Society does a lousy job of providing mental health care to those who need it most -- those whose mental health problems limit their employability, leaving them without access to the kinds of jobs that come with health insurance. Left untreated, the mentally ill often run afoul of the law. Those who go to prison seldom receive meaningful mental health care, so prisons become warehouses for the mentally ill.

Federal courts have ordered California's prisons to classify and treat mentally ill inmates, but the prisons are overcrowded and the state's efforts to comply with the orders have been insufficient, to put it mildly. Frustrated advocates for inmates have petitioned the courts to cap the prison population on the theory that solving overcrowding will make more resources available for mentally ill inmates.

Finally, someone makes some sense on Howard Dean. The Hotline's Marc Ambinder:

Three years ago, Howard Dean-style politics was too outré for the Democratic Party to bear. Today, arguably, Dean Politics is Democratic politics. Embedded within Dean's campaign theme was a broad critique of the Republican approach to power. Iraq was simply its worst manifestation. But Dean also evinced his distaste with Republican "corruption." He talked about how Democrats - and independents and even Republicans -- were interested in results, not ideology. In his eyes, Americans wanted a fresh approach. He urged, first Democrats, then Americans, to take their country back. . . .

Leave the Internet aside: the architecture of Dean Politics has become the de mode style for the entire party. Dean promoted a vocal, confrontational style of campaigning, one that did not cede an inch to Republicans. His primary campaign was predicated on a 50 state strategy. He urged Democrats to adopt issues that would drive wedges between the Republican base and the party’s weaker adherents (mostly in the suburbs). He rejected the politics of inoculation, pronouncing himself proud to be the talisman of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He intuited that the party (and voters) wanted the Democrats to be the opposition party.

. . . [G]ive Dean credit for setting the tone and style of Democratic politics. Successful, Democratic politics, that is, in an environment that Dean first detected three years ago.

This is what we were talking about. (I was not a Dean supporter for President, but for DNC Chair.) Opposing. Fighting. Standing up. This is what Dean embodied and what the Netroots urged. Good for Ambinder. H/T atrios.

Sen. Russ Feingold, writing at Huffpo, tells us to beware the lame duck Congressional session.

It would be a huge mistake to overlook the potential for damage in the lame duck session. A lame duck session doesn't sound like anything to worry about, but this lame duck may be a lot more dangerous than people think. We can expect Republicans to try to jam through as much of their agenda as they can while they have the chance.

The biggest threat: Bush's push to legalize his warrantless eavesdropping program.

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here's the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President's warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.

Other bills they will try to push through: tax cuts and trade policy.

Americans who welcome a change of government have reason to be thankful for Tom Noe. At least, they have reason to be thankful that the corrupt coin dealer's trial focused the attention of Ohio voters on Republican corruption. The jury returned a verdict yesterday.

Jurors convicted Noe, 52, a former county chairman who helped raise more than $100,000 in 2004 for the Bush-Cheney ticket, of 29 of 40 counts, including theft, corruption and forgery. He faces at least 10 years in prison for stealing from the state workers' compensation fund and trying to hide his actions. ... Along the way, the investigation touched Gov. Bob Taft ®, who pleaded no contest in August 2005 to accepting secret gifts from Noe and others.

Don Hazen makes the credible argument that Republican corruption was the tipping point in last week's elections.

The ACLU reports today (received by e-mail):

In response to an ongoing lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the CIA has acknowledged the existence of two documents authorizing it to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects overseas. For more than two years, the CIA had refused to either deny or confirm the existence of the documents and had argued in court that doing so could jeopardize national security.

....The two documents in question are a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees, and a Justice Department legal analysis specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al-Qaeda members.

You can view the disclosure letter from the CIA here.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero notes:

It's the Tuesday open thread, where readers take over to post their thoughts. With last week being election day, we missed it, so hopefully some of you have enough pent up to get a thread going. If you don't, or even if you do, hopefully TChris, Big Tent or LNILR will keep you updated. Enjoy.

If you thought you've seen the end of Senator Trent Lott, think again.

In 2002, Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader after he made racist comments implying he was in favor of segregation at a birthday party for former Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), who once ran for President on a segregationist platform.

