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?
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
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?
Sunday, July 7, 2013
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?
As to her demeanor, how much responsibility does the prosecution bear in terms of preparing their witness?
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, July 1, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, June 28, 2013
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.
Friday, June 21, 2013
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)