska natural-gas pipeline.

Palin isn't happy about her new neighbor, as she alerted the world via Facebook:

Joe announced to Todd that he's moved in right next door to us. He's rented the place for the next five months or so. He moved up all the way from Massachusetts to live right next to us—while he writes a book about me. Knowing of his many other scathing pieces of "journalism" (including the bizarre anti-Palin administration oil development pieces that resulted in my Department of Natural Resources announcing that his work is the most twisted energy-related yellow journalism they'd ever encountered), we're sure to have a doozey to look forward to with this treasure he's penning. Wonder what kind of material he'll gather while overlooking Piper's bedroom, my little garden, and the family's swimming hole?... [Y]ou know what they say about "fences make for good neighbors"? Well, we'll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I'll try to keep Trig's squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don't disturb your peaceful summer.

Given Palin's often contentious relationship with the press—and particularly the "lamestream media," to user her phrase—it's not surprising that she'd be upset. But moving in next door does seem like a gratuitous provocation. Dave Weigel, however, complains that Palin objects to the very idea of McGinniss doing journalism, and that his side of the story remains to be told: "But assuming he's rented the house near the Palins for some period of time, assuming the Palins know he's there and that he's writing a book, then what, exactly, is wrong with this?" (Predictably, plenty of folks have taken issue with that.)

McGinniss's publisher issued a statement to the Associated Press, saying that "McGinniss will be highly respectful of his subject's privacy as he investigates her public activities." The writer himself hasn't spoken with anyone yet, although his son did give Ben Smith a wry comment.

Exclusive: Lt. Dan Choi Writes for NEWSWEEK on Why 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Compromise Is Not Acceptable

Eve Conant — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:09:30 GMT

Last May, Iraq veteran Lt. Dan Choi publicly announced he was gay on The Rachel Maddow Show as a protest against the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. He is currently in the process of being discharged from the Army. In the last year, he has become one of the most visible advocates for allowing gays to serve openly in the armed services, twice handcuffing himself to the White House gate, resulting in arrest. Despite news this week of compromise between lawmakers, gay-rights groups, and the Obama administration to overturn the 17-year-old "don’t ask, don’t tell" rules, Choi is not celebrating. In an open letter released exclusively to NEWSWEEK, Choi says he opposes the deal because it "does only half of what was promised."

From the first day I served and raised my right hand, I committed to the military’s values of integrity and an uncompromising dedication to honor. On Monday, when I learned of the president’s compromised approach to repealing "don’t ask, don’t tell," I felt betrayed. I am not celebrating now. My adherence to those military values is why I see this latest action as contrary to my understanding of leadership.

Seventeen years after the "don’t ask, don’t tell" law was first passed by Congress in 1993, what we have learned is undeniable. The U.S. military’s ban on gay service members is a social experiment in discrimination that has failed more than 14,000 times; 14,000 isn’t just another number, it is an Arabic linguist, a highly trained and skilled infantryman, or another patriotic enlistee who sacrificed themselves for our country’s freedoms.

On Monday, the White House announced compromise legislation to begin the process of repealing the outdated, discriminatory "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. In the 11th hour, after waiting 18 months for the president, my commander in chief, to show real leadership, we were handed a deal that does only half of what was promised. Rather than a full repeal of the ban, the proposal would push repeal off to an unspecified date in the future, and only then if the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff mutually agree that the time is right. There is no timetable for action, no promise for full repeal. Under this “compromise,” "don’t ask, don’t tell" could remain the law of the land forever.

I’m not going to lie. This compromise isn’t what I, or any of my fellow advocates, wanted or expected. The compromise does not end the firings. Nor does it restore our integrity. It is the result of a White House that has been AWOL on "don’t ask, don’t tell" repeal for the last year and a half, and now is desperately trying to find a solution—any solution, regardless of how unworkable—to a problem and a promise it would rather just go away. Our “fierce advocate,” as the president promised the gay community he would be, has presented us with a last-minute Hobson’s choice, and it is no cause for celebration.

As the clock continues ticking toward a Thursday vote in Congress, the president is asking the lesbian and gay community to praise this compromise because it’s the best we could possibly get. My question for the president that I ask in this video is simple: under your compromise, when will the discharges end? How long can we ask gay service members to live a lie? How long can we deny existence to their families? How long do we need to study the injustice in order to understand that discrimination is un-American? Poll after poll shows that the American people don’t need another study in order to know what’s right. Nearly 80 percent of Americans, from all walks of life, already understand what the president and the Congress still find so hard to grasp. The people support a full repeal of "don’t ask, don’t tell" now. When will their leaders do the same?

This week, regardless of the outcome in Congress, there will be no cause for celebration. As long as soldiers must compromise their honor, I will not celebrate. I will only celebrate when the service of those gay and lesbian Americans serving in uniform is honored. I will only celebrate on the day that my commander in chief finally shows uncompromising leadership by immediately stopping the unjust firing of able-bodied, patriotic men and women who have chosen to risk their lives for their country.

CHOI is a West Point graduate and an openly gay veteran of the Iraq War.

And the Winner in Idaho's GOP House Primary Is ... the Democrat.

Andrew Romano — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:58:11 GMT

Last night, almost no one in Idaho was happier than the supporters of a state representative named Raul Labrador. That's because Labrador managed to come from behind to defeat Vaughn Ward 48 percent to 39 percent in the First District's Republican House primary, even though Ward, a former Nevada state director for John McCain '08, had outraised Labrador nine-to-one ($1.5 million to $173,000) as a top-tier member of the GOP's "Young Guns" program—and had received Sarah Palin's coveted endorsement as a result.

