In order to effectively use resources and energies, there must be systematic reorganization of our production techniques, and distribution systems. To reduce waste, and to promote innovations, I propose that production methods in manufacturing be limited in scope and variety, slightly, in order to allocate more resources, monies and energies towards alternative energy such as solar power.
Examples of this can range from manufacturing of luxury goods, to basic manufacture of disposable goods. For this purpose, I will use televisions. Policy would be implemented such that, instead of purchasing new and unnecessary goods (those which include no increased efficiency in energy) which are of many varieties, supposedly to compete for consumer's tastes
there should instead be fewer options, of more reasonable and efficient style, where the cost and resources saved would be re-invested into something with long term benefits, such as the solar energy example.
In manufacturing there is inherent waste, and this waste is something which also has held back the production of solar energies to some extent, until this point in time. In order to effectively implement this system, there must be consolidation and evaluation of resources with a broader range and more thorough understanding. There must be focus on internalizing hidden costs, such as roads which must be maintained to carry goods, and the cost of transportation for materials. The public throws substantial amounts of money into novelty and disposable type petroleum based, and otherwise inefficient goods. The energies to make plastic toys, and many computer games, phones, decorative items and other such goods, are often compounded not only by the elements of waste in manufacture and purposeful obsolescence, but also by the cost of distribution, sending specialty products; transport fuels, real cost of fuel, should be used in the sense of all the indirect subsidies.
Because of substituting not only the purchase of unnecessary goods, but also discouraging their manufacture (avenue could be free market) and using those saved energies towards creating solar energy, we may be capable of conserving money and resources, and in the process get return on that change, in the form of more renewable energy, and efficient manufacturing systems.
In summary, what is proposed is a novel concept of subsidizing currently less economic but ecologically desirable renewable technologies, via a substitution of value from "wasteful products" to offset the higher costs of the renewable technology. This could be implemented by taxes on such "wasteful products" , and also by raising taxes on current energy sources to internalize hidden costs currently not accounted for. The subsidization of the renewable technology will stimulate new investment in renewable technologies and will create numerous new businesses and jobs for society.
-
E&R.J G.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Logs and Journals
Expansion of Government Power and the Promotion of “National Security”
Log #1 September 15, 07
Time spent 2.5
Source 1. www.personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT
Source 2. www.epic.org/privacy/terroirsm/hr3162.html
Date October 24, 01
Title: USA Patriot Act Hr. 3162
Brief: compared Patriot Act titles I, II, with U.S code, primarily title 18, noted many changes, but more interesting, the wording choices and methods. Clearly going to be large part of future/present policy changes.
Log #2 September 18, 07
Time spent 2
Source 1. www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/
Date September 18, 07
Title: Myth/Fact: Key Myths about FISA amendments in the Protect America Act
Brief: On the white house site, it is clear they are giving the pieces of information they want to have proliferated. Just because the equivocators call it ‘myth/fact’ does not mean it is so. I am looking at different views of what it does and why.
Journal # 1 September 19, 07
Reading the Patriot Act, I was un-amused. The methods taken to change our policies are extraordinary. What surprised me was how thoroughly those who created it managed to undo the U.S Code, and most of the written documentation of our “unalienable rights.” Outlined were changes in how we respond to threats, threats being any of many loosely defined ideas or actions deemed dangerous to our ongoing system of “American Freedoms.” Changes covered a huge area of our policies, foreign and domestic, not limited to political freedoms, but instead including economic and personal issues as well. Recognizing that the changes affect almost all of the areas of our lives; it is important to clarify that the changes are not limited, even, to our citizens, “rules and policies extend to our foreign policy and operations”
I will forgo describing my perception thus far of H.R 3162, and instead will focus on the fascinating way in which it is written. I think it is important to mention how difficult it would be to ‘read’ the Patriot Act. The sections are highly abridged and without the documents it alters, no sense can be made of it. Whether this is intentional or not, I could not say, but I have found it to be commonplace in these sorts of litigious activities. The majority of people who should know what the Act includes- everybody- are unlikely to read or understand what it allocates. The full implications of this document, I am not sure can be defined in any terms, and so it is of concern. An increasingly disturbing image of our political present is forming for me, just after reading these a bit more carefully.
Log #3 September 29, 07
Time spent 3
Source: The Power of Nightmares Parts 1-3, BBC
Date January ‘05
Brief: It discusses the relationship between ‘neoconservatives’ and radical Islamists. It shows their perspective on relations between Osama Bin Laden and Islamic Militants. They propose that OBL did not organize the attacks on the World Trade Centers in ’01, and that the Neo-cons are on a witch hunt. They said that so-called sleeper cells and networks are either uninvolved or not existent. They said that our media and politicians exaggerate their role, and debilitate any significant progress that could be made elsewhere. The programme also outlines certain concepts like the Precautionary Principle, which for me exemplifies the failure of such systems.
Log #4 September 30, 07
Time spent 1
Source 1: www.cfr.org/publication/9126/#1
Source 2: www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydale.asp
Title: Council on Foreign Relations ‘A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis’
Brief: ‘Backgrounder’ al-Qaeda (a.k.a. al-Qaida, al Qa’ida) Discusses their thoughts on what al-Qaeda is, the role of Bin Laden, what the ‘members’ have supposedly been responsible for. It outlines who they are connected to, how many there are. As the ‘enemy’ goes, and as Bush said “we are not sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.” The second site focuses on British demographics and how the Iraq war is 'managed'. It includes opinion polls on whether Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda.
Journal # 2 September 30, 07
The BBC program seemed to summarize a bit of the history of Radical Islamists and the U.S. Discussing Kotb’s disillusionment with the materialism in the U.S. It points to Neo-Cons for misleading the people about what is happening currently, creating evidence from nothing, to show that our “war on terror” is justified, and that it is meant to protect our interests. Further that because of that defensive nature and that it is not an aggression by the U.S, those fighting the war on terror should be empowered. Richard Perle claimed in an interview that we are fighting against terrorists who want to impose an ‘intolerant tyranny on all mankind” he continued that they wanted an “Islamic Universe in which we are all compelled to accept their beliefs.” This to me seemed strongly dependent on ethnocentrism; that our way is the only way, and seems to also be dependent on the rampant xenophobia and the need to demonize what we do not understand. I don’t think his view, that the terrorists are all pious individuals who are threatened by our hedonistic culture, I think they would be more likely to despise our interventionist policies. The programme suggests that the neo-conservatives exaggerate the powers of the threat and pushed this cultural recoil to serve to their benefit. Though the programme was not flawlessly produced, it did make it clear that what the ‘war on terror’ is aimed at is largely non-existent. Searching for these ‘sleeper-cells’ brings me back to when we learned about McCarthyism, and their witch-hunt for communist and ‘communist sympathizers.’ The practice of using suspicion alone as evidence, and the Precautionary Principle, justified without evidence in the paradigm of prevention. The suspects can be jailed based on what they were maybe going to do. The site outline of events was very different from those in the programme, but in this case, I lean more in the favor of the programme’s version of events, because of confirmation bias, knowing our past actions toward S. America, and that these incidents are not isolated. The program was more of a specified collection of my own concerns. I thought it was funny that the polls showed that people felt confident in their answers, but were not sure the evidence that lead to their conclusions was clear.
Log #5 October 4, 07
Time spent 1
Source: Situation Room, CNN.com
Title: Did Justice Department OK Torture Behind the Backs of Congress?
Brief: Fran Townsend when interviewed about torture said “fewer than a hundred CIA detainees”... “Less than a third produced 8500 intelligence reports on threat information.”
Log # 6 October 10, 07
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Executive_Summary_Report.html
Brief: Discusses securing the ‘National Homeland” and says that the “persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century.” it continues, explaining things which we will need, organizations... it includes prospective applications for things like nano-technology... A gentle reminder from big brother.
Journal # 3 October 7, 07
I am an advocator for human rights, and I tend to follow the belief that through violence and coercion, no good can be gained. It is not true that “sometimes to do good you must first do evil.” To do evil toward some supposed justified end will only create more violence and suffering. That said, the U.S government had claimed that investigations into terrorist threats did not involve torture. They would often bring up John McCain, and say how sensitive the U.S government is about torture. What Fran Townsend said confirmed for me that we are torturing people. I do not know enough to say this with supreme confidence, but I had been convinced before this that it is the situation and now believe that to be true. The statistical information she provided, though initially vague, gave a more important piece to focus on, and that is the reports she claimed were attained through interrogations on less than one third of those people detained. She said that those few dozen people created 8500 pieces of intelligence on threats. This type of thing is just disgusting. How can somebody be so naïve, believing that the techniques of coercion would produce anything worthwhile. What quality of information could so few people give when forced to answer so much. It is clear that they were trying to say whatever the interrogators wanted to hear, so that they would stop the interrogation (most likely torture).
Log #7 October 12, 07
Time spent 3, 1.5
Source 1: C-SPAN program on Minority Ownership of Media
Source 2: C-SPAN 2 Campaign 2008 Bully Pulpit in Charleston
Source 3: CNN Situation room focused mostly on Nobel Peace Prize
Source 4: www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2007/db0920/DOC-276763A1.pdf
Brief: The Minority ownership of media, RAINBOW-PUSH coalition was discussing who determines what gets broadcast, who owns the broadcasting systems, etc. They mentioned the consolidation of media, and Karen Bond from the National Black Coalition said that one company owned all five of the radio stations popular among blacks (in Chicago, IL). FCC commissioner Michael Copps spoke to the gathering.
The campaign 2008 C-SPAN 2 broadcast John McCain speaking to Charleston University students. He outlined his thoughts on patriotism, foreign policy etc. Probably the good part was the Q&A.
CNN There is a growing link between our justification of our immigration policies and the interests of national security.
Log #8 October 14, 07
Source: CNN late edition (Wolf Blitzer,)
Source 2: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html
Source 3: www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article
/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613
Brief: Wolf Blitzer attempting an interview with Senator Graham about statements made by retired lt. General Ricardo Sanchez. Senator Graham puts blame on Sanchez for Abu Ghraib, and other misconducts he believed were the result of too few troops. Graham asserted that he and John McCain had asked Sanchez repeatedly if the troop levels were sufficient. Graham had a lot of talking points he was weaving in which at points made what he was saying almost unintelligible. (Just a note to make clearer the nature of the interview) He went on to say that if current plans (especially in Iraqi leadership) fail, that they should “Look for a new horse to ride,” and replace those people. The next person interviewed was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the U.S national security adviser to Jimmy carter, and was pivotal in the arming of the Mujahideen. He answered similar questions as those asked of Graham.
Late edition continued, with a brief discussion of illegal immigration. They quoted Vincente Fox, “the xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race... they are deciding the future of this nation.” He said “what I perceive here is fear in this nation, and fear is not a good advisor.”
Journal # 4
In the information on FCC commissioner Michael Copps I found that he is a neat character, after finding his use of terms like “whitewash” in his speech, I decided to look him up, and things he’d been involved in. I found his remarks from a hearing in Chicago on September 20th. He said, “I want to emphasize what is at stake here. Our media is precious. It is how, outside of our strictly personal spheres, we speak to each other, learn from each other. Almost half a century ago, Arthur Miller said that “a good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” and today that idea applies to our entire media system. I also believe that media is the most powerful enterprise in the land, bar none. If we are smart about it, our media will reflect the genius, the creativity and the diversity of our great nation.” The minority ownership of media played heavily into our recent class discussions and touched on the ‘fourth estate’ concept, that media increasingly effects “how we govern ourselves”
The immigration information I found was disturbing because I hadn’t thought that they would justify their immigration policies using the National Security explanation. CNN mentioned the website “OutragedPatriots.com” which, expecting assery, I went to, and these expectations were met. There may at one time have been legitimate discussion there. I wouldn’t say that now. It is poorly organized inconsistent in its message, and seems to be fueled largely by ignorance and card stacking. I am not impressed, and am confused as to why CNN mentioned it.
In Senator Grahams’ interview he said the people involved in the Iraq war need a new political strategy, and that he is “worried about a third world war against terrorist extremists with Iraq as a main battleground.” (Note: when retyping, funny that he said Iraq and not our new ‘terrorist breeding ground’ in Iran) When asked about an Israeli air strike on an under construction nuclear facility in Syria, Graham says that we as a nation (globally) should “act responsibly against rogue states like Syria and Iran.” If he were president at that moment, I would classify that under ‘declarations of war’ (again retyping very funny, because the President actually Did say that since then.) When asked similar questions, Brzezinski said “what we’re doing is conveying the intention to maintain an essentially colonial presence,” he continues saying that this system cannot sustain stability, and that doing so would require joint efforts with Iraqi leaders within and outside of the ‘green zone.’ He called the previous statements (by Graham) and those like him “obsessive delusional narrative of this being WWIII…” He replied to one of Blitzer’s questions [similar to those he asked Graham] “Nobody in the world really supports our occupations in Iraq.” I was pleased with how Brzezinski pointed out the concept of colonialism within the U.S Occupation of Iraq, and the surrounding conflicts. Increasingly I am deferred by CNN’s programming, their programmes are inconsistent, and many of their shows are downright disgusting. I decided to look further into Brzezinski, and found a series of articles written by him for the Washington Post, which were a far cry from other characterizations of him... a play maybe on non-transparency, when the uninformed public has people paraded out for them to listen to. I could not tell which of the people interviewed were more obscure in their standpoints.
John McCain’s speech covered a lot of topics, he touched on healthcare, and the basic (usually unimportant focused on issues) but when asked about mercenaries he gave the most honest answer within his ability, and later put blame on Rummy and the President. When asked about the possibility of war with Iran, he said he didn’t support the idea but that the student asking the question “represents the skepticism in the American citizens with respect to [our actions to ensure] National Security.” He said that he believes Iran is a threat. He talked about not expanding the government’s economic power (which of a Republican is to be expected) but his reasoning was well packaged enough to be palatable for most people. That worries me.
Earlier today, I was thinking of my topic, and why I chose it. I considered how my research would’ve changed if I’d done “expansion of Government Powers to promote Democracy." The conclusion I came to was that there would have only been a difference in my methods. I don’t think it is arguable that the government powers expand in times of perceived crisis. In war, famine, aftermath of social revolution (sometimes) the government gains power. The growing consciousness of “national security” is disturbing, as it has been outlined in many different ways. Fear, is huge.., Fear of economic hardship, fear of invasion by people who look seem unlike ourselves, fear of nuclear war, and escalating violence. What I am looking at is not unlike ecology, drawing from interconnected topics heavily. It is hard to see where this behavior originated, or where it will end.
The things that have been done and may be done in the interests of National Security are frightening to me. As Vincente Fox said, “Fear is not a good advisor.” Looking at the combined lack of information and propagation of fear, I worry about what the people would, if given the opportunity, give the government consent to do. I see the “moderation/modification” of opinions in a Republican candidate (though it is all a façade) and the bastardization of individual rights, and the corruption of most of the players in government, as a sign of bad things on the horizon. I see a nation of sheep being guided by wolves, and an already totalitarian-dominated style of government being given the milieu needed to create global suffering, and destruction. Hopefully some economic crisis will stop us.
Log # 9 October 20, 07
Source: C-SPAN
Time: 2hr
Brief: A discussion with Senator Kit Bond., John Tkacik. China as a hostile power was the main concern of the discussion. China had supplied our defense department with its tech materials, and programs. The same companies provided Saddam Hussein with optic fiber cables for his missiles. Brings in issues of foreign policy, what companies to work with. Also, our data, the same provided by these Chinese companies, have been repeatedly hacked by professionals, especially our information on surprise-surprise, N. Korea, and China. The individuals in the discussion said China was a “suspect.”
Log #10 October 23, 07
Source: C-SPAN 2
Time 1
Title: “Live with White house press secretary Dana Perino
Brief: Discussing U.S Policy toward Iran, especially Missile Shield for 2015. Talks with Russia regarding Iran’s ability to seek approved nuclear programs, “assisted” (controlled) by Russia. Dana mentioned our relationship with our buddy Castro, Cuba, and the president’s speech to that effect.
Journal # 5
The trend I saw with the two most recent observations was a step-up in fear mongering. In each of the logs, people involved warned of an impending attack. The first said China was trying to Sabotage the U.S gov. and economy. This I thought was funny, because they have no need, given this past administration. There was a great discrepancy in who is the largest threat, these so-called “rogues” China, N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. This isn’t foreign policy, saying if we feel threatened; we’re putting missiles in a third country. I think what our government is doing is both dishonest and reckless (read: western arrogance) I was not anticipating the news that El Presidente George Bush would be speaking about bringing Democracy to Cuba when Castro is out of power. Bringing Democracy is something that scares me. Especially when the white house press secretary couldn’t keep from saying “freedom= Commerce.” That isn’t what I espouse, and looking at what little I know about Cuba, his proposal is probably not what they have in mind. Stop the Capitalist mix up with democracy. In ours that might be interchangeable, but that should be separates. Also, “Castro out of power” is a misnomer. The minute we see a weakness, e.g. Castro’s people scrambling for leadership, we go in with our corporations and military coercion and loot what we can. Castro says he anticipates Bush planning “a new conquest of Cuba by force” to which Perino said “Dictators say a lot of things.”
