Reality and the Lack of Contact with It

The link is a horrible source, but the quote is just too precious:

"Some people think by repeating something that's not true makes it so. Just repeating a lie doesn't make it true," McKinney said.

"I'm the one who tells the truth. On what George Bush knew about 9/11. I put my body against the war machine, against the wheels and the levers of the machine. And I said you've got to stop it."

Further parts of the quote are just as fantastic.

I think I'd have enjoyed being at this political event. It would have been like going to a freak show, just scarier.

Metatron

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy has this on Samuel Jackson doing the voice of God in a new Audio bible.

And you will know my name is the lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. Samual L. Jackson is the voice of the Lord. Apparently I am not the only one who digs on his voice, as an audio bible will now feature Jackson as God. I can only hope that they also release the outtakes, so we can here God saying “Motherfucker” as only Jackson can. Maybe we could convince Jackson to do a Shaft version of the bible. Jackson would make a great Jesus. Just imagine Jackson/Shaft/Jesus casting the moneychangers from the temple. Jesus on doubting Thomas’ case for doubting. Jesus smacking Judas around. The risen Jesus ridiculing Peter for denying him. The wedding in Canaa. The possibilities are endless.

Completely cracked me up when I read that. And he has a point. I'd love to hear the outtakes. I'd almost consider buying the damn thing if they had the outtakes.

Read the comments, they are pretty humorous as well.

Israel's Lebanese Adventure.

Krauthammer has the right idea, I just doubt that this will be the end game.

There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?

The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.

And

Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.

But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.

I agree with his analysis, Israel is the only player in this. The part that Krauthammer doesn't mention is what will happen with the present support. And I only call it support in the most mild of manners. The longer the Israelis fight Hezbollah the less support they will maintain. The Nancies in the EU have already gone a twitter over the Israelis using disproportionate force. (As silly as that is, you generally don't show proportionate force with stinging insects.) The UN is obviously useless in this, since they would likely actually to have to fight if they came into the scenario, and we've seen how effective they are at that.

This is one of those situations that will be very telling on how the whole situation ends. I hope that Israel does clean out southern Lebanon and leaves quickly. Lebanon won't be happy about it overall, but it would appear that it would be the best thing for them.

Investigating Secret Programs

Tell me, does anyone actually think that the Judiciary committee and all the people screeching for an investigation of the NSA wiretapping program have any clue about security, never mind secrecy?

President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.

And

Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.

"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.

Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. Justice Department inspector general Glenn A. Fine and two of his aides were among other department officials who were granted clearances, Jarrett said in an April memo explaining the end of his probe. That memo was released by the Justice Department Tuesday.

That last bit, using the FBI investigation of leaks as an example, completely distorts the situation. First the OPR was tasked with investigating the program itself. That would mean that they would have access to the fine details of the program. The FBI on the other hand would be locked into that "need-to-know" scenario, where they would only be allowed access to information related to who would have the ability to leak the information. Those limitations are huge.

I still fail to see why Specter continues his tirade on this topic. The Intelligence committees of both houses have been briefed and the President has supposedly agreed to a review of the program before the FISA court. Any other investigations are just a waste of time and money, but that never has stopped the politicians before.

Parental Fears

As if all the worries about your children weren't enough, you can add this to the list. It's a great article over on Salon about parents suspected of child porn due to innocent pictures taken on a camping trip. Seriously scary stuff. From the sound of the article, I'd go camping with this family any time I was invited. Seriously though, this is a scary part of our (justified?) concern for protecting children within this society. There are some serious monsters out there and a sharp eyed development technician at a drug store could very well stop one of them. But, what happens when it's not a monster? That's the story this author sets out to tell.
It's worth the read. While reading it, my mind kept flashing to pictures of my kids, at the breast, getting diapers changed, in the tub... I think few if any of them have the kids nekkid, but what if they did? What if that caused DSS to show up at our house? It just makes my gut clench to be so powerless over something so innocent.
I suppose its probably nothing to worry about. Besides, we'll probably be getting the DSS visit when our kids start correcting the history teachers in school.
BTW, mostly off topic, what is it with Salon writers and France?

