How Americans choose a candidate

The following quote is taken from "Ben's Guide to the U.S. Government For Kids." I understand not all schools teach from this reference, but it's interesting to see how the U.S. government portrays itself. The site may seem childish and dated, but the words are carefully crafted and directed towards the youth population.

Let's look at the primaries.

"This primary nomination process is a contest that often produces factions within political parties. These divisions impact the policy stances and agendas of the candidates running for nomination as they attempt to garner the support of party leaders and activists." - Ben's Guide, Election of the President and Vice President: Primary Election

Hmmm... so candidates don't base their policies and beliefs based on personal choice, but rather to gain power within their party leaders and activists (lobbyists). I thought they were supposed to gain the support of the voting population. How odd...

Well, how will the voters choose their candidate? Research? Personal belief and conviction? Logic (gasp!)?

"The public’s perception of the candidates is influenced by such things as media reports, public opinion polls, candidate preference surveys, and advertising. These factors will help determine the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the months leading up to the caucuses and primaries." - Ben's Guide, Election of the President and Vice President: Primary Election

Ahhh, of course, the media helps choose our candidate for us. Why face the hassle of research, debate, and choice when we could listen to advertising or 200 person public opinion polls? Why discover what your policies would be, when you could attach yourself to a candidate and agree with everything they say? I know this last quote isn't as bad but I hate how there is the perception that we vote as a public, or collective, not as a group of individuals who make up their own minds. The primary system supports the collective voting when it allows the first few states to eliminate candidates which denies later states the opportunity to hear, or vote for their choice.

Ben's Guide Home

-- Joseph Aguirre

The Real State of the Union: Part I

Sometimes the most difficult thing about writing is choosing a topic. For this piece I have chosen to address some of the issues President Bush failed to mention in his State of the Union speech. The points range from the global to the plainly absurd, but these are topics every American should be aware of. Thank you for your time and patience.

---

Signing Statements: Law of the President

---

President Bush has used more signing statements than all previous Presidents combined. A signing statement is a "written proclamation issued by the government executive power that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the government's legislature. (wiki)"

Here's the big problem. Congressmen are elected to represent the citizens from each members respective district and state. Together they draft, debate, and pass laws which are supposed to reflect the populations views and opinions. Through the use of signing statements, President Bush is able to pass the bills into law AND add his own provisions or changes, which are not discussed or debated by the other branches. He is creating his own laws.

Still don't think it's that serious? In 2006 the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Charlie Savage for his article exposing President Bush's abuse of signing statements. "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws: President Cites Powers of His Office."

Let's look at some examples of passed bills the President altered.

"Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders."

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress." - Boston Globe, 4/03/2006

Before we move on let's look at one more signing statement which pertains to a current CIA scandal. The statement below effectively makes Bush the only one who can authorize the use of torture. Therefore, if a suspect is interrogated and tortured, Bush is the only one who could have ordered it because of his signing statement. While it seems that Bush would be labeled as the indirect source of torture, he has actually empowered himself.

"Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

" - Boston Globe, 4/03/2006

For example, a suspected terrorist is suspected to possess valuable American life saving information needed that day. Through his signing statement, Bush can authorize any means necessary to retrieve the alleged info. There isn't even a debate on whether or not the actions used constitute torture because Bush could authorize it either way. Then some time passes and people start asking questions about the use of torture. What do you do now? You define the acts as non-torturous to relieve President Bush, or the White House, of responsibility (covered by my next point). Now the public is unable to determine if Bush had to give the final say on the behavior of the interrogators. The ability to define words, symbols, and terminology is a very powerful tool.

Additional links: 1, 2

---

The Definition of Torture

---

Attorney General Mike Mukasey claims waterboarding is not illegal, and can be used again in the future. I'm sure this helps the CIA's case for destroying the tapes of Al Qaeda interrogations, which reportedly displayed torture, after being repeatedly warned not to. Mukasey also happens to be in charge of the governments internal investigation.

“There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. - Mukasey, 1/29/08

You can view my overviews of the CIA tape scandal here and here.

---

Your Entire Life Experience is Taxed

---

Everyone knows about the big ones, like income and sales tax. What you may not know about is all the little taxes that find their way into the system. There are states that have amusement taxes for concerts or public events. Fun is now a commodity. Or what if you wanted to make some money on the side to avoid Uncle Sam's outstretched arms? Don't think about being a drug dealer, because the United States has a tax system for that as well.

"More than a half-dozen states have a tax on narcotics and other controlled substances. Theoretically, a drug dealer in North Carolina can go to the state revenue office and get a tax stamp for $50 per gram for cocaine over 7 grams (the first 6 grams are tax-free). A moonshiner could get a stamp for $1.28 per gallon of mash.

