The other day, I came across a White House video about the vast amount of correspondence President Obama receives every day. The number of letters, faxes and e-mail messages the president receives daily is far too much for one person to process. According to Mike Kelleher of the White House Office of Correspondence, Obama receives 65,000 paper letters a week, as well as about 1,000 faxes and 100,000 e-mails a day. Even if the president spent every waking moment reading and writing instead of running the country, he still would not be able to keep up with his correspondence without help.

But Obama has made a point of reading 10 representative letters a day from the public “to stay in tune with America’s issues and concerns,” according to the White House.

“These letters, I think, do more to keep me touch with what’s happening around the country than just about anything else,” Obama says in the video.

Kelleher says the daily letters create “a good dialogue – a direct relationship between constituents who have these concerns and the President who desperately wants to get those messages.”

Do you think these daily letters can have an impact on the president? How do citizens communicate with government leaders in your country?

One of my favorite television programs growing up was Schoolhouse Rock. The show taught children about U.S. history and government – as well as other basics like grammar, math and science – through catchy songs that helped make the lessons stick. To this day, I still know that bills must be approved by congressional committees before they become law, that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins “We the People,” and that the 19th Amendment gave women in the United States the right to vote.

The show stopped airing regularly in 1999, but members of the production team have occasionally reunited to record new songs. Most recently they released an Earth Day-themed series this past March that focuses on environmental issues such as solar energy and ocean conservation.

Are there programs like Schoolhouse Rock in other countries? If you know of any, please share!

I don’t normally follow court cases, but one recently under review by the Supreme Court caught my eye. The case, Doe v. Reed, involves a group of Washington state residents who successfully petitioned for a referendum, Washington Referendum 71, to affirm or overturn state legislation expanding rights for same-sex couples. Government officials believe that, under the state’s Public Records Act, they have an obligation to release upon request the names and addresses of those who signed the petition.

“In all states with initiative or referendum systems, the ballot measure represents the people substituting themselves for legislatures,” Washington’s attorney general, Rob McKenna, said in a September 12 New York Times article. “We don’t conduct [the] legislative process in secret, and it doesn’t make sense to conduct this legislative process in secret either.”

The referendum supporters disagree, arguing that releasing their personal information is a form of intimidation and is thus a violation of their freedom of speech. “We’re not talking about removing the transparency of government,” said James Bopp, a lawyer for the group. “We’re talking about whether citizens should be outed in their participation in our democracy.” Bopp and others note that activists have published names and addresses of those who supported similar petitions in other states. Making this kind of information public has sometimes led to threats or boycotts of businesses, they say. But Tom Lang, the director of the activist Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org, says the publication of petitioners’ names and addresses is intended to generate conversations between neighbors, friends and others who already have personal connections, not to harass or intimidate anyone.

The Federal District Court of Washington issued an order on September 10 temporarily prohibiting the state of Washington from releasing the referendum supporters’ personal information, stating that the case “likely raises serious First Amendment questions in regard to protected speech.” Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction, the Supreme Court has reinstated it until the parties in the case file new motions for action.

How can the courts balance freedom of speech and freedom of information in this case? Is it even possible?

This month, several of my co-workers and I will join musicians around the world in the 8th annual Daniel Pearl World Music Days. Since 2002, individual concerts every October have commemorated the birthday of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and murdered by extremists in Pakistan four months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Pearl’s untimely death moved his family to create the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which seeks “to promote cross-cultural understanding through journalism, music and innovative communications.” To this end, the foundation supports journalism fellowships, youth initiatives, lectures and interfaith dialogues — as well as the annual musical performances.

Although Pearl was known for his work as a journalist, he was also a mandolin player and a classically trained violinist who used his love of music to make friends across cultural and religious divides. As Michelle recently observed in Kosovo, music has a remarkable power to bring people together. President Obama also recognized this in an October 1 message marking the start of this year’s World Music Days:

“Music has been called a universal language that transcends cultures and borders,” he said. “Its power to move us, touch our hearts, and speak to our souls enriches our lives. Through artistic creativity and expression, music can build bridges between individuals and communities thousands of miles apart. This month-long event to celebrate music and honor the legacy of Daniel Pearl is a fitting tribute to a man who promoted respect and dialogue throughout the world. On this occasion, we recommit ourselves to tolerance, compassion, and ‘Harmony for Humanity.’”

Do you drink coffee, tea or hot chocolate? If so, pay close attention to what country harvested your beans or leaves, says the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). According to an ILAB report released September 10 (PDF), over 120 goods from 58 countries — ranging from coffee and cotton to diamonds and gold — may have been produced through child labor and/or forced labor.

The September 10 report, required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and commonly known as the TVPRA List, is intended to help individuals, companies and governments “translate their economic power into a force for good that ultimately will eliminate abusive child labor and forced labor,” Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis said in a statement released the same day.

“Child labor and forced labor are inexcusable abuses of human rights,” and reports such as the TVPRA List “show that they continue to be a problem in 21st century society. We must do everything in our power to end these shameful practices,” Solis said. “While the United States is fundamentally opposed to the exploitation of any worker, the plight of children and adults working in forced labor is especially severe. These individuals are among the world’s most vulnerable, and we have a moral duty to help and protect them.”

“It is also important to note that these are global challenges. All countries — including the United States — face situations of labor abuses,” she added.

So the next time you want a hot drink, a cheap T-shirt or a piece of jewelry, you might want to ask who made it before you buy it. I know I will.

Early one morning, I changed my Facebook status to read:

“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.” (I actually copied this from someone else.)

