So much to blog about when I have so little time to blog about it.

I still need do my post on George Alan Rekers and pseudo-science.  May just do it as a short bullet-point post and leave it as an item for discussion as I doubt I’ll have the time to turn my ideas into a thoughtful essay before I depart on my “odyssey.”

A number of readers have alerted me to this great post where a number of milbloggers, most highly respected in the rightosphere, issued a statement on DADT, concluding thusly, “we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Another sign of the emerging consensus for DADT repeal, even among the military community.

Read the whole thing.

No wonder Democrats had to rush passage of their health care overhaul legislation:

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Over at Verum Serum, John observes, this “almost precisely negates the amount the bill is supposed to reduce the deficit, i.e. $138 billion.”  And let’s not forget this is over a ten-year period during which the program is only fully operational in the last six years.

First, we had the report of the Medicare actuary, then we learned that companies might start “dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.”  Guess we could say we told you so.

Don’t think this program will be cutting health care costs or reducing the deficit as the Democrats promised.  And even with their promises, they couldn’t sell it to the American people (but they could sell it to Congress).  Wonder what this latest report will do for its numbers.  I mean, most people never even believed it would cut the deficit anyway:

. . .  according to a Rasmussen poll released this morning before the new CBO figures came out, the number who think O-Care will increase the deficit is at its highest level yet and approaching supermajority levels. If you think repeal or serious revision is impossible, think again.

If this gets any coverage, it’s going to do wonders for the president’s poll numbers — and those of Democrats.

RELATED:  56% of American Voters Want Dem’s Obamacare Law Repealed

In  his reflection on the Maine GOP’s decision to adopt a new Tea Party-flavored platform at its convention this past weekend, James Taranto offers a great insight into social conservatives and Tea Parties:

In truth, most of the religious right is part of the spectrum of respectable political opinion in America. While everybody deplores racism, opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage are mainstream positions to everyone except extremists on the other side. To call the tea-party movement socially conservative or “religious right,” then, does not have the same sting as calling it racist or violent.

Yet it does seem to be almost as inaccurate. An April New York Times poll found that while tea-party sympathizers were more conservative than average on social issues, by 78% to 14% they said economic issues are more important–nearly identical to the response from non-tea participants. While tea-party sympathizers were less pro-abortion than others, 40% said Roe v. Wade was “a good thing.”

One can see why liberals and Democrats would be eager to pigeonhole the tea-party movement as socially conservative. A substantial number of voters are put off by the religious right, either because their views are more liberal or because, even if not, they find its preoccupation with matters like abortion or gays creepy or beside the point.

Emphasis added.

Given this focus on economic issues, it’s no wonder Tea Party participants have not been averse to the homosexual infiltration we’ve detected.  Now, we wonder how those social conservatives would react if the media reported on gay participation in the movement which, by our observation, far exceeds that of extremists hoisting racist signs or spouting hateful racial epithets.  (Indeed, by our estimate, there have been more gay men and lesbians at Tea Parties in the Los Angeles area alone than racist epithets hurled by Tea Party participants at protests across the country!)

Perhaps, I might have a different view of Media Matters if I checked their site every day. And while they claim to be investigating conservative bias in the MSM, they do seem to have an obsession with FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, the former which “everyone knows” has a right-wing bias and the latter who proudly advertises his conservatism.

Finding conservative bias on Rush’s program is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, just discovered this Greg Gutfield’s wonderful spoof of MM’s obsession with FoxNews.

Yup, and they’re right about Janeane Garofalo in the The Truth About Cats & Dogs. Good performance.  Good movie.

Via BigJournalism via Instapundit.

As per Bruce’s recent post on the allegations of Elaine Kagan’s sexuality, basically the nub of what I have to say is that we have more important things to discuss, especially about this woman’s qualifications, than to question her sexuality as some juvenile left-wing bloggers want to do.

Her sexuality is irrelevant to her ability to serve on the Supreme Court.  And we shouldn’t be making an issue of it.

If she is a lesbian and wishes to keep this matter private, that’s her business.  If she’s not, then we’ve got a lot of people making assumptions about the private life of a middle-aged single woman who may well wonder if by focusing on a career where she has enjoyed considerable success, she compromised her chances to find a husband.  I know many single women of her demographic who would very much like not to be.  And the more people blather on about her supposed private life, the less likely it is that she’ll find a man.

Did people make these assumptions about Sonia Sotomayor, divorced in 1983 and single ever since?

Look, I think it would be a great thing to have a lesbian on the Supreme Court and I was all prepared to go all out to defend my former law professor Pam Karlan’s qualifications if the president had tapped that distinguished law professor.  But, Ms. Karlan self-identifies as a lesbian (though she had a boyfriend when she taught me).  That’s her choice.  And we should respect it.  Ms. Kagan doesn’t talk about her private life.  And we should respect that too.

As per that nominee, let’s consider her qualifications, her record as a jurist, her scholarly writings and leave her private life out of it.

UPDATE:  Her friends say she’s not gay:

“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”

Read the whole thing.  Some bloggers have got a lot of ‘splaining to do.

Last night, I wondered if the president’s approval numbers enjoyed a slight uptick in recent weeks (while his disapproval is on the decline) because his unpopular health care overhaul is no longer on the front page.

And today I learned that Tom Jensen at the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy polling, whose latest poll reflect that trend, seems to share my views:

Obama’s numbers saw a significant downward trend during the health care debate and with that issue in the rear view mirror he seems to be regaining at least a little bit of his support across party lines. It’s not that voters have changed their minds on the bill- the 49/43 spread against it now is nearly identical to the 49/45 spread against it right before the vote was taken. But it no longer seems to be near the top of voters’ minds when evaluating Obama and his numbers do finally seem to be seeing some improvement as a result.

I think the president’s been helped by a media which do not devote as much attention to his Administration’s stumbles and scandals as they would if he were a Republican.  The media hyped federal blunders in the aftermath of Katrina while downplaying those after the oil spill.  They have all put ignored ties between tie between these Administration and BP, not investigating the exemption the Administration granted this Obama campaign contributor to the extent they would if a Republican Administration had reacted similarly to a campaign contributor.

Nor are we likely to see much investigation of the huge pay increases Labor Secretary Hilda Solis gave to her staffers when they moved from Capitol Hill to the Labor Department.

Without the relentless negative coverage the media would give to a Republican executive similarly situated, the American people move to their default reaction toward the president:  they generally approve of his policies because they want him to succeed.

So, expect the president’s approval to hover around 50% for a while unless he introduces another unpopular initiative.  Or if the nascent recovery fades as some economists (and bloggers) warn.