Monday night, Lott announced his plan to run for Minority Whip, which would place him in the number two position among Senate Republicans. Although Lott has remained quiet about his intention to seek a leadership position, The Hill newspaper noted, "Few on Capitol Hill would second-guess Lott's prowess at backroom maneuvering."

The Hill has the story.

If you are in the New York area at the end of the month, NYC's New School is holding an impressive conference on the nature of punishment in modern America.

Join us as we examine the foundations of our ideas of punishment, explore the social effects of current practices and search for viable alternatives to our carceral state.

The conference meets between 11/30-12/1/2006 in Manhattan. It lists impresssive number of top notch criminal justice experts, including death penalty expert Stephen Bright from the Southern Center on Human Rights and U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner (Boston), true champions of liberty. The cost for this two day conference is pegged at an affordable $50 (a single session is only $12). Law students, are you listening?

I have been known to write many a trivial diary. But this is hands down my most trivial - it is about John Tierney, the least impactful NYTimes columnist I could ever remember.

The irony is Tierney, the say nothing worth noticing columnist pens a farewell column urging the new Dem Congress to do nothing:

I'm afraid the election results still haven't registered in Washington. Democrats and Republicans keep making noises about working together to accomplish great things. But that's not what Americans voted for. They voted for gridlock.

They gave Congress a Seinfeld mandate to do nothing. The Democrats offered no bold new ideas, and they were rewarded with victory. Voters would like them to mop up the messes made by Republicans, but that's it. Find a way out of Iraq, and then avoid any more excellent adventures dreamed up by neoconservatives.

Um, great column John . . . But was Tierney the worst columnist of the past two years? I  would have to say yes.

Scott Lemieux continues his struggle to debate abortion and the right to choose with Amy Sullivan.

I think Scott does not want to deal with the obvious -- Sullivan is dishonest about the pro-choice position (she argues that the pro-choice movement does not want to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancy because we all just LOVE abortions) for the simplest of reasons - she is anti-choice, she wants abortions outlawed.

She does not have the courage to say it - which makes mean think less of her than folks who take the perfectly respectable position of opposing all abortions and the right to choose.

It is pretty simple for me - I support Roe v. Wade, which has been the Constitutional law of the land for 33 years and is supported by a majority of Americans. Those who want to restrict the right to choose do dances around Roe but the fact is Roe is their obstacle. Late term abortions almost always involve questions of a woman's health and are a red herring issue. Parental notification is a thornier issue, but the judicial bypass procedure does provide, at least in theory, a solution to that problem.

But Sullivan and anti-choicers will not be satisfied until abortions are outlawed. They are not for birth control - heck they oppose it. This is why I find the debate on the right to choose so sterile. The positions are irreconciliable. The issue is talked out. If Presidents appoint Justices that are confirmed by the Senate that overturn Roe, then the politics will be extemely interesting and intense. For now, the discussion is sterile - you believe in the right to choose or you do not. What's to discuss?

Rudy's running in 2008.

The former mayor filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., creating a panel that would allow him to raise money for a White House run and travel the country.

How many scandals does he think he can overcome? As I wrote in 2004, "Guiliani, Could You Just Gag?"

Atrios points to this story:

Suddenly, everyone wants Olbermann. Last week, he and political veteran Chris Matthews teamed up to anchor MSNBC's midterm election coverage.

The result? Abrams called it "a major turning point for this network.'' Ratings were up across the board and the coveted 25-to-54 age demographic increased 111 percent from the 2002 midterm election.

What's next? Expect to see Olbermann in even more mainstream settings. The one thing he is resisting, however, is pressure to produce more "Special Comments.'' He has to feel them, he says. "Otherwise I will turn into a cartoon of myself.''

On Election night, I watched MSNBC exclusively because I really enjoyed the team of Matthews and Olberman together. I thought they brought out the best in each other.

Matthews benefitted from being away from the DC Gasbags and being able to air his own original thoughts without concern for the silly points of reference of his DC cocktail party cohorts. Olberman toned down his sometime over the top rhetoric.

Of course, Olberman is the new MSNBC star, but a Chris Matthews, unbound from his smallminded DC cohorts is an interesting watch. I hope to see that team again in the future.