Then the dealer or the moonshiner can walk away — the law prohibits snitching on anyone who buys the stamps — with proof he paid his debt to the tax department." - Yahoo, Cash-Strapped States Resort to Odd Taxes, 1/29/08

As absurd as it sounds, many of these nonsense taxes have made their way into law. The purpose of a tax on citizens is to raise money for the government by removing wages from the population. If only their creativity extended to areas outside of my wallet.

---

Scientists Are Censored By the Government

---

One of the signing statement examples I used earlier directly ties to this problem. Scientists are forced to have their work reviewed or edited by government officials before information can be released. This is an absolute violation of the truth. How are Americans being protected by this action? What is being censored?

1. Climate Expert Says NASA tried to silence him
2. FEMA Covered Up Cancer Risks to Katrina Victims
3. How The Bush Administration Muzzles The Government’s Top Global Warming Scientist [video]
4. White House ‘Reviews And Edits’ All Testimony By Government Scientists

---

The U.S. Prison System: Largest in the World

---

"Today the United States has approximately 1.8 million people behind bars: about 100,000 in federal custody, 1.1 million in state custody, and 600,000 in local jails ... The United States now imprisons more people than any other country in the world—perhaps half a million more than Communist China. The American inmate population has grown so large that it is difficult to comprehend: imagine the combined populations of Atlanta, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, and Miami behind bars. "We have embarked on a great social experiment," says Marc Mauer, the author of the upcoming book The Race to Incarcerate. "No other society in human history has ever imprisoned so many of its own citizens for the purpose of crime control." - The Atlantic, 12/1998

Allow that sink in for a minute. The land of freedom incarcerates more citizens than any other country in the world. There are three basic conclusions that could be drawn from this. Either the U.S. has more criminals, more punishable laws, or a superior police force. Let's look at a comparison with the European Union prison system.

[Image from Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice]

Slightly more than half of Americas current prisoners are charged with non-violent offenses. In 1998 it cost the taxpayers $24 billion dollars to incarcerate only the non-violent offenders. To compare it's more than twice the amount spent on government welfare.

The government has always touted its war against drugs, how about we check out those statistics?

"The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow citizens," said Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, which supports alternatives in the war on drugs.

"We now imprison more people for drug law violations than all of western Europe, with a much larger population, incarcerates for all offences [sic]." - Commondreams.org, 12/9/2006

For more information I highly recommend the Atlantic article on the Prison Industrial-Complex, and you can also find more statistics on the drug war here.

---

The Threat of Terror is a Political Tool

---

It's been discussed a million times, so I will refrain from a lengthy argument. Here are some examples of public statements and policy which highlight the increasing use of the threat of terrorism as means to influence the perception of public safety and wellbeing. The first statements are from Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff. He outlines how Europe poses a new terrorist threat to America.

"When I lift my eyes and look around the world and I look at what happens in Britain and Germany and Spain and Bali and Pakistan, I don't see terrorism going away, I see an al Qaeda that's emboldened, he [Chertoff] said.

"I don't see any diminishment of the threat and my concern is that we not relax and let the enemy get ahead of us." - Reuters, 1/16/2008

First, Chertoff's statement promotes a fear of terrorism within our border, because apparently we've done nothing to slow Al Qaeda's advances since 9/11. It also emboldens members of the group through confirming their achievements. His second statement sums up the policy of preemptive action. We think you may do something, so we must stop you before it may occur. The same logic could be used to imprison former drug users who currently don't use drugs because they may use them again in the future. I'm not saying terror isn't a threat, but if we continue to act on what we think could happen, as opposed to what is happening, we might end up invading countries for reasons we later admit were false. Oh wait...

Chertoff's feelings about Europe are partially based on an internet site run by terrorists.

"Security experts fear a posting on the site, urging young Muslim men to rise up against what it called infidels such as Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, may be genuine." - Reuters, 1/16/2008

A posting... on a web site... that insulted government officials... may be genuine. This is clearly a threat of the highest order. I'm beginning to suspect the blogosphere could soon be under the influence of terror.

Chertoff is also highly concerned with the threat of "homegrown terror."

"The United States faces a heightened threat of terrorist attack "for the foreseeable future" but any attack will likely be homegrown, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Wednesday [12/12/2007].

Chertoff, who said over the summer that he had a "gut feeling" that the country faced a heightened risk of attack, said that assessment still stands.

"There's probably a greater risk in terms of likelihood from a homegrown attack than from a massive international attack."- Reuters, 12/12/2007

So there is a higher chance of American citizens rebelling against the government as opposed to foreign threats? Our Homeland Security Secretary makes announcements and decisions based on his gut feeling?

