"Why is Slate acting like the suppression of this ThinkProgress article is a shocking aberration that’s all the Weekly Standard’s fault?"

"Facebook should give up on the inevitably subjective task of policing 'fake news,' and simply let us, the users, decide for ourselves what news is credible."

Writes John, at Facebook, linking to "When Fact-Checking Becomes Censorship/Facebook has empowered a conservative magazine to suppress liberal viewpoints" (Slate).

It's just so hard to ruin the term "alt-right."

I've just got to laugh at this NYT piece, "News Outlets Rethink Usage of the Term ‘Alt-Right.'"

Here you have a term that could have a broader or a narrower meaning, and there was an interesting opportunity for non-righties to do some damage. 

When The Washington Post published a profile last week of Richard B. Spencer, a prominent leader of the so-called alt-right, readers were quick to respond. By Monday, the article had drawn more than 2,600 comments. Many of them had a similar message.

“Please, please stop referring to a white Christian supremacist movement as the ‘alt-right’ — a phrase that sounds like a subgenre of rock music,” one reader wrote.

Commenters like that were not seeing what I think was WaPo's real motivation — to besmirch the larger group of righties by taking a label they might have liked and causing the general public to associate it with out-and-proud racists. That move turned out to be difficult, because if people learn the term only in association with the small, ugly subsection of the larger set, they think it looks like the press is propagating a euphemism. That reaction from people who were hearing the term for the first time has now caused the liberal press to "rethink" their scheme.

The NYT article proceeds to talk about Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart, who has called Breitbart "the platform for the alt-right," but it doesn't admit the sleight of hand that was attempted. If "alt-right" could have been tied tightly to Spencer and overt racists, then it would seem as though Bannon is an admitted racist and Breitbart.com is toxic. That plan seems to have failed because the intermediate step — equating "alt-right" with racist — outraged readers. Making racists seem okay and kind of cool was an unintended consequence.

So now we're seeing the media back off. For example:

The standards editor at NPR published a memo in mid-November titled “Guidance on References to the ‘Alt-Right,’” that encouraged an explanation of the term, and the progressive news site ThinkProgress said in a post last week that it would “no longer treat ‘alt-right’ as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members” because the term is used as a self-descriptor and obscures the group’s overt racism....

The New York Times has had many conversations about the term but has not banned it, said Phil Corbett, The Times’s standards editor. Reporters are encouraged to explain what the term means rather than use it as a label, he said.

I'm all for precision, but I think this recalibration is only happening because Plan A failed.

The theme of the day — "awkward" — finally brings us — as all things do — to Donald Trump.

It's Think Progress: "Rubio’s New ‘Con Artist’ Attack On Trump Could Put Him In A Very Awkward Position."

“A con artist is about to take over the conservative movement and the Republican Party, and we have to put a stop to it,” Rubio said on CBS’ This Morning. “He is wholly unprepared to be president of the United States.”

Rubio used the “con artist” line again on NBC’s Today. “I mean, this is unreal. Again, this guy is a con artist,” Rubio said. “He’s always making things up. No one holds him accountable for it.”

And again on ABC’s Good Morning America: “I think it’s important for people to understand they have a choice to make. Look, if this pattern continues, the conservative movement in the Republican Party will be taken over by a con artist portraying himself as the fighter of the ordinary person fighting for the working man — but he’s spent years sticking it to the working people.”

Rubio used the line again Friday while campaigning in Texas, and again later on Twitter....

Rubio is repeating himself and it's triggering the stereotype we have about him: a robotic repeater of sound bites. And that's a reputation that Chris Christie stuck on him, Chris Christie, who, while Rubio was flogging his "con artist" label, was out there endorsing Trump and overshadowing Rubio in the news cycle.

But that's not what Think Progress is calling "awkward." Think Progress is calling attention to Rubio's pledge to support whoever wins the GOP nomination. How is he going to support somebody he's insulted by calling him a "con artist"?

2 ideas:

1. Take a look at Chris Christie? Chris Christie insulted Trump plenty of times. Here's Politico's "8 times Chris Christie suggested Donald Trump shouldn't be president." Christie once said Trump was acting like "13-year-old," "someone who's just going to talk off the top of their head," not "suited to be president of the United States," someone who "has the quick and easy answer to a complicated problem," etc. All the candidates insult each other. It's part of the game, and when the game moves forward, it's time to drop the insults and switch to compliments. If you're good enough to get this far, you obviously know that.

