Nearly every night I move my body around symmetrical lines and curves while dripping sweat. After, I will breathe, sitting still in silence, in centered ways. In different ways. I will breathe until my mind is empty of all things that it can be. It is good, feeling this.

This night thoughts wandered in, like ghostly shapes around a boundless periphery. There is a very fine line between life and death, even when we are safe. The ghostly thought shapes made me wonder what you thought about this.

There is a subtle yet profound difference between having a capacity or having an ability. That difference defines and restricts you, as you consider such questions. The conscious mind lumbers through modifications in an effort to know, and so control. Or, perhaps, to wall away from sight.

This is why I thought, this maple bar is far too intense in its sweetness. Its experience is unreal, far beyond the pleasure of the blueberries just a moment before. The sweetness and texture was a visceral overload, like a bomb that blasts your attention toward meaningless things that always want more. I thought, I prefer the quiet flavor of a sweet yogurt with mint.

I imagined, this must be like sky diving, or various other thrill-seeking pursuits. A visceral overload intended to reveal just what living is like. Or so it is said. It is telling, however, how subdued and introspective these people can become, later in life. Something led them, eventually, to the stillness of blueberries.

Sometimes it is difficult knowing what is sacred and what is not.

I wonder if it is like Christians, proud to be killing in war. What else are we supposed to do, they ask. As the terrorists are getting ready to kill us, should we be all kum-ba-yah? Is it not the teaching of Christ, your Lord, that you should die, rather than kill another? Don’t be a lawyer with me. If nothing else, then yes, you should be all kum-ba-yah.

And you Jews of Israel. God told you that all people, in all their diversity, exist so that you can better know yourself. What is it that you are learning about yourself now? Just look how high the Christians have raised you up.

At least the Muslims can be understood better, on a more human level, as a people who rise up to fight against invaders and pillagers. But this religion, too, has been co-opted as another tool that guides the modifications of mind toward the unholy.

Ah, well. I suppose the oldest religion in the world might be right. “The faith of each is in accordance with one’s own nature.” What we see now is the nature of people, not their better spirit. Where is the belief that people claim to have? “Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.” I can only assume that, though they say otherwise, they have no true belief.

Rather, “Living in the abyss of ignorance, the deluded think themselves blessed. Attached to works, they know not God.” Our acts, and their acts, are obscene. “As one acts and conducts himself, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil.”

There is such a thin barrier between life and death, existence and non-existence. We are all so unique. Everything is so unique. The scale of this is staggering for the mind, yet blissful for the heart. They are one, and the same.

“The wise man should surrender his words to his mind;
and this he should surrender to the Knowing Self;
and the Knowing Self he should surrender to the Great Self;
and that he should surrender to the Peaceful Self.”

I suppose doing that is harder than killing someone and then asking for forgiveness. Or conjuring through the mind some peculiar sense of duty, that flies in the face of both rationality and the true heart. But it is always harder to walk the walk, than to talk the talk. We know the difference, though, don’t we?

The difference is the blueberries. It is the silence, with only your breath. It is that other person who might be your friend, or someone you love. Other spirits who breathe. They are remarkable. They are beautiful. They are everything.

“The little space within the heart is as great as the vast universe. The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun and the moon and the stars. Fire and lightening and winds are there, and all that now is and all that is not.”

These are all words from the oldest of religions. From the most ancient civilization. Judaism and its offshoots of Christianity and Muslim are barely teenagers in comparison. Rowdy, unruly, and dangerous teenagers. Selfish teenagers. Thugs.

It is time now, I think. We have to grow up. We have to start taking care of each other — to help and to share. To enjoy blueberries, and all the other little things. To put aside the maple bars. To focus on that which allows our existence to be meaningful. Doing so is not an act of destruction. On the contrary, it is an act of creation. It allows us to see and feel the simple yet overwhelming importance of another. And in doing so, it becomes an act of creation, within ourselves.

“Creation is only the projection into form of that which already exists.”

GNU/Linux is an operating system that lets you interact with your computer’s hardware. Microsoft’s Windows is also an OS. So is Apple’s OSX. The article I will be taking as a reference is called OS shoot-out: Windows vs. Mac OS X vs. Linux published at InfoWorld.

You might infer from the title, which evokes images of people with guns trying to kill each other, discussions of OS superiority are generally heated. And also, since people are not actually firing guns at each other, you can see that the title is purposefully provocative, in the “best” ad/marketing tradition.

As expected, the content of the article is woefully short on facts, while being long on broad generalisations. This doesn’t bother me as long as the generalisations can be traced back to fact, and are not sloppy in what they lead the reader toward. I’m hoping to help cut through some of the prevailing marketing deception to give a clearer picture that is not biased.

First, it is important to know that Windows is made by a company named Microsoft. OS X is made by a company named Apple. GNU/Linux is not made by a company, but rather by hundreds (and I’m sure thousands) of companies and individuals around the world.

OS X is based upon Unix. Unix can (sloppily) be thought of as a very well-designed and academic way of doing things in your computer. GNU/Linux is also based upon Unix, and carries the “tradition” much further. Windows is not based upon Unix.

Apple and Microsoft’s primary goal is to make money. It has to be, by law. GNU/Linux’s primary goal is to do the best stuff, in the best way possible. As such, Apple and Microsoft care a great deal about the percentage of the OS market they dominate, while GNU/Linux has no care whatsoever about any market share. That’s not entirely true, though. Some GNU/Linux people see growing market share as an indication that what they have contributed is something as beautiful and wonderful as they imagined it was, while other GNU/Linux people will see their growing market share as being good progress in their effort to “free” people from the domination of purely corporate interests. The mindset is different. Apple and Microsoft development is driven by a strategy that wants to dominate the marketplace of users. GNU/Linux development is driven by a strategy that wants to create the best thing possible.

Everyone knows that Microsoft has a long history of doing bad and bully-ing things, while many people believe that Apple is an altruistic, cool and good company. The truthier thing is, Microsoft has been so bad and mean that their gigantic marketing department could not even alter the public’s perception entirely, to make them seem good. Apple focuses their marketing on the sexy and cool, while their bad behavior goes largely unnoticed. And from the fallout of these marketing wars, GNU/Linux gets stuck with an impression of freakish computer geniuses doing arcane stuff that is well beyond the reach of most users. Or rebels using piece-meal computer equipment fastened with duct tape who just hack.

Don’t believe the hype. The InfoWorld article suggests that Apple’s OS X may be “the best operating system available.” Yet, at the same time, they claim that the growing adoption of OS X within business is not because of IT department choices, but rather users who push the IT guys until get it. This suggests an entrenchment in Microsoft products within IT departments that Apple is working very hard to overcome. I’m happy seeing that, because Microsoft-based products have a tendency to grow considerably in cost, as you need to add functionality that other platforms like Apple’s and GNU/Linux, already have.

From the IT department’s standpoint, heterogeneous operating system environments are a problem. First, you must have people who know about each different platform. Second, there must be a way for those platforms to work together. This is where standards are important. Just like people, no matter what background you come from, if you can speak the same language, you can get stuff done. Microsoft has a long history of trying to take control of language then twisting certain words and phrases so that only people from the land of Microsoft can understand it. This influences people to wish they were from the land of Microsoft. Microsoft calls this subversion, enhancement. The GNU/Linux people call this Microsoft tactic, Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. They seem to attempt this tactic with nearly anything created that they do not control. Fortunately, people’s creativity appears to outpace Microsoft’s capabilities to wage this tactic on every new development. Now, they must be more selective about their targets.

Standards are also important to enable the complexities of various computer hardware to function together, as a whole unit. Apple is very aware of this. It is why they choose, very selectively, which hardware goes into their Mac systems. It is also why you can only purchase OS X and run it on Apple-purchased computers. If you try making OS X run on hardware other than Apple-purchased hardware, you may well find yourself sued by Apple. Apple claims these draconian tactics are in the best interest of people, because it assures that OS X will always run beautifully, since you can only run it on Apple-purchased hardware. It’s certainly in the best interest of Apple. Microsoft doesn’t care what hardware on which you run Windows. Neither does GNU/Linux.

Now, suppose you need to do something that’s never been done before. In both OS X and Windows, you can, to a degree. But Microsoft and Apple only allow you access to the way your computer functions in limited ways. A Microsoft or Apple employee will have had to imagine already something similar to what you wish to accomplish, if even in abstract terms. You only can access your computer in ways they allow and control. In GNU/Linux, you have absolutely no restrictions, and you can see or change everything, if you choose to.

This is why strange, new things are often created using GNU/Linux. I was amazed on my tour of astronomical observatories that the use of GNU/Linux was so prevalent. The world’s fastest supercomputers, the Large Hadron Collider, little microwave communication towers or sensing stations - anything that might require very low level access to a computer hardware system - Linux is likely the best choice. Not always. But when it is not, Windows or OS X certainly is not. Unless you are designing your new computer hardware system specifically for Windows or OS X.

Which brings us to hardware drivers. Hardware drivers are pieces of programming that live, pretty much, between your OS’s “brain”, and a given piece of hardware that must communicate with that brain. Sometimes strange hardware can avoid the necessity of having a special driver, if that hardware follows standards. But if it does not follow standards, or cannot, then the people who made the hardware are generally the people who write the driver. Almost always they will write a Windows driver. Often they will write an OS X driver, now that Apple has gained more market share. Rarely will they write a GNU/Linux driver. Two very notable exceptions to this are the primary video card manufacturers, Nvidia and ATI. They have been creating GNU/Linux drivers for a long time.

As the InfoWorld article points out, hardware driver availability is a headache in Linux. There is some truth to this, but there are also benefits to this, as well as headaches. When a company produces a hardware product and does not write a Linux driver, it is usually only a matter of time before an employee of that company, or a Linux user somewhere in the world who likes that hardware, writes one themselves, and then gives it out to the rest of the world. Once this is done, Linux forever supports that hardware. Here is the benefit in that:

My workstation computer system has a few pieces of strange hardware. When I install Windows on it, I have to go hunting for the disks that came with that hardware, so that I can install the drivers, so my computer can boot with Windows. It sometimes takes me a long time to find those driver installation disks, and I have to hope that they are still good. However, with Linux, I don’t have to go find any disks, because Linux knows about the hardware. The drivers have become part of Linux. Apple faces the same problem as Microsoft in this, if you purchased any hardware that did not come from Apple, for your Apple computer system. It is far less effort, and fewer steps, for me to install, say, Ubuntu, than it is to install Windows. And I can’t install OS X, because my hardware was not purchased from Apple - and even if I did, the nice Mac guy might come chasing me with an ax.

