Book Review: Over The Edge Of The World

"Over The Edge Of The World" is the story of the first circumnavigation of the globe in a boat by Magellan and his crew. The story goes into great detail about life on a ship in the Age of Discovery. They would set sail on a mystery tour for years at a time. To get a sense of what it was like we can compare it to space travel today.

The book starts with background details on Magellan's life and the politics of the times. For some reason Dukes and Archbishops and Kings don't really interest me but I kept at it because I knew it was necessary to have the background. Once Magellan's armada set sail the interesting stuff began. I was fascinated with the hierachy on the ships and how Magellan was almost a mythical figure even to the crew who didn't see him too often. As commander he had full authority by the King to be judge, jury and executioner (and he certainly exercised this authority). Where and when they sailed was also up to him and the crew had no choice - they verged on being slaves.

Sailing around the world required finding a rumored strait through the Americas which is now called the Straits of Magellan for obvious reasons. But even after finding it, they had to cross the Pacific Ocean in search of the "Spice Islands". The story is filled with great adventure, mutiny and bizarre interactions with native people.

I really enjoyed this book and it fit well with my current reading mood which is non-fiction. Next up is "Neutral Buoyancy" which is the history of deep sea diving. I got hooked on this topic when I read "Shadow Divers".

"The Day We Took Over The Senate"

This article describes the recent Iraq war protest that took place at the Senate offices. It is a really interesting read because it provides insight into how protests work. The first time my friend Paul told that they negotiate with the Police I found that a bit strange but after reading this article I understand it much better. I still don't really understand "unlawful assembly" but it's sad that they got arrested for peacefully going to their government offices to remind our representatives that the people dying in Iraq are real (yes, they do actually need reminding).

Given the bad news yesterday of the Senate passing the torture bill, it's nice to read something like this. I'm really thankful that there are people in Washington practicing Democracy and trying to make a better country.

Senator Feingold on the Torture Bill

Here is some good analysis cutting through the complex legalese of the bill. It's long but I thought it was well worth posting.

Another good article on this topic.

Will Wheaton's thoughts on it.

Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.

Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us.

And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime—the ability to challenge their detention in court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling—that the legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.

But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy – ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”

Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Mr. President, why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our nation’s commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good reason to do so? We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And this provision will only serve to harm others’ perception of our system of government.

Mr. President, a group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said: “To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary governmental detention will not serve our interests in the larger world.”

Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations about this particular provision of the bill.

They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because they don’t understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate who support the Specter amendment, are concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that American presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

Mr. President, we must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ. We must not jeopardize our nation’s proud traditions and principles by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about.


Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem with this legislation, nor is it the only instance where the legislation goes beyond establishing military commissions to include unnecessary provisions with deeply troubling results.

The Administration has spoken about the need for this legislation to bring clarity to the War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It has proposed that we specifically list the actions that would be considered crimes under that law. On the face of it, that certainly sounds sensible. But when you look at this legislation, you realize that the modification it makes only muddies the waters. Not only that, it does so retroactively.

The key problem is in the definition of “cruel or inhuman” treatment. This is a critical definition because it is the provision that determines which coercive interrogation techniques amount to crimes under U.S. law. But because of the complex structure of this section, it is very difficult to understand what the new definition would criminalize, and I am concerned that any ambiguity may be interpreted too narrowly by some. The definition incorporates several terms that in turn have their own separate definitions, and it even has one new definition that doesn’t go into effect until the date of enactment, even though the rest of the amendments to the War Crimes Act are made retroactive to 1997. Frankly, Mr. President, the new prohibition is extremely unclear. And we have already heard different interpretations of it from Senators and Administration officials who negotiated the language. If our goal is to give unambiguous guidance to our personnel, and the courts, this does not do it.


The way the provision is drafted, it even seems designed to grant immunity to senior officials who authorized coercive interrogation techniques.

Mr. President, we should just follow the approach originally endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have applied the language of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant that is included in this legislation, and about the corresponding issue of the jurisdiction of the military commissions.