Sam Adams Homebrew Contest

I've been looking at the number of hits we get from people searching for this on our site. Watching the volume and interest, plus the fact that I've gotten the assembly line going again, I've decided to take Ken Ryu Ale (The Eclectic Beer, It Packs a Punch) into the contest. It's my only personal recipe and it came out quite good. I don't think I can get the same yeast again, so I may have to try recreating it. I'll have to see if White Labs still has the 10th Anniversary yeast available. If not, I'll have to try to blend it myself. I'll also have to get Shihan's permission to use that name. He may object or there could be legal issues. Anyway, it's all my recipe and it came out pretty good, so we'll have to see if I can make it happen again.
Any volunteer taste testers?

Bush's Open Mic

I'm finding it hard to see why some in the MSM are finding this an embarrassing situation. Personally, if that had been me, the language would have been far more, uh, colorful.

Bush: What about Kofi Annan? I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically cease-fire and everything else happens.

Blair: I think the thing that is really difficult is you cant stop this unless you get this international presence agreed.

Bush: She's going. I think Condi's going to go pretty soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters. If you see, it will take some time to get out of there. But at least it gives people ...

Bush: It's a process I agree. I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only or if she's gonna or if she needs the ground prepared as it were. See, if she goes out she's got to succeed as it were, where as I can just go out and talk.

Bush: See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

Blair: Cause I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if he gets a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's done it. That's what this whole things about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush: I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government.

Can't get by those "lap-dog" comments either:

Most UK papers agreed that Blair had fared the worse over the microphone mishap. The remarks provided a unique insight into the relationship between the two men, said The Independent.

It had "done little to rebuff suspicions that the prime minister is something of a Washington poodle." said the Opposition Conservative-supporting Daily Mail.

Moronic statement that. How is it that if someone agrees with Bush he's immediately a lacky? Couldn't be that he has sound reasoning and judgement on his side. But then, when has the Daily Mail ever used those parts of the mental tool kit.

Personally, I think the President should have a Secret Service member in the sound booth for these things and when they aren't actively speaking he should just shut down the system. This Gotcha press maneuvering is pathetic.

A Well Regulated Militia

I just don't have the time to put up a lot of comments about this. I'll say this much now. It sure sounds like it might be an interesting book. I personally subscribe to the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment (that nagging phrase "the right of the people" which has such specific meaning everywhere else in the bill of the rights) so anything that supports it, even in a round-about way, sounds good to me. However, this doesn't sound like it's the case in this book. One of the really weird things that I read, quite a lot, and it was here too, is that if militia membership is required for gun ownership, then there would be no hand guns. Is this because people think that the military doesn't have & use hand guns? I assure you, they do. Therefor, hand guns would still be in circulation in civilian hands, despite whatever gun control scheme you're subscribing to.
The argument that keeps coming out is this definition of "citizen". Yet, the right is ascribed to the "people". I realize I'm just a simple person reading these words, but in my mind, they are, in fact, different, with inherently different implications. So that if it said "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I really could see a different reading than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't know. Stupid and ignorant I guess.
h/t History Carnival

Bloomberg for President? - Third Party Posture

Here's an OpEd to make you nervous. At least those that are strongly pro-gun rights.

Democrats and Republicans here are taking seriously talk that Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent for president in 2008. One source close to Mr. Bloomberg predicts he will dispose of his multibillion-dollar business holdings next year, give much of it away to charity, and use some of the remainder for a high-stakes presidential campaign.

At a dinner party I attended last month, much of the talk was about whether the mayor might run. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, noted that the people around Mr. Bloomberg were clearly making noises about the possibility. Another leading Democrat, who is close to Sen. Hillary Clinton, opined that a Bloomberg candidacy would wind up hurting her general-election chances. A Republican broke in to disagree, noting that should the GOP nominate a highly conservative candidate in 2008, Mr. Bloomberg could snap up votes from middle-of-the-roaders in both parties attracted to his technocratic style.

But could a Bloomberg candidacy actually succeed? Certainly, dissatisfaction with both major parties is high, with large numbers of Americans viewing Republicans as unprincipled and less than competent and Democrats as feckless and unserious. Similar conditions gave rise to Ross Perot in 1992, and for a while the diminutive Texas billionaire was running first in the polls. He eventually won 19% of the national vote and helped Bill Clinton defeat the first President Bush.

The frightening thing is that Bloomberg in a third party and centrist position would likely have quite a good chance of winning. I think much of the editorial points to good reasons. He's essentially a republican centrist from a liberal city/state. He'd be a spoiler for the party machines.

