Via L,G & M, I ran into this interview of John Yoo:

NYTimes: Which president would you say most violated laws enacted by Congress?

[YOO]: I would say Lincoln. He sent the Army into offensive operations to try to stop the South from seceding. He didn’t call Congress into special session until July 4, 1861, well after this had all happened. He basically acted on his own for three months.

The interesting thing about this is Yoo claimed that Lincoln's actions were consistent with the Constitution. I do not recall him ever claiming Lincoln's actions violated laws enacted by Congress. I wrote about this issue back in 2005:

I was just reading Radaraonline's article on Rick Manguson, the Aspen cop who busted Charlie Sheen after responding to the 911 call at the couple's rented home on Xmas Day.

I wrote about Manguson during his unsuccessful run against the much-beloved Aspen Sheriff, Bob Braudis. The town dodged another bullet, in my view, when Bob got re-elected.

Here's two of his more inappropriate and borderline ethically-challenged stunts I learned about.

Via Susie Madrak via Lance Mannion, a great interview by Jesse Pearson of David Simon, ranting and raving about the issues of the day, talking about The Wire and his new show, Treme. Well worth the read.

This is an Open Thread.

NYTimes:

President Obama on Tuesday blamed a “systemic failure” in the nation’s security apparatus for the attempted bombing of a passenger jet on Christmas Day and vowed to identify the problems and “deal with them immediately.” [. . .] Mr. Obama said a preliminary assessment already has made clear that there was a breakdown in the intelligence review system that did not properly identify the suspect as a dangerous extremist who should have been prevented from flying to the United States.

“A systemic failure has occurred and I consider that totally unacceptable,” Mr. Obama told reporters [. . .] The president said he has ordered government agencies to report back to him on Thursday about what happened and said he would “insist on accountability at every level,” although he did not elaborate.

The President's words are welcome.

Speaking for me only

Rather than just copping to the fact that the policy he favors does indeed impose a stiff cost on middle class workers, Ezra Klein argues:

[Herbert] doesn't really argue that the excise tax is bad policy. Instead, he argues that there will be losers. Workers who will see higher deductibles. Union members who will find a portion of their policies taxed.

Actually, Herbert's argument explains why he opposes the excise tax - it would enact cost control by making the middle class pay for it. In Herbert's view, and mine, that is bad policy. In Ezra Klein's view, that is good policy. Remember that the competing financing mechanism presented by the House bill is to tax persons making 500k/yr. Ezra is saying he prefers a policy that punishes middle class workers to one that places the burden on the wealthy. you can call Ezra's position many things, but certainly not progressive. But of course not every good policy has to be progressive in nature. what is Ezra's argument for this non-progressive policy?

Texas has granted a divorce to Karl Rove and his wife Darby. They've been married 24 years. A friend of his blames the split partly on the "stress and strain" of the White House years.

Maybe he just thinks he'll sell more books as a single man.

Rove’s 608-page memoir, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” is due out from Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions on March 9.

Unlike many in the blogs, I have been someone who has provided a kind word or 2 for Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. To be honest, I am greatly surprised that Nelson voted for even the crappy Senate health bill. I credit the health insurance industry's tacit support for the bill, the persuasions of Senator Reid and his loyalty to the Dem Caucus. It surely was not because Nebraskans favored the bill. GOP pollster Ras, perhaps in a final attempt to get Nelson to vote No (or at least hold the line on the senate bill) released a poll showing Nebraskans strongly oppose the health bill (Ras will never tell you about how they feel about the public option or Medicare buy-in):

If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote. Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. [. . .] 64% oppose the health care legislation [. . .]

I never thought there were 60 votes for meaningful health care reform, and there aren't. The Senate health bill is not reform. Unless of course you believe in the magical exchanges. This is why the road to meaningful health care reform required a reconciliation strategy.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias misses the mark in an attempt to detail some of the ways a future GOP government can make the current health bill worse in the future:

Rather than repealing the specific tax provisions that finance reform, you’ll see drives to cut taxes for the rich. [. . .] [I]nstead of complaints about how reform is going to blow up the deficit, you’ll see a combination of tax (cut! cut! cut! especially for the rich) and spending policies that do in fact blow up the deficit.

Yglesias misses the most obvious way that Republicans could actually "bend the cost curve" to pay for tax cuts - reduce the funding for Medicaid. The insurance industry will be fine with that (unlike reductions in subsidies to purchase private insurance and elimination of the mandate.) Since the progressive heart of the current bill is in fact the expansion of Medicaid, the Republicans of the future could easily gut the good in the current bill.

Speaking for me only

Bob Herbert:

If even the plan’s proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax, how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question. [. . .] According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

Can you believe it? [. . .] A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it. Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

(Emphasis supplied.) Herbert is right. See also Glenn Greenwald and Atrios ("None of the benefit reductions are going to be converted to wages.") FTR, I think Atrios overstates the case. Some portion will be converted to wages imo.

Speaking for me only

Bristol Palin has been trying mightily to keep her lawsuit for sole custody of her and Levi Johnston's son Tripp closed to the public. Levi wants them open, as protection, primarily, he alleges, because of Sarah Palin's interference and manipulation.

This week the Judge ruled in Levi's favor and unsealed all the documents to date. This pleading has most of them, including Levi's answer to Bristol's petition for custody in which he asks for joint custody, Bristol's petition and the orders denying closure of the proceedings and a related request they use pseudonyms instead of people's names.

The pleadings also include Bristol's request that Levi's mother be barred from unsupervised visitation because of her use of pain meds for a chronic medical problem and her felony drug conviction. [More...]

Despite pleas and protests, Akmal Shaikh, a 53 year old Briton with bi-polar disease, was executed by a firing squad in China a few hours ago.

Shaikh was only told of his execution yesterday. He is the first European national to be executed in China in 50 years.

His offense involved 4 kilograms of heroin. China allows the death penalty for quantities in excess of 50 grams (less than two ounces.)

His cousins were with him when he was told of his execution and said he was "very upset."

The anti-death-penalty organisation Reprieve said it had medical evidence that Shaikh believed he was going to China in 2007 to record a hit single that would usher in world peace. It said he was duped into carrying a suitcase packed with heroin on a flight from Tajikistan to Urumqi.

I'm sure there are other topics besides al Qaida and Charlie Sheen to discuss.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.