The only attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 was the use of anthrax through the mail. Odd how you never hear about those attacks anymore. The reason you don't is because an internal investigation determined the strain of anthrax, known as Ames, could have only come from the military. They are the only producers and keepers of the specific genetic strain. The History Channel did a piece on the investigation that you can view here.

For the sake of time, I will provide one example of how this fear can impact society and our daily lives. The National Director of Intelligence, Mike McConnell, is working on a plan that will allow the government to monitor and censor the internet.

"According to National Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell, who is now drafting the proposal, an attack on a single U.S. bank by the 9/11 terrorists would have had a far more serious impact on the U.S. economy than the destruction of the Twin Towers. "My prediction is that we're going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens," said McConnell. So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches." - Alternet, 1/28/2008

That's right, we'll just "screw" around with our security until our lack of direction allows a "horrendous" attack to occur. Of course, the only solution is to destroy the 4th amendment (wiki definition) by spying on all American citizens because a small number of terrorists are too stupid to bypass the security or communications. Since September 11th, more terrorism has been perpetrated by our government against us than foreign terrorists. Our rights and privacy are being taken away to protect us from something that may occur.

---

What About Oil and Iraq?

---

We haven't heard much discussion about what, or will, be done with Iraqi oil. The most recent Bush strategy was to ask the Saudi's for more oil, to which they promptly said no. The obvious problem is that OPEC, an oil cartel, regulates the production and sale of oil for each member (ask Kuwait what happens when you violate it). Saudi Arabia is literally unable to increase production without the permission of OPEC. So after years of rising oil and gas prices, our President kindly asks the Saudi royalty for more, and was denied within an hour.

Now here's something you haven't heard in the American press, a possible destination for the oil. Israel.

"The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq."

"The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years."

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter." - Haaretz

If our reasons for invading, i mean liberating, Iraq were not oil related, then why are we considering shipping their oil to our ally Israel? I'm not about to get into an Israeli-American conspiracy theory but the question needs to be asked.

Why Huckabee Scares Me: A Christian Perspective

The latest statement from Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee sums up the fear of a President who actively promotes Christianity within law. To the evangelical, literal, or faithful Christian this may seem like a great thing. I would like to outline, from my Christian perspective, why a President like this could, and most likely will, be harmful. As non-believers may agree, not everything labeled Christian is right, just, or positive. I believe Huckabee intends to attach himself to the positive symbol of personal faith in order to gain power within our society, for himself and his beliefs.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
--excerpt from The Raw Story

1. Christians are supposed to spread the message of God, not legally force people to accept Him and His ways.

God gave us free will so that we could choose our own path, He did not make everyone love Him. To amend the constitution or to create punishable laws would legally force non-Christians to follow a teaching they don't believe. This is part of the reason some people are decidedly anti-Christian. In the past we preached of hell, and used fear to instill belief in others. If the founding document of our society is changed to reflect and impose religious belief, or to punish others for not following it, it will only push non believers away or inspire fear through God.

2. America was supposed to be a beacon of religious tolerance and freedom.

Persecuted Christians came to this country to practice their beliefs when they were unable to at home. To say that we should limit this tolerance and impose religious belief legally makes it seem like early religious tolerance was an excuse for "If you let me practice what I believe, I will force myself to temporarily not care what you choose to do.... that is until I gain enough power to promote my correct belief over all of your false beliefs." Changing law to reflect Christian ideals will discriminate against those who don't believe, and have every right not to.

3. He speaks to Christians to receive their vote and ordains his campaign as God's work .

Of course he appeals to Christians but I always get the feeling that he seeks to take advantage of that belief from us. I will not allow someone to manipulate me through my faith, and for a Christian to do it is even worse. Huckabee speaks of his campaign as though it were written in scripture and is now being fulfilled. He is using the abstract sense of Biblical wonder and supernatural to surround his push for the White House.

"There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people and that's the only way that our campaign could be doing what it's doing."

"And I'm not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across who are praying that a little will become much and it has, and it defies all explanation." -- Mike Huckabee, Liberty U. Speech

I believe that God works through us and is the creator of everything. That means that every action and moment of time is inspired by God, and allowed to exist, whether it is deemed good or bad. To say that the explanation for his rise is not human (people voting for him and attending events) is intended to apply a sense of divinity. I could use the same 'explanation' for the rise and fall of any political figure in history. His direct use of the statements is an attempt to manipulate the Christian voter to his cause.

4. We are at war with a 'Muslim enemy'

Ok, I know as Christians we aren't supposed to deny God or our beliefs in the face of an enemy. The problem I see is that Huckabee is very vocal about his stance, to the extent that others are inferior to his beliefs. President Bush created an outrage when he told the terrorists to "bring it on." For Huckabee to say...

"Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that." -- Mike Huckabee, SC Debate

Hey, try to attack us and God will override Allah and send you to hell. Huckabee is a pro-war Christian, and that can be a problem. Muslims are not my enemy because I could care less what other people believe, everyone should be free to do as they please. Huckabee does not feel this way about other religions and ideas. I for one do not want another crusade (a stretch, i know) against the Muslims. I'm not saying Huckabee is going to up the ante to crusade level, but he may generally view it in those terms as Christian against Muslim. The personal belief of our President plays a large part in his policy. Look at Bush, he was successful in almost reversing the definition of Republicans. I know Presidents aren't supposed to act on personal conviction, but these men are just as human as you and I. Huckabee's feelings about religion will undoubtedly affect his policy and military decisions. This is the same impartial viewpoint that brought Christianity to America, and Huckabee threatens to begin the cycle again.

Think for yourself, not what you're told.

Top 10 Things Americans Should Fear

Let's be honest, I don't want to write a self explanatory intro and you don't want to read it. Onward.



1. Terror TERROR



It could come from anywhere, it could even be inside of you right now. Never mind the fact that it is not a noun, that just means it cannot be destroyed. We should fear terror as if it were fear itself. Waiting and hiding in the hair of your armpits like highly trained guerrilla warriors. Do gorillas have wars? Because now I can't get the image of Donkey Kong grasping his captain's dog-tags (who knows what they would call them), vowing to destroy that meddling princess for the death of his unit. That's right. She killed them. Terror does not discriminate based on species, royalty, or sex. It does however discriminate upon religion because Christians never create or use terror, just like all plumbers are physically fit and gifted jumpers. Seriously, did they run practice laps on those worlds or what? Was it all there before the terrorizing growth of turtles and mushrooms, or are plumbers not telling us something?


2. A.D.D.




Americans have become infested with ADD. This productivity killer can turn a serious issue into a quagmire of irrelevant thoughts and video game references. If you suspect that someone you know has ADD you're probably right, because they are obviously wrong. Could you imagine doing the same thing for more than 20 minutes, I can't. Well I could, but I don't want to spend 20 minutes using my imagination. If those ADD infected people think they can figure it out by thinking for 20 minutes then it's probably stupid anyways. My time imagining would be better spent actually doing something... after I get my coffee.


3. Celebrities



Have you seen how fucking cool they are? How did the best and brightest of our species all happen to be entertainers living in the same town? I suppose that's like asking why Mario, Luigi, and the Princess were the only humans there. Easy, they're the only one's who kicked ass enough to survive. You don't rise to the rank of celebrity because you're empty, easily influenced, and terrorized (see how I worked that in) at the thought of people not liking you. These people are a threat to the everyday American living in the trenches of society. Our only hope is to emulate these people as much as possible. And if we're lucky, maybe someone will mistake us for a celebrity at the mall and then we can play it off like we aren't that person, but secretly we are and just don't need a bunch of normal people hassling us all day. The fact of the matter is you are either with the celebrities (true Americans), or against them. Remember, they are a problem because they set the bar way too high.


4. Ron Paul



Um, less government? No war? No income tax? How the hell is our government supposed to support it's enormous weight if we can't charge Americans to pay for the war? These 'Paulbots' would have you believe that companies profiting from the war should pay for it, and not the American taxpayer. Ok, well, how could these companies pay for the war if we weren't fighting in it? You can see how illogical and selfish their ideas are. There are people, perhaps not even nouns themselves, who may carry ADD into battle against our celebrities. Could you imagine? Again, I won't, because the terror of Ron Paul is more frightening than any fantasy of mine. You'll thank me for this warning when our troops finally reach the oil, and the price of gas goes back down to a dollar per gallon. Or when they find out exactly who it was that hid the WMD's. One or the other.


5. Harry Potter



Ok, I just hate that kid. Really. If you can look at someone and hate them then their insides must be even worse. What kind of man protects himself by holding a woman in front of him? I know there are people out there who love him and read all his books, and that's fine, if you're twelve and your imaginary friends like to read too. As an American, I'm programmed to dislike any topic, idea, team, style, show, or woman that I did not initially catch on with. This is why I don't watch "Lost", listen to podcasts, like the Patriots, pop my collar, or currently sleep with that hot chick from the coffee shop I never go to because I assume everyone there is a pretentious asshole. This Potter guy is the phenomenons poster child. No self respecting American is going to read one book and then be inspired to read seven more. I just read one for God's sake, stop trying to pressure me! The only thing reading ever taught anyone to do is read more, which is what got you there in the first place. New ideas = Thinking = Change = Terror.


