I've moved and Dr. Agre

For some of you who followed me from myspace, thank you. All of my future blogs will be here. I will eventually post my previous blogs on this site as well. Why the transfer from myspace? I thought this would give me an opportunity to reach a larger audience. Additionally, I am not using myspace as often anymore, so this will also help me to blog more frequently. Most of my blogs focus on current issues. I try to tell both sides of the story, but admit that at times personal bias is present. I try to point out when I know my bias is coming through, but at times I may not even recognize it myself.

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Peter Agre, a Nobel prize winnning scientist. His science is excellent and having the chance to have lunch with him and just chat was great. Since winning his prize, he has become a vocal activist, using his recognition and fame to advance ideas that he feels are very important. We talked a bit about the media, which I have previously discussed in my blog, and the dangers in believing what you hear. You'll see the same topic reported very differently on CNN than it is on Fox News. Each network claims the other is 'spinning' the news to fit their political agenda while as a network they maintain rigorous standards of objective journalism. Who is to believe? I don't know. That's why I try to get my news from both. I would bet that the truth lies somewhat in the middle.

Anyways, Dr. Agre was very vocal about a certain scientist, whose legal fund he has donated to, that was accused of terrorism. This is a very hot issue today. I will not name the accused for his protection, but his lab studied a microorganism that conceivably can be used in a bioterror attack. Apparently, this scientist could not account for some of his samples that had gone missing. The FBI showed up one day, closed his lab, and he is awaiting trial, with the possibility of prison time if convicted. He of course proclaims his innocence and said the samples must have been destroyed without the proper documentation. As a current lab employee lab myself, I find this explanation quite plausible. We have dangerous samples, some of which are radioactive, that require careful documentation and tracking. There are occasions when it takes us a day or two to figure where samples have been placed. Would I be happy if the FBI showed up and shut down the lab because of poor accounting? Not at all. But, who would get the blame if the FBI turned a blind eye to this scientist and he actually had given some of this material to a terrorist cell? The FBI. They are really in a no win situation here. There are so many possible leads that could be the next 9/11, but many innocent people are being harassed for the 'what if?'.

When is it okay to sacrifice personal liberties for the greater good. Some say now, as we are at war. Some say never, that personal liberties should always be in place regardless of the situation and that if this leads to another terror attack, than it was worth the risk in order to maintain our freedoms. Often, maintaining are freedoms depend on which party you most closely affiliate with. What about guns? Some want stricter control over gun ownership and some want to go the way of Australia and rid society of guns completely. Others want to keep the government out of our gun safes and let us own as many guns of whatever type you want. So, the freedom to have a gun, which some would argue is protected by a constitutional amendment, is thought of differently by different groups. Now take convicted felons. One group wants to keep them in prison indefinitely or kill them, then treat them as second-class citizens even after they have served their debt to society. Others want to reduce prison sentences, try and rehabilitate them and give them a second chance in society. When you combine the two issues, it gets confusing. The group who would take guns away from law-abiding citizens, doesn't want to dole out harsher punishments when guns are used to commit a crime. On the other hand, the group that claims a constitutional amendment protects our right to own guns, doesn't want to allow people to get guns who have committed a crime, despite having served the time. So, which is correct? Does one sacrifice personal liberties because of a crime, even after the sentence has been served? Which is more important, our right to privacy or our national security? Both sides have valid points. I don't know who is right or wrong. I would not like the government listening to my telephone calls or reading my emails, but if doing so would prevent innocent lives from being taken, I might allow it, as I have nothing to hide. But the question of who oversees the government? The group that wants to keep government out of our gun safes doesn't have a problem with the government intruding into our lives via telephone or email tapping. Contrast the other side who wants the government to control guns and gun owners, but stay the hell away from my telephone lines and my email. This logic makes no sense. I think the most important thing to do is to learn the issues from a variety of sources and make up your own mind. Individual thought is a freedom that can never be taken.