But the key point is fundamentally a perceptual one. What is reality, and what is marketing? It’s not always easy to tell in a technically complex field. The InfoWorld article mentions virtualization software, where OS X users and Linux users can actually run programs written for Windows. However, they also say, “Because Linux distributions run on Windows-compatible hardware, it’s straightforward to use desktop virtualization software.” This makes it sound like GNU/Linux is trying to run on hardware meant for Windows, and mentions nothing else. Actually, Microsoft’s Windows runs only on Intel’s x86 hardware platform (and derivatives) while GNU/Linux runs on this, and many others — even Apple’s former hardware platform, before Apple, also, moved to this “Windows-compatible” hardware. GNU/Linux systems are not limited by hardware platforms the way Apple and Microsoft are.

For the end user, who normally purchases computers based upon the x86 platform, and yes, that includes Apple now, that flexibility is not so important. What is important is being able to use the computer, in ways that matter to you. Similarly important, to some, is “doing the right thing” by not supporting companies that seek to control what you can and cannot do.

I know, from an IT perspective, it is far less expensive and much easier to maintain a huge fleet of GNU/Linux systems. But as IT people, we are there for the end users. Most of them have no idea what using GNU/Linux can be like. Many now know what using OS X can be like, and they are asking for more. As always, the best place to look is individual experience because it reflects the diversity of need. The rhetoric of marketing wars, or “shoot-outs”, distract from reality.

Explore. Have an open mind. Educate yourselves. Learn to distinguish between marketing and reality. The best choice is not always the best choice. Nor is the worst, the worst. Openness, and open minds. Trust. Intent. Even purpose. Motives.

GNU/Linux does not mean that everything should be free, as in never make money. It means, what is out there, ought to be free, as in liberated, not hidden, and no hidden agendas, either. That distinction has taken a very long time to settle in, and probably will take a very long time more.

Think of it as a big, Merry Christmas gift, that will always be there, year ’round, waiting for you to open, under that big as the world tree. It’s a gift for people, as well as businesses. And for some reason, it’s a gift that makes a lot of people shoutin’ mad. Strange, isn’t it?

I’ve put the cookies off for far too long, saying more than I intended, and not nearly enough. Merry Christmas to those of you I won’t see or talk to. This isn’t a very holiday thing to write, I suppose. A bit of a digression, too, though not completely, from the material consciousness/spirit issue lately. But Merry Christmas anyway! I’ll never get all this cooking done now… damn distractions. Oh, Merry Christmas!

That last piece

Here’s a reminder, too. I was criminally negligent in supporting the positions for those three main views of consciousness in the last piece, Am I Alive? I am working under the assumption there is a reason philosophy departments are small. Very intricate and in-depth discussions for each of those positions exist, and are easily accessible if you have an interest in the detail. Even more importantly, distilling those arguments into quick examples lets me be lazy, too.

In addition to being told definitively what consciousness actually was, I was also pointed to a fascinating project within IBM’s Cognitive Computing group. This project just received $5 million in funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the same agency that funded the creation of the Internet, and many other incredible (and dubious) things.

The award funds IBM’s proposal, “Cognitive Computing via Synaptronics and Supercomputing (C2S2)”, which will be the first step in fulfilling DARPA’s “Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE)” initiative. Another company, HRL Laboratories, which is owned by Boeing and General Motors received three times this amount. HRL Laboratories is also involved in DARPA’s Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System, and their Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation Technology (URGENT) program, which wants to revolutionize urban combat using three-dimensional object recognition.

Anyway, IBM has built a rat brain. Well, not really. They’re simulating one on a supercomputer. Neural networks were long considered the most promising path toward simulating cognitive functions with computational devices. That approach focuses upon the role of neurons in the brain. However, neurons actually account for a very small fraction of the brain’s circuitry. Most of the circuitry are synapses, which connect the neurons together. Many synapses are connected to a single neuron. In fact, IBM’s rat brain has 55 million neurons and 442 billion synapses. That’s pretty much the same as a real rat brain. In comparison, a human cortex has around 22 billion neurons and 176 trillion synapses.

The IBM rat brain is somewhat larger than a rat, though. Their rat brain requires a 32,768 processor supercomputer with 8 trillion bytes of memory. It consumes more energy than 1,000 typical households. That is one fat rat.

And alas, it will probably never be on par with a real rat. Real rat brains, like our own, operate asynchronously, with variable timing (frequencies) and ooze chemicals as well as electricity. Being biological, they are also adaptable and fault tolerant. And most importantly, memory is not so separate from the processing. Traditional computers always keep memory separate from the processor. Then again, rat brains don’t run Linux.

But the IBM folks are well aware of their limitations. This is an incubation project. Cognitive Computing differs significantly from traditional artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence identifies problems, then comes up with ways to address those problems programmatically. On the other hand, cognitive computing does the engineering first (by reverse-engineering the brain) and worries about the more programmatic problems later.

The supercomputer is used only as a simulation. The intention is to build chips and electronics with a similar structure like a brain. They then plan to ram it full of sensory input from sensors all over the world, to create a “world brain”. I tell ya, these military guys are crazy. The idea is actually to overload this brain with sensory input. Part of me is suspicious, thinking these guys are hoping to create a physical structure modeled after a brain, and then by flooding it with sensory data, it might just burst into life with some ability to perform cognitive functions on that data. Or maybe even come alive… No, they would never say that.

What they do not intend to create is an actual rat brain, or human brain. At least that’s what they are saying. But you know mad scientists, particularly when they’re working for the military. They want to create computers that can get closer to the efficiency and power of biological brains, and this is, to them, in large part a structural issue.

What is interesting, philosophically, is suppose they do create a synthetic human brain. Would any mind, or consciousness, that arose from this brain also be synthetic? Or, for that matter, what exactly does synthetic mean? If souls exist, what is mind without a soul? If mind, or consciousness, is simply an illusion, is there anything wrong with just shutting it off and dismantling it, after we turn it on? Or if consciousness is only an illusion, is there anything wrong with just “turning off” a person’s mind?

Before we can deal with any of these questions we must define, if only in very broad terms, a nature of consciousness. Consciousness is something more than illusion. It may be an aggregate of biochemical processes, or it may be something related more closely to a notion of spirit. But to say that consciousness, which we all seem to experience, is merely illusion is to side step, in the name of convenience, the very basis of our ability to reason and perform science. Consciousness must exist or there is no context in which we might ask questions, formulate answers, be curious about matters, or feel anything at all. If consciousness is illusion, what is being tricked, if not consciousness itself? Consciousness precedes itself, when examining itself.

However, to say that consciousness exists is not to say that spirit exists. It may very well be that consciousness cannot exist independently of some physical substance. It is to say, however, that consciousness currently appears to be a more abstract quality than something wholly physical. That is, though consciousness may be dependent upon the physical, consciousness itself may not physical, any more than the processes of mathematics is physical. In fact, it is metaphysical (devoid of the pedestrian connotations).

I cannot touch my consciousness, or the consciousness of another person, nor can I smell it, see it, or measure it. This is does mean that consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness must exist before I carry out any processes of science. In order for me to see, taste, smell or feel, or on higher orders, evaluate, determine and hypothesize, I must have a consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness is dependent upon the physical, I am stuck with its necessity. Even though considering the consciousness illusory may help win some arguments, the problems created by such a proposition far outweigh any gains. Consciousness does exist and it is something metaphysical. It might even remain metaphysical, even if the bridging problem between physical, biochemical processes and the manifestation of consciousness are eventually solved.

This admission should not, in any way, fly in the face of science. Many abstract, not altogether tangible things exist that are, for some reason, wholly accepted by science. One of these things is mathematics. Another is the laws of physics themselves. Scientists have no problem accepting that some abstract laws exist that somehow determine the behaviour of everything physical. The question here is, what holds these laws? Why is there an electromagnetically negative charge and a positive charge, and only those two? What determines the probabilities associated with quantum mechanics? In science’s inference of multiple universes, where even the laws of physics can be utterly different in different universes, how are those laws of physics imprinted into that particular nature of reality? Perhaps consciousness is something abstractly structural like this. But it is abstract, similarly, beyond any given physical system. But again, that is not to say that it is not dependent upon a given physical system.

And now to the meat of things, the reason for this piece, which continues after the last one that left us questioning whether consciousness even exists, as most of us assume it must. For if we are questioning the epistemology of consciousness itself, where does that leave us when we consider other people, or other beings, or things, besides ourself? If we question the very possibility of consciousness, what possible hope is there for any sense of ethics or morality - of right or wrong?

First, I want to distinguish between ethics and morality. Here, ethics will mean something we can think about and discuss to reach conclusions. Morality will mean something that we learn through tradition, or are told. This being said, morality will be left out of the discussion altogether. This is done in the interest of expediency, since morality does not lend itself well to any reasonable discussion. Its basis sits in absolute notions that are generally entrenched and immobile. I leave it for people to shout about on the back porch between beer drinking and farts, until they reach their conclusions through a wrestling match, or a bloody club.

If a scientist or philosopher is of the ilk to question the existence of actual consciousness, it is altogether likely they are also of the ilk to question the existence of a basis for any ethics, let alone good or evil.

When you consider consciousness an illusion it is very difficult to reasonably consider ethics. Ethics seems intrinsically oriented toward life, and becomes more relevant the higher you go up on the complexity of life scale. If there is no consciousness, any notion of a higher order of life scale is arbitrary at best. Would you consider applying ethics to the way a physical cluster operates as individual components? How can mechanical operations be ethical or unethical if no consciousness guides them? Without consciousness, things function as they do. Ethics is replaced by gross domination through a preponderance of purpose, or just simply strength.

