Barack Obama writes a pretty generic editorial supporting the Trans-Pacific "Partnership." Two problems: one, nobody and I mean nobody ever opposed exports, so arguing that corporations that export do better than corporations that don't is simply a red herring. Two, if you're looking for some assurance that the "investor-state tribunals" won't nullify our laws and force us to bail out big corporations whenever they dump crap into our air and water, you won't find it here. There's no China-bashing, at least, though he probably figures he can leave that to Larry Summers.
Bristol Palin says the whole Starbucks red cup controversy is "an attempt by the left to make Christians look stupid." And she might be on to something! Starbucks may well have rid their cups of all those snowflakes and reindeer because they knew someone would have a tantrum about it and they knew that would bring them more publicity, and I would of course disapprove of such cynical calculation, since I prefer enabling fewer tantrums. But naturally Ms. Palin can't take that theory all the way -- that is, to instruct Christians to ignore what Starbucks is doing -- because if she did, she couldn't drink from the cup of self-pity.
Hillary Clinton describes the problems with charter schools fairly lucidly and succinctly. She's saying the right things, again, which means it will be quite disappointing when she doesn't act on them so she can prize "bipartisanship" above all. You have to wonder, too, how charter schools had this very specific purpose (i.e., to be a sort of laboratory for public schools) and yet so quickly morphed into something else entirely.
U.S. Supreme Court decides not to take up a challenge to California's non-profit donor review law, one that allows the state to determine whether a particular non-profit group is actually doing charitable work. The plaintiffs allege freedom of speech infringement yadda yadda yadda, but the state doesn't even reveal donor names publicly. In any case, this Court has always looked more kindly on campaign finance disclosure than on campaign spending limits. Perhaps the next right-wing court, the one that makes the Roberts Court look as liberal as the Rehnquist Court looks now, attacks all campaign finance disclosure as Communist and un-American.
Finally, Sen. Ted Cruz says atheists should never be President, adding that "(a)ny president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander in chief of this nation." Again: how is this not "political correctness"? How is this not an attempt to scare people into adhering to a particular, rigid ideology, and condemning those fellow-travelers who would deviate, however slightly, from that ideology? This seems the very soul of "political correctness" to me.