Fifty years ago, the American Law Institute provided the legal framework that underlies this country’s implementation of the death penalty. Now, the Institute has withdrawn its support from that framework. Michael Traynor, former president of the Institute, had a nice op-ed piece in the LA Times today explaining why the Institute took that action: The death penalty — it’s unworkable.

In the decade after the institute published its law, which was part of a comprehensive model penal code, the statute became the prototype for death penalty laws across the United States. Some parts of the model — such as the categorical exclusion of the death penalty for crimes other than murder and for people of limited mental abilities — withstood the test of time. But the core of the statute, which created a list of factors to guide judges and jurors deciding when to sentence someone to death, has proved unworkable and fostered confusion and injustice.

Now, after searching analysis by our country’s top legal minds, the institute has concluded that the system it created does not work and cannot be fixed. It concluded that we cannot devise a death penalty system that will ensure fairness in process or outcome, or even that innocent people will not be executed.

The use of future tense (“or even that innocent people will not be executed”) is a delicate way around the obvious truth: Innocent people have been executed. Statistically, it’s a near-certainty.

I am speaking for myself, not as a representative of the institute, but I can say with certainty that the institute did not reach these conclusions lightly. It commissioned a special committee and a scholarly study, heard various viewpoints and debated the issues extensively. A strong consensus emerged that capital punishment in this country is riddled with pervasive problems.

[snip]

These problems are entrenched in the death penalty system, both in California and nationwide. The cumulative result: Executions remain as random as lightning strikes, or more so, and that is the very problem the institute’s model statute intended to fix. In addition, across the country, at least 139 individuals have been released from death row after establishing their innocence.

If a similar degree of effort had been devoted to establishing the innocence of those already executed, I have no doubt we’d have dozens of examples of that, too.

Lawrence Lessig is a very smart cookie. And he is not happy: How to get our democracy back.

Maybe this was his plan all along. It was not what he said. And by ignoring what he promised, and by doing what he attacked (“too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in”), Obama will leave the presidency, whether in 2013 or 2017, with Washington essentially intact and the movement he inspired betrayed.

Clearly, I haven’t been doing enough to stir the pot of partisan name-calling lately. So here you go: The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans.

Knock yourselves (or more likely, each other) out.

Kevin Drum has the following blunt advice on what should happen next with healthcare reform: Time to Grow a Pair.

This really is a defining moment for both Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly. So far both have failed miserably: the party is in a state of meltdown, surrendering completely to a resurgent Republican narrative, refusing to fight for anything it believes in, and caving in to a truly toxic combination of electoral fear and narrow interest group parochialism. For his part, Obama seems either unable or unwilling to rally his troops. I’m not sure which. But the American public really needs to hear some conviction from him, and so far they haven’t. He’s remained aloof from the healthcare upheaval, pivoted on financial regulation in a way that looks driven more by politics than by core beliefs, and has just generally sounded more chastened than reinvigorated.

This really needs to turn around fast. Another week like this — hell, another day or two like this — and we might as well start measuring the Oval Office drapes for the upcoming Cheney/Palin administration. It’s time for everyone to take a deep breath and grow a pair. Today would be a good time to start.

I happen to think Drum is exactly right. It’s not clear from this excerpt, but what he (and a lot of other smart people) are calling for is for the Democrats in the House to just pass the Senate version of healthcare reform, to avoid sending it back to the Senate where a 41-vote Republican minority could kill it procedurally.

I’m really not sure what’s going to happen. I think Obama means well, and has the ability to make (some) things happen. But I don’t know if that’s enough to turn things around in the face of the demonstrable collective cravenness of the House Democratic caucus.

Update: The same message, in video form, with beer and bikinis. Now how much would you pay?

