In response to a growing frenzy of coverage over claims that Obama isn't a natural born citizen, the White House released the long form version of the President's birth certificate. It was announced on Twitter this morning: "Obama's long form birth certificate released so that America can move on to real issues that matter to our future".  If Obama hopes that providing facts and evidence will shut up the birthers, he'll be disappointed. It simply doesn't work that way.

As I noted last week when writing about the conspiracy theory involving Sarah Palin's last pregnancy, conspiracy theories don't erupt because of logic or evidence, but because they speak to emotional desires in the people who believe them.  And, as the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The thread below that post on Palin demonstrates this amply.  In the face of evidence—including pictures!—that Palin was indeed pregnant in the months before Trig was born, commenters continued to insist that she faked the whole thing. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

The release of this birth certificate is not going to change anyone's mind, but it will mutate the conspiracy theory.  Birthers will almost surely start claiming there's something off about this long form birth certificate.  Other "questions" will be brought up about his past.  Birtherism 2.0 was already well underway before this certificate was released, with Donald Trump's false statements about Obama's education, and Mike Huckabee claiming Obama grew up in Kenya. There's a million ways that birthers can twist this, as they're only limited by their lurid imaginations. By releasing this birth certificate, the White House runs the very real danger of making things worse, in fact.  The conspiracy theorists have been validated by attention, which will only fuel their desire to get more.

On the plus side, this is going to result in awesome episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Photograph of Donald Trump by Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images

Tags: birthers, Obama, obama birth certificate

Heather, I think I have your answer for why there's so much characterization of Obama as being hen-pecked into war. It helps conservative-minded folks handle the cognitive dissonance of believing war manly but Democrats effeminate. During times when Republicans are in charge, the formulation is simple: Support for Republicans + support for foreign wars allows many a conservative man to feel satisfied in his manhood. But when Democrats are in charge, it's just so hard to handle the cognitive dissonance! The desire to level-up in manhood by having other people put themselves in danger to kill foreigners competes directly with the fear that supporting a Democrat in any way will make you erupt into vaginas. The solution is to paint the war as not a real, manly kind of war.

Mark Krikorian of The Corner characterizes the choice for foreign invasion under Obama's leadership as the act of a pussy-whipped half-man who—can you believe this?!—listens to the counsel of women whom he appointed into positions of authority outside of the Secretary of Putting Children to Bed and the Secretary of Baking Cookies. While disingenuously claiming that he has no problem with female leadership, Krikorian describes Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice as literally nagging Obama into attacking Libya. Of course, the excuse is not that Krikorian is sexist. Oh no. He's just saying we should be sexist in order to be perceived as "strong" by "enemies abroad," who now supposedly see Obama as "an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates." Well, if al-Qaida thinks women shouldn't have roles as leaders, then I suppose that should be good enough for the United States.

There are actual, grown-up reasons to oppose military action in Libya, which I do. It's especially disheartening to see the guns being whipped out after watching peaceful resistance topple the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia. Dudes who want to spend their days posturing over who is a real man should get out of writing about important issues where actual people are getting killed, and take the honorable path of spending their time lifting weights at the gym until they prove themselves by being unable to turn their necks sideways. It may not seem like the most lucrative path, but it got the guys on "Jersey Shore" some serious cash. It's not too late to put down the pen and start a new career of manhood demonstration through less harmful paths.

Tags: Clinton, libya, Obama, sexism

It’s been a terrible week to have a uterus. From redefining rape to defunding family planning services, Republicans continue to fight a breathless battle against women’s bodies. Shortly before Congress voted to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding today, the Health and Human Services Department delivered a rare piece of good news. According to the Washington Post,

The Obama administration rescinded most of a federal regulation Friday designed to protect health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable on personal or religious grounds. The Health and Human Services Department eliminated nearly the entire rule … that was widely interpreted as allowing such workers to opt out of a broad range of medical services, such as providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B, treating gay men and lesbians and prescribing birth control to single women.

