Generally speaking, I don't blame Norm Coleman for doing everything he can to win his razor-close Senate race against Al Franken.  If there are legal avenues open during a recount, candidates have the right to use them.

But that's getting harder and harder to defend.  Minnesota's election procedures may not be perfect (whose are?), but there's never been any serious evidence of widespread fraud or favoritism, and Franken's lead has increased at every step.  Even Scott Johnson, a conservative Minnesota attorney, writing in National Review today, agrees.  Coleman's recount strategy may have been poor, he says, but Franken "didn’t steal the election."

Coleman has nothing left now except an equal protection claim so poorly conceived that it plainly has no chance at either the state or federal level.  In a system where votes are counted and tallied locally, there will inevitably be small differences in procedure, but Coleman has no plausible evidence that a class of voters was mistreated or that election officials were systematically biased against him.  Even conservatives are finally starting to admit that, as much as they dislike Franken, Coleman's effort has turned into little more than a shabby campaign of retribution and spite.  It's past time to let it go, guys.

On the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart had a killer bit about the conservative commentators who are shrieking about America's descent into tyranny. His central point: they're confused; what they're experiencing isn't tyranny, it's simply the very uncomfortable experience of being in the minority. When the federal government is doing all sorts of things that you disagree with, it doesn't mean that America is becoming a fascist state. It just means you lost.

Looking at the Christian Right's response to the Vermont gay marriage legislation and the Iowa gay marriage court ruling, I can't help but feel like Stewart's wisdom applies. Heads are exploding over this thing, folks. Think Progress rounds it up.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: "Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."

Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel: "By redefining marriage, the Vermont legislature removed the cornerstone of society and the foundation of government. The consequences will rest on their shoulders and upon those passive objectors who know what to do but lack the courage to stand against this form of tyranny."

And so on. Someone needs to explain to these people that the creeping acceptance of gay rights isn't the end of democracy. It isn't the onset of tyranny. It's simply a byproduct of a society's slow crawl toward tolerance. And please, let's drop this idea that if you stand against gay rights somehow you stand with democracy and liberty. You can be a devout Christian and on the right side of progress. It's not impossible. If you stand in opposition to the expansion of rights, you're far closer to tyranny than anyone on the American left.

President Obama has been preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently North Korea, but his attention will soon inevitably turn to one of Washington's greatest diplomatic wild cards: Iran. A new white paper (PDF) prepared by a group of former US ambassadors and progressive foreign policy experts urges the Obama administration not to succumb to hawks pushing an unduly harsh and counterproductive stance regarding Iran. At issue is how to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In clear reference to Iraq invasion (remember those elusive WMDs Saddam was supposedly stockpiling?), the Iran Nuclear Policy Group warns, "publicly assuming the worst in the absence of evidence--and issuing an ultimatum based on that assumption--is a singularly bad idea."

The Group instead suggests a three-part approach to the problem, emphasizing reliance on facts rather than hype (a novel idea), a clear expression of US foreign policy goals in a way that leaves Iran space to manuever and save face, and "true diplomacy" that emphasizes not "the bad things that American can do to Iran but... things that the United States can withhold," namely foreign investment, diplomatic respect, and help developing Iran's oil and gas sectors.

Yesterday, I noted how strange it was that MSNBC's First Read leavened their usual breathless coverage of polling and public opinion with the sentence, "But [Obama's] presidency won't be judged by what happened on this trip; rather, it will be judged on what happens afterward." Ordinarily, First Read would read deep into polls and proclaim a "public image problem" or a "public image triumph" (or some such) for some political actor. But yesterday the writers seemed to acknowledge that basing one's political journalism on day-to-day polling was silly; long-term events, they acknowledged, have far more to do with our leaders' successes and failures. Had First Read learned an important lesson about the way journalists do our work?

Nope. Here's the gang today:

[Republicans] have maintained (for the most part) a unified opposition to Obama and the Democratic agenda. All Republicans, save for three moderate GOP senators, voted against Obama's stimulus. And every single Republican voted against the Democratic budget. But looking at recent polls, we've got to ask: Where has this gotten the GOP so far? The recent New York Times/CBS poll showed the Republican Party's favorability rating at an all-time low, matching the result from last month's NBC/WSJ poll.

Guys, come on. If Obama will be judged not based on what he does now but on the long-term results of very major decisions, as you said yesterday, doesn't the same standard apply to the congressional opposition?

Charts Charts Charts

CFR's Paul Swartz has a whole passel of horrifically grim charts for you today.  Bottom line: our current recession is the worst since World War II by practically every measure.  And on some measures, it's even worse than that.  U.S. trade, for example, is now collapsing at nearly Great Depression velocity.  Eichengreen and O'Rourke concur.  The only good news is that we're responding to events better than our ancestors did.  We hope.

The New Republic asked a few defense experts who won and who lost in the Pentagon procurement reshuffling announced yesterday.  Here's one answer:

NAME: Andrew Krepinevich

POSITION: President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

WHO WON: The Navy, which "essentially emerges unscathed. I talked to Gates this morning. According to him, they'll get to keep their eleven carriers through 2040, and [the budget] left the proposed increase in submarine production intact."

