The second episode of "V" is on ABC tonight. I bet The Biggest Loser's ratings go down the first hour. Then, it's DWTS with results from last night's competition. I hope Kelly Osborne and Donnie Osmond and Joanna stay. Why Joanna? Because I like her partner Derek. I don't care about Mia or Aaron. I don't even know who they are or why they qualify as "stars" and I've watched every episode.

Same-sex marriage suffered a setback in NY today. Watch out for free wi-fi. President Obama is weighing 4 options for Afghanistan. Bill Clinton is urging Dems to pass the health care bill.

That's all I've got tonight, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: One of the jurors says she'd invest with the defendants if she had the money. Also,

[Juror]Stimpson said she came into the trial thinking both Cioffi and Tannin were guilty of the fraud, insider-trading and conspiracy charges. She said she began to have second thoughts as the testimony progressed and defense lawyers “tore the government witnesses apart.”

What's troubling is the juror's admission she was not providing them with the presumption of innocence at the start.

A federal jury today acquitted Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers, of fraud and insider trading charges. It's a big loss for the Government.

They were the first Wall St. executives to go on trial for actions that allegedly brought the collapse of the financial market two years ago.[More...]

Update: John Muhammad died at 9:11 p.m. He said no final words.

Bump and Update: Larry King Live will provide live coverage of Virginia's execution of John Allen Muhammad.

Larry King will broadcast the DC Sniper execution live at the prison with eye-witness accounts from the victims' families. The broadcast will be on Larry King's show at 9pm ET on CNN.

I hope he also covers the protesters.

***

VA. Gov. Kaine Denies Clemency to D.C. Sniper John Muhammad

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency to D.C. sniper John Muhammad. He is scheduled to die today. More from the New York Times. From his statement: [More...]

Astronaut Lisa Nowak pleaded guilty to reduced charges today and was sentenced to two days in jail, already served, and a year probation.

Before a packed courtroom 1:30 p.m., Lisa Marie Nowak, 46, pleaded guilty to counts of third-degree burglary of a conveyance and misdemeanor battery. She was originally charged with more-serious counts of attempted kidnapping and burglary with assault in addition to misdemeanor battery. Prosecutors dropped a count of attempted kidnapping.

It looks like the Judge withheld adjudication, which means she won't permanently have a felony conviction provided she successfully completes her probation. Why the great deal? Perhaps because the defense successfully moved to suppress the search of her car and her statements. And no, she wasn't intending to wear the diapers. [More...]

You're on your own for a little while. This is an Open Thread.

Update (TL): I was at the pharmacy a few minutes ago to get some prescription eyedrops and they had a big sign for the Shingles vaccine. I decided to get it. Shingles is a risk for older people who had chickenpox when young, and it is an ugly, painful recurring disease. The vaccine costs $220.00, but Anthem/BCBS paid for the whole thing. Just another reason I hope my policy is still available and affordable next year. The pharmacist also told me he got an email this morning that previous restrictions in Colorado on the Swine Flu vaccine have been lifted, and it will be available to all, not just those in high risk categories.

Good for Michael Vick (PDF):

In August 2007, Michael Vick, then quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, pled guilty to federal dog fighting charges. The NFL Commissioner thereafter suspended Vick indefinitely without pay, and the League initiated a grievance procedure seeking a declaration that the Falcons could recover certain bonus money that had been paid to Vick with the expectation that he would play football through 2014. Class counsel and the National Football League Players Association (Association) challenged the recovery as violative of anti-forfeiture provisions contained in the settlement agreement and CBA.

[More...]

Village wonk Jon Cohn writes:

To [Marcia] Angell--and to others on the left [. . .] --this is reason for ditching the whole effort. But what, really, would that accomplish? The immediate impact would be to undermine Obama and his allies in Congress, creating the (accurate) impression they are incapable of passing major legislation. The Democratic Party would lose seats at the midterms and then, quite possibly, suffer even bigger setbacks two years hence. That's not exactly a recipe for progressive revival.

As a defense of the health care reform bill, this is piss poor. Assume for a moment it is true that failure to pass "health care reform" will cost Democrats seats (which will be impossible to determine imo, as Dems are sure to lose seats no matter what), what Dems are likely to lose, and why? Suppose it is people like Jason Altmire, Travis Childers or Jim Cooper? Is Cohn REALLY arguing that their losses will be a setback to progressivism? Really? That is just plain silly. I support the House health care reform bill, for one major reason, it contains a public option. Nothing else in the bill that is called "reform" (as I have stated before, expanding Medicaid is not reform. It is a good thing but not reform) is worth worrying over imo. I do not believe the final health care reform bill will have any other worthwhile reforms. But if it has a public option, it is worth passing. If it does not, it won't be worth passing. Parts of it? Sure. But let's not call those provisions reform.

Speaking for me only

Update: Judge rules for medical marijuana advocates. He even awards them attorneys' fees. From Westword,the Judge said:

[T]he Board of Appeals violated an court order two years ago that agencies considering marijuana rule changes would first notify people impacted by the rule changes.

"By the evidence presented here today, I find that the defendants have violated the court order when in November there was a meeting without notice that complied with the law and the parties changed the rules," says Naves. "I find that there was no emergency. The justification for an emergency was a Court of appeals decision that was not even final. And the Court of Appeals could not use the [Board of Appeals rule in question]...

[More...]

Jeralyn quotes Rachel Morris on the Stupak Amendment:

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

(Emphasis supplied.) That problem is easily solved - eliminate the exchange (see Jon Walker inadvertently demonstrate that in fact the exchange is the catalyst for the Stupak problem) and apply the federal subsidies to purchase of insurance under the public option. In short, eliminate the availability of federal subsides for the purchase of private insurance. That way, private insurance companies will never be impacted by the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking for me only

A lot folks have just realized some of the pitfalls of health care reform. I've always understood that any public insurance program, be it Medicare, Medicaid or a public option, will exclude undocumented aliens and coverage for abortion, it seems as if this is news to a lot of people. While there is debate as to the meaning of the Stupak Amendment, let assume the best and that it gets amended to reflect merely Hyde Amendment prohibitions -- what will that mean? What it has always meant - no federal funds for health insurance and/or care for abortions and no health insurance and/or care at all for undocumented aliens.

Suppose however that without the Stupak Amendment, health care reform can not pass - what then? Do we jettison the entire effort? Or can we limit the damage a Stupak Amendment or Hyde Amendment does? I think we can limit it. I have two suggestions - exclude the individual mandate (but maintain, as the House does, the employer mandate) and eliminate the exchange. More . .

Grand Junction, in Mesa County, Colorado, is considering this ordinance banning new medical marijuana dispensaries for 12 months. It provides penalties -- anyone who holds themselves out as a primary caregiver for the purpose of acquiring, possessing, producing or transporting medical marijuana or paraphernalia, without having a sales tax license is committing a misdemeanor. No new sales tax licenses will be granted for 12 months. Businesses with existing sales tax licenses cannot add medical marijuana to their inventory.[More...]

A federal judge in Georgia has banned twittering from the courtroom as a violation of Rule 53 which prohibits broadcasting of proceedings to the public. The opinion is here.

the Court finds that the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public, falls within the definition of “broadcasting” as used in Rule 53. Therefore, this type of broadcasting is prohibited under Rule 53, unless the application of Rule 53 is unconstitutional because it unduly restricts the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

By that rationale, live-blogging trial would also be prohibited. Other courts have had no problem with it, e.g., the Scooter Libby and Joe Nacchio trials. The 10th Circuit even allowed live-blogging of oral arguments in the Nacchio appeal. [More...]