Abortion, of course, is still subject to conscience protections. The new regulation would leave in place the 30-year-old policy permitting health care workers to opt out of providing abortions due to personal, moral, or religious beliefs. Hospitals and clinics risk losing federal funds if they do not comply.

It’s a small victory, to be sure, but in the present political climate, it feels like a major triumph. Obama’s muscular policy shift serves as a much-needed rebuke to the rising tide of dangerously misogynistic legislation coming out of Congress.

Tags: congress, conscience laws, government funding family planning, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama, planned parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life

Hillary did it. So did Bill. John Boehner does it at least twice a day in front of the cameras. But should Obama do it—get weepy in public? According to lacrimation activists Lee Glickstein and Pete van Dyk, the answer is an emphatic, wailing, "yes." Glickstein and van Dyk run Men of Tears, a workshop aimed at teaching adult men the art and science of sobbing. For two hours every week, a group of about 10 men of varying ages and occupations—from sheet-metal worker to former karate champion—gather in an empty office, form a "tear circle," and relearn how to bawl their eyes out. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Glickstein and van Dyk founded Men of Tears "to provide men with a safe space to tap into emotions they may have dissociated from since childhood, so the next time tears well up, they can well over." Interestingly, the workshop is an all-male offshoot of a larger Glickstein-backed organization known as WaterWorkers, which "promotes crying as a therapeutic practice." Proponents of the man-tear movement believe they are "addressing a societal problem," if not one of public health.

Scientists are mostly in agreement that repressing negative emotion amps up cardiovascular stress and produces anxiety, and long-term stress has been shown to kill brain cells and impair memory function. For men, who learn at a young age that stoicism is tantamount to masculinity, such emotional repression is common, according to Jonathan Bowman, associate professor of communication at the University of San Diego.

I don't typically take medical advice from doctors of communication, but that sounds plausible enough. While it's doubtful, as Libby noted last month, that the tears of infamous male weepers like John Boehner represent an earnest outpouring of emotion, the Lacrimists remain big fans of Boehner and other misty-eyed politicians:

[Glickstein] and van Dyk are thinking bigger, calling it a "primary mission" to get President Obama to admit that he cries. After seeing Obama pause for 51 seconds—presumably collecting himself and holding back tears—during a speech Jan. 12 about the Arizona shooting victims, Glickstein wrote a blog entry asking the president to cry openly ... "I know he is a compassionate man," Glickstein says, "and we assume he cries at home. If he admits at a press conference that he cries, that would be a huge step in (ending) the cycle of violence."

As analysts obsess over this year's State of the Union address, there's been a lot of talk of tone, but none of emotion. There's a chance that some well-timed tears could help the president finally shake off his image as a detached intellectual. But it could just as easily backfire and feed into the lazy stereoytpe of Democrats as effete bleeding hearts who don't have the stomach for tough decisions.

What do you guys think? Should Obama let himself choke up during tonight's speech?

Tags: boehner, crying, john boehner cries, masculinity, Obama, politics, State of the Union

—President Obama created his own "it gets better" message to gay teens who face bullying in school.

—Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has issued what seems to be a moratorium on dismissing openly gay members of the military as "don't ask, don't tell" gets closer to being banned completely. [New York Times]

—Sharron Angle said that Harry Reid needs to "man up" on the issue of social security. Reid responded that he has nothing to prove in the "manhood" deparment. [Politico]

—In Kentucky, Rand Paul has been accused of misogyny because of a prank he pulled in college. [Politico]

—Why is long hair "inappropriate" for middle-aged women? [New York Times]

—We know Kanye West thinks that Taylor Swift didn't deserve her grammy, but apparently Ray Charles and the Dixie Chicks are also unworthy. [Entertainment Weekly]

Tags: hair, harry reid, it gets better, kanye west, Obama, rand paul, sharron angle

Before this week’s Wikileaks anti-climax, the talk of the town was the fight to have Harvard professor, TARP watchdog, and Jon Stewart crush-object Elizabeth Warren lead the newly created consumer-financial-protection agency. That chatter is on a crescendo once more.

