"Once European fashion houses stopped pretending that they were ignorant of Black culture, they began to openly feed on it."

"Sagging had made young Black men objects of scorn, particularly by the paternalists—Bill Cosby, the father; Barack Obama, the politician; and Eric Adams, the cop—who had each done their separate campaigns admonishing the brothers for not pulling up their pants. The derision was predicated on protection. Black man, make them respect you by your dress. Black man, hold yourself high. Legislation against sagging—modern morality ordinances, passed in municipalities in states such as New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan, and across the South—became a possible pretense for arrests. In February, 2019, in Shreveport, Louisiana, Anthony Childs died while being chased by police, who pursued him for a 'saggy pants' violation. They engaged in gunfire, and although the coroner ruled Childs’s death the result of a self-inflicted wound, he was killed in a confrontation that never should have happened in the first place. Did Balenciaga care? The brand’s sweatpants, looked at through the prism of death and disrespect, were a real problem and a sort of social evil, conjuring bodies in effigy."

Writes Doreen St. Félix, in "Girl, What Waist? How the waist became the site of enduring race panic" (The New Yorker).

"The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community."

"President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him.  The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet."

A statement of Donald Trump's opposition to Obama's "Plan to Surrender American Internet Control to Foreign Powers."

"Obama feels liberated..."

"... and sees the recent flurry of aggressive executive action and deal-making as a pivot for him to spend his final two years in office being more the president he always wanted to be."

"Chuck Hagel was exactly the defense secretary that President Obama wanted. He wanted to take the temperature down a notch after Gates...."

"He didn't want any more rock star military generals, he didn't want, you know, this constant fighting with the Pentagon over troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Chuck Hagel gave him everything that he wanted. I think at the end of the day though, Chuck Hagel was viewed by the White House as almost too passive. But I think the real reason why he was let go-- is because the White House, after the midterms, felt like they needed to show that they were doing something, they were shaking up their national security team. The reality is, he didn't want to shake up his national security team."

Said NYT reporter Helene Cooper on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Chuck Todd — the moderator, who'd asked her why Hagel was fired" — interjected after that first sentence: "He wanted a smaller personality." That is, Obama, when he picked Hagel, was looking for "a smaller personality." So... was Hagel too small or not small enough... or just the wrong kind of small... or the right kind of big enough to be worth making an example of? And by "right kind," I mean, he's a Republican. That's always been useful.

"Defining constitutional deviancy down."

From the new David Brooks column titled "Obama in Winter":

Usually presidents at the end of their terms get less partisan, not more... Usually presidents with a new Congressional majority try to figure out if there is anything that the two branches can do together... But the White House has not privately engaged with Congress on the legislative areas where there could be agreement. Instead, the president has been superaggressive on the one topic sure to blow everything up: the executive order to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws.... Instead of a nation of laws, we could slowly devolve into a nation of diktats, with each president relying on and revoking different measures on the basis of unilateral power — creating unstable swings from one presidency to the next. If President Obama enacts this order on the transparently flimsy basis of 'prosecutorial discretion,' he’s inviting future presidents to use similarly flimsy criteria. Talk about defining constitutional deviancy down.

"Defining deviancy down" is a famous alliterative phrase — less alliterative with Brooks's extra word "constitutional" thrown in. It was coined by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a 1993 article titled "Defining deviancy down," which, as Mickey Kaus once put it, "blames the left for treating mental illness and single motherhood as acceptable 'life styles.'" The deviancy in question was the private citizen's deviancy from social norms. It's a catchy way to decry the lowering of standards (similar to Bush's "soft bigotry of low expectations").

It's interesting to transfer "defining deviancy down" to the context of the behavior of Presidents within a constitutional system, and in fact the behavior of Presidents does influence the way courts later interpret the power of the President. As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote long ago in a very significant case:

The Constitution is a framework for government. Therefore, the way the framework has consistently operated fairly establishes that it has operated according to its true nature. Deeply embedded traditional ways of conducting government cannot supplant the Constitution or legislation, but they give meaning to the words of a text or supply them. It is an inadmissibly narrow conception of American constitutional law to confine it to the words of the Constitution and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon them. In short, a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned, engaged in by Presidents who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, making as it were such exercise of power part of the structure of our government, may be treated as a gloss on "executive Power" vested in the President by § 1 of Art. II.

That proposition was warmly embraced in Justice Breyer's opinion for a majority of the Supreme Court in last term's case about the President's power to make recess appointments:

[T]e longstanding “practice of the government”...  can inform our determination of “what the law is”...

That principle is neither new nor controversial. As James Madison wrote, it “was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution, that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in expounding terms & phrases necessarily used in such a charter . . . and that it might require a regular course of practice to liquidate & settle the meaning of some of them.” Letter to Spencer Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908). And our cases... show that this Court has treated practice as an important interpretive factor even when the nature or longevity of that practice is subject to dispute, and even when that practice began after the founding era. See Mistretta, supra, 400–401 (“While these [practices] spawned spirited discussion and frequent criticism, . . . ‘traditional ways of conducting government . . . give meaning’ to the Constitution” (quoting Youngstown, supra, at 610) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); Regan, supra, at 684 (“[E]ven if the pre-1952 [practice] should be disregarded, congressional acquiescence in [a practice] since that time supports the President’s power to act here”); The Pocket Veto Case, supra, at 689–690 (postfounding practice is entitled to “great weight”); Grossman, supra, at 118–119 (postfounding practice “strongly sustains” a “construction” of the Constitution).

So Presidents really can define constitutional deviancy down. They can acquire power by claiming and using it, especially if Congress doesn't put up much of a fight.

WaPo's Dan Balz exposes the oldness and emptiness of the Democratic Party.

He blames Obama and Hillary. And it's a problem that will only get worse if Hillary wins the presidency:

If Clinton were to win the presidency and serve two terms, the next opportunity for a new generation of Democrats to compete nationally would not come until 2024. The Democrats could go 16 years between competitive presidential nomination contests, wiping out opportunities for today’s younger generation to define or redefine the party apart from either the Obama or Clinton eras.

But at this point, if Clinton doesn't run, things are even worse, since the ranks are so thin. Not Martin O'Malley, after what just happened in Maryland. Balz assumes Jerry Brown at 76 is too old. (On his most recent HBO show, Bill Maher did a long, unfunny routine about the ageism of saying Jerry Brown is too old. Aren't we just terrible to display skepticism about an 80+-year-old President?)

Here's my observation. If Clinton were to see that she's either going to lose in 2016 or destroy the future development of national-level stars in her party, she could decide against running, release the dammed-up streams of cash to the next wave of Democrats, and allow them to develop their reputations in the 2016 race. Assume the GOP is due for its time in the presidency, and let this next round of campaigning center on rebuilding the front ranks of the party. From that invigorating process, a star could emerge. A star emerged in '08 even with Hillary blocking the way. To hope to win in '16 using the same tired bullyism on the theory that there's no one up and coming seems lame compared to bold moves to repopulate the party.