The unique stuff of life…

According to newscientist.com:

"Because everyone's DNA is unique – except for identical twins – it can be used to identify people, which is why forensic scientists collect samples of blood, saliva or hair and the like at crime scenes. Aside from encoding your physical features, DNA can also reveal some of your risk for certain medical conditions."

Now, add in a dash of massive worldwide computing power, coupled with continued advancements in DNA mapping, and voila!  You got yourself a practically foolproof way of identifying people.  A person has to go to a LOT of trouble to not sluff off any of their DNA.

Then I Googled “Is DNA registered at birth,” and I got:

"The DNA of virtually every newborn in the United States is collected and tested soon after birth. There are some good reasons for this testing, but it also raises serious privacy concerns that parents should know about. States require hospitals to screen newborns for certain genetic and other disorders."

This, according to the ALCU as well as other sites.  Seems that different states keep the data on file for various lengths of time.

Here are the questions:

-Are you for or against mandatory DNA registration at birth? Or do you see such a thing as intruding on personal freedom?

-Who/What kind of person would be against such a thing?  And why??

-If you are for such registration, how long should the data be kept?

-Who should have access to that data?  E.g., FBI, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, doctors and medical facilities, your neighbors, etc.  Where do you draw the line, if you do?

On vindicating the rule of law

Commitment to the rule of law is one of the core values of a liberal legal system. The adherents of such a system usually regard the concept of a "government of laws and not people" as the chief protector of the citizens' liberty. This Article argues that such is not the case. .... I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent that this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. -- J. Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law, 1995 Wis. L. Rev. 199 (1995)

Although reference to the judicial ermine [the intellectual purity myth] has fallen from common usage, the assumption it embodies-that when they don their robes, independent judges set aside their passions, prejudices, and interests and follow the law-remains integral to the legal establishment's traditional conception of the role that the judiciary plays in American government. That assumption has come under sustained attack by scholars and policymakers, leading to the question of whether there is enough truth to this "ermine myth" to make it one still worth defending, or whether the time has come to demythologize our understanding of what judges do and to acknowledge that, truth be told, the ermine is just a glorified weasel. Put another way, can the rule of law survive judicial politics? -- CG Geyh, Can the Rule of Law Survive Judicial Politics, Cornell Law Review, 97(2):191-254, 2012

I like weasels. Are judges weasels (ermine)? -- Germaine, 2022

Newsweek writes:

Former U.S. Army prosecutor Glenn Kirschner believes that failing to hold former President Donald Trump "accountable for his crimes" will "destroy" the legitimacy of U.S. institutions.

Trump is facing multiple high-profile investigations, and some legal experts have urged the Justice Department to indict the former president or appoint a special counsel to investigate him. Kirschner has previously contended that Trump will face accountability for his actions related to January 6, 2021—when hundreds of his supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol.

"DECLINING to hold Trump accountable for his crimes in light [of] the overwhelming evidence would be a political calculation. It would also would make a mockery of honest, law-abiding politicians & destroy the legitimacy of the institutions of American government. This is an easy call," Kirschner, who now works as a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC News, wrote in a Saturday tweet.

The attorney posted the remarks while sharing a tweet from the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The nonpartisan watchdog group wrote: "Frankly, we're getting tired of the whole 'prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes he may have committed is politically motivated' argument some of y'all are making. Holding him accountable isn't political, it's justice."

DECLINING to hold Trump accountable for his crimes in light the overwhelming evidence would be a political calculation. It would also would make a mockery of honest, law-abiding politicians & destroy the legitimacy of the institutions of American government. This is an easy call. https://t.co/UDWNwKx2Ia

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) March 12, 2022

Mr. Kirschner argues that failing to try to vindicate the rule of law would be a political decision, not a legal one, and that would damage the legitimacy of democratic institutions. 

Question: Is Kirschner's argument and opinion reasonable? 

The stoat or short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), also known as the 

Eurasian ermine, Beringian ermine, or simply ermine, is a mustelid 

native to Eurasia and the northern portions of North America

From the alt-reality files: Blind radical Christian nationalist faith in the White House

This is from an article that New York Times magazine published in 2004:

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that "if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3." The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

"Just in the past few months," Bartlett said, "I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do." Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

"This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts," Bartlett went on to say. "He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Bartlett paused, then said, "But you can't run the world on faith."

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. "I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad," he began, "and I was telling the president of my many concerns" -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. "'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?"'

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts."

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. "I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!"'

.... The president would say that he relied on his "gut" or his "instinct" to guide the ship of state, and then he "prayed over it." The old pro Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the energetic "base" that may well usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from God. ....  

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret.  

Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. "He's plenty smart enough to do the job," Levin said. "It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me." But more than anything else, I heard expressions of awe at the president's preternatural certainty and wonderment about its source. (emphases added)

When they are right, they are infallibly right. No debate allowed. No inconvenient facts permitted. 

Christian nationalist faith and dogma has such a powerful grip on trapped minds, that all the barbarian, chronic liar Trump had to do was things like mouth the right words, including insults, beat up on racial minorities, and install radical Christian nationalist judges on the federal bench. That made him one of God's chosen for most of the true believers. About one-third of Americans believe that God influences presidential elections.