However, since we can more sanely say that consciousness is something more than illusion, we can also find a place for ethics. Perhaps not for good and evil, but ethics, most certainly. Here the question becomes, is there such a thing as right and wrong, or good and bad, that exists, similar to consciousness, or the laws of physics, in its own true abstraction? Stay with me scientists…

The question of ethics is a very old one; ancient even. Right now we are looking at these questions of ethics and consciousness, framed by a backdrop of new technologies, during a period increasingly dominated by scientific thinking. It is important to keep in mind that rational thinking is timeless, though not all rational positions remain rational over time. The questions of ethics are richly discussed in texts throughout many centuries, distinct from religion. My one selection here, for your consideration is this:

Let’s say that a dog exists. It’s a good dog, but occasionally bad, as dogs are. There is plenty of food for the dog, and the dog will not harm its environment. It will not overly reproduce. In fact, let’s assume there are no ill effects whatsoever from this dog existing, and there never will be. The question is, is it better that the dog lives or dies?

You would be an unusual person indeed if you claim the dog ought to die, when there are no bad effects from it living. If you just hate dogs, substitute a cat, or a monkey, or better yet, yourself. Particularly when you substitute yourself, even saying that it makes no difference whether you live or die rings a little untrue. Most people would agree that, all things being equal, it is better the dog, or you, should live, rather than die. But what makes it better? This is certainly not something purely mechanical.

Interestingly, you can take this even further back, to address concerns about the origin of the universe. Why does the universe exist? Why did it come into being? Well, is it better that the universe came into being, than if it did not? This is the exact line of reasoning early philosophers used to posit the existence of an ethical universe. Personally, I have a hard time accepting that the universe sprang into being because it was supposed to, along with all its physical laws. Nevertheless, there is something to be said about a natural state of ethics, alongside our conscious determination and use of the natural laws of nature.

It will be interesting, if we manage to create a synthetic, or even “real” consciousness - will that consciousness have a similar sense of the inherently ethical? Will it know that being alive is better than being dead? Will it know that promoting non-truths is bad? Or does it require emotion for such determinations? Does consciousness itself require emotion?

But I think the important thing for us to realize is that science and rational thinking does not require us to throw out any value we place upon life, nor to give up on what we know to be ethical choices. Science is still entrenched in its long war against the domination of religious thought. Unfortunately, it runs the risk of creating a narrow dominion of thought all its own, in the process. If we are to have truly open minds, our thoughts and perspectives must be willing to travel beyond their comfortable and familiar contexts, if only just to take a quick peek.

For all the dogma and doctrine out there, the important thing is that we are all alive, participating in, and affected by what each of us embrace, promote, or even just participate within. Life has intrinsic value that is greater than any equation or any religion. Life’s value is greater than any system of government, economy or social tradition.

It is a quality of life that it must grow. Consciousness must grow. However, reductionism and normalization should only be considered a fertilizer for the soil, and not the cage. Otherwise, we run the risk of scientific oppression that would make religious oppression pale in comparison.

Us, with our intentions fixed upon some inhumanly self-fulfilling abstraction, hoping for change that is humane. In this we are the prime mover of our own cycles.

Heads spewing out rank files, lines like fences herding cattle destined to lift up some sack of flesh that knows how we best must be moved.

The game played within their small vocabulary of strategy, bombs of money dropped brazenly upon already suspecting heads, and the fat dish that gathers and scoops up to hoard all that must be shared.

The fall with its fresh smell of rot, sweet as the perfume worn by bill collectors, their caked makeup gripped to the skull like zombie flesh than moans to consume more brains.

While the bloated eat even more, bragging like boys and their sport, yet too fat to lift their own finger to the field, to play any more. Too fat but to lie, commanding to be fed.

In the season, drown in the shades of red, the little game that grips each mind wins, just as the house must do. A cackling grandma in the glitter of slots. The old dog that rolls and farts to make men wish to please him. The American Dream atop the pinnacle of scarcity, where it must be held for others to lift and climb.

Where the young, who yet dream what they are given, as if it were their own, carry out to fortify all that they would change.

The narrow logic of numbers might count the fallen leaves, strategically noting patterns of distribution. Then, bound by rule, re-cock the gun.

As all the while that which filled us, bleeds out, even as strangers watch and know, because we are all here.

And the furthest imaginative recourse? To cover heads under the familiarity of earth, waiting in our busy tasks for the passing of snowfall — waiting for the spring that must come along upon the Wheel. The pull of a lever. The push of a button. The happy pill.

The fall is arrived. The chill, damp odor of rot, rising fresh from the chaos of that which fell. Just as history reveals.

The magic performed by magicians is usually a combination of diversion, distraction and sometimes even mentalism. This is performed upon we, the spectators or participants. This magic is an attempt to cause us to believe things other than the truth, so that the magician can benefit and we can be entertained. These magicians are also sometimes called illusionists. When they succeed, we believe things that have no basis in actuality. We believe things that are untrue. We believe false things.

Some people claim that everyone’s beliefs are equally valid. Where illusionists are concerned, this would mean that false things are true. If the illusionist is very good, true things might even be false. But when we go to a theater to see an illusionist, we enter a context where we expect illusion. In that context we can easily maintain our sense of what is true and what is false. Here, we expect that what we see and hear will be carefully choreographed to assault our sensibilities. We expect to be tricked. And because we have purposefully entered this known context, we are protected against trickery. We know that our ignorance will be exploited toward an end. That’s what we paid for. And in this context, it can be entertaining.

But what happens when we meet the illusionist outside the theater context, in the world where we know true and false with inherent certainty? In the theater we are vigilant, intently watching for any sign that might reveal the truth behind the illusion. In the theater we watch for the sleight of hand to be careless, giving up its secrets. And even when we discern no trickery, we are convinced from the onset of trickery. But in the streets, in the world outside the stage, few maintain such vigilance. We are a happier, more trusting people, in the world, that is a stage.

It is remarkable how we have come to create ideas and institutions collectively. Our social interactions at all levels depend completely upon shared beliefs. We evolve socially through collectively determining and agreeing to what is true and false, and to a lesser extent, though just as importantly, what is right and wrong. This process of collective determination is what gives rise to a society. And it is from this process of social formation, both ongoing and adaptive, that a sense and even framework of social justice emerges. As John Rawls says in A Theory of Justice, “If men’s inclination to self-interest makes their vigilance against one another necessary, their public sense of justice makes their secure association together possible.”

The trade and skill of illusionists rests primarily in the subterfuge of generally accepted truth. Perhaps there is an equally valid private sense of justice that can tip the balance of self-interest between people in favor of a certain group, who can, in turn, bring about even more secure associations between members of a society. A private, or hidden sense of justice. Of course, in the light of truth and reason, such obscure reasoning cannot hold. However, illusionists do not deal in the light of truth and reason. Their tools are distraction and deception, to cause the untrue to appear true. And they accomplish this quite reasonably. In fact, they depend upon reason.

But as we know, even well-reasoned things can be shown untrue, given enough devotion to the process of reasoning and the discovery of related truths. Reasoning is simply a process of logic. It is an empty pursuit without at least some objects of truth pulled from our collective baskets. Even with truth as our motivation, the more empty our baskets, the less likely our reasoning will be sound. The fuller our baskets, the more likely our success becomes. Illusionists have very full baskets. They are full of truth. However, their baskets also contain a a good many illusory objects. The tricky part is, these illusory objects are not necessarily false, nor true. They are illusory — a distraction. With these illusory objects in their arsenal, their process of reasoning can be formidable, because most of us don’t feel like carrying big, heavy baskets around with us. We carry just a few things in our baskets to help us along our journeys. And this helps us to think, well, if this person over here has all these many objects in their basket of reason, they must know what they’re about. I’m just happy with my little basket. So sure, I’ll believe it — I’ll play along.

I’m going to give you some objects for your basket. If you already have them, good for you. I know with certainty that at least five of you do, and two of those have some wildly screaming and thrashing eggs in there, too. Now you can both go hopping around pointing and shouting at everyone, “told ya so!” to your heart’s content. Just be careful what eggs you drop into people’s baskets, otherwise you’re not much better than the illusionists.

The last piece I sent out dealt with more humanistic aspects of our current financial situation. Many people were surprised that the trillion dollar bailout actually passed. Some of the more savvy wonderers question where we find this kind of money, to give to Wall Street. I can just imagine Scott growling, “we gonna pull it out of our ass!?” Well, pretty much. But not us, really. Treasury Secretary Paulson will tell the The Federal Reserve to pull the money out of their ass. We’ll just be going into further debt. There’s his signature, right next to George Washington’s face. The credit crisis, and we’re going further into debt to the bankers as well. You should see the interest they charge!

But wait, you ask, isn’t the Federal Reserve part of the government? Well, no. And yes. It’s one of the illusory eggs in their basket. The US Government does not create US money. The Federal Reserve is a collection of 12 regional banks around the country that are privately owned. The Federal Reserve can create money with a few keystrokes. Our government does not create any money, except for small coins from the US Mint. The Federal Reserve also controls the credit markets, which are currently in turmoil. The only ties these private bankers have to our government is a small board of finance people who oversee The Federal Reserve. These people, much like Supreme Court Justices, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, only with 14 year terms. They generally outlast multiple presidents. However, after Bush’s election, some of the board members resigned their terms early for some reason, and the board is now filled with Bush appointees. They include bankers involved in the economic scandal, and economists of the Chicago School of Economics, of Milton Friedman fame. If you’re interested, you can read more about the Milton Friedman economic ideologies that first took firm hold during President Reagan’s administration.

By far, the majority of Americans do not know that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank. Other banks own these banks, as do other people, both Americans and foreigners, and foreign banks. When US dollars are printed, we simply go into debt to these banks and begin paying interest. They like it when we give a trillion dollars to Wall Street. They also like it when they get to buy up other Wall Street banks, or other failing institutions. During the Great Depression, they planned ahead the takeover of the majority of US farms through mortgage foreclosure, where farmers instead became tenants upon their land. They also like taking out savings and loan companies, and any non-national banks. They like very much being able to control money, even as far as being the ones who create it from nothing. And they love war. We entered into the Great Depression almost immediately after their creation.

