In America, we tend to laud the optimist and shun the pessimist. Not surprisingly, we are inundated with bromides about positive thinking and self-affirmation. But, turns out, all that stuff might not work. A new study published in Psychological Science argues that forcing positive thoughts can have negative consequences.

I’ve always thought self affirmations were a load of crap. Of course, I get itchy anytime someone tries to convince me that the world is roses and bunny rabbits. It’s my personality. But apparently, I’m not alone. In fact, the positive-thinking study found that:

[U]nfavorable thoughts about ourselves intrude very easily, especially among those of us with low self-esteem — so easily and so persistently that even when a positive alternative is presented, it just underlines how awful we believe we are.

The paper provides support for newer forms of psychotherapy that urge people to accept their negative thoughts and feelings rather than try to reject and fight them. In the fighting, we not only often fail but can also make things worse. Mindfulness and meditation techniques, in contrast, can teach people to put their shortcomings into a larger, more realistic perspective. Call it the power of negative thinking.

In other words, we need to learn to cope. Trying to force ourselves to be positive and happy just makes us realize how negative and unhappy we actually are. That’s not to say we should mope around and drink all day. But it is saying we shouldn’t feel bad for not being happy. Being functional is good enough.

And isn’t that wisdom for our new age?

Years from now, I wonder how we’ll remember Sarah Palin. Politicians are an odd lot to begin with. But, even in that club, Palin is unique in her peculiarities. How can any office holder suddenly resign and then be surprised and offended when people try to uncover some hidden scandal? Hidden (or very public) scandal is by far the leading cause of office holder resignation!

Palin is still being coy about whether she is planning a 2012 run at the presidency. To me, this reservation is ridiculous. There are only two passable reasons for her not to finish her term as governor. 1) She is 100% done with politics. 2) She wants a head start on getting her party’s nomination. As for 1, if she’s done, she should succinctly say so, leaving no room for wiggling. If she’s running for higher office, she should also say so – forget the typical politician habit of denying a presidential run until the fifteenth visit to Iowa. You can’t just give up your governor’s seat and not admit to your future plans. “Erratic” is not a quality Americans look for in a president.

Palin has certainly been the recipient of some nasty, petty attacks in the past. But the criticism coming out after her resignation is not some smear campaign by her critics. It’s the inevitable result of her odd decision and the rambling, unfocused explanation she tried to give. Palin may want to play the victim here, but, this time, she has no one to blame but herself.

Recently, due to a massive budget shortfall, California has had to release billions in IOUs rather than paying real cash to those who’ve done business with the state. Hassett blames the budget crisis on California’s habit of giving the voters whatever they want without ever making the hard choices necessary to pay for new programs. This is not an unreasonable assessment. And Hassett is right to worry that the federal government is on the verge of turning the national system into a monstrous version of California.

Unless, of course, moderate democrats like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper and others end up opposing the public option in health care reform – an option whose costs are likely to give pause to anyone with even a breath of fiscal conservativism inside of them. But, without the public option, will there really be any reform?

That’s the quandary for moderate Democrats. Do they risk not reforming health care and upsetting voters or do they risk getting the nation into the kind of debt which will sabotage our economic future? Or is there a way to fix health care without huge expenditures?

We’ll see. But I do agree with Hassett that the astronomical costs of a public option for health care is going to make it hard to pass the bill – even with 60 Democratic votes in the Senate.

Apparently, The Washington Post is completely abandoning the idea of hosting exclusive salons with power brokers – an idea which erupted into scandal last week when a marketing flyer indicated lobbyists could pay for access to Post reporters.

Now, the paper has apologized blaming the flyer on a marketing snafu but taking responsibility for the bad idea of hosting exclusive dinners:

Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization.

I’m glad the Post has apologized for their questionably ethical idea. But I do wonder what would have happened if POLITICO and other news organizations hadn’t broken the story. I guess it’s a good thing that there are watchdogs watching the watchdogs.

In a surprise move, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced she is resigning, effective July 26th. She claims that because she is not running for re-election, she doesn’t want to be a lame duck and subject herself to politics as usual.

Odd excuse. Either some scandal is about to break or Palin has decided that stepping down over a year before her term is over will help her prepare for a 2012 run at the presidency. Or, you know, she’s sick of the publicity.

