You know the President has a nasty habit of making awful parallels to what we’re doing in Iraq to other wars, where there’s nothing similar. First, he’s compared it to the American Revolution, which is dishonest, and not to mention not a hopefully story if one is concerned with the length that we’d be there, after all it took us more than ten years to set up our government.

Now, the President is comparing it to Japan. Japan, unlike Iraq, was a homogenous people, already under the rule of an emperor with customs and cultures uniform throughout the country. Additionally, we completely took the entire country, unlike Iraq where borders are still open and our control is shaky at best.

Iraq, has three very different, very opposing cultural groups, is anything but homogenous, and is nothing like Japan. Someone should tell the President.

As with everyone is the blogsphere, Gary and I want to extend out best wishes to all those tragically hit by hurricane Katrina. Amazing pictures at the NY Times page taken by various news organizations.

The news is very slow currently, which is another reason that Gary and I have had trouble with producing posts. Yesterday in the NY Times Magazine was a great article about what Roberts should be asked. It was not so much about him personally or even current debates but what the future of Supreme Court cases might be. It is all very what if and a lot of science that is perhaps likely but not assured.

Some of the issues scare me personally, face recognition cross referenced with massive data mining of every book I’ve ever read, magazine I’ve received and visas I’ve secured will certainly make the future interesting. Security might be what will concern us from a constitutional point of view, but I foresee a “Minority Report” like era where advertising is personalized to our faces being ubiquitously scanned.

All of the genetics, reproductive cloning, DNA scanning, etc is very fascinating. I suggest everyone who has a chance read the article for those insights, but to be honest I haven’t worked out my legal and moral views of those issues. I’ve only had enough time to be perplexed.

There is also an interesting section about copy write, intellectual property and the future of digital freedom. Gary will most likely be blogging about this in the future.

I have been unable to post recently, I just moved back to DC today and am finally well situated in my new home. Still a bit busy though, but to give you an idea of what we’ve been reading:

1,000 released from Abu Ghraib: Perhaps a concession to Sunnis in order to move forward?

Morning After Pill decision delayed: Of course, the only thing I can see is they need more time to find a scientific reason not to bring this forward, and/or a way to keep it from being sold to minors to fit the President and Congress’ wishes.

Sorry for the light posting, we’ll be back full swing this week.

Sorry everyone for not posting. Gary and I both have lots of projects and work to get done before summer ends. Gary and I should both be posting quite vigorously early this week.

Also, August is a slow news month.

In a brief NY Times article Justice Stevens discusses a judges classic choice between personal opinion and legal obligation. Nothing surprising in his remarks, but an interesting read.

Pat Robertson apologized for saying we should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in a statement today, while later saying on his show that he had said “take him out” and never said we should assassinate him. I’m going to let the NY Times take this one:

“I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ ‘Take him out’ could be a number of things, including kidnapping,” Mr. Robertson told his audience on the show “The 700 Club” today. The video from Monday’s telecast, easily available on the internet, shows Mr. Robertson saying of the Venezuelan president: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” Mr. Robertson went on at length about Mr. Chávez, suggesting that “covert operatives” could “do the job and then get it over with.”

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission voted to close Fort Monmouth, a military facility close to Gary and I. They voted 7-1 to accept the Pentagon’s recommendation, but said the Army must ensure the communications and electronics technology from the base, used by soldiers in the ongoing war on terror, is not interpreted. This means that the base would not be immediately closed, but either way it will be closed eventually.

Fort Monmouth has been a center for military communications development for decades. It has been home to carrier pigeons and, more recently, to satellite technology. It was known as Camp Little Silver when it was established in 1917 and was renamed in 1925 in honor of those who died in the Revolutionary War Battle of Monmouth, which was fought nearby. The fort’s closing would not only ring down more than 80 years of military history. It would cost New Jersey more than 5,000 jobs if it is indeed closed, but Maryland stands to gain some 2,000 jobs at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which would take over much of Monmouth’s functions. … In its discussion of Fort Monmouth before voting to close it, Mr. Coyle said that the Defense Department has proposed breaking up a well-established facility at the wrong time - a time of war - and sending the pieces to places not known as “world class centers of excellence.” He noted that Fort Monmouth provides daily support for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and played a role in homeland security, saying it supported the police and firefighters after the Sept. 11 attacks with technical support that included cameras to search for victims. Fort Monmouth pumps about $1.4 billion into New Jersey each year, according to the Army. Officials had lobbied to preserve the bases. New Jersey officials had argued that Fort Monmouth should be kept open because few of those civilian engineers are thought to be prepared to move to Maryland and the Army will suffer a loss of scientific talent when it is most needed.

Fort Monmouth employs some 5,000 civilians, many of them highly paid engineers engaged in research and development projects, including how to improve batteries in military gear and developing ways to interrupt signals used by terrorists to detonate bombs. Those functions are to be shifted to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Aris Melissaratos, Maryland’s secretary for economic development, says the engineers can be found there. However, in a time of war, I do not think its wise to be moving our R&D around. Closing this fort clearly has a huge economic impact on my home area, but the Pentagram seems to have frivolously suggested the closing of many bases due to their extra expenditures on the Iraqi war. The closure of Monmouth and the movement of thousands of scientists who help protect troop convoys from roadside bombs and helicopters from heat-seeking missiles could prove disastrous for troops.

