Calling all Ricochet members: please join us tomorrow at 4:30 PM PT/7:30 PM ET for a live chat with Ricochet guest contributor and Los Angeles police officer Jack Dunphy. What's it like being a conservative cop in a blue city? Get his take on O.J., Rodney King, whether capital punishment is actually a deterrent, or anything else you'd like to ask a working cop (no, he can't "fix" your parking ticket). Should be a fascinating hour.

What's that, you're not a member? Tell it to the judge, or join here. 

Thanks to EJHIll for the graphic. 

The razor-sharp Cheryl Miller is a must-read in today's Wall Street Journal:

At times, though, the abrupt tonal shift from testimonial to infomercial can be jarring. [...]

Stacey Feldman, vice president for marketing at First Response, acknowledges potential pitfalls in the approach, especially if happy endings are in short supply. "We were worried," she says, "but this is an honest portrayal. We want to be there for the ups and downs in these women's lives."

[...] But will her stars agree? Especially if, after airing their most intimate moments and private yearnings, they don't win the pregnancy prize?

"I'm speechless and all out of tears today. Don't know what to say," wrote Wendy, a Conceptions Diarist, in her farewell post. "I have to say this project has consumed me." Sometimes even reality TV can get too real.

You had asked several additional questions on this subject, Peter. Some answers:

Q. Do you suppose the state Attorneys General and the NFIB have chosen the strongest grounds on which so to argue?

A. There are no others available.

Q. Do you suppose we may entertain so much as the faintest hope that any court in the land would actually hold ObamaCare unconstitutional?

A. A faint hope yes. But a real hope, not very likely.

Q. If not, what will remain of the Constitution's government of limited and enumerated powers?

A. There is a false assumption in this premise. The doctrine of limited and enumerated powers was done away with in the New Deal period. We are now just realizing the costs of those mistakes.

"To be sure," writes Shikha Dalmia at Reason, "I was on something of a luxury trip for journalists, carefully choreographed by the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation." But

unless somehow someone managed to prettify vast swaths of the countryside for our benefit, I couldn't help but think that, by any properly historically calibrated yardstick, the real story in China is not of environmental degredation, but of environmental progress. Still, China does have an environmental problem. But it stems from its moribund political system—not its growing economy.

The Chinese, Dalmia writes, have "added something new to the annals of autocracy: showy environmental projects. Call it prestige environmentalism. Beijing's remarkable metamorphosis is the clearest example," she concludes, of a shiny, happy state-run plan carrying "major dangers."

Try as Tom Friedman and company might, a command economy isn't the path to a greener earth.

This past week on Ricochet, Stephen Green predicted the end of the Progressive experiment, questioned whether taking the Senate back is really such a good idea, and got a bit giddy imagining Obama and Reid versus a Tea Party Congress. Join me in wishing Stephen happy travels as he heads on home to Pajamas Media -- and be sure to visit him there often!

Wayne Barrett, a longstanding staple of NYC journalism, announced today his departure from the Village Voice, where he has been writing for the paper’s “Runnin’ Scared” column since 1978.

Having worked as a research assistant for Wayne, I can’t speak more highly of the man who waged vendettas against some of New York’s biggest players: Ed Koch, Donald Trump, and of course Rudy Giuliani among countless others. Say what you will about the Voice and about Wayne’s personal politics, conservatives and liberals alike would do well to take a lesson from his fierce dedication to truth and transparency in government.

Wayne’s investigations, often scathing and always unapologetically revealing, expressed his unwavering dedication to bringing truth into the limelight, regardless of whose toes were being stepped on.

Read Wayne’s final post here. He mentions that he plans to continue writing, albeit he’s not sure in what form. Here’s to looking forward to whatever that may be.

Moral panic.  Too many Americans are out of work! This is bad for the economy, but it's terrible for our sense of who we are. Can you create a bunch of jobs? For those people? I sure can't. These numbers suggest that our way of doing things had fundamental, systemic flaws. That can't be true. And it's too awful to think that even if it is true, we just have to wait for the market to recalibrate! People aren't notches on some kind of meter, even though we constantly treat ourselves that way and feel fine about it when times are good. We've got to do something. Anything! Any policy will do so long as it moves these numbers.

Therapeutic Optimism.  Stimulus! Hiring incentives! Public-private partnerships deeply committed to moving those numbers -- for America. Now we're talking. Sure, it's expensive -- maybe even expensive, inefficient, and largely ineffective. But look on the bright side: a stimulus big enough to really move the needle in at least one or two areas would be so big that we'd all realize just how fundamentally broken and illegitimate the political economy had become. Who can look a ten trillion dollar stimulus in the eye without laughing or crying? Not me! I want numbers big enough to make me feel like the government cares about nothing more than making us all feel a lot better about this awful situation -- because, as everyone knows, the whole economy ultimately depends on just about everyone feeling good about the economy. We want spenders, not hoarders. We can't afford to save. We need unemployment checks, and we need to spend them, immediately, on 3D TVs. And hey! Look. It's working. Jobs numbers are rising. Back to where they were before we had a stimulus!

The Poverty of Expectations.  No, I definitely don't want to hear about the impact of people who've stopped looking for jobs on the rising employment rate. Don't even raise the question of whether such an expensive, expansive government is worth the new hiring we have seen. The answer can't be no. I couldn't stand that; could you? These things can't be reversed, no more than you can uncry tears. We're stuck with the president's approach. He's not stupid. His advisers -- they're meritocrats! They're as constrained as the rest of us. It's a bad hand. When people hurt like this, only government can move, and there are only so many moves the government can make. If my share of the billions we've spent contributed to just one suffering person getting a job, I think it all must have been worth it. Heck, that person might have been me. Next time, next month, it might be me. We're lucky to have just one more job by election day than we had last election day. I sure hope it's mine.

Today I spent the day backwards, only just now getting to the newspapers, where my eye now falls on an editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled "Justice Needs More Time." "Last week," the editorial explains,

Administration lawyers motioned for a one-month extension in Florida district court, where 20 state Attorneys General and the NFIB, the small business association, are arguing that ObamaCare is unconstitutional....At the core of the suit is whether the Commerce Clause gives the government the power to compel all private citizens to buy insurance. "Requiring individuals to purchase something simply because they are alive is unprecedented," as NFOB president Dan Danner recently wrote...and if this individual mandate stands, the question is what remains of the Constitution's government of limited and enumerated powers.

Should they have a moment to spare from teaching their law school students to direct some instruction toward Ricochet, I'd like to ask professors Epstein and Yoo what they make of this. In particular,

a) Do they suppose ObamaCare is indeed unconstitutional?

b) Do they suppose the state Attorneys General and the NFIB have chosen the strongest grounds on which so to argue?

c) Regardless of their answers to a) and b), do they suppose we may entertain so much as the faintest hope that any court in the land would actually hold ObamaCare unconstitutional?

And, d), if not, what will remain of the Constitution's government of limited and enumerated powers?

I just love linking those two names.... The Chicago Sun-Times reports today:

A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.

There is no evidence or suggestion that the President was involved in anything illegal, or even that he was directly in touch with Blagojevich on this. He and his team ran a shrewd campaign, and Blago's somewhat toxic reputation was well-established in Illinois even before the election -- they kept him at arm's length. But two obvious questions remain: If the President-elect (as he was then) "knew" what Blago was up to, wasn't there at least an ethical obligation to put the kibosh on Blago's plot at the outset, long before the Governor was actually indicted? "Sorry, Governor, my old Senate seat is not for sale; there will be no deals." And, more stunningly (or perhaps not), where are the hordes of "investigative journalists," as in the glory days of Watergate, demanding to know, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Local governments are at risk of losing more than $1 billion in foreclosure relief funds they can't spend quickly enough.

With use-it-or-lose-it spending deadlines weeks away, cities and counties are scrambling to shore up neighborhoods by buying foreclosed and abandoned properties — but are often stymied by market forces, federal regulations and a lack of staffing [...].

Curse you, market forces!!! And, er, federal...regulations...