6. People



Thank God we finally live in a society that has begun to crack down on people. In the past some of these people (you couldn't really call them Americans) attempted to terrorize the rest of us by removing pieces of clothing or burning plants. It's hardly human or natural. Especially when they could be supporting Americans and the economy by purchasing a smooth pack of Marlboro Reds or a great pair of jeans from the Gap. There are other people who think we need to protect the Earth by limiting commercial development or making small cars like those Orientals. Hello... it's not like the Earth is flat and we eventually run out of room, it extends forever as far as I can tell. These people live in a country with a government willing to support and make decisions for them, and yet they don't agree with all of their policy and law. You're either a person or an American, make a choice.


7. Math



Idle numbers are the devils playground. To use them in equations or proofs is tantamount to witchcraft. There are even numbers which can pose a threat just by mentioning them, and the odd ones are just as bad. The worst number in math's mighty arsenal has to be 0.8181818. If you don't understand why then be thankful you don't know. Like the friend who warned me about two girls, one cup, I implore you to leave that number alone. Americans would be best to to forget math and get on with their lives. If there is one thing you can count on, it's a calculator, and that's all I'll ever need.


8. Incomplete Top Ten Lists



See #2 and #7

If you're upset that you've been shortchanged then you've only admitted you want to read more of my rambling, and if you are happy to end here then I served you well. Americans win!


-- Joseph Aguirre

Overview of the CIA Tapes Scandal

For more information and sources refer to my earlier post here, which covers the issue in more detail.


The Rundown

• The CIA taped interrogations of two Al-Qaeda suspects in 2002.
• According to the CIA officials that leaked the information about the tapes, they displayed harsh interrogation techniques, which including waterboarding.
• The 9/11 Commission repeatedly requested the CIA for all information concerning Al-Qaeda.
• The CIA never gave the tapes, or informed the commission of their existence despite publicly stating they waited until the 9/11 Commission ended to destroy them.
• A U.S. District Judge ruled in 2005 that all information pertaining to torture, abuse, or interrogations at Guantanamo Bay must be protected.
• In 2005 the tapes were ordered to be destroyed, allegedly by CIA Director Jose Rodriguez
• The CIA defended the destruction by saying the 2005 ruling did not apply to the tapes because the interrogations took place in secret CIA prisons, not Guantanamo Bay. They also stated the tapes had little intelligence value and could have compromised their agents.
• Attorney General Mike Mukasey has appointed a federal attorney to lead the investigation and not a special, or outside, prosecutor.

UPDATE: Former CIA director Jose Rodriguez has asked for immunity before testifying.


Why were the interrogations of these particular Al-Qaeda suspects destroyed?

The White House has publicly acknowledged prisoners have been killed during interrogation at various secret CIA prisons. This excerpt from a 2005 ACLU article describes the torture and death:

The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

The network of prisons outside of U.S. territory allows them to operate outside of U.S. law. What could have been on these tapes that would cause CIA officials to leak information about their destruction? If the tapes only presented 'legal' torture used to gain information that would protect the lives of American citizens, which Bush is always sure to make clear, why would the CIA risk destroying them? Rep. Jane Harman (D), a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, recently made public a 2003 classified memo she sent to then CIA counsel Scott Muller warning him about the backlash of destroying the tapes. She later said it sounded like "the cover-up of a cover-up." It is also reported that CIA Counsel John Rizzo and former Deputy Attorney General Harriet Miers warned the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

So we have CIA destroying tapes with 'little value' despite the warnings of scandal and inquiry, CIA officials jeopardizing their careers by leaking information about their destruction, and our President who ordered the tortures claiming that to his "recollection" he was only aware of the tapes a month ago (11/07). What are they trying to hide?

What does this say about the use of waterboarding to gain information from suspects if the tape had no value?

On one hand the CIA stated the tapes had little intelligence value, on the other hand they held on to them in case the commission needed the tapes. It is also important to know that Bush himself authorized the use of waterboarding, or any other form of harsh interrogation (Bush does not consider it torture) used. Bush allowed the waterboarding to gain valuable information, yet the CIA considered the hundred's of hours of interrogation on the tapes to have little value.

Why would the CIA not give information to the 9/11 Commission?

When thousands of American lives are lost to a terrorist attack I think it would be safe to assume that they should have access to all pertinent information. This was not a matter of the commission failing to follow up on their requests or not being specific enough. The CIA stated they waited until 2005 to the destroy the tapes because the 9/11 commission may have needed them, yet they refused to disclose the existence of the tapes to the commission. The chairman and co-chairman went as far as to state that the CIA obstructed their investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Should Mukasey have appointed a special prosecutor?

