The legality of secret laws

It’s been made clear from information provided by Edward Snowden that the U.S. government (G.W.Bush and Obama administrations) circumvents the Constitution by utilizing secret laws and secret interpretations (rules and regulatory outgrowths) of various laws to breach the civil liberties of anyone with a digital footprint (American or otherwise). My question is… Are secret laws Constitutional? If yes, it is time to amend the Constitution to outlaw secret laws.

'Santa and Jesus are white'

Megyn Kelly of Fox News is positive that Santa Claus and Jesus are/were white… There is obvious tribal identity in play here in so far as Ms. Kelly is able to relate to these cultural figures on racial commonality. It is clear, that to her, an other-than-white Santa Claus or Jesus could never have attained the status of Santa Claus or Jesus. I was wondering where her tribal identity picks up with regards to class… Is the economic and social class Santa Claus and Jesus known? Would it not be possible for either to be homeless beggars? Slaves? Field hands? What were the class and social conditions of ‘whites’ at the times of Santa Claus and Jesus? If the Northern European whites of 0-400 CE were more culturally backwards than their Middle Eastern contemporaries, would she still insist on a white Santa Claus and Jesus?

This also speaks to the human condition of America today in that the Republican ideology as portrayed by Fox News is highly degradative of any class or race (and sex) they cannot personally identify with. [Anti-headstart funding, anti-raise of minimum wage, anti-labor union rights, anti-abortion/contraception, anti-Obamacare, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-Social Security benefit increase…] This at the same time they claim to be Christians and faithful followers of his teachings.

Historically, the probability is high that Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas) was either a Turk or Greek (see here and here) and Jesus, a  Galilean Jew.

Some contrasts...

A gun owner argument: gun control ‘punishes’ of gun owners who have done nothing wrong.

To play off of ‘guns don't kill people, people kill people.’…

-Drugs don’t make junkies, people make junkies…
Drug control laws ‘punish’ junkies who have done nothing wrong?

-Texting doesn’t kill people, cars kill people…
Anti-texting-while-driving laws ‘punish’ drivers who haven’t injured anyone when texting and driving?

***

The internet has brought about revolutionary changes in the media industry (news/music/video… TV and movie viewing) to the extent that it is unclear what the new paradigms in these fields will or can be. With the effects of global climate change quite literally in the air we breath, where is the energy revolution we so desperately need?

***

After being caught plagiarizing by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), Sen. Rand Paul expressed his regret that he could not duel his opponent (here and here).

As I see it, this is another form of Wayne LaPierre’s statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’; in other words, might makes right. ( I presume Rand Paul casts himself as the ‘good guy’ in this ‘duel’.)

The problem for Sen. Paul (and his Party and their financial backers) is… we all know otherwise.

We need (an) opposition party(ies)

The worst part of the dysfunctional Republican Party in our two-party system is we’ve lost a true opposition party. Aside from Republican efforts to obstruct the Affordable Care Act, much of the conflict between the Democrats and Republicans is manufactured conflict for dramatic effect. After all, conflict = drama = ratings for news media.

The fact is… there are no significant difference between the two parties on economic or foreign policy issues (Benghazi is a manufactured conflict to discredit then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton). And a few differences on social issues (differences: women’s rights, voting rights, LGBT rights; similar: immigration policy, drug policy, education reform, prison/crime policy).

This nation faces many problems whose scale range from local school board controversies to threats of global economic and ecological collapse. We have the tools and resources and fortitude to confront these problems. What we don’t have are political leaders and worst, because they share the same position on these issues, our politicians actively construct legal means to obstruct attempts by political outsiders to advance these causes. It’s time to demand more of our political leaders.

As an end note, laws are easily circumvented:
-regulatory rules can interpret/re-interpret laws to the benefit of various interests (can essentially nullify the intent of the law).
-by budgeting insufficient funds to properly operate a regulatory agency

---

A very short list of issues which would hugely benefit from proper debate from multiple positions:

Financial industry reform

Healthcare reform which addresses rising costs

Immigration

Energy policy, especially relevant to ecological effects

Civil liberties of Americans (NSA spying; voting rights)

Whistleblower protection (including journalists)

Tax policy (including industry subsidies)

Regulatory reform (currently: industry insiders write the rules)

Link between default and Social Security…

Fact: The Social Security Trust Funds do not hold any ‘funds’; rather, they hold ‘special U.S. government securities’ which the Social Security administration can redeem at their discretion to cover benefit payouts.

