The Path Less Traveled

Linkage

NEW YORK (July 25) - If you have granite countertops in your home, you might consider testing them for the amounts of radon gas they give off, experts say, due to the potential that those amounts are above levels considered safe.
But marble manufacturers say flat-out that, “Radiation in granite is not dangerous.”

Radon is “a cancer-causing natural radioactive gas that you can’t see, smell or taste,” the Environmental Protection Agency explains on its Web site. “Its presence in your home can pose a danger to your family’s health. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in America, and claims about 20,000 lives annually.”

The popularity and demand for granite countertops has grown in the last decade, as have the types of granite available.

The amount of radon in the air is measured in “picoCuries per liter of air,” or “pCi/L,” and the EPA says 4 pCi/L is the level of radon exposure that requires someone to take action. The agency also says levels lower than that “still pose a risk” and “in many cases, may be reduced.”
According to The New York Times, 4 picocuries is “about the same risk for cancer as smoking a half a pack of cigarettes per day.”

The newspaper also reports that, “Allegations that granite countertops may emit dangerous levels of radon and radiation have been raised periodically over the past decade, mostly by makers and distributors of competing countertop materials. The Marble Institute of America has said such claims are “ludicrous” because although granite is known to contain uranium and other radioactive materials like thorium and potassium, the amounts in countertops are not enough to pose a health threat.

Indeed, health physicists and radiation experts agree that most granite countertops emit radiation and radon at extremely low levels. They say these emissions are insignificant compared with so-called background radiation that is constantly raining down from outer space or seeping up from the earth’s crust, not to mention emanating from manmade sources like X-rays, luminous watches and smoke detectors.

But with increasing regularity in recent months, the Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving calls from radon inspectors as well as from concerned homeowners about granite countertops with radiation measurements several times above background levels.”

On The Early Show Friday, Stanley Liebert, quality assurance director at CMT Laboratories in Clifton Park, N.Y. showed co-anchor Harry Smith a chunk of granite countertop emitting 4.4 pCi/L and said, “The probability is we’re looking at a problem here, and the granite would actually be removed.

“In the lower levels,” Liebert said, “we can usually improve (radon levels) by exchanging air” with systems that “bring fresh air in and exchange it with the air in the kitchen.”

He says some granite countertop colors are more potentially troublesome than others: “We’re seeing higher results in reds, pinks, purples. However, you’ve got to test them all.”

The only way to know about radon levels from your granite countertops, and in your home in general, is to test for them, and the EPA says, “There are many kinds of low-cost “do-it-yourself” radon test kits you can get through the mail and in hardware stores and other retail outlets. If you prefer, or if you are buying or selling a home, you can hire a qualified tester to do the testing for you. You should first contact your state radon office about obtaining a list of qualified testers. You can also contact a private radon proficiency program for lists of privately certified radon professionals serving your area.”

NOTE FROM BEN: I found this article quite by accident, and I find the subject matter interesting (who wouldn’t?). Styles of kissing can be very telling–and vitally imporant that they are appreciated between partners.

by Christine M. Coppa

I’ve had my fair share of kisses over the years. Some, I admit, were horrible, and included things like braces, corn-chip breath, and games of tonsil hockey. But there have been some pretty sweep-me-off-my-feet kisses too, like: kissing under a sky illuminated with fireworks, a grown-up-game of spin-the-bottle (please land on green eyes — yes!), and scandalous kisses that never should have happened but felt so good. It’s no wonder, of course, that my girlfriends and I want more of the latter than the former. So listen up, guys, for some advice. Here, eight women kiss and tell…

Make sure she’s willing
“First off, does the date merit a kiss? Am I engaged in conversation with you? Am I smiling? If things seem like a go, a first kiss should be very soft. Please, no tongue! Just kiss my lips with yours. Nip at my bottom lip — just slightly tug it. Don’t be like my last first date, who licked my teeth and got my hair caught in his college ring (come to think of it — never wear a college ring on a date).”
– Alexis Derano, editorial assistant

Brush up
“I think hygiene is key. Before you attempt to kiss me ask yourself: Does your breath smell like pepperoni pizza? I don’t care if we just dined in garlic heaven — a pack of gum or tin of Altoids cost around a buck. Both fit in your pocket. Puh-lease, have fresh breath. I keep Tic-Tacs on me at all times (hint, hint)! If we go back to your place to cuddle and watch a DVD, there is nothing sexier than a guy that excuses himself to the bathroom and emerges smelling like Crest. I once kissed a guy that tasted like tuna fish. We did not go on another date.”
– Donna Tice, accessories buyer

