John Boehner at CNN on why he's suing the president. The House of Representatives is drawing up legislation that would allow the body to sue the president for "changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold." The Speaker of the House argues that President Obama has "consistently overstepped his authority" and must be reined in through checks and balances. "In the end, the Constitution makes it clear that the President's job is to faithfully execute the laws. And, in my view, the President has not faithfully executed the laws when it comes to a range of issues, including his health care law, energy regulations, foreign policy and education."
Kelly Williams Brown at The Daily Beast on the mythical "Beyoncé Voter." Fox News analyst Jesse Watters recently coined the term "Beyoncé Voter" to describe single women who depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands.” Brown unleashes (sarcastically) the Dark Truth about Watters' nightmare voting cohort: "We are a monolithic block, each and every one dedicated to premarital sex, hedonism, socialism, white wine, and tweeting about misogyny [...] We make all decisions based on our wicked uteruses. You see, some uteri are virtuous and true. They perform as God made them to, diligently pumping out future patriots at 13-month intervals. Other uteri, tainted by low, regular doses of progesterone and/or witchcraft, become evil. They wander about our bodies, wrap themselves around our brains, making us… oh, what’s that word? For a super unreasonable woman, upset about nothing? Ah, yes, hysterical."
Duncan Watts at The Guardian on why Facebook should be doing more social science research. Facebook has been labeled unethical for conducting a social science experiment on its users without their knowledge. Watts argues that this is simply the beginning of a new age of scientific research that we all should embrace. "Yes, the arrival of new ways to understand the world can be unsettling. But as social science starts going through the kind of revolution that astronomy and chemistry went through 200 years ago, we should resist the urge to attack the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake." What's more, Facebook is merely adding a layer of scientific rigor to business decisions it would be making anyway. "If anything, we should insist that companies like Facebook – and governments for that matter – perform and publish research on the effects of the decisions they're already making on our behalf. Now that it's possible, it would be unethical not to."
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post on Progressives and the original purpose of the Constitution. Tea Party and conservative activists are loud and stubborn in their reverence for the Founding Fathers' vision, but Dionne argues that progressives could use a little of that "originalist" fervor to help their own causes. "For too long, progressives have allowed conservatives to monopolize claims of fealty to our unifying national document. In fact, those who would battle rising economic inequalities to create a robust middle class should insist that it’s they who are most loyal to the Constitution’s core purpose. Broadly shared well-being is essential to the framers’ promise that “We the people” will be the stewards of our government."
Paul Krugman at The New York Times on inflation hysteria. "Confronted with a conflict between evidence and what they want to believe for political and/or religious reasons, many people reject the evidence." This time, Krugman's targets for this "wishful thinking" are those conservatives who predicted runaway inflation due to the Federal Reserve's meddling in our economy, now that the inflation hasn't come to pass: "Although the Fed continued on its expansionary course — its balance sheet has grown to more than $4 trillion, up fivefold since the start of the crisis — inflation stayed low. For the most part, the funds the Fed injected into the economy simply piled up either in bank reserves or in cash holdings by individuals — which was exactly what economists on the other side of the divide had predicted would happen. Needless to say, it’s not the first time a politically appealing economic doctrine has been proved wrong by events. So those who got it wrong went back to the drawing board, right? Hahahahaha."