WHO LOST: The Air Force, because of the slashed F-22 program. "You look across the board, and you say, ‘The Air Force had a pretty tough day.'" Also, the Army, which was "already in a state of disrepair after the cancellations of the Crusader Artillery System and Comanche helicopter" over the past decade. Under the new budget plan, the Army will see huge cutbacks to FCS (Future Combat Systems), which is "the crown jewel of the Army's modernization program."

The Navy's reduction from 11 carriers to 10 won't happen until 2040?  Since their only other "loss" was the DDG-1000 destroyer, which they wanted to cancel anyway, I guess they really did come through this whole thing pretty unscathed.  The other services must be pretty hosed off about this.

The largest randomized health policy study ever conducted finds a health care program that's been astonishing effective in reducing crippling health care costs among poorer households.

Did I mention this health care program is in México? At the rate things are going we're going to be climbing over the border fence and headed south for what we can't get here.

A paper in the current Lancet scientifically establishes that Seguro Popular, established in 2003, achieved its main goal to reduce health care costs.

"The success of Seguro Popular in reducing catastrophic health expenditures is remarkable, not least because governmental money spent on the poor in many countries rarely reaches the intended recipients," said Gary King of Harvard University, lead author on the study.

The study included 500,000 people and monitored health outcomes and expenditures in 118,569 households in 174 communities over 10 months. Half the communities received treatment. That means families in those villages were encouraged to enroll in Seguro Popular. They had their health facilities built or upgraded, with medical personnel, drugs and other supplies provided. The other half didn't get squat.

The outcome of the study is interesting enough. But its innovative research designs and statistical methods vastly increased what can be learned from an evaluation while saving a short ton of money making the evaluation.

The design includes failsafe components that preserve the experimental randomization even if politics or other problems intervene, including those that have ruined most previous large scale public policy evaluations.

Aren't we doing that right now in the US? Don't we need to screen politics out of the equation? Any researchers from this study willing to look at our own sick health care system?

Anybody 'sides me watching Dollhouse?

Well, then you know that there's a super secret 'service' whereby the Bill-Gates rich can buy "dolls," people who've done something they can't live with (except for Sierra. Long story.) and who've agreed to have other personas implanted over their own. Then, the "dolls" go out as midwives, high priced whores, etc. to fulfill rich folks' fantasies, after which they're "wiped."

Turns out that technology isn't so far off. Again, the Times:

Suppose scientists could erase certain memories by tinkering with a single substance in the brain. Could make you forget a chronic fear, a traumatic loss, even a bad habit.
Researchers in Brooklyn have recently accomplished comparable feats, with a single dose of an experimental drug delivered to areas of the brain critical for holding specific types of memory, like emotional associations, spatial knowledge, or motor skills.
The drug blocks the activity of a substance that the brain apparently needs to retain much of its learned information. And if enhanced, the substance could help ward off dementias and other memory problems.
So far, the research has been done only on animals. But scientists say this memory system is likely to work almost identically in people.
If this molecule is as important as it appears to be, you can see the possible implications,” said Dr. Todd C. Sacktor, a 52-year-old neuroscientist who leads the team at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center, in Brooklyn, which demonstrated its effect on memory. “For trauma. For addiction, which is a learned behavior. Ultimately for improving memory and learning."

And...for all sorts of other stuff.

What? "Spread em and grin" might be hitting the bricks? Yep, according to the Times:

A new DNA test for the virus that causes cervical cancer does so much better than current methods that some gynecologists hope it will eventually replace the Pap smear in wealthy countries and cruder tests in poor ones.
Not only could the new test for human papillomavirus, or HPV, save lives; scientists say that women over 30 could drop annual Pap smears and instead have the DNA test just once every 3, 5 or even 10 years, depending on which expert is asked.
Their optimism is based on an eight-year study of 130,000 women in India financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is the first to show that a single screening with the DNA test beats all other methods at preventing advanced cancer and death.
'The study is another nail in the coffin for Pap smears, which will soon be of mainly historical interest,' said Dr. Paul D. Blumenthal, a professor of gynecology at Stanford medical school who has tested screening techniques in Africa and Asia and was not involved in the study.
But whether the new test is adopted will depend on many factors, including hesitation by gynecologists to abandon Pap smears, which have been remarkably effective. Cervical cancer was a leading cause of death for American women in the 1950s; it now kills fewer than 4,000 a year.

Downside: The insurance industry will no doubt use those DNA results, if this pans out, to take our premiums for years—then deny us a payout based on our genetic profiles. But more Pap smears? Yippee!

Best Nana ever? That would be Michelle's mama, Marian Robinson.

First Nana and First Lady grace this month's Essence and 'Big Mama' just gets cooler and cooler. There's just too much good stuff to cut and paste; check the link for the full story. My fave? The First Grandma plans to evacuate the WH with a quickness, once the kiddies are all settled. Why? "I love those people, but I love my own house. The White House reminds me of a museum and it's like, how do you sleep in a museum?"

"Those people"? Rock on, Nana. She does yoga. She thinks her own daughter is too strict. She's ready to get back to her own life after tending to her grandkids while her 'other kids' do their own thing, White House be damned.

I say: let's bring Nana Robinson to Burning Man this year!