1. His Wife's Actions Should Reflect Poorly on Him

   Welsh notes

   His wife is in charge of a pro-life organization so extreme that they wanted Schiavo kept half-alive in a vegetative state.

   I think it is unfair to taint John Roberts with the actions of his wife. First of all, John is not his wife. Husband and wife don't always agree. Unless John has made similar statements, we can't assume he agrees with his wife on Schiavo.

   But second, even if John did agree with his wife, personal opinions do not, in theory, determine one's rulings from the bench. Rulings from the bench are based on an interpretation of the law, not one's preference of what the law is. True, some justices seem to allow their preferences to shape their rulings, but we have to show that John Roberts is such a judge before we accuse him of it. If Roberts is indeed a Scalia clone, the chances are that Roberts will not allow his personal opinions to determine his rulings.

2. Roberts and the Geneva Convention

   Welsh alleges that Roberts

   has given George Bush the right to ignore the Geneva conventions, in direct contradiction to the part of the constitution that makes any treaty part of the law of the land.

   Welsh is clearly referring to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling that was handed down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on July 15. The ruling of the panel that included Roberts was unanimous and it ruled against the claim of Hamdan that the Geneva Convention required that he be tried by court marshal instead of by military commission. Welsh's reading of this ruling is incorrect.

   The basis for the ruling is that that it is the long standing interpretation of US law that the Geneva Conventions, while the law of the land, do not confer rights on individuals that can be enforced by US Court (they may be enforced in other ways, such as, by international diplomacy):

   “Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. CONST., art. VI, cl. 2. Even so, this country has traditionally negotiated treaties with the understanding that they do not create judicially enforceable individual rights. See Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211, 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Canadian Transport Co. v. United States, 663 F.2d 1081, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1980). As a general matter, a “treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations,” and “depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it.” Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). If a treaty is violated, this “becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamation,” not the subject of a lawsuit. Id.; see Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 474 (1913); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194-95 (1888); Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 306, 314 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 51 (1883).

   While I would agree that this arrangement neuters the point of the Geneva Conventions and should probably be remedied by Congress, the fact is that Roberts did not give Bush the right to ignore the Geneva Conventions; he merely upheld precedent, one which the DC Circuit is not capable of overturning because the precedent was set by the Supreme Court.

   Unless you want Roberts to ignore precedent, he can't be accused of giving Bush the "right to ignore the Geneva Conventions."

3. Filibustering by the Democrats

   While I can see why you want the Democrats to filibuster Roberts's nomination, I don't think the Democrats are avoiding a filibuster just because they're gutless. They're avoiding it because the costs of doing so are enormous.

   First, the Republicans in the Gang of 14, who made a deal to set the threshold for allowing filibuster very high, do not seem convinced that Roberts is a radical for whom a filibuster is warranted. If the seven Democrats in the G14 decide to filibuster, you can expect the seven Republicans to support the rest of the Republican Senate caucus in eliminating filibuster provisions. And then, Roberts will be confirmed easily. Because of the G14's pact, you won't get a filibuster unless the seven Republicans are convinced that a filibuster is warranted. Otherwise, the Democrats are going to throw away their right to filibuster, and they're not going to give that up for obvious reasons.

   And second, if the public is not convinced that Roberts is worth filibustering, then the Democrats will come out looking very bad from this ordeal. True the Schiavo polling numbers could potentially hurt Roberts. But they could also hurt the Democrats if the public thinks that linking Roberts to his wife's actions is unfair. And it could hurt Democrats if the public thinks that Schiavo really isn't enough to tar Roberts (which I think is a likely outcome).

   Simply put, the Democrats aren't going to filibuster unless they know that they can both protect their filibuster rights, and escape public outrage. Right now, they don't think they can win this fight so they're muting their attacks on Roberts.

A Department of Energy taskforce recently noted that nuclear weapons production is spread over seven facilities across the US (there are actually more if you include all the little bits of metal and electronic pieces that are used by these seven). The taskforce recommends moving it all to one facility to reduce costs and reduce the number of terrorist targets.

So what does Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee (which controls the nuclear weapons budget) do? He says, "I do not think we should rush into any quick fixes" and promptly re-writes the appropriations bill to prohibit any funds from being used to implement the taskforce's recommendations. Of course, he's from New Mexico, and he can't allow the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories lose nuclear weapons production money.

Cringely responds that Apple will pull this off by using retinal scan displays, and argues that because of the enormous cost of such displays, this will be a niche technology. His argument that Apple has previously gone after niche markets with high resolution displays (cinema displays) doesn't quite hold water: cinema displays had a known and well established market in the graphics design community; the portable retinal scan market doesn't exist and so Apple doesn't know whether those retinal scanners will sell.

