Coming to a theater near you, Four Days Inside Guantanamo: You Don't Like the Truth. It's the story of the interrogation of child soldier Omar Khadr, based on the You Tube videos of his interrogation by Canadian officials at Guantanamo (See here and here. The tapes were released in 2008.)

Two filmmakers [Luc Cote and Patricio Henriquez] take footage of Omar Khadr interrogation to create YouTube videos and carry on to a feature documentary

...The core of this extraordinary feature documentary is the much-discussed video footage of interrogations of Omar Khadr by Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents that was made public following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling two years ago.

The movie premiered at a film festival Thursday and opens in Montreal and Toronto on October 29.

The filmmakers' point -and I think it's tough to disagree with them -is that whether or not Khadr is guilty, it's an outrage that Canadian security agents would interrogate him under these circumstances, in a prison that has no international legal legitimacy. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled this year that this interrogation was indeed a violation of Khadr's rights.

What a mess. The U.S. Sentencing Commission implemented its emergency temporary amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines to comply with the Fair Sentencing Act passed by Congress that reduces the penalties for crack cocaine to be more in line with those for powder cocaine (roughly 18 to 1 instead of 100 to 1) and how did they do it?

They increased the base levels for amounts of crack that included the mandatory minimum threshold amounts from 24 and 30 to 26 and 32 instead of keeping them at 24 and 30. (Text of Amendments here.) What it means: Some crack defendants will see no change in their base offense levels under the Fair Sentencing Act, for example, those with quantities between 28 and 35 grams, 280 and 499 grams and 840 grams and 1.49 kilograms. (See page 9 of the Federal Defender's letter.)

There's also a big risk of double counting due to all the enhancements they threw in (some of which, like "violence" are not even defined.)

The Sentencing Commission asked for public comments on the change. They posed the question as: [More...]

Paul Krugman calls this an Epitaph for the Obama Administration:

In today’s report on the foreclosure mess, a revealing sentence:

As the foreclosure abuses have come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

The country has demanded bold, persistent experimentation and the Obama Administration's economic team has provided persistent resistance to boldness.

Speaking for me only

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan:

[A] national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good -- hurting homeowners and home-buyers alike at a time when foreclosed homes make up 25 percent of home sales.

For instance, in Cleveland, where there are over 18,000 vacant homes, lives Millie Davis who recently earned her Master's Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University and just bought her first home - one that had fallen into foreclosure and sat abandoned for years. Had a blanket moratorium been in place, that sale would have fallen through [. . .] These homeowners are at risk, too - and the best hope they have is for the "Foreclosed" signs in front of the vacant, abandoned properties on their block to come down, so that the value of their homes can start rising again.

(Emphasis supplied.) I am insistent on following the rule of law and providing homeowners due process, not a moratorium on foreclosures. I am for ending the moratorium on the rule of law that persists in this country regarding foreclosures. But beyond that, Donovan's statement makes no sense. The current climate of clouds over titles to homes is not a result of a potential national moratorium on foreclosures. Quite the opposite. It was due to the moratorium, blithely accepted by the Obama Administration, on due process and the rule of law. The Obama Administration has simply been incompetent regarding the mortgage crisis (from HAMP on down.) There is a crisis of confidence in the country about this issue, and a cause of that is the incompetence of the Obama Administration.

Speaking for me only

I've tried, but I just don't like Boardwalk Empire. It's depressing, viscerally unappealing and the characters are completely one-dimensional. I don't care about any of them. I also don't think Steve Buschemi was a good choice for the lead character.

At least there's a new Next Iron Chef, Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Ken Buck and Sen. Michael Bennet were on Meet the Press today. Ken Buck said homosexuality is a choice.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe that being gay is a choice?

KEN BUCK: I do.

DAVID GREGORY: Based on what?

KEN BUCK: Based on what?

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah. Why do you believe that?
KEN BUCK: I guess-- you can choose who your partner is.

DAVID GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?

KEN BUCK: I-- I think that-- birth has an influence over like alcoholism and some other things-- but I think that-- basically, you-- you have a choice.

Sen. Bennet called Buck an opportunist:[More....]

Via Steve Benen, Ezra Klein writes:

This isn't a very popular statement, but there is a role for elites in public life.

Does Ezra mean like this?

Where do we go to order a new "elite?" I think the last 10 years have demonstrated that the American elite is harmful, not helpful. I distrust Ezra's appeal for respect for "the elite."

Speaking for me only

I've not been a follower of the Tea Party, so I do not profess to know what they think, but I have studied the Constitutional debates, and feel confident that Peter Berkowitz is misstating the views of the authors of The Federalist Papers:

Whether members have read much or little of The Federalist, the tea party movement's focus on keeping government within bounds and answerable to the people reflects the devotion to limited government embodied in the Constitution. One reason this is poorly understood among our best educated citizens is that American politics is poorly taught at the universities that credentialed them. Indeed, even as the tea party calls for the return to constitutional basics, our universities neglect The Federalist and its classic exposition of constitutional principles.

It seems to me it is Mr. Berkowitz who has neglected the Federalist Papers and the thoughts of the authors. Indeed, I would think that a review of Alexander Hamilton's defense of the First Bank of the United States should be added to Mr. Berkowitz's reading material:

Via Atrios, Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Michael Rendes of Berea had his mortgage sold last year to Bank of America. The bank foreclosed on him in November, after insisting for months that it didn't hold his loan and wouldn't accept his payments.

Via D-Day, see also this.

Kevin Drum writes:

[Some argue that] Obama and the Democrats could have done a lot more to improve the economy. But I'm not convinced of that. [. . .] The only other thing I can think of that the administration screwed up seriously is mortgage reform. Again, though, that would have been politically difficult even if they had played all their cards perfectly. Like it or not, the American public hates the idea of seeing their neighbors get bailed out from stupid mortgages. It makes them feel like saps: we scrimped and saved and bought a house we could afford and we're getting nothing. Joe and Betty down the street lived the high life, took out a NINJA loan they knew was way more than they could afford, and now they're getting a taxpayer-funded bailout and living easy. That's not a vote getter.

[. . . P]eople are mostly reacting to actual pain, and there's surprisingly little Obama could have done about that.

Matt Yglesias seconds this argument that the President was impotent:

There's a new Rand report, Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico that examines how Prop 19 and marijuana legalization in California might influence drug trafficking organization revenues and the violence in Mexico. The key findings:

• Mexican DTOs' gross revenues from illegally exporting marijuana to wholesalers in the United States is likely less than $2 billion;

• The claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO gross drug export revenues come from marijuana should not be taken seriously;

• If legalization only affects revenues from supplying marijuana to California, DTO drug export revenue losses would be very small, perhaps 2–4 percent; [More...]

Booman's latest "Leave Obama Alone!" piece. An instant classic. Very funny.