Fact: Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust fund is broke.

Fact: Current Social Security payments have been sufficient to meet the payouts of Social Security programs and are projected to ‘run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021’.

Fact (needs confirmation of role of ‘general funds’ attribution of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trusts): A significant portion of non-Social Security tax receipts and monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds are used to cover other government expenditures: defense and intelligence (heavily dependent on private contractors), education (moderately dependent on private contractors), welfare/social programs, and other spending which includes subsidies (agriculture and energy) and research.

Fact: The richest Americans own the majority of stocks.

Extrapolation: Government functions (thus where government monies are spent) which are dependent on private contractors provide the most financial benefit to those contractors and their stockholders. Government spending on research also benefits stockholders of high technology companies. Therefore, the rich benefit greatly from government spending.

Question: If the Social Security Trust Fund did not exist, would the government have curtailed spending which mostly benefits rich Americans?

Extrapolation: Republican want to avoid raising taxes on the rich which will be necessary to redeem government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. [Alternate interpretation: the government, having given the rich the opportunity to profit from government spending, now expects them to pay taxes on their profit(s).] Republicans are doing this through campaigns to convince Americans that the Social Security Trust fund is broke (see above) and suggesting that a freeze in the debt ceiling does not inevitable result in a government default. Their claim that a default can be avoided through selective payment of government obligations (see here and here) smells of an attempt to void the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. If voided, the Social Security Administration would not be able to redeem them, no additional taxes would be called from and Social Security payments would not be possible.

This is a government version of corporate pension fund raiding. It is illegal and immoral and should be called out as such.

Day 9

So it’s Day 9 of the shutdown because Republicans in Congress aren’t willing to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government and we are careening towards a potential default in less than 10 days. And now, instead of manning up to vote for an unconditional CR, the Republicans are passing piecemeal bills to address each crisis as they get media spotlighted. This isn’t responsible budgeting, this is impulse buying and it does little to resolve the major budget issue and next to no positive PR for the Republican Party.

King James Bible

I wonder how many American Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians know that King James of the King James Bible fame (on which Scofield Reference Bible is based) is a “…flaming homosexual.”

Republican Party = Syria, Russia and Vladimir Putin?

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) were interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the Republican strategy on how to manage the debt ceiling fight where both politicians drew unexpected parallels…

Rep. Sean Duffy: “…the President is going to have to negotiate with us [Republicans] just like he wants to negotiate with Syria and Russia to figure out a solution on how to resolve this debt problem…”

Rep. Peter King: “… if he can sit down with Vladimir Putin, he can sit down with John Boehner…”

Since presidents are elected nationally, President Obama represents the interests of the nation; we would hope the equating of the Republican Party with Syria, Russia and Vladimir Putin doesn’t mean the Republican Party does not act in the interest of the American people.

Update: Maybe the Republicans are asking to be treated as a hostile foreign power… They’ve listed a series of demands in exchange for a one year increase of the debt ceiling… the long term strategy of a foreign enemy?

Leadership

I recently ran across a definition for managerial excellence: ‘excellent execution of an excellent strategy.’ It occurred to me that this is a good definition of leadership.

It is too bad our recent presidents have been highly deficient as leaders…

President ‘Heck of a job, Brownie’ Bush:
-poorly executed an abysmal Hurricane Katrina strategy
-neglected to develop much less execute a terrorist defense strategy prior to September 11, 2001
-ineptly executed two inadequate strategies of war for Iraq and Afghanistan

President ‘No drama’ Obama:
-modesty executed an inadequate economic stimulus strategy
-did a reasonable job executing an immoral and, most likely, unconstitutional national/international strategy of electronic surveillance
-has no obvious strategy on how to legislate/govern around the obstacle of an intransigent House of Representatives

The U.S. is a powerful nation with numerable resources and incredible… why can’t we elect leaders who are capable of leading?

Consumer choice

Roseanne Barr brought up a great question during a recent interview with Current TV: Why does real choice only matter when it comes to consumer products? Why don’t we have more competition in our political arena… a greater variety of political parties, ideas and candidates?