The Federal Reserve is far more a Wall Street institution than it is a US Government institution. The same holds true for the Bank of England, and most other European central banks. Their interest is not for the welfare of the people. Their interest is profit for themselves and for their constituents. They can take advantage of economies in our good times, and they can take advantage of economies in our bad times. They can also manipulate and steer the economy into trends of their choosing, while utilizing this foreknowledge. As such, all times are good times for the people behind the central bank. In fact, they rely on the “business cycle” of ups and downs, even the extremes of bubbles and depressions.

When these bankers create money from nothing, it appears in their banks. Then, they loan out this money and charge interest on that loan. Until recently, banks would loan out 10 times  more money than they conjured. Now, in large part due to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s efforts before he came to Treasury, these financial institutions loan out more like 30 times the amount, and collect interest on it all. They also foreclose when companies or people can’t pay.

So there you have a few big eggs for your basket. When you know this, and rationally consider our economic situation, it’s not at all such a crazy-seeming situation. It is all very sensible. It is also all very predictable when you are privy to the detailed financial reports of Wall Street, which we are not, after so much deregulation. These bankers can operate in relative isolation from any scrutiny.

Our nation’s history is filled with struggles between private banking and government. Several times in our history the US Government has created its own money. The Federal Reserve was, I believe, the third instance in which money creation powers were handed over to private people. It was created in the early 1900’s and shortly after its creation we entered the Great Depression. Like now, massive credit lending was the rule. During this time of massive debt, the Federal Reserve reduced the money supply, so there was no money for people, businesses, smaller banks, and farmers to pay their debts. Foreclosures were rampant. Like now, even though the major banks are infused with money, they are not releasing it.

Some people speculate that the business cycle is related to the Federal Reserve pushing money out into the country, then finding a way to get it for themselves. This is the boom/bust cycle. Other people claim that the Federal Reserve acts in the interest of all people, not just the bankers who comprise the Federal Reserve. These people view the Federal Reserve bankers as a benign and stabilizing economic force. It is a pretty egg.

Several US Presidents have fought against the private ownership of the nation’s central bank, as have many other prominent people. The history is quite fascinating. Thomas Jefferson even warned against any private individuals having such power over our money supply. He claimed that freedom would not be possible, since it would create two governments, the stronger of which was in the hands of a few private interests.

The history of privately owned central banks can be traced back to England in the 1600’s, with the founding of the privately owned Bank of England. Even before this, struggles existed between monarchs and the goldsmiths who produced coin and had a powerful influence. They also could manipulate the money supply. One king decided that he would control the money, and crafted a stick with markings that represented monetary denominations. Even though gold coin still existed, these sticks were the only thing the king would accept for payment of taxes. As such, the sticks were in demand, much to the chagrin of the goldsmiths. However, their coins still held value. The goldsmiths simply found it far more difficult to manipulate the kingdom’s economy.

Our President Andrew Jackson when asked what his greatest accomplishment as President was, replied simply, “I killed the Bank”. By this he meant the Second Bank of the United States, which was our second privately owned central bank. It was a terrible battle, though, between the President and the US central bank. The bank even provided Jackson’s political opponent with millions of dollars to help defeat Jackson. This spurred Jackson to take his campaign to the road, to the people — the first President to do so. His campaign slogan was “Jackson and no Bank”. Jackson was re-elected. The chairman of the US central bank, Nicholas Biddle, threatened to plunge the country into a depression if the government did not renew his bank’s authority:

“Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress…. Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the Bank.”

The US central banks called in loans and restricted the money supply, making no new loans. The credit market was effectively closed. Unemployment soared. Businesses failed. The banks foreclosed on property. And the US central bank started giving money to members of Congress for their campaigns. Newspapers began printing stories lambasting President Jackson, blaming him for the depression. President Jackson was even censured by Congress. But remarkably, Congress was unable to override President Jackson’s veto, which effectively shut down the US central bank. After this, Biddle was investigated, refusing to turn over any financial records. He died, with many civil lawsuits still pending on their bank. Andrew Jackson killed the Bank.

It was in 1835 that the Second Bank of the United States was closed. Also in 1835, President Jackson managed pay off the national debt, after having removed US deposits in the central bank in 1833, moving them instead to normal banks. This was also the year that an assassination attempt on President Jackson failed, with both guns misfired. It was also the only time our national debt was paid off completely.

Then, in 1913, the new privately owned Federal Reserve bank was created and handed back the money power. You know the story from there, don’t you? I’ll leave it to you to find your own new eggs for your basket, if you like. Oh, ok. One more egg. Both the first and second national banks were partially owned by the US government. We gave the bank 20% of its cash, for a 20% stake. The bankers then loaned themselves the money to buy their shares in the bank. And they started making loans of far more cash than they actually had. It’s a good scheme, isn’t it? Unfortunately, if any of us tried it, we would go to jail.

Which brings up an interesting point. What is money? When you ask business owners how much their business is worth, you’re always given the same answer: it is worth whatever someone is willing to pay, that sounds good to you, too. Money is much the same, particularly since it is no longer backed by anything real. If we agreed to it, hairs our our heads could be money. I’m certain the Hair Club for Men would be elated. Money is something we agree to. You can print your own notes, if you like. Last I checked, it is perfectly legal. However, if you are going to exchange products or services, you still must pay taxes, in the money of the realm. Somehow it is very appealing to think of a group of people coming up with their own form of money, just measuring how much they do for each other, in a simple, nice and open manner, free from illusionists. Taken even a step further, it’s just nice being able to do things for people. I wish that worked all-around.

But again, in case you’re still wondering what is going on in our economy, I’ll use a simple analogy. Baby, it’s just that the vacuum cleaner has been turned on. It’s a giant one, and the collection bag sits in the homes of a fraction of that top 1% of the people in the nation who already hold the majority of our nation’s wealth. All the rest is illusion. And so is my analogy, to a small extent, since the central banks of nations are interconnected.

From here, if you still have any interest, check out the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. Pay attention to what is going on in countries like Iceland. Those poor people — I really feel for them. I hope so much that they find their own freedom and independence after the storm, though. I hope also that we all can gain some sense.

There is also a very long documentary on this subject out there. It’s about three hours long, but it’s packed full of good information, from a very irritating narrator. Money Masters, I think is what it’s called. Yes, it shows up on Google Video. It’s worth a look. It was made in 1995, and I’ve verified much of its content, though I can’t say with certainty about the whole thing. It smells of conspiracy theory. Just keep in mind that sometimes truths we don’t know can smell like a silly conspiracy theme. Personally, I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy. It’s just well played business, devoid of ethics. It’s the golden cow we worship, and the illusionist’s diversions.

Just look at them go! And while you’re at it, be vigilant. See if you can spot the “invisible hand”.

In the culture of United States, being intelligent is not like being beautiful. In fact, if you are intelligent, and have some degree of humility, you spend a good deal of effort trying to hide the fact, almost apologetically. If you do not, you are considered an “asshole” by most, and that’s not so fun for we socially-oriented humans creatures.

Unfortunately, any pressure that causes you to “dumb yourself down”, resulting in silence, even in the interest of being “nice” to others, has consequences. Just look at all these quoted words and phrases I’m using. They’re like soft little cotton balls, you use to tip-toe around idiots, so I won’t be called “mean”. Intelligent people collect a lot of soft, logically fuzzy cotton balls over time. Probably for no other reason than they help us get laid.

For some reason several of you have put aside niceties when dealing with me. I’m not angry about that. In fact, I’m honored. There is no greater gift than a journey toward truth. Notice the lower-case “t” in truth. I don’t know the way, and you probably don’t either. But be assured, if you are reading this in your email, you are someone that at least can recognize truer paths and turns, and are someone who is willing to question what you hold dear, often down to the deepest places. I’ll even risk sounding patently ridiculous for a moment and say, that is enough for me to love you. It is a rare, vulnerable, and oftentimes isolating quality, being someone so open-minded. It is far simpler and easier on the mind to just close things down. Yet you choose to remain open. You choose to look around honestly. And most of all, you’re not afraid to be thought a lunatic. That’s why I love you, in the broadest sense of love. Perhaps it’s as uncomplicated as imagining myself the same, and finding validation that you are, too. I would like think there is a good deal more empathy involved, though. I know there is. Because if there was not, it wouldn’t be love.

So, we have enough of the pleasantries, and it’s off to the matter at hand. I am being hounded to write something on our current political and financial situation, and quickly, as some social overtone of urgency seems to dictate. My guess is that you are remembering previous politically-oriented writing, and are interested in hearing my 2 cents. Perhaps that is conceit. I’m going to go with it, though, and give you something political-ish, nevertheless. Mostly just to cover my ass, ethically, to do what I can do, when I can, in what way that I can. My apologies to those who do not wish to hear me blather on.

Interpreted broadly, everything we write or say has political force. I am aware of this when I write or speak with people. However, the meaning and scope of politics is not limited to solely to institutions of government that are structurally in force. In other words, it is not a government entity that is important. It is our thoughts, beliefs, values and our well-being that is important. Any government entity is simply an outwardly tangible manifestation of our collective will (or lack of will). And, like all orthodoxy, it is prone to manipulation and exploitation by twittering moths seeking the heat of our collective power. It is we, individually, who imbue any orthodoxy with power. We can do this actively by participating in it. We can do this passively by following along, keeping our noses clean. We can even do it inadvertently by just not bothering to think that a government is little more than orthodoxy — that without our collective commitment to an idea, that idea is meaningless and holds no sway.

No, this is not some back-handed promotion of anarchy. That would be a simplistic interpretation that stupidity requires. Saying that orthodoxy holds sway because people buy into it does not mean that orthodoxy ought to be eliminated. In fact, I have little doubt that we can accomplish the most amazing things by working toward our common good. And orthodoxy helps focus this. The question is, what manner of orthodoxy is currently holding sway over our lives? And can it be improved?

First, yes. I believe it can be improved. Nearly all that I write or say has this belief firmly seated within it. But in some way, engaging in governmentally-shaped political issues directly merely perpetuates that orthodoxy. In other words, if you use only the tools of orthodoxy, all you get is orthodoxy. Change must come into orthodoxy from the outside. Orthodoxy is incredibly resistant to change, yet at the same time, it is fragile. This is a characteristic of inflexibility. In this sense, the old metaphor is true: a flexible tree bends in the wind, where the solid tree breaks. Wind, from the outside, is what causes movement. And no, I’m not saying, do not vote. Voting and badgering our political leaders is all we have, unless we take up force. And taking up force would be a tragic and costly turn of events, particularly considering domestic wiretapping, spy satellites turned upon our own streets, and recent military deployments at home being trained to quell civil disobedience.

Instead, my approach is an attempt to help bring clarity, with a tacit belief that, with clarity, we are, perhaps, better people as a whole than we might imagine. In politics, the beginning of this clarity rests in the understanding that government is simply a somewhat solidified orthodoxy. And that all orthodoxy is subject to modification, though not without great resistance, and sometimes cost. I think few Americans now would say that change is not absolutely necessary. But what change? That is very difficult to answer without creating more orthodoxy.

So instead, I will ask a question. If you find someone unconscious and bleeding on your porch, why do you help them? Fear of liability? Fear of some law that compels you to under the threat of punishment? Is it fear that causes you help them? Fear has nothing to do with it. Fear would be ineffectual and possibly even counter-productive. The answer is, you are aware — a living being yourself. And you are aware of this other being, who is completely at your mercy. I ask again, why do you help him to live? Why would many of you even risk your own life to help him?

Each of us is endowed with awareness. You can call it your mind, or you can call it your spirit. We do not consider nearly enough how wondrous this is. You are aware. Alive. You learn. You respect other people’s awareness to varying degrees, based upon your own (prejudices). We would not let people suffer and die on our own doorstep. Somehow, we see ourselves in them. Mike might suggest this is a result of our brain’s mirror neurons that have helped us survive together, mutually, as a species. Whatever the reason, we help them survive because we wish to survive. All of us. We do not wish ourselves, or others, to die.

It is a different matter, however, when the person in need is thousands of miles away, made anonymous behind some abstract categorization of people. Perhaps this is how we determine people who have strongly developed mirror neurons; those of us who still manage see victims on our own porch, even at great distances. But even within our own country, close to home, where do we draw the boundaries of suffering? Does bleeding and imminent death mean that it’s okay to help, but barely having enough food to survive should be ignored? A heart condition that could easily be repaired should be denied, and the person left to slowly die, because the company they worked for went out of business? Sports stadiums should be built instead of housing for more than 10 million people currently out of work?

Our awareness glazes over when confronted with large statistics and issues. It’s hard to see an actual person when you say, 10,000,000 people are without work. That’s a lot of people either out on the street, or frightened they soon might be. Here are a few more glazing statistics, just for fun. 46,000,000 people in the United States have no health insurance. More than half of all bankruptcies are a result of medical bills. Yet strangely, Americans spend more money per person than any nation on the planet, far more than countries where medical care can be freely had, if needed. Our president vetoed a recent bill that would have provided, at least children, with health care, saying it was too expensive. It would have cost us $5 billion per year, for 5 years. It’s strange seeing that small number in comparison to $750 billion, which is something we apparently can afford. Some say, we are “investing” the $750 billion, not spending it. Just like we are investing another $85 billion to buy the country’s largest insurance company, AIG. Maybe some “financial genius” might find a way to provide health care, if nothing more than making it personally affordable, after purchasing such a giant insurance company, with all this other cash laying about, too.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. We are caught up in something. It’s another orthodoxy. It’s called economics. If you think of government as one galaxy, and economics as another galaxy, you will find that they have long ago merged into one. But there is a devil in the details here. The merged orthodoxy considers economics to be synonymous with business interests, and therefore business interests are synonymous with government interests. This is not the case. Business interests are merely tied to economic interests, just as we, as people, are tied to economic interests. As such, what is good for business is not necessarily good for people, just as what is good for people, is not necessarily good for business. However, something bad for either business or for people can have adverse effects economically.

There is another galaxy in rotation, and although it is smaller than the galaxy of people, it is highly dense and gravitationally powerful. This is the galaxy of business interests. Business interests do not, by definition, care if someone is bleeding on the porch, unless that business interest will be adversely effected. Business interests do not have mirror neurons in empathy with people. Business interests are oriented toward their own self-interest, which is the accumulation of money and influence. Anything else is a by-product. It is extreme capitalism that exploits our greed, resting on the assumption that if everyone enshrines greed, our greed will somehow, inadvertently, make the world a better place. It does not even take an intelligent person to recognize the flaw in that logic.

No, I am not anti-capitalism. But here are some more facts. Economies do not require capitalism to function. Capitalism is not the same thing as freedom. Freedom can exist without capitalism. Capitalism has nothing inherent within it that makes a nation prosper economically, as a whole people. Capitalism encourages a Darwinian kill or be killed mentality of competition, with no ethical center. Capitalism reveres money and marketing popularity (power) while completely disregarding any moral or philosophical considerations. This can also be considered a benefit of capitalism. When you hear the word “freedom” in relation to capitalism, this is not freedom as people generally envision it. Freedom in capitalism means freedom for business interests, to avoid any restrictions placed upon their greed. In that sense, we have a very free society.

Now here it is important to distinguish that capitalism is not a political system. However, few would disagree that economic systems have not merged almost completely with political systems. As such, we can no longer truly distinguish our government from business interests. And business interests no longer possess loyalties to any country. Business interests are now multinational. The United States government is one part, although a large part, of global business interests. You can see this in the complaints we are hearing from other world government leaders, that our Congress must act by infusing business interests with our collective people’s wealth. And so, our Congress acts, while our presidential candidates line up to follow suit.

This is where I will loose many of you. That’s okay. I’ll be quick, then on to the more important stuff. Here are some things to keep in mind. Capitalism does not require that a lot of people have money. In fact, it is natural that just a few people will come out on top, just like any feeding chain. The concept of “trickle-down” is a myth. Especially in a global economy. Why would we have workers here, when we can get so much cheap labor in other countries? How could we hope to compete in world markets with the high labor costs of employing people at home? How would this effect world currency values, in relation to one another? The answer is simple: it doesn’t matter. What matters is making money, however and wherever you can. You will find that the truly influential business interests are not concerned, in the least, with any country’s, or their citizenry’s well-being, even the United States citizenry, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Business interests do not recognize governmental borders. When it encounters any, it works to dismantle them.

Incidentally, this is how fascism arises, when business interests are thrown behind a person or government, and that person or government gives favors back, without regard to its citizenry. US business invested heavily in Nazi Germany, exploiting free prison labor. Yes, the Bush family was involved. Yes, the United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world, in the history of the world, and we exploit their labor. Yes, we are phone tapping our citizens. Yes, we can disappear people indefinitely without charge, and threaten neighbors and relatives with prison if they say anything. It’s called the Patriot Act. No, there is no fear of torture here. Of course private military contractors are bound by Posse Comitatus. But that doesn’t matter, because we’re now deploying the “real” military at home anyway, and training them to combat civil disobedience, amongst other things, with new, non-lethal weapons. Hmm. I did turn a bit cynical there.

Nobody ever thinks they will end up living in a fascist state. We may not. But it is usually wise to keep our eyes open. Have we veered too far astray in our discussion of business interests (money) and the people’s government? Perhaps. But let’s look at a couple more things, briefly.

We know that our political leaders cannot be elected unless they have a lot of money personally, or are supported by business interests. All attempts to break this truism have failed. Breaking the hold of money on our political system would require that we restrict the rights of private entities to speak their minds, in national ads, even if what their minds are speaking is merely propaganda. However, we could limit public servants from entering into business relationships after their tenure in public service. This policy has even been enacted, in a feeble and ineffective way. I would suggest that it might be prudent severely limiting our public servant’s options after serving their office. This would insure that only people truly interested in doing good for more than just themselves, would enter government.

But to the issue at hand, which, I imagine, has forced me to write this: the bail out. It is not complicated. Remember, our government currently exists for business interests, nothing more. The United States government serves business interests, or more accurately, people who gain membership in the power club. Anything else is a smoke screen. And Bill, don’t you even pretend with me.

We as people can invest. It is a wonderful thing that we can buy into corporations that we like, and that we think might do well, financially. That is what Wall Street used to do — they were the brokers who helped bring together buyers and sellers of company ownership. However, over the years, Wall Street has become far more. Today, Wall Street is basically the world’s largest casino, swarmed by gamblers and ruled by organized “crime”. You can sell things you don’t even own, hoping for an insightfully-predicted roulette spin that will gain you some cash. The companies no longer matter. How the horses perform, and their odds, does. The casinos have their godfathers, too. This casino is a significant contributor our gross domestic product. The financial services industry has, for the last couple decades, been the industry with the highest market value. However, recently, that market value has been crashing. This means that people are selling their stock ownership in such companies.

The first major dip downward in value started at nearly the exact time that Paulson left as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the US Treasury Secretary. Within a few months of him taking over the US Treasury, the financial sector experienced a colossal rise in value for nearly a year and a half. They sold toxic mortgages to people here at home, and sold many of those mortgages to people overseas. In a curious turn of events, Goldman Sachs continued underwriting mortgages, while simultaneously betting against the mortgage industry. Their investors lost a lot of money, and some divisions of Goldman Sachs lost a lot of money, while other parts won big. The value of all these financial companies began to fall around this time last year. Now, the value of the financial industry companies are back to what they were about four years ago. And they want $1,000,000,000,000. The only main competitor to Goldman Sachs left alive today is Morgan Stanley, which is selling 20% of itself to Japan.

Now Secretary Paulson is known to have intimate connections to China’s wealthy elite. China has invested heavily in our mortgage finance markets, as have other nations around the world. An interesting deal-breaker condition for Paulson in any Wall Street bailout is that it must give him the ability to purchase any subprime mortgage ever written, even if it is held by someone who is not a US citizen. In other words, our casino mafia of Wall Street, which Paulson was a founder, sold Americans toxic loans, which they often, snake-ily re-sold and offloaded onto foreign investors. Maybe those foreign investors are angry. They certainly sound angry when you hear them on TV, demanding that our Congress give Paulson money so he can buy back those toxic mortgages. Remember, business interests are not concerned with countries and their citizenry. They are concerned with money. Paulson, Bush and Wall Street thinks that we should pay for these mortgages. However, many would say that this is a private matter, and in the interest of free markets, should be dealt with privately. It’s an interesting situation.

Jeff sent a neat video on this, which I’ll link to. The guy on the video is irritating (to me), but it has some good information. If you’re interested, you can view it on YouTube. It might be worth your 9 minutes. Thanks Jeff. And Dan. And Christopher. And Emil. And Warren. See, I’ve said something now, and done my part. And I have contacted my representatives.

But I hope I have managed to do more than just say, this is bad, we need to do this and such thing… I have little faith that we will progress in any measurable way, unless all of us make it a point to not only question and learn, but to also make the changes we need to make — on a personal level as well as societal. This money could, once again, easily build a national infrastructure of hydrogen and also provide every family with hydrogen storage tanks at their homes. Instead, we are extending tax breaks to the oil companies, which will mean less money for us. We have just passed the largest military funding in history. Yet we don’t have enough money to let kids go to the doctor. We have to piggy-back on Russia to get to the space station. And Wall Street continues the fight to get its hands on our social security money. Milk has doubled in price. Something is terribly, terribly wrong.

I have to ask, can you see what it is? And more intimately, can you see it in yourself? It just so happens that we have many bodies on our porch right now. The question is, are you going to help? And the bigger question is, when will get tired of these idiotic games and do something amazing with the people of this planet? I shiver at the potential we have. Let’s start using it!

First, the comforting “dark flow” recently discovered by NASA that originates from outside our observable universe, sucking whole clusters of galaxies into oblivion.

Next, the other dark flow, who similarly wants to be outside the observable and accountable when doling out $1 trillion dollars to his former company and their friends — a reward for taking our houses from us, and lending themselves too much money. Some know this force as Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs before he entered into “public service”. That’s some gooood servicing. I mean, in addition to that, the Wall Street firms gave tens of billions more in bonuses to themselves last year than the tens of billions they lost. That is one clever man.

But you know we all have secrets. Like, it might be embarrassing if you were one of these companies lining up for food stamps. Can you imagine? “Oh, Bank of America, what are you doing here?” “Oh, um, nothing. Just, um, thought they were selling tickets for the ballet.” I mean, let those companies keep some of their pride at least — don’t make Paulson tell on them. That needs to be at least as secret as Dick Cheney’s White House visitors log.  You can trust him with secrets. Unless you’re a CIA agent who pisses them off. You shouldn’t be mean to Dick, though. His heart’s broke.

Joseph Naccio was mean. A big mean CEO of Qwest. Can you believe that he refused to spy on us for Cheney and Bush? He pulled some legal bull crap like, oh, you need a court order. He deserves to be in jail now for insider trading. Mean guy.

I’m inspired, too, that we can’t afford to provide health insurance to children, as the President’s veto said. That gave us money enough so we could buy an 80% stake in the country’s largest insurance company for only double that amount of money. We never would have been able to afford to buy a that awesome insurance company if we did something stupid like give kids health insurance.

It makes me proud, as well, that we didn’t waste our money on fixing all the bridges, levies and roads in the country. You just work and pour cement, and then what? And good thing too we cut back on those dumb American’s ability to file bankruptcy. They’re like thieves. But we’re smarter. Because now we have money to buy up all those poor people’s mortgages, and save Wall Street. They just don’t get that it will trickle down like refreshing rain on them if they just would stop bitching.

But still, probably my happiest moments are realizing the great benefit of investing just a small extra trillion dollars to invade other countries and set up prisons around the world to torture people. That’s some awesome return on our investment. I mean, they might hurt us. And we’re worth it.

Now if we could just stop sending so much money to Universities where kids learn so many stupid ideas, and get them going to private, specialized technical schools instead. They’d be so much better positioned for work! Just look at Louisiana, with the school vouchers they get now instead of public education. It’s a great model. No bothersome traditional curriculum to cloud their minds. Plus, all those nasty, dirty, run-down housing projects gone, with funds to replace them with shiny new casinos and resorts. That’s what’ll really help people in the end. Honestly, I think Texas would be better served if we rebuilt there with a nice Disney western theme park to draw tourists in, than replacing all those useless houses and city infrastructures that cost so much money, and give nothing back.

Did you know that Paulson, the Goldman Sachs guy, who wants the $1 trillion to give away, actually helped create the market and business practices that led us here? Lots of people say we’re in a grim situation. But that guy’s a joker — they just don’t get it. He says he doesn’t know how this happened. What a kidder. He’s just messing with you.

I mean, look. Both Obama and McCain’s top advisors were instrumental in the same policies. How could you think that anything might be wrong with that, when they’re all still around? It’s just plain paranoia to think like that.

Oh, and that Pallin chick. She’s crazy. Gotta love her. That Kenyan spiritual leader, Thomas Muthee, praying over her, so she could be Alaska’s governor… all bold-like and stuff? Well, she’s in good company there, with him and God raising her up. That guy even hunts down witches, specially those that cause car crashes in villages. I bet that how she commanded the Alaska militia. How can you argue with someone that God talks to, though? Puuleeez. You’ll being finding your ass out there on the dark flow in no time.

And poor, sad Nader, off on the side being all drown out and unpopular, with nobody listening to his rambling and ranting about all this boring stuff like corporate dominance, 2-party system lockdowns, opening stuff up, workers unions, and blah blah blah…

I mean really, what we need to do is head to the bank. Withdraw our money, and wrap those little green papers into twirly bits, strip naked, and shove them in every orifice of our bodies. Light them on fire, screaming as you run the neighborhood, until you find some piece of metal fence or something you can just leap and impale yourself upon. I mean, just imagine! All that twitching going on at once, with the little smoke clouds over everyone. How can it not just make you smile?

A few nights ago a documentary depicted the bombing flights of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of pilots, now very near his own death, was asked if he felt any regret after having killed so many people. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of people this man killed. Did he have any regrets, or pangs of conscience? Not in the least, he replied, emphatically.

It is a case, yet again, of a person just “doing their job”. It’s difficult understanding how people can so easily turn off their own sense of right and wrong — how they can excuse themselves from any personal, moral responsibility for their actions, simply by saying, “I was just doing my job”.

Well, it doesn’t work like that; not morally, not ethically and not even psychologically. But I’m not writing an ethics primer.

For the past few weeks I’ve tried setting aside my concern for our country’s political status, hoping and even trusting somewhat, that those who desire power have learned some good and important lessons about the basic worth of their fellow human beings. I have trusted that, over the last several months, enough vivid detail has come to light that those who desire and hold power might, at last, understand and accept the awesome responsibility that accompanies such power. But this is not the case.

It is ironic that all the Presidential campaigns are speaking toward change while, at the same time, all indications demonstrate that the only change happening is change toward even further and more intensified totalitarianism. We have deception on a massive scale that I do not believe is planned and controlled by those who are deceiving. In many ways, the deception seems rather akin to advertising and marketing forces that play out in a postmodern society. In other words, they even fool themselves.

By this I mean, things do not need to be true. They need to be sold. The best salesmen believe what they are selling. And the best way to sell something is to convince people they are being satisfied. And the surest way to convince people they are satisfied is to provide the very definition for them of what is truly important.

There are gaping holes between the issues currently on the table for discussion amongst Presidential candidates and their supporters. Most of the truly fundamental and important issues are hidden by a glaring focus upon minor differences in perspectives between the two main parties. The truly important questions that will effect our lives in the most significant ways are completely mute.

Some examples, for our candidates’ consideration, off the top of my head:

1. The last administration has seen sweeping expansions in Presidential and Executive Branch powers. How will your Presidential administration address this? What, specifically, do you see within the Executive branch that needs changing?
2. You both support ongoing war, in one form or another. How do you propose to fund this, and what are the long-term effects of your funding choices?
3. Oil companies have gained enormous profits, even while oil supplies are up. Do you still believe oil companies should enjoy the unique and enormous tax breaks they receive?
4. How do you propose to get energy companies focusing on the development and deployment of intelligent, effective and clean energy alternatives to oil, before oil scarcity actually happens, when oil companies stand to make their highest profits yet?
5. What is your position on government secrecy and the classification of documents, including the claim of “Executive Privilege”?
6. What is your position regarding corporations that have their own military forces? Are such corporations subject to Posse Comitatus, in your opinion?
7. What is your position on American citizens being imprisoned without charge?
8. Do you feel it is legal when police or military personnel seize the tape recorders and video equipment of journalists documenting events?
9. Do you feel it is legal to seize or make copies of American citizen’s computers or papers? Even without probable cause?
10. Considering the enormous money contributed by corporations to both the branding and support of the political process, how do you propose to separate corporate interests from the interests of people? Can you explain the difference between corporate interest and an individual person’s interest?

Holy cripes, that took no time at all, and I’ve just stopped at 10 because I have a doctor’s appointment coming up, and have a little more to say. But clearly, we have some important issues that will never see the light. Our attention has been focused elsewhere. And apparently, it is that elsewhere that will truly satisfy us.

Even within their rhetoric, both candidates have floundered on their more substantial promises and commitments, even before reaching the White House. Both now pander and weasel to shine their marketability. That is not change — change in the way Americans expected. They have simply demonstrated that this election, between the two parties, is little more than business as usual.

And if you doubt this, look into police and intelligence actions that have and continue to occur, related to the party Presidential conventions. I imagine little was shown on any major media outlets, but you will find plenty of information online. Look, in particular, for things like, “preemptive raids”, even on journalists. The parties are determined to control their image in the finest detail, and both are willing to go to great lengths to do so. Particularly, the Republicans. This is change, and change that is by far, much worse.

The military perspective is interesting, too. For example, there is a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War, who led protests at both conventions. They wished to deliver a letter to the convention floors, in the words of Iraq Vetrans. At the Democratic Convention, when confronted by the throngs of police in riot gear, an Obama spokesman eventually came out to meet them, and they were later invited to deliver a reading of their letter to the floor. However, at the Republican convention, nobody from the McCain team would even speak with them.