It’ll be interesting to see what the former vice-presidential nominee does next.

The Washington Post has found itself embroiled in an ethics scandal involving a poorly conceived money-raising venture that the paper has moved fast to cancel and excuse:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Word of this leaked after a flyer distributed to lobbyists made its way into the hands of POLITICO. Post editors claim the flyer originated from the marketing department and no editor or reporter ever agreed to attend an event where lobbyists and government officials could pay for access to the editorial staff. This may be true, but it’s hard to believe such a major undertaking was planned and marketed without the knowledge of the paper’s top brass.

In fact, Weymouth has admitted the paper is looking for new ways to make money:

“We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do – cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

Sounds to me that the Post would very much like to leverage its role as a local powerbroker in order to stave off its mounting business losses. But even if no member of the editorial staff were to attend pay-for-access events hosted by the Post, is it really a good idea for a newspaper to be charging members of a community for the opportunity to meet one another? Should the Post really be facilitating and profiting from events where lobbyists and politicians can schmooze?

I don’t think the answer to that is obvious. I firmly believe we still need a professional print news media and understand that untraditional revenue sources will likely be needed if newspapers are to survive. I just question whether or not the newspaper as local powerbroker/elite salon operator is really going to preserve the kind of journalistic integrity we want out of the print media. At what point does keeping the local power players happy outweigh the factual reportage of the news?

Clearly the Post is still working out the kinks in their new moneymaking scheme. We’ll see if they find a way to prop up their bottom line without sabotaging their core mission.

With unemployment now at 9.5%, a 26 year high, most economists foresee double-digit unemployment before the end of the year with numbers continuing to rise into 2010 before beginning to creep back down. Of course, when you figure in all those who’ve given up looking for a job and those who’ve had to settle for low-paying part-time jobs, the real unemployment rate is closer to 16.5%.

That’s a lot of unemployment for the economy to absorb. Given that some jobs aren’t coming back (automotive for instance) and others will have to come back from new sources (Linens n’ Things, Circuit City, etc.), there is no reason to think any recovery will be quick or easy. I suspect economists will be regularly confounded and estimates will be regularly wrong.

The hope is that, all-and-all, the economy trends upwards. We can handle a few bumps, I’m not sure we’d fare well under a long depression.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has reversed the appellate court decision on a controversial race case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut.

Previously, the appellate court including Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that the city of New Haven did nothing wrong by throwing out the results of a promotion exam because no African Americans and too few Hispanic firefighters passed the test. In a decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the High Court disagreed:

Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Predictably, the dissenters came from the “liberal block” with the dissenting opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said the white firefighters “had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

Sotomayor has been criticized for the appellate court’s decision, partially for its ruling and partially for what some perceive to be simplistic and faulty legal logic. If the Supreme Court had reversed the ruling with something other than the usual 5-4 split, Sotomayor opponents may have found some traction with this issue. However, with retiring justice David Souter essentially voting to uphold the lower court’s ruling, I imagine this case will quickly fade from the Sotomayor debate.

Note: The original title of this post implied the court ruled in favor of only white firefighters. This is an inaccurate representation of the case as two of the firefighters receiving promotion are Latino.

Government officials say they will act within the bounds of a recent UN Security Council resolution which permits international navies to request the inspection of North Korean cargo vessels but does not give them the right to board. If the North Korean ship docks in a foreign port, the local authorities have broadened inspection rights.

North Korea has said any attempt to board a North Korean vessel would be considered an act of war. This threat likely explains Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ order to increase Hawaii’s defenses against a possible incoming long-range missile.

Gates’ order is almost certainly done out of an abundance of caution and not because the U.S. is planning to take action against the North Korean vessel. However, North Korea is not known as a rational actor and there is very real reason to worry even a small provocation could escalate quickly.

I’m not sure what North Korea’s endgame is, but the nation’s recent actions have been more than a little alarming. Hopefully things will simmer down. The world has enough to worry about already.

Does anyone care about the opinions of former Senate majority leaders? What if one was once his party’s presidential nominee and another one nearly became President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services?

Today, former Senate majority leaders Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and Howard Baker released a health care plan they claim includes the kind of compromises necessary to win significant support from both parties.