Ration the love
“A little goes a long way, boys! A little lip, a little tongue, a little caressing of my cheekbone. For starters, give me a quick, sexy sweep. Then retreat — do not shove your tongue into my mouth. What I want now are your lips. I want long, solid smooches. Next, pull away and hold the back of my head in your palm. Look into my eyes. I’ll reciprocate — trust me.”
– Kristina Katsulous, account executive

Sneak a peck
“When just getting to know a guy, I like it when he goes in but doesn’t make it to my lips and rather dots my cheek and lip with a long, sweet, I-know-I-like-you peck. Then he pulls away and I likely blush, which is a good sign. On our next formal date, I expect full lip-on-lip contact.”
– Tina Jackson, student

Kiss me in the theater
“Take me to the movies and kiss me (just sweet pecks) at really touching moments, like when the main guy and gal realize they’re meant to be or the puppy gets saved from a burning building. It shows me you’re sensitive and totally tuned into my girly feelings. I’ll kiss you when your team scores a basket — promise.”
– Rachelle King, sales associate

Watch the hands
“Do not take my hands and put them in inappropriate places on your body while we are sharing a kiss. If I like you, my hands will be caressing your brow or tucked under your collar. And I love it if your hands are resting on my hips, holding the back of my head, sweeping my cheek with a soft, open palm, or holding my hands (personal favorite). It ruins a kiss if you take your hands and go rushing to different places. If I like you… we’ll get there.
– Willow Roberts, photographer

Sweep her off her feet — literally
“This is a little cheesy, but I love Hollywood kisses. Completely, over-the-top, theatrical kisses. Hold me, dip me, kiss me. It shows me you love to have fun (like me), and it’s so romantic. Hollywood kisses are also a great distraction from petty arguments, by the way.”
– Laura Gowzen, personal trainer

Just do it!
“My best advice is so simple: Go for it. If you get that urge, and I don’t seem that into it, who cares? Maybe I’m just zoned out for some reason, or maybe I am into you and you just aren’t picking up on my very subtle vibes. I’ve been sneak-attacked a lot with a kiss, and nine times out of ten, it turns me on!”
– Jaz Valte, publicist

By Eve Tahmincioglu
A little humor can help your career — and a company’s bottom line

A guy dies and meets St. Peter who tells him, “Look, you’ve lived a good life, we do things a little differently than what you’d expect. I’m going to let you choose where you’d like to spend eternity. Hear me out, spend a day or two in heaven and in hell and then decide for yourself.” The guy chooses heaven first and finds it beautiful and pleasant, the choirs of heaven singing, animals getting along, streets paved with gold. Nice.

“Last week you were a recruit,” Satan responds. “This week you’re an employee!”

This joke was sent to me by Scott Christopher, co-author of the new book, “The Levity Effect: Why it Pays to Lighten Up,” and humor columnist for Workplace HR magazine.

He shared it after I asked him if he could dig up a funny workplace joke I could pass along to all of you.

Why? Lately I’ve noticed a lack of humor among many of the employees and managers I’ve been talking to and getting e-mails from.

One human resources manager for a major corporation in Virginia, told me, “We’ve got our people so stretched they can’t have fun.”

She surmises that workers are afraid of crossing the line for fear of being terminated, so they don’t want to do anything to stand out. “They want to fly under the radar,” she explains.

And what that means, she adds, is that “people aren’t laughing and you don’t hear joking or fun among the cubicles.”

Welcome to the increasingly humorless American workplace.

Lighten up!
Tough economic times and the perpetual threat of layoffs are gnawing away at our collective funny bone. That on top of years of ballooning political correctness in workplaces have clamped down on laughter.

And that’s bad news for productivity, creativity and the general well-being of workers, say HR and humor experts.

“It’s a natural tendency for some folks to tighten up during tough times, but we need to lighten up,” warns Joel Goodman, founder of The Humor Project Inc.

Goodman believes it was no accident that during the Great Depression, the heyday of comedy emerged with people like the Marx Brothers and Jack Benny.

Here’s a great one that came from Groucho Marx in the 1931 movie “Monkey Business”: “I’ve worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.”

Such a wave of humor, witnessed during the Depression, has yet to hit many of the nation’s businesses, Goodman says, and it’s sorely needed “in order to balance the seriousness of the times.”