This one is a toss up. By selecting an internal attorney the Department of Justice is in a sense investigating itself. The federal attorney, John Durham, answers to U.S. Attorney General Mukasey, who in turn answers to President Bush. This comes down to how impartial you think the investigation is going to be. The tapes could implicate Bush, Cheney, or members of White House staff in the scandal, and in a worst case scenario, they could influence the direction of the investigation. Bush has asked congressional committees and federal courts not to pursue any investigation because it may interfere with the DoJ. Is it easier, or in his best interest, for Bush to have a prosecutor who already answers directly to him? Why would federal, congressional, or outside inquiry negatively affect the DoJ investigation?

What Does It All Mean?

One of the main questions is why did the CIA officials decide to leak the existence, and subsequent destruction, of the tapes? It appears that there is an internal struggle over information or direction within in the CIA. For instance, in 2004 the CIA was forced to bar it's own agents from being present at interrogations in which the prisoners were under duress. The article went on to state: "They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen." The identity of the CIA officials or agents were never made public, so it isn't known what faction within the CIA chose to step out. The leaking of the tapes is another indicator that there are still internal rebels hiding within the agency. How will this policy schism affect the Department of Justice investigation into the tapes?

Essay 3: The Illusion of Happiness: How Moral Law Separates the Human from Humanity

The Illusion of Happiness: How Moral Law Separates the Human from Humanity

3

This is the sad reality of human happiness. We expect it to appear without work, because we've never been happy and worked at the same time. We speak of happiness as if we know what it is, without questioning when and why we felt it before. Worst of all, we assume that it happens to us, not within us. An old love letter does not physically transfer some form of energy into my body that makes me feel emotional, that feeling comes from within. If it wasn't the case you could hide the letter in the room without my knowledge and it would affect me as if it were mental kryptonite. We are right to pursue happiness within ourselves, because it is there and can exist without external force, but first we must examine what makes a human happy. Even before that, we must attempt to understand what makes us human, and how society, culture, and law have removed or hidden our natural balance with the world.

If an honest man were asked why he was unhappy, it would sound something like this:

I want to be happy, and I acknowledge that I could be happy, only if something in my environment would change that could allow me to feel better about the way another person might perceive me. To secure my own happiness would mean I would have to make a choice independent of external thought and pressure, which I have already subconsciously allowed to be the most powerful influence on my personal development. Bypassing outside thought could result in finding a unique, personal happiness that many others could not share with me. The contradiction of acknowledging the happiness, while assuming I would also feel alone, will be discarded because I know what it feels like to be alone, and I certainly couldn't be happy by myself. The weight of happiness has already dragged me down and I haven't even made my decision. The actual choice could only be more of a burden so it's probably best that I don't think about this anymore. I also admit that I have no idea what could actually make me happy, because identifying a source would only show a way to resolve my goal, not to fulfill it. And since I'm not happy I probably don't have any of the things I may find, and that would just make me feel worse. At this point I should just hope that I can hang on to what I have, so that no one can steal it from me. I know people are always trying to take things from others, so when I see people who aren't like me, losing their minds and lives, I won't bother because I should just be glad it wasn't me. In fact, I should do whatever I can to get on the side of those who are taking from others. Surely I could find a quiet space among them where my misdeeds would go unnoticed while protecting my possessions. I think I could be happy if I was more like those men. They take so much, they must have an enormous space to fill. Maybe they'll take me next.

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." --Ayn Rand

What does it mean to be human? Each of us is a conscious collection of matter that is composed of water, drinks water, cleans in water, plays in water, lives on a planet mostly covered in water, and lives on the land. To the outside observer this may seem contradictory, until they realize we can't breathe in water. The more men distance themselves from humanity the more we become outside observers of our self. This behavior is even more magnified when men attempt to create law and organization based on a similar perspective, coupled with a misunderstanding of the real world.

"Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve." -- Erich Fromm

One of governments main duties is to protect the people it serves. This protection has extended to guard each individual from themselves, and has violated each humans basic right to freedom and self sufficiency. We made clothes for warmth and protection, but if you choose to show your natural skin, to physically be only yourself, you can be charged with a crime. I understand that the law is aimed at people sexually harassing others, but a very small portion of the population has made natural skin in public illegal. There are other societies where men and women wear very little to no clothing (climate being a large factor), and they have no need for these laws because of their perception. Cultural indoctrination and public perception have guided us to feel embarrassed, or even disgusted, with our natural bodies. We choose to react that way, as involuntary as it may feel, when we choose not to identify the basis of our reactions. You have to search for what is pre-programmed within you to identify what life and belief have shown you.