Once you strip away the video iPod device (I didn't even mention the hard drive sizes you'd need for this), there are still other problems: the H.264 codec doesn't run on the vast majority of computers, movie studios will be reticent to this service (getting music distributors onside was incredibly difficult and they were losing much more money to on-line pirating), most computers don't have huge hard drives or DVD writable drives which would be a must for anyone buying huge video files, etc.

Intel and Apple co-operating on a video download service also makes little sense: what does Intel bring to this partnership? Faster processors? No. We see that IBM has those anyway.

So why did Apple switch then? I'm going to subscribe to the theory that Steve Jobs just had one of his usual tantrums when IBM refused to do Apple's every bidding.

If Apple comes out with a video iPod, it won't be for watching movies so much as carrying around a few movies to connect to TVs or other devices (and this seems of dubious value as well). Likewise, if a video download service comes, it won't have movies; it will have music videos and maybe TV (you include commercials so there's still revenue from them, getting rid of the VCR would be welcomed by many, the files would be smaller and would probably be deleted after viewing by most people, and DVD sales would carry on since DVDs would offer commercial-free viewing for collectors—podcasting technology would tie in well here). Let's not get carried away with pipe dreams of Apple using retinal scan displays like those in Star Trek.

Media wonks often report that Londoners have stoically moved on since the attacks; hence, "we have overcome" the terrorists' intent. This may be true, but the damage imposed by the bombs has still crippled the London Underground. More than 3/4 of the platforms in King's Cross Underground station are out of service. The Circle Line, where two of the attacks were held, is completely closed. Due to ongoing forensics, the Picadilly Line is mostly out of commission. And an enhanced security awareness(Java link) has caused severe delays throughout the Underground network.

Even so, unfazed, I swore that I would take the Tube today. Thus, I hiked the 750 m to the nearest functional Underground Station (Euston), and descended to the Northern Line.

The Northern Line is a "deep level" line, like the Picadilly. The Picadilly Line sufferred the worst of the attacks because of its narrow tunnel structure, and because it is so deep in the ground (20 m below surface level). Now, while the Northern Line isn't as deep, there are still a fair number of long escalator rides downward. You can't help but feel a little uneasy as you stand on the long escalator, descending to a possible doom.

As I found a place to stand on-board, I was surprised that there were so many people on the train. Most Underground trains have a maximum capacity of above 1000 passengers, with between 200-300 seats. There were clearly very few available seats in my carriage -- thus, there were at least a few hundred people onboard. That actually surprised me. I guess that part of this was the legendary stoicism of Londoners -- "it's time to move on" and all that. And, I suppose that having a good chunk of your network down increases the utilization rates of the remaining trains. But still, it was a little strange to see.

While we were five days after the blasts, the tension in the train was still high. I still don't know why, but I started to glance around the carriage for emergency exits, alarm buttons, and any unattended bags. I noticed a few other passengers with similar eye movements. It was very unsettling -- particularly since it's now claimed that the terrorists were suicide bombers. It is thus unlikely that there were any unattended packages on any of the trains on 7/7. Nonetheless, it was unnerving.

As the train reached Warren Street, a wave of passengers swarmed on-board. The carriage was now packed. As we weaved between elbows and around legs, we all searched for an appropriate place to stand in the train. Arms reached for an available hand-rail, and the charade of poking and bumping was the norm. There were a lot of people on this train. Ah, back to the good ol' days.

But that didn't change the tension. If anything, people's nervousness increased. There was a woman a few inches away from me discussing her feelings on this very matter. "I find it more agitated when there are more people onboard, 'cause I can no longer be aware of others," she remarked.

Anyway, the train reached Charing Cross, and I alighted. As I rode the escalator to the surface, I breathed a sigh of relief, and smiled to myself. I shouldn't have worried so much. I'm not afraid to ride the Tube. And I'm emboldened to do it again.

Understandably, everyone is still talking about the attacks. Whether it's at the coffee house, in the department store, or on a bus, Londoners are talking about their feelings, speculating on theories, and describing their thoughts. The subject even came up during my job interview.

And London is still moving. Traffic is still flowing (well, okay, in London, it's still "crawling"), people are still milling about, and tourists are still crammed around the cheesy sites.

But there's nonetheless a subdued atmosphere. Police officers are still combing the parks and streets around Tavistock Square, where the bus was hit. It's impossible to see the area now -- the entire scene is surrounded by a 5 metre-high fence, and reporters are pushed to an area 200 metres away -- but it's unsettling that here we are, a stone's throw away from Death.

There are posters of missing passengers plastered all around King's Cross Station. In addition, over the past five days, individuals laid out many memorials and floral tributes to the victims. The station operators and London Metropolitan Police finally got their act together, and moved all these flowers and thoughts to an outdoor patio beside the station. It's a small space, no larger than many living rooms, and it's full of flowers, poems, and thoughts. The Memorial Garden is certainly a moving sight.

As I wandered around the garden, past the mounds of floral bouquets, I mused about the randomness of these attacks, and the unpredictability of human life. Londoners are a strong, resilient bunch. You can't let a few evil scumbags control your life. You pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on.

