There has  been a lot of debate about whether Bush and cronies should be prosecuted for serious crimes committed during there time in power. I have always been in favor of a full investigation followed by any prosecutions that are warrented. Obama and his people have repeatly agreed with this in a half-hearted way but then said something like “But we would rather look to the future”. Well, that is nice but all criminal prosecution “looks to the past.” They have also suggested that the Bush and crew had advice from lawyers that provided a legal basis for their actions. They thought they were doing the right thing, we were in a war, they told the Congress what they were doing etc.

I recently read an article that really laid it all out clearly. The US signed a treaty which has the force of US law which clearly states that torture will be prosecuted, period. Being in a war is not an excuse. Legal fig leaves are not an excuse. Follow orders is not an excuse.

As far as the defintion of torture, the US prosecuted enemy soldiers after World War Two for water boarding. They also prosecuted lawyers who gave legal opinions to support the crimes of the enemy soldiers.

Recent revelations make it clear that the orderd for US torture came from the White House. It seems pretty clear that a crime has been committed by Bush and his top advisors such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. A Justice Department report has castigated John Yoo, one of the Bush lawyers, for giving legal advice that cited no previous case law or precedence.

The US MUST prosecute George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the crime of torture. If the Obama adminstration does not feel that we should “look back” and pursue these criminals, then they should stand back while they are prosecuted. Then Obama can pardon them and we can get on with our Democracy.

If this does not happen, then it will be proof that there are two systems of law in this country. One for the powerful and one for everyone else.

I recently read an article about potential relative influence of the father’s genes versus the mother’s genes on a developing embryo.

The theory held that the best outcome from the father’s point of view would be for the child to be as big as possible at birth to give it the best survival chance. The child’s personality should be demanding of the mother’s time and energy and not particular concerned with other children of the mother because they might not have the same father.

On the other hand, the mother’s best outcome would be for a lower birthweight baby which would have made less demands on the mother physically during the pregnancy. After birth the child should be less demanding on the mother’s time and energy and more sensitive to the needs of other children because they all have the same mother.

Taken to the extreme, the predominance of the father’s genes could potentially lead to autistic individuals who are oblivious to the social cues that signal needs and concerns of other. The extreme result of the mother’s genes could be schizophrenia where great sensitivity to the world overwhelms the individual.

I was fascinated by this conjuction of genetics, embryology, physiology, physchology, sociology and pathology.