Lots of progressives are pushing hard for President Obama to appoint her. Warren, after all, was the main architect and advocate of establishing the agency, and her supporters say that her appointment would be the rare, unequivocal move by this administration to protect average consumers. But other Democrats, like Sen. Christopher Dodd, head of the Senate banking committee, worry aloud that Warren is too contentious a figure to get confirmed by the Senate. Yesterday, Dodd repeated that prediction and warned against a recess appointment of Warren to the post.

The Times said in a recent editorial that Warren scares the banks not because she doesn’t get it, as far as their shenanigans go, but because she does. I think she scares all those who want to keep the status quo and think problems will magically right themselves, because Warren is an eight-foot-tall, fanged and clawed Mama Grizzly, coming at you from the left. If you take all the broad descriptions of Mama Grizzlies, both visual and rhetorical—white mothers from Middle America who kinda just know that things just aren’t right in this country and don’t like the direction it’s going—Warren fits that bill. Except that her vision of America is at loggerheads with what conservatives want—and she’s on the threshold to real power.

The daughter of a janitor, born and raised in Oklahoma, high school state debate champion, married young, divorced once, mother of two, Sunday school teacher: Warren has the "real America" creds that Mama Grizzlies use against those who’d dismiss them. I can’t help but think that Warren’s early life and her initial modest law practice informed her decision to illuminate over the years the economic inequities in this country and the hugely destructive pressures the middle class faces. Her research has exploded myths about how those seeking bankruptcy are largely profligate and irresponsible, showing instead that medical costs, for instance, often push people over the brink. She’s been unremitting in her criticism of banks’ nihilistic pursuit of profits.

To me, Warren is a real Mama Grizzly, more real than Sarah Palin as a feminist, because of her years-long fight to protect the middle class. She doesn’t just spout platitudes like any politician would. She uses instead the skills she developed as lawyer and researcher to reveal the numbers in checking accounts and tax forms that are undoing people’s lives. But for all the lefties who don’t want to appropriate the right’s lingo, you can always use a good, old-fashioned term for Warren: bad-ass.

Photograph of Elizabeth Warren by Jewel Samad/Getty Images.

Tags: bankruptcy, banks, chris dodd, consumer financial protection, elizabeth warren, Harvard, mama grizzly, Obama, oklahoma, Sarah Palin

Kathleen Parker’s latest column opens with the idea that “Barack Obama may be our first woman president.” Lest your thoughts immediately fly to the presidential package area, Parker quickly clarifies that she means President Obama is decidedly feminine in speech, or “rhetorical-testosterone deficient.” This label isn’t intended maliciously, as Parker herself notes it’s refreshing to see the markers of “feminine” speech—consideration, deliberation, “talking it out”—in a leader. Slight problem, however: The “generally speaking, males do A and females do B” claims supporting the idea don’t hold much water.

Mark Liberman at Language Log tackled the column a few days ago and pointed out that most of the ideas floated in the piece about Alpha-male-talk vs. Obama's girly-talk were pulled out of, well, somewhere very dark (to say it passively, in more than one way). That is, Parker's weird claim that Obama is a "chatterbox" and G.W. was not, and that Bill Clinton and Reagan also dipped successfully into female speak. (But if that's the case, doesn't it refute Parker's thesis?) More importantly, Liberman writes that there’s no truth to the claim that females use passive voice more than their male counterparts. The evidence is linked in the Language Log post:

The first thing to say is that there isn't the slightest evidence that passive-voice constructions are "feminine". Women don't use the passive voice more than men, and among male writers, number of passive-voice constructions doesn't appear to have any relationship at all to real or perceived manliness. The "passive is girly" prejudice seems to be purely due to the connotations of (other senses of) the term passive, misinterpreted by people who in any case mostly wouldn't recognize the grammatical passive voice if it bit them on the leg.