Log #11 October 28, 07
Source 1: www.salon.com/opinoin/greenwaldindex
Source 2: www.newsweek.com/id/61969
Authors: Greenwald, Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball
Brief: The opinion article outlines efforts to stop retrospective Telecom Amnesty. This is in regard to companies which supported the President with warrant-less information Post 9/11 and would govern how the U.S collects electronic national security intelligence. “The principle thrust of the bill is to update and extend the protect America act, which had granted new authority to the U.S Intelligence Community. It allowed U.S Intelligence to intercept phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists overseas which pass through switches or telecom equipment in the U.S”
Log #12 October 38, 07
Source1: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/207
Source2: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102400155.html
Brief: revisiting FISA, looking into Protect America act, talks about the speech the president made regarding the confrontational U.S policy toward Havana, and the long-term approach. The president offered Cuba computers and internet access, and scholarships if Havana relaxes restrictions on those things. He says “now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cuba’s transitions into a future of freedom and progress... The operation word in our future dealings with Cuba is not stability... the operative word is freedom.” Freedom=capitalism=democracy
Journal # 6 October 29, 07
What Glen Greenwald’s article and the Newsweek article pointed out are cases in which the government is trying to support people who acted against the law at the time. To obey requests which were supposedly in the best interest of U.S Security. That is not how the legal system is supposed to work. If at the time you did something it was illegal, then there is supposed to be some repercussion, no? Our policies regarding privacy as pertains to National Security have been gaining some attention, but so far as I can see, too many Americans are asking whether moral people should have anything to worry about, when they should be asking whether they are okay with what the government is doing without their knowledge or approval. Whether you have anything to hide is beside the point. It ought to be a public questioning of whether the government has total control over your privacy. When we watched “Those Debatable Debates,” and students first heard about Axiom voter identification and targeting, they were startled and concerned. Some asked who has control over how deep they can search, and who they can give the information to. There need to be more of these things to help people wake up. With the United States relationship with Cuba, I really hope my expectations are false. I don’t want us to be the authority in “Spreading Democracy” especially because we don’t have one here. The operative word for our future dealings with Cuba is not stability... the operative word is “freedom,” Freedom as defined by the current administration is a very scary thing. Our freedom is equivalent to money, among other things, but among the last of those would probably be liberty, choice, and privacy.
Log #13 November 2, 07
Source: “Blowback, the Costs and Consequences of the American Empire,” Chalmers Johnson.
Brief: Outlined in this book are highly relevant historical reverences related to the motivations and likewise result of our interventions globally, as our foreign policy.
Log #14 November 4, 07
Source: Democratic Debates on C-SPAN (replayed) also, Arthur Silber
Brief: Watching the Democratic Debates and seeing the Candidate’s plans regarding Iran and other current policies, I was deeply disturbed. Talk of Preemptive strikes, installing stronger military presence. (Revisiting my thoughts on the Missile shield) The seeds of doubt long have been in place, are beginning, in masse to germinate.
Journal # 7
Throughout our history, there has been what the CIA has more recently termed “blowback.” This is the unanticipated negative results of our interventionist policy. The focus is post WWII but is unlimited. From what I’ve read, my past (and comparably amateur) interpretations, and light analysis of what we perceive to be aggression against our ‘liberties’ have been more or less correct. I once drew a picture called “summary of weapon flow,” for a group of my friends. It outlined what Johnson is pointing to, which our irresponsible proliferation of arms and violence is resulting in hostility from other nations. Most of our enemies were at one point used to our benefit, that is, we exploit so much, that few people are without our influence and in a world where we rule based on our own selfish terms, there are likely many more a broken relationship than those we make notice of, and soon more to come.
The debates did not help the way I view our actions, and my optimism. In my day-to-day evaluation of articles and direct discussion regarding our Imperialist standing and reckless and aggressive behavior, most of the candidates (especially Hillary Clinton, as Silber pointed out) left “all options on the table” when asked about future acts against Iran. Only the seldom heard Kucinich said anything against pre-emptive policies. The shame in that is that Kucinich is the man in the street holding a sign dictating that ‘the end is near’ so he will likely be ignored by a vast majority of the population.
Inter Arma Silent Leges. “in war, laws fall mute. “
What I’ve found is a compounded version of what I'd already anticipated. My
interpretation of the correlation/ causation of our issues was largely correct, but not dark
enough. For the most part, where I had explained atrocities had been committed in part
because of economic interests. It is more often the most evident motivation. In our
policies toward Honduras, Hawaii, Guatemala, Cuba, all based in arrogance, greed and
violence. We are responsible for what our country does. There were in Blowback,
connections I hadn’t seen before. Like how our actions in Nicaragua (allowing contras to
do as they please) leads to a drug blowback in the U.S. There are of course, many
examples to be cited. To my delight, there are discussions all over the place where the
U.S foreign policy is described in terms of empires, genocide, and false-democracy.
Log # 15 November 5, 07
Source: Politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
Brief: Dennis Kucinich has been trying to get the House of Representatives to debate Impeaching Vice President Cheney. He points that “Vice President Richard B. Cheney by such conduct is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office” This is important because 1) Cheney is complicit in actions to expand government power. 2) Indicates the inactivity of the House of Representatives, and may show a deep threat to change. The house is full of people who promote the annihilation of our individual freedoms and allow violence and other reckless behavior on the part of the government.
Log #16 November 6, 07
Source: thinkprogress.org
Brief: President Bush believes in order for diplomacy to be effective, all options have to be on the table. Regarding Iran, he told the House Leaders he was in high spirit and expected overwhelming support from the house. Meanwhile Cheney has “been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz and perhaps other sites, to provoke Tehran into lashing out.
Journal # 8
Dick Cheney among other agents of the current administration, is antagonizing Iran. He suggested missile strikes aimed toward nuclear targets, in order to instigate retaliation by the Iranian Government. Our House of Representatives refused to debate whether he should be impeached. What I see is a failure in checks and balances. The house isn’t controlling anything. There, among these people, ought to be someone who stands up and says “no more”. Kucinich is the most vocal publicly as I have seen, and that is a real shame because he like Silber, Floyd and anybody else I like, they are not heralded as they should be. They like to portray Kucinich as somebody who is unreasonable; ask him pointed questions to make him seem insane, when really the people who are off course include anyone who participates in the system. This expanding evil. This is not surprising though, as this is typical behavior of our government. We may have (according to some historians) antagonized Japan such that Pearl Harbor would occur, and the U.S citizenry would rally again for war. The president knew there was going to be an attack; he counted on it to make war.
Log #17 November 18, 07
Source: Frontline Cheney’s Law (class + PBS.org)
Brief: The video includes interviews of individuals from the government and elsewhere who also have varying levels of personal participation in what is being discussed. Cheney has an intense belief in the powers of the Executive Branch, and has acted to promote those in his tenure as a force in government. Even among conservatives, however, they question the ethical implications of this, and ask whether there is any semblance of constitutionality in it. Dick Cheney and his constituents try to make the President’s power as unlimited as possible, and beyond.
Log # 18 November 18, 07
Source: www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.html (Yoo memo)
Brief: John Yoo was part of the same group as Cheney and Addington in his beliefs about presidential powers, that is, he was willing to make an argument that Executive Powers ought to be unlimited because of the Constitution and Statements between the Founding Fathers. He used the essays and letters we call the Federalist Papers in order to justify his argument. Within the document, Yoo wrote were extraordinary examples of Presidential Power, war without declaration, for example. It was with these retrospectives that he built his argument, as well as with dissections of the opening statements of the Constitution, mixed in with pseudo-legal jargon.
Journal # 9
The frontline video supported the image of Cheney that D. Kucinich was trying to reveal. It did not say that he was a monster; it tried to show how he actually interprets things, and then allows the audience to make their own conclusion. This video, with conservatives commenting on the expanding powers of the Executive Branch is fueling further, my personal bias; in that, many of them were uncomfortable with Cheney, his constituents, especially his belligerent jackass lawyer, and what they were doing.
I read some of the discussion on the PBS site, regarding the video, and somebody who I don’t think ‘gets it’ complained about the video citing Ashcroft as a lesser at fault player. They were angry that Ashcroft wasn’t demonized, when I think the people who made it were using it as a comparison. My bias is built in such a way that I have trouble finding “the argument” in my thesis that Government powers are expanding. I think it is clear that they are. I think the argument is whether the public would consent to the expansions if they were better aware of what is going on, are the expansions constitutional, etc. Another fella named Matt Foley, who sent an email to Frontline, said that the video was wrong. That “great men who stand up to tyrants and corruption are often villainized [sic], by those trying to protect the status quo [just wrong]. Reagan, Churchill and Lincoln (to name a few) took aggressive action to protect what they thought was right. Cheney/Bush are in this category” (pbs.org/pages/frontline/cheney/talk)
I thought it was remarkable that somebody who believes so different a point of view than me would use the same language to justify it. And that that individual would use an incredible license on historical perspective that they compare giving the Badmin more power to promoting action against tyranny, going against the status quo. This relates to my feelings reading Yoo’s memo. I looked at it. I read it, I said-NO Way; read it again and checked what he was babbling about. I most certainly learned something. I didn’t know that you could put motives behind documents like the Constitution using letters and essays from one of the many people who influenced the writing of it, when we know that the Constitution was a compromise among many people, and was meant to be altered over time. There were a lot of things Yoo simply asserted, which were straight-up disconcerting. Knowing that Yoo was involved in framing the current administration’s legal arguments is, for me, totally insane. .
Log # November 19. 07
Source: Book T.V
Title: The Terrorist Watch, Ronald Kessler
Brief: Characterized the nature of ‘homegrown terrorists, according to the author. He said they are “losers, the sort of people who would blow up buildings in Oklahoma City.’ He says the solution in Iran will be a mix of diplomacy and ‘covert action.’ Discussed Bush’s motivation in war on terror, actions in Iraq, and anticipation of conflict with Iran.
Log # 20
Source: http;://atfbrainwash.com/archives/007426.php
Title: St. Roosevelt’s Shrine, Chris Gabel
Brief: Roosevelt’s policies policy and legacy being critiqued, ‘reactions ranging from ‘courageous’ to ‘socialist,’ the author continues ‘in truth we have good reason for skepticism.’ The author asserts that FDR’s enormous programs did not stop the great depression. The new deal was an example of presidents expanding power of government in response to crisis.
Journal # 10
A better example, for Expansion of government power can be seen in examining past ‘adjustments’ to rights like habeas corpus. In Lincoln’s Presidency I believe he twice suspended habeas corpus, Once in response to actual threat, rioting. Now, how does this differ from what Kessler described in The Terrorist Watch? Well, these people rioting, they existed, and I suppose could be called ‘homegrown terrorists’ but I think that term is bogus. I think it is funny watching the conservatives backpedal as they have been. I worry that the public will be so complacent that they will not even notice something simple to laugh at, and conquer.
Log #21 December 1, 07
Source: god-awful CNN, Lou Dobbs
Brief: Lou Dobbs connects Illegal Immigration to national security, so I connect it to Expansion. He complains that the “southern border [is a gateway] for methamphetamines, heroine, cocaine, and marijuana.’ and it is pivotal in the ‘war on drugs.’ He speaks to Sen. Luis Gutierrez who asks him why his focus I s on Mexico, why the Sen. himself was being mischaracterized as being all-for immigration reform, when he is really interested in protecting America’s borders. The department of Homeland Security Database, on which deportations etc. depend is said to be 70% inaccurate. Which Gutierrez called a “shoot first and ask questions later policy’ He, like so many people fighting for individual freedoms asked only that the Immigration Authorities ‘do it consistent with the Constitution.’
Log #22 December 02, 07
Source: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/
Brief: Totalitarian Government Word bank:
nation, Homeland, national efforts, strategies, protect, offense, terrorist, homegrown, extremism, implications, institutionalize, public and private, foundation of security, enterprise, incidents, Culture of Preparedness
o Since September 11, 2001, our concept of securing the homeland has evolved, adapting to new realities and threats. The Strategy issued today incorporates this increased understanding by:
o Acknowledging that while we must continue to focus on the persistent and evolving terrorist threat, we also must recognize that certain non-terrorist events that reach catastrophic levels can have significant implications for homeland security.
o Emphasizing that as we secure the Homeland we cannot simply rely on defensive approaches and well-planned response and recovery measures. We recognize that our efforts also must involve offense at home and abroad.
Prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks. .. disrupt terrorists' ability to operate within our borders, and prevent the emergence of violent Islamic radicalization in order to deny terrorists future recruits and to defeat homegrown extremism.
Note wording here (and usual implications):
we will continue to strengthen the principles, systems, structures, and institutions that cut across the homeland security enterprise and support our activities to secure the Homeland. Ultimately, this will help ensure the success of our Strategy to secure the Nation.
Our entire Nation shares common responsibilities in homeland security. In order to help prepare the Nation to carry out these responsibilities, we will continue to foster a Culture of Preparedness that permeates all levels of society notice where emphasis is placed... nation, responsibilities... and what does "culture of preparedness" mean to you?
This system involves a continuous, mutually reinforcing cycle of activity across four phases – guidance; planning; execution; and assessment and evaluation.
"Education" - our Nation must further develop a community of homeland security professionals by establishing multidisciplinary education opportunities. In addition to covering homeland and relevant national security issues, this education should include an understanding and appreciation of appropriate regions, religions, cultures, legal systems, and languages. We also must continue to develop interagency and intergovernmental assignments and fellowship opportunities, tying them to promotions and professional advancement
Congress should help ensure that we have the necessary tools... We must make additional reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ensure that the statute is permanently amended…The Congress should fully embrace a risk-based funding approach so that we best prioritize our limited resources to meet the most critical homeland security goals and objectives first.
The white house website is full of language not dissimilar from that of the Third Reich.
Journal # 11 December 02, 07
While looking for support, I fall back on the sites of the Equivocators themselves. That is, generally the DHS, White house, etc. What I noticed last, the ‘fact sheet’ was a remarkable support for the police state idea. The discussions of this I have had with friends and students is now including the use of terms like “Homeland” Nation, Homegrown “extremism” preventative measures, etc, is scary stuff. They say in the opening paragraph of the White house site that defensive security, and response preparedness is not enough. That the Department of Defense should be working on offense, why? Because we are bloodthirsty totalitarian regime? Or for a more rounded sound-bite, because ‘in times of crisis, Government Powers Expand.”
That’s how immigration gets clustered in, how trade policies are involved, how peace activists can be considered a threat, because ‘crisis’ is in the eyes of the ‘threatened.’ In this case, we’ve got a paranoid administration with a propensity for pathological behavior.
Log #23 December 9, 07
Source: Dye: Politics in America
Brief: Examined a ‘stable’ opinion of the roles of the president and judiciary, and their respective powers. Noted an important quote, a warning that, “excessive reliance upon courts, instead of self-government through Democratic processes, may demean the people’s sense of moral and political responsibility for their own future, especially in matters of liberty, and may stunt the growth of political capacity that results from the exercise of ultimate powers of decision.” Reviewed past sources including Greenwald, after determining that ‘bloggers’ are most clinically fallible. In his archive I found some questionable positions, some of which did not double check well. I reviewed the source he offered, and the article I cited was not garbage, but I was not impressed with Greenwald after further searching. There are grades of commentary, and one is the incestuous parroting of higher ups, not giving really, their own evaluations. I don’t like to read or reference stuff like that.
Log #24
Source: C-Span, Whitehouse.gov + Dana Perino.
Brief: Examined relevant terminology, specifically, Empire, Eminent Domain, which will be pertinent in my presentation, as well as the actual verification and discovery of sources.
In the analysis of Ahmadinejad, I noticed that his definitions differ from mine, and when you argue a topic, it is critical that your definitions are consistent.
In the White House website, it says “whatever it takes to protect the country in a legal way” such “manners of sensitivity should remain classified and not be discussed in public’” and that we intend to “spread hope and liberty...expand trade/” they also said that “Al-Qaeda is like a tumor in Iraq.” Similar statements followed as Dana Perino antagonized Iran.
Journal # 12
I am discovering even more difficulty in finding reliable communications, in part because of the prevalence of sound bites, and intriguing language choices. When I hear ‘spreading democracy,’ for example, it is more likely to mean expanding our military presence, installment of weapons, or restructuring of economies and resources. While I listen to Dana Perino, or read essays by online-narcissists, I see similar problems with transparency, and motivations. Why is it that there is so incestuous a cycle of information? This taking of a substantial event, and picking small parts or suspected logic behind them and using them to support some sort of ill-conceived argument, is just unacceptable. In secondary remarks, the Expansion of Government power, is clearly an honored tradition, and is not arguable. The arguable part is whether the methods and mechanisms are largely acceptable to the public, or not.
Log # 25 December 15, 07
Source: BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7145658.stm
Brief: Discussing Mukasey’s reaction to requests for investigation into why CIA tapes recording interrogations of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives were destroyed. It also addressed the Republican senators blocking a bill restricting the interrogation methods the CIA employs.
Log # 26 December 16. 07
Source1: (less recent BBC article) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/europe/6736385.stm
Source2: (more recent) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/europe/7070483
Brief: CIA chief Michael Hayden backed the rendition flights. One article says the flights were innocuous, that there were no secret prisons, and that the investigator was wrong, while the more recent one talks about it as if it was in past tense.