I'm not advocating everyone run around naked to embrace their humanity, but rather would like to highlight an outside perspective on how our cultural and moral views cross into laws which are designed to limit our natural tendencies. We are taught that our bodies and natural tendencies are vile and immoral. Men are born as good as they are born evil, but we have chosen to highlight and prevent the negative, instead of promoting and praising the positive. We spoke of heaven but preached of hell.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." --Ayn Rand

Does the fear of consequence motivate us to do well for ourselves and others? Self awareness and consciousness have allowed us the opportunity to selectively eliminate or promote specific instincts, thoughts, or emotions? Is it, in a sense, a higher form of evolution? People who commit crimes are removed from society by placing four walls around them. The time spent in prison is also time removed from the gene pool. I'm not sure how that actually affects their offspring production compared to non-criminals, but they are removed either way. Should man genetically and morally protect itself? What if the protection limits their happiness, security, or freedom? Does the protection only amplify the perception of the unwanted behavior?

Let's look at some more examples of limits on the natural world. There is a plant which is illegal to burn and inhale, because it changes your perception of consciousness, despite being non-addictive and non-lethal. There is another plant which you can legally add harmful chemicals to, burn, inhale, experience a perception change, get addicted to, and someday die as a result of the practice. I don't promote the use of either plant, but I also don't think any human should be told what they can and can't naturally do to themselves. This is a great example of how commercial and cultural issues are behind the laws. The legal plant, tobacco, was an economic powerhouse and valued by the upper class. The illegal plant, marijuana, was not regulated, and popular with minorities and the lower class. The justification for the discrepancy centers on the government protecting the citizens from themselves. Each human should be responsible for their own protection, and if they chose, their self destruction. No man should be forced sacrifice his freedom so that another does not hurt himself.

“A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole.” -- Frank Zappa

Humans have identified words which are not allowed to be spoken at certain times or places, by law, and are otherwise considered socially negative. Each word is merely a collection of sounds which symbolically represent our thoughts and emotions. Speech is produced by using air pressure from our lungs to release energy as sound. Next time you are with a bunch of friends really listen to them laugh. Listen as though it's a word you have heard spoken repeatedly, to the extent that the sound itself feels unfamiliar. You have to lose touch with the perception of humor and what the laugh communicates. It is an odd moment the first time you truly hear people laugh. We cackle and call, perhaps thrusting ourselves over or searching for breath. In that moment we are as every other animal howling in the forest, a free man. We can then realize that many things we do are animal and free. We have only succeeded in adding layers of symbolism to our behavior. Where does it take us if laws are created, or people choose societies that block the expression of emotion and thought? A curse word is a collection of sounds that refer to ideas, practices, or thoughts that society deems immoral or destructive. If a frustrated child in class yells "fuck" instead of "chair" does it actually make it any worse? Is the child being punished because the use of the curse word implies he meant to offend others? Is the child not allowed to express the level of emotion that fuck implies, and by using the word chair, he could compromise by holding the emotional difference between the words fuck and chair, while communicating a more pacified message? In this example, we have to gauge the distance between what the use of the word expressed, and what we assumed it meant. The perception of intention is too often substituted with mind reading.

"Fear is the mother of morality" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

We have begun to prematurely strike against ourselves... to prevent us from striking first. Wait, what did I just say? We think in terms that would create something bad so we could be labeled good. And when worrying about opposing ideas in our personal space isn't enough, we try to widen the distance between us and our fears. The issue of gay marriage is an example of this. A large part of the opposition is based on fear, because they need a theoretical distance between them and the thought of gays being married, somewhere, anywhere, especially if it's near them. The reality is there is no logical reason to care if it does not affect the reality of your every day life. Who is one man or group of men to take rights from one while giving them to another? If you cannot deal with the thought of non physically threatening ideas being practiced near you then you live on the wrong planet. The intention to create a more perfect world only destroys any uniqueness or expression by making 'average' or 'normal' the only choice. Societal or human perfection could only occur if every person was identical, so that no individual could be greater or worse than another. Moral law effectively punishes cultural and perceptual human change while promoting our growing sensitivity.

