Since this is my first blog entry ever, I consider it necessary to establish a few facts appertaining to my character and philosophy, as well as my background. I shall keep this is terse as possible; if ever be the case that one would desire other information concerning myself, such may be procured, eventually perhaps, on a separate, personal web site. Besides the following four paragraphs--if you want to get to the point of this diary, then advance to the fifth paragraph, the one with the bold title--, personal information will be sparse and infrequent.
As a rule, I am a humble person. There has never been sufficient enough reason for me to believe myself inherently superior in anyway whatsoever to anybody else. I have always, for the sake of privacy and, indeed, fear, kept my thoughts from others. I just never thought that my most intimate ruminations were important, at least to the degree that would encourage me to risk revealing notions foreign to the palate of commercialized, commoditized society. This, however, has been a mistake. I have questioned the legitimacy of status quo since grade school, though only in an inward fashion, always accepting that others, because they had made the decisions, knew better somehow. But the inquiries never stopped and, in fact, the predilection towards political nihilism progressively abated. Now, as I see the political and societal edifice, like the House of Usher, begin to crumble, the validity of what I have observed and what I have to say is most overt, as is the same, I am certain, for so many of us. I have always been humble, but to such a degree this shall be no more. The demand for reason has never been so great in this country and perhaps the world; I aim to supply what I can.
I do not possess a patent on truth, nor does anybody else; I accept that for most things, a clear, unambiguous, and absolute truth does not exist, hence the advantage of scientific theory and the process by which human societies in free and open environments progress. We make mistakes, both on personal and collective levels. This fact must be accepted, but in no way must we perpetuate known or suspected mistakes. On a personal and societal level, we must endeavor always towards betterment; we can never allow the repugnant conviction of inevitability to cast its shadow over us—we must always seek light which will always be found in the illimitable search for truth. It is in my view, however, that truth, like so much else today, is but another commodity for the market. The unfortunate fact is that it is this same market that we see contraction and consolidation and always an onward march towards monopolization; the demands of unwarranted and unrestricted power are keeping of such.
I graduated not long ago with a degree in marketing. The related studies and associative reading have no less enabled me to question truth itself, which, especially in these times, is so very instrumental in cultivating even a remote ability of ascertaining a quality representation of things. Most instrumental to my understanding of these things is the work most particularly of Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations. To find out, as I long suspected anyhow, that truth, like so much else, is but something to be packaged, targeted, and distributed to identifiable groups of persons, has rendered my capacity to trust power irreparably damaged. The visceral behavior of most people in matters concerning trade and politics is, quite frankly, disturbing. The Global War on Terror to me is but a nightmare born by Machiavellian public relation specialists whose sole objective is to frighten the People; by consequence, with the body politic sufficiently weakened and infantilized, the economic power thereby is furtively centralized. Sufficient to say, I above all else, am leery of power; its pervasive and destructive capacities threaten sovereignty of nations, states, localities, and peoples alike. Power, I can assure you, shall be a recurring theme in my entries.
It is now time to end this one-time, personal vignette. The most important point to remember concerning the matters just elucidated, I think, is this: I distrust power and most certainly insofar as it is centralized. I shall now end this introductory passage, never again boring the reader with such trivial things as background information.
Illegal Surveillance
The subject of illegal surveillance is an important one today. Some of us recognize the implications of government spying without court order; it is unfortunate, however, that an impassioned, obstinate minority repudiates not only support for the Constitution, but honest and substantive discussion relative to the matters at hand. It is perhaps even more troublesome, however, that many that realize the significance of such do not fare well in fending off a common canard. The noted refrain of the obstinate minority when confronted with intimations of privacy and constitutionally enshrined rights is such: if one is doing nothing "wrong," then one has nothing to fear or hide. While such sophistry may seem infantile and ridiculous to many of us, the fact is that it proves efficacious in satisfying whatever concerns that may exist in the minds of partisan blowhards and people of an insulated, all-together received reality. Significantly, the easily digestible logic seems to be too little countered by us. I find it hard to believe that such sophistry is not more easily refuted, but the circumstances are such that the defender of warped logic seems to prevail; the proven viability of the oft-repeated propaganda deserves a sufficient rebuttal, one for which I am able, quite happily, to provide. There exists fairly simplistic and understandable logic pertaining to these matters that dispels such sophistry. Let us examine.
- All of us have something to hide
Is the significance of such even in question? No one would willfully impart all their secrets. No one could desire or leave to chance the possibility of particular circumstances of their life being disseminated. Who would really want every private thought or conversation published in order for the public to see? Do we not value our personal health information? Do we not value the occasional emotional soliloquy that, if heard by an interested authority, would result in arrest? Who has not, in sudden outbursts, expressed their transient will to harm? We all have something to hide; it just happens to be an unfortunate and inevitable fact that some of us hide what really may amount to illegalities. This is why enabled authorities exist, but with the corollary of requiring court warrants to proceed with investigations and espionage—mitigating harm when in the pursuit of justice is a basic and necessary priority in any free and open society.