Journal # 13
Rendition is a clear example of expansion, but more so it is an incredible example of our being bullshitted. There is no recognition of how the senator from Switzerland had been marginalized and made out to be crazy for pressuring the U.S to admit to having prisoners renditioned. The Badmin does this occasionally… having somebody quietly prove wrongdoing while shallowly apologizing, or not even that. This is reminiscent of when Fran Townsend said how many terrorists we are “not torturing” and how that figure was close to one hundred. The two discussions were put in context, when the article addresses rendition, and I think the article shows a clear global consensus that what the U.S is doing is torture. If preserving the methods to propagate that sort of ‘intelligence collecting’ is not an Expansion of Government power, to protect National Security; I know few things that are. The BBC was a fascinating source, not that it was unfamiliar, or totally unique, but I hadn’t visited it recently, and it seems less apt to sugar coat or omit the truth. Also comparing BBC to Al Jazeera was fun. I didn’t realize how similar they are. Even the page in Arabic is not so odd to me. Also, they allowed commentary on topics, including the U.S “threatening” Iran. They actually were subtly mocking enough, to put quotations as if it were debatable. I thought it was cute.
Log #27 December 24, 07
Source: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18890/57
Title: U.S Police Crack-down [police brutality] Against Crowd Protesting in New Orleans
Brief: The crowd did not want 4,500 subsidized housing units that had been damaged by Katrina to be destroyed. The city wants to use the space for new mixed-income housing, while homeless populations are on the steady increase.
Log #28 December 24, 07
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7158723
Brief: The article discusses claims that a new biometric database will not threaten the liberty of U.S citizens by making face recognition and other data available. The president has said that innocent people have nothing to fear from the database, called “Next Generation Identification,” as he said, “post 9-11 we’ve had an increase in our customer base; we need a system that is literally bigger, faster, better…” “What we deal with is bad guys’ data, suspected terrorists or criminals.”
Journal # 14
The most recent thing, the NGI, is profound. I think it is a terrible idea. When the government goes through these avenues (lists, profiles and databases), there is always some sort of ill-motivation. Here the Badmin even said it’s because of an increase in data post 9-11. If the same people being investigated for that are going to increase in volume, and amount of data collected, the innocent citizens, they need to be worried. I think it is a great example of expansion. In 1950, the FBI had planned massive arrests, under then chief J Edgar Hoover; to counter what they felt was threats of ‘treason, espionage and sabotage.” The U.S; declassified documents revealed that “Mr. Hoover wanted the president to suspend the centuries-old legal right of habeas corpus, which protects individuals against unlawful arrest.
The FBI director planned to detain the suspects - whose list of names he had been compiling for years - in US military and federal prisons.
"The index now contains approximately 12,000 individuals, of which approximately 97% are citizens of the United States," wrote Mr. Hoover, in the now declassified document. “
This is a good example of why I think it is a ridiculous and awful idea.
Log # 29 January 5, 07
Source:www.chris-floyd.com/articles/all_Wet%3A_The_Liquid_Bomber_Farce_Unfolded
Brief: Chris Floyd points out, as is his custom; things people interested in civil liberties and government influence might want to know. This case in particular is regarding the supposed threat from liquid-component explosive devises. To minimal effect of surprise, this is bullshit; the mechanisms necessary to make any sort of explosive substance in the materials described would require hours of intense chemistry.
Log # 30 January 5, 07
Source: commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6199
Brief: John Yoo is being sued. Something of a step toward justice, the person suing is not trying to garner a ton of money from it, but instead is opting to sue for some sort of recognition of wrong-doing.
Journal # 15
Continuing the Liquid bombers explanation, this intense chemistry would have to occur in a controlled situation, on scales that even substantial labs would probably have trouble with. One description of how to make the substance in question, called for a recipe that included several critical failure points, and a reaction time somewhere between 8 hours and three days, the result of which would have to be rinsed and dried, before being effective as an explosive. Oh yeah, and the chemicals? You’d need a bathtub full of them, because the final substance is a concentrated thing, y’know, how to make small reactions like hydrogen peroxide, bleach and acetone into something of real concern.
The person pursuing the suit is choosing to sue for $1.00, and the declaration of what Yoo did as illegal. They are filing this case in the spirit of justice; they want it recognized that because of Yoo’s memorandum torture was promoted. They want him to be publicly challenged, and possibly disbarred. While I am not totally certain of the sanctity of the suit in legal terms, I think it is morally justified. There seems to be a growing resentment in the American public for the type of deceit and violence that is commonplace in this and past administrations. Their answer, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be destroying the system, refusing to participate, or attempting to crush it. Instead, it is to try to take care of the symptoms of it, to cover up the ill effects, through protecting your personal assets, small scale litigation, and a brief relief when insignificant policies are promised to change. While only making small scene for each of the increasingly common atrocities of our government. The plebs no longer seem to mind the wool over their eyes, instead of complaining that they have been blinded, and abandoned, they only complain that it occasionally is uncomfortable, but are satisfied with the reminder of its warmth. Yoo prosecuted or not, I worry it will make no change in the toxic milieu that is throughout our citizenry. They look for change in the upcoming elections, but they won’t get it, it is time for rising in the streets. Or to present a boring speech.
Log #1 September 15, 07
Time spent 2.5
Source 1. www.personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT
Source 2. www.epic.org/privacy/terroirsm/hr3162.html
Date October 24, 01
Title: USA Patriot Act Hr. 3162
Brief: compared Patriot Act titles I, II, with U.S code, primarily title 18, noted many changes, but more interesting, the wording choices and methods. Clearly going to be large part of future/present policy changes.
Log #2 September 18, 07
Time spent 2
Source 1. www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/
Date September 18, 07
Title: Myth/Fact: Key Myths about FISA amendments in the Protect America Act
Brief: On the white house site, it is clear they are giving the pieces of information they want to have proliferated. Just because the equivocators call it ‘myth/fact’ does not mean it is so. I am looking at different views of what it does and why.
Journal # 1 September 19, 07
Reading the Patriot Act, I was un-amused. The methods taken to change our policies are extraordinary. What surprised me was how thoroughly those who created it managed to undo the U.S Code, and most of the written documentation of our “unalienable rights.” Outlined were changes in how we respond to threats, threats being any of many loosely defined ideas or actions deemed dangerous to our ongoing system of “American Freedoms.” Changes covered a huge area of our policies, foreign and domestic, not limited to political freedoms, but instead including economic and personal issues as well. Recognizing that the changes affect almost all of the areas of our lives; it is important to clarify that the changes are not limited, even, to our citizens, “rules and policies extend to our foreign policy and operations”
I will forgo describing my perception thus far of H.R 3162, and instead will focus on the fascinating way in which it is written. I think it is important to mention how difficult it would be to ‘read’ the Patriot Act. The sections are highly abridged and without the documents it alters, no sense can be made of it. Whether this is intentional or not, I could not say, but I have found it to be commonplace in these sorts of litigious activities. The majority of people who should know what the Act includes- everybody- are unlikely to read or understand what it allocates. The full implications of this document, I am not sure can be defined in any terms, and so it is of concern. An increasingly disturbing image of our political present is forming for me, just after reading these a bit more carefully.
Log #3 September 29, 07
Time spent 3
Source: The Power of Nightmares Parts 1-3, BBC
Date January ‘05
Brief: It discusses the relationship between ‘neoconservatives’ and radical Islamists. It shows their perspective on relations between Osama Bin Laden and Islamic Militants. They propose that OBL did not organize the attacks on the World Trade Centers in ’01, and that the Neo-cons are on a witch hunt. They said that so-called sleeper cells and networks are either uninvolved or not existent. They said that our media and politicians exaggerate their role, and debilitate any significant progress that could be made elsewhere. The programme also outlines certain concepts like the Precautionary Principle, which for me exemplifies the failure of such systems.
Log #4 September 30, 07
Time spent 1
Source 1: www.cfr.org/publication/9126/#1
Source 2: www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydale.asp
Title: Council on Foreign Relations ‘A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis’
Brief: ‘Backgrounder’ al-Qaeda (a.k.a. al-Qaida, al Qa’ida) Discusses their thoughts on what al-Qaeda is, the role of Bin Laden, what the ‘members’ have supposedly been responsible for. It outlines who they are connected to, how many there are. As the ‘enemy’ goes, and as Bush said “we are not sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.” The second site focuses on British demographics and how the Iraq war is 'managed'. It includes opinion polls on whether Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda.
Journal # 2 September 30, 07
The BBC program seemed to summarize a bit of the history of Radical Islamists and the U.S. Discussing Kotb’s disillusionment with the materialism in the U.S. It points to Neo-Cons for misleading the people about what is happening currently, creating evidence from nothing, to show that our “war on terror” is justified, and that it is meant to protect our interests. Further that because of that defensive nature and that it is not an aggression by the U.S, those fighting the war on terror should be empowered. Richard Perle claimed in an interview that we are fighting against terrorists who want to impose an ‘intolerant tyranny on all mankind” he continued that they wanted an “Islamic Universe in which we are all compelled to accept their beliefs.” This to me seemed strongly dependent on ethnocentrism; that our way is the only way, and seems to also be dependent on the rampant xenophobia and the need to demonize what we do not understand. I don’t think his view, that the terrorists are all pious individuals who are threatened by our hedonistic culture, I think they would be more likely to despise our interventionist policies. The programme suggests that the neo-conservatives exaggerate the powers of the threat and pushed this cultural recoil to serve to their benefit. Though the programme was not flawlessly produced, it did make it clear that what the ‘war on terror’ is aimed at is largely non-existent. Searching for these ‘sleeper-cells’ brings me back to when we learned about McCarthyism, and their witch-hunt for communist and ‘communist sympathizers.’ The practice of using suspicion alone as evidence, and the Precautionary Principle, justified without evidence in the paradigm of prevention. The suspects can be jailed based on what they were maybe going to do. The site outline of events was very different from those in the programme, but in this case, I lean more in the favor of the programme’s version of events, because of confirmation bias, knowing our past actions toward S. America, and that these incidents are not isolated. The program was more of a specified collection of my own concerns. I thought it was funny that the polls showed that people felt confident in their answers, but were not sure the evidence that lead to their conclusions was clear.
Log #5 October 4, 07
Time spent 1
Source: Situation Room, CNN.com
Title: Did Justice Department OK Torture Behind the Backs of Congress?
Brief: Fran Townsend when interviewed about torture said “fewer than a hundred CIA detainees”... “Less than a third produced 8500 intelligence reports on threat information.”
Log # 6 October 10, 07
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Executive_Summary_Report.html
Brief: Discusses securing the ‘National Homeland” and says that the “persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century.” it continues, explaining things which we will need, organizations... it includes prospective applications for things like nano-technology... A gentle reminder from big brother.
Journal # 3 October 7, 07
I am an advocator for human rights, and I tend to follow the belief that through violence and coercion, no good can be gained. It is not true that “sometimes to do good you must first do evil.” To do evil toward some supposed justified end will only create more violence and suffering. That said, the U.S government had claimed that investigations into terrorist threats did not involve torture. They would often bring up John McCain, and say how sensitive the U.S government is about torture. What Fran Townsend said confirmed for me that we are torturing people. I do not know enough to say this with supreme confidence, but I had been convinced before this that it is the situation and now believe that to be true. The statistical information she provided, though initially vague, gave a more important piece to focus on, and that is the reports she claimed were attained through interrogations on less than one third of those people detained. She said that those few dozen people created 8500 pieces of intelligence on threats. This type of thing is just disgusting. How can somebody be so naïve, believing that the techniques of coercion would produce anything worthwhile. What quality of information could so few people give when forced to answer so much. It is clear that they were trying to say whatever the interrogators wanted to hear, so that they would stop the interrogation (most likely torture).
Log #7 October 12, 07
Time spent 3, 1.5
Source 1: C-SPAN program on Minority Ownership of Media
Source 2: C-SPAN 2 Campaign 2008 Bully Pulpit in Charleston
Source 3: CNN Situation room focused mostly on Nobel Peace Prize
Source 4: www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2007/db0920/DOC-276763A1.pdf
Brief: The Minority ownership of media, RAINBOW-PUSH coalition was discussing who determines what gets broadcast, who owns the broadcasting systems, etc. They mentioned the consolidation of media, and Karen Bond from the National Black Coalition said that one company owned all five of the radio stations popular among blacks (in Chicago, IL). FCC commissioner Michael Copps spoke to the gathering.
The campaign 2008 C-SPAN 2 broadcast John McCain speaking to Charleston University students. He outlined his thoughts on patriotism, foreign policy etc. Probably the good part was the Q&A.
CNN There is a growing link between our justification of our immigration policies and the interests of national security.
Log #8 October 14, 07
Source: CNN late edition (Wolf Blitzer,)
Source 2: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html
Source 3: www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article
/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613
Brief: Wolf Blitzer attempting an interview with Senator Graham about statements made by retired lt. General Ricardo Sanchez. Senator Graham puts blame on Sanchez for Abu Ghraib, and other misconducts he believed were the result of too few troops. Graham asserted that he and John McCain had asked Sanchez repeatedly if the troop levels were sufficient. Graham had a lot of talking points he was weaving in which at points made what he was saying almost unintelligible. (Just a note to make clearer the nature of the interview) He went on to say that if current plans (especially in Iraqi leadership) fail, that they should “Look for a new horse to ride,” and replace those people. The next person interviewed was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the U.S national security adviser to Jimmy carter, and was pivotal in the arming of the Mujahideen. He answered similar questions as those asked of Graham.
Late edition continued, with a brief discussion of illegal immigration. They quoted Vincente Fox, “the xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race... they are deciding the future of this nation.” He said “what I perceive here is fear in this nation, and fear is not a good advisor.”
Journal # 4
In the information on FCC commissioner Michael Copps I found that he is a neat character, after finding his use of terms like “whitewash” in his speech, I decided to look him up, and things he’d been involved in. I found his remarks from a hearing in Chicago on September 20th. He said, “I want to emphasize what is at stake here. Our media is precious. It is how, outside of our strictly personal spheres, we speak to each other, learn from each other. Almost half a century ago, Arthur Miller said that “a good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” and today that idea applies to our entire media system. I also believe that media is the most powerful enterprise in the land, bar none. If we are smart about it, our media will reflect the genius, the creativity and the diversity of our great nation.” The minority ownership of media played heavily into our recent class discussions and touched on the ‘fourth estate’ concept, that media increasingly effects “how we govern ourselves”
The immigration information I found was disturbing because I hadn’t thought that they would justify their immigration policies using the National Security explanation. CNN mentioned the website “OutragedPatriots.com” which, expecting assery, I went to, and these expectations were met. There may at one time have been legitimate discussion there. I wouldn’t say that now. It is poorly organized inconsistent in its message, and seems to be fueled largely by ignorance and card stacking. I am not impressed, and am confused as to why CNN mentioned it.
In Senator Grahams’ interview he said the people involved in the Iraq war need a new political strategy, and that he is “worried about a third world war against terrorist extremists with Iraq as a main battleground.” (Note: when retyping, funny that he said Iraq and not our new ‘terrorist breeding ground’ in Iran) When asked about an Israeli air strike on an under construction nuclear facility in Syria, Graham says that we as a nation (globally) should “act responsibly against rogue states like Syria and Iran.” If he were president at that moment, I would classify that under ‘declarations of war’ (again retyping very funny, because the President actually Did say that since then.) When asked similar questions, Brzezinski said “what we’re doing is conveying the intention to maintain an essentially colonial presence,” he continues saying that this system cannot sustain stability, and that doing so would require joint efforts with Iraqi leaders within and outside of the ‘green zone.’ He called the previous statements (by Graham) and those like him “obsessive delusional narrative of this being WWIII…” He replied to one of Blitzer’s questions [similar to those he asked Graham] “Nobody in the world really supports our occupations in Iraq.” I was pleased with how Brzezinski pointed out the concept of colonialism within the U.S Occupation of Iraq, and the surrounding conflicts. Increasingly I am deferred by CNN’s programming, their programmes are inconsistent, and many of their shows are downright disgusting. I decided to look further into Brzezinski, and found a series of articles written by him for the Washington Post, which were a far cry from other characterizations of him... a play maybe on non-transparency, when the uninformed public has people paraded out for them to listen to. I could not tell which of the people interviewed were more obscure in their standpoints.
John McCain’s speech covered a lot of topics, he touched on healthcare, and the basic (usually unimportant focused on issues) but when asked about mercenaries he gave the most honest answer within his ability, and later put blame on Rummy and the President. When asked about the possibility of war with Iran, he said he didn’t support the idea but that the student asking the question “represents the skepticism in the American citizens with respect to [our actions to ensure] National Security.” He said that he believes Iran is a threat. He talked about not expanding the government’s economic power (which of a Republican is to be expected) but his reasoning was well packaged enough to be palatable for most people. That worries me.
Earlier today, I was thinking of my topic, and why I chose it. I considered how my research would’ve changed if I’d done “expansion of Government Powers to promote Democracy." The conclusion I came to was that there would have only been a difference in my methods. I don’t think it is arguable that the government powers expand in times of perceived crisis. In war, famine, aftermath of social revolution (sometimes) the government gains power. The growing consciousness of “national security” is disturbing, as it has been outlined in many different ways. Fear, is huge.., Fear of economic hardship, fear of invasion by people who look seem unlike ourselves, fear of nuclear war, and escalating violence. What I am looking at is not unlike ecology, drawing from interconnected topics heavily. It is hard to see where this behavior originated, or where it will end.
