The climate change debate

If you've just scoffed at the title of this post, rolled your eyes and thought to yourself "what debate?" then you probably feel the same way that I felt a few years ago. I used to believe the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), but like many of the other issues I've posted to this blog, I am questioning this one too.

I will be the first to tell you that I have no scientific background, but I have come across enough alternative views on the subject over the past couple of years to make me pause for thought. I've also come to the realisation that I had never really questioned the science behind ACC theory — I just figured that the pollution emitted by man must be having some sort of negative effect on the Earth, and weather does seem to be getting worse these days, and we are told time and again the majority of scientists agree with ACC, and the conservative right, oil & gas corporations, and other nasty corporate interests are all against the idea of ACC, therefore the ACC theory must be correct.   But if you've read some of my previous posts you will know by now my opinion of the MSM, government and the left/right paradigm...


Some of the issues I have with AGW/ACC are the following:

• It assumes that mathematical models are an accurate picture of the future
• It is a theory based on data from a very small piece of our planet's climate history
• I take issue with the argument that ACC must be true because "the majority of scientists" believe it
• Simply questioning or showing any bit of skepticism towards any part of the larger ACC debate automatically makes one a "Climate Change Denier"
• I also believe that there were some troubling discoveries within those University of East Anglia (UEA) emails which got leaked to the public, although you wouldn't know it by the MSM's coverage of the story... 
• Not to mention the unsettling fact that the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit has actually dumped much of the raw data on which their theories are based, so one would have a very hard time gathering the data in an attempt to verify their conclusions.

I'll get into some of these issues and more below:

Predicting the future

The ACC theory relies a lot modeled and projected data.  Yes, we may be able to extrapolate an educated guess based on past data, but even science cannot predict the future.  Climate is an extremely complex and unpredictable beast.  Meteorologists can't predict next year's weather, let alone accurately predict tomorrow's weather, so how is it we can claim to know what will happen decades or centuries down the road, even if we look at data from the past?

ACC science also takes data from very different sources and tries to make a larger coherent picture from those disparate sources.  For example, in one part of the world we may only have ice core samples, in another part we might only have tree ring data, in another sea-levels, etc.  Apparently there are also weather stations  that are situated in questionable places such as in a parking lot surrounded by asphalt or beside an air conditioner outtake vent.  Over time, some stations used to collect climate data have gone from being located in rural/suburban environments, only to see cities slowly built around them, so one would only expect these weather stations to show a recent increase in temperature.  This does not mean that the overall temperature of the Earth is increasing, just that the mean temperature of the weather station's immediate environment has increased.  In addition, asphalt holds a lot more heat than a field of grass and this is why major cities tend to have higher temperatures than outlying areas — it's called the urban heat island effect and it has nothing to do with CO₂.


"4 out 5 scientists agree..."

Scientists are not superhuman and they are not immune to the biases, emotions and external influences to which the rest of us humans are subject. (Might I suggest reading the biography The Double Helix as an example?)  Scientists are not completely and utterly objective beings, as much as they might honestly try to be.  No single human can know the whole truth about anything; we can only see things from our own singular viewpoint which will be shaped by a vast number of variables, such as our familial, cultural and spiritual upbringing, as well as the myriad of peoples and viewpoints we've come across over our lifetimes.   Scientists are no different.  We humans are also prone to these pesky, almost autonomic, confirmation biases and we like to protect and defend our own personal viewpoints; scientists are no different.

I can only imagine spending a lifetime coming up with a scientific theory that truly seems to make sense, earning accolades from one's peers, only to find someone else who comes along and provides evidence which challenges that viewpoint.  Scientists are not immune to bruised egos and it can take them some time to admit when they are wrong (just ask Galileo!)

Another thing to consider is that most if not all scientific studies done on a large scale require funding and, just like politics.  Remember, most money comes from CLOGs and CLOGs are not interested in the greater good; they are not interested in the prosperity of humans outside of their corporation; they are interested in the bottom line.  The corporations who back scientific study are no different.

