Big Tent Democrat wrote earlier on his thoughts about the uselessness of the mainstream media. He ends with:

I used to devour news. Now I find it useless. I do not trust the Media. And I do not think their editorial judgments of what is news is particularly helpful or insightful. (Glenn Greenwald's column today demonstrates why.) So like the Sunday Talk shows, the Media is really becoming NOT part of my life. Is the same thing happening to any of you?

I still find the mainstream media very helpful. I just factcheck it by reading multiple accounts and comparing it to source documents. [More...]

The California Senate yesterday passed an amended prison reduction bill (already passed by the Assembly.) It now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is expected to sign it.

Here is the Amended Bill. In addition to expanding some good time credits and reducing some parole supervision, it increases the monetary threshold amounts for some felony crimes like theft so that more will now be misdemeanors.

The bill is a weaker version of the one passed by the Senate weeks ago. The provisions authorizing early release to certain inmates with less than 12 months to serve, who are over age 60 or who are medically incapacitated, were stripped from the final version.

As a result, it will not satisfy the federal court order to reduce the inmate population by 40,000 inmates over the next two years. Instead, it will only cut the prison population by 20,000 to 25,000 inmates (or as few as 16,000 inmates)over two years. The bill originally passed by the Senate (which the Assembly would not agree to) would have cut 37,000 inmates. Other differences: [More...]

Charlie Cook writes:

. . . The second Democratic camp, the Purists, is chiefly composed of liberal activists and bloggers who see the current problems of the president and the party as the result of their being insufficiently liberal and of not sticking with their convictions. [. . .](Without weighing in on the validity of the liberal Purists' arguments, I would like the record to show that when conservatives made a similar argument -- that Republicans lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they had veered away from conservative principles -- liberals laughed hysterically.)

Charlie is both wrong on what the "Purists" think and in his comparison of the "Purists" to what conservatives said about the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, the reason why the Republicans lost big in 2006 and 2008 was because George Bush's policies stunk, not because the policies were insufficiently anything. And the Purists' argument is, in fact, that the danger Democrats face in 2010 is twofold - first that capitulation on policy will lead to BAD policy. Second, capitulation on policy will lead to a demoralized base. One last point, the Obamaite Loyalist position is obvious yet not likely - Cook describes it thusly "if the economy turns around over the next year, the president's fortunes and those of his party will improve." The economy is not likely to be strong enough in 2010 to avert major Dem losses. The question is how big the losses. A demoralized base means BIG losses. The half-a**ed stimulus not geared towards job creation means a half-a**ed recovery. Which means big Dem losses. At least, that is this "Purist's" view.

Speaking for me only

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote another screed about Fred Hiatt and the WaPo, coupled with my refrain that the Media is fast becoming irrelevant. This time I added the idea that the thing to do was ignore them.

Today I realized that I have not read the Washington Post (I do read Ezra Klein and via Greenwald, I read an online chat with WaPo reporter Paul Kane) at all since that day. This was not a deliberate decision. I just did not read it. Not Broder, not Cohen, not any of it. To be honest I do not read the NYTimes that much anymore. A story here or there when someone points it out.

I used to devour news. Now I find it useless. I do not trust the Media. And I do not think their editorial judgments of what is news is particularly helpful or insightful. (Glenn Greenwald's column today demonstrates why.) So like the Sunday Talk shows, the Media is really becoming NOT part of my life. Is the same thing happening to any of you?

Speaking for me only

Week 2 of the college football season presents "big" games in the Midwest (the only real big games occur outside of the Big Ten, but I digress.)

Notre Dame gets to beat up a lousy Michigan team and as a result will be treated as a national contender. Strangely enough, Notre Dame is only a 3 point favorite in this game. Sure the game is in Ann Arbor, but come now, when has Ann Arbor ever provided a home field advantage? For all the talk of the 110,000, it is one of the quietest crowds in college football. Besides, Notre Dame is actually decent this year. Michigan remains awful. Notre Dame by 20 points.

USC travels to Columbus to play the Buckeyes tonight. Jim Tressel is probably the best coach in college football. I really think he gets the most out of a group of players that are consistently overrated. Consider Terrell Pryor, the Ohio State QB. Easily the most overrated player in college football today. A below average quarterback who is treated as a superstar. USC has better players than Ohio State and their own great coach in Pete Carroll. USC has a better team, but a freshman QB. Columbus, unlike Ann Arbor, does provide a real homefield advantage. While USC is better, Tressel and Ohio State will find a way to win a squeaker, defying the oddsmakers, who have SC as a 7 point favorite. More . . .