Now, some may suggest that with regard to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," private information does not become public, ergo, nobody should fret. No matter. So long as the subject recognizes the value of privacy heretofore, then we are on our way to success.
- Secrets and personal information, in the possession of any party, may be used to harm
Who can doubt the incredible value of Coca-Cola’s secret formula? If a competitor were to steal or otherwise ascertain the formula at question, then the aforementioned organization would lose an advantage in the soda market. Consider the importance of information pertaining to entirely new technological devices; devices, so to speak, that reflect a sea change in relative industries. Imagine that one organization in the respective market that stands alone in advancing a new platform music player, suddenly, due to corporate piracy, no longer is the innovator in the market---they find themselves in the unprivileged position of succeeding another organization into the market. Consider that this original organization put forth a great deal of labor and resources, much in research and development and marketing, only not to reap the full fruits of their labor; in short, due to a loss of information, this organization and its respective stakeholders lose a significant sum of revenue that naturally will accompany any innovator that brings quality product first to the market.
You see, information is valuable; not only does it connote inherent value, but also, nominal or monetary value, value that is easily recognizable in trade. In the cases illuminated, certainly, it would seem perhaps not outright malicious what the competitor or pirate organization may do. They are, after all, resolute in their basic, legal imperative to induce profit for their shareholders. However, cases do exist in which personal information becomes a potential and metamorphic projectile. Consider the effects of blackmail. How many people have succumbed to the political machinations of others when unsavory photographs and revealing recordings have been garnered? I suspect that many politicians have suffered from such. One then begins to wonder as to how such pliancy exists in our Congress today. [I mean this, truly; think about it]
Still, the subject may interpose the proposition that the government would not abuse information; they would recall that this is a "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Well, we have convinced the subject that not all parties ought to be trusted with our private information; this is yet another step to refuting their canard.
- No one entity in this world is incorruptible or otherwise infallible; therefore, privacy is an absolute necessity even-and especially-when it concerns the government
All human beings are susceptible to the same vices. Envy, lust, greed, and the other sins are all part of the human experience; the only thing that separates is the degree to which we endeavor to sate the demands of such and the degree to which these sins take root in our constitution. If we liken truth to "good" and therefore close so to infallibility, then, if any one person or groups of people in this world exemplify perfection, all of their accounts and presumptions must invariably prove true. To be sure, no one person can produce a lifetime devoid of inaccuracies, misperceptions, and lies. It is incumbent of us to then realize the utter absurdity of granting any one person or persons too much power.
When we consider that the government is composed of elected representatives, or people of association with us commoners, though, of course, only nominally, we must understand that these humans, too, can err. The vices that affect you and me affect all manner of representation, perhaps even so to a greater degree, considering that great power is conferred by the People to the Representative. We must recall the adage: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." By permitting our government to eavesdrop without warrant, we blithely disregard one of the greatest truisms ever uttered. We cannot presume that anybody-notwithstanding seemingly benign intention even- is capable of wielding power without falling to the temptation of abusing it.
But, of course, specificity may be required in order to convince those that loathe abstraction. Let us consider one Richard M. Nixon. Many realize that he left office in disgrace; many realize that he was being impeached. However, many do not realize why Richard Nixon faced an impeachment trial. Among other things, Richard Nixon, in article II of his articles of impeachment, was found to have covertly and unlawfully utilized the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service to engage in reconnaissance work. Here is part 2 of this article verbatim:
He [Nixon] misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
http://watergate.info/...
Richard Nixon, ever the lover of specious arguments, apparently, did attempt to validate his behavior later on in an interview with one Scott Frost. Here is a portion of that memorable interview, verbatim of course:
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
http://www.landmarkcases.org/...
What have these two excerpts proven? I think, above and beyond all else, they reveal the basic presumption of power-hungry dogs. Later in the interview, Nixon admitted that it is only through the electorate that the President could be held accountable; otherwise, if an election were not forthcoming, in the name of national security or internal peace or order, the President could act in an essentially extra-constitutional manner. Be reminded that in article II of the impeachment articles that the House Judiciary held that President Nixon had NOT acted in the interest of national security or internal peace, or any other lawful function of office. Would it not seem that, perhaps, national security is but an excuse for executive aggrandizement? When we say that we have done nothing wrong, do we even know what our leaders think constitutes wrong? Does this possibly mirror circumstances of today? Is George W. Bush acting in the interest of national security as he says, or do his words, much as with Nixon’s, belie his actions? These are all important questions that must be duly considered.