2. "Con artist" is one of those insults that can be flipped. Remember how Trump embraced the insult "angry"? "Our country is being run by incompetent people. And I won’t be angry when we fix it, but until we fix it, I’m very, very angry." Do the same thing "con artist." If you think about it the right way, a "con artist" is just what we want. I know that sounds frightful, but I'm pre-paraphrasing what I think Trump could say and Rubio could winningly endorse.

"If you want a government that’s gonna intrude on your life, enforce their personal views on you, then I guess Jeb Bush is your man."

"We really don’t need another Bush in office," said Terri Schiavo's widower Michael.

Though Michael Schiavo got a court order in 2002 to remove his wife’s feeding tube — he said his wife had not wanted to be kept alive artificially — Jeb Bush intervened, pushing the state legislature to pass an unconstitutional bill in a special session giving him authority to order the feeding tube reinserted. When a state judge ordered it removed again, [Michael Schiavo's lawyer George] Felos told ThinkProgress, Bush “manipulated the organs of state government in order to try to evade the court order.”

There's an unfortunate phrase in a serious discussion —  "manipulated the organs of state government" — and yet it's oddly apt, expressing outrage at the inappropriateness of Bush's intrusions. 

"Arizona Professor Body Slammed By Police During Jaywalking Stop, Now Charged With Assaulting Officer."

An interesting post — with video — at Think Progress, which frames the story as racial profiling. 

There's some meek push-back in the comments:

I'm sure everyone will hate me for saying this, but first of all, she was jaywalking, then she was arguing with the officer, then fighting him, the entire time she was uncooperative and difficult. Even if she is a professor she wasn't acting in a professional manner. This escalated when it didn't have to.

A bill in Massachusetts that would require you to get permission from a judge in order to have sex in your own home.

1. The requirement would apply during the pendency of a divorce, separation, or restraining order proceedings and only where there are children in the home.

2. The state senator who introduced the bill is Richard J. Ross, a Republican.

3. After Think Progress called attention to this in a post titled "Bill Forces People Going Through Divorce To Get A Judge’s Permission Before Having Sex In Own Home"...

Ross’ staff told ThinkProgress that the senator is "not in support" of the bill. It was filed on behalf of a constituent, Robert LeClair, as a courtesy to him. Massachusetts law allows legislators to put forth a citizen’s piece of legislation, as Ross did in this case, though there is no requirement that they do so.

4. What?!

5. Googling, I see that back in 2011, one Robert Leclair — identified then as a "local Massachusetts lawmaker" — was proposing the law himself (and not as a constituent of Ross's). We're told: "Leclair is a divorcee himself and also the former president of Fathers United for Equal Justice."

6. I'm very sympathetic to children caught in the upheaval that is divorce, and a new man in the home — stepping into Dad's old role — may sometimes/usually make life harder for them, but: a. Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him, b. Just because something is recognized as a problem doesn't mean that your solution is better than the problem, c. Laws that on paper oversolve problems and that in reality cannot/will not be enforced at all make a mockery of the rule of law, d. Legislators who introduce bills that they don't even support should be banned from engaging in sexual activity in the home or anywhere else until they withdraw that bill.

"Trick Websites Dupe Democrats Into Donating To Republicans."

Think Progress is worried about websites that conspicuously display the name and face of a Democratic candidate and then invite contributions to "help defeat" that candidate.

Do these violate election law? Should they?

"4 Ways Martin Luther King Was More Radical Than You Thought."

At Think Progress, where "more radical than you thought" implies and that's a good thing.

Think Progress sees fit to disparage the statement: "Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism."

Can you see why this is worth scoffing at, other than that it's a tweet from the Republican National Committee?

First, you have to be enough of a douchebag to act like you don't see that "ending racism" is a process and that a person might have a role in that process even though that role didn't go so far as to entirely complete the process.

And then you have to think, here on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, that it's worth exploiting Rosa Parks for one more opportunity to bray at Republicans. Over nothing!

Utterly pathetic. Show some respect. (Hey, remember "civility"?)

"Why Aren’t More Americans Fired Up About Inequality?"

Think Progress tells us it's something called "system justification":

[P]eople are “motivated to defend, bolster, and rationalize the social systems that affect them — to see the status quo as good, fair, legitimate, and desirable,” because it serves their own internal needs and desires as humans. It helps them “manage uncertainty and threat and smooth out social relationships,” and “enables people to cope with and feel better about the societal status quo and their place in it” ....

