The Dodgers filed for bankruptcy.

Blago Guilty.

Gators start the College World Series finals tonight. Go Gators!

Open Thread.

Thought I'd try the phrase on for size before she gaffes too badly. Anyway, I am a firm believer in pumping up Bachmann because we want her to win the GOP nomination. Romney's the guy who can beat Obama. Maybe Pawlenty I suppose. But Bachmann can not. As a result, I will now make fun of Kevin Drum stand-in Andy Kroll who points to Nate Silver for the proposition of "throwing cold water" on Bachmann's big weekend. The problem is Silver is actually quite bullish on Bachmann:

I haven’t said anything about the performance of Michele Bachmann in the poll, who drew 22 percent, just a point behind Mr. Romney. Really, there isn’t much to say other than this: these are terrific numbers. [. . .] I would consider her the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses and a legitimate contender to win the Republican nomination.

Throwing cold water? I think Nate is revving up "the impressive Michelle Bachmann" line. (Note: Nate doesn't know much more than me or you about these things, but people think he does.)

Speaking for me only

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo did a great thing when he maneuvered the New York State legislature into approving gay marriage. Part of why he did it, in my view, was a question of political positioning. Aside from the accomplishment, what was Cuomo looking for? In my view, stories like this one by Nate Silver:

[T]he type of leadership that Mr. Cuomo exercised — setting a lofty goal, refusing to take no for an answer and using every tool at his disposal to achieve it — is reminiscent of the stories sometimes told about with President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had perhaps the most impressive record of legislative accomplishment of any recent president. It’s also a brand of leadership that many Democrats I speak with feel is lacking in President Obama.

There is, in my view, a fatigue building among Democrats regarding President Obama's political style, his vaunted Post Partisan Unity Schtick (really just a variant on the old Clinton/DLC Third Way Schtick.) Obviously that is not meaningful to 2012 in terms of who the nominee will be - the President will not be challenged. But it is meaningful for 2016. Thus, when Silver writes:

In Egypt, some have argued that it is too soon for elections. In Libya, the Gaddafi regime is floating the idea of elections:

The Libyan government on Sunday renewed its offer to hold a vote on whether Muammar Gaddafi should stay in power, a proposal unlikely to interest his opponents but which could widen differences inside NATO. [. . .] Moussa Ibrahim, a spokesman for Gaddafi's administration, told reporters in Tripoli the government was proposing a period of national dialogue and an election overseen by the United Nations and the African Union.

Should this alternative be pursued? If not, why not? In Egypt the argument against elections is:

Open Thread.

The latest in the ongoing strife between the DEA and Pitkin County Sheriff's. The DEA thinks they are the good guys. The majority of the community, as evident by its overwhelming rejection of pro-drug war Sheriff candidates since 1976 say otherwise. [More...]

Open Thread.

The review court for military commission trials issued an en banc opinion yesterday upholding the conviction of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan.

In justifying trial by military commission, it reached back to 1818.

In that case, U.S. forces under Gen. Andrew Jackson invaded Spanish Florida in 1818 to stop black slaves from fleeing through a porous border. Troops captured two British traders, whom the general ordered face a military commission on charges they aided the enemy by helping the Seminoles and escaped black slaves.

The tribunal convicted the men and sentenced them to a whipping. Jackson, a slave owner, declared the punishment too soft and had them executed.

The opinion is here.

Open Thread.

In New York, now gay persons can be as unhappy in their marriages as straight people.

I kid. A great day for human rights.

A Dkos commenter writes:

If we couldn't do anything useful in Libya -- as is certainly the case in Saudi Arabia and probably the case in Syria -- that would be one thing. But that argument is not being made. It's just that "this is not worth American blood and treasure" -- [. . .] Well, one can't right every wrong in the world. One can't protect every innocent. But when there's something that we can do and choose not to, people can goddamn well own this expression of their priorities.

[People] may not like Qaddafi shelling Misrata and invading Benghazi and Tobruk to clench an iron fist around his subjects collective throat -- but [they] can live with it. [They] won't lose sleep over it. It's not worth American blood and treasure. If he argues that we can't achieve anything there, that's a different matter. It becomes a different argument. But what we can achieve is not part of this debate. It's whether we should try.

I think this raises the question why are we not doing more - not just in Libya, but everywhere. We can do more. Not just in Libya. But let's start with Libya for discussion's sake. Is there any doubt that we could take Tripoli in a month? Sure that requires ground troops, but so what? Are we gonna be "objectively pro-Qaddafi?"

By now you may have figured out that I have begun the process of reductio ad absurdum. It could end at asking why we have not invaded Cuba or Myanmar. It could go further and ask why we are not at war with China. More . . .

Peter Falk has died at 83. His Columbo character was truly one of the best of that era.

I've been in court and jails all day and am now headed up to Boulder for a Lady Defender sleepover party. Enjoy the evening, and I'll be back sometime tomorrow.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.