Our current practice of moral and cultural legal influence has directly divided portions of the population into levels of allowed humanity. The reasoning is based on intangible, symbolic interpretations of various communicative, and other basic human behaviors. We are caught in a system that preaches one way streets and good versus bad, and if that's all you've been taught, how would you know otherwise? The problem is our perceived system of education. A nationalized collection of copy machines. We are taught how to eat from their hand but not to hunt with our own. We create a society of individuals who are unaware of their ability to self sustain. The wonders of technology have allowed us to continually distance ourselves from the things that make us human. Our education has cornered us into specialization, and each of us are saddled with a narrow strip of intellectual land that could not support our hunger. They say that the specialization is a consequence, or rather, a privilege of an advanced society. It is a weakness, a series of cracks and faults that will crumble when the supporting infrastructure, which allows the specialization, has fallen. If nuclear wars, an asteroid, or some large scale disaster were to impact the world, the civilizations that would survive are the same ones technology laughs at. The tribes, the "native" people, the animals hiding in the jungle, oblivious to the world around them, will continue to inherit this earth because they are the only ones who have come to a balance with it as natural humans.

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." -- Albert Einstein

Technology is great, don't get me wrong, you wouldn't be reading me without it. What I worry is that we will lose touch with our sense of humanity if we continue to substitute creation for discovery. Technology does not make us any better, it makes other things easier. We are not the clothes we wear, humans wore animal skin and fabrics for thousands of years before mass production came along. We eat steaks like cavemen who surrounded themselves with ornaments they deemed valuable. We still live in houses built of sticks and stones. Man's ability to manipulate his environment has inspired the illusion that walking through a door changes the room he enters. We continually surround ourselves with physical creations to narrowly define a personality we never thought to change. "If I own this thing I will be this kind of person." "If I lie and others think this about me then I will be like that."

As a society, we have given up personal responsibility for government protection. Traded personal freedom for collective security. We fear ourselves more than anything on this world. How can any species survive or prosper when a mirror is our largest obstacle? Only when we learn to understand what it means to be a human, will we find what makes us happy.

“If each man or woman could understand that every other human life is as full of sorrows, or joys, or base temptations, of heartaches and of remorse as his own . . . how much kinder, how much gentler he would be.” -- William Allen White

-- Joseph Aguirre, 1/14/08


[If you have come this far I would greatly appreciate any comments, suggestions, or ideas you have. This is a work in progress and still needs more direction. Thank you for taking the time to read what I've written, it means more than I could express.]

Essay 2: Power and Civil Liberties

2

Power and Civil Liberties

"The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." -- Justice William J. Brennan

We are born free, and contrary to the government or popular thought, we continue to live this way until our death. The contradiction lies in our choice, in the faithful submission to fantasies of history and truth. A veil of tradition and security has obscured our reason and survival instincts. We once chose to form a government that would protect civil liberties and promote the growth of a stable, democratic society. The founders understood the connection between greed and power. They were forced to create specific, central laws to protect man from himself. A free society allows citizens to own weapons so that they can defend themselves from the state, not external foes. We were given free speech to prevent the silence of minority opinions and ideas. A government that begins to destabilize these laws, which are basic to human life and should not have to be written, is literally destroying the humanity of its population. We have to remember, we have chosen to be a part of this society, to give up some rights in exchange for the allowance of others, and to believe what we are told because it's what they are willing to tell us. Change will not come through the choice of politicians, it must be sparked by the people.

We have to understand that the ideals and motives of society are what get passed from generation to generation. It is not the individual genes or people that matter. It is their thoughts and conscious work that live on as the human constant. You can kill leaders and disrupt economies but it is the system of beliefs that will continue to create behavior. Do you think we live in a society or time that has destroyed the belief processes from our previous wrong doings? The men's names may have changed but their intentions are consistent. This country decimated the Native American population and took their land. It enslaved Africans to it's economic benefit. This country is only 250 years old, these are recent events! Do you think the greed and lust for power of man has evolved that much since then? That personal gain does not appeal to the bankers and politicians in power? We believe we live in a civilized age only because we have the perspective of now. The past is behind us and the future hasn't happened, so by virtue of now, we are the best. Only the luxury of memory and time have allowed us to say we are greater now than we were then. We have falsely assumed that time and the good of man always move forward. They understand that the same abstract values of tradition and patriotism, which they use against us, is a false and unreasonable weakness. They have created a symbol and defined it to their advantage, so that the belief creates weakness which can be manipulated.

This fear of security, the terror, is beginning to weigh against civil liberties. The standard defense for the loss of rights is "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear," and it would be true if both sides followed the principle. The disheartening reality is that removing or undermining civil liberties is a one way street. Power does not give up, it is increased or taken. Democracy and the right of personal freedom are in place to contain and balance power, so that it does not run wild in the streets. The people must choose to embrace their personal freedom without directing energy or blame to the state. The power of government is limited by the population it controls, and how well they are controlled. The more humanity relies on the government the more freedom they give up. The people always have the power to choose action over apathy, belief over indifference, and personal responsibility over blame. A society that wishes to do otherwise will always fail.

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic." -- Frederic Bastiat

-- Joseph Aguirre, 1/11/08