A press conference will be held in New York today heralding the introduction of a much needed legislative reform package that will help reduce the number of wrongful convictions. From the Innocence Project's press release (no link, received by e-mail):

The sweeping legislative package includes fundamental reforms – including access to post-conviction DNA testing, preservation of evidence that can prove innocence, mechanisms for people to prove their innocence by using forensic databases that can identify true perpetrators of crimes, the formation of a state Innocence Commission and others.

Update [2007-5-3 11:45:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: MYDD is dismayed by this headline - Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable Compromise. No offense but when MYDD was cheering for this House Supplemental did it NOT know this headline was inevitable? The funny thing is the Dems backed down on binding timelines in the bill they sent to Bush. The one he vetoed. The Media is so bad they think the Dems are backing down now. Hilarious.

What do the American People think about Iraq? Do they have deep complex thoughts on partition and counterinsurgency tactics and blowback? Or do they just know that what they have been told would happen did not happen? That we have been there for more than 4 years and with no progress in sight? Do they know, in short, that the Debacle is lost? How do you argue the issue of Iraq now? Cliff Schecter and Sean-Paul Kelly endorse this approach from the Nelson Report:

On a related note, when will ANY prominent Democrat start using effective propaganda vs. Bush's Iraq War policies? Whimpering like Sen. Reid is so politically weak. Every supporter of the war should be grilled again and again with variants of the same question: ‘When are we going to stop arming and training more terrorists?’ We armed and trained Al Qaeda before they turned on us. We armed and trained Hezbollah when they were still a Shiite brigade of the Lebanese army.

There are a few problems with this one. The most important is that the Democrats have already won the argument on Iraq. The American People want out. There is no problem with Harry Reid's argument. The issue now is how to end the Debacle. I am for NOT funding on a date certain. Certain folks want to "ratchet up the pressure," whatever that is supposed to mean. To think the problem is Democratic rhetoric is to have swallowed the Beltway line whole. Surprising to see bloggers do that.

This is a tour de force evisceraton of Politico by Glenn Greenwald, exposing lies, conceit, stupidity, hypocrisy and incompetence, all in one column. Read the whole thing. But, I want to take the main Politico players Glenn skins:

(1) (non-Pajama) Roger Simon - Glenn proves him untruthful, hypocritical, and rather stupid. Here's how - Simon wrote about John Edwards' haircut. Now we all expect that from people like Roger Simon because he is shallow fool. But Riger Simon has gotten wind that we think of him as a shallow fool and thus wanted to provide a justification for his vapidity. And thus he describes why he is wrting about Edwards' haircut again:

This is bad: When you go to Google and enter "Edwards haircut," the first item that comes up is a story by Bill Wundram in The Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa. . . . The article got 324 comments from readers. When people inside the Beltway are talking about your haircut, it doesn't matter much. When people in Iowa are talking about your haircut, you may have a problem.

Simon's first mistake was to think that Glenn Greenwald did not know that he lifted the item from Matt Drudge, not that he actually did a Google search, and that since Drudge linked to the Iowa newspaper story, that explains the 324 comments. So, Simon is demonstrated to be not truthful about (1) why he is writing the story, the Iowa newspaper piece had nothing to do with it, and (2)the enormous amounts of comments the piece got - both because Drudge linked to the Iowa article.

So what do we know now about Roger Simon in addition to the fact that he seems vapid and foolish (which we knew already)? That he does not tell the truth either.

Here's a sensible take on the use of force against protesters (and the media) in Los Angeles on May 1:

The police action was reportedly in response to a handful of protesters who threw plastic bottles and other small objects in the direction of police. But none of that explains what happened. Even LAPD Chief William J. Bratton, currently being considered for a second term as chief, was moved to call the response “inappropriate” and said “I was disturbed at what I saw.” Which would certainly be obvious to anyone watching the footage, but hearing it from the current chief of police is a comforting change in attitude from previous generations of LAPD leadership. Two investigations have already been launched into the incident.

The response from apologists whenever a scene like this one unfolds (i.e., Rodney King) is that police work is tough and dangerous and requires split-second decisions: What would you do in that situation? That is all true, except that police are also trained, paid, and fully expected to operate at a different level from an average citizen caught in chaotic situations. What reason could there be to beat unarmed protesters or media personnel carrying professional video equipment?

In the wake of a police shooting of an elderly Atlanta woman, some members of Congress are calling attention to a problem that politicians routinely ignore: the use (or dangerous misuse) of information provided by unreliable informants to justify the issuance of search warrants.

A host of influential House members who are black, like [shooting victim] Johnston, said the case highlights widespread misuse of police informants, and they pledged to address the issue in Congress.

"I see the shooting and killing of Ms. Johnston as one piece of a larger puzzle," said Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat. "We must utilize every means at our disposal ... to ensure that this kind of injustice never, ever happens again."