A few hours later, a friend of mine on Facebook sent me a message chiding me for making a “useless gesture”:

“I agree with you about health insurance reform, but changing one’s Facebook status will not help health insurance reform get passed. Neither will joining any Facebook groups,” she wrote. “If you want to do something to see that Congress passes health care reform, volunteer with Organizing for America or another organization trying to pass the bills. … The blue dog Democrat (and probably swing Republican) districts are where the fight is. This reform is going to pass — if it does — along partisan lines with a few crossover votes, and it is going to be a messy and ugly battle. It’s not being fought on Facebook status lines.”

My purpose in changing my Facebook status was to express my opinion rather than advocate for specific legislation, but I see her point. If I do nothing to support a cause except write a note to my friends, I’m not accomplishing anything except possibly keeping the issue fresh in their minds. As my co-worker Steve has observed, in some cases using Facebook may actually backfire. My friend told me, “I just find people persuading me to change my status to something (anything) kind of rubs me the wrong way.” (I guess she feels about these types of messages the way I do about campaign calls.)

At the same time, social media tools like Facebook can spur people to take concrete action on issues as serious as voter drives or boycotts. When does awareness lead to action, I wonder? Does it depend on the size of an organization? Does it depend on how a message is worded? Or does it depend on individuals like my friend, urging others to do something specific besides talk?

Whenever I drive my son to school or other activities, he asks me questions about the rules of the road that often lead to more profound discussions. A recent conversation went like this:

My son: Why do we have to stop at red lights?

Me: In about 10 years.

An August 11 editorial by Whole Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey on health care reform has generated an enormous amount of discussion on the Web. Following the publication of the Wall Street Journal piece, many people have been using social media tools to organize a boycott of the organic food company. As of August 27, the Facebook group Boycott Whole Foods had more than 29,600 members and links to a related blog, Twitter account and flickr pool.

A man protests outside a Whole Foods store.

On August 18, the Wall Street Journal published its own editorial criticizing the boycott. “Those who actually read Mr. Mackey’s piece may find the racket puzzling. The CEO suggests ways to reform health care without a new deficit-busting entitlement,” it says. It also notes that “Whole Foods is a publicly traded company, so the effects of a real boycott would mainly damage the pocketbooks of those nice Whole Foods employees and its stockholders,” and that “Whole Foods’ Web site has its share of angry customers, but they have been joined by many supporting Mr. Mackey’s position.” (As of August 27, the site’s forums section had more than 2,460 separate message threads and over 18,300 posts about health care reform.)

“Mr. Mackey wrote his op-ed to join a national debate on a subject that will affect his company and employees. He deserves credit for exercising his right to free speech, no matter the risk this currently entails in our politics,” the Wall Street Journal says.

The CtW Investment Group, a major shareholder in Whole Foods that is affiliated with union pension funds (Whole Foods is not unionized), argues the controversy over Mackey’s editorial goes beyond the issue of free speech. On August 25, the group issued a letter to Whole Foods’ lead independent director calling for the CEO’s removal, noting that “Mr. Mackey’s article was not a citizen’s ‘letter to the editor,’ but a lengthy op-ed that explicitly tied him to Whole Foods by identifying him as the CEO.” According to CtW, “This is not the first time Mr. Mackey’s unsanctioned communications have damaged Whole Foods’ image with consumers and investors.”

Should people closely affiliated with companies have restrictions on what they can say and write? And does it make sense to boycott a company over something not directly related to its products?

Many years ago, I regularly played a video game called Sim City. The objective of the game was simple: to build and successfully manage a simulated city. The player took on the role of a mayor and had to consider things such as zoning, infrastructure, services and the city budget. Balancing competing needs was essential; if not enough commercial districts were built, for example, the city would experience unemployment and overcrowding, and the government would have difficulty collecting taxes to provide sanitation, electricity, transportation and other essentials. If too many commercial areas were built, on the other hand, the city’s pollution levels would rise and the citizens would complain about lack of sufficient schools or leisure areas.

As in real life, finances were a constant issue in the game; the citizens would regularly demand new buildings and complain whenever something broke down, but also would object whenever taxes were raised to pay for the city’s upkeep. To keep things interesting, the game would occasionally generate earthquakes, tornadoes and other disasters (including monster attacks!) that would randomly destroy parts of the city and test the mayor’s ability to respond quickly and effectively. The game measured success through public opinion polls; if a mayor’s popularity level dropped too far, the citizens would go on strike or riot and temporarily shut down the city.

I’m not sure how true to life the game was, but it certainly gave me an appreciation for how complicated governing a city can be. I had a lot of fun pretending to be a mayor, but it’s probably a good thing I’m not one in real life!

Several years ago, my mother was selected to serve on a jury considering the case of a black man accused of assaulting a white police officer and resisting arrest. The police officer was originally trying to arrest a different man; the defendant claimed he had become frightened while witnessing the arrest and had merely brushed against the officer accidentally in trying to leave the scene, whereupon the officer had arrested him as well.

During the voir dire process, the lawyers for both sides closely questioned potential jurors – especially those who were white or black – looking for possible racial bias against the police officer or the defendant.  When my mother, an Asian-American woman, came up for consideration, both sides immediately chose her to serve on the jury.  An Asian-American woman would be impartial when judging a case between a black man and a white one, they reasoned. When the final jury was assembled, the rest of the jurors apparently agreed with the lawyers’ opinion, as they elected my mother their forewoman.

Is it appropriate to take the color of a person’s skin into consideration during jury selection? Or should lawyers focus only on potential jurors’ stated opinions and record of behavior? Do you believe a person’s race could affect his or her ability to judge others fairly?

(For those who wonder, the jury found the defendant guilty of assault, but not of resisting arrest.)