By now you might be asking: "But how could you believe that so many scientists could be wrong?" Well, first of all, the "vast majority of scientists" who supposedly "agree" with the ACC theories have not actually gathered and tested the data for themselves, they are basing their opinions on the journals and papers of their peers. Even those directly involved in gathering and studying various data — ice cores, weather patterns, melting glaciers, tree-ring data — were simply responsible for their piece of the puzzle; it is only a small group who are involved in putting these pieces together into the larger ACC framework and its predictive models.  And when some of the scientists in that group are caught talking about "hiding" data and preventing peers with contrary theories from being published in peer-reviewed journals I feel less likely to believe their conclusions.

Personally, after having watched An Inconvenient Truth, I must say that the arguments sounded quite convincing to me, and they were coming from a well spoken left-wing politician, but I realise now that this did not mean the arguments were valid or accurate. The fact is, some of the more persuasive data presented in Gore's presentation (the famous hockey stick graph and the dual graph showing the Earth's average temperature versus the Earth's CO₂ levels) has since been argued to be faulty and/or misrepresented. (I found this article on the hockey stick graph from the New Scientist to be very interesting - even though it is actually supposed to debunk the claim that the hockey stick graph is unreliable, it also states: "It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming," and that "further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place." (...Wait. What?  Do yourself the favour of reading that again.)

Then, of course, there were the "Climategate" emails, and while I have read the explanations given by the IPCC suggesting how these emails were "misinterpreted", I must admit that their explanations don't sound very convincing.  Then in Jan 2010 it was reported that a scientist who included assertions that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 — in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report no less — later admitted that this information was fabricated and was included "purely to put political pressure on world leaders".  And keep in mind this was a Nobel Prize-winning report, and I bet you would have thought, as I had, that in order to win such a prestigious award the report must have been thoroughly checked by other scientists... (Just like how other scientists must be thoroughly evaluating the overall ACC theory, right?...)

One also shouldn't ignore that the scientific community has a history of blackballing scientists who dare bring up a view outside of the status quo, even in the present day. (For examples of this you might consider watching the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein; regardless of where you sit on the evolution/intelligent design debate, the film gives examples of scientists/professors, who didn't even necessarily believe in intelligent design, but dared to postulate on it in published papers, and suddenly found themselves blacklisted as a result.)  And let's also not forget the lessons of the Asch conformity experiment which showed that, when outnumbered, people will tend to agree with the group even if their senses are telling them that the group is wrong.  We tend to think they are emotionally removed, and completely objective beings, but scientists are human beings just like the rest of us.


Is the world warming?

I don't know because I haven't seen all the data for myself, nor can I comment on the algorithms used to produce the various climate graphs out there.  However, I do believe that the answer to that question really relies on how far you want to go back.

If we look at the last hundred years, or even thousand years, the temperature could very well have increased incrementally, but if we look back over hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, we might actually see that this century happens to be a small upward trend that is part of a much larger downward trend, or even in a steadily fluctuating trend.  The problem is that we humans have only been on this planet for about 200,000 years and yet the Earth itself is estimated at 4.55 billion (4,550,000,000) years — at least, this is the current archaeological consensus (and, yes, I totally see the irony of citing the "consensus" on the issue, but I'm no archaeologist and have not seen very credible refutations of this, so I'll have to take it for granted...for now....). So if we were to take the preceding figures for granted (and I assume ACC proponents would, since they tend to hold scientific consensus in such high regard), we humans have only been on the Earth for just over 0.004% of its history; we also only have relatively reliable climate data going back to the mid-1800s (let's say for the last 200 yrs to be safe) — so when it comes to arguably reliable climate data we are down to just 0.000004% of the Earth's history (if my math is correct, which is most certainly might not be, but the point is: It is a very small percentage!)  Not only that, but the mid-1800s also also happens to be when the Earth was starting to come out of the coldest period it had experienced in a millennia, known as the Little Ice Age.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it would seem to me that announcing almost certain catastrophic, climate-related disasters, based on but a sliver of the Earth's overall climate history doesn't seem to be very wise or logical.  Predicting the future based on data from the past, data which is not completely verifiable, also makes me uneasy. 

So when a right-wing repeater living in Virginia looks out her window on an April morning only to see inches of snow in her driveway and says: "Where is your 'Global Warming' now, huh?  A lot of icebergs must be melting today!", AGW proponents will rightfully point-out to such a person that you can't dispute a theory of incremental global warming just because you have one crazy winter or an especially mild summer — AGW proponents will be the first to tell you that a small downward trend in temperature doesn't cancel out the larger overall upward trend.  So on the same token, I hope that those who believe AGW understand that the exact same thing can be said about the theory that a recent upswing in temperature must mean that the planet is forever going to get warmer if we humans don't do something about it.
 
There are also questions surrounding other possible causes for GW, such as solar activity.  Did you know that the ice caps on Mars have also been receding?  This is not information to take lightly given that we know humans are not affecting the climate on Mars.

So is the world even warming?  It could be.  IMO, the bigger question is: If it is warming, is this truly a part of a larger trend? And even if it is part of a larger trend, are humans the cause?  I'm not convinced that ice cores, tree rings nor climate data from 0.000004% of Earth's history can ever tell us that.


Denier, denier; pants on fire

The label "Climate Change Denier" is also troublesome. As pointed out in what I consider to be a very thought provoking interview of Warren Meyer of Climate-Skeptic.com by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, to call someone a "denier" is to call them someone who ignores an irrefutable truth; therefore to give someone the label "climate change denier" is to relegate their belief to being unworthy of even being part of the debate, right from the get-go.  Warren makes the point that "denier" is such a strong word which evokes Holocaust denial.  If you think about it, the word "denier" is rarely applied to any other group of people, no matter how contrary their views might be — for example, you don't hear Americans calling Cubans "Capitalism Deniers" or religious leaders calling atheists "God deniers", or Christians calling Jews "Christ Deniers" and people who don't believe the official version of the JFK assassination aren't branded "Lee Harvey Oswald Deniers", so why such strong words regarding Climate Change?  This type of language hardly helps the image we are given that ACC proponents are a bunch of level-headed, emotionally removed and logic/fact based individuals.  And as Stefan points out in the interview, when it comes to ACC theory "skepticism is treated as unscientific, when the scientific method is actually predicated on the rigorous application of skepticism."

As Meyer also states in the video "I don't mind being labelled a 'denier' as long as you are clear on what it is that I am denying."  Meyer says that he doesn't deny that climate change is occurring, he doesn't even dismiss that man-made CO₂ emissions are playing a part, but he does debate to what degree man-made CO₂ emissions actually play a part in this change (which I found to be yet another interesting angle on the debate!) and yet he is still labelled a "denier" by some.

And I haven't even touched upon alternate theories for why the Earth might be warming, or why the water levels might be rising, etc... Some argue that the increases in temperature have much more to do with solar activity.  Others say that the reason why water levels are rising in certain parts of the Earth, but not others, as well as the increase in earthquakes and tsunamis is due to a phenomena known as post-glacial rebound.


So what if the ACC theory is wrong?  Reducing emissions is a good thing, right?

In my many discussions via the web on the ACC debate one invariably comes across a comment such as: "So what if we're wrong?  At least in working towards reducing CO₂ emissions we will have reduced our emission of pollutants overall, reduced our dependence on fossil fuels — thereby reducing environmental catastrophes that go along with the oil and gas industry — and we will have increased investment in alternative energies, reduced environmental damage, (etc...)"

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels; I don't think that drilling into the earth and draining it of a substance that took millions of years to create is a good thing.  I think the recurring spills into the world's waters are devastating.  I also believe that the pollutants we spew into our air and which leach into the ground are detrimental, to say the very least.  And let's not forget the terrible toll that such things as drilling and mining take on our environment, let alone the toll it takes on the people employed to extract this stuff from the earth.  Then there are all of the wars fought over these substances, not to mention the West's history of meddling in the affairs of countries who have a large cache of them. However, what also worries me is the world focusing the bulk of it's energies towards CO₂ specifically.

IMO, accepting that rises in CO₂ is causing warming of the Earth when this may not be the case is dangerous for a couple of reasons: A) It could cause a whole whack of money and resources to be put towards a relatively minor or possibly non-existent problem instead of being put towards serious, long-term and ongoing issues affecting humanity, such as the toxic effects of pollution, our ever-growing waste management issues, lack of clean drinking water, child poverty, third-world hunger, animal and plant extinction, etc... B.) The main "solution" being pushed by CLOGs right now is the Cap and Trade scheme; capping emissions/imposing penalties on those who emit CO₂ could cause developing nations to be unable to pull themselves out of third-world status.  It seems kind of hypocritical for us in the West to say: "Yeah, well, we were wrong to rape and pillage the environment around the world for centuries in the name of industry and human progress, but now that we've reaped the rewards we realise just how wrong this was, so, sorry guys, but you won't be able to reap those same rewards.  Sucks to be you..."

I think when asking ourselves "what is the harm in believing in anthropogenic global warming?" the questions we should also be asking ourselves are: What solutions are being offered by CLOGs around the world? Who is to gain from these solutions?  And how might it negatively affect the world if we're actually wrong about ACC and/or it's cause?

So if ACC is wrong, then why is there such a push towards the ACC theory?  

This is another great question to which I do not know the answer.

There are certainly those who think this is part of the larger New World Order (NWO) plot — that there is a global plot, run by a small elite group of bankers and wealthy families, with plans to bankrupt the world and/or reduce the world's population — and that the ACC theory is the perfect way to get the world's citizens to voluntarily have less children (since larger families = a larger carbon footprint), but to also be able to subject them to carbon taxes and fines without much fuss  because it is all being done for "the greater good".

Certainly I hope this is not some sort of premeditated plot to pull some fast one on the world's population by playing their fears about planetary catastrophe, although I wouldn't put it past CLOGs to use fear to swindle us in to accepting things we wouldn't otherwise accept.  On the other hand, my main problem with accepting the NWO theory is: If you were making up ACC in order to swindle the planet, how could you possibly insure that the climate would get hotter/more severe as time went on?  ...Well, some would say that the PTB know of the effect of the sunspot activity on the planet and that it was predicted that this activity would be slowly increasing, thereby insuring an increase in temperature.  There are also those who theorise that HAARP and/or chemtrails are being used to artificially warm-up our atmosphere and/or to affect the weather.  I don't have enough knowledge of physics, astro-physics or chemistry to either validate or dismiss any of these theories.

However, I wonder if it's a less nefarious and complex situation; I wonder if proponents of ACC, like Gore for example, honestly believed in the ACC theory and the data supporting it. We have to remember that someone like Gore is not a scientist himself and so he has to rely upon and emphatically trust the information given to him by the scientists he works with.  But what if down the road — after convincing so many people of his theories, accumulating investors, and helping to bring about environmental legislation around the world — it was discovered that the scientists made errors, or had some faulty data or data which they misinterpreted, or that some scientists purposefully skewed data to appease the theories of Gore et al?  When so much money is resting on these theories, do you just keep going along and hope for the best, consoling oneself with the "So what if we're wrong? At least we've reduced our emission of pollutants, reduced our dependence on fossil fuels..." mantra?

And how hard would it be really, to keep us guessing?  As an example, I saw this Huffington Post article about how melting see ice is causing "tens of thousands" of walruses to be "forced ashore".  I mean, I'm no Alaskan walrus expert, but how do I know that there wasn't some explosion in their population this year?  How do I know that this isn't a regular migration ritual?  How do I know that there wasn't some other event which caused them to migrate to waters they don't normally migrate to? How do I know if this is even occurring at all if, as the article states, the area has been declared a no-fly zone so as not to "spook" the walruses? (I have to admit, it reminded me of what BP did to reporters trying to get shots of the Gulf spill...)  Then the article ends with the statement: "According to National Geographic, this is the first time this many walruses have taken to the beach in this particular area, though similar incidents have occurred in other parts of Alaska and Russia in years past."  You can take this two ways:  Either they are saying "well, this has happened before, this is just the first time that it happened in this part of Alaska" or they are saying "in just the past few years we've seen this occur in other parts of Alaska and Russia!"  The article leaves out crucial information such as just what they are talking about when they say "years past" — are they saying in recent years or do we have records of it happening decades/centuries ago?  Is this a recent change, or is this part of a cycle?  How far back do records of walrus behaviour in the area go?  What do the native peoples of those lands have to say about it?  Do the elders of their communities have any similar stories from the past?

Without asking ourselves such questions, I worry that most people seeing this story will simply remember "melting sea ice causes walruses to crowd onto land and crush each other", i.e. "global warming caused walruses to die", especially if they don't read past the headline, which most people won't. (I suggest checking-out this article from the humour magazine Cracked titled 6 Subtle Ways The News Media Disguises Bullshit As Fact for more examples of how the MSM skews and misrepresents info in this manner.)

Since it also seems that the world is going to start acting on ACC, then I truly hope that the majority of scientists are correct about their assertion.  It seems to me that there is almost as much risk in following through on solutions to CO₂-created climate change than there is in doing nothing.  I worry that working on CO₂ is too narrow a focus and it seems to me that is treats the product of industrialisation as the problem, while ignoring the bigger questions about industrialisation itself.  It ignores our exhaustive quest for profit and expansion in the name of "progress".  Why don't we ask ourselves if we should build that 1000th condominium complex, or if we need a factory pumping out electronics which will be made obsolete in 2 years, or if we need to make plastic toys that our kids are going to get bored of in a week (and maybe even get sick from), rather than asking ourselves how we can continue to do all of these things whilst reducing CO₂?  IMO, unfettered industrialisation is the problem and it doesn't simply affect the climate.  And whether or not some sort of major catastrophe is coming in the near future, or centuries from now, if we continue down this same path we will eventually make this Earth uninhabitable for many species, including our own.


My uneducated and subjective opinion, for what it's worth (which is not much!)


So in the end, what do I believe?  Well, given I have not personally seen or analysed the original data for myself (and, let's face it, even if I could get my hands on them, I wouldn't know the first thing to do with them), you should take the following opinion with a gain of salt the size of a basketball:

I admit that there are issues that trouble me about those who are involved in publicly questioning or refuting ACC theory: There is certainly the fact that the vast majority I have come across are not scientists themselves.  Then there's the fact that the anti-ACC viewpoint is lauded by many so-called right-wingers who really have not studied the issue, but simply make the point of disagreeing with any theory that "lefty environmentalists" endorse, especially if it leads to policies that place "socialist" restrictions on corporations.  Conversely — and I say this having been one myself — I feel that there are many self-described left-wingers who agree with ACC theory without question just because it makes sense and/or they can see no reason how a bunch of scientists could be wrong. Unfortunately when the majority of people play the left-wing/right-wing game there are certain bandwagons onto which either side will automatically jump, whether they have truly investigated the issue for themselves or not. 

I do not deny that the weather seems to be getting more and more severe and unpredictable, but I also acknowledge that I have no way to know this and that I am basing my opinions on the 3+ decades that I have been on this Earth (and the majority of those years spent solely listening to and trusting the MSM) which are but grains of sand on a beach when compared to the history of our planet.   I have not been keeping track of mean temperatures over my lifetime, and let's face it, the CLOGs, including those who run our education system, have been repeating the ACC mantra for quite some time, and if you repeat something enough, people tend to believe it. And it does seem that one hears much more about different natural disasters around the world these days, but I also realise that the media might simply be reporting on disasters more than they used to, particularly in parts of the world where climate activity would have been hard to come by prior to our interconnected on-line world and the capabilities of radar and other satellite-based diagnostic tools.  One also cannot deny the effect of 24 hour news stations on public opinion — what has been termed by some as the "CNN Effect".  Images of desecrated forests, crumbling icebergs plunging into the water, "stranded" polar bears, oil covered sea birds, and the aforementioned beaches crowded with walruses, make the people demand action, and so the government is forced to provide us a solution.  It doesn't mean the representatives of government actually believes in the issue, it just means that they want you to believe that they believe in the same things that you do.  And as I discussed in my post about the effectiveness public demonstrations, I wouldn't put it passed the CLOGs to subvert a cause which is close to the hearts of its populace to their own ends.