I just spent 8 hours drafting and filing a single 15 page motion with 6 exhibits culled from more than 30,000 pages of discovery. I think my brain is too fried to blog. The TL kid is on his way over for dinner -- looks like we'll be barbecuing in the rain. He's bringing "presents", which I'll bet are the extra reams of xerox paper and highlighters I asked him to pick up for me.

How was your day? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The normally astute Digby must be dreaming when she writes this:

I have never been particularly sanguine that congressional Democrats would ultimately vote against Obama on health care if it didn't contain a public option and I'm not even sure how many people in the progressive coalition would want them to. . . . But that doesn't mean that they will never vote to defeat their president. In fact, I believe it could happen on at least two important upcoming issues on the agenda: financial reform and the war.

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby must be joking. After all the letters and stances and pronouncements, if the Progressive Block folds on the public option, they may as well just close the thing down as no one will ever take them seriously again. Hell, the only reason they are being taken somewhat seriously now is that they pushed back against every Obama trial balloon on the subject.

It's now or never for the Progressive Caucus. If they can not buck the President on health care, then they will never do it and they will go back to being a bad joke.

Speaking for me only

Demonstrating more sociopathic indfference, Matt Yglesias is upset that President Olympia Snowe has called for less spending for health care reform. Nobody could have predicted that. It just goes to show you what imbeciles some "progressives" are about political bargaining. Honestly, they should just shut up now.

Speaking for me only

Via Greenwald, Paul Kane demonstrates just how stupid political reporters can be:

Paul Kane: No one else is gonna be switching parties any time soon, not after the way liberal Democrats have greeted Arlen Specter. That has ended any possible chance of any Republican ever switching parties to join the Dems for probably a decade or more. Why on earth would any Republican want to switch parties just so they can get attacked by the far left of the Democratic party?

(Emphasis supplied.) Ignoring for the moment the stupid "Far Left" nonsense, Earth to Paul Kane, why would a pol switch parties -- for the same reason Arlen Specter switched parties -- because it was in his personal political interest. If Specter had not switched parties, he would be a political dead man walking, as Toomey would crush him in a Republican primary. As it is, Specter is the favorite to win the Democratic primary over Sestak and has a shot in the general election in 2010. If he had stayed a Republican, it would be over already. Specter was not doing anyone any favors but himself when he switched parties. That it benefitted Dems was entirely incidental (and that's why Specter could not cut a better deal for himself with the Senate Dem Caucus. Unlike Jeffords, who really brought more to the table for Dems.)

Honestly, how stupid can a political reporter be? Kane is scraping bottom here.

Speaking for me only

An anti-choice protester in Michigan was killed today:

Local officials and state police are confirming that a pro-life advocate was shot and killed outside a high school in this Michigan town. The person, who is described as well-known but whose identity has not been released, was shot multiple times while protesting abortion outside Owosso High School.

I never heard of the man until today. As someone who opposes the death penalty, it goes without saying that I abhor the killing of any person. I have no idea what happened or why (UPDATE - It looks rather unlikely that there was any political motivation to the killing - Detroit Free Press and PFAW, looks like a senseless spree killing.) But I do object to the reaction of one Father Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life, to this killing:

"I am waiting to hear the abortion advocates condemn this killing," he said.

A man just died and a priest (a priest!) is using his death to politick! But this is nothing new for Father Pavone, who used the murder of George Tiller for the same purposes - see his You Tube release immediately after Dr. Tiller's murder. Shameful.

Speaking for me only

Tim Pawlenty looks like he is going to run for the Republican nomination for President. He is threatening nullification of health care reform:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), a possible presidential candidate in 2012, is now indicating that he could invoke state sovereignty and prevent his home state of Minnesota from participating in a federal health care reform effort if one passes, Minnesota Public Radio reports.

"Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option," Pawlenty said, when asked about it by a caller on a Republican Governors Association conference call. "But we don't know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can't get the President to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see, I would have to say that it's a possibility."

Pawlenty does not need to wait for a health care reform bill to test nullification. He can have Minnesota try and opt out of Medicare and Medicaid. I wonder if Texas Governor Rick Perry will top Pawlenty and try it. BTW, this is insane of course. The Party of Lincoln indeed.

Speaking for me only

I wonder how many years it will take us to undo the humiliating Bush-Cheney legacy of disrespect for the Constitution and our fundamental principles of justice, and the damage to America's reputation in the world, brought by their regime of torture, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, Ghost Air, military commission trials and other wrong-headed reactions to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Good reading: An op-ed about Dick Cheney in today's Miami Herald, Fear Was No Excuse for Torture by Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, former top USMC Generals.

“[W]e never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a Vice President of the United States,” .... “we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas – and his scare tactics.”

If you have any thoughts about the 9/11 attacks, which were 8 years ago today, here's a thread for them.