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:

Josh Marshall is of course right that it is doubtful that Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House GOP Whip, has ever read a book on Churchill, but I think the question is whether Washington Post reporters Michael Shear and Paul Kane know much of anything about Churchill. After all it was Shear and Kane who wrote this:

Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House minority whip who led the fight to deny Obama every GOP vote for the plan, is studying Winston Churchill's role leading the Tories in the late 1930s, a principled minority that was eventually catapulted into power over the Labor Party.

(Emphasis supplied.) I do not know what Cantor actually knows or is doing, but I do know Shear and Kane put their names to a story that stated this falsehood (as Josh explains, and as anyone even vaguely familiar with Churchill's life story would know, Churchill did not lead a Tory opposition in the 30s, the Neville Chamberlain government was Tory and Churchill was on the outs with his own party.) This is the Washington Post. Supposedly one of our great newspapers. What a wonderful world it would be if we had a better press corps.

Speaking for me only

Scott Horton in Harper's writes about former Guantanamo prison guard Brandon Neely's "tell-all" about his experience. Neely was a guard during the first year of Gitmo. Bottom line: Neely says "“The stuff I did and the stuff I saw was just wrong.”

You can read Neely's 15,000 word version (put together by law students at the University of California) here.

Horton says three things stood out to him: [More...]

Raw Story has an exclusive interview with Robert Luskin, lawyer for Karl Rove, about Rove's cooperation in the House Judiciary Committee's probe into the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove will not rely on (1) a White House claim of immunity for senior advisors to the president, (2) executive privilege or (3) his personal privilege against self-incrimination. He will cooperate with the investigation.

Did Rove get immunity in exchange for his cooperation? Luskin won't answer that one.

Asked if he had a comment on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) proposed “truth commission,” in which Bush officials would be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, Luskin said, “No.”

Today is Presidents Day. The Presidents honored are Washington and Lincoln, surely two of our greatest. FDR was born on January 30, close enough I think to add to this day's celebration. Anyway, I think so.

Also, today is the 105th anniversary of the birth of George Kennan.

The people of Venezuela have chosen Chavez:

54.4 percent of voters supported the proposal [to lift Presidential term limits], with 45.6 percent voting against it, electoral officials said late Sunday, based on preliminary results with nearly complete returns. While Mr. Chávez’s support ebbed from the 63 percent he secured in a presidential election in 2006, he remains by far Venezuela’s dominant political personality.

In theory, the Venezuelan people will be able to vote Chavez out in elections in 2013. We'll see if Chavez permits that possibility. I must admit my doubts about that. But as of today, the Venezuelan people have spoken, and they want Chavez.

Speaking for me only

EJ Dionne posits that President Obama is recognizing the moment:

More striking was his sense that fate has handed him opportunities few presidents ever get and that his test will be whether he makes good use of his chance to bend history at one of its "inflection points." "Leadership at those moments can help determine which direction that wave of change goes," he said. "I think it's very hard . . . for any single individual or politician to unleash historical momentum on its own. But I think when that historical wave is there, I think you can help guide it."

Asked if this were one of those moments, he replied, flatly, "yes." That may make the situation "scary sometimes," but it should also "make people determined and excited." Maybe that explains his good mood.

This is good, and if Dionne is right, it gets better:

Time for an open thread. What's going on in your world?

All topics welcome

Via Sentencing Law and Policy, a legislator in New Hampshire has introduced a bill to restore executions by firing squad.

Burridge’s bill recommends a firing squad of five men, one whose gun carries blanks, to keep it unclear which shooter is responsible for death. During the execution, the prisoner would be hooded and wear a target over his heart. Each shooter would aim for that target.

Burridge said he chose the method primarily for its public-relations value. He said he thought a death by shooting might be more likely to stick in the minds of would-be criminals and deter them from committing crimes using guns. “I call it the enhanced death penalty,” he said. “You’ve got to love the marketing.”

[More...]