I said "almost no one," though, for a reason. While Labrador's folks were undoubtedly excited, Democrats were positively ecstatic.

Until recently, Rep. Walt Minnick—the freshman Dem currently serving in ID-01—appeared to be a prime pickoff candidate for the GOP. In 2008, the district went for McCain with 62 percent of the vote. Couple those strong Republican tendencies with the current anti-Democrat, anti-incumbent climate—then stir in a candidate with Ward's fundraising prowess and background (Iraq vet)—and you've got a pretty foolproof recipe for a Republican pickup.

The only problem? Despite Palin's imprimatur, Ward turned out to be a disastrous campaigner. He swiped the issues section of his Web site from other Republican candidates. He copied his campaign kickoff address in January from an old Obama speech. He signed on to repeal the 17th amendment (that's the one that gives voters the right to directly elect their senators). He even called Puerto Rico a "country"—then insisted he didn't "care what it is" when corrected. These gaffes explain why Labrador, who trailed Ward by a two-to-one margin as recently as three weeks ago, was able to come from behind and capture the nomination.

Observers might be tempted at this point to say that the GOP dodged a deadly bullet by choosing Labrador over the near-unelectable Ward—and they'd be partially right. But the real beneficiary of the ID-01 primary is Minnick. Labrador flew under the radar for much of the primary contest, meaning he's almost completely unvetted. He trails Minnick badly in the fundraising department. And the national GOP, which knows almost nothing about him, may decide not to come to the rescue.

While Minnick is considered beatable, he's hardly a pushover. For starters, he earned the backing of the national Tea Party Express last year, and has also won plaudits from the Chamber of Commerce for having the most favorable 2009 voting record of any member of the Idaho delegation, Republican or Democrat. Plus, he opposed both health-care reform and the stimulus, two of the right's juiciest targets.

Some local Tea Party groups support Labrador—but that may the most enthusiastic support he gets. There's a very real chance that Republicans will decide in the wake of Ward's loss that they've invested enough in ID-01, and that their money is now better spent elsewhere. In which case Labrador should enjoy the feeling of victory while it lasts. He may have an even steeper climb ahead of him.

The Other Gender Gap: How the Weather, the Economy, and 9/11 Affect the Birthrate

David A. Graham — Tue, 25 May 2010 23:15:07 GMT

It wasn't just air travel and the Dow that fell after the September 11 attacks. So did birthrates for male babies, and a group of scientists say that's because the communal trauma of the attacks led to high rates of miscarriage of male fetuses, according to a new study.

Scientists have long known that stress can depress the male-to-female birth ratio, but the study in BMC Public Health zones in on miscarriage, rather than several other potential factors, as the culprit for the 9/11 drop. To make the analysis, researchers compiled data on fetal death from 1996 to 2002, for a total of some 156,000 fetal deaths of both genders. In September 2001, the rate of male fetal deaths increased by 12 percent over September 2000.

But male fetal death, on average, is higher than females: 995 to 871. Why? Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the study's authors, says it's simple natural selection: males are more likely to die before reaching the age of reproduction and require greater resources, so it makes sense for the mother's body to spontaneously abort them when there are environmental risk factors that could make an already uphill battle even steeper.

In fact, there is a wide range of factors that can affect the ratio of male-to-female births in any given circumstance. Here are a few examples:

1. Natural and social catastrophes: It's not just 9/11. Lower male birthrates have been recorded following other events that create stress across a society. Examples include London's Great Smog in 1952, the collapse of communist East Germany in 1991, Jerusalem after the Six-Day War in 1967, and the catastrophic 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. A study of the Kobe case suggests the problem was paternal, rather than maternal, stress: the sperm of Kobe's men appear to have been affected by the quake, leading to more female conceptions than male ones.

2. Unemployment: As another source of stress, unemployment drives down male birthrates. Catalano found that to be the case over several cycles of the California economy. Broadly speaking, male fetal death rates increased linearly with rising unemployment rates. So does that mean researchers should expect to see a sudden drop-off in male births between 2008 and 2010? Catalano says probably not, because the collapse happened slowly over a long period of time, which might help to cushion mothers' stress levels.

3. Timing: Male fetuses are conceived over a smaller window of the menstrual cycle than females (a hint to would-be parents hoping for one or another). Conception in the early cycle tends to produce boys, while later conception is more likely to create girls.

4. Weather: Some like it hot—but baby boys apparently aren't among them. A study released in April showed that the boy-to-girl ratio is significantly lower in warmer climates than elsewhere. Near the equator, males make up 51.1 percent of births, as opposed to 51.3 percent in temperate and subarctic areas. The science behind it isn't known—author Kristen Navara wrote that it was unclear whether miscarriage rates were higher or sperm quality was altered.

5. Diet: Mothers who are in the higher percentiles for energy intake are more likely to bear boys than girls, according to a British study released in 2008, which broke expectant mothers into three groups based on calorie consumption. In the high-energy third, 56 percent of mothers had sons, while only 45 percent of the lowest third did. The mothers in the first third were also more likely to have consumed more and more varied nutrients. Since male offspring (as noted above) are more resource-intensive, the study's authors suggested that high intake indicated plentiful resources to support a baby boy.