I personally don't like him. First for his gun control buffoonery and then there is the fiscal liberalism:

His record is liberal on fiscal issues too. He raised taxes during his first term and now appears to be on the verge of capitulating to the city's public-sector unions in contract talks. On Saturday the New York Times reported that he has settled for a 10% wage hike over the next 32 months in talks that include no concessions from the union on work rules. "Should Bloomberg cave [in] to one union, the pressure on him to give in to all the others will be immense," says Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Institute. Bowing to the union machine wouldn't exactly represent the kind of profile in courage that voters in heartland states might appreciate.

That type of attitude in the national government will be devastating. I don't know if he could change his stripes, but I am of the opinion that we really need a president with some serious fiscal control. (Not to mention a congress with some control.)

They also make an interesting point about the effects of the electoral college if a third party candidate split the vote so that no majority could be had.

In the end, all this speculation may not pan out. Mr. Bloomberg knows that the odds are against him: No modern third-party candidate has come close to winning, and even if one managed to poll close to 40% of the popular vote, it would be hard to carry a majority of the Electoral College. In the absence of an Electoral College majority--something that hasn't happened since 1824--the next president is selected by a vote in the House, with each state's delegations casting one vote and a majority needed to prevail. Given that almost every House member is a Democrat or Republican (Vermont's Bernie Sanders is an independent, but he's leaving to run for the Senate), an independent's chances of victory there are slim.

At the height of Perotmania in 1992, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call surveyed 301 House members as to how they would vote for president in the absence of an Electoral College majority. Two-thirds said they were uncommitted; the vast majority of the remainder indicated they would either vote the same way as their congressional district or would vote for their party's nominee. "The clear upshot was that Perot was going to have a tough time winning in a two-party dominated House," recalls Jim Glassman, publisher of Roll Call at the time. The same would likely be true of Mr. Bloomberg should he run.

That should make a lot of people nervous about this election year.

New Counterinsurgency Field Manual

Saw this posted at Global Guerrillas blog. The do comment of the lack of any discussion on the topic of Fourth Generation Warfare. I think his own link to the 4GW may be insightful on this point, since the Field Manual is strongly for the people on the front more than the officers in the rear. (Though I could very well be mistaken in this, I think overall strategy at the front is much different than the complete war plan.)

The tactical and strategic levels will blend as the opponent's political infrastructure and civilian society become battlefield targets. It will be critically important to isolate the enemy from one's own homeland because a small number of people will be able to render great damage in a very short time.

Leaders will have to be masters of both the art of war and technology, a difficult combination as two different mindsets are involved. Primary challenges facing commanders at all levels will include target selection (which will be a political and cultural, not just a military, decision), the ability to concentrate suddenly from very wide dispersion, and selection of subordinates who can manage the challenge of minimal or no supervision in a rapidly changing environment. A major challenge will be handling the tremendous potential information overload without losing sight of the operational and strategic objectives.

Psychological operations may become the dominant operational and strategic weapon in the form of media/information intervention. Logic bombs and computer viruses, including latent viruses, may be used to disrupt civilian as well as military operations. Fourth generation adversaries will be adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion to the point where skillful use of psychological operations will sometimes preclude the commitment of combat forces. A major target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.

It seems to me that even fourth generation warfare leaves most of the soldiers daily activities much the same, but requires new forces to fight certain new fronts and it also requires that the leadership be able to understand the blending and resonance of the different parts in the overall strategy.

That said, I would think it would be something that all soldiers and marines understand to a certain level, but may not be required to the depth that more specialized forces will need to have.

Tabata

Figured I'd put up a few links to articles on Tabata's in case anyone is interested in pursuing it further.

http://www.cbass.com/Tabata_GXP.htm
http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=684&print_art=1
http://www.cbass.com/Sprintendurance.htm

And definately visit Ross Enamait's site for his books.

I'm also going to be picking up these books:

and


If anyone can recommend more, I'm always trying to learn.