What’s exacerbating the joylessness this recession has spawned, some believe, is decades of joke slap-downs in offices and factories.

“The whole issue of political correctness has gone too far when it comes to the criteria for determining an offensive comment,” says Thierry Guedj, workplace psychology expert and professor at Boston University. “If anybody is offended, then it’s offensive. The criteria has become much too personalized. It only takes one person being slightly upset at something for it to become offensive.”

It started in the 1980s, he continues, got worse in the 1990s and “has now reached its maximum.”

And it’s not just the workplace that is seeing the anti-humor phenomenon. We see it all around us, especially during this political season.

No funny business
Just a few weeks ago, the nation was wrapped up in a debate over a satirical New Yorker cartoon depicting presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as terrorists.

Whether you thought the joke was over the top or not, no one would even entertain the notion that it was even the least bit funny, at least not publicly.

On the flip side, the nominees have to be careful when they’re passing along puns.

The expected Republican nominee John McCain has recently come under fire for at least trying to be humorous.

This from Politico.com:

To his detractors, some of the jokes are offensive and out of touch with contemporary mores. It’s sharp, unrehearsed and, at times, way, way over the line. This cycle, he’s drawn winces, and worse, for everything from a joking reference to domestic violence to a now-notorious little ditty about bombing Iran.
It’s clear to me that we all need to get out the lampshades, and fast.

But how do we do it without undermining our credibility at work and getting ourselves added to the pink slip list?

A fun place to work
Clearly, a good mood in the workplace translates into good news for a company.

Christopher, the workplace humor columnist, says year after year the companies that have the highest propensity to succeed and outperform their competitors are those that encourage fun at work.

Sometimes it’s the type of industry you work in that dictates the degree of fun, says Donna DiMenna, a senior executive and consultant for Personnel Decisions International, a human resources consulting firm. Buttoned-up sectors like banking and finance may be more apt to keep things stiff, while advertising or retail may be more whimsical.

“Some organizations think if you’re laughing you’re not working,” she adds.

Everyone is always talking about how Southwest Airlines has always been a fun place to work. So I figured I’d call the company and find out if their employees are still laughing, even in this economy.

“Now, more than ever, we are really focused on creating a fun atmosphere for employees and encouraging them to build each other up in a tough economy,” says Christi Day, a spokeswoman for the airline.

That means the company is still holding a deck party with a band or D.J. every Friday at the corporate headquarters in Dallas overlooking a runway. And the flight attendants are still telling those corny jokes to passengers.

Here’s a particularly silly one: “There’s no smoking on the aircraft, but if you do want to you can smoke on the wing.”

Day admits the jokes can be a bit cheesy but, she adds, “it lightens up the mood.”

Humor can pay off
Being funny and being able to laugh at things may also help your career. Someone with a good sense of humor is likely to do well at work, and more likely to climb the corporate ladder. Indeed, Southwest looks for applicants that have a good sense of humor, Day stresses.

According to a Harvard Business Review study on “What Makes a Good Leader,” one of the key hallmarks of a great manager is a “self-deprecating sense of humor.”

Being able to laugh at yourself, says Wendy Kaufman, president of Balancing Life’s Issues Inc., an executive training firm, is a good way to infuse humor into the workplace without setting off harassment alarms because you made an off-color joke about someone else or took a jab at a religious group or gender.

She suggests you take baby steps when embarking on a laughter plan. First off, you have to start limiting your whining before you can really find the hilarious in your daily grind.

You don’t have to be another Chris Rock in the office. You can be a “levity enabler,” says Christopher. That means allowing yourself to laugh at jokes and not taking every jab so seriously, and finding humor in the ridiculous in your workday. Also, he adds, managers should be encouraging their subordinates to have a good time.

The Humor Project’s Goodman advises workers to become aware of the positive power of humor, how it can offer positive payoffs for your health and career. There are a number of studies, he says, that point to the healing powers of laughter and the destructive powers of stress.

He says things as simple as putting up funny pictures on your desk or having a funny prop like a rubber chicken in your cubicle can add whimsy to any office.

“Everyone has heard the expression that misery loves company, right? On a corporate level right now it’s nice to know that you’re not alone in suffering,” he explains. “But very few people use the term, ‘Laughter loves company,’ which is true. We can choose which contagion we want to set in motion.”

By Scott Thill

With multiple crises on the horizon, survivalist views don’t seem as marginal as they did before.