It will be interesting watching the whole “McCain is a war hero” spiel play out during the upcoming months. He completely ignores what the vets have to say, while Obama invites them in to speak to everyone. And McCain voted against almost every veteran benefit that came to the floor in the Senate, while Obama voted to give troops more. McCain didn’t even want them to have better health benefits. Maybe McCain’s idea of supporting our troops means, that he believes they should be fighting.

Anyway, it’s broken. Our government no longer functions for us. Still, the only people who were running, who are making sense, are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Our two main candidates have now drifted into the netherworld of images and sounds that exists far from reality. It was wonderful watching Dennis’ speech at the convention, even though the cameras revealed a stadium of mostly empty chairs. It was fiery. And right on. I suppose the Democrats just don’t want to hear about the tough issues. They’re too busy rubbing the grease and polish onto Obama.

Which basically leaves me, at least, with Ralph Nader. And that choice that says, if I vote for Ralph, then I’m making it all the easier for McCain to become President. It is a tough choice for me. I like Ralph. The man is extraordinarily smart and honest, perhaps to a flaw. I would love to see someone like him as President, but I question his efficacy, since he is not a member of either ruling party. And also, I know he will not win.

But is it “my job” to see that McCain doesn’t win, and the only way to achieve this is to vote for Obama? Can I put aside my own better judgment and ethics? Do I play their game? Or do I just vote for the candidate I believe would make the better President, despite contingent ramifications?

Thankfully I have some time. I will listen to their mostly vacuous and repetitious words, trying to find some glimmer of substance that might ease my choice. I am not optimistic. We need change. Yet I see none possible, right now. And as both talk about the all the wonderful things they will do for Americans, both continue eroding our liberties and freedoms. And both are liars, or, if I want to be generous, prone to re-evaluate their positions after the fact.

The greatest thing about Ralph is something that he’s said himself: more than anything, his campaign is about fighting to break the stranglehold of our two-party system. In some ways, I might even consider voting for him so that McCain can be elected, so that we can fall further into decline as a nation, and perhaps, find the fortitude within ourselves to break that stranglehold ourselves the next time around, when things are the darkest, and we have little choice but to demand change.

We’ve already slid a long ways down the slope. And I wonder too, if by that time, it not might be too late.

We are all familiar with the drawn-out inquiry into the firings of so many Federal prosecutors all at one time, by the Executive Branch. Congress, in their roll of oversight, wanted to know why this happened. Since their investigations began, Congress has uncovered a good deal of conflicting testimony and evidence, without being able to determine a reason or circumstance. Several high ranking officials within the Justice Department, which is within the Executive Branch, have resigned over this incident. Eventually, even the Attorney General stepped down. Even so, the Executive Branch has refused to turn over any documentation that would reveal why so many Federal prosecutors were fired en masse, while, at the same time, members of the Executive Branch called to testify before Congress refuse to answer questions which might shed light upon the issue. Some people have even refused to show up to testify at all. They claim “Executive Privilege” makes them immune to answering Congressional inquiry. Congress does not agree. And now, Congress has turned to the Judiciary Branch for a ruling.

This is brinkmanship of the highest order within the Federal government. Both angels and demons fear to tread upon those defining lines. Because once the Judiciary makes their ruling, it is very likely that the powers of one branch will become more limited, while the powers of another will expand. It is very risky. Normally, one branch will eventually offer a compromise acceptable to the other, before any ruling is made. The situation now is different. The Executive Branch has drawn a very hard line which so far has proven unmovable. They have agreed to allow some testimony and provide some documents to Congress, as long as only a tiny few members of Congress can see it, and those members must agree to forever keep silent about what they learn. Of course, this would, in effect, eliminate Congressional oversight, and would instead only be a token compromise with no substance, and therefore not a compromise at all.

But before we get into more detail, let’s get into a basic American History review. The Constitution is the defining document of our country. Amongst other things, it establishes the basic structure of our government. The Constitution is, ideally, inviolate. The government has no power that it does not grant. No law can be created counter to it. No action by government can violate it. Not even an interpretation of law can be made that does not honor it. The Constitution defines three branches of Government. The Executive Branch, headed by the President, the Legislative Branch, headed by Congress, and the Judicial Branch, headed by the Supreme Court. These three primary institutions are designed to “counterbalance” each other. Right now, this balance is being called into question.

The Legislative Branch is comprised of hundreds of elected officials who supposedly represent the will of the American people. It is the “people’s branch”, and, in many ways, it is the most powerful branch. Congress is the branch that creates and changes law that binds all United States citizens, including those within the Executive and the Judiciary. However, laws created by Congress cannot run contrary to the Constitution, and the Executive and Judiciary branches are constructs of the Constitution. Since Congress creates all legal structures and also controls all money, it is similarly tasked with making certain those structures are working as intended. This is where its oversight role comes into play. Congress must be able to see, in order to perform its Constitutional duties.

The Executive Branch is charged with carrying out and enforcing laws created by the Legislative Branch and head is also the Commander in Chief of the United States military. The Executive (President) cannot make laws, nor does the Executive have a choice about whether or not to see that laws are carried out. There is one aspect of “bleed-over” into Legislative powers: the President can pardon people for violating US law. Other than this, the President has no significant power whatsoever, other than the powers granted to him by Congress through acts of law.

The Judicial Branch has no power to create law, nor does it have any power to enforce law. The sole power of the Judicial Branch is to rule upon the interpretation or Constitutional validity of a law or action. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority that determines whether or not something is Constitutional or legal, and clarifies any questions. Their rulings cannot be appealed. In all matters, the Executive Branch must accept the rulings of the Supreme Court. In matters of law, Congress must also accept Supreme Court rulings, or Congress can change the law. In matters of the Constitution, Congress must also accept the Supreme Court rulings, or Congress and all states within the Union must modify the Constitution.

As we can see, the Executive Branch is actually fairly weak. This is by design. Power was for People, not a head of state. Yes, the President as Commander in Chief controls the military forces of the United States, but military forces cannot be used within the United States (except under extraordinary circumstances, and then only in limited ways). And military personnel are sworn to obey and uphold the Constitution primary to their commanding officers. Over the years, Congress has granted the Executive Branch many additional powers through acts of law. Congress has also brought into existence many government organizations and placed them within the Executive Branch, where they fall under the President’s direction, in the name of efficiency. A single officer, like the President or his designees, can often cause organizations to run more efficiently than a large body, such as Congress, ever could. This makes good sense as long as everyone plays by the rules.

However, Presidents over the last several decades have often worked to extend the scope of their powers. Our latest President, George W. Bush, has not only worked feverishly to extend the powers of the Presidency, but also to hide away the Executive Branch from the rest of the government’s scrutiny, and hence the scrutiny of the People. People are supposedly the ones with power, not the head of state. And as the Executive moves further and further into shadow, it grows more and more difficult to see what the Executive is doing. Blindness removes power from People, allowing the Executive more. Spurred on by my own curiosity, I’ll share some of the things I’ve learned while exploring this trend.

One of the key components in the upcoming case filed by Congress is the “separation of powers” between the Legislative and Executive branches. Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, but chose to ignore those subpoenas, citing something called “Executive Privilege”. Executive Privilege doesn’t really exist. It’s not defined anywhere. However, the Supreme Court recognized it when Nixon claimed it. Apparently, Presidents have to keep their conversations secret sometimes, so they will receive good information. I know, it only makes a little sense. But the Executive claims that Executive Privilege is something that has to exist to keep the separation of powers between the branches of government in place. In other words, the Executive can only function as a co-equal branch of government if it can keep secrets. We’re not talking “state secrets” here, either. We’re talking, Executive Privilege. Because I said so. And that’s it.

Executive Privilege means that the President doesn’t have to answer questions or subpoenas from Congress, nor be subject to search. In the Nixon case, the Supreme Court agreed, but only if there was a compelling national interest at stake, such strong national security issues. Which, in the case of Nixon, there was not. Nor does it seem there could be any concerning Federal prosecutors. These are practically uncharted waters with very little precedence to draw from. In a more recent decision in 2004, the Supreme Court noted that Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power “not to be lightly invoked”.

One of the interesting aspects of the Miers and Bolten contempt case is that supposedly the President was not involved in any aspect of the Federal prosecutor firings, including granting any Executive Privilege to Miers or Bolten. Miers and Bolten apparently claimed Executive Privilege on their own under the advisement of White House counsel. This strangely stretches the notion of Executive Privilege beyond the purview of the Presidency itself to encompass other members of the Executive Branch. It is not clear what boundaries the White House believes the supposed notion of Executive Privilege extends beyond the President himself. Perhaps the the White House believes that all members and departments of the Executive Branch have a claim to this Executive Privilege, and that each of them can invoke that privilege on their own, even without the President. In that case, the Executive Branch is no longer subject to Congressional oversight. This is an important detail, and explains one of the main reasons why Congress feels the case is so important. The extraordinary assertion of power, the Executive Privilege, has been invoked scores of times over the past few years, for any number of things both large and small. It has had the effect of stopping valid legal proceedings in their tracks, including people trying to defend themselves in court, and it has stopped all manner of inquiry into very large questions of abuse and corruption both in the White House and government contractors. It was even used to stop an investigation into the “friendly fire” death of soldier Pat Tillman. It is now even being used to keep Executive Branch personnel from explaining why they are invoking Executive Privilege, and what, specifically, they are invoking it about. Instead of being an extraordinary assertion of power that should “not be lightly invoked”, the Executive Privilege has become standard operating procedure for the Bush Presidency. This alone is an enormous expansion of the Executive Branch’s power.

