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.