President Bush Press Conference: I did not watch it, given my general distaste for such things, especially when I cannot bear to listen to a person talk. Anyway, a new episode of Gilmore Girls, one of the few reasons to watch network television these days, was on. All the same, apparently, I missed some high humor (see, e.g., Balkinization). His inability to think of something he did wrong was a priceless moment as well. Surely his handlers realized such a question would be asked? The performance was so bad that even conservative journalist William Kristol was upset. Some argued that the speech he gave was good [maybe not], but a speech is just words without more. Let's not ridicule his general speech patterns either (Slate's Bushisms are tedious; people we respect also twist the English language -- it is not per se a character flaw). After all, there is enough there to challenge without taking the cheap shot route.

---

Book Recommendation: The subject might seem as distasteful as people found my discussion of seeing a rat in a fast food bag in the subway a few months ago, but Rats: Observations on the History and Habitat of the City's Most Unwanted Inhabitants by Robert Sullivan was quite a good book. The book also has no pictures of rats other than one on cover of a drawing of Manhattan Island in roughly the shape of one. It is written by a nonprofessional, is easy reading, has many interesting sidebar stories of human history, and is perfect for trips to work. I have seen rats on the tracks of the NYC subways, but unfortunately did not see one during reading this book.

---

Constitutional Musings: I get a chance again to describe how detaining people in Guatanamo Bay is different than precedents used to justify it, and besides common justice requires we respect some basic due process again here (in response to this article). I discuss an interesting article entitled "The Danger of the Drafters' Intent: Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Need to Limit Congressional Power" here. My response includes an argument for broader congressional discretion and the dangers of the current Supreme Court's doctrine that limits it in ways not originally intended.

Update: A few more sources for the GB case. The original version of the article and a lecture on the international law aspects of the case. This includes the argument the original grant of the territory was only for the purposes of a naval station, so there is no right to set up a prison complex of this sort at all. An interesting, if probably not likely to succeed, argument.