Thanks to Mediaite for remembering, and noting that the MSM has largely neglected to mention that today is the 7th anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Ezra Klein:

This year, the Obama administration succeeded at neutralizing every single industry. Pharma supports the bill. Insurers are incoherent on it, but there's not a ferocious and united campaign to kill the proposal. The American Medical Association has endorsed the Senate bill. The hospitals have endorsed the bill. Labor has endorsed the bill. The business community is split, with larger employers holding their fire. You can take that as a critique of the bill's deals and concessions.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes we can!

Speaking for me only

A follow-up investigation by the Wall St. Journal on the discredited reports that Bernie Madoff was beaten in prison last fall, disputes the denial by the Bureau of Prisons and, based on accounts by former and current inmates at the prison, reports he was attacked by another inmate over money, and sustained a broken nose and fractured ribs.

The Wall St. Journal may seem like an unlikely place to read about culture clash that has arisen among Colorado's medical marijuana community between the "stoners" and the "wellness" folks, but there it is. One point of contention: the names for the strains of pot. The wellness folks don't like names like "trainwreck" or "ak-47s." Another: slogans. The wellness crowd objects to those like "If you've got the pain, we've got the strain." [More...]

I personally think that part of this is a great development in terms of legitimizing all primary challenges:

It appears SEIU is dead serious about this business about yanking support for House Dems who vote No on the health bill. The SEIU bluntly informed Dem Rep Michael Arcuri of New York yesterday that it’s pulling support for him in the wake of the news that he’s an all-but-certain No, I’m told. And the search for a primary [. . .] challenger is underway.

I ellipsed the part that is clearly wrong - SEIU is promising to back a 3rd party challenger if Arcuri wins the Dem primary:

“This guy won by two percent with our support and 1199’s support against a moderate Republican last time,” [SEIU's] Nerzig continues. “It’ll be very difficult for him to win reelection next time without us.” Arcuri won with 52% of the vote in 2008.

That is Naderism. It is unacceptable. Imagine if progressives made such a threat? They would be rightly pilloried. Bad on the SEIU.

Speaking for me only

Exciting day yesterday. Bad day for me as my Gators lost in 2OT and my bracket lay in ruins at the end of the day.

We strive forward anyway. My picks today's day games - Siena, Mizzou, Texas A&M, Pitt, Xavier, Temple and Wisconsin. Those are my win picks. As betting propositions, I have different selections but that is too complicated to describe here.

This is an Open Thread.

Nate Silver provides an intelligent and cogent response to my post on political bargaining. Silver disagrees with my comparison of the union bargaining on the excise tax with progressive bargaining for, to take the most obvious example, a public insurance program:

Armando brings up the counter-example of the unions who, he claims, "were willing to 'kill the bill' unless they received major concession on the excise tax issue" and indeed received "major concessions." Let's look at this case, because it turns out to be pretty instructive. I can think of at least three fundamental differences. First, the unions were worried about something -- a tax -- that was more linear in nature than something like a public option. [. . .] Secondly -- and this is the much more important point -- the unions could make a much more credible threat to walk away from the bill. [. . .] Finally, the unions actually had the more, rather than the less, nimble position. It's not clear that they directly threatened to kill the bill, for instance; they simply made clear to the White House that they would be very unhappy if the excise tax was not scaled down and let the White House fill in the blanks.

I do not find these distinctions persuasive. First, a public insurance program option on the exchanges is concrete and as seemingly malleable as adjustments to an excise tax. Second, why is it that unions could make a much more credible threat to walk away than progressives? Third, it is simply wrong to believe that the unions were not blocking passage of the Senate bill without an excise tax fix. More . . .

Unlike many of our readers, it is my view that President Obama has been a nearly flawless foreign policy President. And make no mistake, unlike some Presidents, President Obama appears firmly in control of his Administration's foreign policy. And one of his valuable assets in carrying out his foreign policy is his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Today's New York Times has a long piece on the relationship between the President and the Secretary of State:

Sixteen months after Mr. Obama surprised nearly everyone by picking her as secretary of state, the two have again surprised nearly everyone by forging a credible partnership. Mrs. Clinton has proved to be an eager team player, a tireless defender of the administration, ever deferential to Mr. Obama and careful to ensure that her husband, the former president, does not upstage her boss.

[. . .] Still, there is none of the deep familiarity or the tight bonds — the round-the-clock, back-channel access — of their predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush, or going further back, James A. Baker and the first President Bush or Henry A. Kissinger and Richard M. Nixon. “Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the shaping of foreign policy. “The question now is whether she becomes a real adviser, and whether he trusts her.”

Rothkopf's comment seems a strange one to me and appears to buy into the idea that the Secretary of State should be the formulator of foreign policy. This accepts the view of Henry Kissinger, who viewed himself as a sort of foreign policy czar:

Lawyers for Roman Polanski filed a new appeal in the California Appeals Court today. It cites previously undisclosed sealed transcripts of improper communications between the Judge and prosecutors.

The 68-page petition asks the California Court of Appeals for the Second District, in Los Angeles, to act on an emergency basis. It argues, among other things, that the court should free Mr. Polanski by imposing a sentence for time served, or at least make the sealed testimony alleging wrongdoing available to Swiss authorities.

[More...]

I guess a lot of people are watching basketball, because there's nothing else on TV. So, surfing around, I was delighted to see my pal Blair Sabol has a new column up at New York Social Diary, The New Luxury, on what people are giving up and not giving up in this depressed economic climate. Based on her (admittedly unscientific) polling, a good 1/8 ounce of pot, maid service and high end travel are in. But beware of new luxury hotel deals, they are cutting back on staff and service and skip the chintzy domestic business class flights in favor of trans-continental ones that offer real luxury.

Spending for clothes is out, with some exceptions, like good shoes and purses...and bras. Blair writes:

New York Times fashion reporter Susin Fair insists on expensive bras (me too). "Without a good bra ($135. basic Prima Donna) you look lousy in everything else."

What have you refused to give up even though money is tighter? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The ACLU scored a big win today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The upshot is that the court again rejected personal immunity for former Attorney General John Ashcroft over his post 9/11 policy of arresting and detaining people as material witnesses when there was no evidence those arrested were either involved in criminal activity or a flight risk. Today's decision, denying an en banc rehearing of the court's September decision, is here (pdf.)

In September, the 9th Circuit ruled that the federal material witness law cannot be used to detain or investigate suspects where no probable cause exists for criminal charges. The ruling also held that Ashcroft does not have immunity in this case and can be held personally liable for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd. [More...]

David Coleman Headley, aka Daood Gilani, pleaded guilty today in a Chicago federal court to all 12 counts of the Indictment against him. He admitted conducting surveillance for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and plotting to attack a Danish newspaper, and providing material assistance to a terror organization, Lashkar e Tayyiba. Six Americans were killed in the Mumbai attacks.

Headley's benefit? The death penalty is off the table. He now faces up to life imprisonment, but could get less. According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's press release, Headley won't be sentenced until his cooperation is complete, and the Government expects to seek a reduction from the guidelines for his cooperation.

Headley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bomb public places in India; conspiracy to murder and maim persons in India; six counts of aiding and abetting the murder of U.S. citizens in India; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in India; conspiracy to murder and maim persons in Denmark; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark; and conspiracy to provide material support to Lashkar.

[More...]