Mr. President, this legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities” against the United States or its allies.

This is extremely broad, and key terms go undefined. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the bill allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States.

Not only that, but the bill would also define as an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who “has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.” This essentially grants a blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military commission.

If we are going to establish military commissions outside of our traditional military and civilian justice systems, at a minimum we should explicitly limit their application to the worst of the worst, those who pose a serious threat to our country. We shouldn’t leave it up to just one branch of government to make these incredibly important decisions.

Mr. President, the bulk of this legislation concerns the structure and process of military commissions. Although we heard from many witnesses at congressional hearings this summer that we should hew as closely as possible to the long-established military system of justice, this bill instead essentially starts from scratch and creates a whole new structure. It does so despite Justice Kennedy’s wise advice in his concurrence in Hamdan, where he said: “The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment.”

For example, this legislation creates a presumption for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Now, it is true that because of the exigencies of war and active combat situations, hearsay rules may need to be structured differently than they are in our criminal courts, but the rules laid out in the UCMJ are drafted to handle these same exigencies. While there may need to be some adjustments to the UCMJ hearsay rules, we need not discard them altogether.

The presumption against hearsay is a fundamental protection built into our existing legal structures to ensure that proceedings yield a just and fair result. Yet in this provision and elsewhere, the legislation erodes such protections—going far beyond what is allowed in the military system—and without justification.

Even more disturbing is that the bill appears to permit individuals to be convicted, and even sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced testimony. According to the legislation, statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as long as it was obtained prior to December 2005 when the McCain amendment become law, would apparently be admissible in many instances in these military commissions.

Now, it is true that the bill would require the commission to find these statements have sufficient reliability and probative value. But why would we go down this road of trying to convict people based on statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques? Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for the rule of law, or we are not. We can’t have it both ways.

The idea that coerced statements can be used as long as they were obtained long enough ago is appalling. It seems to assume that there was a lack of clarity in the law prior to December 2005. In fact, there was great clarity, until this Administration decided to invent a narrow definition of torture that had never been used or accepted anywhere in the civilized world. The McCain amendment was needed to get this Administration to return to the law. It was a repudiation of the legal theories of the infamous Bybee memo, which the Administration even said it was withdrawing once it was publicly revealed. Its enactment should not now be used as a dividing point before which evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment can be used in court.

At times of great adversity, the strength of a nation’s convictions is tested and its true character revealed. If we sacrifice or qualify our principles in the face of the tremendous challenge we face from terrorists who want to destroy America, we will be making a terrible mistake. If we cloak cruel or degrading interrogations done in the name of American safety with euphemisms like “alternative techniques,” if we create arbitrary dates for when differing degrees of morality will apply, we will have betrayed our principles and ourselves.

Statements obtained through such techniques should not be admissible, even against the most vicious killers in the world, in proceedings held by the government of the United States of America. Period.

Mr. President, in sum, this legislation is very troubling and in many respects legally suspect. I fear the end result of this legislation will only be more delay. It will surely be subject to further legal challenge, and may squander another four or five years while cases work their way through the courts again.

We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without compromising fundamental American values. We must remember what the Army Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers will be treated.

Mr. President, in closing let me do something I don’t do very often – and that is quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: “Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.” How sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same cannot be said.

Torture Bill Passes the House

The House has passed the torture bill and the Senate will vote on it today and is expected to pass it. It passed by 80 votes in the House and it should be noted that 34 Democrats voted for it. There is really is no opposition party in Congress at the moment. I'm trying to to find the vote roll call so I can see which Representatives voted for torture - when I do find it I will post it here. This is a sad sad day in American history.

Update: Rhino has posted a list of the offending Democrats and what State they are from.

One More ... Galaxy

This is the last of the old magic videos that I made when I was in Dublin that I want to share. After this it will have to new ones (which I haven't yet made).

In the video, I'm rushing because the camera had a time limit on videos but you get the idea. In the actual effect the spectator does the random dividing of the deck.