The things that have been done and may be done in the interests of National Security are frightening to me. As Vincente Fox said, “Fear is not a good advisor.” Looking at the combined lack of information and propagation of fear, I worry about what the people would, if given the opportunity, give the government consent to do. I see the “moderation/modification” of opinions in a Republican candidate (though it is all a façade) and the bastardization of individual rights, and the corruption of most of the players in government, as a sign of bad things on the horizon. I see a nation of sheep being guided by wolves, and an already totalitarian-dominated style of government being given the milieu needed to create global suffering, and destruction. Hopefully some economic crisis will stop us.
Log # 9 October 20, 07
Source: C-SPAN
Time: 2hr
Brief: A discussion with Senator Kit Bond., John Tkacik. China as a hostile power was the main concern of the discussion. China had supplied our defense department with its tech materials, and programs. The same companies provided Saddam Hussein with optic fiber cables for his missiles. Brings in issues of foreign policy, what companies to work with. Also, our data, the same provided by these Chinese companies, have been repeatedly hacked by professionals, especially our information on surprise-surprise, N. Korea, and China. The individuals in the discussion said China was a “suspect.”
Log #10 October 23, 07
Source: C-SPAN 2
Time 1
Title: “Live with White house press secretary Dana Perino
Brief: Discussing U.S Policy toward Iran, especially Missile Shield for 2015. Talks with Russia regarding Iran’s ability to seek approved nuclear programs, “assisted” (controlled) by Russia. Dana mentioned our relationship with our buddy Castro, Cuba, and the president’s speech to that effect.
Journal # 5
The trend I saw with the two most recent observations was a step-up in fear mongering. In each of the logs, people involved warned of an impending attack. The first said China was trying to Sabotage the U.S gov. and economy. This I thought was funny, because they have no need, given this past administration. There was a great discrepancy in who is the largest threat, these so-called “rogues” China, N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. This isn’t foreign policy, saying if we feel threatened; we’re putting missiles in a third country. I think what our government is doing is both dishonest and reckless (read: western arrogance) I was not anticipating the news that El Presidente George Bush would be speaking about bringing Democracy to Cuba when Castro is out of power. Bringing Democracy is something that scares me. Especially when the white house press secretary couldn’t keep from saying “freedom= Commerce.” That isn’t what I espouse, and looking at what little I know about Cuba, his proposal is probably not what they have in mind. Stop the Capitalist mix up with democracy. In ours that might be interchangeable, but that should be separates. Also, “Castro out of power” is a misnomer. The minute we see a weakness, e.g. Castro’s people scrambling for leadership, we go in with our corporations and military coercion and loot what we can. Castro says he anticipates Bush planning “a new conquest of Cuba by force” to which Perino said “Dictators say a lot of things.”
Log #11 October 28, 07
Source 1: www.salon.com/opinoin/greenwaldindex
Source 2: www.newsweek.com/id/61969
Authors: Greenwald, Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball
Brief: The opinion article outlines efforts to stop retrospective Telecom Amnesty. This is in regard to companies which supported the President with warrant-less information Post 9/11 and would govern how the U.S collects electronic national security intelligence. “The principle thrust of the bill is to update and extend the protect America act, which had granted new authority to the U.S Intelligence Community. It allowed U.S Intelligence to intercept phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists overseas which pass through switches or telecom equipment in the U.S”
Log #12 October 38, 07
Source1: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/207
Source2: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102400155.html
Brief: revisiting FISA, looking into Protect America act, talks about the speech the president made regarding the confrontational U.S policy toward Havana, and the long-term approach. The president offered Cuba computers and internet access, and scholarships if Havana relaxes restrictions on those things. He says “now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cuba’s transitions into a future of freedom and progress... The operation word in our future dealings with Cuba is not stability... the operative word is freedom.” Freedom=capitalism=democracy
Journal # 6 October 29, 07
What Glen Greenwald’s article and the Newsweek article pointed out are cases in which the government is trying to support people who acted against the law at the time. To obey requests which were supposedly in the best interest of U.S Security. That is not how the legal system is supposed to work. If at the time you did something it was illegal, then there is supposed to be some repercussion, no? Our policies regarding privacy as pertains to National Security have been gaining some attention, but so far as I can see, too many Americans are asking whether moral people should have anything to worry about, when they should be asking whether they are okay with what the government is doing without their knowledge or approval. Whether you have anything to hide is beside the point. It ought to be a public questioning of whether the government has total control over your privacy. When we watched “Those Debatable Debates,” and students first heard about Axiom voter identification and targeting, they were startled and concerned. Some asked who has control over how deep they can search, and who they can give the information to. There need to be more of these things to help people wake up. With the United States relationship with Cuba, I really hope my expectations are false. I don’t want us to be the authority in “Spreading Democracy” especially because we don’t have one here. The operative word for our future dealings with Cuba is not stability... the operative word is “freedom,” Freedom as defined by the current administration is a very scary thing. Our freedom is equivalent to money, among other things, but among the last of those would probably be liberty, choice, and privacy.
Log #13 November 2, 07
Source: “Blowback, the Costs and Consequences of the American Empire,” Chalmers Johnson.
Brief: Outlined in this book are highly relevant historical reverences related to the motivations and likewise result of our interventions globally, as our foreign policy.
Log #14 November 4, 07
Source: Democratic Debates on C-SPAN (replayed) also, Arthur Silber
Brief: Watching the Democratic Debates and seeing the Candidate’s plans regarding Iran and other current policies, I was deeply disturbed. Talk of Preemptive strikes, installing stronger military presence. (Revisiting my thoughts on the Missile shield) The seeds of doubt long have been in place, are beginning, in masse to germinate.
Journal # 7
Throughout our history, there has been what the CIA has more recently termed “blowback.” This is the unanticipated negative results of our interventionist policy. The focus is post WWII but is unlimited. From what I’ve read, my past (and comparably amateur) interpretations, and light analysis of what we perceive to be aggression against our ‘liberties’ have been more or less correct. I once drew a picture called “summary of weapon flow,” for a group of my friends. It outlined what Johnson is pointing to, which our irresponsible proliferation of arms and violence is resulting in hostility from other nations. Most of our enemies were at one point used to our benefit, that is, we exploit so much, that few people are without our influence and in a world where we rule based on our own selfish terms, there are likely many more a broken relationship than those we make notice of, and soon more to come.
The debates did not help the way I view our actions, and my optimism. In my day-to-day evaluation of articles and direct discussion regarding our Imperialist standing and reckless and aggressive behavior, most of the candidates (especially Hillary Clinton, as Silber pointed out) left “all options on the table” when asked about future acts against Iran. Only the seldom heard Kucinich said anything against pre-emptive policies. The shame in that is that Kucinich is the man in the street holding a sign dictating that ‘the end is near’ so he will likely be ignored by a vast majority of the population.
Inter Arma Silent Leges. “in war, laws fall mute. “
What I’ve found is a compounded version of what I'd already anticipated. My
interpretation of the correlation/ causation of our issues was largely correct, but not dark
enough. For the most part, where I had explained atrocities had been committed in part
because of economic interests. It is more often the most evident motivation. In our
policies toward Honduras, Hawaii, Guatemala, Cuba, all based in arrogance, greed and
violence. We are responsible for what our country does. There were in Blowback,
connections I hadn’t seen before. Like how our actions in Nicaragua (allowing contras to
do as they please) leads to a drug blowback in the U.S. There are of course, many
examples to be cited. To my delight, there are discussions all over the place where the
U.S foreign policy is described in terms of empires, genocide, and false-democracy.
Log # 15 November 5, 07
Source: Politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
Brief: Dennis Kucinich has been trying to get the House of Representatives to debate Impeaching Vice President Cheney. He points that “Vice President Richard B. Cheney by such conduct is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office” This is important because 1) Cheney is complicit in actions to expand government power. 2) Indicates the inactivity of the House of Representatives, and may show a deep threat to change. The house is full of people who promote the annihilation of our individual freedoms and allow violence and other reckless behavior on the part of the government.
Log #16 November 6, 07
Source: thinkprogress.org
Brief: President Bush believes in order for diplomacy to be effective, all options have to be on the table. Regarding Iran, he told the House Leaders he was in high spirit and expected overwhelming support from the house. Meanwhile Cheney has “been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz and perhaps other sites, to provoke Tehran into lashing out.
Journal # 8
Dick Cheney among other agents of the current administration, is antagonizing Iran. He suggested missile strikes aimed toward nuclear targets, in order to instigate retaliation by the Iranian Government. Our House of Representatives refused to debate whether he should be impeached. What I see is a failure in checks and balances. The house isn’t controlling anything. There, among these people, ought to be someone who stands up and says “no more”. Kucinich is the most vocal publicly as I have seen, and that is a real shame because he like Silber, Floyd and anybody else I like, they are not heralded as they should be. They like to portray Kucinich as somebody who is unreasonable; ask him pointed questions to make him seem insane, when really the people who are off course include anyone who participates in the system. This expanding evil. This is not surprising though, as this is typical behavior of our government. We may have (according to some historians) antagonized Japan such that Pearl Harbor would occur, and the U.S citizenry would rally again for war. The president knew there was going to be an attack; he counted on it to make war.
Log #17 November 18, 07
Source: Frontline Cheney’s Law (class + PBS.org)
Brief: The video includes interviews of individuals from the government and elsewhere who also have varying levels of personal participation in what is being discussed. Cheney has an intense belief in the powers of the Executive Branch, and has acted to promote those in his tenure as a force in government. Even among conservatives, however, they question the ethical implications of this, and ask whether there is any semblance of constitutionality in it. Dick Cheney and his constituents try to make the President’s power as unlimited as possible, and beyond.
Log # 18 November 18, 07
Source: www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.html (Yoo memo)
Brief: John Yoo was part of the same group as Cheney and Addington in his beliefs about presidential powers, that is, he was willing to make an argument that Executive Powers ought to be unlimited because of the Constitution and Statements between the Founding Fathers. He used the essays and letters we call the Federalist Papers in order to justify his argument. Within the document, Yoo wrote were extraordinary examples of Presidential Power, war without declaration, for example. It was with these retrospectives that he built his argument, as well as with dissections of the opening statements of the Constitution, mixed in with pseudo-legal jargon.
Journal # 9
The frontline video supported the image of Cheney that D. Kucinich was trying to reveal. It did not say that he was a monster; it tried to show how he actually interprets things, and then allows the audience to make their own conclusion. This video, with conservatives commenting on the expanding powers of the Executive Branch is fueling further, my personal bias; in that, many of them were uncomfortable with Cheney, his constituents, especially his belligerent jackass lawyer, and what they were doing.
I read some of the discussion on the PBS site, regarding the video, and somebody who I don’t think ‘gets it’ complained about the video citing Ashcroft as a lesser at fault player. They were angry that Ashcroft wasn’t demonized, when I think the people who made it were using it as a comparison. My bias is built in such a way that I have trouble finding “the argument” in my thesis that Government powers are expanding. I think it is clear that they are. I think the argument is whether the public would consent to the expansions if they were better aware of what is going on, are the expansions constitutional, etc. Another fella named Matt Foley, who sent an email to Frontline, said that the video was wrong. That “great men who stand up to tyrants and corruption are often villainized [sic], by those trying to protect the status quo [just wrong]. Reagan, Churchill and Lincoln (to name a few) took aggressive action to protect what they thought was right. Cheney/Bush are in this category” (pbs.org/pages/frontline/cheney/talk)
I thought it was remarkable that somebody who believes so different a point of view than me would use the same language to justify it. And that that individual would use an incredible license on historical perspective that they compare giving the Badmin more power to promoting action against tyranny, going against the status quo. This relates to my feelings reading Yoo’s memo. I looked at it. I read it, I said-NO Way; read it again and checked what he was babbling about. I most certainly learned something. I didn’t know that you could put motives behind documents like the Constitution using letters and essays from one of the many people who influenced the writing of it, when we know that the Constitution was a compromise among many people, and was meant to be altered over time. There were a lot of things Yoo simply asserted, which were straight-up disconcerting. Knowing that Yoo was involved in framing the current administration’s legal arguments is, for me, totally insane. .
Log # November 19. 07
Source: Book T.V
Title: The Terrorist Watch, Ronald Kessler
Brief: Characterized the nature of ‘homegrown terrorists, according to the author. He said they are “losers, the sort of people who would blow up buildings in Oklahoma City.’ He says the solution in Iran will be a mix of diplomacy and ‘covert action.’ Discussed Bush’s motivation in war on terror, actions in Iraq, and anticipation of conflict with Iran.
Log # 20
Source: http;://atfbrainwash.com/archives/007426.php
Title: St. Roosevelt’s Shrine, Chris Gabel
Brief: Roosevelt’s policies policy and legacy being critiqued, ‘reactions ranging from ‘courageous’ to ‘socialist,’ the author continues ‘in truth we have good reason for skepticism.’ The author asserts that FDR’s enormous programs did not stop the great depression. The new deal was an example of presidents expanding power of government in response to crisis.
Journal # 10
A better example, for Expansion of government power can be seen in examining past ‘adjustments’ to rights like habeas corpus. In Lincoln’s Presidency I believe he twice suspended habeas corpus, Once in response to actual threat, rioting. Now, how does this differ from what Kessler described in The Terrorist Watch? Well, these people rioting, they existed, and I suppose could be called ‘homegrown terrorists’ but I think that term is bogus. I think it is funny watching the conservatives backpedal as they have been. I worry that the public will be so complacent that they will not even notice something simple to laugh at, and conquer.
Log #21 December 1, 07
Source: god-awful CNN, Lou Dobbs
Brief: Lou Dobbs connects Illegal Immigration to national security, so I connect it to Expansion. He complains that the “southern border [is a gateway] for methamphetamines, heroine, cocaine, and marijuana.’ and it is pivotal in the ‘war on drugs.’ He speaks to Sen. Luis Gutierrez who asks him why his focus I s on Mexico, why the Sen. himself was being mischaracterized as being all-for immigration reform, when he is really interested in protecting America’s borders. The department of Homeland Security Database, on which deportations etc. depend is said to be 70% inaccurate. Which Gutierrez called a “shoot first and ask questions later policy’ He, like so many people fighting for individual freedoms asked only that the Immigration Authorities ‘do it consistent with the Constitution.’
Log #22 December 02, 07
Source: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/
Brief: Totalitarian Government Word bank:
nation, Homeland, national efforts, strategies, protect, offense, terrorist, homegrown, extremism, implications, institutionalize, public and private, foundation of security, enterprise, incidents, Culture of Preparedness
o Since September 11, 2001, our concept of securing the homeland has evolved, adapting to new realities and threats. The Strategy issued today incorporates this increased understanding by:
o Acknowledging that while we must continue to focus on the persistent and evolving terrorist threat, we also must recognize that certain non-terrorist events that reach catastrophic levels can have significant implications for homeland security.
o Emphasizing that as we secure the Homeland we cannot simply rely on defensive approaches and well-planned response and recovery measures. We recognize that our efforts also must involve offense at home and abroad.
Prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks. .. disrupt terrorists' ability to operate within our borders, and prevent the emergence of violent Islamic radicalization in order to deny terrorists future recruits and to defeat homegrown extremism.
Note wording here (and usual implications):
we will continue to strengthen the principles, systems, structures, and institutions that cut across the homeland security enterprise and support our activities to secure the Homeland. Ultimately, this will help ensure the success of our Strategy to secure the Nation.
Our entire Nation shares common responsibilities in homeland security. In order to help prepare the Nation to carry out these responsibilities, we will continue to foster a Culture of Preparedness that permeates all levels of society notice where emphasis is placed... nation, responsibilities... and what does "culture of preparedness" mean to you?
This system involves a continuous, mutually reinforcing cycle of activity across four phases – guidance; planning; execution; and assessment and evaluation.
"Education" - our Nation must further develop a community of homeland security professionals by establishing multidisciplinary education opportunities. In addition to covering homeland and relevant national security issues, this education should include an understanding and appreciation of appropriate regions, religions, cultures, legal systems, and languages. We also must continue to develop interagency and intergovernmental assignments and fellowship opportunities, tying them to promotions and professional advancement
Congress should help ensure that we have the necessary tools... We must make additional reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ensure that the statute is permanently amended…The Congress should fully embrace a risk-based funding approach so that we best prioritize our limited resources to meet the most critical homeland security goals and objectives first.
The white house website is full of language not dissimilar from that of the Third Reich.
Journal # 11 December 02, 07
While looking for support, I fall back on the sites of the Equivocators themselves. That is, generally the DHS, White house, etc. What I noticed last, the ‘fact sheet’ was a remarkable support for the police state idea. The discussions of this I have had with friends and students is now including the use of terms like “Homeland” Nation, Homegrown “extremism” preventative measures, etc, is scary stuff. They say in the opening paragraph of the White house site that defensive security, and response preparedness is not enough. That the Department of Defense should be working on offense, why? Because we are bloodthirsty totalitarian regime? Or for a more rounded sound-bite, because ‘in times of crisis, Government Powers Expand.”