Is there a difference…

...between the shady, underground, underhand, secretive illegal activities of licit or illicit organizations and those which occur under the aegis of ‘classified’, secret government memos, secret orders by way of secret federal courts, secret (not fully disclosed laws) and other secret government directives? The federal government (regardless of political party or affiliation) has been operating more like an organized crime syndicate than a democracy.

Maybe it’s time for a Constitutional Amendment for Government Transparency… Ban secret laws and government agencies; require that the text of laws be free of obfuscating language and abbreviations (apparently much government pork barrel spending is cloaked in obscure language and difficult to decipher).

My, what big maws you have

There has been an assault on the well being of poor children this year on both local and national levels. (Chicago closes 50 public schools and lays off hundreds of additional teachers; Philadelphia closes 23 schools;  and Head Start programs are cut in multiple states due to sequestration.)

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the House of Representatives passed a farm bill without including funding for food stamps which will increase hunger amongst the most vulnerable in this country, poor children.

It seems that eating the seed corn was not enough to sate the feral appetites of privileged politicians, their crowd psychology further demands the food of poor children.

Competency testing

Michele Bachmann once said a vaccine caused mental retardation. A number of Republican representatives think climate change is a hoax perpetrated by climate scientists. And that doesn’t even touch on the belief in creationist ‘theory’ over the scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. While much of this misinformation is a calculated politically cynical misrepresentation of the politicians’ true understanding of the science to pander to their constituents, it emphasizes the need for some level of proof of minimal competency for all public officials (elected and non-elected).

This is especially well illustrated by Texas lawmaker, Jodie Laufenberg, who once argued against government funded prenatal care for low income women because “They’re not born yet.” If she were my representative, I would ask for proof of reading comprehension (and ability to use a dictionary)... Does she know what ‘prenatal’ means?

Think of what it would mean to the functioning of government if representatives on the various Senate and U.S. House committees actually understood the financial, cultural, international, trade, health, production, etc. implications of the decisions they make. We might actually get some thoughtful, effective legislation…

Unfortunately, there are moneyed forces with the aim of keeping Americans and our legislators ignorant and uninformed so we are readily manipulated to act not only against our national and human interest but against our personal interests.

It is irrefutable...

Oil is dangerous, be it…

to acquire (Deepwater Horizon)…

to transport: by truck (diesel truck explosion), by train (Quebec oil train explosion), by pipeline (Arkansas and Prudhoe Bay), by sea (Exxon Valdez and others)...

to refine (Texas City refinery disaster)...

to consume (carbon dioxide emission and global warming).

And that doesn’t even include accidents from coal mining, diseases from coal mining (and embedded links) and fracking for oil and gas.

It is long past time to leave the fossil fuels to the paleontologists  and move on to 21st century clean, renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydroelectric, tidal…).

Having brought up Edward Snowden…

Isn’t it revealing that The Guardian, a newspaper in a country which does not have freedom of speech, exposed the wrongdoings of a government which professes to champion free speech and a free press?

When is spying spying?

The spying programs revealed by Edward Snowden isn’t ‘spying’ because no one's phone calls have been listened to… Does this mean copyright isn’t violated if downloaded material(s) aren’t ‘consumed’? What if the original download was never ‘consumed but copies of the original download was consumed… will the same justification hold?

Rachel Jeantel

All the media attention focused on a prosecution witness in the George Zimmerman trial, Rachel Jeantel (see here and here) reminds me of Mayella Ewell, a character in Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Obviously, one is real and one is fictional but their social class may bring more to bear on their credibility than their race.

As to her demeanor, how much responsibility does the prosecution bear in terms of preparing their witness?

Genetically modified crops (and conventional crops), the scary factor…

In an earlier post, I made it clear that I support labeling of genetically modified (GM) crop. What I didn’t expand on was why…

What scares me most about GM crops is what is implied by the foreign genes they carry… Most GM crops carry gene(s) which confer resistance to specific herbicides and insecticides. This reinforces the fact that these crops are grown with the aid of these herbicides and insecticides. I do not like being unwittingly exposed to dangerous chemicals through the food I eat. (And yes, any chemical designed to kill plants or animals are dangerous to humans, the question is how dangerous.) The hypocrisy is when I neglect the fact that conventional crops are also grown with chemical additives, perhaps a greater variety and at higher concentrations.

So, yes, I want GMOs labeled… I also want conventional, hybrids, heirlooms, organics, exotics, imported, local, distal, copyrighted, trademarked, whatever the strain, marked with the chemicals applied to them. I want the freedom to decide my chemical exposure through the foods I eat.