Yeargghh

No, that wasn't the Dean Scream(TM). That was me after my workout this morning. I've been doing Tabata's for a while. I got them from Ross Enamait's book "The Underground Guide to Warrior Fitness." It's based on a study done in Japan that established high intensity interval training (HIIT, the other name for this kind of workout) as one of the best conditioning excercises available. The method is, pick a whole body type of excercise like sprinting, heavy bag, burpees, and do that excercise as hard as possible for 20 seconds. Then rest, full stop, for 10 seconds. Then start it up again. Keep this going for 4-8 minutes. Then, as somone I read once said "That thing that you're trying to wipe off your face... it's the floor." Problem is, timing this is a bear. Nyarl came over to our house once and laughed his butt off while the GeekWife & I ran through a set of these things, oh and timed us. Enter Gymboss
This handy little tool times excersice & rest periods that you can set yourself. It also counts rounds. I used mine today for the first time. The evil little device counted 20 seconds as slowly as it could and then raced through 10 lightening quick, over & over again, mercilessly. I loved it! I did sprints outside for four minutes, took a break & then worked the heavy bag for four. After the room stopped spinning I ran up here to type this out.
We're going to be using our Gymboss a lot over the next six weeks as we train GeekWife up for her black belt test and then I'll be using it once a week or so when I lead excercises in the dojo. No more trying to peer at the clock to see where the second hand is. Great product and really inexpensive.
Mr. Enamait's (should call him Sensei or Shihon or something horribly honorific) book is out of print, but it's been replaced with Never Gymless, which I intend to pick up soon.

About Damn Time

Jeff Goldstein over at Protien Wisdom has finally contacted the authorities. This lady is more than a little bit wacked and I'd want her placed under a doctor's care if she were treating my family in this manner.

Satire is an American Thing

I'm sure that's going to be news to Britain. Anyway, since I don't get out into the alkali desert right, I've never heard of this guy before, but it sure looks like he stepped in it in a big way. The funniest part of the situation is that he won't stop even though he knows he was mistaken.

EU Whining About Israel

Between Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is in another mess. The international commentors seem to have an interesting view point on the problem.

The European Union and Russia have criticized Israel's strikes in Lebanon as "disproportionate." European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will travel to the Middle East on Saturday to back United Nations efforts to defuse the growing crisis, the EU's Finnish presidency said Friday.

France is one of the countries which has taken an even sharper tone publicly about the Israeli retaliation.

"This is a disproportionate act of war with very negative consequences for Lebanon, especially because it runs the risk of sparking even more violence which could destabilize the whole region," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

US President George W. Bush has said Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not weaken the Lebanese government.

So, tell me, if someone starts invading your country and kidnapping soldiers/citizens and firing rockets across the border at civilians, what is the proper response? I'm sure the French belief is tha they should surrender, but the other EU states should be a bit more realistic. How is it reasonable to stand by and allow attacks? Are they trying to propose that Israel only reply in kind?

I don't agree with the contention that their action will cause further violence. There will be further violence irrespective of Israel's responses. The loudest critics sit far too comfortably in the EU and Russia has no right to criticize without taking a good look at their own actions in Chechnya.

Inflatable Space Station

This is pretty neat. Though, I'm not certain this is an environment I would want to live in. The concept of Micro-metorite would keep me nervous. (Not to mention that thing about radiation.)

The mission of Bigelow Aerospace's revolutionary prototype space habitat launched Wednesday has gone smoothly through its first day in orbit. The program's founder said the success achieved so far has been an exhilarating experience for his team before they set off to begin a comprehensive testing regimen on the inflatable space station pathfinder.

The craft - called Genesis 1 - marks the birth of Bigelow's grand commercial space adventure that should culminate in the construction of the industry's first private space station by 2015.

Real estate and hotel tycoon Robert Bigelow founded the company in 1999, and has since invested over $75 million of his fortune into the project. Upwards of $500 million could be needed by 2015.

Bigelow said he was pleasantly surprised how smooth the mission has gone in the first day of operations. He said he expected at least a few problems to be on his mind at this point in the mission, but so far none.

"We were more prepared actually for failure than we were for success," he said in a phone interview Thursday.

Launched on Wednesday atop a Dnepr rocket flown from a Russian missile base, Genesis 1 quickly got to work to ready for its mission. Compressed air in tanks attached to the spacecraft rushed into the module, inflating it to a total interior volume of over 100 cubic meters.

Is anyone else getting tired of all these things being launched from Russia? You'd think with a capatalist system we'd be able to provide more competition.

