I am a huge TPM fan and I also serve on one of the BSA's national committees (yes, there are real liberals in the Scouts and we abhor the current policy and, frankly, it is embarrassing at times to be associated with them). I am currently in Grapevine (near Dallas) for the BSA's National Annual Meeting. As you know, the big vote is set for Thursday. I am one of those that has continued to work from the inside to effectuate change, although I am by no means an activist on the issue. I just continue to make the case why change must come and is inevitable every chance I get.

Going into the meeting I was extremely pessimistic about the likelihood of the current resolution to allow gay youth Scouts passing. I based that opinion on many conversations with Scouters (the term for adult volunteers) across the nation. However today (Wednesday) at the "informational meeting" I found cause for optimism and I now expect the resolution to pass, and pass handily. I do believe this resolution falls short of what is necessary, but I also know that this is progress and I think once this resolution passes, that it is only a matter of time before the entire discrimination policy falls (how do you tell 18 year old Eagle Scouts they are no longer welcome?)

The difference today is the actual electorate that will be voting. Over the past several months many of the delegates went from low-information voters who did not care if they discriminated against gay people to high information voters that understand their long-term fiduciary duty to the movement and the youth involved. I heard multiple people discuss the future of BSA corporate sponsorship. I also think a lot of the credit, if the resolution passes, falls on National Commissioner Tico Perez, one of the two top volunteer positions. Tico has genuine conservative bona fides and lives in Orlando, Florida. I know that he is determined to "save" the program and stop the exclusionary policy. He is the right person to lead the charge for change (and he still has the goal of completely reversing the discriminatory policy.

So, don't be surprised if the Scouts finally make the first incremental step forward tomorrow. Too many voters now know that it is clearly in the best interest of the program to pass this resolution.

They then stayed there shouting political slogans (largely about British soldiers killing Muslims) at passersby until police finally showed up and shot both of them and took them into custody. (Both are in the hospital; one in serious condition.) This report suggests that one woman, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett - who got off a bus and then talked to the men until police showed up - may have prevented the incident from escalating or more being killed. At least a couple people videotaped what was happening. Here's the basic AP rundown with more details.

This new report says that both men had been investigated in previous security service probes for links to terror groups.

Here's some of the video I mentioned above.

It's worth stating what's probably obvious here which is that whatever happened here probably happened really fast and unexpectedly. So it's not surprising that the initial reports might be fragmentary or incorrect. But again, we have a very weird set of circumstances. I was at the dentist for the better part of the afternoon. So I'm only piecing together the details now. From the conflicting accounts, it seems that multiple law enforcement agents - at least one FBI agent and two Massachusetts police officers - were questioning this man in his home. So this wasn't in a police station or in an interrogation room. It seems that they were on the deceased man's turf.

Most reports suggest that the suspect had hinted at some involvement in the triple murder and then attacked the FBI agent with a knife once he was pressed for more details.

An account from ABC says this ...

The man shot dead by an FBI agent in Orlando, Florida early today was "about to sign a statement" admitting to a role, along with Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in an unsolved triple murder in Massachusetts in 2011, two people with direct knowledge of the case told ABC News.

I would have to imagine that when you've got three law enforcement officers and one suspect, things have to spiral out of control really quickly before the suspect gets shot at point blank range. It also seems at least a little surprising to me that the officers wouldn't have secured the area they were questioning the man in or made sure he didn't have immediate access to a weapon, especially once (if the reports are correct) he admitted to a role in the killings. But I don't know what the procedures are or just how the events transpired. Presumably we'll have a clearer account of what happened soon.

Late Update: You learn something new every day. While I was checking some information about Rumsfeld I stumbled across the fact that Rumsfeld was one of the lead sponsors of the original Freedom of Information Act. Would not have expected that.

Full-size version.

In the current political climate, that may well be good legal advice. And she has every right to take it and may be wise to do so. But that's a decision that simply is not consistent with her remaining in her job. Whether or not she should be fired for whatever she did in the scandal itself, deciding to take the fifth means she needs to be removed from her position.

I was chatting with people yesterday who said that civil service protections may make this extremely difficult or even impossible. That's something for the new interim director of the IRS to figure out. One way or another, under the present circumstances, someone who is taking the fifth can't be in charge of the division at the center of this investigation. I hope the incoming interim chief gets that.

That's something everyone should consider the next time we learn a non-media figure has been subjected to secret, invasive federal subpoenas, etc. Until then, I'd note that in this case the coverage disparity is due in part to the fact that -- to coin a recently misquoted White House official -- the reporting does not reflect all relevant equities.

Stepping out of my own reporting shoes, I'd say there's a wide spectrum between what reporters want -- something approaching privilege for sources who break the law to publicize protected materials -- and what many government secret-keepers might prefer -- to make it illegal for journalists to obtain classified info except in wholly passive ways, or perhaps even to make publishing classified information illegal altogether.

Ambiguous as it is, the actual law reflects neither preference. Nor should it. But as a natural consequence there's a lot of fighting now about whether it's been applied appropriately. For myself, I'd say that what officials did to James Rosen falls on the wrong side of where I'd draw the line. Of the million shades of grey here, one of them covers the vast and murky terrain between cajoling sources and actively facilitating lawbreaking. I think the burden on federal law enforcement officials to demonstrate the latter should be very high before they start accusing reporters of criminal behavior in court. And in this case, if I were setting the standard, I'd say they didn't meet it (though I don't set the standard, and a federal judge apparently disagrees with me).

If the burden isn't high, then the difference between elegant and sloppy tradecraft, or well-heeled and struggling media outlet, might well become the difference between journalistic triumph and jail time.

That's a big problem. It needs to be addressed. But I think it can be addressed without questioning anyone's motives or commitment to the First Amendment, or to national security, as the first orders of business.

In the Senate, what's holding that up is an effort on the part of the tea party backed members to block formal negotiations until Democrats agree that the debt limit will be off limits -- so that in the event the chambers do finalize a budget, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and other Republicans can still demand concessions in exchange for increasing the debt limit later this year. After four years of blistering Democrats for not passing a budget, this has an unwanted downside of making the party look terrible. And now Republican frustrations with Cruz's and Paul's tactics are bubbling to the surface.

This is like Christmas for Democrats. Watch the video in that post if you don't believe me.

Either Republicans kill the budget process and own all of the subsequent brinksmanship, particularly over the debt limit, or they have to discipline these freshmen and incur the wrath of the notoriously passive GOP base voters.

Thus the obvious course of action for Democrats is to do... nothing! Or rather, nothing other than to continue pressing for formal negotiations and letting this internal fight continue to play out in public until either one faction wins or the debt limit fight supersedes it.

In theory, Democrats could force the issue by introducing a legislative motion to appoint conferees. John McCain and Susan Collins' comments today suggest they'd have the votes for it. But it would also precipitate a vote-a-rama almost nobody in either party really wants to endure simply for the purposes of doing what should be automatic. And even if that weren't a problem, why should Democrats intervene to rescue the GOP from Cruz and Paul?

Full-size version.