Like many across the blogs, I am a big fan of the HBO show "The Wire." My favorite discussions of the show generally spring from Matt Yglesias' blog, but today I like Ezra's discussion:

It's testament to the overpowering awesomeness of The Wire that despite being a deeply opinionated commentary on social, urban, and economic policy, it's basically beloved by the whole political spectrum. You already know the panoply of lefty bloggers who regularly recommend and rave over the show, but now Cato is recommending it as a stocking stuffer. Meanwhile, my personal Wire-watching group includes lefties, punk rock chefs, and hardcore libertarians. So I think the anecdotal evidence of pan-ideological appeal is ironclad. Which is a bit odd, given that the creators are, as best I can tell, revolutionary socialists. . . . Yet everyone likes the show. That's possibly because it's a masterful story, expertly told, and exquisitely acted. It may also be because it's little kinder to state intervention than personal initiative. While none of the problems would be solved by charter schools, the public schools aren't making progress either. Indeed, it may be the radical apocalypticism of The Wire's vision that makes it so palatable: By offering absolutely no hope, it evades arguments over solutions.

Pessimism is what "The Wire" is all about. For some reason, the drama of futility attracts me. And this is as close to a criminal law post as I will do.

John Solomon, the AP reporter whose jihad agaist Harry Reid has proven to be a deep embarrassment for the AP, falls up:

GOP oppo research push-over John Solomon headed from the AP to Washington Post?!?! Apparently they're going to set him up with his own investigative unit. Presumably in addition to the one he has at the RNC.

What a self indictment by the Washington Post.

A followup to this discussion. In realtime, Bob Somerby and I had similar reactions to Rahm Emanuel appearance with George Stephanapoulos:

Meanwhile, we chuckled a bit when we stopped by The Lake and read this post about Rahm Emanuel. In the following exchange on Sunday’s This Week, Rahm gave a classic non-denial denial when asked if he had known about Foley’s misconduct:

STEPHANOPOULOS (10/8/06): All week long, there have been suggestions by—on talk radio and by Republicans and their allies that this was perhaps a Democratic dirty trick. And I just want to ask you plainly, did you or your staff know anything about these e-mails or instant messages before they came out?

EMANUEL: George, never saw them. And I'm going to say one thing, let's go through the facts right here.

PUTNAM: But were you aware of them? Didn't have to see them.

larger version here.

It's snowing big-time here in Telluride. It's very beautiful and peaceful. No ski slopes for me though, here's where I'll be.

larger version here.

What's going on in your neck of the woods?

Glenn Greenwald, a very fine blogger, is over the top and I think wrong when he accuses Rahm Emanuel of lying about FoleyGate. Glenn's argument goes as follows:

Did Rahm Emanuel explicitly and clearly lie during his October appearance on ABC?

Emanuel would likely say that he did not "lie," because each time he was asked whether he was "aware" of the e-mails -- which he plainly was -- he never denied being "aware" of them. Instead -- he would likely argue -- he changed the subject by denying that he ever "saw" the e-mails, a fact which appears (based on what we know) to be true (or at least not demonstrably false). Therefore, in the narrowest and most technical way, an argument could be constructed that Emanuel did not actually "lie" in his responses.

But that argument, ultimately, is nonsense. If you listen to the video, there is little doubt that Emanuel was lying in every meaningful sense of that word. He not only denied having "seen" the e-mails, but also interrupted Stephanapolous's first question about whether he was "aware" of the e-mails with an emphatic "no," and at least on one other occasion, denied not only having seen the e-mails, but also having been aware of them. Those denials were just outright false (i.e., "lies").

Absolutely not. In every meaningful sense of the word, Emanuel ducked the question in order to not lie. Ducking the question is not lying Glenn. It is really surprising to me to read a lawyer write those words. Witnesses duck and avoid questions all the time. UNDER OATH. In any meaningful sense, Glenn has misstated the meaning of lying. Emanuel expressly said he had not SEEN the e-mails. An obvious signal to anyone thinking here. What would a good questioner have asked as a followup? To me it is obvious - did you ever HEAR of the POSSIBILITY of the existence of such e-mails? From whom? What were you told? But Glenn plays the ingenue here for some reason. It is poorly done by him.