Break silence to invoke right to silence

Disclaimer: I have no legal credentials; I am neither a lawyer nor do I have any specialized legal knowledge.

The Supreme Court has decided that the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination must be verbally 'invoked' to apply. Apparently, the body language of a witness during questioning was used against him.

-Does this mean other Constitutionally protected rights must be verbally affirmed to be properly invoked?… I have freedom of speech so I can claim Obama is a socialist…; I have a right to bear arms so I can shoot anyone at Sandy Hook School…; I have the right to vote so I will vote…

-This further divides U.S. residents into those with the wherewithal and knowledge to be fully informed of all the implications of any interaction with any level of the judicial system and those without: those with and without knowledge: those with and without financial means.

-As it stands, the police often have difficulty interacting with select segments of the public, especially minorities. This ruling will only reinforce the unease, increase distrust and create more barriers to attempts to bridge this divide.

---

The court also decided this month that only persons with ““tangible employment actions” like hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities” can be held legally responsible for discriminatory behavior (see here).

-What does this mean for subcontractors whose evaluation depend on contractor feedback? Does this mean a contractor can mistreat a subcontractor (for example, many housekeeping staff) under threat of a poor evaluation or complaint?

-What about alternate chains of command? For example, if a Justice of the Supreme Court were to harass a Supreme Court police officer (of course this would never happen)? The Justice is not in supervisorial position relative to the officer… Does that mean a federal employee is exempt from such behavior towards any federal employee over which they have no direct supervisorial authority?

---

With these and another recent court decision, it is as though the Supreme Court were presiding over the specific case under challenge and not the legal precedent in question. If so, the Supreme Court Justices need to remember they function at a meta level with regards to the law and U.S. Constitution and they have taken an oath to that effect.

---

To expand on the Supreme Court…

The notion of 'originalist' has been used by conservative Justices to explain their judicial philosophy…

The Constitution was designed to be a 'living document' in so far as it could be altered via the amendment process. The 'originators' also endowed the Supreme Court with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. To claim that 'original intent' stands if the laws have not been modernize is a dereliction of the oath of office of the Court.

Does it bring closure?

Texas has recently carried out its 500th execution. I was wondering if the secondary victims (also known as families of the victims) of executed criminals feel a sense of closure or relief or resolution after they are executed.

Divided by design

Two editorials in the New York Times (here and here; thanks to here) highlight how this country is  divided in two along many issues. It brings to mind that the efforts of Lincoln, one Republican president, to keep the union united is being deliberately attacked and destroyed through the gerrymandering of Republican party of today (see hear  and here).

Will they dare?

At some point, the effects of climate change will be so obvious that even the politicians who currently refuse to acknowledge it will have to reverse their position and admit the issue needs to be addressed. I suspect that someone on that side will claim that their party has been working to mitigate the rate of climate stress through their economic policies. After all, a major consequence of those policies have been high income disparity, increasing the number of poor Americans and it is well documented that the poorest of the world contribute the least to climate change.

GMO labeling…

Context: Defeat of Prop 37 in California requiring labeling of GMO ingredients <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html>.

How frequently do those who advocate against Prop 37 and other similar legislation wear synthetic versus natural fibers? Do they actively avoid donning synthetic fibers? How do they know the fiber content of various items in their wardrobe? Do Americans have a right to know the fiber content of their clothing? If yes, why does this not apply to knowing what is the food they ingest?

Try it...

Well into adulthood, I was leery of trying unfamiliar foods. When I found myself socializing with a group of more adventurous eaters, I realized I was shortchanging myself by being so timid. By not opening myself to new experiences, I was not giving myself the chance to discover wonderful foods and tastes. Given that each new dish (or experience) is an opportunity to enjoy something previously unknown to me, it's worth the short term risk of finding it distasteful.

So now when I eat out, my only ask that my meal satisfy my hunger and take great joy in discovery a novel (to me) taste or flavor combination that satisfies my taste buds.

For Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky...

Context: At a speech at Howard University in April of this year, Rand Paul asked "How many of you, if I were to have said, 'Who do you think the founders of the NAACP were, did you think they were Republicans or Democrats?' would everybody in here know they were Republicans?" <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/rand-pauls-speech-at-howard-got-a-little-awkward-but-it-wasnt-a-disaster/274877/>

Why are you asking in light of today’s political climate? Are you proposing to take the Republican party back to those roots?

