Posted: 07 May 2011 06:22 AM PDT
"We donated a $60 million helicopter to this operation. Could we not afford to buy a tape measure?"
-- President Obama, quoted by the Washington Post in the Situation Room, when told a Navy Seal had to lie down next to the body of Osama bin Laden to measure his height.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Posted: 06 May 2011 06:40 PM PDT
One of the many, many amazing bits of photo and video being run in The Atlantic's powerful package on nuclear testing in the US is this shot. More »
Posted: 06 May 2011 08:35 PM PDT
PortableApps.com has released Atomic Tanks Portable 4.9. Atomic Tanks is a game in which you control an overly-powerful tank and attempt to blow up other highly powerful tanks. Players get to select a number of weapons and defensive items and then attack each other in a turn-based manner. It's packaged as a portable app, so you can play wherever you'd like. This release updates Atomic Tanks to the latest version. It's packaged in PortableApps.com Format so it can easily integrate with the PortableApps.com Suite. And it's open source and completely free. Read on for more details...
Posted: 06 May 2011 09:14 PM PDT
Despite previously announced plans to restore at least some features on Sony's Playstation Network this week, the company has now admitted that it will take longer than originally planned to get the online game service back up and running. In the latest restoration update on the Sony Playstation blog site,...
Posted: 06 May 2011 07:08 PM PDT
Do the Justices have spring fever? After all, it’s May, there are only about six weeks left in the Term, and the Court has yet to issue opinions in over half of the Term’s merits cases. Well, even though the Court has been somewhat slow to issue opinions this Term (at this time last year, the Court had issued about forty-five opinions, while two years ago it had issued over fifty, as compared to thirty-nine so far this Term), it’s not that far behind.
But now that arguments are over for the Term, we should expect that the Justices are working hard to write, write, write – and, beginning on May 16, which is the next day that we expect opinions, we might well have several to peruse and analyze on each and every opinion day.
This week, the Court decided only one case, one decided under its original jurisdiction. What’s that? Well, the Constitution tells us that the Court may decide most cases under its appellate jurisdiction (or as a court of appeals, deciding cases that were first heard by the lower state and federal courts). However, occasionally it will decide cases that start in the Supreme Court, which actually serves as a trial court. Most of these cases involve situations where a state is suing another state, often over a boundary dispute or a conflict over shared waterways.
And that’s what we had in Montana v. Wyoming, a case about the Yellowstone Compact, a contract dictating how each state could use water from shared rivers. Montana claimed that Wyoming had violated the contract – not because it was taking more water out of the river than it was allowed to by the contract, but because it had developed more efficient ways of using the water that it did take, so that there was less water to run off and return to the river for Montana to use later on. But the Court disagreed in a seven-to-one vote (with Justice Kagan recused), agreeing with Wyoming that merely being more efficient about using the water was not the same as diverting more in the first place (a practice that would violate the contract).
Justice Scalia, who has called dissenting one of his greatest pleasures, disagreed with his colleagues’ reading of the contract. He read the contract as referring to the total amount of water that Wyoming used (and thereby prevented Montana from using), not the amount that it originally took from the rivers. As he often does, he based his analysis on a textual reading of the contract, arguing that the majority had not interpreted the contract provisions in the way it should have.
One more note about this case: The opinion was Justice Thomas’s fourth majority opinion of the Term. Given that just a few weeks ago, Court watchers were noting that Thomas had yet to write any majority opinion, it’s clear that Justice Thomas’s chambers has been hard at work. One interesting question: does the fact that he has now written for the majority in four cases in a short time reflect assignments within his chambers; that is to say, did each of his four law clerks complete his or her (Thomas has one female and three male clerks this Term) first major assignment? We’ll never know; clerk workloads are closely guarded secrets, but we do know that the clerks typically spread out the work among themselves (or have the work distributed by their Justices), ensuring that no one clerk bears an overly burdensome load.
I do not usually write about cert. grants, at least not until the cases are argued or decided. But one of this week’s grants was particularly interesting, so it warrants some comment. In M.B.Z. v. Clinton, the Court will take up the issue of Jerusalem: whether the United States should be neutral as to whether Israel can claim the city, whether U.S. citizens can request that “Israel” be listed as their birthplace if they were born in Jerusalem, and who gets to decide (the passport holder, the President, or Congress). This is a long-running debate, but in 2002 Congress passed a law that required the State Department (if asked to do so) to list “Israel” as the place of birth on passports for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem. However, when President Bush signed the bill into law, he stated that the law was not mandatory, but instead only advisory.