Jay Rosen thinks the Sunday politics shows on TV could be improved: My Simple Fix for the Messed Up Sunday Shows:

The beauty of this idea is that it turns the biggest weakness of political television–the fact that time is expensive, and so complicated distortions, or simple distortions about complicated matters, are rational tactics for advantage-seeking pols–into a kind of strength.  The format beckons them to evade, deny, elide, demagogue and confuse…. but then they pay for it later if they give into temptation and make that choice.  So imagine the midweek fact check from last week as a short segment wrapping up the show the following week. Now you have an incentive system that’s at least pointed in the right direction.

This assumes, of course, that the Sunday chat shows are interested in fostering truth for its own sake. I get the feeling that news divisions at the networks have been moving in a different direction for a while now. But maybe calling people on their B.S. would be good for some ratings?

I actually don’t think more than a handful of people actually watch those shows. But since that handful includes lots of bloggers and politicians, maybe putting Rosen’s truth incentive in place would still have some sort of impact, at least among bloggers and/or politicians?

From White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer: The Same Old Washington Blame Game.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Srsly.

I don’t want to excerpt it, because the whole thing is too awesome. From Bruce Schneier: Is aviation security mostly for show?

Yeah, I haven’t talked much about the healthcare bill. I’ve been following some of the coverage, but it’s hard for me to get excited about this particular sausage being made.

Here’s one detail that was amusing, at least, with a question that I think random outside observers can interestingly weigh in on. From C-SPAN, via ThinkProgress, there was this video you probably saw (if you’ve been processing every tidbit):

So, the actually interesting question is, is that caller for real? Or was it a joke? Josh Marshall reposted an excerpt from an email that makes a pretty good case that it’s fake: Spoof or #prayerfail?. I’m curious what y’all think.

Most politics is lame, I’ll grant you. But this speech is a good example of why it’s still worth having elected representatives yack at each other in a fancy room with wood paneling and studded leather upholstery:

The part they aired on TV was pretty good, but I really liked the Internet-only portion of the Lou Dobbs interview on The Daily Show. It pains me to say it, but I don’t think Jon scored any better than a draw on this one. But regardless of winners and losers, there were some real nice moments.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Thomas Friedman has definitely got the pithy sound bite thing down pat. The last few times I’ve seen him on TV I’ve had the same two reactions: 1) Yeah, I think he’s right, but 2) the way he’s selling it is more about memorable catch-phrases than simply speaking the truth.

But maybe he’s on to something. In an era when Sarah Palin can attract significant numbers of supporters who think she’s actually worth listening to, maybe you can’t overestimate the importance of wrapping your message in folksy packaging. We don’t have to convince the scientists — they’re already convinced. We have to convince the people who honestly believe Fox News is a credible source.

I’m not sure how you do that. But Thomas Friedman is giving it a try, as he does in this op-ed piece from the NYT: What They Really Believe.

My argument is simple: I think climate change is real. You don’t? That’s your business. But there are two other huge trends barreling down on us with energy implications that you simply can’t deny. And the way to renew America is for us to take the lead and invent the technologies to address these problems.

His bottom line: Those working to thwart cap-and-trade and clean-energy incentives are not just wrong. They’re unpatriotic.

Mkay. We’ll see how that does in the marketplace of ideas.

It’s been a while since I linked to a Kevin Drum item, and I see today that he’s having the same can’t-look-away mixture of abhorrence and fascination with Sarah Palin that I (and plenty of others, I’m sure) have been having:

So why is Sarah Palin so endlessly fascinating? The sex appeal that practically oozes out of every pore? Her perpetual family soap opera? A sense of besiegement and resentment so powerful it practically knocks you over every time she speaks? The fact that she actually seems to take pride in her complete lack of policy expertise? Her seemingly total lack of real self-awareness? The fact that she lies so casually it seems like she actually believes everything she makes up?

Yeah, I think that about covers it. She honestly doesn’t do much for me in the sex-appeal department, but the brazen lies make up for it. I’ve had a bit of a void in that area of my life lately.

Via Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be:

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination.

Speaking of which, anyone read Sarah Palin’s new book?

Again! Again with the Daily Show clip!