That’s how immigration gets clustered in, how trade policies are involved, how peace activists can be considered a threat, because ‘crisis’ is in the eyes of the ‘threatened.’ In this case, we’ve got a paranoid administration with a propensity for pathological behavior.
Log #23 December 9, 07
Source: Dye: Politics in America
Brief: Examined a ‘stable’ opinion of the roles of the president and judiciary, and their respective powers. Noted an important quote, a warning that, “excessive reliance upon courts, instead of self-government through Democratic processes, may demean the people’s sense of moral and political responsibility for their own future, especially in matters of liberty, and may stunt the growth of political capacity that results from the exercise of ultimate powers of decision.” Reviewed past sources including Greenwald, after determining that ‘bloggers’ are most clinically fallible. In his archive I found some questionable positions, some of which did not double check well. I reviewed the source he offered, and the article I cited was not garbage, but I was not impressed with Greenwald after further searching. There are grades of commentary, and one is the incestuous parroting of higher ups, not giving really, their own evaluations. I don’t like to read or reference stuff like that.
Log #24
Source: C-Span, Whitehouse.gov + Dana Perino.
Brief: Examined relevant terminology, specifically, Empire, Eminent Domain, which will be pertinent in my presentation, as well as the actual verification and discovery of sources.
In the analysis of Ahmadinejad, I noticed that his definitions differ from mine, and when you argue a topic, it is critical that your definitions are consistent.
In the White House website, it says “whatever it takes to protect the country in a legal way” such “manners of sensitivity should remain classified and not be discussed in public’” and that we intend to “spread hope and liberty...expand trade/” they also said that “Al-Qaeda is like a tumor in Iraq.” Similar statements followed as Dana Perino antagonized Iran.
Journal # 12
I am discovering even more difficulty in finding reliable communications, in part because of the prevalence of sound bites, and intriguing language choices. When I hear ‘spreading democracy,’ for example, it is more likely to mean expanding our military presence, installment of weapons, or restructuring of economies and resources. While I listen to Dana Perino, or read essays by online-narcissists, I see similar problems with transparency, and motivations. Why is it that there is so incestuous a cycle of information? This taking of a substantial event, and picking small parts or suspected logic behind them and using them to support some sort of ill-conceived argument, is just unacceptable. In secondary remarks, the Expansion of Government power, is clearly an honored tradition, and is not arguable. The arguable part is whether the methods and mechanisms are largely acceptable to the public, or not.
Log # 25 December 15, 07
Source: BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7145658.stm
Brief: Discussing Mukasey’s reaction to requests for investigation into why CIA tapes recording interrogations of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives were destroyed. It also addressed the Republican senators blocking a bill restricting the interrogation methods the CIA employs.
Log # 26 December 16. 07
Source1: (less recent BBC article) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/europe/6736385.stm
Source2: (more recent) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/europe/7070483
Brief: CIA chief Michael Hayden backed the rendition flights. One article says the flights were innocuous, that there were no secret prisons, and that the investigator was wrong, while the more recent one talks about it as if it was in past tense.
Journal # 13
Rendition is a clear example of expansion, but more so it is an incredible example of our being bullshitted. There is no recognition of how the senator from Switzerland had been marginalized and made out to be crazy for pressuring the U.S to admit to having prisoners renditioned. The Badmin does this occasionally… having somebody quietly prove wrongdoing while shallowly apologizing, or not even that. This is reminiscent of when Fran Townsend said how many terrorists we are “not torturing” and how that figure was close to one hundred. The two discussions were put in context, when the article addresses rendition, and I think the article shows a clear global consensus that what the U.S is doing is torture. If preserving the methods to propagate that sort of ‘intelligence collecting’ is not an Expansion of Government power, to protect National Security; I know few things that are. The BBC was a fascinating source, not that it was unfamiliar, or totally unique, but I hadn’t visited it recently, and it seems less apt to sugar coat or omit the truth. Also comparing BBC to Al Jazeera was fun. I didn’t realize how similar they are. Even the page in Arabic is not so odd to me. Also, they allowed commentary on topics, including the U.S “threatening” Iran. They actually were subtly mocking enough, to put quotations as if it were debatable. I thought it was cute.
Log #27 December 24, 07
Source: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18890/57
Title: U.S Police Crack-down [police brutality] Against Crowd Protesting in New Orleans
Brief: The crowd did not want 4,500 subsidized housing units that had been damaged by Katrina to be destroyed. The city wants to use the space for new mixed-income housing, while homeless populations are on the steady increase.
Log #28 December 24, 07
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7158723
Brief: The article discusses claims that a new biometric database will not threaten the liberty of U.S citizens by making face recognition and other data available. The president has said that innocent people have nothing to fear from the database, called “Next Generation Identification,” as he said, “post 9-11 we’ve had an increase in our customer base; we need a system that is literally bigger, faster, better…” “What we deal with is bad guys’ data, suspected terrorists or criminals.”
Journal # 14
The most recent thing, the NGI, is profound. I think it is a terrible idea. When the government goes through these avenues (lists, profiles and databases), there is always some sort of ill-motivation. Here the Badmin even said it’s because of an increase in data post 9-11. If the same people being investigated for that are going to increase in volume, and amount of data collected, the innocent citizens, they need to be worried. I think it is a great example of expansion. In 1950, the FBI had planned massive arrests, under then chief J Edgar Hoover; to counter what they felt was threats of ‘treason, espionage and sabotage.” The U.S; declassified documents revealed that “Mr. Hoover wanted the president to suspend the centuries-old legal right of habeas corpus, which protects individuals against unlawful arrest.
The FBI director planned to detain the suspects - whose list of names he had been compiling for years - in US military and federal prisons.
"The index now contains approximately 12,000 individuals, of which approximately 97% are citizens of the United States," wrote Mr. Hoover, in the now declassified document. “
This is a good example of why I think it is a ridiculous and awful idea.
Log # 29 January 5, 07
Source:www.chris-floyd.com/articles/all_Wet%3A_The_Liquid_Bomber_Farce_Unfolded
Brief: Chris Floyd points out, as is his custom; things people interested in civil liberties and government influence might want to know. This case in particular is regarding the supposed threat from liquid-component explosive devises. To minimal effect of surprise, this is bullshit; the mechanisms necessary to make any sort of explosive substance in the materials described would require hours of intense chemistry.
Log # 30 January 5, 07
Source: commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6199
Brief: John Yoo is being sued. Something of a step toward justice, the person suing is not trying to garner a ton of money from it, but instead is opting to sue for some sort of recognition of wrong-doing.
Journal # 15
Continuing the Liquid bombers explanation, this intense chemistry would have to occur in a controlled situation, on scales that even substantial labs would probably have trouble with. One description of how to make the substance in question, called for a recipe that included several critical failure points, and a reaction time somewhere between 8 hours and three days, the result of which would have to be rinsed and dried, before being effective as an explosive. Oh yeah, and the chemicals? You’d need a bathtub full of them, because the final substance is a concentrated thing, y’know, how to make small reactions like hydrogen peroxide, bleach and acetone into something of real concern.
The person pursuing the suit is choosing to sue for $1.00, and the declaration of what Yoo did as illegal. They are filing this case in the spirit of justice; they want it recognized that because of Yoo’s memorandum torture was promoted. They want him to be publicly challenged, and possibly disbarred. While I am not totally certain of the sanctity of the suit in legal terms, I think it is morally justified. There seems to be a growing resentment in the American public for the type of deceit and violence that is commonplace in this and past administrations. Their answer, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be destroying the system, refusing to participate, or attempting to crush it. Instead, it is to try to take care of the symptoms of it, to cover up the ill effects, through protecting your personal assets, small scale litigation, and a brief relief when insignificant policies are promised to change. While only making small scene for each of the increasingly common atrocities of our government. The plebs no longer seem to mind the wool over their eyes, instead of complaining that they have been blinded, and abandoned, they only complain that it occasionally is uncomfortable, but are satisfied with the reminder of its warmth. Yoo prosecuted or not, I worry it will make no change in the toxic milieu that is throughout our citizenry. They look for change in the upcoming elections, but they won’t get it, it is time for rising in the streets. Or to present a boring speech.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
John Yoo memo
repost from commentary on alternate site.
I'm reading it now and some things are coming to my now less-divided attention.
the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
preemptive use of force against nations or groups who have not threatened us is, as I understand illegal.
We cannot threaten a nation which has not attacked us, or threatened to. Our government officials are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
Pre-emptive strategies are pretty awful so far as I understand, because you are acting upon suspicion, there is no way to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I'm not sure whether the above points were stressed as a result of investigations into falsities in Yoo's argument, or whether they were merely not applied at the time that these memorandums were being created, and left unquestioned at large. I hope, that the public dissent from this idea, has longer reaches than the video, for example, and that similar documents and policies are eradicated asap.
Yoo discusses the following concept which is for me a sophomoric and unusual idea
some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war
Further
he goes on to explain how the congress was not originally intended to be in charge of making merely that they can declare it.
If it were made publicly, even among these here peers, I would say that case does not hold water. Maybe I'm wrong on that, maybe he clearly justified his interpretation in such way.. se non é vero é ben trovato, if only in part.
He then goes on to cite history as evidence for interpretation of the value of declarations, namely that the numerous times in which we did not formally declare war on people with whom we engaged in armed or other conflict. I say no, you can't retrospectively determine the value of a policy like this, that way, just because we failed to be clear and bound legally, does not mean it should further undermine the sanctity of the original method. Or so I've held in my mind at least. That is, looking back on our tendency to engage without approval of the Congress, should not mean that the congress need not approve.
the constitutional structure requires that any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature - such as the power to conduct military hostilities - must be resolved in favor of the executive branch. Article II, section 1 provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.
I thought that was pretty amazing. this could be because as of yet I do not know what constitutes executive power, and so because my Favorite document is once again really really vague, it is free game with rules for whoever most wants to win. The use of Alexander Hamilton is overtly clever, because as I understand Hamilton was huge on defense, against any parties by whom he felt threatened. There were at the time of these papers, which Yoo is using as binding documentation of the founding father's motives, people who were opposed to what Hamilton was saying, and this resulted in compromises, along with additions like the Tenth amendment and the bill of rights.
Thomas Jefferson was not supportive of Hamilton on a few things, and wrote to Madison expressing this, ”Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections... After all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail. If they approve the proposed Convention in all it's parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work wrong.”
Yoo There can be little doubt that the decision to deploy military force is "executive" in nature, and was traditionally so regarded.
Again, if only executive powers were better defined, so as to be without doubt. As the depletion of military forces is a very big deal, hence the cause for justification (sorry for being redundant) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next, he uses Jefferson’s thoughts on foreign policy and the senate to justify his point..
The following really caught me off guard. Until I read who was responsible, and when it was dated.
Attorney General William P. Barr, quoting the opinion of Attorney General Jackson just cited, advised the President in 1992 that "[y]ou have authority to commit troops overseas without specific prior Congressional approval 'on missions of good will or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.'" Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 6 (citation omitted).
Barr served under HW Bush, and is a big player in a lot of the same activities as the yes-men mentioned in the Cheney video.
Intervening in the House bank scandal, Attorney General William P. Barr today appointed a retired Federal appeals court judge as a special counsel to review the check-writing practices of lawmakers and the operations of the bank.
A bit of quid pro quo from Barr, could be seen in what I noticed looking up his general demeanor;
From 1977 to 1978, Barr clerked for Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. From 1978 to 1982, he was in private law practice with Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge. He then served on the White House Domestic Policy Staff under President Reagan (1982-1983), returning to practice from 1984 to 1989. p://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/bush/essays/cabinet/692
later
Mr. Barr named Malcolm R. Wilkey, a Republican, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from 1970 to 1985, to head the preliminary inquiry intended to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of the bank's activities. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?query=BARR,%20WILLIAM%20P&field=per&match=exact
Not that that is unheard of, but looking into the context a little, that seems oddly congruent.
Moving back to Yoo. I hope somebody can clarify this for me, as our actions in Haiti
Recent and distant, deserve a bit of consideration, as pertains to moral/legal standing and justifications.
In Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173 (1994), we advised that the President had the authority unilaterally to deploy some 20,000 troops into Haiti. We relied in part on the structure of the WPR, which we argued "makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress." Id. at 175-76. We further argued that "in establishing and funding a military force that is capable of being projected anywhere around the globe, Congress has given the President, as Commander in Chief, considerable discretion in deciding how that force is to be deployed." Id. at 177. We also cited and relied upon the past practice of the executive branch in undertaking unilateral military interventions.
Yoo goes systematically and supports his argument that because of prior actions without consent of congress what we do now is free game, idea with some historical based perspectives, though from what little understanding I have of history, every one of those could just as easily justify limitation of executive power in interests of peace, and human rights. (see commentary by Chalmers Johnson in Blowback for alternative historical perspective)
This tendency is outlined by Yoo
The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security… On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress."
Referring to Clinton, he makes a connection to past presidential response to threats of terrorist attacks, specifically against Bin Laden. Furthermore, in explaining why military action was necessary, the President noted that "law enforcement and diplomatic tools" to combat terrorism had proved insufficient, and that "when our very national security is challenged . . . we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens."
I do not hold President Clinton’s foreign (or domestic) policies in high regard, and see this as another way in which Yoo poorly justifies his point.. citing one violent president to justify another.
I may build on this, add a conclusion or something later. Draw your own really.
I'm reading it now and some things are coming to my now less-divided attention.
the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
preemptive use of force against nations or groups who have not threatened us is, as I understand illegal.
We cannot threaten a nation which has not attacked us, or threatened to. Our government officials are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
Pre-emptive strategies are pretty awful so far as I understand, because you are acting upon suspicion, there is no way to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I'm not sure whether the above points were stressed as a result of investigations into falsities in Yoo's argument, or whether they were merely not applied at the time that these memorandums were being created, and left unquestioned at large. I hope, that the public dissent from this idea, has longer reaches than the video, for example, and that similar documents and policies are eradicated asap.
Yoo discusses the following concept which is for me a sophomoric and unusual idea
some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war
Further
he goes on to explain how the congress was not originally intended to be in charge of making merely that they can declare it.
If it were made publicly, even among these here peers, I would say that case does not hold water. Maybe I'm wrong on that, maybe he clearly justified his interpretation in such way.. se non é vero é ben trovato, if only in part.
He then goes on to cite history as evidence for interpretation of the value of declarations, namely that the numerous times in which we did not formally declare war on people with whom we engaged in armed or other conflict. I say no, you can't retrospectively determine the value of a policy like this, that way, just because we failed to be clear and bound legally, does not mean it should further undermine the sanctity of the original method. Or so I've held in my mind at least. That is, looking back on our tendency to engage without approval of the Congress, should not mean that the congress need not approve.
the constitutional structure requires that any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature - such as the power to conduct military hostilities - must be resolved in favor of the executive branch. Article II, section 1 provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.
I thought that was pretty amazing. this could be because as of yet I do not know what constitutes executive power, and so because my Favorite document is once again really really vague, it is free game with rules for whoever most wants to win. The use of Alexander Hamilton is overtly clever, because as I understand Hamilton was huge on defense, against any parties by whom he felt threatened. There were at the time of these papers, which Yoo is using as binding documentation of the founding father's motives, people who were opposed to what Hamilton was saying, and this resulted in compromises, along with additions like the Tenth amendment and the bill of rights.
Thomas Jefferson was not supportive of Hamilton on a few things, and wrote to Madison expressing this, ”Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections... After all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail. If they approve the proposed Convention in all it's parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work wrong.”
Yoo There can be little doubt that the decision to deploy military force is "executive" in nature, and was traditionally so regarded.
Again, if only executive powers were better defined, so as to be without doubt. As the depletion of military forces is a very big deal, hence the cause for justification (sorry for being redundant) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next, he uses Jefferson’s thoughts on foreign policy and the senate to justify his point..
The following really caught me off guard. Until I read who was responsible, and when it was dated.
Attorney General William P. Barr, quoting the opinion of Attorney General Jackson just cited, advised the President in 1992 that "[y]ou have authority to commit troops overseas without specific prior Congressional approval 'on missions of good will or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.'" Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 6 (citation omitted).
Barr served under HW Bush, and is a big player in a lot of the same activities as the yes-men mentioned in the Cheney video.
Intervening in the House bank scandal, Attorney General William P. Barr today appointed a retired Federal appeals court judge as a special counsel to review the check-writing practices of lawmakers and the operations of the bank.
A bit of quid pro quo from Barr, could be seen in what I noticed looking up his general demeanor;
From 1977 to 1978, Barr clerked for Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. From 1978 to 1982, he was in private law practice with Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge. He then served on the White House Domestic Policy Staff under President Reagan (1982-1983), returning to practice from 1984 to 1989. p://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/bush/essays/cabinet/692
later
Mr. Barr named Malcolm R. Wilkey, a Republican, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from 1970 to 1985, to head the preliminary inquiry intended to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of the bank's activities. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?query=BARR,%20WILLIAM%20P&field=per&match=exact
Not that that is unheard of, but looking into the context a little, that seems oddly congruent.
Moving back to Yoo. I hope somebody can clarify this for me, as our actions in Haiti
Recent and distant, deserve a bit of consideration, as pertains to moral/legal standing and justifications.
In Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173 (1994), we advised that the President had the authority unilaterally to deploy some 20,000 troops into Haiti. We relied in part on the structure of the WPR, which we argued "makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress." Id. at 175-76. We further argued that "in establishing and funding a military force that is capable of being projected anywhere around the globe, Congress has given the President, as Commander in Chief, considerable discretion in deciding how that force is to be deployed." Id. at 177. We also cited and relied upon the past practice of the executive branch in undertaking unilateral military interventions.
Yoo goes systematically and supports his argument that because of prior actions without consent of congress what we do now is free game, idea with some historical based perspectives, though from what little understanding I have of history, every one of those could just as easily justify limitation of executive power in interests of peace, and human rights. (see commentary by Chalmers Johnson in Blowback for alternative historical perspective)
This tendency is outlined by Yoo
The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security… On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress."
Referring to Clinton, he makes a connection to past presidential response to threats of terrorist attacks, specifically against Bin Laden. Furthermore, in explaining why military action was necessary, the President noted that "law enforcement and diplomatic tools" to combat terrorism had proved insufficient, and that "when our very national security is challenged . . . we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens."
I do not hold President Clinton’s foreign (or domestic) policies in high regard, and see this as another way in which Yoo poorly justifies his point.. citing one violent president to justify another.
I may build on this, add a conclusion or something later. Draw your own really.
Classism and education (nov 16)
Something that has been increasingly part of my daily life,
the baffling notion, that people who receive higher marks in academics,
are somehow more valuable, or predisposed to be important in later life.
Maybe there is truth to the statement that honors students are the future
members of the managerial class,
but where does the idea that this is how we should want to be come from?
I don't dream of power, I don't dream of money. I dream of equality, art and meaning.
I want to know why people with a higher GPA are warned not to engage in protest,
not to be careless and get into trouble, because if you do, you'll be grouped with Those people.
A lot of this is bullshit.
Just because you are effective in getting a high GPA doesn't mean you are more worthwhile than somebody who doesn't. Low grades don't mean you're useless, in fact a lot of kids just can't stand the arbitrary routines and violence that are part of school "life."
Among my peers I am not a poor academic performer. I go through the throws and play a "winning game" that is, I "earn" relatively high marks.
But where does winning come in? I am a slave, and a whore.
If you saw my school day you'd see I participate in disgusting violence on a regular basis.
In a large part of my day I compromise the art out of my lifestyle, I allow myself to be numbed into this coveted clarity. ars longa vita brevis
I don't need to be focused, because life is in many ways just a long and valuable tangent.
Get the fuck over education as a contest. Everybody learns as best they can, and nobody is special. The winners often win because the scales tip in their favor, because they like me are willing to conform to the mold, to be a product, judged by efficiency, applicability, output, cost, and nature of accommodation. A lot of the people who do poorly academically fail because of discrimination, or they are otherwise better to exploit in ways not needing a depth of material knowledge if you could call it that, I haven't figured out for sure where it starts, but so far as I can see, classism is something that hurts you before you're even born.
more on this later.
the baffling notion, that people who receive higher marks in academics,
are somehow more valuable, or predisposed to be important in later life.
Maybe there is truth to the statement that honors students are the future
members of the managerial class,
but where does the idea that this is how we should want to be come from?
I don't dream of power, I don't dream of money. I dream of equality, art and meaning.
I want to know why people with a higher GPA are warned not to engage in protest,
not to be careless and get into trouble, because if you do, you'll be grouped with Those people.
A lot of this is bullshit.
Just because you are effective in getting a high GPA doesn't mean you are more worthwhile than somebody who doesn't. Low grades don't mean you're useless, in fact a lot of kids just can't stand the arbitrary routines and violence that are part of school "life."
Among my peers I am not a poor academic performer. I go through the throws and play a "winning game" that is, I "earn" relatively high marks.
But where does winning come in? I am a slave, and a whore.
If you saw my school day you'd see I participate in disgusting violence on a regular basis.
In a large part of my day I compromise the art out of my lifestyle, I allow myself to be numbed into this coveted clarity. ars longa vita brevis
I don't need to be focused, because life is in many ways just a long and valuable tangent.
Get the fuck over education as a contest. Everybody learns as best they can, and nobody is special. The winners often win because the scales tip in their favor, because they like me are willing to conform to the mold, to be a product, judged by efficiency, applicability, output, cost, and nature of accommodation. A lot of the people who do poorly academically fail because of discrimination, or they are otherwise better to exploit in ways not needing a depth of material knowledge if you could call it that, I haven't figured out for sure where it starts, but so far as I can see, classism is something that hurts you before you're even born.
NIEHS, and Kucinich action 'lite'
The House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy headed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich held a hearing on recent developments at National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This is due to events from a change in management for the group which was run by David A Schwartz as of April ’05. The changes had damaged the reputation of NIEHS. These reforms failed to continue “the mission of the agency to understand and prevent environmentally mediated diseases.” They chose to forgo issues of financial mismanagement and instead focus on the direct priority shifts. The concern is that because of the shift in resources to clinical studies, which can be carried out elsewhere, and focusing on discoveries for treating diseases the patient is already afflicted with, they would no longer address the pioneering research in disease prevention for which they had been so well known.
The failure of the new management to maintain the publication Environmental Health Perspectives, as well as their issues in other languages, like Spanish and Chinese has serious consequences in information availability. We value journals and publications in science because they help productivity, and interaction by researchers, and further cultivate the work to come. It is one of the major themes I’ve seen; sharing, funding, and deep-reasoned thinking are huge in science. EHP and similar practices were “strategies for effective communication of critical environmental health information to those who need it most.”
In deep-reasoned thinking, the neglect of important efforts like National Toxicology Program (NTP), new chemical studies, and further research in child related environmental health research, are indicative of a greater malaise in these systems. NTP for example is an “interagency program that assesses chemicals for health effects.” These were strong programs that are swiftly deteriorating due to lack of managerial support and funding.
Again, as is the case throughout scientific research, development, dispersal and education (among most other aspects) the issue of funding is absolute. Without proper funding, the projects that need to completed can’t, and if funding isn’t distributed effectively, it can be wasted in trivial projects and redundant research. The building of a clinical center when, in that neighborhood there are two excellent centers available, is an example of waste. Neglect in toxicology in particular, may be due in part to disinterest on Schwartz’s part, regarding the whole operation, it may be hat he saw “NTP as an inconvenient annoyance rather than an integral part of his job.” The quantitative evidence of this neglect, is a reduction in chemicals studied from ten, to just four.
Some activities robbed of support and funding include Centers of Excellence in Children’s Environmental Health Research, and The National Children’s Study, These worked to try to examine how “race, economics and behavior effect children’s health", and an ambitious study “that will follow 100,000 children from before birth to age 21, studying the effects of environmental factors.
Long term research is huge in science, and so failure for any reason to continue, severely damages further efforts. We should have learned, by now, that you can’t short change research into disease, just like you can’t count on the same drugs to treat the same infections for decades. There needs to be balance for success in any field, in this case part of that balance is resource management, and maintaining a stable platform. Scientific pioneers can benefit from maintaining relationships to other scientists, through these intrinsic means of communication, and through the trust of a small group of leaders, in direct management and in supervision to make sure that progress continues. Kucinich and the HSDP are trying to sustain a usable amount of research, and clinical study.
It is not known exactly what Schwartz, the man likely most responsible will do. It is not known whether he will remain part of the system or not, thankfully EHP will be restored as a vehicle for communication once again, .Most fundamentally they return the “Mission of NIEHS is to support research to define their ole of environmental agents in the initiation and progression of human disease.” Disease prevention is a top notch goal, because it is in prevention that you can most directly avail. If people don’t get sick because of successs in prevention; if you know how to diagnose an environmental problem and fix it before it escalates, you can more easily aid their health.
Seems to me Kucinich is pretty active compared to most other politicians.
The failure of the new management to maintain the publication Environmental Health Perspectives, as well as their issues in other languages, like Spanish and Chinese has serious consequences in information availability. We value journals and publications in science because they help productivity, and interaction by researchers, and further cultivate the work to come. It is one of the major themes I’ve seen; sharing, funding, and deep-reasoned thinking are huge in science. EHP and similar practices were “strategies for effective communication of critical environmental health information to those who need it most.”
In deep-reasoned thinking, the neglect of important efforts like National Toxicology Program (NTP), new chemical studies, and further research in child related environmental health research, are indicative of a greater malaise in these systems. NTP for example is an “interagency program that assesses chemicals for health effects.” These were strong programs that are swiftly deteriorating due to lack of managerial support and funding.
Again, as is the case throughout scientific research, development, dispersal and education (among most other aspects) the issue of funding is absolute. Without proper funding, the projects that need to completed can’t, and if funding isn’t distributed effectively, it can be wasted in trivial projects and redundant research. The building of a clinical center when, in that neighborhood there are two excellent centers available, is an example of waste. Neglect in toxicology in particular, may be due in part to disinterest on Schwartz’s part, regarding the whole operation, it may be hat he saw “NTP as an inconvenient annoyance rather than an integral part of his job.” The quantitative evidence of this neglect, is a reduction in chemicals studied from ten, to just four.
Some activities robbed of support and funding include Centers of Excellence in Children’s Environmental Health Research, and The National Children’s Study, These worked to try to examine how “race, economics and behavior effect children’s health", and an ambitious study “that will follow 100,000 children from before birth to age 21, studying the effects of environmental factors.
Long term research is huge in science, and so failure for any reason to continue, severely damages further efforts. We should have learned, by now, that you can’t short change research into disease, just like you can’t count on the same drugs to treat the same infections for decades. There needs to be balance for success in any field, in this case part of that balance is resource management, and maintaining a stable platform. Scientific pioneers can benefit from maintaining relationships to other scientists, through these intrinsic means of communication, and through the trust of a small group of leaders, in direct management and in supervision to make sure that progress continues. Kucinich and the HSDP are trying to sustain a usable amount of research, and clinical study.
It is not known exactly what Schwartz, the man likely most responsible will do. It is not known whether he will remain part of the system or not, thankfully EHP will be restored as a vehicle for communication once again, .Most fundamentally they return the “Mission of NIEHS is to support research to define their ole of environmental agents in the initiation and progression of human disease.” Disease prevention is a top notch goal, because it is in prevention that you can most directly avail. If people don’t get sick because of successs in prevention; if you know how to diagnose an environmental problem and fix it before it escalates, you can more easily aid their health.
Seems to me Kucinich is pretty active compared to most other politicians.
Considerations
About the U.S and pertaining to "actions to be taken against perceived threats be they realistic or not."
Chalmers Johnson in a review wrote:
Another subject about which Holmes is strikingly original is the subtle way in which the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the United States' self-promotion as the sole remaining superpower clouded our vision and virtually guaranteed the catastrophe that ensued in Iraq. "Because Americans…. have sunk so much of their national treasure into a military establishment fit to deter and perhaps fight an enemy that has now disappeared," he argues, "they have an almost irresistible inclination to exaggerate the centrality of rogue states, excellent targets for military destruction, [above] the overall terrorist threat. They overestimate war (which never unfolds as expected) and underestimate diplomacy and persuasion as instruments of American power" (pp. 71-72).
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/44019.html
Because Americans…. have sunk so much of their national treasure into a military establishment...
This also involves the same ideas I liked from Martin Luther King's speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" which I first read here http://demosuniverse.blogspot.com/2007/09/beyond-vietnam-martin-luther-kingbeyond.html%20
among many very useful remarks, he said,
"So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. "
I'm looking into more historical commentary on our governments policies... how they may or may not relate to some interesting trends of other nations..
the idea of bringing democracy
rogue states
persuasion and communication
are going to be built on briefly, but there is much more.
Chalmers Johnson in a review wrote:
Another subject about which Holmes is strikingly original is the subtle way in which the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the United States' self-promotion as the sole remaining superpower clouded our vision and virtually guaranteed the catastrophe that ensued in Iraq. "Because Americans…. have sunk so much of their national treasure into a military establishment fit to deter and perhaps fight an enemy that has now disappeared," he argues, "they have an almost irresistible inclination to exaggerate the centrality of rogue states, excellent targets for military destruction, [above] the overall terrorist threat. They overestimate war (which never unfolds as expected) and underestimate diplomacy and persuasion as instruments of American power" (pp. 71-72).
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/44019.html
Because Americans…. have sunk so much of their national treasure into a military establishment...
This also involves the same ideas I liked from Martin Luther King's speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" which I first read here http://demosuniverse.blogspot.com/2007/09/beyond-vietnam-martin-luther-kingbeyond.html%20
among many very useful remarks, he said,
"So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. "
I'm looking into more historical commentary on our governments policies... how they may or may not relate to some interesting trends of other nations..
the idea of bringing democracy
rogue states
persuasion and communication
are going to be built on briefly, but there is much more.
The Democratic Debates and Loving Arthur Silber
I did something new today, I ran from where I was toward the t.v, rather than away from it.
Today there were Democratic presidential candidates participating in "live televised debates"
I cannot consider myself a Democrat, and hold myself responsible by my own values. And as far as the value of the debates, if honesty were a commodity, I couldn't say much at all. Still, I wanted to see what would happen within the party, especially what they would say regarding U.S involvement in Iran, Healthcare, "national security" etc. Also, I was interested in what would happen when Hillary Clinton was asked to respond to prompted questions. I was hoping that Clinton would be called out for being what I would consider a non-democrat. Even outside of inconsistencies between Clinton and the party, there are clear issues, for example, directly misleading voters, being inconsistent in stance and logic, supporting very strongly the status quo. Clinton talked about structuring our military forces in Iraq to be prepared for conflict with Iran, she also said we would not leave Iraq totally, and that there would always be representative forces, but more immediately the U.S would fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Within a relatively basic discussion (lots of sound bytes etc) there was what I wanted to see, candidates challenging Clinton. I thought they did a good job of crushing her planned policies, using the weight of logic, which is something I needed to see.
Now, for the example of why I love Arthur Silber... He did a brilliant job, as is his custom, of illustrating key issues. He describes more astutely, and generally better, the types of things I noticed and took notes on, and ones I hadn't thought of , and wish I had. (maybe I'll copy the notes here later)
He is probably the most consistent of the people whose works I read, in maintaining my respect and interest. If his topics happen to stray from what I was looking for originally, I have not found myself leaving the topic it goes into, as they all seem very valuable.
Go here
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/10/break-goddamned-rules.html
now you're looking at the link.. but you really should be looking at what he wrote about it.
Today there were Democratic presidential candidates participating in "live televised debates"
I cannot consider myself a Democrat, and hold myself responsible by my own values. And as far as the value of the debates, if honesty were a commodity, I couldn't say much at all. Still, I wanted to see what would happen within the party, especially what they would say regarding U.S involvement in Iran, Healthcare, "national security" etc. Also, I was interested in what would happen when Hillary Clinton was asked to respond to prompted questions. I was hoping that Clinton would be called out for being what I would consider a non-democrat. Even outside of inconsistencies between Clinton and the party, there are clear issues, for example, directly misleading voters, being inconsistent in stance and logic, supporting very strongly the status quo. Clinton talked about structuring our military forces in Iraq to be prepared for conflict with Iran, she also said we would not leave Iraq totally, and that there would always be representative forces, but more immediately the U.S would fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Within a relatively basic discussion (lots of sound bytes etc) there was what I wanted to see, candidates challenging Clinton. I thought they did a good job of crushing her planned policies, using the weight of logic, which is something I needed to see.
Now, for the example of why I love Arthur Silber... He did a brilliant job, as is his custom, of illustrating key issues. He describes more astutely, and generally better, the types of things I noticed and took notes on, and ones I hadn't thought of , and wish I had. (maybe I'll copy the notes here later)
He is probably the most consistent of the people whose works I read, in maintaining my respect and interest. If his topics happen to stray from what I was looking for originally, I have not found myself leaving the topic it goes into, as they all seem very valuable.
Go here
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/10/break-goddamned-rules.html
now you're looking at the link.. but you really should be looking at what he wrote about it.
John McCain, U.S integrity, and terror
I watched one of John McCain's campaign speeches recently..
If I could claim to agree with John McCain, it would be on torture,
when he answered the question "what does it mean to you to lead by integrity"
his response "announce we will never torture another person in American custody."
now, that is the part I agree with him on, in all cases I think torture is wrong. (including excessive use of force by police authorities nationwide, but that is a whole other issue)
In promoting our wars in the middle east, and all those great 'American values' they supposedly protect, I see a problem when we are defining people as terrorist threats..
not limited to McCain's question of treatment, there is also slight issue, how do they get into American custody in the first place?
He'd gone on to say we should "close Guantanamo bay, and move them to Ft. Levin where there is a federal detention center."
As far as I'm concerned almost none of the people in custody in the interest of U.S national security are there based on any sort of hard evidence, and shouldn't be detained Anywhere. These arrests and methods of obtaining evidence were well outlined in the Patriot Act, especially SEC. 236A. (a) (for more specifics on what they are defining http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) but the patriot act is made up of definitions and actions to be taken against perceived threats be they realistic or not.