They used to be paranoid preparation nuts who built bomb shelters for a place to duck and cover during nuclear dustups with communist heathens, but their tangled roots go back to the Great Depression for a reason. If you want to get sociological about it, survivalism started out as a response to economic catastrophe. And now, with a cratering stock market, a housing meltdown that has devalued everything in sight, and skyrocketing prices for food, gas and pretty much everything else, survivalists are preparing for — and are prepared for — the rerun. In fact, they may be the only people in America feeling good about the prospects of a major crash.

And the interesting thing about the once-fringe movement at this moment in history is that survivalism has now gone green — at least in theory.

From peak oil and food crises all the way to catastrophic payback from that bitch Mother Earth, there are more reasons to hide than ever. Conventional society as we know it is already undergoing some disastrous transformations. Ask anyone ducking fires in California, floods in the Midwest or bullets in Baghdad. Maybe it didn’t make sense to run for the hills, stockpile water and food, grow your own vegetables and drugs, or unplug from consumerism back when America’s budget surplus still existed, its armies weren’t burning up all the nation’s revenue and its infrastructure wasn’t being outsourced to a globalized work force.

But those days are gone, daddy, gone.

What’s coming up is weirder. Author, social critic and overall hilarious dude James Kunstler tackled that weirdness, otherwise known as an incoming post-oil dystopia, in his recent novel, World Made by Hand, which has since become one of a handful of survivalist classics. And as Kunstler sees it, whether you are talking about gun nuts or green pioneers, at least you are talking.

“At least they’re aware that we’ve entered the early innings of what could easily become a very disruptive period of our history,” the Clusterfuck Nation columnist explains. “Most of them are responding constructively rather than just defensively. They’re much more interested in gardening and animal husbandry than firearms.”

Not that the gun nuts have gone away. Their ranks have just diversified.

“The gun nuts have been on the scene longer than the peak oil argument has been in play,” he adds. “They were initially preoccupied with Big Government and its accompanying narrative fantasy of fascist oppression, which is why they adopted a fascist tone themselves. But peak-oil survivalists are different from the Ruby Ridge generation. They don’t think that a bolt-hole in the woods is a very promising strategy. We have no idea at this point what the level of social cohesion or disorder may be, but if the rural areas, especially the agricultural centers, become too lawless for farming, then we’ll be in pretty severe trouble because there will be nothing for us to eat.”

That’s not on the to-do list of author and SurvivalBlog owner James Rawles, who has been getting asked more and more questions by a mainstream press finally waking to the consequences of disaster capitalism, climate crisis and the hyperreal dream of bottomless consumption. He has fielded questions from the New York Times, and he has taken an online beating from conscientious pubs like Grist, but he hasn’t gone Hollywood. The times, which are a-changin’, have caught up to him.

“There is greater interest in preparedness these days because the fragility of our economy, lengthening chains of supply and the complexity of the technological infrastructure have become apparent to a broader cross section of the populace,” Rawles wrote to me via e-mail (but only after asking how many unique monthly visitors AlterNet commanded). “All parties concerned may not realize it, but the left-of-center greens calling for local economies and encouraging farmers markets have a tremendous amount in common with John Birchers decrying globalist bankers and gun owners complaining about their constitutional rights. At the core, for all of them, is the recognition that big, entrenched, centralized power structures are not the answer. They are, in fact, the problem.”

Fair enough. But that broad brush fails to recognize the complexities of the very community it is purporting to try to establish. Indeed, difference is what survivalists seem to be running from, whether it is historically the difference between blacks and whites, secularists and true believers, or simply the haves and have-nots. It is that latter crowd that the survivalists seem most worried about. Their separation from society at large is arguably a retreat from community rather than a striving toward it.

“I’d say that survivalism is indeed a celebration of community,” Rawles asserts. “It is the embodiment of America’s traditional can-do spirit of self-reliance that settled the frontier.”

But that’s also a generalization, especially when one considers that the word “settled” is a coded reduction for a “near-genocidal wipeout of the frontier’s native populations,” most if not all of whom were perfecting a survivalist ethic by maximizing their skill sets and living in symbiosis with the land that provided them what they needed in food, tools and medicine. In fact, those settlements would have been hard-pressed to exist without what Rawles earlier described as a “centralized power structure,” known as the expansionist United States government and its military, paving the road forward. Each self-reliant mythology carries within it grains of complicity in the community at large, which is a fancy way of saying there’s nowhere to run, baby, nowhere to hide.

