U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey ruled today that Jose Padilla can meet with his lawyers.

"Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct a further `dialogue' about whether he will be permitted to do so. It is a ruling -- a determination -- that he will be permitted to do so," the judge said.

Damn that Constitution, always trying to endanger good Americans.

More from Bush Sr. Tuft's speech, this time from the London Times. In regards to the France/Germany/Conflict, “You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity”

"One of the tests of a leader is to convince your allies what's right and what's wrong. And that's what a leader does. A leader builds up alliances."-George Bush Jr. This quote from Bush the candidate highlights the difference between then and now, and between father and son. Very interesting piece describing the multilateralist Bush Sr.’s views vs. his son's apparent willingness to go it alone. Salon puts a pop-psychology spin on the alleged rift calling it the "ultimate act of rebellion". Really its nothing more than celebrity-f-ing (of the political sort) since Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. are two separate men, entitled to fully formed separate opinions. Interesting read nonetheless. The more brutal assessment from the piece with stark implications for Bush Sr. and the world at large comes (again, implicitly) from the neo-cons advisors who disapproved of the father. "Thus, his son is doing what needs to be done because his father was a fey anachronism with skewed priorities, a president who put too much stock in discredited ideals." Of course Salon is premium, but click through the ads and read this interesting piece.

An amazing tale about a Cuban delegation sent by Castro to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq on the eve of the first Gulf War. They aimed for a "Third World Solution" based on international law to head of an era of American dominance in geopolitics. History is full of missed opportunities, false starts, misguided intent, and simple bad luck. As we head into another war the more we know about the past, the better.

What are minds, exactly? Most of us, when first confronted with this question, find ourselves quickly drawn to a traditional philosophical picture. The picture represents the mind as a sort of private room: a hidden inner sanctum within which our mental lives are played out and to which others are necessarily denied access. Because these inner rooms are hermetically sealed off from each other, the only clue as to what's going on inside the mind of another must be provided by their outward behaviour


More in Stephen Law's review of "The Philospher's Dog" were we find out just what Wittgenstein's dog was thinking.

Bobby Knight gives up his $250,000 salary because he felt his Texas Tech team didn't live up to his expectations. Man, that guy is crazy but sometimes you have to love him.

Hmm...man on the lam from California for pot charges, goes to Candana and claims political asylum, sounds like a job for Ashcroft.

Sara Rimensnyder advocates pragmatism for the UN security council.

What criteria is used to elect the President of the United States? A new article from U.S. News and World Report claims it all comes down to "likability".

The likability of presidential candidates has been a big issue ever since 1987, when Maureen Dowd wrote on the front page of the New York Times: "Everywhere you look, the men who would be President are, as the poet Rod McKuen once put it, `listening to the warm.' " Dowd quoted pollsters, consultants, and academics about how Americans now wanted likable presidents

Stuart Rothenbeg, a political analyst, differentiates voters into two camps: "Issue voters are mostly ideological voters, but the voters in the center think first not about a candidate's stand on trade or abortion, but is he a windbag? Is he arrogant? How is his bearing? How does he carry himself?"

The piece profiles John Kerry and his ability to vibe with common folk and comes away surprised at how well he connects. Irish or not, Kerry seems to have the gift.

But is a glamorized popularity contest really the best way to chose the leader of one of the largest nations on the planet? Some maintain that issues still matter, and matter a great deal. Maybe a strong jawline and the ability to quip on cue isn't the hallmark of great leadership.

Time profiles Gen. Tommy Franks, seems like he's that rarest of Washington D.C. creatures, a high-level official who isn't self-obsessed, or a self promoter, and genuinely a man of decency.

Jacob Sullum decries "neoprohibitionist censorship" in regards to wine labeling laws.

More on one of the worst pieces of legislation EVER.

Sad but true. The obits for the U.N. are already being written. William Saletan over at Slate says what we all know, the U.N. needs the U.S. more than the U.S. need the U.N.


Are inspections more effective than force? Is the United Nations a better guarantor of U.S. security than American power is? Both questions are fraudulent. Inspections depend on force, and the United Nations depends on the United States. The French and Germans are telling us not to mess with the status quo, when the status quo is us

I always take anecdotal outrages with a grain of salt, but the larger implications of this one is, shall we say, troubling?
Saying "Bush is Out of Control" in an internet chat room can get you arrested by S.Service agents? And in a library to boot. Ironic that so many of our free speech battles rooted in technological implications are being waged in the dusty sweet hallways of your public library.

While the Economist is generally a fan of the Bush Admin’s stance on the War Against Terror, they do question their commitment to civil rights. Major sticking points: lack of judicial oversight and an erosion of due process. They compare Jose Padilla’s case with another famous suspected terrorist:

In 1962 the apartheid regime in South Africa, no respecter of civil liberties, picked up a suspected terrorist leader who had just returned from training in bomb-making and guerrilla warfare in Ethiopia. It marked the start of 27 years in jail, but Nelson Mandela was given access to lawyers and his prosecutors had to follow rules of due process… Achieving a balance between security and liberty was never going to be easy. “For a vast and free nation, there is no such thing as perfect security,” Mr Bush reflected last week. But America has jumped too far in one direction. A reassessment is called for, if it wants to avoid rude comparisons with South Africa four decades since.

Its clear that the DMCA has failed, now the misbegotten law is spreading its woefulness to other industries. The folks at blogcritics.org have the rundown.

It’s amazing what will touch a nerve with people. The piece about DDT being used to combat malaria has brought a huge response. (Some people have even claimed I'm a paid shill for Monsanto. Ha!) Most of the vitriol is directed towards Mr. Milloy of Junkscience.com fame. Against my better judgment I’ll offer a link to a few of the hit pieces on Milloy that were sent to me. (Now would a true-blue Monsanto rep. do that?) My immediate question to the nay Sayers is why do you expend so much energy attacking the man and so little attacking the methods? If the body of evidence against DDT truly is able to withstand the rigors of the scientific method, why focus on a single man? Science and politics make dangerous bedfellows. Anyways I'll update some of the better comments about the DDT issue early next week.

A big, brooding, wet dog with hints of asparagus....Sean Shesgreen deconstructs the language of wine.

Andrew Sullivan gives the heads up, Camille Paglia is back.

Though a somewhat reluctant supporter of the Administration's stance re: the War in Iraq I do have some stylistic qualms. (Which are more than fluff since the major failing of the pro-war "side" isn't the reasoning but rather an inability to convey it effectively to those who disagree) I thought Bush did a good job staying on message but was struck by his reluctance to admit any sense of doubt. This was precisely what I appreciatted about William Kristol's appearance on the Tim Russert show this weekend, he acknowledged that the stakes are high, the outcome uncertain, and yes, he occassionally worried about what may come. Bush was asked essentially the same question and had no such misgivings. This concerns me. For a number of reasons, not least of which is, as in the words of Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."My misgivings aside, William Saletan has a piece in Slate tonight about the speech and Bush's (apparent) inability to operate in that grey area foreign policy seems to rooted in.

If you tuned in to President Bush's Thursday night press conference to understand his point of view on Iraq, you got what you came for. If you tuned in to find out whether he understood yours, tough luck. That was the deal when we traded in Bill Clinton for Bush. We got a president who understood the difference between truth and lying. We gave up one who understood everything in between. The upside is that our president is doing the right thing in Iraq. The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.