Clinton Takes Fox "News" to the Cleaners

Update: Looks like Youtube has taken these videos down and they are also not available on Fox anymore. I'll look around and see where I can find them.

In the meantime you can watch Keith Olbermann talk about it. He is THE man!

Update 2: Here is the Clinton video. And here is a transcript (thanks M@).

Update 3: The John Stewart take on it. His focus on how Fox news spun the interview after the fact.

Rep. Tim Ryan is Awesome

This is what we need from the Democrats:

Space Has a Smell!

I've been reading the blog entries of the latest tourist to the International Space Station and she said that when they open the hatch after docking and go into the Station, that for a few moments they get to smell space. She described it as a "burnt almond cookie. Space smells like cooking!"

I never thought about space having a smell. That is so fascinating.

What universe am I living in?

The political situation just keeps on getting more and more surreal. You have the President trying to legalize torture and some Republican "rebels" who apparently oppose this but in the end the "compromise" they came to gives Bush what he wanted: legal torture. The media played up the GOP opposition that really didn't exist. Talk about misdirection.

Then you've got the Democrats who are nowhere to be heard on the issue. They should be outraged and active to make sure that torture is not legalized in our name but not a peep. On the same day as the "compromise" what was in the news about Democrats? How they took a stand against Chavez the name caller and supported Bush. For a time this story trumped the torture compromise on the front page on CNN! The Chavez thing had nothing to do with them but it appears they felt it was a good political move to comment and spend time on this piece of nothingness name calling rather than focusing on the all important issue that torture is on it's way to being legal. What an awful "opposition" party.

Remember in Back To The Future (I think it was the second one) when Biff went into the past and cheated on gambling and this set off a chain of events to recreate the future as a dark and miserable place? Doc makes a chart showing two reality time lines with dark reality starting at the point in time when Biff goes back and cheats. The solution is to go back in time before that event and prevent Biff from doing this. Why am I talking about this? Well when Bush stole (yes, I truly believe that) the 2000 election I felt like I had started to live in an alternate dark reality. I predicted bad things (a recession and a war with in a year) but I wasn't even close to how bad things were going to get. As things have become more bizarre I increasingly feel like I'm in the Back To The Future alternative dark reality. Either that or a nightmare that I can't seem to wake up out of. It's just too strange for my mind to accept. Think of it: we're about to say that torture is okay. What has happened?

|Digg This|

Interview With Digg.Com Founder Kevin Rose

I just listened to this interview with Kevin Rose who is the founder of digg.com. He talks about how he came up with the idea and different details about the company. It's really interesting if you're into this kind of thing.

Cellophane Surprise

A fun little trick.

Triumph

I still haven't made any new magic videos but I found a few old ones so I'm going to post one or two in the meantime. Here is a version of Triumph.

"It is unacceptable to think"

Keith Olbermann is my new hero. His latest piece is about how Bush said it was unacceptable to think in response to Powell's recent letter questioning the moral basis of the "war on terror". This video is well worth watching. It is so good to have someone calling this stuff out in an eloquent and strong way. Thank you Keith!

This video below is similar but doesn't include Olbermann's full speech. It shows some footage from Bush's Rose Garden press conference last week. Surreal.

Smurfing

In my early teens I used to breakdance and was actually pretty good. In my mid-teens we moved on to a new type of dance called Smurfing. It evolved out of break dancing in the sense of it being a competitive dance. A circle would form on the dance floor and we would "bust". My Smurfing confederate was Damon and he just recently created a couple of videos about it. The first is a lesson on what it is and how to do it.



The second is an actual demonstration of the man tearing it up.

Snowboarding Coming Soon

With fall upon us here I started thinking about how snowboarding season is coming soon. Here is a video we shot last season at Hoodoo. I am wearing the red jacket. M@ from Planetranch.com is filming and Badvoodoo is in the white and gray jacket. Make sure to watch until the end.

Pictures of the Sequential Biofuel Station

As promised here are the pictures of the Sequential Biofuel Station in Eugene. This place absolutely rocks! Not pictured below is the roof cover over the pumps which is a giant solar panel that provides the station with 50% of it's power needs.