[T]here’s a powerful need in our own lives to reduce difficult feelings and anxieties when confronting the limitations of our social and economic order. 

It's true that people seek meaning in whatever exists. Everything happens for a reason. God has a plan. It's for the best. We want to like what we must deal with. It's a life skill. People who lack it are depressed. But we should also develop our critical thinking. That doesn't mean that if only we could think critically we'd get fired up about wealth inequality. Just because we're motivated to believe that the status quo is good doesn't mean the status quo isn't good. The fact that something currently exists is some evidence that it works better than untried, untested alternatives.

[C]hronically high system-justifiers, such as political conservatives, are happier (as measured in terms of subjective well-being) than are chronically low system-justifiers, such as liberals, leftists, and others who are more troubled by the degree of social and economic inequality in our society. 

Given that the left position is inherently depressive, it's interesting that showbiz folk have succeeded in making it feel good to be left-wing.

"The episode is a tragic reminder that even responsible gun owners can find themselves at the mercy of an unhinged gunman..."

The episode, it seems to me, is a nontragic reminder that even responsible gun owners may not get mercy from gunmen who become unhinged when you have sex with their wives.

Lesson: Be a responsible penis owner too. 

ADDED: This post is reacting to the way Think Progress goes for the anti-gun interpretation. I don't know exactly why the husband murdered the man he found with his wife. The two were not in flagrante.

"The Nine Most Insane Quotes From The NRA’s New Apocalyptic Op-Ed."

Wayne LaPierre opinion piece is translated into He's Crazy! format for safe consumption by the readers of Think Progress, so they can keeping thinking: Progress!

ADDED: I hope Think Progress isn't also flogging the lefty meme that we must not, in our struggle against gun violence, stigmatize the mentally ill. There's a meme-collision here: 1. Don't fear the mentally ill, who are harmless and deserving of empathy, and 2. That man seems like a mentally ill person, so we need to loathe and fear him.

"GOP Senator Pushes Gun-Running Conspiracy Theory During Benghazi Hearing."

That's the way they put it over at Think Progress. I've watched the video. Rand Paul asks a question. It seems histrionic to equate asking a question with pushing a conspiracy theory, and the truth is Hillary Clinton's answer has the ring of... lying.

The effort on the left to stereotype Rand Paul as a nutcase is so strenuous that it stimulates my root-for-the-underdog instinct. And makes me suspicious. I feel a Rand-Paul-must-be-destroyed conspiracy theory blossoming within.

"Though party officials typically dance around the unseemly issue of gerrymandering..."

"... this report is surprisingly candid and unabashed."

If Javon Belcher's girlfriend had owned a gun, might she have saved her own life?

The NRA thinks so, naturally, and naturally, Think Progress must say nooooo:

Whether or not [Kasandra] Perkins owned a gun, the woman was obviously unprepared for the sudden attack that ended her life last Saturday. Had she been armed, it’s possible the event could have become a shootout — further endangering the two onlookers to Perkins’ murder: The couple’s infant daughter, and Belcher’s mother.

Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of both murders and suicides. According to the Brady Campaign, “A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”

Put simply, Perkins was a victim of domestic violence by a man who was able to purchase guns....

She was a victim, a victim, a victim. Get it? If she'd dared to redefine herself, it would only have been worse. Grandma and baby might have died in a gun-slinging shootout. Now, get in this box that we've prepared for you, young woman: the victim box. Too bad that in your case, the victim box is a coffin. If you could only enlarge your perspective and contemplate the larger policy concepts. Over the vast expanse of people whose lives will be cradled and blanketed by the loving kindness of gun control — and all manner of other control — there will be more comfort, more caring, more lives saved.... in the mind of Think Progress, which must, of course, always think Progress! and, being dedicated to progress must know which way is forward. No distractions off the path can be tolerated. Of course, women's empowerment lies ahead on the forward path. So it can't be possible to think that an armed Kasandra Perkins is progress. That must be a wrong turn. How to see women's empowerment and gun control both together on the forward path? She's a victim. Package her that way. Package her neatly and stow her away, here, in this grave.

"Bain and Financial Industry Gave Over $565,000 To Newark Mayor Cory Booker For 2002 Campaign."