Public faith

Is it just me? I was listening to a podcast of a Dolly Parton interview where she spoke quite extensively about her faith and how it was a source of strength and support throughout her life. And while this is in no way a reflection of Ms Parton, I was discomforted by these profuse affirmations and it got me thinking about why I have always shied away from and distrusted people who habitually advocated their religiosity. It's like my  privacy has been invaded. This likely stems from the social norm of reciprocity… when something is given, there is an expectation of something returned. In the case of religiosity, some nugget of personal information (their view on faith) and there is an expectation of a confidence in return. My response has always been I consider my beliefs a private matter only to be shared with a select few.

Murderer of Texas Prosecutors

Context: As it turns out, it appears that extremist groups may not be involved in the recent deaths of two Texas prosecutors but rather a former justice of the peace. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/14/us-usa-texas-districtattorney-idUSBRE93B16F20130414>

This goes back to my inability to understand or empathize with some people. This guy was prosecuted for stealing office computers. *What* is going on in this man's head? He murders prosecutors because they did their jobs and caused him to lose his job and embarrassed him. Somewhere along the line, he didn't learn the essential life skill of self restraint.

I can't relate

Yesterday (4/15/2013) was the Boston Marathon and a little before 3 pm, near the finish line, two bombs went off, killing at least 3 (including an 8 year old boy) and injuring more than 100.

There are some experiences and emotions that are beyond my ability to relate to and properly understand. The example I normally use is hunger… I am fortunate to live in the U.S. where my family or I have always have the skills, resources and knowledge to maintain a healthy diet, even during times of unemployment. This is not the case for some people I know who have experience periods of great deprivation. Contrast the experience of hunger to understanding how a person can become so enraged and angered as to perpetrate an instance of violence; it's similar to a child throwing a tantrum, to be so caught up with your emotions that your actions are not under rational control.

Going back to the bombing, this is an example of something I find myself unable to relate to. What can drive someone to such sustained anger that they can plan and execute a frigid attack targeted at random innocent bystanders? How is this restitution for their received slights, insults or losses of any type, size or duration? What does stealing the life and future of an eight year old child contribute to such causes other than discredit?

I have lost a dear to violence by a stranger. Aside from the painful realization that the sun still rises and the time still marches forward in their absence was understanding how powerless I/we were in light of our loss. There was no way to fix this, no one anywhere could do anything to correct this, including destroying the perpetrator. If anything, holding onto the anger would damage us.

I have no answers or solutions for the victims, perpetrators or other Americans. I would just say to the victims… continue your lives with as much grace and dignity as you can conjure and direct your anger to productive directions. To the perpetrator(s), I would say… you are battling the wrong war. The true war is within yourselves and you need to direct your energy there. Your destructive actions cannot and will not fix what ails you. To the rest of us… what are we doing that germinates and nurtures this kind of anger? We Americans did not make or set off these bombs but we certainly have made someone(s) angry enough to target them at us.

A question for tax dodgers and their enablers on tax day…

Context: News accounts in April 2013 of 4,000 Americans with offshore accounts used to evade paying taxes in the U.S.. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/piercing-the-secrecy-of-offshore-tax-havens/2013/04/06/1551806c-7d50-11e2-a044-676856536b40_story.html>

I have a question for any American or American corporations who takes advantage of every tax loophole, tax haven, government subsidy and off shore accounts (especially of American politicians): How patriotic is it to evade paying taxes to the government?

Sometimes the right response is a little too late

This happened about two years ago on a transit bus in a major American city…

Scene: Passenger with a baby strapped on her chest was speaking very loudly on her cell phone. The bus driver requested she tone down her volume. Passenger refused and claimed she was not disturbing anyone. Driver said it bothered her and requested that other passengers speak up. No other passenger was willing to publicly speak up in the face of the cell phone toting bully of a passenger.

Appropriate response by a passenger: Please do not distract the driver from her job of navigating this bus through traffic. I am sure that you, like everyone else on the bus, want to arrive at your destination safely.

