Apparently just the first tranche towards 25-30,000. NBC's Miklaczevski (sp) says two Marine battalions and one Army unit (did not hear the designation).

CNN reports 12,000 troops to be deployed.

I promised a discussion on this policy and I will get to it tomorrow.

Why? Chicago Tribune:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

. . . In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

(Emphasis supplied.) Speaking for me only

This is catastrophic, not just for California, but for the entire US economy:

After a frustrating holiday weekend that failed to yield the one vote needed to end California's budget stalemate, the state is poised to begin layoff proceedings Tuesday for 20,000 government workers. In addition to the layoffs, the state also plans to halt all remaining public works projects, potentially putting thousands of construction workers out of jobs.

"We are dealing with a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions," said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach and chairman of the Senate transportation committee. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg announced late Monday that lawmakers had failed to find the final vote in his chamber as Republicans refused to support tax increases. He called a session for Tuesday and said he would put the tax provisions of the budget proposal up for a vote, even if they would not pass.

This is criminal irresponsibility by California Republicans. This is truly an economic catastrophe.

Speaking for me only

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

In 2006, Malcolm Gladwell wrote:

Under the circumstances, one of the great mysteries of contemporary American politics is why [GM CEO Rick] Wagoner isn't the nation's leading proponent of universal health care and expanded social welfare. That's the only way out of G.M.'s dilemma. But, from Wagoner's reticence on the issue, you'd think that it was still 1950, or that Wagoner believes he's the Prime Minister of Ireland. "One thing I've learned is that corporate America has got much more class solidarity than we do—meaning union people," the U.S.W.'s Ron Bloom says. "They really are afraid of getting thrown out of their country clubs, even though their objective ought to be maximizing value for their shareholders."

Gladwell's point has truly become obvious now as GM's fate today now seems to completely depend on dealing with its health care costs:

An interesting, positive [and accurate] appraisal of Bill Clinton's Presidency from someone whose existing fans may be shocked to read these words from him :

If your concern is for the economic well-being of the working class, than attacking Clinton is a strange place to start. Under his presidency, real household incomes for the bottom 10th percentile -- a pretty good Rawlsian metric for economic well-being -- increased by 17.3 percent, the largest increase of any president since the Census Bureau began compiling numbers. . . .

The New York Daily News reports that aides to Dick Cheney are saying he's really angry that Bush wouldn't give Scooter Libby a full pardon and kept the pressure on Bush until the last minute.

After repeatedly telling Cheney his mind was made up, Bush became so exasperated with Cheney's persistence he told aides he didn't want to discuss the matter any further. The unsuccessful full-court press left Cheney bitter. "He's furious with Bush," a Cheney source told The News. "He's really angry about it and decided he's going to say what he believes."

[More...]

Ratings for ABC's The Bachelor are the highest in years. On tonight's show, single dad Jason Mesnick goes from the final three -- Jillian, Melissa and Molly -- to the final two. The reality tv sites (see here, here and here, although they may have too much traffic during the show to get through) are burning up with speculation, not so much about what happens tonight as everything points to Jillian leaving -- but what happens next when he's scheduled to pick between the final two.

Bachelor producer and head honcho Mike Fleiss is fueling the speculation, talking about unusual twists that have never before happened on the show.

I just got off the phone with last season's bachelorette winner Jesse Csincsak, who I interviewed a few weeks ago here. Here's what he said today: [More...]

I'm about to do a post on tonight's The Bachelor show, which likely won't interest anyone here.

So, here's an open thread where you can write about what you want. All topics welcome.

I'll be back after The Bachelor.

I guess the South Carolina authorities have milked it for all it was worth. It's an Emily Litella "Nevermind" moment:

A South Carolina sheriff said Monday he was not going to charge swimmer Michael Phelps after a photo of the 14-time gold medalist showed him smoking from a marijuana pipe. Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said during a news conference that he didn’t have enough physical evidence to charge the swimmer, but he defended his investigation.

Not so lucky are the other folks swept up in this insane "investigation:"

The sheriff’s office said seven people arrested during the investigation would still face a simple possession of marijuana charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail or a $575 fine. Another person was arrested for driving under suspension.

The beat goes on. Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers provides a strange defense to "the Left" against Glenn Greenwald's charge that it allowed itself to be coopted by then-candidate Obama's Presidential campaign:

In this passage, [Greenwald] is explicitly accusing a large number of unnamed progressive organizations of cynically exploiting support for Obama--support which the leaders of these organizations apparently did not share--into increased traffic, membership and revenue. This argument is in unfair. It accuses the leadership of many progressive organizations of actually being on Greenwald's side in desiring more left-wing pressure on Obama, but being trapped because they engaged in bad faith support for Obama during the campaign, thus tricking their gullible new members into believing those organizations were actually cheerleading squads for President Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.) The defense is strange to me for 2 reasons. First, as I recall, Glenn cited to his own experiences regarding his Accountability Now project. Second, because Chris seems to accept that in fact these groups did not "desire[] more left wing pressure" on Obama. Bowers does not explain why these groups "did not desire," much less exert, "left wing pressure" on Obama. I would love to hear his explanation for that phenomenon.

Speaking for me only

Booman argues that President Obama's language opposing the stricter Buy American provisions in the stimulus bill does not matter because Obama did not actually do anything to weaken these provisions. Now, as folks should know by now, I am a free trader, so Buy American provisions are not something I favor generally (I also think existing Buy American provisions provide sufficient advantages for domestic vendors.) But I am curious if Booman is correct that in fact Obama did not act or lobby for weakening the Buy American provisions in the stimulus bill. My understanding, based on this Reuters fact sheet, is that he did indeed weaken the Buy American provisions in the stimulus bill: