Tonight a documentary called "Cheney's Law" premieres on PBS' Frontline, and the New York Times reports [registration req'd] that it's pretty much proof positive of what we all kinda figured out: Dick Cheney has singlehandedly crusaded against the checks and balances of the American government for his entire career:

Produced by Michael Kirk, who has made nine other documentaries about the Bush White House, the film traces Mr. Cheney’s commitment to presidential privilege — forged and formulated with his friend and lawyer David Addington — illuminating the ways in which he has seen to it that congressional approval and judicial review are circumnavigated to implement controversial wartime policies on detention, interrogation and torture. Mr. Cheney’s suspicion of the constitutional checks and balances has spanned three decades, the film argues.

The Times excerpts a quote from a law professor, Jack Goldsmith, who was in charge of the Justice Department's Legal Counsel office, and refused to support the now-infamous NSA wiretapping program:

I went as far as I could,” Mr. Goldsmith, who has recently written a book called “The Terror Presidency,” economically recounts. “But at some point the legal arguments ran out.”

At least we know, regardless of who wins the election, Cheney will be done....right?

Late last Friday, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in that state. This is the second time he has vetoed such a bill in two years.

The excuse Schwarzenegger is fond of citing is that California voters in 2000 passed a proposition that would make it illegal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. (Many legal scholars have since disproven this rationale.)

According to the Governator, the decision should be left to the courts or to voters. Which kinda goes contrary to the right-wing's complaint over the Massachusetts court decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry in 2003: "damn those activist judges." Oh, and not to mention going against the way that laws in this represntative democracy are supposed to be made. Through lawmakers. You know, that whole thing about how a majority public should never dictate the rights of a minority. But we digress.

One ridiculous slap in the face -- and a telling moment that reveals how shamelessly Schwarzenegger is pandering to his "conservative base," even though he himself is most likely pro-same-sex marriage -- was his official comment right before the veto:

Schwarzenegger said in the message that Californians "should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation" and that he supports state laws that give domestic partners many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, called the veto and Schwarzenegger's message "hypocrisy at its worst."

"We find it shocking for the governor to say he opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation and then veto a bill that would have ended discrimination based on sexual orientation," Kors said.

Shocking? Really? Is there anything to be shocked at here? Or is it just shocking how blatantly he decided to make his political motives known?

You might have seen that Madonna's leaving Warner Brothers to sign a $120 million/three-album deal with promoters Live Nation. The usual round of "Viva La Madge!" posts went up throughout the blogosphere, but is this really good news for Madonna?

On the surface, yes, she's got plenty of cash now to start pumping Kabbalah chemicals into our water supply and she's got three more opportunities to dance in purple leotards, throw grenades at fake George W. Bushes or hell, do a Christmas record. (I know you love this, boys.)

A recent report released by Warner Brothers, called "For $120 Million, She's All Yours," casts a sad-Sally shadow on Madge's good news, as they spin-spin-spin the loss of their aerobicized songbird.

Three of their main reasons why this isn't a loss:

1. There is "headline risk associated with a Madonna defection. However, the bigger risk would be to overpay for an artist that does not seem to be generating the revenue to support the contract being discussed."

2. Beside the fact that Madonna will turn 60 years old in the last year of the proposed deal, it is "fantastic" for her but does not "make economic sense" for WMG.

3. "Her loss will not meaningfully impact Warner's near-term sales."

Ouch. While part of this is sour grapes (the music business always has room for an out-of-nowhere comeback, a fact not lost on Madge's former bosses), their reasons do make sense and highlight the strange place that anyone trying to make a living as a musician occupies.