Related to recent assassinations

Related to recent assassinations

The recent murders of the prison official in Colorado and district attorney and his wife in Texas <http://www.npr.org/2013/04/02/176035798/experts-prison-gang-reach-increasingly-extends-into-streets>; <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/family-from-hell-the-rise-of-the-aryan-brotherhood-8563520.html> brought a few issues to mind…

-Were the guns used in those shootings obtained legally? What rules/laws permitted those gun acquisitions? What was the role of the NRA in supporting or obstructing the rules/laws in question?

-I also wonder if militia groups have caches of weapons, their legality and the role the NRA played in the rules/laws that permitted such stockpiling.

-Is has been speculated that prison gangs are responsible for these murders… what is the prevalence of prison gangs in government runner prisons compared to privately operated prisons?

What if…

- All laws passed by the federal government have to be fully funded. If not fully funded for some period (1-2 quarters), that law will be considered obsolete, defunct, and removed from the law books. There can be no picking and choosing of funding/defunding specific amendments.

- All lawmakers at all levels of government are only paid the fraction of their salary not funded by borrowing. For example, locale whose budget involves borrowing 50% of their spending can only pay their lawmakers 50% of their salary. This would also be reflected in their retirement benefits. Other government workers would not be affected because _only_ lawmakers can make widespread spending decisions which affect and extend beyond their entire constituency.

Would lawmakers construct more thoughtful laws and request more constructive rules?

Homemade bubble solution

3-4 parts clear liquid dish detergent
1 part clear shampoo (not conditioning)
5-8 parts water

It's been many years since I've used this recipe so I don't remember the precise proportions. I would recommend mixing a batch with the smaller amounts (3 parts dish detergent and 5 parts water) to start with. Add more dish detergent and water to get your perfect bubble formula. Shampoo is the secret ingredient; it has glycerin which stabilizes bigger bubbles.

Why big powerful muscle guns whose sole purpose is to kill people?

Why do the gun lobby and gun manufacturers persist in attempting to market their most destructive products on the civilian market? I understand the justification for research and development of new and improved weaponry for law enforcement and war making (although I don't like it)… but are weapons of war, capable of mass carnage, necessary for hunting or personal defense? In light with our second amendment right to bear arms, in this day and age, the most effective defense against political oppression is the argument of ideas, not physical aggression.

I would suggest that gun makers develop their experience into other related directions; for example, support and promote the sport of target shooting as a pastime suitable for all ages. Make sports equipment capable of accurately hitting a target from a distant trajectory which dissolve on impact so they are minimally injurious to humans. In essence, make the sport as ubiquitous as darts or pool. Additionally, take advantage of the popularity of first person shooter video games… create novel and imaginative shooters or develop narratives for girls… In the video game market, imagination is more limiting than public opinion and government regulation.

Co-op grocers

This is a call for those interested in social justice and sustainability to forgo giving custom to boutique grocers such as Whole Foods or Dean and Deluca and instead seek out local grocery co-operatives or employee-owned grocers. There are a number of reasons for this, mine are: (1) The prices at co-op grocers are generally not higher than at boutique grocers. (2) They are often more responsive to customer requests. (3) They often carry the same or similar inventory as boutique grocers. (4) They attempt to source locally and consider organic/environmental/sustainability issues when determine what items to stock. (5) They are locally owned. (6) They tend to pay their employees a living wage.

For the record, I am not a perfect model of socially responsible grocery shopping, I spread my grocery shopping around several sources. The factors which influence my food decisions are the following (with no discernible priority): availability, condition, convenience (car, walk or public transportation), and price. With that in mind, I patronize four independent ethnic markets and one large chain grocer within my immediate walking (one mile) distance (1-2 times per week); several ethnic markets and independent market stalls by public transport (every 2-4 weeks); one large chain ethnic grocer by car (every 2-4 weeks); and a co-op grocer within distant walking (2-3 miles) distance (every 2-3 months). Given my druthers, I would frequent the co-op more often but as it is, I currently live too far away.

Sources of record

I love dictionaries. I own several and frequently use them to look up definitions and check my spelling (here's a recent source of confusion: pallet, palette, palate). Like with any Wikipedia entry with its embedded links, I get engrossed following word ladders and references throughout the dictionary and lose track of my original inquiry.