So, do you want to punch Sean Hannity in the nose?

How about now?

How the Texas criminal justice system executes the innocent: Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty. And now, with bonus corruption and coverup from the governor: The lengths Rick Perry with go.

Note to police officers with a propensity to hassle scruffy young skateboarders: Consider that said skateboarders might be filming a video, and be wired up with non-obvious recording tech:

I’ve taken the cop’s side in discussing situations like this before, and I realize there is more to this interaction than we’re seeing here. If the cop had shot and edited this video, it probably would create a completely different impression. Then again, if the cop had been recording this with his own camera, knowing that his superiors were going to review it in case of complaints, I’m guessing he would have handled himself a wee bit differently. Which is kind of the point of laws like the one Obama helped pass in the Illinois state legislature, requiring jailhouse interrogations to be videotaped.

More here from sfgate.com: S.F. skateboarder vs. SFPD officer.

I really enjoyed the Fresh Air interview with T.R. Reid, author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. He does a good job of cutting through the B.S.

So does Kevin Drum, in Back to Basics:

Let’s recap: the United States spends about twice as much on healthcare as any other developed nation in the world and in return receives just about the worst care. Can someone remind me again why there’s even a debate about whether we should put up with this?

Finally, as I think about a good friend of mine who’s currently in the hospital, I keep hearing Matthew Good’s “99% of Us Is Failure”. Here’s a live solo version:

Apologies for leaving lies.com adrift in the waves of outrage washing back and forth from the folks who get their healthcare-reform information from the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. There have been lots of high-profile lies I could have been commenting on, but Cheney-like, I had other priorities.

And look, along comes the Debunker-in-Chief to summarize the grownup response to all the silliness, and save me the trouble of running after every little bit of crazy, in today’s NYT Op-Ed: Why We Need Health Care Reform.

Daily Kos: How I lost my health insurance at the hairstylist’s.

Lies.com Podcast 30 is about the election, Prop 8, Harvey Milk, Lynndie England, Dan Savage, and lots of Russell Brand. It’s also about Obama, but he doesn’t actually say anything in the episode (hence the title), except for a little bit at the end, and he really doesn’t say anything then either. Mostly, it’s about how something I’ve imagined for such a long time can seem so different when it finally arrives.

Enjoy, and feel free to let me know what you think in the comments. Thanks.

Notes and sources follow…

part one: celebrity endorsements

• Lies.com podcast #8, on the possibility of an Obama presidency
• Tom Hanks endorses Obama
• McCain on Obama not being an Arab, but a good family man
• Colin Powelll endorses Obama
• Russell Brand in New York City on his MTV VMA monologue
• Russell Brand’s VMA monologue

part two: election day

• Music: Ulrich Schnauss: Between Us and Them
• Savage Love #107, in which Dan Savage threatens curses for non-voters
• Beyond Prop 8 from KCET’s “SoCal Connected”
• “Yes on 8″ ad #1
• “Yes on 8″ ad #2
• MSNBC calls Ohio for Obama
• Music: Chapterhouse: Pearl
• Glen Laury on Barack Hussein Obama
• Grant Park countdown #1
• Grant Park countdown #2
• South Park’s version of Obama’s acceptance speech

part three: harvey’s big feet

• Sam Harris’ vlog on the passage of Prop 8
• Tom Hanks on acting in “Philadelphia”
• Fresh Air interview with Duncan Lance Black, screenwriter of “Milk”
• The Times of Harvey Milk
• Harvey Milk: To be played in the event of my death by assassination
• Music: Sigur Rós – Hoppípolla

part four: lynndie

• Dan Savage on centaur sexbots
• Russell Brand on Fresh Air talking about opiate addiction
• Lynndie England from the This American Life episode “Fall Guy”
• Russell Brand from “The Treatment” on the little girl being punished
• Helen Thomas gets the first question at Obama’s first presidential news conference
• Music: Antje Duvekot and the Peter Malick Group: Opium