Return to Normalcy - At Least for the Judicial Branch

I got a chuckle out of this OpEd by Krauthammer:

But, of course, the war on terrorism is different. The enemy is shadowy, scattered and therefore more likely to survive and keep the war going for years. What the Supreme Court essentially did in Hamdan was to say to the president: Time's up. We gave you the customary half-decade of emergency powers, but that's as far as we go. From now on the emergency is over, at least judicially, and you're going to have to operate by peacetime rules.

Or, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the new Sandra Day O'Connor, put it, Guantanamo (and by extension, war-on-terrorism) jurisprudence must henceforth be governed by "the customary operation of the Executive and Legislative Branches." This case may be "of extraordinary importance," but it is to be "resolved by ordinary rules."

All rise: The Supreme Court has decreed a return to normality. A lovely idea, except that al-Qaeda has other ideas. The war does go on. One can sympathize with the court's desire for a Harding-like restoration to normalcy. But the robed eminences are premature. And even if they weren't, they really didn't have to issue a ruling this bad.

From this point of view, which I agree with, the Judicial branch has decided to stand outside of reality. Or more likely, have decided that they will define reality from the bench. Unfortunately, this type of decision will handicap the executive branch in dealing with terrorism into the future.

And what happens if there is another attack from a known party? Does the Judicial branch truly believe that the president will no longer have the Article 2 powers to defend the country? I suppose we'll just have to wait for the lethargic Judicial system to rule on that point.

But no matter. Logic has little place here. The court has decreed: There is no war -- or we will pretend so -- and henceforth it shall be conducted by the court. God save the United States. (This honorable court can fend for itself.)

Think the NSA is Listening? - Sue 'Em

Here's a bill of high value from your favorite political hack Chuckles Schumer.

A BILL To provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes.

And

(a) STANDING.--A United States citizen who has refrained or will refrain from wire communications because of a reasonable fear that such communications will be the subject of electronic surveillance conducted without an order issued in accordance with title I of the Foreign Intel-ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) under a claim of Presidential authority under either the Constitution of the United States or the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740; 115 Stat. 224;50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall have a cause of action and shall be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to such electronic surveillance.

And

(3) A reasonable fear shall be established by evidence that the person bringing the action-- (A) has and will continue to have regular wire communications from the United States to one or more persons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism in the course of that person's paid employment doing journalistic, academic, or other research pertaining to terrorism or terrorist groups; or (B) has engaged and will continue to engage in one or more commercial transactions with a bank or other financial institution in a country described in subparagraph (A).

Almost sounds like a profile on how to dodge the surveillance systems for financial transactions or terrorist plotting. Let's see, be a journalist or academic etc. doing work that has to make money transfers to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and you're afraid that you might be watched by the intelligence services, then you can sue them to get an injunction to stop them from eavesdropping on your activities, then you have a clear method to carry on with your terror related activities.

WTF?

Military Tribunals Debate Begins

The political games have started, and there are some surprises, but mostly exactly what was expected.

Yesterday, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England issued a memorandum to the armed forces explaining that the Supreme Court, "as a matter of law," had found that a Geneva provision known as Common Article 3, listing several prisoner safeguards, applied to the conflict with al Qaeda. He instructed military personnel to comply with Common Article 3 -- but then asserted "it is my understanding" that existing interrogation practices and other prisoner policies already do so. He gave subordinates three weeks to review their procedures to ensure they comply with the Geneva provision, which bars not only torture, but also "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "It is not really a reversal of policy. Humane treatment has always been the standard, and that is something that they followed at Guantanamo."

The England memorandum affects only the Defense Department, leaving unclear what safeguards apply to prisoners held by other agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency.

I suppose that the "humane treatment" that Snow talks about is really questionable. If the protections are supposed to be meeting those of common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, some of the activities for acquiring information are suspect. Though there isn't much indication that these took place at GITMO.

"The most expeditious way to do it would be to essentially ratify the process that's already in place with the military commissions," said Daniel Dell'Orto, the Defense Department's principal deputy general counsel.

But some Republicans joined Democrats in asserting that the Supreme Court ruling demanded more. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican and an Air Force Reserve judge, said the starting point shouldn't be the military-commission regulations drafted internally by the Pentagon general counsel, but rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice, with changes regarding evidence and procedures based on specific national-security needs.