Overall, I have found that the major dictionaries (Webster's, American OED, American Heritage) proffer very similar definitions. That being said, I am often confused by the word usage by the news media, especially right leaning media. I was once informed that all arguments are semantic and it's true when you think about it. So I would request that all news providers name their dictionary and general reference of record. I want to know what they mean when they report someone has prevaricated, fabricated or lied. What is socialism, communism, fascism, Nazi-ism and feminazi? The reporting of various news sources (be they mainstream, left or right leaning) is so frequently diametrically opposed that they seem to be speaking different languages. If a mission of news sources is to inform, then we consumers need to know what language is being spoken.

For now: look past the donkies and elephants

I don't see how new original ideas and solutions to our (U.S.) nation's problems can come out of the two major political parties as they now stand. For the past several election cycles, the Republican party has blamed every lost election on the lack of ideological purity, forcing their candidates further to the right. The result is a very predictable list of legislative priorities on which they will not compromise. Their opponents, the Democrats, have spent so much effort pursuing the purported Republican electoral advantage that their recent legislative proposals are repackaged and rebranded policies of the moderate Republicans of yore (need I mention that Obamacare = Romneycare).

To recap: along the left-right political axis, the members of Republican party are densely positioned on the distal right whereas the members of the Democratic party are minimally scattered just slightly left of the Republicans. So neither of the two major parties are proposing any new ideas or solutions to the incredibly complex issues we face today.

We need to look to elsewhere, either to the left of the Democrats or rotate our perspective beyond the linear left-right axis into two or dare we, three, dimensional space. The Green, Socialist, Libertarian and even the progressive wing of the Democratic parties have innovative ideas and proposals. We should bring them front and center to the public arena for the American people to discussion, dissect and debate.

Consequences...

I know very little about the NRA and its origins but I do know it has considerable political clout and expends that not inconsequential clout on lobbying politicians on behalf of gun manufacturers. In light of the changes in laws, rules and regulations that have come about through these efforts, I am curious how the NRA defines 'terrorist'. Furthermore, have the consequences of their activity, in effect, aided the terrorists in their goals? Isn't it illegal to provide aid and comfort to terrorists?

Is it _really_ all the individual?

I've had separate conversations with two people in the past months about the actions/activities of people individually. This goes back to my post on September 19 of last year where I speculate on the direction of our future economic and social evolution. One person completely disagreed with my use of the term society and insisted that I was ascribing traits to a group which a group cannot hold; that only individuals could. For example, individuals choose which candidate to vote for, what products to purchase, to recycle, to drive a truck, etc. An economy and culture and society is the combined aggregate of individual actions and the use of economic or cultural or social as a modifier is a lazy and inaccurate shorthand. More significantly, persuasion can only work at the level of the individual and not the broader society. The second person was apoplectically insistent that being poor was a result of personal choice and implied it to be a moral failing on the part of the individual.

Let me say first off, I am not refuting the importance of individual choice or action. There are definitely situations where individuals could have or even should have made better decisions or choices. But is it not irresponsible and shortsighted to ignore the larger social/cultural/economic context in which individuals act or function?

To the person who claims one can only measure individual activity, I will give one hypothetical situation: one farmer working only with tools he can fashion, will have a negligible impact on his environment. One farmer using tools invented by one person, improved upon by an industrial design team, built by a assembly team and delivered by transport teams will have a slightly larger but not irredeemable impact on his environment. Many farmers using advanced tools under the financial and agricultural policies of the 1920's resulted the dust bowl which affected the climate of the greater part of the land area of the United States. A clear case of a circumstance where group activity at the level of farmers but also dependent on the wider social input of inventors, manufacturers and policy makers had real consequences. If any single step of the process was delayed or abrogated, the consequences may have been much less dire.

What troubles me most about this view is it suggests that societies cannot evolve, or change their values/priorities over time; only individuals can have values/priorities. This implies that every single person is born in some state of naiveté and in the process of maturing, they undergo a series of steps to bring them up to date on current attitudes. So as attitudes change over time, each person has integrate more steps to assimilate into modern society. I would counter this by contrasting the Code of Hammurabi which was highly advanced for its time to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which is barely advanced for today. Individuals may like and advocate for certain aspects of Hammurabi's code but it has been rejected by most people at large and social (peer) pressure exerts further influence. I doubt many individuals disagree with the Convention on the Rights of the Child although their societies (read governments) may not have not ratified them.

