] By selecting Edwards, Kerry went with the smooth-talking
] Southern populist over more seasoned politicians in hopes
] of injecting vigor and small-town appeal to the
] Democratic presidential ticket.

[ I think this was the right choice... Edwards appeals to lots of people, for a variety of reasons, and I think this will provide more excitement than any other pairing.

Incidentally, Fox NEWS' first story on this was one which highlighted all the "bad" things they said about each other during the primaries. Insightful journalism or low-hanging fruit? -k]

RE: Kerry Picks Edwards!

] President Bush is seeking a second term but Democratic
] nominee John Kerry and independent Ralph Nader want him
] out of the White House. Each has a range of views on the
] key issues involved in the November election

A set of short tables of key issues in the upcoming election, and how each candidiate stands.

Election Issues and stances of candidates

] By selecting Edwards, Kerry went with the smooth-talking
] Southern populist over more seasoned politicians in hopes
] of injecting vigor and small-town appeal to the
] Democratic presidential ticket.

Totally works for me. I fall for the hot young populsits every damn time.

Kerry Picks Edwards!

] US Congressman Rick Boucher took up arms against the
] Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act bill, being
] brought before Congress right now, in a website interview
] at Inside Digital Media this week.

Man I wish I could vote to re-elect this man

Hatch's Induce Act comes under fire | The Register

[ Some more space elevator news for the space junkies in our midst... -k]

Notes from the Third Annual Space Elevator Conference

Having finally had time to sit down and read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld its clear to me that the press reports so far have been confusing at best and misleading at worst. While I am heartened that the court has decided that there are some limits to the power of our executive, their decision is far from the stalwart defense of our traditional understanding of civil liberties that it has been presented as. I must express that I share the cynicism of the Russian commentator whose article I posted in spite of that commentator's hypocrisy.

My (apparently incorrect) understand of how things work in this country is that the legislative branch makes the laws (within the framework of the constitution), the executive enforces them, and the judicial interprets, applies, and upholds them. In this case the legislative passed a vague authorization for the use of military force against Al'Q and the T. From this the executive invented an entirely unprecedented and undefined legal status for prisoners. We'll call this "legislating from the Oval Office." In this decision the judicial has upheld the existence of this undefined status and invented a vaguely defined and unprecedented legal standard to go along with it. We'll call this "legislating from the bench."

From now on, as long as Congress has authorized the President to use "force" against an "enemy" the President may name any citizen an "enemy combatant" and place them in prison. The President is required to present its case against these individuals to a neutral decision maker (which need not be a civilian court), but the standard in these cases is "guilty until proven innocent." This is an enormously important precedent that will continue to impact our history forever.

I do not recall "guilty until proven innocent" ever being a part of how Americans view justice. Nor do I recall that the Supreme Court has the power to invent standards like this for cases of this sort. Missing from every event leading up to this moment (the solidification of a new legal standard for certain prisoners in our justice system) is the explanation of why. Why won't standard POW processes work for "combatants" in Afghanistan? Why do we need a new standard? Why is this situation so significantly different from any we've faced in the past? Justification is what you'd get if this new creation was the product of a normal legislative process. Instead what we have is the technical assertion of power by the executive and the judicial, with no more explanation then then "these are bad people."

Maybe the court has reached the right balance here and this is the standard we ought to have. Its certainly preferable to me then Justice Thomas's unsaid statement that the only recourse that you have against unreasonable executive detention is to Impeach him. (If Thomas's well referenced dissent is correct, then I would say we are in need of new laws immediately!) However, I think it ought to have gone through the legislature, and that it ought to have been birthed in the open, with the traditional discussion of ends and means that is typically afforded a democracy when creating a new basic legal framework.

Repeating my basic point to ram it home: A new legal standard has been created in our justice system. It applies to enemies of the state. The standard is guilty until proven innocent. Its use requires Congressional authorization, but that authorization need not be specific. This is a watershed event that will inform future generation's basic understanding of what the Constitution means.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Now THATS legislating from the bench!

] "Look at what he's done to free the Iraqi people. The
] oppression that these people were under over there for so
] long, and now they have just the simple things in life
] that they didn't have before -- food, water, medicine --
] the things we take for granted every day,"

[ Oi. Sweet jesus. All hail King Bush. -k]

Wars Bring Security At Home, Bush Says (washingtonpost.com)

[ No, really, what the fuck? Anyone have an RFC? Or anything at all, seeing as I've never even heard of this shite? -k]

China's New Generation Of Ipv9 Network Technology Ready

] Delta Air Lines said yesterday that it planned to use
] disposable radio tags to track all luggage it handles at
] domestic airports. The airline, which is based in
] Atlanta, said it would have to invest up to $25 million
] to deploy the necessary hardware and software throughout
] its operations, a process that it aimed to complete
] within two years.

[ Sounds like thise could pretty close to eliminate lost bags... which is probably a very good thing. -k]

Delta to Invest in Radio Tags for Luggage at Airports

] The technique relies on tiny gold-coated particles called
] nanoshells which, when injected into the bloodstream,
] selectively accumulate in tumours. By varying the size of
] the core and the thickness of the gold shell, the team
] tailors the nanoshell to convert near-infrared light into
] heat. The heating is said to be localized and does not
] affect healthy tissue close to the tumour.

[ I'm seeing a lot of novel cancer treatments coming out of the nano space... I really think we'll start seeing some highly effective cancer treatments in the next 5-10 years. God knows we need them. -k]

nanotechweb.org - News - Heated nanoshells kill cancer cells (June 2004)