The idea that a person has a group "identity" with implications about what person should think or do leads to bizarre paradoxes when one of per parents lied about per ancestry. Especially if the person thinks of that as "Who I am", and has consciously based per way of thinking on that "identity".

I don't understand this concept of "identity". I can't imagine answering the question, "Who are you," based on my ancestors — nor on where they lived, what they did, or what they believed.

The only answer I can conceive of for that question is "Richard Stallman." That name doesn't refer to any of my characteristics, whether physical nor mental. It refers only to me, one specific person, distinguishing me from every other person, and that's precisely why it is the right answer. It will continue to designate me no matter how I change in the future.

If we were to pose the same question about you, I would respond similarly: the only answer I could conceive of would be your name, or some other way of distinguishing you from everyone else.

You have some background, as I have. Your background has surely influenced you, as mine did me. But what has that got to do with "who" you are, or "who" I am? Nothing at all.

I would never intentionally adopt a way of thinking or acting because it's what my ancestors did. That is no reason for me to think or act in any particular way.

Falluja is full of powerful artisanal landmines planted by PISSI — in roads, paths, gardens, and inside houses.

The Citizens Climate Lobby aims to meet with all legislators (in the US, I guess) twice a year.

Bill Bray understood the issue perfectly when he campaigned, years ago, to increase oil prices. If we had made oil cost enough to cover the damage it was doing, we might have avoided the disaster that now stares us in the face.

Some of Amazon's rejected suitors have published what enticements they offered to Amazon to locate there.

It's a catalog of shameless surrender to business. We need laws to stop cities from making such offers.

The World Bank cancelled a large loan to Tanzania, to improve secondary education, because of the policy of prohibiting pregnant girls from studying, as well as other forms of repression.

I support the decision to protect girls' right to an education, and to punish repression. However, I have doubts about the basic idea of asking a poor country to pay for education with loans. How would it repay ever these loans? By pushing more people into poverty?

Sex education and contraception aid might be a more efficient way to use funds to reduce future poverty in Tanzania.