This is especially true today in our hyperreal, hyperconsuming 21st century, where survivalism has become more of a gadget fantasy than an earnest grasp for community.

“It seems a natural human impulse that we are hard-wired to follow as circumstances require,” Kunstler says, “although it is constrained by social and cultural conditioning. To some degree, in our consumer culture, survivalism is related to the gear fetishism you see in popular magazines that purport to be about sporting adventures, but are really about acquiring snazzy equipment. America in 2008 has become a cartoon culture of Hollywood violence that promotes grandiose power fantasies of hyper-individualism and vigilante justice. Add guns and economic hardship, and spice it up with ethnic grievances, and the recipe is not very appetizing.”

This future cultural, environmental and geopolitical miasma is where the survivalist and the mainstream converge in agreement. Both camps, pardon the pun, are convinced that we’re screwed down the road.

“The next Great Depression will be a tremendous leveler,” Rawles prophesies. “If anything, life in the 22nd century will more closely resemble the 19th century than the 20th century. Sadly, the 21st century will probably be remembered as the time of the Great Die-Off.”

“I don’t consider it a total wipeout,” Kunstler counters. “It’s a very big change, but people are resilient and resourceful. Look, imagine if you were a person who had survived the Second World War in Europe, and you were walking around Berlin in the spring of 1946, a year after the end of the war. A once-magnificent city has been reduced to rubble. Your culture is lying in ashes. Yet, people pick up and rebuild.”

That is, if they’re sticking together. If they’re scattered and fending for themselves, and taking armed retreat defense tips from SurvivalBlog, that makes rebuilding a bit more complicated. Which, in the end, is where survivalism is most ambiguous. Is it a growing population of forward-looking realists who are smartly preparing for the die-off brought on by climate crisis and economic collapse, so they can pick up themselves and their people, and rebuild with that “can-do” spirit, as Rawles calls it? Or are they simply gadget-fascinated fundamentalists afraid of change and challenge, so afraid that they’d rather hide and hoard than join the fight?

The jury is still out. But, according to Rawles, it will soon have its diversity mirrored by survivalism’s changing demographic.

“I think that in the next couple of decades,” he explains, “we will witness the formation of some remarkable intentional communities that will feature some unlikely bedfellows: anarchists and Ayn Rand readers, Mennonites and gun enthusiasts, Luddites and techno-geeks, fundamentalist Christians and Gaia worshippers, tree huggers and horse wranglers. We welcome them all. Because the threats are clearly manifold: peak oil, derivatives meltdowns, pandemics, food shortages, market collapses, terrorism, state-sponsored global war and more. In a situation this precarious, I believe that it is remarkably naive to think that mere geographical isolation will be sufficient to shelter communities from the predation of evildoers.”

Company dress codes are a never-ending battle in the working world.

Battle No. 1: Employees misinterpret the dress code or they don’t abide by it.

Battle No. 2: Companies have a code in place but don’t enforce it.

Battle No. 3: Companies don’t have a dress code but they still reprimand employees for wearing certain attire.

Or, Battle No. 4: There’s constant objection from certain industries along the lines of, “Why do I have to look nice at work if I don’t see anybody?”

For example, if you’re a sales employee who meets with clients every day, it makes sense to dress professionally. But for the writer who sits in his cube all day and rarely sees the sun, let alone another person, does it really matter what he’s wearing?

If he wants to be promoted, it does. In a new CareerBuilder.com survey, 41 percent of employers said that people who dress better or more professionally tend to be promoted more often than others in their organization.

Where do wardrobes really matter?

According to the survey, dressing professionally is more important in some industries than it is in others.

Financial services is one industry that places the most emphasis on professional work attire. Fifty-five percent of workers in this sector say well-dressed employees are more likely to be promoted than others.

An additional 51 percent of sales representatives say the same thing about the likelihood of promotions in their industry.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, only 33 percent of manufacturing employers and 37 percent of IT employers say that professional attire influences whether or not an employee gets promoted.

Employer restrictions

Especially in the warmer months of the year, employees take advantage of more relaxed dress codes. But, professionalism shouldn’t decrease as temperatures rise.

How you dress plays a critical role in how others perceive you at work. Dressing professionally in the office, despite the urge to wear a tank top and shorts, will help you project a motivated image to your boss and co-workers.