Key Congressman Says Pentagon's Clapper Is Wrong Man for Intelligence Czar

Mark Hosenball — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:44:34 GMT

A key Capitol Hill Republican says retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, the Defense Department's top intelligence official, would be the wrong person to replace outgoing National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who chaired the House intelligence committee when Republicans held a House majority and today remains the panel's ranking minority member, tells Declassified that in his experience, Clapper is "not forthcoming, open, or transparent" in his dealings with congressional oversight committees, and therefore would not be suited to a job whose key responsibilities include maintaining cordial (if not warm) relations between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress.

Clapper, currently undersecretary of defense for intelligence, would be "exactly the wrong person" for President Obama to appoint as intelligence czar, Hoekstra says, because "the guy doesn’t believe there is a role for Congress" in the intelligence process. (Neither Clapper's office nor a Pentagon spokesman had any immediate response to Hoekstra's criticisms.) "He doesn't like our oversight," the congressman says, complaining that Clapper acts as if Congress is an "unnecessary participant in the [intelligence] process." Hoekstra says there's nothing personal between him and Clapper: "I like General Clapper," he says. "[But] there's a difference between liking a guy and accepting his attitude to Congress." By contrast, Hoekstra, a frequent critic of the Obama administration's national-security and intelligence policies, says he gives "a tremendous amount of credit" both to Blair, whose resignation as intelligence czar was abruptly accepted by Obama last week, and to CIA Director Leon Panetta, who bested Blair in some key bureaucratic turf fights, for working closely with Congress and doing their best to maintain good relations with legislators.

Hoekstra, a veteran GOP legislator from Michigan, goes so far as to blame Clapper, or at least his office at the Pentagon, for a hostile reception the congressman received when he traveled to Yemen on New Year's Day this year. Hoekstra had gone there at least in part to ask questions about the Christmas Day incident in which Nigerian-born Islamic militant Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound transatlantic flight with a bomb stashed in his underpants. Investigators now believe the bomb was supplied by operatives of Al Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate, which calls itself Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Hoekstra says he had hoped to learn from U.S. Embassy officials in Yemen about the investigation into the failed underpants attack, including the role allegedly played by Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born jihadist cleric now based in Yemen. Instead, Hoekstra says, embassy officials said they had received explicit instructions from Washington: "Don’t share anything with Hoekstra." Hoekstra says he believes the embassy got its orders from Clapper or his subordinates at the Pentagon, although he adds they in turn may have been directed by the White House.

As we reported on Monday, Clapper, who once headed two Pentagon-controlled intelligence agencies (the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency), is widely regarded inside and outside the spy world as the favorite to succeed Blair. However, as we also reported, numerous national-security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have raised questions about Clapper's relations with Congress, suggesting that he was unresponsive in briefings and that his subordinates were slow in dealing with congressional inquiries. Now Hoekstra has sharpened some of these complaints about Clapper's dealings with Congress and put them on the record, perhaps making Obama's effort to find a new intelligence czar more difficult than ever.

Economists Agree: Unemployment Will Stay High Through November

Ben Adler — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:41:05 GMT

Economists from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the centrist Brookings Institution, and the conservative Heritage Foundation may not all agree on much, but they agree on this: unemployment, which currently hovers around 10 percent, is not coming down significantly between now and November's midterm elections.

"I'm not aware of labor-market economists who expect unemployment to drop significantly before the midterms," says James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. "The average for the last generation has been around 5.5 percent or so, and it won't be anywhere near that."

"My best guess is unemployment will be in November exactly what it is now," concurs Josh Bivens of EPI, adding that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects a yearlong average of 9.5 percent in 2011, and Goldman Sachs predicts higher unemployment in 2011 than in 2010.

That may be bad news for President Obama, who hosted small-business leaders in the Rose Garden on Tuesday morning as he called on Congress to pass his proposal to assist small businesses in hiring new workers.

Another rare point of agreement among economists across the economic spectrum? That Obama's proposal, which would strengthen state small-business lending initiatives and create a $30 billion fund for small community and neighborhood banks to increase their lending to small businesses, is more about politics than job creation.

"It's small potatoes," says Gary Burtless of Brookings. "It's not a program likely to have an impact between now and Election Day, or now and Election Day 2012. There are a lot of constituencies in both parties that like to help small business, so it might be popular." Says Bivens, "What they mostly want to do is signal to voters that they are serious about the jobs crises."

But if high unemployment poses such a political threat to Democrats in the midterms, is there anything that Obama and his allies in Congress can do that would have a more practical effect? Not in time to affect this fall's election. While liberals and conservatives favor drastically different approaches for generating jobs over the next few years, neither claims that their policies would, even if adopted tomorrow, have an appreciable impact in time for the election.

Sherk thinks that the president should encourage private wealth creation through tax cuts and tort reform to protect corporations against the costs of battling lawsuits. But he admits that this would take a while to boost employment figures. "The economy moves at a slow pace," notes Sherk.

Bivens advocates a second stimulus bill on the order of $300 billion that would extend unemployment benefits and food stamps, and subsidies for laid-off workers getting their health insurance through COBRA, plus fiscal relief to states facing recovery-killing budget cuts or tax increases. While these policies would be designed to take effect more quickly than Sherk's solutions, Bivens believes that a second stimulus passed "four or five months ago" might have had an effect before November. "We missed our window."

The expert with the most sanguine, or perhaps the least dour, assessment of the employment situation is the one who most closely aligns with the approach the administration has taken to date, Burtless. "It's not impossible that we'll see robust employment growth," he says. "But I don't think that's likely."