Our BioBug getting fuel


One of the pump stations


The price list (all gasoline cars can use the E10)


They sell wine in the store along with all kinds of great local products and produce


Can you make out the green roof (soil and grass and plants)?

A Beautiful Fall Day in Eugene

Irie and I took the camera and went to the top of Skinner's Butte and took some pictures of the dramatic Eugene skies. The first day I was in Eugene I noticed the clouds and I knew where I wanted to live. We get these dark clouds mixed with deep blue sky. Sometimes it will be pouring rain on you from dark clouds and you drive 10 minutes and you're under blue sky with the sun shining. You can look back and the clouds on the other side of town.

Today was a day like that and we captured it. Here is one example:

Powell Opposes Bush's Tribunal Plan

Powell wrote a letter to John McCain which said:

Dear Senator McCain,

I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one my [sic] distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and fact his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It was written after all the horrors of World War II and General George C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those in our custody.

Sincerely,

Colin Powell

It's good to see that Powell and other Republicans are opposing Bush's push for even more executive power. I really feel a turn-about happening.

Bush argues he needs this legislation in order to "do his duty to protect the American people". I straight up don't believe him which begs the question: what is the true purpose of him pushing for so much executive power and the right to torture? Is it power for power sake?

Oh and what's on the front page of cnn.com? Picture of the guy who shot up the Montreal College yesterday.

The Abuse of the Question Mark

John Stewart is so good:

Ironic Microsoft Error Message

dumb_windows, originally uploaded by cky3.

You gotta love it.

Celebrate Eugene

There is an article in the Eugene Weekly about why Eugene rocks. It coincides with a yearly weekend festival in the downtown area called The Eugene Celebration. The article lists many reasons why Eugene is a great place to live. I was going to include some of my favorite things from the list but then I couldn't decide because they are all good! Ok, I'll try.

Eugene and Oregon are beautiful. Lots of trees, rivers, mountains, coast, parks.

Eugene is an earth friendly city: 90% of the people here recycle; we have twice as many bicycle commuters per capita than Portland; the average commute is 17 minutes; one of the least polluted cities in the country; rated the greenest city in the country by The Green Guide.

Eugene is filled with over-educated artists living in a 60's type culture. The people are friendly, quirky, artistic, relaxed and they live cheaply and have lots of festivals and community gatherings.

Eugene is a great place to eat - especially if you're a vegetarian or vegan. There is such a large range of great privately owned restaurants.

I could go on and on but in short: Eugene rules and I love living here.

Pinnacle

Ok here is an old magic video that I filmed with a webcam while living in Dublin. The quality sucks and my performance is so-so. This effect is a ring penetrating a rubber band in 4 stages. It is called Pinnacle.

Cool Magic Video

On a lighter note, here is a cool magic video. I think I will have to make some new videos of myself doing magic. M@ at planetranch.com has requested this. I'll try and dig up an old one and post that soon, but for now enjoy this guy (he's pretty good):

Matt Lauer Stands Up To Bush

This video is an example of how the media are finally gaining courage to stand up to this administration and ask the tough questions and to not back down when the usual pat answers come. When other journalists see how much this is appreciated by the public they too will start doing it. This video is really encouraging. Thanks Matt Lauer!

As for Bush he seems like a desperate caged animal. Notice how he sticks his chest and points at Matt and closes in on his personal space. Makes me uncomfortable to watch and I love how calm Matt stays. The key point Bush makes here is that the "alternative techniques" are within in the law and we're just going to have to trust him on that because he can't talk specifics. I wonder: if the citizens or the media can't check on the government how we can ever know if these techniques are legal or not? Where is the check?

Bush's "I can't tell you for security reasons" if all too convenient. I don't see how stating the specific techniques would help the "enemy". As if a person can prepare for their waterboarding session.

Update: Thanks to Rhino for mentioning this video in the comments. Another example of the changing posture of the media.