It also seems worth noting that presidential speeches are not the stuff of first drafts—they’re written by professionals, often by committee, edited and re-edited. Each word is very, very deliberate. Thus active voice is more useful in certain political situations (“We will not rest” “We will finish,” etc.), just as passive voice is a better strategic choice in others.  Even if there were evidence generally tying females to the passive voice, a presidential speech is too rigorous a form to make any conclusions as to what the words say about Obama.

Photograph of President Obama by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Tags: language log, Obama, passive voice, speech

—Guardians of “Twetiquette” spend their free time policing Twitter for improper grammar and other nettlesome errors. [New York Times]

—A new study reveals that lower wages and a lack of job opportunities have conspired to extend the path to “adulthood” for many young Americans. [Science Daily]

—In her new memoir, former first lady Laura Bush divulges details about painful events from her teenage years and her husband’s presidency. [Washington Post]

—President Obama will nominate Janet Yellen to be vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, the second-highest ranking Fed position. [CBS News]

—In many offices on Capitol Hill, there are no formal policies for maternity or paternity leave, forcing staffers to beg for time off to bond with their new babies. [Politico]

—Much to their mothers’ dismay, an increasing number of girls under the age of 12 have ditched flavored lip gloss in favor of more adult makeup. [New York Times]

Tags: adolescence, childhood, Federal Reserve, grammar, janet yellen, makeup, Obama, paternity leave, politics, social media, twitter

—President Obama issues new rules granting hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples. [New York Times]

—Should parents post Youtube videos of their kids crying? [Salon]

—In a small Texas town, paddling makes a comeback. The newly revived policy has reduced delinquency, but is it ever right to use corporal punishment? [Washington Post]

—Scientists debate the effect of marriage on health. [NYT Magazine]

—The South Hadley teens charged in the bullying of Phoebe Prince face death threats and harassment. [People]

—Emily Y. called it: How the little blue pill ruins marriages. [The Daily Beast]

Tags: corporal punishment, divorce, gay marriage, marriage, Obama, phoebe prince, politics, Texas, viagra, youtube

It's been hard for me to support the Obama administration in the past few months because of what I perceive as an epic failure on the health care front. Even Obama's thumping of House Republicans seems like too little, too late, as though he just realized that they fully intend to block any national progress and then run against Obama as a failure—a strategy bloggers and pundits have been telling him was the Republican strategy from roughly day one. But then I read articles like this one on the reworking of No Child Left Behind, and I am reminded that there are good aspects to having such a wonky president, even if he occasionally falls behind on his political battles.

The reason this wonky nonsense gives me confidence is that it manages to do what Obama always claims he wants to do, which is take good ideas—wherever they come from—and use them and refine them to be better ideas. And I can't say I completely object to the selling point of No Child Left Behind, which is that the federal government should have educational standards and accountability. My problem with it was that it always seemed a bit dangerous to suggest that a highly punitive approach is appropriate for education, since punitive approaches on the administrative level end up trickling down to students, and most evidence shows reward-based learning is a lot better than punishment-based learning. And, sure enough, schools seem to prefer weeding out the students who are a drag on their scores over actually getting them up to speed.

The "one high standard" promise of NCLB is also straight-up unfair. For students who live in districts where they're far more likely to have adequate nutrition, rest, and family involvement, getting kids to pass a standardized test isn't that big of a deal. Kids whose parents are crippled by poverty, however, don't have those advantages, and it encourages more of the dreaded "teaching the test," instead of educating the students. Focusing strictly on standardized testing is highly criticized for missing the point of education as well. Though I have to point out that "teaching the test" neatly aligns to conservative demands that education be nothing more than accounting and literacy skills and stays the hell away from teaching critical thinking that would probably do some serious damage to long-term Republican prospects.

The administration wants to get away from teaching the test, and instead return to framing education as preparation for life, with a standard for graduating students "college or career ready." Money is also being shifted in a way that emphasizes rewarding schools for taking action, instead of punishing them for failing to achieve test scores. It's going to be more complicated, but there is more potential for effective improvements. And the wonky Obama administration is just the crew to handle such a complex task.

Tags: no child left behind, Obama, standardized testing