The issue of extending Executive Privilege to any arbitrary number of people within the Executive Branch is troubling enough. But it goes even further. President Bush has extended the privilege to President’s family members, even after the President’s death, which is how they will control access to all Presidential papers that leave the White House when the President leaves. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 made all Presidential records public property, to be released after a few years. When Reagan became President, he issued an executive order (EO 12667) requiring the archivist to clear all Presidential papers through the former President before releasing them. This was to be done so that the former President could claim Executive Privilege over them to keep them from the public. President Bush revoked that executive order, replacing it with another (EO 13233) which said the same, plus a little more. Bush’s version said that both the former President and the current President had to agree to any Presidential document’s release to the public. Not only that, but the new President must obey the wishes of the former President, even if the new President disagrees with the former President. And, if the new President agrees with the former President, then the current President must do everything within his power to keep the document secret. But it doesn’t stop there. Former Presidents, even if they die, can appoint family members or any group to represent that President with full Executive Privilege to withhold information on his behalf. There is certainly no legal precedent for this. His is a little nice, though. He goes on to say that there is a 90-day target date to respond to document requests from the public. And a 21-day target date for the former President to respond to Congress, and another 21-day target date for the current President. Not surprisingly, those dates can be extended indefinitely without any action or notification, too. Ooo. Secret, secret. So, I’m not really sure what the Presidential Records Act of 1978 is actually doing. It seems that President Bush believes he can override US law with an Executive Order. And all the while, the President believes that the Executive Privilege immunity wear can be handed out to anyone and their grandma.

Then I started wondering about these Executive Orders. Are they law? Are they more like royal commands that must be followed? Well, it turns out, neither, really. It’s just that some Presidents believe they are grander than they actually are. And admittedly, they can be pretty grand. An Executive Order turns out to be an order issued by the head of the Executive Branch to other people within the Executive Branch. They were primarily meant to clarify how the President wanted US law carried out, or for him to direct people within the Executive Branch. The vexing thing for this President, President Bush, is that Executive Orders cannot run contrary to US law, nor can they create or modify US law. Nor can they run contrary to the Constitution. I know, it’s frustrating and unfair. Go tell the dead men who wrote the Constitution, or change the Constitution. Oh wait, you can’t! Never mind. But that doesn’t seem to stop President Bush. He’s pushed the limits of Executive Orders far past their legal potency. For example, he’s tried gutting the Presidential Records Act with Executive Orders. He’s tried stopping Congressional earmark funding with Executive Orders. He’s even kept us in a perpetual state of national emergency with Executive Orders, and issued even more which call up special powers given to the President by Congress during times of national emergency to freeze or seize people’s assets.

In this respect, Executive Orders can carry the full weight of law: when Congress has bestowed upon the President specific or general legal powers. He can also cause a good deal of headache for people through Executive Orders, which command government agencies into action. It’s not law, but it’s a call to action. And you have to hope that the call to action is truly within the law, or that the people being commanded with Executive Orders have enough sense to disregard them if they are illegal. Which is not something our Justice Department did, the department that is charged with upholding the rule of law. The warrantless wiretapping program, which completely disregarded FISA, was done by Executive Order by the Department of Justice and ran contrary to US law. He claimed he issued the Executive Order contrary to US law by the authority of his wartime Presidential powers. Unfortunately, Presidential powers do not supersede Congressional law, even in wartime. If it did, why is he even bothering to try getting FISA changed now? By the way, Executive Orders are actually pretty weak. They can be overridden by a simple act of Congress or ruled invalid by the Judiciary.

But who enforces the rule of law, when the branch of government responsible for enforcing law, is the one breaking the law? Well, the Justice Department. However they are inconveniently part of the Executive Branch, whose Executive is breaking the law, and is their boss. Should that matter? No, the Justice Department can still go after the President. Why didn’t they? Well, the Justice Department was the department of the President that was breaking the law. It seems like we have a little snafu here, and it is up to Congress to correct it. But the Executive just keeps throwing up, Executive Privileges left and right, mixed and tossed thoroughly with state secrets, to thwart any Congressional oversight. Hence, the FISA legislation problem we’re facing right now, with the President all livid because the House of Representatives isn’t giving him exactly what he wants, unlike the Senate.

Here we get to see into the very ugly underbelly of our current Executive and his Branch. Even with a new Attorney General, the Justice Department is wholly owned by President Bush. You can thank California Senator Diane Feinstein for that, being the shifting force (the weight of at least a cow) for Mukasey’s brain-dead confirmation. The Justice Department will do nothing about the illegal wiretapping. Mukasey also sent a letter to Congress saying the Justice Department refuses to prosecute Meirs and Bolten for contempt of Congress, even though they are bound by US law to do so. Their reason being, Executive Privilege. And now, for the first time, I’m actually proud of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She’s had enough, and is taking the Executive and Congress before the Judicial to resolve the issue once and for all. Considering all rulings to date regarding Executive Privilege, the Executive really does not stand much a chance at prevailing. And if they do not prevail, we can be reasonably certain that it will open up a floodgate of Congressional action against the Executive.

Execute Privilege is one thing. It is undefined, dubious, and patently weak when brought before the Judiciary, in relation to Congress at least. Executive Orders are have no effect whatsoever upon Congress. State secrets, on the other hand, are quite different and far more compelling. Interestingly, state secrets were created by Congress as a means to withhold information that might jeopardize national security if revealed to the public. The concept was intended for use in criminal or federal cases where the government needed to keep some secrets. There is no such thing as state secrets in civil cases, such as victims wanting to sue telephone companies for illegally spying on them. But there is court precedence that establishes a concept of state secrets, but only as it applies to specific evidence. This is a subtle yet important distinction. The Executive has been feverishly trying to get people’s cases thrown out of court before anything is even heard by the court by invoking state secrets. And, they have been successful on many occasions. State secrets are an evidentiary rule, however, and as such, they cannot be used to outright dismiss an entire case from the get-go, but only to exclude specific evidence. Courts have been very accommodating of the Executive when state secrets are invoked. Lately, however, they are meeting the Executive with growing skepticism. It hasn’t helped the Executive that many older cases have subsequently shown that no state secrets were involved, even when the Executive claimed state secrets. They were shown to be “cover-ups”.

In a way, state secrets are very like Executive Privilege. Both concepts arise from the Executive’s claim to “separation of powers” between the Executive, Congress and the Judicial. The bad part is, you just have to take the Executive’s word for it. Oh, can’t do that, Executive Privilege. Nope, sorry, state secret. And that’s that. Can you trust that, when the Executive has done so many illegal things? Courts are beginning to ask that question. And that could mean disaster for the Executive. More and more, courts are requiring the Executive to produce the state secret in question, for the judge to privately view, to make his own determination as to whether a state secret is truly involved. An interesting example coming up is the case of Joseph Nacchio. When the Executive started illegally wiretapping us all, only one company refused to comply, because they believed it was illegal. That company was Qwest Communications, which happens to be, proudly, our phone company here (I never imagined I would say such a thing). Shortly after they refused, Joseph Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest, was indited by the federal government for stock fraud, and convicted. A few months ago he appealed his conviction, claiming it happened as a punishment because he refused to comply with an NSA secret program which he rightly believed was illegal. It will be very interesting learning what information will come out of this appeal. Apparently, the NSA was already wiretapping us all before the 9/11 disaster even happened.

The principle of state secrets can be very dangerous. Like Executive Privilege, it can leave people blind when they try to see what the Executive is up to, and keep them from every finding justice in a court of law. And the Executive can, at least historically, invoke either one on a whim, without producing anything. Unless a court insists on seeing the hidden things anyway, there is no check on this “fabricated” power. The only other check is impeachment. Happily, new legislation has been introduced in the Senate to better define what, exactly, constitutes a state secret. It is Senate Bill S2533 - the State Secrets Protection Act. It allows people to have their day in court, despite any arbitrary efforts of the Executive.

Another somewhat bizarre yet effective way our current Executive has reached for more power is through the use of “signing statements“. Again, there is no such thing. But Presidents have used them for quite some time. Originally, Presidents who received a bill from Congress might place a signing statement on that bill as he signed it into law, which represented his interpretation of what the bill meant, and so would reveal how he intended to carry it out. Our current President, in the true spirit of megalomania, has expanded, at least in his mind, the power of signing statements. President Bush uses signing statements as if they were line-item vetoes, where he can say this or that thing in the bill is not something he will listen to, or do. He does this despite a prior Supreme Court ruling that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. He also will often use a signing statement to say that this or that part of the bill is just fine, but that it doesn’t apply to him, as Executive. For years now, President Bush has completely ignored entire chunks of bills that he didn’t like, even though, by signing the bill, he passed it into US law. This, to me, is the height of hubris. The Constitution says that the President must sign a bill fully into law, or else send it back to the Congress, where the Congress either accepts defeat, or passes it into law anyway, without his signature. There is no power anywhere in the Constitution, the US Code, or any Act that allows the President to alter a bill, or choose not to enforce some of it. Nearly all legal scholars say that doing so is illegal. But it does give him the opportunity to be a weasel, and that is always embraced. It is ironic that he claims to be concerned about the separation of powers, though, when he attempts to legislate this way. He even sometimes slips Executive Orders into his signing statements.

So, what does it mean when we have a President that does not have to tell us anything, nor show us anything, and believes he can create or alter law by issuing Executive Orders or signing statements, and who does not believe US law applies to the President? Did I mention that we have been in a perpetual state of national emergency his whole Presidency? And that he commands our military forces?

Well, fortunately, the Posse Comitatus Act keeps all federal troops from being used on US soil (except the Coast Guard). And the Insurrection Act limits them even further. They can only be used in some fairly extraordinary circumstances. However, these acts were weakened considerably recently, but restored, for the most part, in the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. Unfortunately, none of these protections apply to the use of various private military forces, like Blackwater, which is heavily used by the government, and very well funded and equipped. There have been ongoing and growing pressures to erode Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act, as well as the continued expansion of private contractors like Blackwater. These private forces have already been widely used on US soil.

Finally, just for good measure, a last bit of worry, if you are so inclined. Habeas Corpus has been suspended by our Presidents before. Habeas Corpus is our ability to challenge our arrest or convictions of crimes, or to challenge our detention for whatever reason. Basically, to face our accusers, who must present evidence, and have our day in court with a chance of freedom. Fortunately, the Judiciary ruled that this cannot happen again, as long as there is a court that remains open. I suppose that is reassuring.

It’s a little unnerving seeing even this small subsection of what President Bush has done with his Presidency. If I were to learn t