That's a headline over at ThinkProgress, and it's getting a lot of attention, but let's look at the detail:

Contributions to his 2002 campaign from venture capitalists, investors, and big Wall Street bankers brought him more than $115,000 for his 2002 campaign. Among those contributing to his campaign were John Connaughton ($2,000), Steve Pagliuca ($2,200), Jonathan Lavine ($1,000) — all of Bain Capital....

So 3 guys who work at Bain gave Booker a total of $5,200.

[Booker] and his slate also jointly raised funds for the “Booker Team for Newark” joint committee. They received more than $450,000 for the 2002 campaign from the sector — including a pair of $15,400 contributions from Bain Capital Managing Directors Joshua Bekenstein and Mark Nunnelly. 

So there's another $30,800, for a total of $36,000. Just doing the math. Does Think Progress think that contributions from the financial industry taint the opinions of the politicians? Because... what's the number for Obama?

If we're going to pounce on everyone for the words they use, Ann Romney made herself exquisitely pounceable by saying "love."

"I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."

1-word response not understood by left-wing blog.

And they even see the historical reference. They just can't put it together.

(Sorry for 2 Allen West posts in a row. It just happened in the normal course of looking for the morning's bloggables.)

Oh, look! A liberal is talking about whether something can be "squared with the Constitution."

Normally, law folk of the liberal persuasion mock those who think constitutional interpretation can be done like that. But here's Ian Millhiser at Think Progress writing under the headline "The Eleventh Circuit’s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution."

Millhiser quotes the majority's characterization of its task:

In answering whether the federal government may exercise this asserted power to issue a mandate for Americans to purchase health insurance from private companies, we next examine a number of issues: (1) the unprecedented nature of the individual mandate; (2) whether Congress’s exercise of its commerce authority affords sufficient and meaningful limiting principles; and (3) the far-reaching implications for our federalist structure.

Rather than acknowledging the sophistication of the judges' approach to legal analysis, Millhiser says:

This is one way to evaluate whether a law is constitutional, but a better way is to ask whether the law can be squared with text of the Constitution. 

He proceeds to quote the text of the Commerce Clause. (Of course, he doesn't stop there, but goes on to claim that there's virtually no limit to what Congress can do in the name of regulating commerce as long as "it does not violate another textual provision of the Constitution." Note the use of the word "textual," as if he would limit those other constraints to what is written in particular text. The obvious hypo: Could Congress ban abortion using its commerce power? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser?)

Gingrich gives his opponents a quote to gasp about: "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution."

Just a few days ago, I was talking about a certain type of clever remark:

A witty, engaging speaker will say something surprising and counterintuitive, but then flesh it out or add one more point, and then it clicks. Of course, if you have opponents, you've got to anticipate what they'll do with the little slice of what you said that seems head-slappingly idiotic. So it may not be so smart to be smart like that. 

The context was David Plouffe saying "people won’t vote based on the unemployment rate." And now, here comes Newt Gingrich with an even juicier example of the seemingly stupid line that wakes up the audience and draws them in to hear the whole context but that also gives opponents an easy way to use the remark to make you look like an idiot.

Here's the quote, in it's full context (transcribed in a post by Ian Millhiser at Think Progress):

In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote “A Nation Like No Other” — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches. There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.

It's obvious to me — as a law professor who has studied and taught Article III of the Constitution for 25 years — that Gingrich is not denying that the Constitution provides for a Supreme Court. He's denying the supremacy of that Court over the other branches. He's stressing the checks on the judicial branch, which include Congress's power to make "Exceptions and... Regulations" to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the idea that the Supreme Court is not the sole voice in the interpretation of constitutional law. This is routine stuff in a Conlaw I class. It's what we conventionally talk about along with Marbury v. Madison. It's not the slightest bit edgy, believe me.

Watch the video at the Think Progress link. You can hear the stress on "Supreme" in "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution." He knows there's a Supreme Court. It's just not, in fact, supreme over everything. The Supreme Court can strike down statutes and order members of the Executive branch around to a certain extent, but it is also subject to jurisdiction cutbacks, new appointments, impeachment, and constitutional amendments. And the question of what the Constitution really means survives independently of the case law. We are free to argue that the Court got it wrong, to try to get cases overruled, and so forth. And there are many places where the Court hasn't spoken yet or may never speak, in which case there are important responsibilities elsewhere in government for other individuals to say what the Constitution means.