It is because of irrational fear and reckless acts on the part of our government that these people are being so mistreated. It is no small group either, in Fran Townsend's statements to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, the number of people we have detained and "rendered" and who we are "not torturing" currently is about a hundred to a hundred-fifty. That is the total that has been disclosed to us, I could see, judging by this administration's willingness to tell the whole truth, there being many more cases of rendition and torture.. (for more estimates on number of detainees and explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm)
What I see here is a failure to address our motivation, method, and moral standing when we arrest these individuals. I don't think we are right to do so in the first place. He says we should continue our policies which are only possible without habeas corpus. I think not having habeas corpus is a pretty important issue in trust and integrity, which should have been better addressed by McCain since "one of the first challenges in '09 is to ensure trust." He didn't address it because he is largely responsible. He initially refused to back legislation that went directly against the Geneva Conventions, but allowed it to instead by determined by the president how to interpret those policies. It was the same kind of move he pulled when dodging questions about his standpoints on topics like gay marriage, saying he'd leave that to the states and other people to decide. Specifically, and better worded
"When the parties emerged, the compromise looked uncannily like the original administration bill. Nominally, we reaffirm the Geneva protections. But the bill explicitly authorizes the president to define what that means. A detainee's right to challenge his detention to an independent judge (habeas corpus) is still eliminated, as is the right of the accused to see evidence. And the CIA retains the ability to spirit people to third countries that don't even pretend to ban torture." http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-23.htm
I do not trust a government that arbitrarily detains people for unstated purpose, as long as they should choose to. There are a lot of people working to promote national security, like the JTTF here's a url that has the glittering outlook on their efforts http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec04/jttf120114.htm.
"And here's the final—and most important—thing you should know about these JTTFs: They are working 24/7/365 to protect you, your families, and your communities from terrorist attack."
I personally am not afraid of terrorist attacks, not nearly as much as I am afraid of losing (and having lost) my individual freedoms here "at home." I cannot stand to think of the amount of human suffering that has been a direct effect of our national security efforts.
We need to wake up, we condemn other countries for Human Rights Violations, when we are a perpetrator of many crimes against our citizens and others. It is the role of the "moral majority" to take action to stop this. Are we so arrogant to believe we can justify these actions by later explaining some benevolent motivation?
Nothing can justify for me this wrongdoing, and the many others committed by our government, and I find myself accountable as a part of this greater and increasingly faceless evil that is the united states. Get me wrong, if that be the case.
If I could claim to agree with John McCain, it would be on torture,
when he answered the question "what does it mean to you to lead by integrity"
his response "announce we will never torture another person in American custody."
now, that is the part I agree with him on, in all cases I think torture is wrong. (including excessive use of force by police authorities nationwide, but that is a whole other issue)
In promoting our wars in the middle east, and all those great 'American values' they supposedly protect, I see a problem when we are defining people as terrorist threats..
not limited to McCain's question of treatment, there is also slight issue, how do they get into American custody in the first place?
He'd gone on to say we should "close Guantanamo bay, and move them to Ft. Levin where there is a federal detention center."
As far as I'm concerned almost none of the people in custody in the interest of U.S national security are there based on any sort of hard evidence, and shouldn't be detained Anywhere. These arrests and methods of obtaining evidence were well outlined in the Patriot Act, especially SEC. 236A. (a) (for more specifics on what they are defining http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) but the patriot act is made up of definitions and actions to be taken against perceived threats be they realistic or not.
It is because of irrational fear and reckless acts on the part of our government that these people are being so mistreated. It is no small group either, in Fran Townsend's statements to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, the number of people we have detained and "rendered" and who we are "not torturing" currently is about a hundred to a hundred-fifty. That is the total that has been disclosed to us, I could see, judging by this administration's willingness to tell the whole truth, there being many more cases of rendition and torture.. (for more estimates on number of detainees and explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm)
What I see here is a failure to address our motivation, method, and moral standing when we arrest these individuals. I don't think we are right to do so in the first place. He says we should continue our policies which are only possible without habeas corpus. I think not having habeas corpus is a pretty important issue in trust and integrity, which should have been better addressed by McCain since "one of the first challenges in '09 is to ensure trust." He didn't address it because he is largely responsible. He initially refused to back legislation that went directly against the Geneva Conventions, but allowed it to instead by determined by the president how to interpret those policies. It was the same kind of move he pulled when dodging questions about his standpoints on topics like gay marriage, saying he'd leave that to the states and other people to decide. Specifically, and better worded
"When the parties emerged, the compromise looked uncannily like the original administration bill. Nominally, we reaffirm the Geneva protections. But the bill explicitly authorizes the president to define what that means. A detainee's right to challenge his detention to an independent judge (habeas corpus) is still eliminated, as is the right of the accused to see evidence. And the CIA retains the ability to spirit people to third countries that don't even pretend to ban torture." http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-23.htm
I do not trust a government that arbitrarily detains people for unstated purpose, as long as they should choose to. There are a lot of people working to promote national security, like the JTTF here's a url that has the glittering outlook on their efforts http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec04/jttf120114.htm.
"And here's the final—and most important—thing you should know about these JTTFs: They are working 24/7/365 to protect you, your families, and your communities from terrorist attack."
I personally am not afraid of terrorist attacks, not nearly as much as I am afraid of losing (and having lost) my individual freedoms here "at home." I cannot stand to think of the amount of human suffering that has been a direct effect of our national security efforts.
We need to wake up, we condemn other countries for Human Rights Violations, when we are a perpetrator of many crimes against our citizens and others. It is the role of the "moral majority" to take action to stop this. Are we so arrogant to believe we can justify these actions by later explaining some benevolent motivation?
Nothing can justify for me this wrongdoing, and the many others committed by our government, and I find myself accountable as a part of this greater and increasingly faceless evil that is the united states. Get me wrong, if that be the case.
babble from oct 26
I watched the news today,
and after leaving the news for C-span
I found myself watching billy crystal giving a performance about hillary clinton, as it is her birthday today. I really do not like her, and people supporting her makes me more unhappy, then that C-Span would broadcast this... no.
No source can be taken directly, including my own interpretations, so I'm going to try to post some of my observations with and without commentary. It is to help me see where I am focusing, and whether or not that is a good idea.
Also, I am reading Walden
and there are many parts which remind me of when I was younger, and spent my time with sheep and chickens and apple trees, and knew where the shadows of the leaves would fall at any time of day and could describe more intimately the plants and rocks that surrounded my then more ridiculous house. I used to imagine what it would be like to be the object I was looking at, its ability to carry something, make food, reflect the sunshine..
These will be increasingly spontaneous, and well, bloggish in that they are more for my personal use than to show some sort of persuasive argument.
and after leaving the news for C-span
I found myself watching billy crystal giving a performance about hillary clinton, as it is her birthday today. I really do not like her, and people supporting her makes me more unhappy, then that C-Span would broadcast this... no.
No source can be taken directly, including my own interpretations, so I'm going to try to post some of my observations with and without commentary. It is to help me see where I am focusing, and whether or not that is a good idea.
Also, I am reading Walden
and there are many parts which remind me of when I was younger, and spent my time with sheep and chickens and apple trees, and knew where the shadows of the leaves would fall at any time of day and could describe more intimately the plants and rocks that surrounded my then more ridiculous house. I used to imagine what it would be like to be the object I was looking at, its ability to carry something, make food, reflect the sunshine..
These will be increasingly spontaneous, and well, bloggish in that they are more for my personal use than to show some sort of persuasive argument.
Building the U.S Middle Class
I was surveying the home in which I reside today and looking out onto my neighborhood, and a few of my more frequent thoughts resurfaced.
How many hours of labor would it take for each individual in my family, and the families of my neighbors to make the things they own and purchase? Even when recognizing that the machine industry makes some of this easier, I see a huge discrepancy between our lifestyles and the amount of real labor we do. The thousands of hours it likely took to make the materials needed to build the house, make the material goods within it, pave the road, extract the metals and organics from the earth needed even to begin the process. The food grown to feed the people making it, the fuels in the manufacturing process, to ship the materials, and then on top of that to heat the house itself. It probably took thousands of people to create the contents of a few rooms, let alone the whole neighborhood, or state or country. How do I think this is possible, that our possessions exceed our productivity?
I think the answer lies in our role as a global empire. Exploiting whatever energies, laborers and materials we can. Throughout the world are developing nations whose exports we buy at low prices, and whose cheap labor we exploit. (more on this later) This habit of taking from the impoverished is true in our country as well, looking at the labor force, and poverty rates. I see our consumerism, and it is something that in a lot of ways disgusts me. Now, I am not exempt from wrongdoing, as my lifestyle is one that is more in line than not with the majority of the American public. (The idea of the U.S as an empire was also discussed briefly on democracy papers look there for especially worthwhile commentary from a person known to me as Professor Doctor Silas..) I would like for a reference that you look at this map showing percent of U.S population in poverty, there are many factors in this, but I think it is a good visual representation. http://www.raconline.org/maps/mapfiles/poverty.jpg
I look in particular at mass produced goods like clothing, and see where the manufacturing takes place. At the rates we pay, it is a guarantee that the money made by workers is insufficient to survive and support basic human needs. For now I will ignore the environmental complications involved in mass manufacturing. This consumer greed is personally disappointing, because in many ways it is not on purpose. When people buy these things, they are often considering their personal wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their families, and trying to save money. But in doing so they are condemning the people who make these things to compete with one another until the prices are even lower. We often hear of things like nike sweat shops where children and whole communities are forced to work under terrible conditions, there might be a slight uprising in the consumers, like they will switch to another manufacturer, but I do not see people divorcing the system altogether.
I think maybe we should. Within our own country, we should be looking at the wellbeing of all citizens, and only supporting companies which provide a the makings of a good lifestyle (to be defined by the citizens, not me personally) to the people they do business with and employ, if we support large companies at all. If a company is not doing well by its community, there should be some sort of responsibility check, to ensure that the company is not parasitic. Some large companies already have sustained efforts to improve their communities, by supporting schools and other non-profits, and some of these are merely pulling PR stunts to cover up larger issues, and long term damage. There needs to be some sort of regulation on profiteering in masse.
In companies who have the majority of their manufacturing done overseas, I attribute the public apathy to a few key things,
1) the welcoming of low cost no matter how it is achieved (examples could be seen in part of wal-mart the high cost of low prices)
2) Lack of awareness, do they know where their products were made, and who benefits most
3) the belief that outside this country there live a lesser people. (Immortal Technique put it rather well in "the poverty of philosophy")
these of course are largely dependent on greed, and our societies' tendency toward serving their own interests.
The conclusion I've reached so far, is that if possible, I will reduce my participation in this exploitation now and in the near future. I already avoid purchasing fresh clothes, and choose instead to buy clothing that was rejected by consumers or otherwise sent to goodwill. I do not like owning excessive things, and so do not purchase non-food goods very frequently. I hope to find a way to directly encourage companies that meet my goals for the global and local community regarding the wellbeing of workers.
With this I still have much more research and other considerations to think about, but it is something I want to know more and thought people could contribute to.
How many hours of labor would it take for each individual in my family, and the families of my neighbors to make the things they own and purchase? Even when recognizing that the machine industry makes some of this easier, I see a huge discrepancy between our lifestyles and the amount of real labor we do. The thousands of hours it likely took to make the materials needed to build the house, make the material goods within it, pave the road, extract the metals and organics from the earth needed even to begin the process. The food grown to feed the people making it, the fuels in the manufacturing process, to ship the materials, and then on top of that to heat the house itself. It probably took thousands of people to create the contents of a few rooms, let alone the whole neighborhood, or state or country. How do I think this is possible, that our possessions exceed our productivity?
I think the answer lies in our role as a global empire. Exploiting whatever energies, laborers and materials we can. Throughout the world are developing nations whose exports we buy at low prices, and whose cheap labor we exploit. (more on this later) This habit of taking from the impoverished is true in our country as well, looking at the labor force, and poverty rates. I see our consumerism, and it is something that in a lot of ways disgusts me. Now, I am not exempt from wrongdoing, as my lifestyle is one that is more in line than not with the majority of the American public. (The idea of the U.S as an empire was also discussed briefly on democracy papers look there for especially worthwhile commentary from a person known to me as Professor Doctor Silas..) I would like for a reference that you look at this map showing percent of U.S population in poverty, there are many factors in this, but I think it is a good visual representation. http://www.raconline.org/maps/mapfiles/poverty.jpg
I look in particular at mass produced goods like clothing, and see where the manufacturing takes place. At the rates we pay, it is a guarantee that the money made by workers is insufficient to survive and support basic human needs. For now I will ignore the environmental complications involved in mass manufacturing. This consumer greed is personally disappointing, because in many ways it is not on purpose. When people buy these things, they are often considering their personal wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their families, and trying to save money. But in doing so they are condemning the people who make these things to compete with one another until the prices are even lower. We often hear of things like nike sweat shops where children and whole communities are forced to work under terrible conditions, there might be a slight uprising in the consumers, like they will switch to another manufacturer, but I do not see people divorcing the system altogether.
I think maybe we should. Within our own country, we should be looking at the wellbeing of all citizens, and only supporting companies which provide a the makings of a good lifestyle (to be defined by the citizens, not me personally) to the people they do business with and employ, if we support large companies at all. If a company is not doing well by its community, there should be some sort of responsibility check, to ensure that the company is not parasitic. Some large companies already have sustained efforts to improve their communities, by supporting schools and other non-profits, and some of these are merely pulling PR stunts to cover up larger issues, and long term damage. There needs to be some sort of regulation on profiteering in masse.
In companies who have the majority of their manufacturing done overseas, I attribute the public apathy to a few key things,
1) the welcoming of low cost no matter how it is achieved (examples could be seen in part of wal-mart the high cost of low prices)
2) Lack of awareness, do they know where their products were made, and who benefits most
3) the belief that outside this country there live a lesser people. (Immortal Technique put it rather well in "the poverty of philosophy")
these of course are largely dependent on greed, and our societies' tendency toward serving their own interests.
The conclusion I've reached so far, is that if possible, I will reduce my participation in this exploitation now and in the near future. I already avoid purchasing fresh clothes, and choose instead to buy clothing that was rejected by consumers or otherwise sent to goodwill. I do not like owning excessive things, and so do not purchase non-food goods very frequently. I hope to find a way to directly encourage companies that meet my goals for the global and local community regarding the wellbeing of workers.
With this I still have much more research and other considerations to think about, but it is something I want to know more and thought people could contribute to.
Legality, Marijuana & other substances
One less common principle I find myself abiding by, is the idea that if a law or policy is not in the best interest of the people it governs, I make no point of following it, as an example I will focus today on enforcement of drug policies.
My non participation in abiding by these laws is not meant to get attention towards the changing of the policies, as would the case with civil disobedience on other topics. It is an observation I have made of my own actions, and is not done to insight the actions of authorities or activists, and, though I should be, I generally, am not active in any means of changing policies. This inactivity is something I plan to change, as I better my understanding of the issues. Really I ought to be doing these things already, as a disillusioned citizen.
That said, I will explain why the initial statement is more or less the case. Because I think the government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, if I believe a law or policy does not achieve this, I do not believe myself or others to have given consent.
In the war on drugs, the government spends massive amounts of public money to discover, prosecute and incarcerate people who obtain or use illegal drugs. Whether you condemn the use of drugs or not, it should be clear what is contained in any and all of the DEA's policies and schedules. Like many of our favorite legal documents would be unpleasant to read in a casual sense, and I believe this to be no accident.
If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a
I think the government has found some sort of reward in convincing the people to be scared of these substances. The drug education programs most elementary school students are subjected to are in my opinion a huge waste of money, and a detriment to the educational institutions. I also think the exaggerations of the effects and nature of the substances is irresponsible and damages their accountability. I remember them saying, more or less, that "if you try marijuana you will want to do cocaine and then heroine, and then you will turn into a horrible monster trying to sell drugs to kids and stealing from your friends and family.." then uses some sort of emotionally packed image as a visual. Now, I may have sensationalized a bit, but actually that was the impression I got from their presentations when I saw them. Also some of the info they provided served more as a how-to than anything, like the substance abuse possibilities of redi-whip type containers, they said that because of the gas used to propel the contents (at the time I believe it was Nitrous oxide or something) a person could get a high feeling, as if floating.
I believe the war on marijuana in particular to have been highly dependent on another shining part of our society, fear mongering and racism. A friend of mine was nice enough to mention to me a quote they heard from a man called the "father of the drug war." Harry J. Anslinger outlined his understanding before a group of people, including some from what was called the Ways and Means Committee, he answered a series of questions which I thought were valuable in characterizing the understanding of marijuana when efforts against it first began. There are parts I believe to be distinctly false, and some which I think are useful, and should be re-evaluatd and hopefully accepted.
MR. MCCORMACK: Is it used by the criminal class?
MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, it is. It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions.
I have here statements by the foremost expert in the world talking on this subject, and by Dr. Cutter a noted and distinguished medical man in this country.
(The statements referred to are as follows:)
(From the report by Dr. J. Bouquet, Tunis, to the League of Nations)
Does Indian hemp (Cannabis Sativa) in its various forms give rise to drug addiction?
The use of cannabis, whether smoked or ingested in its various form, undoubtedly gives rise to a form of addiction, which has serious social consequences (abandonment of work, propensity to theft and crime, disappearance of reproductive power).