While lobbying congressional members is an option, the list produced by BRAC is an all-or-nothing vote designed to prevent lawmakers who want to save their local base.

I said I would look into the Virginia DUI statute surrounding the judge’s interpretation of the law, throwing out two drunk driving cases. Additionally, a commenter, ZacharyRD also was wondering what information I had found. So, here’s what I dug up, the latest, as of 2004, statute on the books regarding driving while under the influence in Virginia.

Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article,

So, the first part of the law is consistent with that I beleived it to be, that driving with a .08 is illegal. But there are additional clauses.

ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (iv) while such person is under the combined influence

However, the second and third clause seek to determine intoxiation through a means of observation and circumstantial evidence. I think on those grounds the Judge might have been right, if .08 is the legal limit, that should be the law, unfortunatley it seems they tried to be very nuacned to offer the prosecutors and police a lot of room. As a result, they opened up a huge hole for the defense.

The Associated Press has an article regarding scientists at Harvard who are fusing skin and embryonic stem cells in order to create stem cells that wouldn’t need to be harvested from unused embryos. I think this shows just how bad things have gotten for our scientific community.

On the one hand you can say this is great that scientists are finding ways to get around using the stem cells that many in the hardcore religious right, including the President, object to. This despite the House of Representatives sending legislation to the Senate that would open up more research in the field, by changing the original law that limited the amount of lines. The President, of course, has promised a veto on any such legislation.

More than that though, I feel this is a waste of time. Unfortunately due to the President’s policy, scientists are forced to spend more time finding a way to get the materials they need instead of focusing on the research that should be done. Meanwhile in a laboratory in South Korea advances are being made every day that change the way we understand human biology and may one day lead to revolutionary treatments. Not in America though; because of what amounts to a religious edict from the government, our scientists, some of the brightest in the world, can’t perform the research they want. The research many Americans want and need.

As was pointed out the opposition comes from the hardcore religious right. Unlike other religious issues that draw almost 50-50 splits, the opposition in this case tends to the minority of the population. In fact public opinion on the matter of stem cell research falls strongly and in some polls overwhelmingly in the pro-research camp. The most recent poll was conducted by Gallup; the details were:

“Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?” Should: 56% Should Not: 40% Unsure: 4%

The House clearly gets the message and acted toward the position that has broad support from Americans. Now, we need to see if the Senate will follow suit and even the example of Majority Leader Bill Frist in supporting this legislation.

Finally, I’d like to take issue with the bias in this particular Associate Press article, their references to stem cells are buttressed with the typical talking points of the religious right on the matter.

that could lead to the creation of useful stem cells without first having to create and destroy human embryos. [...] Those social concerns are reflected in the Senate’s looming debate over a House-passed bill to force taxpayers to fund stem cell research that would destroy human embryos, legislation President Bush has promised to veto. Bush and many fellow conservatives believe it is immoral to create embryos only to destroy them, even in the name of scientific progress that could cure or treat diseases afflicting millions of people.

The article doesn’t even come close to the simple fact that the stem cells used, aren’t being created for the purpose of research. Instead most come from embryos scheduled and planned to be discarded. So while President Bush can talk about his snowflake children, he doesn’t seem all to concerned with the six to seven embryos that were ‘destroyed’ in the process of trying to implant just one, or the embryos that get discarded every day. Those embryos that the President is fine with destroying could lead to medical breakthroughs, I don’t know about you, but I call that supporting the cause of life.

I just wanted to point your attention to a very well written diary at DailyKos by a poster known as ‘Categorically Imperative.’ The author looks in the second half of the entry at Roberts and the right to privacy, something to which I have blogged on a number of times. In particular he looks at the arguments of constructionists which ironically in the sense of the GOP, has come to resemble a position that is antithetical to the Federalists they adore. After all it was the Federalists who worried that creating a Bill of Rights would give the notion that if the right has not been enumerated, it doesn’t exisist, which is simply not the case.

Roberts appears to be of the view that the cases recognizing a right to privacy are a form of judicial lawmaking that undermines the constitutional system set up by the Framers. In that system, judges do not stray from the strict limits of their role as interpreters of the constitutional text, and they certainly do not announce “rights” that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and which are based on their own personal preferences and views of what is right or just.

The author continues with great examples and thoughtful analysis, you all should give it a read.

Additionally, I renew my statements that privacy is this man’s weakness, and I want to know before the Senate during the confirmation hearings, what are his views on privacy. As I’ve stated, privacy will be at the heart of some of the most important cases the Court will hear during his tenure if confirmed. What views does he hold about key cases like Roe and Griswold? Let’s hope they’re nothing similar to the opinions of Senator Santorum.

Finally, I feel I should address that in earlier posts regarding Roberts I wasn’t advocating going after him just to go after him. Roughing him up, as I phrased it, meant asking plenty of tough questions and not allowing a simple process. I feel that these concerns over his views on privacy are exactly the type of questions I was talking about, and hope to have answered. Because as it stands, each day makes me think he’s more anti-privacy then before, and if that is the case, then I’ll be completely against this nomination, despite at first beginning hopeful.

No, this isn’t the position of TwoDems.Com, but instead of crazy radical wingnut cleric Pat Robertson.

You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

MediaMatters has the transcript and a video of the program.