Because the Wall Street Journal puts each day's newspaper online at midnight Eastern time, which is a couple of hours before bedtime Pacific time, I get to look at tomorrow's newspaper today. The lead story, just up: "Outlook Dims for Democrats."

The Cook Political Report, a newsletter that tracks congressional races, now lists 68 Democratic House seats as being at "substantial risk," up from 62 in July and 58 in June, and the group plans to raise the figure to more than 70 this week. Other pollsters and analysts have also increased their list of Democrats they now consider imperiled. By comparison, less than 10 Republican-held seats are thought to be in jeopardy.

Sweet dreams.

On reflection, I concluded that I don't understand it any more than anyone else does. But let me take this opportunity to say that City Journal's editors are the best in the business. That I can say with confidence. Editors are the natural enemies of writers, usually. Most journalists complain bitterly that their editors ruin everything, and usually they're right. But City Journal has significantly improved every piece I've ever sent them. While you're there, read this piece by Judith Miller about Japanese germ warfare and Ben Plotinsky's very thoughtful piece about the unconscious yearning for religious rite and imagery in modern secular politics.

A bomb went off in Küçükçekmece this morning, apparently aimed at a police bus, injuring 15. Küçükçekmece is one of those suburbs out past the airport that no one really puts on top of their list of local tourist attractions. It sounds like a typical PKK hit to me, but who knows. The PKK, by the way, declared an end to the cease-fire on June 6. This would usually be really big news around here, but given other events, the declaration went almost unnoticed. If the PKK's responsible for this bombing (I bet they are), then you have to assume they were getting a little jealous of all the attention everyone's giving the İHH these days.

Meanwhile, it's pouring (and flooding) here, with traffic snarled, so no one really feels like taking to the streets to protest. Now, if you ask me, what the Turkish people should be protesting are the "non-standard" construction practices that cause the streets here to flood whenever there's a heavy rainstorm. That's what's most likely to kill them, given the seismic risk here. It's odd that for all the Turkish passion for conspiracy theories, no one here really discusses the biggest real conspiracy and the biggest real threat to the country: the nexus between construction money and the political parties, all of which run on it.

Since when does appearing as a guest star on a television drama pass as an act of charity?

I give Bristol a slide. After all, she’s only 19 years old. Unfortunately, her acting is so wooden I suspect that the show's producers were happy to see her embarrass herself and her mother (but enough with the conspiracy theories).

But what's up with Jill Biden? Sure, she looks great, but isn’t there a better way to support the wives of military service members than to appear on Army Wives?

Has there ever been a cameo performance that made you think, “Hey, that political person’s relative is a great actor! I’m going to give my life savings to X.”

What an odd trend.

At Overlawyered, Walter Olson flags Duane Oyen's "story of ADA’s arguably perverse effects on a shuttle bus service in Minneapolis-St. Paul."

Andrew Sullivan likes Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry's take on the way low culture leads you to high culture on the internet.

Here's an intriguing development.

Israeli intelligence has come to the conclusion that it was a Hamas cell, and not an Egypt-based Global Jihad organization, that shot off the six rockets from Sinai that landed on Aqaba and Eilat on Monday. Hamas was also responsible, it appears, for a rocket attack launched from Sinai on April 22.

"It is clear to us beyond any doubt that in both incidents a cell of Hamas’s military wing in Gaza surreptitiously fired the missiles,” Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu said. “I want to be clear: Using the territory of a third country — a peaceful one — in order to launch missiles against Israel won’t help Hamas escape responsibility. Whoever shoots at Israeli citizens, and it doesn't matter from where, we will find them and hit them hard.”

Egypt, which initially said the rockets couldn't have been fired from Sinai, is now backing the Israeli assessment, and has publicly placed Hamas on notice. A security source quoted by the official Egyptian news agency Ashraq Al-Awsat said, "Egypt would not agree, under any circumstances, that any party use its territories to harm Egyptian interests." Hamas is denying any connection to the rocket attacks and blaming Islamic Jihad, which is denying it too.

