Two stories today highlight a major issue with Walmart's corporate culture and, more importantly, the danger of the corporation to its customers.

The first story comes from Kansas where Renee Smith was assaulted in a Walmart bathroom. Apparently several people saw her purse being stolen, including a Walmart employee, but no one did anything to stop it. The most upsetting part of this story though, is that after the assault, she went to a security officer in the store and pointed out the woman who stole her purse, but they didn't do anything about it. Instead, they simply let the thief leave the store. It is appalling, but it seems pretty clear that Walmart's security don't really care about preventing crime, unless it involves significant monetary loss for the store.

So what exactly does Walmart's security care about? The second story answers that. According to The Morning News, Walmart won a permanent gag order against Bruce Gabbard, a former security employee who spoke to the media after he was fired. He revealed that in his job he spied on reporters, infiltrated groups critical of Walmart (like this one), and spied on employees, vendors, and consultants.

Yes indeed, this is Walmart helping you live better at its best. It is well documented that crime is an issue at Walmart. Walmart stores, and their parking lots in particular are often a hotbed of crime, but Walmart continues to focus not on preventing these crimes (which would be quite easy) but on spying. Getting mugged is apparently Walmart's idea of you living better.

Last Thursday, June 26th a California Superior court upheld the LAPD's 29-year-old policy of neither arresting people based on immigration status nor asking about immigration status during interviews. This policy, described by Police Chief William Bratton as "an essential crime-fighting tool for us," is meant to avoid discouraging the undocumented population in many LA communities from communicating with police officers and reporting crimes. Proponents of the policy's abandonment, who filed suit in April 2007, argue that it conflicts with federal and state law. While under the policy officers do alert immigration officials in the case of a suspect who has either previously been deported or is arrested for a felony/multiple misdemeanors, plaintiffs argue that illegal immigrants are repeatedly arrested rather than appropriately deported.

The judge's decision affirms that immigration law is to be applied on the federal, and not the local level. Local law enforcement officials cannot and will not be asked to act as federal immigration agents. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that this conflation of positions is not warranted on legal grounds and is detrimental to the goals of local law enforcement.

The overturning of this lawsuit averts several troubling implications that elimination the disputed policy would have had. The role of a local police officer and that of an federal immigration agent have vastly different objectives; while the former exists "to protect and serve" residents, the latter aims to "effectively enforce our immigration and customs laws... by targeting illegal immigrants." In an area with a significant undocumented population, these roles are often at odds with each other. To ask that police officers assume the duties of immigration agents is to cast them into a confused role that ineffectively pursues conflicting goals. Furthermore, incorporating these duties into local law enforcement greatly increases the risk of racial profiling in pursuit of undocumented residents.

The court's decision to uphold the LAPD's longstanding policy marks a victory for security in these communities. As one of its six core values, the Opportunity Agenda holds security to be vital to our human dignity. Without safe and healthy living conditions, it becomes overwhelmingly difficult for residents to access any of the other opportunity that society has to offer. To put local police officers in a position that undermines their ability to serve their communities as a whole would be to betray a fundamental commitment to equality, security, and community. With its policy on immigrants intact, the LAPD can go forth in its goal to "build safer communities throughout the City of Los Angeles."

Here's a possibility nobody seems to have considered in all the Obama/FISA brouhaha.

Maybe Obama isn't jumping to the right for political expediency.  Maybe Obama isn't afraid of Republicans calling him soft on terrorism.  Maybe he's not cynically using the terrorism card to scare up votes.

Maybe he just honest-to-god thinks that the American people are safer if the legislation passes.

And raise you a "Bin Laden's terrorist network is all your fault."

I kid you not.

     I happened to stop by and see my folks this weekend as is usually my custom and it is amazing how the conversation has changed in the last month. Originally we discussed the remote possibility of Senator Obama getting elected, then whether his agenda included black issues and would whites vote for him, and now as he is continuing to win a much more ominous question is being discussed. I wish I could say these conversations were only limited to my parents, but unfortunately they aren't. The question and concern starting to arise among many blacks in America and maybe worldwide is the safety of Barack Obama.

There seems to be some interest in my new book Security First; frankly it is doing better than several of my other endeavors. But never mind what I think. Here are excerpts from what others say, and links to their full texts.

In his ongoing efforts to promote himself as the Ronald Reagan of the left, Barack O'Reagan seems confused as to where he stands with regards to the issue of preconditions.

In an interview with the Miami Herald the day before the YouTube-CNN debate, Barack O'Reagan said he'd meet with Chavez, but only "under certain conditions".

Taylor Marsh has the details

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25974

Today Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."  The Gulf between Iraq's Government and its American steering committee, headed by President G.W. Bush, is widening. The death and the chaos is having its effect on the occupied, as well as on the occupiers.  The U.S. patience with the Iraqi government's slow progress or lack of any progress at all, has grown thin and the Iraqi patience with the occupying American and British forces has seemingly come to an end as well.