Is London normal? Sure -- but it's as "normal" as it can ever be after such a sad event.

(This is part 2 of a 2-part series on the London attacks. Part 1 was posted previously.)

I'd been thinking a lot about the topic of Death over the past few days. Yes, that's particularly strange, as I'm usually in a state of hyperactive bubbliness. But the attacks in London did trigger some new thought processes. I suppose that my visit to Oswiecim (the Polish city of Auschwitz) also drove the message home.

After the conference, I rode the long, silent train from Krakow to Oswiecim. When I arrived in Oswiecim train station, it started pouring rain. How fitting. I then rambled the 3 long kilometres to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.

I spent the entire day there. The Auschwitz and Birkenau camps are really large places. Dozens of the original building are now used as museum exhibitions, describing the tragedy of the genocide of the Jews.

As you pass the barbed-wire fences, you reach an elaborate gate with the mocking inscription, "Arbeit Macht Frei" ("Work Brings Freedom"). Other displays are more subtle. As you enter the gas chamber and crematorium, you couldn't help but visualize all the Death that occurred where you stood.

On the other side of town is the Birkenau concentration camp. It was actually at Birkenau (not Auschwitz) where most of the genocide took place. Birkenau had four gas chambers holding more than 2000 people, and they used service elevators to raise the bodies to the crematorium. The place is massive, and I spent hours wandering around, examining the ruins, and contemplating about life. In the far corner of the camp is a pond where the victims' ashes were dumped. Looking at that green-gray pond was a disturbing experience.

Overall, I can't really explain why I visited Auschwitz. I felt that I just had to. It certainly put a damper on my visit to Poland. Furthermore, that visit, in addition to the London bombs, really had me thinking about the subjects of terror, death, and chaos.

As for the London bombs, the terror attacks are certainly disturbing. But we can't let it change our lives. Perhaps we should be more vigilant and aware when we ride public transportation, but we really should be resilient to any possible fear. It's true, there's always a nagging feeling that "it could've been me". I can't count the number of times that I've rode the Picadilly Line between King's Cross and Russell Square, yet it suffered the worst from the blasts.

But out of resilience (and possibly out of necessity!), I will ride the Tube again. I don't doubt that. And if the unthinkable happens, and my tube carriage gets hit, then, well, we'll just simply have to react. Most of us are a level-headed bunch with good street-sense.

"But aren't you afraid to die?" Well, um,... sigh. Let's put it this way -- I certainly don't want to die 20 m underground in a damp, smoky carriage. I don't want to die at all. There's so many people who I've yet to know, so many goals that I've yet to achieve, so many places that I've yet to see, so many emotions that I've yet to feel. I'd be sad and depressed if I were to die today.

But we can't control all unpredictable variables. If we worry about every little thing, we reach a point of stagnation, and we make life meaningless. I'd like to think that I've lived a good life so far, and I hope that I can continue to make a good contribution in the future. If Death arrives, well, then, it arrives.

There's nothing wrong with being afraid -- such a stirring event produces a wide roller-coaster of emotions. Death does that to you. But it's important to rise above our fears and sadness. We are all sad, we are all distressed. But we are all strong.

(Part 1 of 2. Part 2 describes a follow-up visit to London.)

Well, on Rehnquist, I think he's just being his usual stubborn self. He's going to retire, but because everyone expects him to retire, he doesn't want to do it now and let everyone be right. He's waiting until their guard is down so he can surprise everyone.

As for O'Connor, I think Bush is just having difficulty deciding how to handle this. First off, all his top Supreme Court potentials are white males with the exception of Alberto Gonzales, who is a hispanic male. That means that Bush would be appointing a male to replace a female which won't look good. And if he goes with Gonzales hoping to offset not choosing a woman by nominating the first hispanic to the Court, he'll be appointing a social moderate, not the strong social conservative much of his base wants him to appoint.

But it gets worse. If he goes with the strong social conservative judge, or at the very least a strong federalist judge (pro-deference to the states) like J. Michael Luttig, which would probably also sit well with the social conservatives (the southern states where most social conservatives live would pass more socially conservative laws if the Supeme Court would let them), Bush would end up angering the business conservatives who are also a big part of his base. Business conservatives dislike state law which create a hodge-podge of rules instead of a single standard for the whole country, and they dislike deference to the states which tend to be less business friendly.

The Republican Party, much like the Canadian Conservative Party, is a tenuous alliance between business conservatives and social conservatives, neither of whom really like the other. Bush seems to be having trouble figuring out how to handle both groups with his Supreme Court nomination. Perhaps his strategy is to wait out for Rehnquist so that with two nominations on the table, he can maybe appease both groups with a nomination each (not likely to work), or at least make the news coverage more complicated so there's no focus for attacks on him.

In other news, advertising over the nomination fight has already started even though we don't have a nominee to fight over yet. I told you things were going to get heated!