Examples pertaining to executive abuse are plenty and manifold, but let us pick on Nixon some more. We must remember, particularly, who President Nixon targeted. Recall his enemies list. Recall how he ordered authorities to break into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist office in order to exhume private, damaging information. President Nixon endeavored to use private information, gleaned secretively from his "enemies," in order to gain political power over them. Is there a lesson in this? Indeed, there is a lesson. When any significant consolidated power, especially so when it is the government, becomes desirous of and intent on accumulating private information, such must be esteemed with reproach and suspicion. Rationale for disregarding Constitutional protections must always be seen as spurious and unworthy. Consolidated and secretive power cannot be trusted; good sense and our Constitution mandate the cynical division of power----ergo, we must check against usurpation via court orders, etc.
I would hope that at this point, with the preponderance of logic thus accumulated, the subject at hand would relinquish government propaganda; hopefully, the cliché "I have nothing to hide" cop-out no longer suffices. But, as I am wont to perceive, old customs die hard. I offer one final step to this convalescent analysis.
- Decision-makers and Leaders are transient; precedents are not so much so
Okay. Some people hold their leaders with high esteem and offer an inordinate degree of trust and conferring of power. For those that have been won over so much so by any single party, group, or person, the aforementioned steps in our analysis prove to be ineffective. I therefore offer an entreaty: please realize the temporal nature of present circumstances and understand that new, unforeseen circumstances, in addition to new leaders, inevitably prevail. This is the basic reason why I distrust the situation in Venezuela; even if that man is benevolent and wise, who is to succeed him? A constitution, or a formal social/political contract, especially one fortified with precedent, must, because of its predictability and uniformity, be deferred to in all matters. Transient, unpredictable leaders cannot ever fulfill what a constitution can. It is due to the inevitability of change and volition that we must ascertain and adopt the most viable means of governing. Some question whether we ought to give more power to the government in order to "fight terror;" I stand resolute against such people. This is why I advocate our Constitution: ours has withstood the test of time, notwithstanding incredible change. Our framers understood the inevitability of change; hence the limited form of government [therefore greater distribution of freedom] and the amendment process and so forth. But of special significance was the built-in bias concerning power: our founders distrusted it; ergo, we have an internal system of checks and balances that feature divisive bodies of power that are inherently in contradistinction to each other; in a true sense, really, our founders purportedly "divided and conquered" power. Considering the long-term success of our Constitution in its limitations and divisions of power, hardly must it reasonable to expect unilateralism to be anything but debilitating in the long term. Our Constitution is long-term oriented; our own interests, however, are not necessarily so.
People quite naturally are myopic. This is why, when, if one deems peculiar circumstances to be quite salubrious, change often times is repudiated. To be sure, some Americans believe that they are safer with the current leadership in charge than with another. While we could argue just why and so forth, the fact is that the current administration exudes the impression of competence, strength, and integrity. To those people, the simple, basic concept of the inevitability of change must be conveyed. If they are secure with the fact that the government, under the direction of George W. Bush, collects personal information in an unconstitutional manner, then they must be prodded as to whether such support would continue under the leadership of another President, perhaps a Democratic or otherwise non-Republican one. Via CSPAN’s Washington Journal, I sense the extraordinary visceral hate that some celebrators of the Bush administration project onto Democrats. I suspect that, with such a proposition, constitutional protections would perhaps regain their deserved salience and respect. Even though America, in my view, is already precariously close to being like the Soviet Union, some of our dear friends would hardly countenance such; however, with the prospect of a different party or leader in the same circumstances, the similarities may become realized. It is when such is realized that, finally, the significance of precedence and defining changes becomes a critical topic for discussion; this is when the glaring differences between temporary cowboy policy and constitutional precedence are espoused. This is when the choice between a personality and our national values and institutional underpinnings is made.
In summation, the cliché "I have nothing to hide" argument is a formidable one. Although easily discerned as fallacious propaganda, this bumper sticker slogan remains an argument too little refuted. This is why I offer what I hope is a valuable analysis. Here, again, are the four basic tiers of logic concerning my argument:
- All of us have something to hide
- Secrets and personal information, in the possession of any party, may be used to harm
- No one entity in this world is incorruptible or otherwise infallible; therefore, privacy is an absolute necessity even-and especially-when it concerns the government
- Decision-makers and Leaders are transient; precedents are not so much so
With the logic thus provided, I have full confidence in thwarting any person’s inane attempt to belittle privacy and our Constitution. I hope such is of aid to others in their endeavors concerning these and similar matters. I leave you with what I deem to be the most important question to carry forward: When we say that we have done nothing wrong, do we even know what our leaders think constitutes wrong? Think about it.