Here's a controversial topic to discuss - Tim Tebow:

Open Thread.

Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site. [. . . S]everal people familiar with the debate among New York's Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

[. . .] It is also possible that the decision was also influenced by comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday, in which he appeared to reverse an earlier show of support. Obama said that when he went on record backing the center, he meant only that it was the right of every religious group to establish its own places of worship – but he did not intend to justify building the center specifically at Ground Zero.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is it possible that Obama's "support" has doomed the project? Ironic if true. UPDATE: A denial.

Speaking for me only

Over the past few days, the "ground Zero Mosque" - as the Wingnuts have christened it (irony intended), has been the Beltway BIG STORY. President Obama has spoken on it (not poorly imo, but unnecessarily.) He has clarified statements he made on Friday on the subject. Today, Harry Reid decided to wade in:

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else," said a statement from Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Why Reid gave this statement is beyond me. Who cares what Harry Reid (or Barack Obama for that matter) think about where the Cordoba Center should be built? This is a matter for the owners of the property, and, if necessary, the courts. It is true that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a good speech in support of the Cordoba Center, but Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York and probably won't be in any more political campaigns anyway. More. . .

Update: No verdict today, the jurors have gone home.

The jury in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today had another request for the Judge: It asked for the transcript of testimony of former Deputy Governor Bradly Tusk. Over defense objection, the Judge granted the request.

Tusk testified on June 21 about a conversation with Blagojevich regarding Rahm Emanuel. Rahm had called him about a grant for an athletic field at a school in Rahm's former Congressional district.

Tusk was inquiring about a $2 million grant that had been approved for a school and teaching academy in former Congressman Rahm Emanuel's district. The school, counting on the grant money, had begun building an athletic field but was unable to pay contractors because it had not been given the approved funds. Emanuel and others began pressuring Tusk who called Blagojevich late in the summer of 2006 to talk about the grant.

"He [Blagojevich] said before the money could be released he wanted Rahm's brother to hold a fundraiser," Tusk testified. ...Tusk said he believed Blagojevich was saying there would be no grant if there was no fundraiser and that Blagojevich wanted "that message delivered to Rahm Emanuel."

The details of are in Racketeering Act #2 in the Second Superseding Indictment, attempted extortion, and in Count 14, attempted extortion. Since this was in the summer of 2006, it does not affect the False Statement charge, which concerns statements Rod made to the FBI in March, 2005 (Count 24.)

Busy day for me.

Open Thread.

Pro Publica Reporter Chisun Lee has the results of a Pro Publica study into the decisions of federal judges in habeas cases filed by Guantanamo Detainees involving the admission of evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques. The results: Out of the 31 cases with published decisions, the Government lost 8 of the 15 cases in which there were claimed forcible interrogations.

The 15 decisions offer the most detailed accounting to date of how information obtained from the Guantanamo inmates through controversial tactics is standing up in court. They come in cases initiated by detainees seeking release via a writ of habeas corpus, not cherry-picked by prosecutors. Criminal law experts say the judges' opinions help explain why the government has decided not to pursue criminal convictions against some detainees. Such evidence would pose even greater problems in criminal trials, for which requirements of proof are more demanding.

Here's a chart of the cases and rulings. More than 50 prisoner cases are still pending. [More...]

Football is postponing Big Brother tonight, but there's also a new episode of Food Network Star with Rachel Ray followed by a new show about grocery trucks. (Really.)

Jurors in the trial of Rod and Robert Blagojevich resume deliberating tomorrow. I haven't read anything that changes my speculation here that the jury rejected the two RICO counts against Rod, is split on the bribery and extortion charges against both Rod and Robert, and split on the false statement charge as to Rod.

The only thing I can think of to add is that the jurors' division on bribery/extortion for Rod (if indeed they are and remain divided) bodes well for Robert. [More...]

In the mail today, and reprinted with permission, (I'm leaving out the name of the town.)

I live in xxxxx, WI.

I was in the 10 items or less line at Piggly Wiggly (grocery store).

A woman had 60 items. I asked her if she could read. She replied, "Do you have a problem with this?" I said 'Yes.' She said 'Deal with it.'

I asked if she thought she could get away with this because she was fat and ugly. She dialed 911. I'm looking at a $423.00 ticket for disorderly conduct. I hired a lawyer.

Something is wrong with this world. Is it me? [Signed] J.

J. says he didn't use foul language, was not threatening and the only person affected by his comment was the woman who provoked him.

Is this worthy of a 911 call? How can it be considered a crime? My take: The woman should have been cited for misuse of the 911 emergency reporting system. J. may have been rude, but didn't commit a crime. What's your's? [More...]

Open Thread

No need for regulatory capture:

Faced with the need to review insurance rates and enforce a panoply of new rights granted to consumers, states are scrambling to make sure they have the necessary legal authority to carry out the responsibilities being placed on them by President Obama’s health care law. Insurance commissioners in about half the states say they do not have clear authority to enforce consumer protection standards that take effect next month.

Federal and state officials are searching for ways to plug the gap. Otherwise, they say, the ability of consumers to secure the benefits of the new law could vary widely, depending on where they live. [. . .] States have the primary role in enforcing many of the new standards. If a state fails to enforce a standard, the federal government will step in to do so — as it did in several states after passage of a health insurance law in 1996.

The fundamental problem with the regulatory reform framework favored by the Obama Administration and championed by Beltway Bloggers, like Ezra Klein and Jon Cohn, is the dependence on a regulatory framework that has always failed in this area and that, imo, will fail again.

What the critics of the "Professional Left" always fail to acknowledge is that while much of the legislation passed in the past years fit their wildest dreams, for many progressives, the belief is that the legislation simply will not work. Let's hope the Beltway Bloggers are right. I think they will not be on the health bill.

Speaking for me only

Yesterday, the NYTimes ran an article titled This Time, Voter Anger Is No Surprise to Democrats. In the article, Barney Frank is quoted as follows:

“Some people were taken aback by the anger [. . .] We’re professional people who are used to affection. It’s almost disorienting.”

Used to affection? Pols? Dem pols? Why? In any event, here's some advice - get over it. So far, Dems are still whining about it:

It is a point of frustration to Democrats that much of the public seems unimpressed by the litany of legislation signed into law in the first two years of President Obama’s term[.]

Leaving aside the merits of the whine, who in their right mind thinks whining from pols is a good political strategy? Especially whining about elements in your own Party? This is stupid politics. Here's a dose of reality for the whiners in the Dem Party from Chuck Schumer:

In the Sunday Times: a feature article on the Obama administration’s "shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies."

In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

...The White House has intensified the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone missile campaign in Pakistan, approved raids against Qaeda operatives in Somalia and launched clandestine operations from Kenya.

The Times calls it a stealth war on terror, and says while it began under Bush, it has expanded under Obama. It also points out the risks: [More...]