To some extent President Obama is a victim of circumstance: the economy shed more jobs (approximately 8 million since the recession began) than anyone expected, including Obama's own forecasters. (That's because this recession has been worse than past ones for employment, relative to other economic indicators). So Obama's efforts to save and create jobs are being measured against his own administration’s original unemployment projections—which were approximately 9 percent unemployment in 2010 without a stimulus bill, 8 percent with it—when the more revealing comparison is the unknowable number of job losses that would have taken place without government intervention. That's a hard case to make to voters who are hurting.

Meet the Tea Party's 'Messiah' and the GOP's Headache

McKay Coppins — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:19:48 GMT

Here at The Gaggle, we have been so caught up in reporting on Rand Paul that we've neglected to tell you about another anti-establishment Tea Party candidate who has the Republican nomination within his grasp.

Meet Tim D'Annunzio, a candidate in North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District Republican primary. He led the initial GOP primary vote earlier this month but failed to secure enough votes to avoid a runoff. Now, campaigning on a fierce antigovernment platform, D'Annunzio is up against establishment Republican and former sportscaster Harold Johnson—and he has a good shot at beating him. But whereas the GOP has generally acquiesced to the populist demands of the Tea Party, Republican officials in North Carolina are reportedly working to derail D'Annunzio's campaign. Why? To put it politely, they are worried about his "electability."

From the AP:

In Hoke County divorce records [circulated by GOP officials], his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile-high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple of times as a teenager.

The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments.

D'Annunzio has refused to address the document's details, saying only that his religious conversion 16 years ago allowed him to overcome his "troubled upbringing." But he did offer this truer-than-it-sounds bit of rhetoric: "The bigger story is that the power brokers in Raleigh and in Washington are willing to go to any length and use any unscrupulous tactic to try to destroy somebody. They think that they're losing control over the Republican Party."

He's right. Crazy politicians these days are a dime a dozen, but there is a serious issue underlying all the amusing campaign ads and political gaffes—namely, the double-edged sword the Tea Party insurgencies have become.

Take Vaughn Ward, for example. The Tea Party–backed congressional candidate in Idaho may have seemed at first like a gift to the GOP. Sure, technically he was the "anti-establishment" Republican in the race, but he was running on a firmly conservative platform, had the endorsement of Sarah Palin (an exceptionally popular figure in Idaho), and seemed like he would be able to rally the Republican base to the polls. It wasn't long, however, before reports surfaced that Ward had plagiarized parts of President Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This was after Ward referred to Puerto Rico as a country during a GOP primary debate. When his opponent responded that Puerto Rico was, in fact, a U.S. territory, Ward said sharply, "I really don't care what it is. It doesn't matter." But despite committing the type of political blunders that might have torpedoed a campaign in another climate, Ward maintains a slight lead in the polls going into today's primary election.

And then, of course, there's Rand Paul, who won the Republican nomination and then promptly denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act before backpedaling and saying he would have voted for the bill.

Candidates like D'Annunzio, Ward, and Paul have the "power brokers" worried, not because they will lose control of the Republican Party, but because they fear the party itself will lose control, measured in terms of elected officials and successful legislative efforts. If it wants to continue to be taken seriously, the GOP will have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to the candidates it will endorse. Perhaps with D'Annunzio, it is finally drawing that line.

Conservative Group Poll: Americans Want the Military to Decide on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Not Congress

Eve Conant — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:32:48 GMT

The Family Research Council, which is trying this week to urge lawmakers not to include the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in the defense-authorization bill, has just released a poll it commissioned, conducted by Zogby, which finds that 59 percent of those polled think military leaders should determine whether gays should serve in the military, versus only 23 percent who believe that decision should fall to Congress.

The poll of more than 2,000 Americans also found that only 21 percent of those who are in the military or have a family member in the military think that Congress should make the decision, with 14 percent of that group unsure. A majority of each subgroup polled believe that the military should make the decision, with the exception of Democrats (37 percent say the military should decide), those under 30, single people, and African-Americans.

Expect this polling data to be a talking point for conservatives as the week unfolds and an amendment to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" is brought to a vote.

Conservatives and Gay-Rights Advocates Not Happy With 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Compromise

Eve Conant — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:59:36 GMT

Conservative and family-values organizations have launched into what may be a desperate and doomed campaign to turn back a breakthrough compromise on repealing "don't ask, don't tell," which has kept gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military for some 17 years. The Obama administration has publicly approved the compromise, and lawmakers could vote on the repeal as early as this week.

Not surprisingly, not everyone is happy about the deal. But criticism is also coming from some unexpected quarters. A leading advocate of repeal, Lt. Daniel Choi, who is currently discharged from the Army for being gay, is "livid" at the news. Choi says that the language in the compromise fails to protect service members or "restore their integrity." At issue is the lack of nondiscrimination protections for service members in the compromise language. A source close to the talks told NEWSWEEK on Monday: "In a perfect world we would have unconditional repeal with nondiscrimination protections built in. But this is very, very good; this is definitely a clear path forward."

Not so, says Choi.

"As long as I have to compromise my integrity, I'm not happy with this compromise," he tells NEWSWEEK. Gay organizations may wind up disappointed with his lack of support for their efforts. "If they expect that kind of lockstep moral compromise from us, they will be sorely mistaken. Who knows how long this will be kicked down the road?