Update 2: I was just watching this again and I think it should be noted that when Matt asked Bush about the secret prisons, Bush's answer was "So what?". He's not even pretending to offer rational explanations.

John Stewart on Crossfire

This is two years old but it doesn't get old if you've seen it before and if you haven't it is a treat. John Stewart rocks! So refreshing to see someone being ... real.

Cheney: Forget WMDs, Iraq invasion correct

In an interview with Tim Russert, Cheney said that even if the intelligence would have shown that Iraq didn't have WMDs, he would have still invaded.

This is a stunning thing to say because the public justification for invading was WMDs. Notice too that he says they would have invaded anyway "because it was the right thing to do". He doesn't provide much evidence to support this statement. Why was it the right thing to do? As usual with the Bush administration, we are required to just believe them. The only support he gives is that Saddam had WMDs in 1991. Saddam's capabilities in 1991 have nothing to do with his capabalities in 2003. The justification for invasion was that Saddam was a threat to the United States and it has now been shown beyond a shadow of doubt that was not true. Yet Cheney would still invade. On what grounds? I can only conclude it was on the grounds that it was in the plans from day 1 so the reason didn't matter.

Music I'm Listening to Lately

As I previously wrote about, I'm really digging the solo Richard Butler album. When I first heard it I thought it was good, but now it's really grown on me. I absolutely love it. Songs of note are:

Good Days, Bad Days
Maybe Someday
California
Milk

I recently rediscovered a great Talking Heads song: "(Nothing But) Flowers". I saw the video on Youtube and noticed that Johnny Marr was playing guitar. I gave it a close listen and it is vintage Marr. He's a genius. The lyrics are really cool too. They're about how the way we live changes things forever. He does it in a clever way by reversing the situation.

There was a factory, but now there are mountains and rivers
There was a shopping mall, now its all covered with flowers

Mourning the loss of strip malls. Got to love David Byrne.

Here is the video:




I also have to mention "Breathe Me" by Sia. This song played at the very end of the last episode of Six Feet Under and it was perfectly chosen. The first time I watched that episode it had a powerful effect on me and now this song forever reminds me of that.

Blogmusik

Blogmusik is a really interesting and strange site.

It is like a virtual IPOD done in Flash that streams music. It has a huge searchable library. The strange part is there is no information about it including nothing about licensing so it's probably illegal.

There is a blog associated with it that is equally vague.

Is this just someone sharing their music collection through a cool interface?

"Alternative Set of Procedures"

"Alternative set of procedures" is what Bushed called torture. He was describing how the CIA has secret prisons for terrorists (not suspected, because Bush already knows they're guilty - it's good to be king) abroad and when "normal" interrogation techniques don't yield enough information, these alternative set of procedures are used.

I have two things to say about this:

1. When you use the word "alternative" it means something other than what is normally done. I strongly suspect that what is normally done is within the law and when that doesn't work, they need to go outside the law. You wouldn't need to call them "alternative" if they all fit within the law, now would you? They would all exist in the same subset. "Alternative set of procedures" reeks of political spin. Kind of like one of the times when Bush updated the reasons why he invaded Iraq by saying that "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" had been found.

2. Then he goes 1984 on us and says he can't describe these alternative techniques because then the bad guys would be able to learn to resist them. Right. As if anyone can resist the effects of weeks without sleep chained to a cement floor. With the recent story of a Judge declaring that Bush's wiretapping is illegal, I don't think our nation can afford to let him continue doing things in secret. He essentially wants us to blindly trust him that he's not doing anything illegal and not allowing anyone to check. Today he said, "I've said to the people that we don't torture, and we don't." Tough to swallow from an administration with a track record of lying. Unchecked power is not a hallmark of democracy.

On a side note, every now and then the truth will slip out:

"I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy, and will provide the enemy more opportunity, to train, plan to attack us, that's what I mean. One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror," Mr. Bush said.

|Digg This|

My cat Meetu looking a bit crazed

My cat Meetu looking a bit crazed, originally uploaded by da5idblacksun.