"If you'll adopt that attitude and that approach, we can get a product not only that will pass court muster, but the nation can be proud of," Sen. Graham said. "If you fight that approach, it's going to be a long, hot summer."

Graham's proposal sounds like a better starting point to me. Especially since, you can be assured, that this will be finding its way back to the SCOTUS in challenges.

And never avoiding the opportunity to throw darts:

Several Democrats argued that the Supreme Court ruling was fatal not only to the military commissions but also to other administration policies, such as the warrantless electronic-surveillance program, that the White House says spring from the president's commander-in-chief function or Congress's military-force resolution.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) asked if the Justice Department was reviewing other policies "that are also based on the [military-force resolution] -- which has been discredited by the Supreme Court -- so that we will avoid a Supreme Court decision" striking them down.

Fortunately, Chuckles Schumer and his ilk are in the minority. Especially considering that this is an election year, there is nothing like having the appearance of going soft on terrorists. Chuckles also seems to have selective memory in that the Hamdi decision did in fact support the military-force resolution as supporting the actions that the administration has taken.

Neal Katyal at Slate, makes the asinine suggestions that the Court Martial is the path to trying these terrorists.

Today the Senate begins hearings on whether to create, from scratch, a new legal system to handle the cases against suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and around the world. The hearings are a response to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court decision that last month struck down President Bush's fake trial system at Guantanamo. This debate is important, and long overdue, but it should not obscure the fact that the military already has a battle-tested system for dealing with such problems: courts-martial. We should only break from that proud American tradition for the best of reasons and with adequate empirical support. There are no such grounds here, and changing the rules now will be another fruitless step backward from our goal of bringing terrorists to justice.

He has good arguments for the problems with any new legislation for the military commissions, but the use of the Court Martial is incredibly short sighted in that it will provide all the protections guaranteed to valid combatants, which these prisoners most certainly are not. I would also state that many of these prisoners will walk if the evidenciary requirements of the Court Martial are required.

I'm all for having justice in these cases. I don't see justice being served by providing terrorists with protections that they refuse to provide for other combatants under the rules of war.

The outcome of these hearings should be an informative indicator as to where many politicians actually stand on the war on terror.

The New Psilocybin Review

More research into magic mushrooms?

In a study that could revive interest in researching the effects of psychedelic drugs, scientists said a substance in certain mushrooms induced powerful, mind-altering experiences among a group of well-educated, middle-age men and women.

Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions researchers conducted the study following carefully controlled, scientifically rigorous procedures. They said that the episodes generally led to positive changes in attitude and behavior among the 36 volunteer participants and that the changes appeared to last at least two months. Participants cited feelings of intense joy, "distance from ordinary reality," and feelings of peace and harmony after taking the drug. Two-thirds described the effects of the drug, called psilocybin, as among the five most meaningful experiences of their lives.

But in 30% of the cases, the drug provoked harrowing experiences dominated by fear and paranoia. Two participants likened the episodes to being in a war. While these episodes were managed by trained monitors at the sessions where the drugs were taken, researchers cautioned that in less-controlled settings, such responses could trigger panic or other reactions that might put people in danger.

A report on the study, among the first to systematically assess the effects of hallucinogenic substances in 40 years, is being published online today by the journal Psychopharmacology. An accompanying editorial and commentaries from three prominent neuroscientists and a psychiatrist praise the study and argue that further research into such agents has the potential to unlock secrets of consciousness and lead to new therapeutic strategies for depression, addiction and other ailments.

But of course, there has to be the warning about those evil drugs stitched into the article.

Researchers acknowledge that the study's positive findings may encourage inappropriate use of the agents. Roland Griffiths, the Hopkins neuroscientist who headed the research, warned against viewing the results as a green light for consuming the mushrooms. "We don't know all their dark sides," he said. "I wouldn't in any way want to underestimate the potential risks" of indiscriminate use of the drugs.

The National Institute for Drug Abuse, which co-sponsored the study as part of its support for research into drugs of abuse, also warned against eating psilocybin mushrooms. They "act on serotonin receptors in the brain to profoundly distort a person's perception of reality," the institute said, possibly triggering psychosis, paranoia and anxiety.

Interesting study. Though I don't know where they find the people to take these things. I can't see myself going into a room with a bunch of strangers and taking a mind altering agent. Hell, I have a hard enough time going into a room with a bunch of strangers when I'm just taking a depressant.