"Discrimination is at the heart of 'don't ask, don't tell,' and nobody is saying when soldiers get to tell the truth; no one is saying when their integrity will be restored," argues Choi. According to the deal struck by gay advocates and lawmakers on Monday, Congress will add the repeal language into the defense authorization bill as early as this week, but there will be no action taken on implementation of the repeal until after the Pentagon delivers its finding into the effects of the repeal on Dec. 1. Even then it is not clear how quickly the Pentagon would be required to act. "How long do we have to wait?" asks Choi. "Allowing discrimination for any period of time is heinous." Choi stopped short of criticizing gay organizations by name that were involved in the compromise, but added, "It's moral turpitude to ignore discrimination. This is being claimed as a victory, but for whom?"

"I'm happy that something is finally happening," Richard Socarides, who was former president Bill Clinton's gay-issues adviser, told the Financial Times. "But I think they have made this conditional and put it off for as long as they can. The White House has been dragged kicking and screaming into acting on this." News reports seemed to suggest that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has only grudgingly accepted the compromise.

Conservatives who have long opposed repealing the law are also upset, as to be expected. The Family Research Council is leading the charge, with polling data promised on opposition to the repeal and a stepped-up grassroots outreach to constituents in the lead-up to this week's expected debate and votes in Congress. The organization on Tuesday also placed an ad in Politico asking, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." On a call with military leaders and reporters on Tuesday, FRC president Tony Perkins said, "This is nothing more than a military charade. Why move now?" He questioned why the administration and lawmakers would not wait until the Pentagon had completed its report on the repeal, offering one answer. "They are afraid they won’t have enough votes after November to advance their radical agenda." According to Perkins, Obama is pushing for the repeal for one reason: "This is a political payoff to a small part of the president's political base."

Meanwhile, Queerty.com, a leading site for gay issues, pays homage to Choi and other service members who staged civil-disobedience efforts to fight DADT, including handcuffing themselves to the White House gates. According to a Queerty post, "After all that haggling today among Gay Inc., the White House, legislators, and the Pentagon, the Obama administration announced it will support an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell this year—but only after the Defense Department finishes its 10-month review." Gay Inc. is the term used to describe several leading gay organizations, which critics argue have compromised too much as they have grown bigger and more powerful. Expect more criticism of the compromise in the days to come.

A Promise Kept

Jonathan Alter — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:38:36 GMT

The struggle over gays in the military offers an important lesson about Washington: When public opinion moves, politicians follow, even on the most seemingly toxic issues. And with the proper patient and, yes, political approach, "do overs" are possible.

As the finishing touches are being put on a major revision of "don't ask, don't tell," it's not yet time for opponents of the 17-year-old discriminatory policy to rejoice; the Pentagon hasn't completed its review. But the signs are good that DADT will be effectively dead soon.

Give some credit to the Obama White House, which angered many gay-rights activists by putting the issue on the back burner last year. As I try to explain in The Promise, Obama and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel applied a policy of "no distractions" in 2009 amid the debate over health-care reform. They also didn't want to roil relations with the Pentagon while policy toward Afghanistan was under review.

Remembering how the debate over gays in the military consumed valuable time and political capital at the beginning of the Clinton administration in 1993, the White House tried to stay focused on what was front and center.

But critics were wrong to think Obama had forgotten about his promise to end DADT. As a meeting on Af-Pak broke up last year, he told Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he wanted them to focus on the issue at the beginning of 2010, which they did. Mullen's historic testimony in support of revision in January (Gates was less enthusiastic) made a change in policy inevitable.

Emanuel's deputy, Jim Messina, has had a consistent message for gay-rights groups assembled in his office: a change in policy is going to happen but it will be done with the military's cooperation, not over its objections. This seems to be the most workable response possible.

Worries that Republicans will exploit the issue in the fall seem overblown. John McCain has flip-flopped on DADT to save his skin (as he has on so many other things), but if he survives his August primary against right-wing talk-show host J.D. Hayworth he's not likely to make it a major theme in the fall in Arizona, where Barry Goldwater and McCain established a leave-us-alone conservatism over many years. The presence of tens of thousands of military retirees probably won't make a huge difference in how the issue plays out. Many veterans know that it's harmful to lose so many talented officers and enlisted personnel who happen to be gay.

The DADT issue will come up in isolated races this year but polls are clear that most of the country has moved on from tired debates over sexual orientation. Now the politicians are preparing to put it behind them too.

Jonathan Alter is the author of The Promise: President Obama, Year One.

From keeping lobbyists out of government to closing Guantánamo Bay, view our photo gallery of President Obama's promises.

South Carolina: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Carl Sullivan — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:29:31 GMT

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo notes that a year ago he wouldn't have considered South Carolina to be among the states with the craziest politics. That was before Mark Sanford's Appalachian adventure, Joe Wilson's outburst, and other political wackiness. But after Monday's developments, Kurtz rightly decides the Palmetto State makes "a strong bid" for his top five. (If anyone's in doubt about the state's inclusion on such an august list, consider this evidence.)

State Rep. Nikki Haley, a Sarah Palin favorite and leading contender in a four-way GOP race to replace love gov Sanford, was blindsided Monday by a blogger's accusation of marital infidelity. This wasn't just any old pajamas-wearing gadfly. The accuser is none other than Sanford's former press aide Will Folks. Even weirder, Folks claims to be a Haley supporter, calling her the "one S.C. gubernatorial candidate who, in my opinion, would most consistently advance the ideals I believe in." Folks said he decided to go public with his claim because media outlets were preparing to report on the alleged relationship.

