I used all my time writing the ridculously long post below on the fight over the request to release documents related to Dick Cheney's FBI interview about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

I'm off to check out the TL kid's new apartment, he just got the keys. It's next door to his old apartment, but it's still an exciting move for him.

So I'm not going to get to the DEA jumping into the Michael Jackson death investigation (ridiculous) or Norm Stamper's latest on progressives joining the call for an end to the War on Drugs at Huffington Post, but I hope you do.

Best show of the season so far: Weeds. You can watch the episodes free online if you don't get Showtime.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

When I wrote a few weeks ago about the Obama Administration taking the position that documents related to Dick Cheney's FBI interview in the Valerie Plame leaks case should not be released, it was in the context of lack of transparency and the silliness of the Government's attempted justification:

Another sign of non-transparency from Obama: His Justice Department is fighting a Freedom of Information Act request in federal court, trying to keep CREW from obtaining FBI reports and summaries of Dick Cheney's statement to the FBI over the Valerie Plame Leak. The Judge held a hearing yesterday and was very unhappy with the Government's position. He's going to review the statement himself to see if there's any reason not to release the requested documents. The Government gave this ridiculous reason: They don't want the statements "to become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."

In newer developments, David Corn reports the Government has filed a new pleading containing a more substantive reason: [More...]

This post from Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice guestblogged at Balkinization is a very good explanatory of why the issue is such a difficult one in current times. The key graf for me:

The U.S. thus has authority under domestic law to apply the same detention rule that the law of war establishes in international armed conflict. The problem with this arrangement is that the rules that apply in international armed conflict are a poor fit for the war we’re actually fighting. Wars against other nations differ from wars against irregular forces, and those differences are at least intuitively understood by the American public and the rest of the world.

Addressing arguments such as the ones I have made (and here), Goitein writes:

Fox News says it's official. The LA Times says it's under discussion.

There will be a massive public tribute to Michael Jackson at the Staples Center Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.

People are grumbling about the security costs. How about if everyone who ever enjoyed a Michael Jackson song kicks in $1.00. Wouldn't that cover it?

So the Washington Post has scrapped its full monty pay for play scheme. But it is important to remember that the business of Traditional "journalism" now is in fact favorable coverage in exchange for access - which can be just as pernicious. A couple of days ago, Bob Somerby linked to this June 3 Digby piece on Richard Wolffe, the fellow covering the Obama campaign while at the same time writing a book about it. Digby cited this Wolffe quote:

“The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what’s going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers,” he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers. “You tell me where the line is between business and journalism,” he said.

More . . .

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today ended its disciplinary investigation into Judge Alex Kozinski for posting explicit matter on the Internet and allowing it to remain there after he knew it was publicly accessible with a public admonition.

“We find that the judge’s possession of sexually explicit offensive material combined with his carelessness in failing to safeguard his sphere of privacy was judicially imprudent,” said the report by Anthony J. Scirica.

[More...]

The U.S. Marshal's today "seized" Bernie and Ruth Madoff's Park Ave. apartment, which they agreed to forfeit to the Government. The Marshal's served Ruth with a "Notice to Vacate."

This was by agreement (pdf) which provided that Ruth would vacate by Bernie's sentencing date or such other time as the parties agreed to in writing. Only once she's vacated the apartment, does she get her $2.5 million cash from the Government.

So, she's not being tossed unexpectedly onto the street.

UPDATE: WaPo response below the fold.

Mike Allen of Politico actually has a blockbuster story about the total lack of journalistic ethics at the Washington Post:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

Frankly, this is simply incredible. Dana Milbank of the WaPo; he of the hissy fit over Nico Pitney asking a question at an Obama presser should have some comment on this. More . . .

Great tennis match underway between Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva in the womens semifinal at Wimbledon. Dementieva won the first set in a tie break and Williams up a break in the second. Well worth watching.

Serena wins the 2nd 7-5. Can Dementieva hold together emotionally? In the past she simply has not been mentally tough enough. We'll see.

Serena Williams wins, taking the 3rd set 8-6. Tremendous match.

This is an Open Thread.

I find it amusing and ironic that the great "centrist" law professor Cass Sunstein is getting roughed up by Fox for advocating for animal rights.

His nomination is being held up by Sen. Saxby Chambliss. I hope Sunstein is not expecting us "wild eyed Lefties" to go to bat for him. I sure won't.

Speaking for me only

Andrew Sullivan seems to be sitting out the health care reform debate this year (he's on a new Palinpalooza Tour right now), but we should never forget what he did to the debate in 1994, actions that reverberate to this day. d-day writes:

Unlike in 1994, when The New Republic allowed an abominable article by Betsy McCaughey to codify the Villager mindset on health care, this year they have one of the brightest wonks in the business, Jon Cohn, driving their coverage.

True enough. But d-day fails to mention who was running TNR in 1994 - Andrew Sullivan. Oh btw, he also pushed The Bell Curve into respectability and defends it to this day. Sully has a lot to answer for (see also his Fifth Column stuff, Luskin love, Gore hate and Krugman bashing).

Speaking for me only

For those not interested in Lieberman, right wing judicial activism and tasteless humor, here is an Open Thread.

This is an Open Thread.