In granting cert., the Court asked the parties to address the question of whether the 2002 law (which essentially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a position that the executive branch has expressly declined to take) interferes with the executive power to set foreign policy. Some commentators have noted that the Court’s decision may affect relations between the United States, Israel, and the Arab regions sometimes known as Palestine.
We are not expecting opinions next week, so I will post the next Plain English column two weeks from now.
Posted: 06 May 2011 06:53 PM PDT
The Huffington Post reports
Torture apologists are reaching precisely the wrong conclusion from the back-story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, say experienced interrogators and intelligence professionals.
Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.
But that sequence of events — even if true — doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.
“I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden,” said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.
It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier — information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, “they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us,” Alexander told The Huffington Post.
“We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information,” he said.
In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.
“Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there’s a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information,” said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.
Popularity: 1% [?]
When opening a new e-mail in Outlook an error may appear:
One or more ActiveX controls could not be displayed because either:
1) Your current security settings prohibit running ActiveX controls on this page, or
2) You have blocked a publisher of one of the controls.
As a result, the page may not display correctly.
Most people have no idea why it suddenly starts showing up, or what changed to cause it. Outlook itself seems to be very unhelpful in correcting it. This error is most often caused by a problem with a created signature for Outlook.
To fix:
When you go back to Outlook and create a new e-mail, you should no longer get the error message.
Popularity: 6% [?]
How sad it is that we still have this problem.
President Obama called for "America to seize its own destiny" and stop depending on foreign oil in his Oval Office speech Tuesday. But Obama is just the latest in a long line of presidents who have tried to get the U.S. off of oil and failed.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart presented a little history lesson Wednesday to remind his viewers just how hard it is to beat the oil addiction.
Unlike many of his predecessors, Obama is one of the few presidents who has been willing say that oil is a finite resource.
"For decades we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny," Obama said in his Tuesday speech.
But the call to end the country's dependence on oil isn't a new one. In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said, "This country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
"But back then in 2006 we didn't do it because oil dependence had at that point only entangled us in two simultaneous wars," Stewart noted. "But now it's gotten us into two wars and a giant spill. That's the push we needed," he said sarcastically.
"I wish we had taken care of this energy problem ten years ago when there was no war and the economy was great. That would have been a great time to develop a long-term energy strategy," said Stewart.
At the time, President Bill Clinton did have a similar idea. "We need a long-term energy strategy to maximize conservation and the maximize the development of alternative sources of energy," Clinton said in 2000.
"And we would have done it too if he hadn't gotten distracted by that other spill," Stewart joked.
Perhaps Clinton was just echoing his predecessor. In 1988, President George H.W. Bush said, "There is no security for the United states in further dependence on foreign oil."
"I bet the four guys before him would have gotten us off of foreign oil too if they had thought of it," Stewart continued.
But they did.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan told a joint session of Congress, "We will continue supportive research leading to the development of new technologies and more independence of foreign oil."
In a 1979 speech, President Jimmy Carter appeared outraged at the "intolerable dependence on foreign oil."
President Gerald Ford touted "standby emergency programs to achieve the independence we want" in 1975.
"We'll break the back of the energy crisis. We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to meet America's energy needs from America's own resources," President Richard Nixon said in his 1974 State of the Union address.
Stewart was nearly speechless failure of the last eight presidents. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times, am I a f**king idiot?" he wondered.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Nuclear war and Nuclear power plants grab the majority of Nuclear-related news in our society. Almost over-looked is the damage already done from just developing the weapons. The weapons don't need to be used in war to do the damage. From Tyler Durden over at Zero Hedge, this absolutely riveting post:
Who needs a wartime nuclear exchange when you have peaceful countries nuking the gamma rays out of their own sovereign territories - now that the environmental theme is rather popular, the following video by Isao Hashimoto shows all the nuclear "tests" conducted by the world in the period between 1945 and 1998.
Based on public data, the world's peaceful countries have already nuked themselves at least 2,054 times, with the US nuking the state of Nevada and its immediate neighbors about one thousand times. And keep in mind - the fallout does not just miraculously "disappear." Feel free to consider that next time you look at bargain properties on the strip.
Anyway, as Idealist asks, "How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?" One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant and theatrically televised day.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Site last updated February 11, 2012 @ 8:35 am