The link to the story on the Mercer website regarding Col. Boylan that someone graciously posted contains the following information:

"Boylan had thought about becoming a chef and was on a pre-law track in his first year at Mercer. He went on to study history, political science and communications."

He also joined the ROTC as a diversion since he did not want to be a reporter.

Although the title of the article refers to him as a Mercer grad, it does not say what year he graduated, or what his actual major was. Given his age, 45, presumably he would have graduated around 1984 (ironic?!?!). It also does not say what he did between graduation and his position as public affairs chief for the 8th Army Korea, other than the fact that he is a Huey and Apache pilot. Presumably, Mercer would not have posted this story on its website had Boylan not been an alum, but it is not uncommon for schools to take credit for people who attended but did not graduate. I would also presume that ROTC would require graduation from college, but I am not familiar with the process.

The impression from the press release, as well as Col. Boylan's own words repeated in numerous posts, is that he is a good-time frat boy who fell into the Army because he had no better options and rose through the communications ranks because of his singular ability to suck up and be a yes man. As others have said, he fits perfectly into the Bush mold for employment and/or promotion.

I just read the post regarding Pakistan potentially providing a template for declaration of martial law in the United States. Bush and Cheney have an advantage, however, because in Pakistan the declaration came in the face of an expected adverse ruling by Pakistan's Supreme Court. Here, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney would not have to do anything to the Supreme Court because it stands ready to rubber stamp any actions by the Executive branch; this appears to be the moment that Scalia has been waiting for.

It seems strange to me that those judges and legal scholars who have argued for "original intent" and "strict construction" when it comes to "activist judges" finding new rights within the penumbra of the Constitution (e.g., privacy, abortion) now seem ready to (1) grant President Bush sweeping powers on the basis of his authority as "Commander in Chief," even though such term is vague and undefined; and (2) ignore actual provisions of the Constitution in order to provide these powers to President Bush (e.g., declaring American citizens enemy combatants, suspending habeus corpus). The goal is, and has been at least since the time of Richard Nixon, absolute power.