Author: Andrew Sullivan

Avent watches the stock-ticker:

Clearly, the outlook for the global economy has worsened in the last month, but by how much?

It appears that the administration suddenly got serious about repealing DADT in the last few days. What did it, I wonder?

An oxymoron? An anachronism? Or a contingency of history worth preserving for as long as we can?

Good times, eh? Michael Graham Richard examines the question ahead of the summer:

Aside from making it impossible for surface ships to stick around the site and work on fixing the well and capturing as much oil as possible, a hurricane would violently spread the oil everywhere in the Gulf and maybe even help it reach the loop current. This could bring some oil all the way over Florida and up the East coast of North-America.

Chris Mooney also investigates:

At least one forecast team puts the chance of a strong hurricane hammering some part of the Gulf Coast this year at 44 percent, and any such storm would threaten to disrupt ongoing containment or environmental protection measures. In an absolute worst-case scenario, powerful hurricane winds might drive the oil slick towards land and push some of it ashore with the ensuing storm surge.

A silver lining:

A hurricane of sufficient force might cause enough ocean mixing to help disperse and "weather" the oil slick, which could in turn speed up the process of biodegradation.

Larry O'Hanlon talks to some scientists.

(Photo: Oil stains an island in the Barataria Bay on May 24, 2010 on the Gulf coast of Louisiana. The island is home to thousands of brown pelicans, egrets and roseate spoonbills, many of which are now stained by oil. Officials now say that it may be impossible to clean the hundreds of miles of coastal wetlands and islands affected by the massive oil spill which continues gushing in the Gulf of Mexico. By John Moore/Getty Images.)

Philip Bell deflects the question:

'Life' in biology, rather like 'force' in physics, is a term carried over from a time when scientists thought quite differently, when it served as a makeshift bridge over the inexplicable.

The Catholic bishops keep misrepresenting the healthcare reform bill:

To claim that PPACA allows federal funds to pay for abortions simply because it provides subsidies to help people pay for health plans that independently—that is, with private funds—cover abortions is as inaccurate as claiming that Medicare and Medicaid funds pay for abortions because they pay hospitals that independently—that is, with payment from other sources—provide abortions.

Ambinder explains the mechanics of the DADT compromise:

It is a REPEAL with a TRIGGER mechanism. The repeal will be on the books, but policy won't change until certain thresholds are crossed. Those thresholds happen to be the same conditions that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen (C/CJS) had already set — no impact on readiness, recruitment, effectiveness, retention, and unit cohesiveness. However, repeal will become official policy; not if, but when becomes set in stone. Gates, initially hesitant to upend his timetable, which saw his work being finished in December and repeal early next year, agreed to compromise language. That's because Gates gets to make the final call as to when. There appears to be enough votes in the Senate to add this provision to the defense appropriations markup. The House might add language THIS WEEK. A victory for gay rights groups who had been pushing Congress and the White House to act more quickly; key players include Sens. Lieberman, Levin, Rep. Murphy, Speaker Pelosi and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, in whose hands the president delegated the task.

Dale Carpenter adds:

The repeal is limited in one sense. It does not ban discrimination against gays in the military. It returns the status quo ante DADT in 1993 when the president had sole authority to set military personnel policies on gays. The difference is that now the president has promised to reverse the old policy after a study is issued in December on how to implement the change. 

In theory, the next president could reassert the ban. But that’s very unlikely to happen once gays are serving openly. Liberalization of anti-gay public policy tends to be governed by one-way ratchet. Plus, the experience in other countries has been that allowing service by openly gay personnel presents no real problems for recruitment, retention, or discipline, and controversy about it quickly subsides.

And Drum zooms out:

So if things go the way I think they'll go, by later this year Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will have passed a historic stimulus bill, the Lily Ledbetter Act, healthcare reform, college loan reform, financial reform, repeal of DADT, and Obama will have withdrawn from Iraq.¹ Not bad for 18 months of work. And who knows? There's even a chance that Obama's Afghanistan escalation will work. If it does, what president since LBJ will have accomplished more in his first term?

¹Except for the pesky "residual force," of course. Still, once the combat forces are gone, it's hard to see a scenario in which they're ever sent back in.

My major fear up to now has been that the repeal could get lost legislatively if the GOP made big gains in the House and Senate this fall, as is historically almost certain. This compromise removes the basis for that fear, while allowing the military and the defense secretary to manage the transition to ensure a smooth ride. I hope it works. If it does, it really will be a feather in the cap of Jim Messina, the good folks at SLDN and Servicemembers United, and the Obama administration. It will also redound to the credit of those who did not give up on this, who refused to concede that this was not a civil rights question of the first order, and to the countless servicemembers, past and future, who put their lives and careers on the line for this change.

It's been a long two decades. So long one almost feels numb at exactly the moment one should feel exhilarated. But that's probably how all such breakthroughs feel, when they eventually happen. For the first time in American history, gay people will be deemed fully worthy of the highest call of patriotism – to risk one's life for the defense of one's country.

In that sense, for the first time, the Congress and president will treat them as fully citizens.

(Photo: Former Coast Guard Academy Cadet Bronwen Tomb (L), who was removed after telling another cadet she was gay, former Air Force Staff Sgt. David Hall (C), who was removed from the Air Force Academy after being accused of but not admitting to being gay, and Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, who served as a lesbian, listen during a news conference on Capitol Hill March 3, 2010 in Washington, DC. U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) has introduced legislation to repeal the U.S. military's don't ask don't tell policy for gays and lesbians serving in the military. By Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images.)

Homer, Alaska, 8.10 pm

Bainbridge tackles Bartlett on tax hikes or national security cuts.

Jonah Lehrer lobs grains of salt at a UCLA study finding that children don't increase happiness:

The fact of the matter is that it's much easier to quantify pleasure on a moment-by-moment basis, or document the swing of cortisol levels in saliva, that it is to quantify something as intangible as "unconditional love". Changing a diaper isn't enjoyable, and teenagers can be such a pain in the ass, but having kids can also provide a profound source of meaning. (I like the amateur marathoner metaphor: survey a marathoner in the midst of the race and they'll complain about their legs and that nipple rash and how the endless route. But when the running is over they are always incredibly proud of their accomplishment. Having kids, then, is like a marathon that lasts 18 years.)

I am in awe of you.