Haley denies having an affair with Folks, saying her enemies are behind the allegation. On her Facebook page, Palin rushed to Haley's defense, telling South Carolinians: "Don't let some blogger make any accusation against your Nikki if the guy doesn't even have the guts or the integrity to speak further on such a significant claim." In his blog post, Folks said he wouldn't be commenting further on the topic.

Today Haley's out with a new ad featuring Palin, who praises Haley for being "a strong, pro-family, pro-life, pro–Second Amendment, pro-development, conservative reformer." The GOP primary is June 8, and unless some evidence emerges to substantiate Folks's claim, the whole hullabaloo will probably work to her advantage.

In the meantime, I can't help but recall the "Sandlappers" song we learned in eighth grade:

We are good sandlappers,
Yes, we're good sandlappers,
And we're mighty proud to say
That we live
Yes, we live
In the very best state
Of the USA!

Arizona Lawmaker: Obama to Send 1,200 National Guard Troops to U.S.-Mexico Border

McKay Coppins — Tue, 25 May 2010 14:55:39 GMT

An Arizona lawmaker has released a statement saying that the Obama administration will soon deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. The Arizona Daily Star reports:

President Obama has also asked that $500 million be included in supplemental spending legislation to be used to fund more agents, more prosecutors, more technology, and improve information sharing among local, state and tribal law enforcement, said an Obama administration official via email.

The decision is part of the Obama’s overall plan for securing the border, the official said.

The office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., announced the planned deployment this morning in a press release.

The White House has yet to confirm the news, so details remain unclear. But an anonymous administration official told Politico that the troops would "provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border."

Politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, have been calling on the federal government to allocate more resources toward securing the border. The news comes in the wake of several instances of violence by Mexican drug cartels, and just weeks after Arizona implemented a controversial immigration law that many feared would lead to racial profiling. Obama has denounced the measure, calling it "misguided," but the law's proponents have argued that the federal government's inaction forced Arizona lawmakers to take matters into their own hands.

Stocks Open Sharply Down on Korean Tension

Nick Summers — Tue, 25 May 2010 13:34:33 GMT

Stocks across the globe opened dramatically lower today in response to North Korea's reported threat to take military action against South Korea, as well as deepening worries over the Bank of Spain's bailout of a major bank.

In particular, Dow Jones industrial average futures fell more than 2 percent, S&P 500 futures fell 2.5 percent, and the euro continued to lose value, reaching a four-year low, and sending it closer to parity with the U.S. dollar, a level it has not seen since June 2002.

Market watchers are expecting to see the Dow close below 10,000 for the first time since Feb. 8. The index closed yesterday at 10,066.57, down 126.82 points, the bulk of which—80 points—came during the final 15 minutes of trading. But the Associated Press reports that two reports due to be published today, showing increased consumer confidence and rising home prices in 20 major cities, could offset anxieties over the possibility of a Korean conflict.

That dispute appears to have no resolution in sight, with a United States delegation to China, led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, unable to extract support from the Chinese for a U.N. Security Council resolution rebuking North Korea for its alleged role in the deaths of 46 sailors aboard the South Korean Cheonan in late March.

White House Supports 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Deal

Eve Conant — Tue, 25 May 2010 03:33:07 GMT

President Obama has agreed to a compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department that will help pave the way for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the military's 17-year-old ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces.

On Monday, gay-advocacy groups met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and at the White House to hammer out details of a compromise, and later on Monday the White House announced that Obama supports the deal. As the Gaggle reported earlier Monday, the compromise includes a provision that implementation would not begin until the Pentagon has completed its study into the effects of the repeal that is due to be completed in December.

In a letter to lawmakers, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote, "Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights, and suggestions." Key votes on the repeal, which would be included as an amendment in the Defense Authorization Bill, are expected in both the House and Senate later this week.

Now Pelosi and Reid Want C-Span to Broadcast the FinReg 'Debate.' Sheesh.

Andrew Romano — Mon, 24 May 2010 23:51:33 GMT

Earlier today, I gently mocked Barney Frank's proposal to televise the FinReg conference committee meetings. My argument: given that the real negotiations will still take place behind closed doors, TV cameras will probably do more to boost partisanship than transparency:

Democrats will seize on the TV time to declare that any Republican who refuses to vote for the bill—which is what all of the as-yet-unnamed conferees are expected to do—is an enemy of Main Street. Republicans, meanwhile, will use the cameras to "box Democrats into a corner, calling for a level of transparency that neither party has ever practiced and hitting them when they fail to live up to it," as Politico reports.

I tried my best to dissuade Congress, but alas, they don't seem to care what I think. According to HuffPost, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have now signed on to Frank's plan:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, through a spokesperson, tells HuffPost Hill she "definitely" will push to televise and webcast talks between House and Senate conferees ... "This is something that he would support," Jim Manley, senior communications adviser to Harry Reid, told HuffPost Hill.

Which means that C-Span fans are finally going to get what they want: a day or two of pure political theater. HuffPost Hill seems particularly jazzed, writing that the news represents "a blow to Wall Street lobbyists, who work much more effectively in the dark."