So I'm reading the new biography of Iggy Pop (Iggy and the Stooges) because I knew him a little back in Ann Arbor when I went to college and worked at the Discount Records where all the cool rockers stopped by on a regular basis (Iggy, Alice Cooper, the MC5, Commander Cody, Bob Seger and so on) and because drugs were so much a part of life back then (no surprise I later became a drug defense lawyer) as were protests against the Administration and the Vietnam War, and I spotted this passage, which was news to me.

A few days later, on Memorial Day weekend, Dave, Scott and Steve flew back to Detroit. Jim (Iggy) and Ron followed a few days later. When Jim returned, he looked healthier than anyone could remember, tanned and relaxed.

But according to several denizens of the Fun House, when Jim hit Ann Arbor, so had cocaine, almost as if it was planned. (In some respects it was; Nixon's Operation Intercept, launched in late September of 1969 to cut down the supply of marijuana, had inspired Michigan grass-smokers to seek out alternatives: at first, opiated hash from Canada, then cocaine and finally heroin.)

More....

John Edwards supports Reid-Feingold:

We support Reid-Feingold, but actually think we should go further. The Edwards plan calls for Congress to use funding power to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to show we're serious about leaving, followed by an orderly withdrawal our combat troops that would be complete in about a year. Reid-Feingold uses funding to start withdrawing troops in four months and complete it by March 31, 2008 - not immediate. We're for the use of the funding power and support this bill as far as it goes, but we think we should go further and begin withdrawal immediately.

Edwards joins Senator Chris Dodd in supporting Reid-Feingold. Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? Senator Biden? Governor Richardson? Senator Gravel? Congressman Kucinich? Time to step up.

Setting a date certain for NOT funding the Iraq war is the only way to end this Bush/McCain/Lieberman/GOP Debacle. It is what the American People want. The American People support Reid-Feingold.

Richard Martin predicts that the erosion of privacy won't concern the residents of the crime-ridden Jordan Downs housing project in Watts. He may be right: many are willing to trade their civil liberties for a sense of security. And the limited intrusiveness of "seven cameras strategically mounted around the project and linked to a multi-screen command center inside the LAPD's Southeast Substation" promotes less anguish than sneak-and-peek searches or national security letters, which (unlike a camera) can't be avoided by retreating to a private place.

It should nonetheless make us uncomfortable to know that the government is recording our public movements. This is particularly true when the surveillance cameras target areas in which poor and nonwhite individuals are concentrated. The proliferation of video surveillance threatens to erode civil liberties while making a dubious contribution to public safety -- even if the cameras make Jordan Downs' residents feel better.

A punishment that has always been cruel is now cruel and unusual. Nebraska is the only death penalty State that offers no method of execution other than electrocution. Carey Dean Moore was spared that fate yesterday when the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of the State's plan to use a lethal surge of electricity to end his life.

State Supreme Court Judge John Gerrard wrote that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions "at least raised the question whether electrocution is constitutional."

"Our constitutional responsibility to decide whether electrocution is lawful requires us to consider whether any convicted person should be electrocuted ...," Gerrard wrote.

The state's abandoned protocol called for a series of shocks, a prolonged process more consistent with torture than a humane approach to execution. Nebraska's new protocol, the one that the court will review, calls for a single jolt of electricity that, while massive, may not suffice to kill.

Under the protocol announced Wednesday, officials would wait 18 minutes to determine whether an inmate is dead and administer a second jolt if the heart is still beating.

And so the inmate, having miraculously survived a figurative lightning bolt, must wait 18 minutes before a second shock ends his life. By what definition is this not cruel?

Usually when I write about tv shows, they have something to do with crime, like the Sopranos or 24.

I have no excuse for writing about tonight's American Idol, which will feature Bon Jovi's music and Bon Jovi, except as I've mentioned a few times on TalkLeft, I really love looking at him.

Here's my you tube video of him that has gotten more than 12,000 views -- I grabbed it off of Larry King Live.

Ann Althouse blogged about Bon Jovi and last night's American Idol, so if you watch the show and have some thoughts, you can join in.

Update below:

Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a subpoena to the Justice Department today for all of Karl Rove's e-mails relating to the the U.S. Attorney firings.

“Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice,” Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The deadline is May 15.

Dan Eggan at the Washington Post has a new example of Alberto Gonzales' misstatements, this time to a federal judge in Montana. Andrew Cohen at Bench Conference has the analysis.

A former member of Robert Kennedy's Organized Crime Strike Force weighs in. His last line is the best:

Ashcroft supermoralistically draped the body of the department's statue of justice to hide her contours; Gonzales amoralistically tore off her blindfold. Both diminished the prestige of an important government agency.