The plan seeks to reconfigure health care reimbursement to focus on health outcomes – a tricky maneuver to say the least. But that’s just one of the ways they hope to reduce costs. It’s not where the “compromise” comes in. The former senators want to tax health care benefits over a certain level (something most Dems are against), mandate coverage (something Republicans don’t like), cap premiums and out-of-pocket percentages (market controls that aren’t usually popular with the right) and create state-level insurance systems rather than a federal one (and you know the left has their heart set on a Big Daddy system coming out of Washington).

Whether this plan is any good or not is up for debate. But at least Dole, Daschle and Baker are making a concerted effort to draft bipartisan legislation. Rather than trying to ram through one side’s idea or saying no to every idea, this plan takes a shot at bringing everyone to the table.

Dole says a true bipartisan bill should be able to win the votes of 20 Senate Republicans. That’s a tall order. But if enough congress people buy into the idea of compromise (and there is some common ground out there), it might be possible. Whether a compromise bill ends up being any more effective than one forced through by Democrats is unknown. But I think it’s definitely the way we should be heading.

Obama drew hearty applause with a focus on the particular concerns of the medical profession: telling them any system that relies on them “to be bean-counters and paper-pushers” is out of whack and that his push to investigate best-practices and eliminate unnecessary procedures “is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided.”

“I need your help, doctors,” he said. “To most Americans, you are the health care system. The fact is, Americans — and I include myself, Michelle, and our kids in this — we just do what you tell us to do.”

If doctors are so important, shouldn’t they be fairly compensated? “Fair” is a loaded word, but I will say, in my mind, the willingness to take lives into their hands on a daily basis makes doctors quite valuable – at least valuable enough not to have their earning potential dictated by a government insurance plan which could very easily become a de facto price-control system. After all, it’d be much easier for the government plan to just set prices and game the system rather than actually making the reforms necessary to bring down costs.

All that said, Obama does have a bargaining chip with doctors: malpractice reform. Yesterday, Obama mentioned the problem of out-of-control jury settlements, but made a point of saying he’s against capping malpractice awards. The Wall Street Journal all but accused Obama of being in the pocket of trial lawyers:

The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability. But they’ve fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines. Mr. Obama showed again with his AMA speech that he’s willing to nod at the concerns of his political opponents and take media credit for brave truth-telling, only to dump his conciliation if it offends liberal interest groups.

I think the question is: does Obama need the support of doctors in order to pass health care reform? If he ends up believing he does, I expect the president to propose some sort of malpractice reform in order to offset the losses doctors are likely to sustain under a government health care plan. But if Obama can get his reform passed without the AMA’s support, I’m sure he’ll side with the interests of the lawyers and the status quo. Unfortunately, that’s how the game is played.

After a weekend of protests and clashes over the alleged fraud perpetrated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s party in Iran, the real powers in Iran are stepping in:

State television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directing a high-level clerical panel, the Guardian Council, to look into charges by pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has said he is the rightful winner of Friday’s presidential election.

The decision comes after Mousavi wrote a letter appealing to the Guardian Council and met Sunday with Khamenei, who holds almost limitless power over Iranian affairs. Such an election probe by the 12-member council is uncharted territory and it not immediately clear how it would proceed or how long it would take.

What we don’t know is whether this investigation is just for show or whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is actually concerned about the underhanded tactics apparently used to rig the election. After all, Iran’s theocratic leaders don’t exactly have a history of defending democracy. This move could very well be nothing more than an attempt to silent the ongoing protests.

We’ll see. Wish I could be more optimistic.

Last night, at a major Republican fundraiser, GOP leaders had some of their harshest words yet for President Obama and his agenda.

Newt Gingrich said the president’s stimulus plan has already failed. And:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama has a “radical agenda.” Republicans have “watched them take over banks, insurance companies, auto companies,” he said, “and now they want to take over your health care.”

“We’re going to need some wins next November to slow down their agenda,” said McConnell. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Democrats are using their control of Congress “to bury our children and the middle class under a mountain of debt.”

While I never think defeatism is a great political strategy, I’m not sure the Republicans have a another political option but to hope the economy fails to rebound before 2010. The party is too weak in Congress to push through any alternate agenda to the president’s and supporting Obama’s economic plan does nothing to differentiate the party from its opposition.

Unfortunately for Gingrich et. al., there’s a bit of a gap between claiming something has failed and that something actually failing. I’m quite worried about the mountain of debt we’re creating and the precedent we’re setting with the government’s part-ownership of GM, but it’s far too early for me to believe Obama’s measures won’t give the economy a boost. If you want to call it a failure of principle, that’s one thing. But it’s quite premature to say the raw result is failure.

The Obama administration has undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief after the pro-western coalition won yesterday’s parliamentary vote in Lebanon. After the president’s big speech about improving relationships between America and the Mid-East, a Hezbollah win in Lebanon would have been seen by many as a strong rebuke to Obama.

Of course, calling the election an Obama win might be overstating the matter:

Obama’s outreach did not appear to have resonated with the electorate as much as a last-minute appeal from head of the influential Maronite Catholic Church. Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir warned voters on the eve of the election of what he called an attempt to change Lebanon’s character and its Arab identity, a clear reference to Hezbollah and its Persian backer, Iran.

The makeup of the Lebanese parliament will remain largely unchanged from the outgoing legislature, meaning it’s unlikely the political situation in Lebanon will dramatically change. In fact, tensions may increase as the ruling coalition has vowed not to give the Hezbollah led coalition veto power over major government decisions – a power they previously negotiated after nearly provoking a civil war.

We’ll see what the future holds. At least for now, Obama’s hope for a better relationship with the Mid-East remains viable.

During this weekend’s D-Day remembrance ceremony, President Obama urged us not to forget those who fought for our freedom and what they managed to achieve.

Many estimate we are losing as many as 1,200 WW II veterans every day in America alone. But there’s no reason we have to lose their stories. For those of us with parents or grandparents who fought in WWII, it’s up to us to not let that war and its sacrifices drift into distant memory and mythology.

I’ve lived my life surrounded by stories of WW II, whether it’s personal stories about my grandfathers who both served in the Air Force, a college professor’s tale of escaping the Nazi invasion of Austria and then Poland or even just the biographies of the political leaders who’ve served in office during my lifetime: George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter. Even though I was born 30 years and a few months after D Day, WW II never seemed all that long ago.

But now it is long ago. Soon there will be WW II remembrances with only a handful of veterans, or none at all. Soon, the only breathing link between our world and the world of the 1930s and 1940s will be through those of us who’ve heard the stories first-hand, who knew the very real people who served both at home and abroad.

We may call them the Greatest Generation or the WW II generation, but many of us just called them Mom or Dad or Grandma or Granddad. We know they were just human, no more or less flawed than we are, no more or less brave. And that’s what makes what they achieved all the more extraordinary. All the more worth remembering.

In memory of Henry Casey Carl. 1925 – 2009.

Many economists believe the jobless rate will hit 10 percent by the end of this year. Some think it could rise as high as 10.7 percent by the second quarter of next year before it starts to make a slow descent. The post-World War II high was 10.8 percent at the end of 1982.

The Fed says unemployment will remain elevated into 2011 given the expectation of tepid recovery. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013. Economic recoveries after financial crises tend to be slower, economists say.

But many economists also think we could start seeing growth again by as soon as the third quarter of this year. The question is, given the turmoil in the auto industry and continued ups-and-downs on Wall Street, will the economy grow quickly or will it be a creeping sort of growth, fueled more by the fact that we’ve hit rock bottom than by any returning strength?

We’ll have to wait and see. And hope for the best.

The Wall Street Journal helpfully reprints, without direct comment, Barack Obama’s written justification for voting against John Roberts for the Supreme Court.

After reading Obama’s justification, I’m pretty sure anyone opposing Sonia Sotomayor could simply cut-and-paste the argument, make a few slight changes and call it a day. Why? Because Obama’s entire written statement is just an elaborate way to say “I’m voting against him because I disagree with his politics.” And if political incongruity is a justifiable reason to oppose an otherwise highly qualified candidate, then Obama can’t rightly expect any Republicans to vote for Sotomayor.