They should probably keep two things in mind, though, lest they lose control of their expectations. First, even Frank admits "the negotiations will go on in private" because "that's where human beings work"—lobbyists and all. And second, the Republicans are just as excited as the Democrats. Why? As Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown put it earlier today, GOP leaders "embraced ... Frank's C-Span pledge because it gives them one more public platform to press their vision of reform—and score points ... [by] calling for a level of transparency that neither party has ever practiced ... [and then] hitting [Democrats] when they fail to live up to it."

The truth is, both parties see the C-SPAN charade as a PR opportunity, and nothing more. Democrats seem to believe (as HuffPost Hill argues) that "the more attention paid to the negotiations ... the harder it'll be to weaken the bill." But it's just as likely that the added attention will provide Republicans with a new opportunity to sour the public on the legislation.

So, sure, the new regulations will still pass. The public will just be more divided over the issue than ever before. If that's what this kind of (faux) transparency gets us, I'm guessing that we'd be better off without it.

Robin Givhan Is SUPER-Pissed That Kagan Won't Cross Her Legs Like a Lady. (But Wait, Givhan Doesn’t Cross Her Legs, Either!)

Jessica Bennett — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:45:44 GMT

IRONIC: Most women, including Elena Kagan, cross their legs when sitting, but not Robin Givhan—even at (scoff!) New York Fashion Week. (Thos Robinson / Getty Images).

Well, hot damn, Robin Givhan. We know you won a Pulitzer and all, but my jaw straight-up dropped when I read this headline, from Sunday's Washington Post Style section: "Elena Kagan goes on Supreme Court confirmation offensive in drab D.C. clothes." Wow! (And is there such a thing as non-drab D.C. clothes?) But then there's the caption, showing Kagan looking perfectly professional, complete with a pair of pearls, next to Sen. Amy Klobuchar: "UNUSUAL: Most women, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cross their legs when sitting, but not Kagan." Double wow.

Givhan goes on to say that, in matters of style, Kagan is "unabashedly conservative," and the piece is an attempt to convey, as Tim Gunn puts it, the semiotics of style—the idea that every part of your wardrobe says something about you. (Sexy equals stupid; dowdy equals wise.) As Givhan puts it, "Tied up in the assessment of style—Kagan's or anyone else's—is the awkward, fumbling attempt to suss out precisely who a person is." Which is undeniably true. But in this case, Givhan's attempt is exactly that: awkward, fumbling, and just plain offensive. She writes:

In the photographs of Kagan sitting and chatting in various Capitol Hill offices, she doesn't appear to ever cross her legs. Her posture stands out because for so many women, when they sit, they cross. She does not cross her legs at the ankles either, the way so many older women do. Instead, Kagan sits, in her sensible skirts, with her legs slightly apart, hands draped in her lap. The woman and her attire seem utterly at odds. She is intent on being comfortable. No matter what the clothes demand. No matter the camera angle.

If Wikipedia weren't telling me that Givhan is in her 40s, I'd chalk it up to grandmotherly tendencies. But beyond the idea that we'd never analyze the leg-crossing, "drab" tendencies of Justice Samuel Alito (though Givhan has criticized John Roberts for being too well put together), or the fact that, as Daily Intel points out, Kagan actually does cross her legs, there are three great ironies to this piece:

1. That it came out the same day the Washington Post ombudsman revealed that accusations of gender bias at the Post are working against efforts "to retain or attract a critically important readership group: women."

The ombudsman cites four particular stories that have drawn widespread feminine ire: the recent cutting review of NEWSWEEK editor Jon Meacham's PBS public-affairs program, Need to Know, in which writer Tom Shales declares that co-host Alison Stewart looks, during a "fawning" interview with Bill Clinton, "as though she would have been much more comfortable in Clinton's lap"; a recent column that said Rielle Hunter had spoken "blondely"; a description of Sarah Palin that referred to her "pumps and black nylons"; and a 2007 story about Hillary Clinton, again by Givhan, that focused entirely on her cleavage. In that piece, Givhan writes that Clinton's slightly V-shaped neckline was "unnerving" and "startling," especially for a woman "who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both." She added, "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"

2. That the Post's own internal stylebook says that "references to personal appearance—blond, diminutive, blue-eyed—should generally be omitted unless clearly relevant to the story." It cautions to "avoid condescension and stereotypes." Yeah, this is a fashion story—we know. But still kinda funny, right?

3. And now for the final irony, care of Getty Images, and our lovely photo editor, Kathy Jones. Robin Givhan (above)! What on earth are you doing at Fashion Week without crossing your legs?!

Read more from this author on her women's issues blog, The Equality Myth.

Exclusive: Airline Flight-Crew Members Expelled From Federal Gun-In-Cockpit Program

Mark Hosenball — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:19:54 GMT

Approximately 50 airline pilots and other cockpit crew members have been thrown out of a post-9/11 federal program that allowed them to carry loaded guns in flight, according to information provided to Declassified by a Homeland Security spokesperson. The spokesperson did not disclose the specific reasons that the pilots were ejected from the armed-pilot corps, officially called the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, beyond saying they had committed "violations" of the program's "standard operating procedures."

The disclosure follows an incident last week in which a pilot for the discount airline JetBlue was arrested at Boston's Logan Airport after he threatened to kill himself in "spectacular fashion," as reported on the Web site of Boston radio station WBZ. The report quoted the airport's federal security director, George Naccara, as saying the unnamed JetBlue pilot sent an alarming e-mail to a girlfriend—reportedly a flight attendant—who then called the cops. "He never threatened crashing the aircraft," Naccara told the radio station. "It was a situation in which he was threatening to take his own life and, in fact, his words were that he may do it in 'some spectacular fashion' but not anything to do with the aircraft and no reference to crashing the aircraft or harming anyone else other than himself."