The second person insisted that the poor were poor because they chose to be poor. If they wanted to not be poor, they would work harder or longer hours or better themselves for a higher paying position. According to this individual, s/he worked hard for all his/err financial assets and no one had ever given him/er anything. Additional, s/he personally knew an immigrant family who 'chose' 72 hour work weeks and living in 'basements' to see that their children were adequately housed and fed and able to go to college thereby elevating the economic class of the family as a whole. There are many counters to this person's arguments but I will focus on this edition of the immigrant experience and how it relates to today's economic conditions and the issue of 'choice'.

For starters, college today is out of reach for most Americans and places such a debt burden on many students that economic elevation is brought to a standstill. This applies to all Americans, not just recent immigrants, and is the direct result of the erosion of support for public education at both the grade school and college level [by the way, public support of educational institutions is an application of socialist principles.] <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-attn-andrea-education-dropouts-idUSBRE82Q0Y120120327; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/education/poor-students-struggle-as-class-plays-a-greater-role-in-success.html?pagewanted=1>. In terms of 'choice', many untrained immigrants have very limited choice in the jobs they take. They frequently depend on family members or friends for entry into a low wage position such as hotel housekeeping, child care or janitorial work from which they network into other similar jobs. If fortunate, they speak English and can join a union to improve their job security and, hopefully, bargain for better wages and benefits. Else they are at the mercy of their employers and supervisors or worse, find employment/income opportunities in the grey market where there are no legal employee protections or benefit provisions. I am certain that the parents in the family described above would have 'chosen' to join a union had that been possible. They would not have 'chosen' to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week. In some ways, they were fortunate in that 20-30 years ago they were able to earn enough to put their children through college with manageable debt. It is not clear that the same immigrants arriving on these shores today could do the same.

Dissent is patriotic

Dissent is one (if not the most) patriotic civic activity any citizen can engage. We should always speak truth to power. That is why freedom of speech is ranked so high in the U.S. Constitution. This is also why the Patriot Act is anything but patriotic in intent and outcome. I realize that Obama had never campaigned to overturn the Patriot Act but that was my hope and biggest disappointment that he has not. The actions of his administration, renewing of the Patriot Act, crackdowns on whistleblowers and pursuit of Julian Asante and Bradley Manning, bring to bear that any dissimilarity between his and the previous administration is only skin deep.

An anecdote about an undocumented alien…

A boy was born in Canada, adopted by an American couple who brought their child to the U.S. where he was raised. The crux of the story lies in the fact that prior to 1970, children adopted by or born to American nationals were not automatically conferred American citizenship (is this true?). These children had to apply for citizenship through regular channels (or have it done on their behalf). Our protagonist was unaware of his undocumented status and had assumed he was an American citizen… he has voted, participated in political campaigns and even ran for office. When he applied for travel documents from the U.S. State Department, he discovered he was an undocumented alien. He had broken the law when he voted and ran for office. He is liable for prosecution under election laws. He has since been able to procure a green card from INS. I am not clear what his other legal issues are but I am told he is fighting a legal battle over 'the principle' of his situation.

I am not an immigration lawyer nor do I understand 'the principle' at stake but I want to compare his situation to that of the Dream Act 'kids' (who, like our protagonist, are self-identified Americans). As I see it, these are children who were brought to the states illegally but they themselves have unblemished slates. So 'the principle' is that our undocumented Canadian who has broken election laws should be rewarded with legal status and a straight shot to citizenship but Dream Act 'kids' who have never violated the law should be punished with deportation?

The problem with Dream Act 'kids' is they have no legal status. It is neither legal nor illegal to not deport them [so far as I understand it, there is not law that says all 'illegal aliens' _must_ be deported] and there are legal ways to deport them. The solution is to give undocumented aliens some degree of legal status. This goes to a theme which I've covered before and will certainly return to again… the legal system is constructed by human beings so humans can choose to endow it with some degree of humanist principles.

Humanist/Humanitarian potential in artificial institutions

I just want to return to a theme I covered in an earlier post 'Conservative world view' about humanitarianism in corporations. The point I made about artificial human institutions being capable of incorporating humanist/humanitarian principles can and should be extended beyond corporations to include all human institutions. The largest classes of these include governments (constitutions and nations), international agencies, economies and religions. Humans determine the size and scope of these institutions; we humans can decide to be humanist/humanitarian in the drafting and execution of these institutions.

As an aside, I prefer humanist over humanitarian because the latter often carries religious undertones due to its frequently co-option through the 'good-works' of their institutions.