More.

Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't overstating matters when he declared a state of emergency in California's prison system. The question now is whether the state has the political will to solve the problem that its failed "lock 'em up" policies have created.

The creation of new prisons seems likely, but the governor and lawmakers are also seriously contemplating broad changes to the parole system and the establishment of a sentencing guidelines commission — anathema to some just a year ago — like those used by other states to reduce overcrowding and its costs.

Guidelines may only worsen overcrowding if, as in the federal system, they prevent judges from imposing rationally merciful sentences. The state should start by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences and by looking for alternative ways to punish drug offenders and nonviolent criminals.

Here's a look at the problem:

Bump and update: Vote early, vote often. Please don't let us lose out to a right-wing site named Stop the ACLU.

TalkLeft is nominated in the "Best of the Top 250 Blogs." If you'd like to vote for us, we'd appreciate it. Just click here.

The United States has the right to incarcerate convicted offenders. But, does it have the right to torment them, drive them insane or impose conditions of confinement that cause extreme physical disabilities?

No, we're not talking about detainees or Guantanamo. We're talking about Supermax at Florence Colorado, often called Alcatraz of the Rockies.

The latest to complain: Eric Rudolph:

Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph laments in a series of letters that the caged atmosphere of the federal prison where is spending the rest of his life is designed to drive him insane.

Rudolph, who hid out from authorities for five years in the woods of western North Carolina before being captured, says in correspondence with a Colorado newspaper that his surroundings at the Supermax prison are getting to him.

The man who overturned Latin America's most stable democracy in 1973 and murdered thousands now meets his maker:

Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who overthrew Chile's democratically elected Marxist president in a bloody coup and ruled this Andean nation for 17 years, died Sunday, dashing hopes of victims of his regime's abuses that he would be brought to justice. He was 91.

. . . Chile's government says at least 3,197 people were killed for political reasons during his rule, but after leaving the presidency in 1990 Pinochet escaped hundreds of criminal complaints because of his declining physical and mental health. Pinochet took power on Sept. 11, 1973, demanding an unconditional surrender from President Salvador Allende as warplanes bombed the presidential palace in downtown Santiago. Instead, Allende committed suicide with a submachine gun he had received as a gift from Fidel Castro.

As the mustachioed Pinochet crushed dissent during his 1973-90 rule, he left little doubt about who was in charge. ''Not a leaf moves in this country if I'm not moving it,'' he once said.

I do not romanticize Salvador Allende. I believe he was creating chaos in Chile and would have had his own coup if he could have. But it was Pinochet who attacked democracy. It was Pinochet who murdered thousands.

The crimes are his. The infamy his. As it should be. Do NOT rest in peace murderer. Of humans. And democracy.

Silvestre Reyes clearly can not do the job of House Intel Chair:

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players. To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

This is a man who does not even know this but pretends to know enough to call on the US to send in tens of thousands of more troops. What a mistake Pelosi made naming Reyes. Disclosure -- I urged the naming of Jane Harman as Intel Chair. h/t - Ezra.

The House ethics committee concludes that misconduct has no consequences:

House Republican leaders failed to protect young pages and interns from sexually suggestive advances by former Rep. Mark Foley and remained "willfully ignorant" of the consequences, an investigative panel of the House ethics committee reported Friday.

No discipline will be forthcoming because "no rules appeared to be broken." What does that say about the need for the next Congress to implement meaningful rules -- starting with a mandatory reporting requirement when members learn about sexually inappropriate behavior?

On the last day of the legislative year, a Republican spoke the truth:

“The breakdown of regular order this cycle — indeed the failure to get our bills done — should be squarely placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader who failed to schedule floor time for the consideration of appropriations bills,” Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California and the departing chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said in an unusual public attack on a fellow Republican.

The Republican legislature failed to pass 9 of the 11 spending bills that fund the government, leaving responsible governance to the Democrats next year.