In the justification, Obama says Roberts too often sided with the powerful over the weak. But his examples are nothing more than a check-list of liberal political beliefs (affirmative action, abortion, strong centralized government). Couldn’t any conservative justify his or her opposition to Sotomayor by saying she too often sides with special interests over the general interest and then list the exact same policy points, albeit with the implication that conservative are on the proper side of them?

That’s the danger of making political congruity the key factor in voting for or against a judge. It renders all other qualifications moot. If Obama can praise Roberts experience, temperament, intellectual rigor and statements in front of the Senate and yet still oppose the man, then the confirmation process is just a tedious lead-up to a party-line vote.

I guess Obama’s lucky his party has the numbers to win such a vote. If the Republicans controlled the Senate and were to apply Obama’s own logic, there would not be a single compelling reason they should vote for Sotomayor.

Not too many people are dancing over the news of GM’s bankruptcy, but opinions are decidedly mixed on what the government ownership of the car company will mean.

Lee Cary, of American Thinker sees the era of Government Motors dawning with coercive attempts to force a Green fleet onto American consumers. This, in Cary’s opinion, will be quickly followed by the unintended consequences, namely a falling market share followed by more government infusions of money, followed by tariffs on foreign automobiles, followed by retaliatory tariffs on American-made goods, followed by economic disaster.

How about Robert Reich, who has routinely applauded the Obama economic agenda? Well, he’s not exactly sunny either. Reich says the government part-ownership of GM will do nothing more than slow its inevitable demise. He accuses the administration of trying to have it both ways by appeasing autoworkers (who want as much bailout as possible) and average taxpayers (who generally oppose the government’s intervention).

So the Obama administration is, in effect, paying $60bn to buy off both constituencies. It is telling the first group that jobs and communities dependent on GM will be better preserved because of the bail-out, and the second that taxpayers and creditors will be rewarded by it. But it is not telling anyone the complete truth: GM will disappear, eventually. The bail-out is designed to give the economy time to reduce the social costs of the blow.

Certainly someone must think things could turn out just fine. Oh sure. There’s Michael Moore. He sees this as a great opportunity for the government to seize American industry in the name of fighting a war against global warming and dwindling oil supplies. He wants massive mass transit, he wants it now and he wants it built in GM factories by GM workers who would, of course, be government workers in Moore’s world.

Feel free to leave your own predictions/desires in the comments. As for me, I’m going to take some more antacid in the hopes of quieting a stomach turning circles over the prospect of a government-owned car company.

All the kings horses and all the bond deals couldn’t keep GM from cracking. As feared, the car giant has filed for bankruptcy. Now what?

The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take a 12.5 percent stake, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent stake and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.

Plus, GM could get an additional $30 billion in federal assistance for its reorganization. That’s on top of the $20 billion the company already received in the form of low-interest loans.

More fallout: the Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab brands will be terminated or sold. And GM will no longer be listed as part of the Dow Jones industrial average.

Oh, and the majority owner of one of America’s most storied companies will now be the U.S. government – at least for awhile.

Good times. More soon.

Wish fewer people smoked? Maybe it’s time for visual warnings on packages.

Cigarette packages should show graphic images of yellow teeth, blackened gums, protruding neck tumors and bleeding brains to alert smokers to their disease risks, the World Health Organization said on Friday.

WHO says 20 nations already use some form of visual warning and evidence suggests those graphic images deter smokers from smoking.

I don’t see why we need to stop there. I’m thinking full-sugared Cokes can come with pictures of legs amputated because of diabetes. Cars can have crash victims painted on their doors. Budweiser can come with photos of diseased livers or, you know, photos of a bunch of drunk people (who, let’s face it, are only attractive to other drunk people).

Absurdity aside, I do understand the public health hazard of cigarettes. But I’m am continuously amazed and amused by the lengths governments will go to try to stop people from buying and using a legal product. If smoking is so bad, why not criminalize it? Why try overbearing market manipulations when you can just outlaw the market altogether and claim a public health victory?

The answer, of course, is taxes. As long as governments use cigarettes as a source of revenue, outlawing the stuff would be a big financial blow. So you end up with a bizarre little balancing act where government’s will do all they can to dissuade people from using the product while simultaneously profiting from the use of that product. Frankly, if we’re willing to be so ambiguous in our public health values, we might as well legalize marijuana and begin enjoying the tax windfall.