If Hamas really was behind the attacks from Sinai, it might have overreached. Egypt has never concerned itself overmuch with the flow of smuggled goods and arms from Sinai into Gaza. But if Hamas has decided to use Sinai as a base for terrorist operations, essentially colonizing Egyptian territory for its own interests, it might have pushed Egypt too far. Egypt now has a greater incentive not only to take a closer look at the smuggling tunnels but also to police its long border with Israel; up to now, its fencing and surveillance systems (such as they are) have been restricted to the border with the Gaza Strip.

Of course, it might be wishful thinking to hope that Egypt will be prodded by this embarrassment to inhibit arms flow into Gaza. In truth, it'll probably take more than two rocket attacks on Israelis and Jordanians to get Egypt to do anything. Still, I'd expect Hamas to keep its operations on its own territory, at least for the time being.

Public service announcement: campaign watcher Jay Cost has a new home at The Weekly Standard. When he's not writing what you need to know, he's linking to it.

Case in point: Jay points us to Politico's take on faltering union fortunes this election season:

Facing an angry and skeptical electorate, the AFL-CIO plans to scale back its political advertising budget for the midterm elections, convinced that its members can more effectively reach voters than the usual raft of TV spots in support of Democratic candidates.

I'm over the moon for face-to-face political arguments -- that's citizenship in action. I'm just not terribly certain that the unions mean quite what they're saying. After all, they'll "spend about $2.5 million on direct mail and $2 million more on phone banking." And how's this for outreach?

Making sure they’re maximizing turnout of their members and that they’re doing the important persuasion to make sure that 65 to 70 percent support the union candidate, that’s going to be vital. None of those candidates win without those votes,” Rosenthal said. “We can mitigate some of the national mood and some of the factors that are playing against the Democrats by changing the equation and turning to those voters.

Sounds a bit like they're looking to win by running from that angry, skeptical electorate, not engaging with it. Democracy in action!

A quick, cryptic update from the Baltics: 

1) The Baltic Sea at midnight in mid-summer is the most beautiful thing I have seen. 

2) The Crystal Serenity is indeed a crystal of serenity. It is every image those words call to mind.

3) The only thing the Crystal of Serenity lacks is reliable, high-speed Internet access. That, actually, is a one key reason why it's serene and crystalline. I can't really pull off pretending to mourn it; I'm too happy about it. I do feel guilty about letting you down, though. There are many interesting things to report from this part of the world--obviously. 

4) We've docked in St. Petersburg, but it seems I cannot just spirit myself off to an Internet cafe every now and again to dash off a few posts for Ricochet. Why not? Because Americans may not leave the ship unless escorted by a "licensed guide" who will take us on an "official tour." In other words, the Cold War is not as over as one might wish. 

4) If you're reading this, it means there's a reason we won the Cold War, Boris. 

This week on Law Talk with Epstein and Yoo, the professors and Troy Senik answered questions phoned in by Ricochet members. But of course, you can't hear the show unless you're a Ricochet member. So, for all of you that haven't taken the plunge on joining Ricochet,  here's a sample of what you're missing by not parting with $3.58 a month, the price of a grande latte at...well, you know.  

Maybe sometimes. But in a country like ours, captivated by the way our politicians disgrace and redeem themselves, we know that resignation itself can be misused as a tool of rhetorical stagecraft and political convenience. Politicians who blow their promises might even have a responsibility to find a way to finish what they started -- under the watchful eye of judgmental citizens.

I say all this and more on RT today (after a brief seppuku montage):

I never thought I'd ever hear myself saying I'm with Columbia (on anything). But I am if this account from National Review is accurate. It reports that Columbia canceled a planned speech by the VP for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, on the grounds that he had a few years ago disrupted a Columbia commencement. It seems to me that if universities enforced not speech codes but basic civility and respect for others, we would all be better off. Animal rights is a very interesting debate, and there are any number of people who can make the case for it who do not believe in disruption.

I can't find anything about the 2004 incident that is said to have led to this cancelation. I grant you the double standards given some of the other people who have spoken at Columbia. But I do not see why we should treat people who one day will disrupt and another day debate as members of a civil society dedicated to open debate and conversation...