I’M NEVER GOING TO SEE THOSE RERUNS THE SAME WAY: Brady Bunch mom got crabs in affair with NY mayor. My view of John Lindsay, on the other hand, is pretty much unchanged. . . . .

UH HUH: Righthaven Says It Owns News Articles It’s Suing Over — for Real This Time.

ANN ALTHOUSE WANTS THE TRUTH: How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders’s attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser? “Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn’t he present the whole context at first? And what was in the ‘reconstructed account’ that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn’t know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn’t he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context.”

It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something. Plus this: “Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders’s article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley’s ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.”

UPDATE: Professor Jacobson: Applying the Weiner Test to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: “If Bradley has not pressed charges, why not? Inquiring minds want to know.”

On the upside, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is getting a lot of attention from famous law professors. On the downside, this is the kind of attention it’s getting . . .

WHITEY BULGER: The Book That Still Needs To Be Written. “Some of the obvious and not-so-obvious political issues that need deeper coverage are: the general climate of fear on Beacon Hill during the height of the Bulgers era; how the city was still reeling from the forced-busing crisis as the Bulgers rose to power, and how many of their supporters/critics eerily lined up along those old forced-busing fault lines; the mysterious state agency budget cuts and demotions of anyone who dared cross the Bulgers; the cushy government and industry jobs landed by mobsters, their relatives and ex-FBI agents; the politically wired rise of FBI agent Zip Connelly and his gross FBI retirement party; the alleged push to make Zip chief of Boston police; the former governor of Massachusetts who effectively handed over the keys to state government to Billy while he ran for president in ’88; the once crusading U.S. Attorney-turned-governor who ended up cynically playing footsie with the younger Bulger. Etc., etc.”

NEW YORK TIMES: That airbrushing we do? Maybe we should think about not doing that.

UPDATE: A reader emails: “Isn’t it interesting that blogs have figured out how to update an evolving story without disappearing the original, but the paper of record can’t seem to manage?”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Scott Rosenberg notes that Wikipedia has handled this problem and comments: “Versions of stories are just data. For the Times, or any other website, to save them is a matter of (a) storage space and (b) interface tweaks to make the versions accessible. Today, storage is cheap and getting cheaper, and Web interfaces are more flexible than ever. Really, there’s nothing unrealistic about preserving an ‘immutable, permanent record’ of every post-publication change made to every story. . . . By making story versions “not a priority,” the Times is essentially abdicating its longstanding status as our paper of record as it makes the transition from paper to digital. I doubt that’s what its leaders intend to do.” Oh, I’m not so sure.

LEE SMITH: The King’s Speech: Morocco’s Constitutional Reform Deserves Support In Washington.

On July 1 Moroccans will vote on a set of constitutional changes proposed by their king, Mohammed VI. These new amendments guarantee the full equality of women and the rights of minorities, like the Berbers, whose language, Amazigh, will now be an official language alongside Arabic; they criminalize torture, establish the independence of the judiciary, and invest more executive authority in a head of government chosen from the party that wins the most seats in parliament.

The king’s speech announcing these proposed amendments didn’t win the international attention afforded the street demonstrations that brought down longstanding authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, but here’s a Muslim-majority Middle Eastern state where reform has become a reality, not a slogan. The pity is that the Obama administration seems oblivious.

Given their recent diplomatic record, that’s probably the best thing for Morocco.

NATO IN AFGHANISTAN: “Maybe your country is at war, but not mine.”

THE 100 LONGEST entries on Wikipedia.

MICHAEL BARONE: Like Chauncey Gardiner, Obama Is Profoundly Aloof.

MICHAEL LEDEEN: What’s Up With All The Presidential Gaffes, Anyway?

STEPHEN MOORE: Recovery Bummer: “On economic growth, real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries.”

BYRON YORK: In Allegation Of Supreme Court Scuffle, Wisconsin Politics Hits A New Low. “After Democratic lawmakers fled the state in an attempt to stop Governor Walker’s budget bill; after pro-union protesters occupied the Capitol for weeks; after name-calling came to dominate the debate — after all that, some observers believed Wisconsin politics could not get any uglier. It turns out they were wrong.”

Wisconsin’s entrenched ruling class is not used to being challenged, and isn’t dealing with the challenge very well.

ANOTHER cheap external hard drive on sale, this time for $34.99.

HOPE AND CHANGE: Forecasts For Growth Drop, Some Sharply. “The likelihood of a negative surprise is bigger than the likelihood of a positive surprise.” But it’ll be unexpected when it comes . . . .

UPDATE: Reader Michael Costello sends this headline: Unexpectedly bad economy now expected. Heh.

OKAY, NOW LET’S WORK ON THE CLOSETS FULL OF ASSAULT WEAPONS: You Can Thank A Few Rich Republicans For Gay Marriage.

Actually, a reader wrote to suggest a legislative deal — repeal of DOMA and national recognition of gay marriages in exchange for national recognition of carry permits and gun ownership. It works for me! (Could Congress preempt state gun-control laws nationally? Yes! Bonus question — what clause of the Constitution, besides the obvious choices of Commerce and 14th Amendment section 5, would support this?)