Massachusetts State Police spokesman David Procopio tells Declassified that the suicide threat was sent as a text message, and that the pilot was packing a loaded gun when state troopers and federal air marshals located him in the airline's pilot lounge. The pilot surrendered the gun and was transported by paramedics to Massachusetts General Hospital for examination, Procopio says. (A law-enforcement official confirms that this will include mental-health evaluation.) State prosecutors have no plans to file criminal charges against the pilot, according to Procopio. Law-enforcement officials say it would be difficult if not impossible to charge the pilot with firearm violations if he was carrying the weapon as a member of the FFDO program. Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which operates the FFDO program, declines to say whether the JetBlue pilot was a member of the program. "For security purposes TSA does not confirm participation in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program," she says. But two federal officials familiar with aviation safety, requesting anonymity when discussing sensitive information, confirm that the pilot was an FFDO member.

Asked how many pilots have been ejected from the FFDO program since its inception, Payne replied to Declassified by e-mail: "To date, only one half of one percent of Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs) have been removed from the program due to violations of the FFDO Program Standard Operating Procedures. Of those, the only FFDO removed from the program due to alleged or suspected misuse of a firearm in the aircraft/airport environment was the FFDO who failed to follow FFDO Program standard operating procedures and negligently discharged his issued firearm while in flight. FFDOs who fail to adhere to program procedures are subject to suspension and/or removal from the FFDO program."

Although TSA has declined to comment further, government aviation officials say more than 10,000 pilots, navigators and flight engineers are current members of the FFDO program. In that case, a removal rate of 0.5 percent works out to roughly 50 pilots. The officials decline to say specifically why the 50 were thrown out, but they list a variety of reasons, ranging from failure to pass shooting tests to the one known case of the pilot who negligently fired his weapon in flight.

Officials say FFDO participants are pilots and other cockpit crew members who have volunteered to undergo specialized marksmanship and self-defense training to enhance their ability to fight off hijackers. Official protocols warn that FFDO training is physically strenuous, and that participants must pay their own training expenses. Federal regulators decided to set up the program in the wake of 9/11 after many pilots complained that when strapped into their cockpit seats they were too vulnerable to possible attack. The pilots argued that because many of them have military backgrounds, they ought to be trusted to defend themselves with firearms. Homeland Security also assigns armed federal air marshals to protect domestic and international flights, but they fly in passenger cabins, not the cockpit.

A Green Light to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Eve Conant — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:52:47 GMT

Gay-rights advocates held two concurrent meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill to hash out a compromise on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, The Advocate is reporting.

It's what many gay-rights advocates have been hoping for—an agreement to get the repeal inserted into the Department of Defense authorization bill—and it looks today as if they might just get it. "In a perfect world we would have unconditional repeal with nondiscrimination protections built in," says a source close to the talks reached by NEWSWEEK. "But this is very, very good, this is definitely a clear path forward," says the source. That said, with a lack of nondiscrimination protections built into amendment language, "No one is getting everything they want," the source says.

Those in the meetings, according to the source, included representatives from the Human Rights Campaign, the Palm Center, Servicemembers United, and Service Members Legal Defense Network and aides to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Sen. Carl Levin, and Rep. Patrick Murphy, who would shortly be seeking further guidance from the White House on the amendment language, "and we understand that the White House will respond favorably," says the source. The White House meeting, according to the source, included deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, White House Director of Public Engagement Tina Tchen, and Alison Nathan of the White House counsel's office.

The compromise being hammered out would include repeal this year, however the implementation of the repeal would not begin until after the Pentagon's working-group study is completed in December. The repeal would also require certification from President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mike Mullen that the law would not have a negative impact on troop readiness or recruitment, according to The Advocate. It would also not include a nondiscrimination policy and would return authority for the open service of gays and lesbians back to the Pentagon. "It's not saying ‘no' to a nondiscrimination policy," said the source close to the talks. "It's just that the rulemaking will go back to the Pentagon."

If the repeal is inserted into the bill and passed, it would mean that gay-rights advocates would be trusting the Pentagon to do what they hope for—which is allow for open service and eventually include nondiscrimination protections—a leap of faith given years of opposition to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But recent testimony of top Pentagon officials in support of repeal has perhaps persuaded gay advocates to do what years ago might have seemed impossible: trust the military to look after their best interests. Both the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee are expected to vote on the bill later this week. Why inserted in the bill? Because when it reaches the Senate it would take 60 votes to strip it out, which would be a hurdle for opponents of repeal.

Lt. Daniel Choi, who is being discharged from the Army for being gay and has become an activist fighting for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, tells NEWSWEEK that the news leaking out of today's meetings "just shows that the pressure we and all activists have putting on the administration cannot be ignored." Choi says that moving forward with the repeal, even if all the details are not immediately in place, "is the same thing that happened with the integration of blacks and women. You start with a moral decision."

"This is a good thing," says Choi. If it happens. "I'm not going to be happy until people stop getting fired."

Quote of the Day: Robin Givhan

Newsweek — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:44:31 GMT

"But Kagan took the anti-style offensive several steps further.... She sat hunched over. She sat with her legs ajar."

—Washington Post fashion columnist Robin Givhan on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The Pulitzer Prize-winner previously created a media firestorm after discussing Hillary Clinton's cleavage in 2007.