To many employers’ dismay, traditional dress codes aren’t always enough to keep employees from dressing inappropriately. In order to force employees to dress more professionally, some employers are banning certain items of clothing in order to limit the options workers have when it comes to their work wardrobes.

Sixty-four percent of employers surveyed have banned flip flops, while an additional 49 percent have forbidden mini-skirts. Thirty-eight percent banned sleeveless shirts and 28 percent have prohibited jeans.

More than one-third (35 percent) of companies have gone as far as to send employees home for unsuitable work garb.

Here are four tips for dressing professionally on the job:

• Stock your closet — Start with the versatile basics, such as a pair of black pants, a dark pant suit, some button-down collared shirts and a classic pair of dark shoes. Once you have the staples, you can continue to build your wardrobe to give you plenty of professional options.

• Keep it neat and clean — Make sure your pants, shirts and other clothes are ironed, stain-free and in good condition. When your clothes look sloppy, so do you.

• Steer clear of bar attire — Don’t mistake the office for your local watering hole. Leave the slinky shirts, tight pants and cut off t-shirts at home.

• Look the part — Have a client presentation or a meeting with the CEO? Dress for the part, making sure you choose appropriate articles of clothing for your role.

CAPTAIN KIRK: To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.

SIGMUND FREUD: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure — right from Day One! — that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me…

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on ‘THIS’ side of the road before it goes after the problem on the ‘OTHER SIDE’ of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his ‘CURRENT’ problems before adding ‘NEW’ problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road…

ANDERSON COOPER - CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain. Alone.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE: I invented the chicken!

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

BILL GATES: I have just released MS-eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of the eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never cra… #R&^*^(!…. Reboot…

Happy Birthday to Kacey!

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-07-27.htm

This nation is rushing headlong into debt, dependency and decay. Unconstitutional acts have become the precedent for more of the same, which become precedent for still further acts of despotism.

Can the People elect their way out of such tyranny?

Unfortunately, no! It is not possible, as Ron Paul’s candidacy has proven. Every time he exposed the constitutional truth regarding an issue (e.g., the undeclared Iraq war and the Federal Reserve System) he lost a block of voters who possess a vested interest in the status quo.

What then is the solution?

A forceful defense of the Constitution! This nation’s major problems would all but disappear if 1/10 of one percent of the People (i.e., 300,000) decided to collectively force the leaders of the political branches of the federal Government to honor their oaths of office and abide by the federal Constitution.

Can the People, without violence, force the Government to follow the Constitution?

Yes, by claiming and exercising their individual, First Amendment Right of Redress: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the Right of the People …to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.”

What was the Framers’ intent behind this clause?

The historical record is clear and totally uncontroverted: The purpose of the Petition clause was to be the “accountability” clause – the clause by which the People could peaceably hold the Government accountable to the rest of the Constitution. It was meant to be the “capstone Right,” that capped all the others, a critical element in the overall balance of power between the People and the government.

How was it intended to work?

If the People Petition the Government for Redress of violations of the Constitution and the Government refuses to respond, the People have the Right to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government, without retaliation.

Why must 300,000 people act “collectively” if our Rights are individual, unalienable Rights endowed by one’s Creator?

Because individuals (and small groups) cannot prevail against either the brute power of the state or the tyranny of the majority. Governments simply will not relinquish power unless forced to do so. Majorities likewise are loath to surrender the many forms of beneficence made available by the state. Liberty has never been given; it has always been taken.

Are there 300,000 people in America who understand the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the Government, and that the Constitution is all that stands between them and total tyranny and despotism?

Yes. Despite his low probability of achieving the presidential nomination, 1.3 million people voted for Ron Paul and his call for constitutional Freedom. They not only went to the polls, they aggressively entered the mainstream political fray, generating significant displays of public support for Paul and his potent message, confronting the political opposition by creating high-profile signage (think “blimp”), high-visibility rallies and staking out a significant on-line presence across the Internet. His supporters rallied, marched and attended thousands of local grassroots meetings. Many even maxed out their credit cards to further his campaign.

What then IS the problem?

With over one million Americans apparently strongly embracing the vision of Liberty espoused by candidate Paul, why are we not experiencing a domestic “Freedom Surge” committed to restoring Constitutional Order? Why is there not a more widespread movement toward an active defense of the Constitution and her sacred principles, including acts and investments that, by definition, must fall outside the political process?