More here. “Barbaro focuses on Cuomo’s efforts behind the law, but without rich Republican donors, it would not be possible.” Say, Andrew Cuomo’s really been on a roll lately. I wonder if he’s ever thought of running for President in 2012? . . .

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON THE WAR POWER:

No president should accept — and no president from Nixon on has accepted — the constitutionality of the WPR, passed unilaterally by Congress over a presidential veto. On the other hand, every president should have the constitutional decency to get some congressional approval when he takes the country to war. The model for such constitutional restraint is — yes, Sen. Obama — George W. Bush. Not once but twice (Afghanistan and then Iraq) did Bush seek and receive congressional authorization, as his father did for the Persian Gulf War. On Libya, Obama did nothing of the sort. He claimed exemption from the WPR on the grounds that America in Libya is not really engaged in “hostilities.”

To deploy an excuse so transparently ridiculous isn’t just a show of contempt for Congress and for the intelligence of the American people. It manages additionally to undermine the presidency’s own war-making prerogatives by implicitly conceding that if the Libya war really did involve hostilities, the president would indeed be subject to the WPR.

The worst of all possible worlds: Insult Congress, weaken the presidency. A neat trick.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

HEADLINE OF THE DAY, FROM JIM TREACHER: You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands.

SNICKERING AT THE RUBES, I THINK: Where Is Barack Obama Now That We Need Him? “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.” Ha, ha. That one still gets me.

THE RETURN OF STAGFLATION: Obama’s Carter-era policies bring back Carter-era problems. As I keep saying, a Carter-rerun is a best-case scenario.

And note this:

One possible difference is that interest rates were extremely high during the Carter years. Right now, real interest rates are close to zero. Banks have plenty of reserves but they still aren’t lending. Banks won’t lend if it isn’t profitable to do so. Businesses won’t invest if the expected benefit doesn’t exceed the risk. That has to do with uncertainty in the system, and in view of fact that when interest rates are nearly zero, there isn’t much wiggle room there to change the calculus.

Today’s uncertainty runs the gamut from monetary to fiscal policy. Uncertainty about another ineffective “helicopter drop” of money by the Fed does not help the situation. There’s no telling what’s going to happen on the fiscal and regulatory side. Obamacare is in legal limbo, some states are starting implementation, and many employers have no idea what it’s going to mean for them. Congress and the president have no agreement on addressing the debt crisis as we edge up to the point of default. Spending cuts have to be part of the solution because what we have is a spending a problem.

Yes, it is.

WASHINGTON POST: Obama’s focus on visiting clean-tech companies raises questions.

MORE ON THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT’S SHENANIGANS from The Isthmus:

In other words, Abrahamson’s clique wanted to game the system in order to buy time for the Democrats to make their political comeback, either in this summer’s recall elections or in the 2012 election cycle in a case brought by Democrats, including the Assembly minority leader and the Dane County district attorney, against the majority party. . . . The best one can say about Abrahamson is that she is a sore loser. If she does not get her way on the court she will bring down the entire house around her.

So much of liberalism’s success in the 20th Century was based on the authority of institutions, especially the judiciary. They seem hell-bent on undermining that authority, now. Why?

BAD NEWS ABROAD is good news for Florida real estate. So if you’re governed by a corrupt kleptocracy, it’s a good idea to get some assets overseas that are hard to get at because they’re stuck to the ground. Should Americans be thinking this way too, with a Federal revenue crisis coming?

FLORIDA: Physicians ask for injunction against ‘Docs v. Glocks’ law. “The physician groups suing to block a new Florida law that bans doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes asked a federal judge in Miami Friday for an injunction to block enforcement of the law.”

From the comments: “Why does a doctor need a specific list of your guns to warn you to keep them safe or whatever?”

If a doctor asks questions you think inappropriate, make an ethics complaint to the state medical board. Nothing will happen, probably, but the hassle-value is so high that they’ll soon quit.

UPDATE: A reader who asks anonymity writes:

I am an Emergency Physician, and this article is just rife with manipulative inferences. First, it clearly states that if you have a good faith reason to ask about guns pursuant to the patients *MEDICAL* well-being, then you may do so. Nowhere is it mentioned that you cannot say “If you have guns in the home, keep them locked up,” which is not a question, but a statement. Nobody is bringing the govermnet into the exam room with this law. OTOH, this law is keeping the doctors from using the exam room to get the government into the patient’s home.

When I was a resident, and had to ask questions about guns, I would often watch parents of these kids start to become suspicious of me as I entered such an area of discourse. Make no mistake; when physicians ask this question, they are threatening the trust of the relationship. Once this happens, then parents start wondering if you, as a physician, have an agenda, which dissuades them from honest disclosure, and instead they will say what they think you want to hear, or become hostile, which destroys communication.

Personally I would follow up such an interrogation with suggestion that the child get firearms training as soon as they are intellectually, physically and emotionally capable. My reasoning is the same as to why I advocate for all children to learn how to swim; While you may not have a gun or a pool at your house, your child will someday be in a circumstance which does. If you have not trained your child in how to deal with these circumstances, then you have left them exposed to great peril.

I also got a little chuckle when I give this same suggestion to the parents who were brimming with pride when they say there are no guns in the house. They become almost apoplectic when I suggest that they take junior to an NRA gun safety course.

Heh.