She's hard to photograph as she moves a lot. You can see in this photo her face is blurry because she moved. I love the look in her eyes. She's got her summer coat (believe it or not) right now. Once winter hits and her fur explodes I'll post a picture of it.

Nonsensical

Bush recently said that history will judge if the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. By this I think he means that when this mess is looked back upon from the future with 20/20 hindsight it will be clear that it was the right thing to do. I disagree with this notion because it's just a way of delaying responsibility and accountability. It's clear now (with 5 years of failed policy) that it was a mistake so we should act now to fix it rather than expending many more lives only to come to the same conclusion in the future.

Today Bush said that history would condemn a retreat from Iraq.

He's still saying that history will be the judge but now he knows how history will judge it! Which really means he's judged it now rather than waiting for history to judge it? You following this? It's a bit convoluted because his logic is so twisted an nonsensical.

To sum what he's saying: if he judges whether or not invading Iraq was the right thing to do then he can judge it now and it was correct. If anyone else judges now and says it was a bad idea, well then they can't say that because only history can judge.

I think the strategy here is to use bizarre logic because no one can follow what he's trying to say. Or maybe they are relying on the masses having such a short attention span that massive gaps in logic and consistency will go unnoticed. Sadly, I think they are right.

Best Image of the Moon .. EVER.

This shot was taken with a Canon DSLR digital camera. Here is the photographer's description of how he did it:

I mounted my 20D to my Meade LX200 GPS UHTC 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope via my 2x Televue Powermate (a focal length doubler, similar to a teleconverter, which also serves to mate my camera to the 2" telescope eyepiece tube). Effective focal length was 5000mm f/20.

Looking through the viewfinder I swept across the surface in a zig-zag fashion, trying for about 1/3 overlap between frames. I triggered the shutter with my TC80-N3 remote timer/controller. I did the stitching by hand in Photoshop.

Since it is tremendously downsized from the original mosaic, which was almost 40 megapixels, and was taken at the camera's most noise-free setting (ISO 100), the data is very accurate, and thus I was able to strongly increase the saturation via Photoshop's Image - Adjust - Hue/Saturation fun.

My Fixed Gear Bicycle

This is my fixed gear bicycle and I love it.

There is no such thing as the "war on terror"

Yesterday Bush said: "The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

Sounds like the effort to control by fear is getting more and more desperate.

Let's deconstruct this:

"The war we fight today...": His so called "war on terror" is absurd. You can't fight a war against a technique. There have always been terrorists and they have always been dealt with as a criminal issue. Turning it into a war and dropping bombs clearly will never reduce the amount of terrorism - actually, it will only increase it as innocent people get killed.

"..is more than a military conflict.": Very tricky. The hidden assumption here is that people who disagree with him think it is just a military conflict. Therefore, the fact this this IS a war is not in question. You can see that if you think there really is no such thing as the "war on terror" then the rest of this argument falls apart but the assumption in his speech leaves no room to question this. It all relies on believing in this war. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has been repeating this phrase over and over until it has become an unquestioned fact. Since everything he stands for relies on this assumption, this is where he should be attacked by the media and the opposing political parties. Sadly Democrats like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton accept the validity of the war on terror - they differ with Bush on how to go about fighting it. They've lost already because Bush framed the argument and they accepted the frame.

"It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.": First let's define "ideology":

A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Bush goes on to define it specifically:

"On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation, the right of all people to speak and worship and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism, the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest."

They might as well put this quote in the fallacy book next to False Dilemma. Bush never provided any evidence to show that this dichotomy exists. The real world is clearly not black and white as he tries to portray it. The irony is that the "other side" more accurately describes his own administration than some nebulous "terrorists" out there.

There is no war on terror. There is no ideological struggle. These are the words of desperate people to maintain power they have built through lies, exaggeration and fear. Slowly more and more people are seeing through this charade and so their reaction is to ratchet it up. The more they ratchet it up, the more absurd it gets, the more people see through it. The end of these dark years may just be in sight...one can hope.

|Digg This|