The answer: treasured shibboleths and hero worship. Above all else, People value and trust the familiar formula of all Democracies – political cycles, public elections and party privileged candidates to select from, even though all objective experience hath shown the formula, though indispensable, is nothing more than a myth in terms of its practical ability to preserve and protect our constitutional Republic and our individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.

The reason our nation suffers is that we, the people, have been tricked into believing that our constitutional salvation lies solely at the ballot box. We have been systemically misled and distracted from knowing the true power and protection provided by the Constitution — in particular the profound Right of Redress. Our population’s deficient and defective perspectives regarding the limited nature of the electoral process and inherent dangers of political influence and corruption have facilitated these abuses.

Can the People’s treasured shibboleths be exposed for what they are and driven into disrepute and discredited as the principle means to hold government accountable to the Constitution and its essential principles, giving rise to a true surge of Freedom in America?

Yes, but like anything else worth having, it won’t come easily. A paradigm shift in the People’s behavior will be required. New exercises of law and tools of protest will be required. A strategic plan is necessary. Organizational development is essential.

In the absence of any other, WTP again offers its Plan to Restore Constitutional Order. Admittedly, much, much more needs to be done to develop the organization needed to achieve the Redress the People are entitled to and to institutionalize vigilance.

The rest of this article relates to the Plan and its progress. We will soon address organizational development.

The details and logic behind the Plan are reviewable at www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution.

Plan Update:
The Petitions for Redress of Grievances

As of today, there are more than 80,000 signatures on the seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:

1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.

2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.

3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.

4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.

5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.

6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”

7. The construction, by stealth, of a “North American Union” without constitutional authority.

These but scratch the surface. There are other current and popular abuses of government power that could and should become the subject of additional Petitions for Redress.

Plan Update:
Service of the Petitions on Congress

The number of Congressmen who have not yet been served with the seven Petitions for Redress has been reduced to 65. As of this week, 470 have been successfully served.

Click here for a list of the 65 members of Congress who still need to be served.

Click here to volunteer to serve these Congressmen.

Plan Update:
Testing the Attitude of the Judiciary

Early this year, our landmark Right-to-Petition case, We the People v United States reached the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). It was an action for declaratory relief in which we sought a declaration of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the accountability clause of the First Amendment. No court has ever declared the meaning of the clause. SCOTUS decided not to hear the case. RIGHT-Click to download WTP’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and its Appendix.

If we fail to receive responsive responses to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations that are now being served on every member of Congress, we plan to file a similar lawsuit in each of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC Circuit. It will be much more difficult for SCOTUS to duck the issue by deciding not to hear the case if two circuit courts disagree on the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Quite unexpectedly, one such lawsuit was filed on Tuesday of last week in Missouri by Ray and Elaine Herron, the two people who served the Petitions for Redress on their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives (Rep. Ike Skelton). The case was filed in the federal district court in the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 08-0531-cv).

The case was filed because Rep. Skelton retaliated against the Herrons. The Herrons have asked the court to declare Skelton’s obligation to provide a formal Response with specific answers to the Petitions for Redress and to undo the harm done to the Herrons by Rep. Skelton. Click here to read the Herron’s Complaint against Skelton.

To date, there have been ten other responses to the Petitions for Redress:

Sen. Kyl (AZ) non-responsive Response
Sen. Reed (RI) non-responsive Response
Rep. Frelinghuysen (NJ) “Will respond to every extent possible and practical.”
Rep. Shuler (NC) “Will reply by August 8th.”
Rep. Doggett (TX) non-responsive Response
Rep. Hunter (CA) “Call and discuss.”
Rep. Smith (WA) “Will be responding.”
Rep. Price (GA) non-responsive Response
Rep. Rehberg (MT) “There will be no answer.”
Rep. Hulsolf (MS) “Forthcoming.”

Last week we also requested your feedback and ideas regarding our effort to evaluate and select plaintiffs for the upcoming series of Right-to-Petition “Circuit Court” lawsuits. We thank the many people who provided feedback. We are currently analyzing your comments and will provide additional information in the near future in a web update.

The Ron Paul Question:
Will He Respond?

An interesting and potentially serious situation is developing regarding Rep. Ron Paul. It appears as though Ron’s staff may not have informed the Congressman of the Petitions for Redress, notwithstanding: a) the fact that there exists proof that on June 30 the Petitions for Redress were properly served on Ron Paul at his district office in Texas by a constituent; b) the fact that on June 30, Bob Schulz dropped in to Ron Paul’s DC office to deliver a personal letter to Ron Paul, along with a copy of the Petitions for Redress: and c) Ron Paul’s public declaration in 2001 that the People’s First Amendment Right of Redress includes an inherent Right to a response to their Petitions for Redress.

