Ian Welsh writes:

The refusal to make [banks] take their losses; the refusal to wind up any of the big banks; the refusal to recognize that what is important isn’t the banking system but what the banking system does, and thus the unwillingness to cut past the big banks and lend directly means that those trillions of dollars of losses are going to have to be paid back by consumers and taxpayers. You will pay. You will pay not just in high interest rates, but in lower wages, and for many of you, a lack of jobs. The economy will not, before the next recession after this downturn, return to the same level of employment the US had before this crisis. All of this because neither party, and neither President, had what it took to stand up to the banks.

(Emphasis supplied.) This very well could end up being President Obama's lasting legacy - his horrendous policy regarding the financial crisis.

Speaking for me only

Via Digby, it worked for Dick Cheney. How did it work for Dick Cheney? He wanted a war in Iraq. And he got one. And he used torture to get it. As Marcy Wheeler writes:

[S]ometime in February 2002--when Bush was declaring that the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda and when Bruce Jessen was pitching torture to JPRA--Cheney was personally (according to Wilkerson) ordering up waterboarding. And a month later, when the CIA captured Abu Zubaydah, James Mitchell immediately set up as a contractor so he could waterboard Abu Zubaydah.

Cheney wanted his Iraq War. And he got it. Through torture. See? Torture does work.

Speaking for me only

Anyone see the 2 hour season finale to Grey's Anatomy? Did Izzie and George both die, just one, or neither? Talk about keeping your options open.

One theory: Since Izzie didn't step off the elevator to meet George, he's dead, she returns.

I would have preferred a firm resolution, but I'll take what they gave us because it was the best episode of the season -- especially Derek and Meredith finally getting married by hand-writing vows on a post-it note. (Thus the theme, despite all the sadness, there's a little bit of joy.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Arianna: Ending the War on Drugs: The Moment is Now :

So the question becomes: is the Obama administration really committed to a fundamental shift in America's approach to drug policy or is this about serving up a kinder, gentler drug war?

....But the cost of the drug war -- both human and financial -- is far too high to allow politics to dictate the administration's actions. Indeed, with all the budget cutting going on, how can anyone justify spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable war against our own people?

[More...]

Are House Democrats concerned that President Obama is all talk and no action when it comes to closing Guantanamo? Today they rejected his request to include $80 million in funds in a war spending bill, saying they want to see a a concrete plan first.

The House directive was part of a $96.7 billion emergency financing measure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the House approved by a vote of 368 to 60, with 168 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support.

But in a clear rebuke to Mr. Obama, Democratic leaders refused to include the $80 million that the White House had sought for closing the Guantánamo center. On his third day in office, Mr. Obama signed an executive order requiring that the camp be shut by Jan. 22, 2010.

[More...]

Tomorrow, President Barack Obama will announce his decision to continue military commissions trials against Guantanamo detainees.

He will say he's giving the detainees greater rights, including:

• Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.

• A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding.

• Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.

• Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.

It's not enough. The commissions are flawed beyond repair. More from the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The new Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, in an interview, suggests the war on drugs may be facing changes -- or is it just an image lift?

The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

There's some cause for hope: [More...]

The White House has released the first ever Citizen Briefing book (pdf), "composed of ideas submitted by ordinary people and reflecting the enthusiastic engagement from the public we saw throughout the course of Change.gov."

125,000 users submitted over 44,000 ideas and cast over 1.4 million votes, with the most popular ideas accumulating tens of thousands of votes each. This book contains some of the top ideas, broken into groups by issue area. You can tell how popular each idea was by looking at the number next to it – it represents how many people voted for the idea, with 10 points awarded for each positive vote.

The number one vote getter, by miles: Legalizing marijuana (90,000+ points, p. 26) Also high-up: Ending the war on drugs (40,000 + points) and Stop using federal resources to undermine states’ medicinal marijuana laws, (60,000+ points.)

Give your car dealer a hug today. This can't be good news for Jeep owners, of whom Colorado has more than its fair share, including me. As part of its bankruptcy plan, Chrysler notified 789 dealers across the country today it is terminating their relationship.

I'm really glad my dealer isn't on this list (pdf). But more closures could be coming. [More...]

The Government in India has razed the home of one of the child stars of "Slumdog Millionaire" rendering the family homeless.

The mother of the child actor said that she did not know what would happen to her family now and that the help promised by local authorities and by the film's makers had not materialised.

The film made $200 million. Can't the movie's owners help out?

Film director Danny Boyle has strongly denied charges of exploitation. The film's makers have set up funds to pay for their education and they have been enrolled in school for the first time. They also recently announced that they will donate £500,000 to a charity which will help children living in the slums of Mumbai.

I hope Mr. Boyle and company decide to do more. What good is the charitable contribution if it doesn't help the child who helped make the movie a hit?

Your turn.

John Cole writes:

So if the Democrats want a truth commission, and the Republicans and Dick Cheney want a truth commission, why can’t we order up a double order of truth commission? Am I missing something here? . . . Make it happen.

Agree with John. I get the distinct feeling that the resistance mainly comes from the Obama Administration right now.

Speaking for me only

After a federal appellate court threw out two of Don Siegelman's less serious convictions and ordered that he be resentenced, Jeralyn wrote:

The case now goes back to the trial court to resentence Siegelman solely on the first seven counts. Given all the recent case law on the non-binding nature of the sentencing guidelines and the need to consider the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553, the sentencing judge could resentence him to a term of much less than [the] 7 years [originally imposed]. But, given the Judge's imposition of the upward departure, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping he's inclined to cut the former Governor some slack.

Even though Jeralyn wisely cautioned that the judge, having imposed a longer sentence than the federal sentencing guidelines recommended, might not be inclined toward leniency, Siegelman's lawyers reasonably argue that Siegelman should receive a shorter sentence since he'll be sentenced for fewer crimes. It would also be reasonable for the Justice Department to argue for reinstatement of the originally imposed sentence on the theory that the more significant, unreversed crimes drove that sentence. But nothing about the Siegelman prosecution has been reasonable, including the Justice Department's latest recommendation that Siegelman be resentenced to a term of 20 years. [more ...]