-From the Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1936-
I do not believe marijuana is addictive, short of peoples interest in its effects. The effects of marijuana I do not think encourage violence, in fact aside from the effects of greed in the illegal sales of it, I see little evidence that aside from the monetary aspect of the drug it encourages any ill will between people.
Anslinger says something I believe to be true though,
MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.
MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm
Based on my understanding (and whatever level of objectivity I have) I do not think the punishments fit the crimes, especially in the case of marijuana. I can understand holding responsible people who sell chemicals which result in the death of the user, but aside from protecting the physical health of the people using the substances, I see few common good type purposes (and would like to shine a little attention on the substances allowed which are likely much more deadly but are too lucrative for the government to get rid of).
One aspect of my feelings on our drug policy is its effect on juveniles. Firstly I would like to clarify, that I do not think incarceration of young persons improves their behavior or is otherwise in their best interest. That said, it saddens me that drug related offenses are grouped in with violent crime, as I think many people who do drugs do not interfere with the wellbeing of others, or pose a threat to society. I will use marijuana throughout this, because it is the fairest example I know... other drugs have greater effect on the person's free will (through levels of awareness and addictive properties). What I see is a large population of people being imprisoned or otherwise prosecuted because of their involvement with drugs. I've been reading from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found some key pieces interesting (I reference the site first so others can look at it, but also to clarify why my sources are from given years, or to allow congruent research) this is the address http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cpus.
What I see is that about 15% of the juveniles in the system had their worst offense drug related,
and that in 1994 many, the average duration of punishment for these crimes was longer than that of violent crimes; 21 months for drug offenders versus 17months for violent offenders. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm#Juveniles
This doesn't jive. I really despise this system, and it scares me to think of what my community would be like if all the people who did drugs were prosecuted. I do not think young people should have criminal records for their lifetime for possession of marijuana (young people for me being not only those under 18, but also up to say 25 when I believe the structure of the brain has stopped its fundamental development, that like other parts I am especially receptive to arguments for/against..) Some of the smartest most compassionate people I have met have also tried or use regularly illegal drugs. I do not believe at this time, that if I were asked to provide information leading to their prosecution that I would.
My non-cooperation is a direct result of the my opinions of the law itself. I look at the laws restricting alcohol, and its role in criminal acts, as a control, and see a serious discrepancy.
In convicted adult offenders, in 1996, nearly 2 million of 5.3 convicted offenders were thought to have been drinking at the time of the offense, that is about 36%.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ac.pdf Now, as a pseudo-educated individual I have to recognize that there is good reason for people not to admit to use of other substances, and that alcohol is more common, but I think that only changes a small portion of the data.
why do I believe the laws are protecting alcohol and cracking down on other substances? It could be any variety of reasons, cultural/social influences, enforceability , but I believe the paramount issue to be economic. It is harder to profit from marijuana, and we don't manufacture most of the illegal substances brought into the country. (If we could make cocaine in the U.S as easily as we can make alcohol, I wonder if this would be different. Alternately, if marijuana didn't grow so well naturally and is therefore be impossible to control the market on, I wonder if policies would change here.)
Now to answer the question that has likely surfaced in reading my thoughts on drugs.
Have I tried marijuana? no
Do I plan to? no, and I'll tell you why. My goal is to be a surgeon, to be directly responsible for the wellbeing of a patient, and through a combination of my actions, the assistance of other medical professionals and the vast studies of medical sciences to achieve the best result for that individual. I do not want to do anything that puts other people at risk, and on the chance that there is some negative effect in my abilities or situation because of drugs, I choose to avoid them. My specific plan to be a surgeon might not materialize for some reason, but my goal would be the same, to directly assist or positively effect the wellbeing of other individuals.
I've stated my feeling that government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, and because I think our laws regarding marijuana are not, I would not expect myself to assist the government or anybody else in enforcing them. If they were reformed to reflect appropriate caution in the distribution and availability of the drug, I would probably change my position. I wish very much that there could be a comprehensive review of the scientific and statistical information available, as well as social issues regarding marijuana, and that people could be treated fairly, and the drug's criminality be reconsidered by a party which has no vested interest but for the well being of the people here and elsewhere.
My non participation in abiding by these laws is not meant to get attention towards the changing of the policies, as would the case with civil disobedience on other topics. It is an observation I have made of my own actions, and is not done to insight the actions of authorities or activists, and, though I should be, I generally, am not active in any means of changing policies. This inactivity is something I plan to change, as I better my understanding of the issues. Really I ought to be doing these things already, as a disillusioned citizen.
That said, I will explain why the initial statement is more or less the case. Because I think the government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, if I believe a law or policy does not achieve this, I do not believe myself or others to have given consent.
In the war on drugs, the government spends massive amounts of public money to discover, prosecute and incarcerate people who obtain or use illegal drugs. Whether you condemn the use of drugs or not, it should be clear what is contained in any and all of the DEA's policies and schedules. Like many of our favorite legal documents would be unpleasant to read in a casual sense, and I believe this to be no accident.
If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a
I think the government has found some sort of reward in convincing the people to be scared of these substances. The drug education programs most elementary school students are subjected to are in my opinion a huge waste of money, and a detriment to the educational institutions. I also think the exaggerations of the effects and nature of the substances is irresponsible and damages their accountability. I remember them saying, more or less, that "if you try marijuana you will want to do cocaine and then heroine, and then you will turn into a horrible monster trying to sell drugs to kids and stealing from your friends and family.." then uses some sort of emotionally packed image as a visual. Now, I may have sensationalized a bit, but actually that was the impression I got from their presentations when I saw them. Also some of the info they provided served more as a how-to than anything, like the substance abuse possibilities of redi-whip type containers, they said that because of the gas used to propel the contents (at the time I believe it was Nitrous oxide or something) a person could get a high feeling, as if floating.
I believe the war on marijuana in particular to have been highly dependent on another shining part of our society, fear mongering and racism. A friend of mine was nice enough to mention to me a quote they heard from a man called the "father of the drug war." Harry J. Anslinger outlined his understanding before a group of people, including some from what was called the Ways and Means Committee, he answered a series of questions which I thought were valuable in characterizing the understanding of marijuana when efforts against it first began. There are parts I believe to be distinctly false, and some which I think are useful, and should be re-evaluatd and hopefully accepted.
MR. MCCORMACK: Is it used by the criminal class?
MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, it is. It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions.
I have here statements by the foremost expert in the world talking on this subject, and by Dr. Cutter a noted and distinguished medical man in this country.
(The statements referred to are as follows:)
(From the report by Dr. J. Bouquet, Tunis, to the League of Nations)
Does Indian hemp (Cannabis Sativa) in its various forms give rise to drug addiction?
The use of cannabis, whether smoked or ingested in its various form, undoubtedly gives rise to a form of addiction, which has serious social consequences (abandonment of work, propensity to theft and crime, disappearance of reproductive power).
-From the Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1936-
I do not believe marijuana is addictive, short of peoples interest in its effects. The effects of marijuana I do not think encourage violence, in fact aside from the effects of greed in the illegal sales of it, I see little evidence that aside from the monetary aspect of the drug it encourages any ill will between people.
Anslinger says something I believe to be true though,
MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.
MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm
Based on my understanding (and whatever level of objectivity I have) I do not think the punishments fit the crimes, especially in the case of marijuana. I can understand holding responsible people who sell chemicals which result in the death of the user, but aside from protecting the physical health of the people using the substances, I see few common good type purposes (and would like to shine a little attention on the substances allowed which are likely much more deadly but are too lucrative for the government to get rid of).
One aspect of my feelings on our drug policy is its effect on juveniles. Firstly I would like to clarify, that I do not think incarceration of young persons improves their behavior or is otherwise in their best interest. That said, it saddens me that drug related offenses are grouped in with violent crime, as I think many people who do drugs do not interfere with the wellbeing of others, or pose a threat to society. I will use marijuana throughout this, because it is the fairest example I know... other drugs have greater effect on the person's free will (through levels of awareness and addictive properties). What I see is a large population of people being imprisoned or otherwise prosecuted because of their involvement with drugs. I've been reading from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found some key pieces interesting (I reference the site first so others can look at it, but also to clarify why my sources are from given years, or to allow congruent research) this is the address http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cpus.
What I see is that about 15% of the juveniles in the system had their worst offense drug related,
and that in 1994 many, the average duration of punishment for these crimes was longer than that of violent crimes; 21 months for drug offenders versus 17months for violent offenders. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm#Juveniles
This doesn't jive. I really despise this system, and it scares me to think of what my community would be like if all the people who did drugs were prosecuted. I do not think young people should have criminal records for their lifetime for possession of marijuana (young people for me being not only those under 18, but also up to say 25 when I believe the structure of the brain has stopped its fundamental development, that like other parts I am especially receptive to arguments for/against..) Some of the smartest most compassionate people I have met have also tried or use regularly illegal drugs. I do not believe at this time, that if I were asked to provide information leading to their prosecution that I would.
My non-cooperation is a direct result of the my opinions of the law itself. I look at the laws restricting alcohol, and its role in criminal acts, as a control, and see a serious discrepancy.
In convicted adult offenders, in 1996, nearly 2 million of 5.3 convicted offenders were thought to have been drinking at the time of the offense, that is about 36%.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ac.pdf Now, as a pseudo-educated individual I have to recognize that there is good reason for people not to admit to use of other substances, and that alcohol is more common, but I think that only changes a small portion of the data.
why do I believe the laws are protecting alcohol and cracking down on other substances? It could be any variety of reasons, cultural/social influences, enforceability , but I believe the paramount issue to be economic. It is harder to profit from marijuana, and we don't manufacture most of the illegal substances brought into the country. (If we could make cocaine in the U.S as easily as we can make alcohol, I wonder if this would be different. Alternately, if marijuana didn't grow so well naturally and is therefore be impossible to control the market on, I wonder if policies would change here.)
Now to answer the question that has likely surfaced in reading my thoughts on drugs.
Have I tried marijuana? no
Do I plan to? no, and I'll tell you why. My goal is to be a surgeon, to be directly responsible for the wellbeing of a patient, and through a combination of my actions, the assistance of other medical professionals and the vast studies of medical sciences to achieve the best result for that individual. I do not want to do anything that puts other people at risk, and on the chance that there is some negative effect in my abilities or situation because of drugs, I choose to avoid them. My specific plan to be a surgeon might not materialize for some reason, but my goal would be the same, to directly assist or positively effect the wellbeing of other individuals.
I've stated my feeling that government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, and because I think our laws regarding marijuana are not, I would not expect myself to assist the government or anybody else in enforcing them. If they were reformed to reflect appropriate caution in the distribution and availability of the drug, I would probably change my position. I wish very much that there could be a comprehensive review of the scientific and statistical information available, as well as social issues regarding marijuana, and that people could be treated fairly, and the drug's criminality be reconsidered by a party which has no vested interest but for the well being of the people here and elsewhere.
Expanding on Science and Skepticism a bit. (oct 16)
Please refer to http://cdn.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-12-13.mp3
This is a 'podcast' I listen to, actually the only one I listen to so far, and it generally is really entertaining and has speakers and stories carried by some hardcore research. This particular one includes some thoughts on Ahmadinejad, along with fun philosophy and science type questions.
In addition to the discussion of Ahmadinejad, they have speaker Allen Wallace. . if you do listen to either the podcast or speech, which I think you should, be aware that Allen Wallace is a kind of comic relief as this show goes..
He brings the lack of tangibility of thoughts as why we cannot measure the phenomena itself... he seems to pose questions asking whether you can think something without correlating brain activity.
The interviewer asks are brain functions necessary for subjective experience to exist. Wallace says that there are people (in computers) he believes who say you don't need a brain.
the interviewer says that his statement is a non-sequitur..
Any level of consciousness can be attributed to some part of the brain. I don't think Wallace agrees with this, and this means he is in denial of reality. I cite this with his analysis of computers rather than human anatomy.
What may be happening here is like with Ahmadinejad. I think Wallace's definition of science, especially consciousness is different than mine (and probably other ethical at least halfway educated or skeptical people)
Wallace asks that the interviewer prove impossible this non-science. He asks the interviewer "can you envision a scientific experiment, a rigorous mainstream scientific experiment, that actually could in principle refutiate the hypothesis that all possible states of consciousness must have a physical basis for their generation... can you design me an experiment"
Interviewer responds "the short answer is no," "you're asking can you prove that is impossible, and science does not operate that way."
I am not an expert on the workings of the human brain, even anatomically speaking I have more to study (past the names of key structures and some brief descriptions of function).
These types of discussion are a larger issue. It is the ability to bastardize science when considering the realms of politics or religion, especially when using information based in pseudo science, that I find so disturbing. To reiterate my previous point. Like church and state are best separate, I think science, church, and state should be separate.
This is a 'podcast' I listen to, actually the only one I listen to so far, and it generally is really entertaining and has speakers and stories carried by some hardcore research. This particular one includes some thoughts on Ahmadinejad, along with fun philosophy and science type questions.
In addition to the discussion of Ahmadinejad, they have speaker Allen Wallace. . if you do listen to either the podcast or speech, which I think you should, be aware that Allen Wallace is a kind of comic relief as this show goes..
He brings the lack of tangibility of thoughts as why we cannot measure the phenomena itself... he seems to pose questions asking whether you can think something without correlating brain activity.
The interviewer asks are brain functions necessary for subjective experience to exist. Wallace says that there are people (in computers) he believes who say you don't need a brain.
the interviewer says that his statement is a non-sequitur..
Any level of consciousness can be attributed to some part of the brain. I don't think Wallace agrees with this, and this means he is in denial of reality. I cite this with his analysis of computers rather than human anatomy.
What may be happening here is like with Ahmadinejad. I think Wallace's definition of science, especially consciousness is different than mine (and probably other ethical at least halfway educated or skeptical people)
Wallace asks that the interviewer prove impossible this non-science. He asks the interviewer "can you envision a scientific experiment, a rigorous mainstream scientific experiment, that actually could in principle refutiate the hypothesis that all possible states of consciousness must have a physical basis for their generation... can you design me an experiment"
Interviewer responds "the short answer is no," "you're asking can you prove that is impossible, and science does not operate that way."
I am not an expert on the workings of the human brain, even anatomically speaking I have more to study (past the names of key structures and some brief descriptions of function).
These types of discussion are a larger issue. It is the ability to bastardize science when considering the realms of politics or religion, especially when using information based in pseudo science, that I find so disturbing. To reiterate my previous point. Like church and state are best separate, I think science, church, and state should be separate.
Science and Translation (oct 15)
I was reading Ahmadinejad's address to the students at Colombia, and there was something he talked about that I wasn't expecting. Like most speeches there were parts where I agree with the speaker, and many where I cannot agree. What startled me though was his thoughts on science.
Like many things there is much I have to learn about Ahmadinejad, but this alone is cause for investigation. I believe his basic definition of science to be different than mine. In my mind science and religion should not be intertwined. Religion often stifles scientific discovery, and no scientific study can be done properly if meeting the needs of a particular religion. Those two are for me like church and state, they might cover the same ideas, but should not be part of one another's authority.
Here are some examples of what he said about science as he defines it. Now, I've chosen to not get into some of the other interesting topics he discusses (like holocaust, palestine, nuclear war and terrorism, his thoughts on terrorism are something I hadn't actually thought of) until some other time.
"In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination,
In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions , selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world.
Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
... And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.
They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. ...
Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God.
But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice. "
There was more in his speech, and I plan to, as I suggest you do, read it thoroughly.
I cannot judge this man, as I cannot judge anyone, especially seeing that I do not know the culture he comes from, but I know he is idealogical and intelligent. I in many parts of this am concerned by subtle or not so subtle statements pertaining to those issues I chose to forgo earlier.
I watched a bit of news surrounding it, and from what they showed I'd have known nothing of what he said, or understood any part of the event, and that disappoints me. The footage they showed was severely edited down (as to not bore our audience or something similar) and no conclusion about his goal in speaking or our governments relationship to him could have been derived from it.
Like many things there is much I have to learn about Ahmadinejad, but this alone is cause for investigation. I believe his basic definition of science to be different than mine. In my mind science and religion should not be intertwined. Religion often stifles scientific discovery, and no scientific study can be done properly if meeting the needs of a particular religion. Those two are for me like church and state, they might cover the same ideas, but should not be part of one another's authority.
Here are some examples of what he said about science as he defines it. Now, I've chosen to not get into some of the other interesting topics he discusses (like holocaust, palestine, nuclear war and terrorism, his thoughts on terrorism are something I hadn't actually thought of) until some other time.
"In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination,
In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions , selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world.
Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
... And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.
They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. ...
Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God.
But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice. "
There was more in his speech, and I plan to, as I suggest you do, read it thoroughly.
I cannot judge this man, as I cannot judge anyone, especially seeing that I do not know the culture he comes from, but I know he is idealogical and intelligent. I in many parts of this am concerned by subtle or not so subtle statements pertaining to those issues I chose to forgo earlier.
I watched a bit of news surrounding it, and from what they showed I'd have known nothing of what he said, or understood any part of the event, and that disappoints me. The footage they showed was severely edited down (as to not bore our audience or something similar) and no conclusion about his goal in speaking or our governments relationship to him could have been derived from it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)