Last week, Plan supporter Ray Mills had the opportunity to personally speak to Ron Paul in Boone, NC at a Ron Paul rally and book signing event. Ray was able to question Ron Paul regarding the Petitions and his intention to respond. Rep. Paul stated he knew nothing about the service of the Petitions for Redress and that he would look into the matter.

Last Friday (July 25), Bob Schulz spoke by phone with Ron’s chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, about the Petitions for Redress. Tom said he was generally aware of the Petitions but would have to check with his Legislative staff to see what was being done about them. Tom did express a concern of his. He asked if Bob believed the Right to Petition required Ron Paul to respond to every communication received by him from any constituent. Bob told Tom he did not believe each and every communication would necessarily receive the protection of the First Amendment as a proper Petition for Redress requiring a response. Bob then sent Tom a definition of a proper Petition for Redress – one that would require a response.

Needless to say, a serious situation would ensue should Ron Paul fail to respond, responsively (i.e., with formal, specific answers to the questions in the Petitions for Redress). Absent such a response Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.

The Constitution is not a menu. Rep. Paul is an official of the U.S. Government, and as a true believer and outspoken defender of the Constitution he cannot be found defending only some of its provisions, such as the war powers, money, privacy and tax clauses, while disobeying another, such as the accountability clause of the First Amendment. Again, it is important to note he has publicly admitted such an obligation to Respond.

Ironically, should Ron Paul fail to Respond to the Petitions, he would in effect, not only be ignoring the affirmative duty expressly placed upon him by the last ten words of the First Amendment, he would (through his “Campaign for Liberty”) be left promoting the notion of majority rule as the sole avenue of recourse by which the People can (peacefully) cure constitutional torts or secure their individual Rights.

In other words, Ron Paul’s potential failure to Respond would place him in the awkward position of publicly embracing political principles endemic to a pure democracy, while simultaneously holding himself, as a duly elected official, beyond the legal construct protecting the actual exercise of Individual Rights and Popular Sovereignty as guaranteed by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and numerous other expressions of Fundamental Law dating back to Magna Carta.

It is time to move the battle for Liberty beyond the limited paradigm of electoral politics and governance by the majority: It is time to exercise the individual Right to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances and Restore Constitutional Order.

Plan Update:
Hungering For Redress

The Plan includes a hunger fast in August should no member of Congress honor their oath of office and obligation to respond to the Petitions for Redress of the seven violations of the Constitution.

Ike Skelton has violated the Constitution of the United States, broken his oath of office and should be ordered by the Supreme Court of Missouri to step down from his role as Representative. These are serious issues that Ike Skelton has taken upon himself to act in a frivolous way and require immediate redress by the Judicial branch of Missouri government.

I am utterly shocked that the main-stream media has not seen fit to report any information on these gross and serious miscarriages of justice.

In short, an elected representative has violated the Constitution of the United States and broken his oath of office, abused and misused the power of the government and criminally acted against his constituents.

I add my voice to their’s–though I go a step further: Ike Skelton should be removed from office, criminally prosecuted for his actions and sentenced to prison if found guilty of the crimes.

On June 30, nearly 400 members of Congress were served with Petitions for Redress of Grievances.

Since then, several dozen more have been served, leaving 65 to be served.

Most have 40 days to respond, approximately August 9th.

On July 22, the first complaint was filed by a Missouri family, naming their Congressman as Defendant.

Herron et al v. Skelton
Case Number: 4:2008cv00531
Filed: July 22, 2008
Court: Missouri Western District Court

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-mowdce/case_no-4:2008cv00531/case_id-86900/

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/HERRON-Complaint-Rep-Skelton-Jul-2008.pdf

In the document, sections 23 and on are informative, offering historical foundation for Petitions for Redress.

Section 60 sums up the Plaintiffs’ request to the Court: “Because the Right of Petition is by its nature a direct exercise of the sovereignty of the People, and is by Constitutional necessity superior to the Government’s narrowly limited powers, the Court should force…”.

On July 27th, a question was raised - Will Rep. Ron Paul Provide Redress?

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-07-27.htm

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast — a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins — would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign-policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It’s as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘merci beaucoup.’” Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism … that you come out of your isolation. … Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?
We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

Charles Krauthammer’s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com