One can wonder how many of those who believed God was on Obama's side also believed that God was on Trump's side. The overlap was probably major. After all, this is about God politics, not human politics.

Lest we forget: A short trip down memory lane

The meaning of post-truth goes beyond being a fool or a liar — “in its purest form, post-truth is when one thinks that the crowd's reaction actually does change the facts about the lie (...) what seem to be new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself.” In this regard, although political lies have always existed, “post-truth relationship to facts occurs only when we are seeking to assert something that is more important to us than truth itself. Thus, post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not.” So, while truthiness locates the responsibility for lying, post-truth is more vague and collectivist in this regard, providing no clear way to define who is responsible, when, and to what extent. Hence, post-truth gives rise to “a world in which politicians can challenge the facts and pay no political price whatsoever.” -- A. Fasce, The upsurge of irrationality: post-truth politics for a polarized world, Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin, 9(13):0-00, 2019 (note the strange page numbering 0-00 -- something is amiss)

Memory can be short. Much is happening. Times are confusing and complex. Sophisticated liars, manipulators and crackpots are a scourge of poxes upon the land. Blithering lunatics with loaded guns roam free in congress. Dogs sleep with cats. There is a fly in the ointment. Transgender bathrooms are popping up all over the place. Christian nationalist extremists are rampaging through the federal courts because they are the federal courts. The horror, the horror . . . . 

Speaking of memory, here's a short blast from the past. This is from a 2018 article by Politico,
Giuliani: ‘Truth isn’t truth’:

President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Sunday claimed “truth isn’t truth” when trying to explain why the president should not testify for special counsel Robert Mueller for fear of being trapped into a lie that could lead to a perjury charge.

“When you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth,” Giuliani told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning

“Truth is truth,” Todd responded.

“No, no, it isn’t truth,” Giuliani said. “Truth isn’t truth. The President of the United States says, “I didn’t …”

A startled Todd answered: “Truth isn’t truth?”

Giuliani: “No, no, no.”

Todd said: “This is going to become a bad meme.”

Last week on CNN, he rejected Chris Cuomo’s assertion that “facts are not in the eye of the beholder."

"Yes, they are," Giuliani said. "Nowadays they are."

In May, the former New York mayor pursued a similar line of thought in an interview with The Washington Post about the Mueller investigation: “They may have a different version of the truth than we do.”

The statement also recalled Kellyanne Conway’s statement in January 2017 referring to “alternative facts” offered by the White House about crowd sizes at Trump’s inauguration.

What a pleasant little trip down bad memory lane this has been. I'm all excited (and fortunately, unarmed).

Question: Has “Truth isn’t truth?” become a bad meme?

OK then, how about now? Bad meme or not? Not yet? How about this plausibly true commentary from 2009?:

“People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

What about America's staunch ally, Israel?

Since Israel came into existence by its own fiat in 1948, no other country has been generously blessed by the US with as much political, financial, diplomatic and military support. Israel is America's top foreign aid recipient and has been for years.[1] The US-Israel friendship runs deep and strong.

Axios writes:

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield protested to her Israeli counterpart over Israel's refusal to join 87 countries in backing a U.S.-led resolution to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the UN Security Council on Friday, Israeli officials tell Axios.

Apparently, Israel's friendship with Russia runs deeper and stronger. In fact, its friendship with itself is far deeper and stronger than with any other nation on Earth.

Questions: With friends like that, who needs enemies? Is it time to cut the umbilical cord?

Footnote:
1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. Successive Administrations, working with Congress, have provided Israel with significant assistance in light of robust domestic U.S. support for Israel and its security; shared strategic goals in the Middle East; a mutual commitment to democratic values; and historical ties dating from U.S. support for the creation of Israel in 1948. To date, the United States has provided Israel $150 billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding. At present, almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance; from 1971 to 2007, Israel also received significant economic assistance." -- Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, Feb. 18, 2022 

U.S. Training Birds to Spread Bio Weapons

 After accusing the U.S. of producing bioweapons in Ukraine, the Russian Ministry of Defense has added another feather-ruffling theory to their accusation: That the U.S. is training birds in Ukraine to spread deadly diseases among Russian citizens.

Major General Igor Konashenkov, the chief spokesman for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, discussed the plot Thursday on RIA Novosti, a TV media outlet controlled by the Russian government.

Konashenkov claimed that U.S. forces had planned to infect birds with a spreadable form of the H5N1 flu strain "with a mortality rate of 50 percent" as well as Newcastle disease, the privately-owned Russian news outlet Pravda reported.

Newcastle disease is a contagious, fatal bird disease affecting the respiratory, nervous and digestive systems, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-conspiracy-theory-says-us-training-birds-spread-bio-weapons-1687399

Of course the White House are denying these charges:

A U.S. State Department spokesman called the claim "outright lies" and "total nonsense" adding, "These claims have been debunked conclusively and repeatedly over many years." Pentagon spokesman John Kirby described the allegations as "absurd", "laughable" and "propaganda." White House press secretary Jen Psaki also called the claims "preposterous."