The fact is, ACC theory rings a lot of bells in my skeptical brain; bells which I find hard to ignore.  Who knows, maybe I'll come across more information which will swing me back to the ACC side (if I do, you can be sure I'll make a new post about it!) And surely, if I'm lucky enough to live another half century or more, I might actually get to see for myself how these projected catastrophes pan out, because regardless of the ACC theory, I have my doubts that enough actions will be taken by the CLOGs of the world to prevent these projected catastrophes anyway.

It's going to be an interesting ride, to say the least.

Don't just take it from me...

Please believe me when I say that I have been working on this post since July and then I came across this video posted to YouTube by James Corbett of the Corbett Report in November.  I must admit I was quite proud to find out that an MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC report lead author echoed many of the statements I've made above.  Then my heart sank when I realised people might just assume I stole my opinions from this video.  You would be right to be skeptical, but I assure you this was pure happenstance.

In the abovementioned video, Professor Richard S. Lindzen discusses what is actually confirmed by science when it comes to climate versus the conjecture made by climate models.  He states that there is no disputing that climate changes and that the greenhouse effect exists, and there is no disputing that humans have had some contribution to the climate, but he also states that scientists don't know to what level this human effect really has on climate.  He also states that the current models greatly exaggerate the effects of climate's sensitivity to human activity and that there is no evidence to suggest that we are facing a global warming catastrophe in the near future if such human activity was to continue.  He also talks about the interests vested in the global catastrophe scenario and how the environmental movement like to jump on such scary scenarios in order to push action on the issue.

And I'm sure there are those who will argue "Yeah, but Lindzen is just one scientist..."  Fair enough, but as Gandhi once put so very eloquently: "Even if I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth".



For those who want to further investigate some ACC theory counter arguments

For anyone wishing to further investigate the problems with and counter-arguments to ACC theory I would suggest the following videos as a starting point (including some of the videos already mentioned above):

• The BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - 1:15:56 (After you watch this, keep in mind that there have been many critiques of this documentary and so for the sake of balance you should also google "The Great Global Warming Swindle debunked" and go from there.)
• The Freedomain Radio Interview with Warren Meyer mentioned above - 1:11:08
• Warren Meyer's video What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory - 54:34
• This presentation by Australian professor and geologist Bob Carter.  - 36:25
• This article written by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, where he talks about the politicization of the ACC issue and how it stifled research that countered ACC theory.  He also speaks to how evidence counter to ACC theory doesn't get discussed in the public arena (such as how the Artic sea ice has diminished and yet Antarctic ice has actually increased, as well as the effects of the solar activity on climate.)
• This article by magician, professional skeptic and proponent of critical thinking James Randi.  Much like Warren Meyer, he doesn't deny that scientific data indicates a recent increase in global temperature, but he does question the "certainties" proposed by ACC theory.  As a result of the response to that article he wrote this follow-up article titled "I'm not 'denying' anything" where he admits, like myself, that he is no expert, and posts some of the critiques of his previous article.
• James Corbett of the Corbett Report also does a great analysis of the UEA email leak in his video titled Climategate: 1 year later - 12:47
• And if you're curious to read the East Anglia emails, an individual took it upon themselves to catalogue them on the website eastangliaemails.com. And for those who like MSM sources on the issue, here are a couple of articles from the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. 

New posts to come

Wow.  So it's been over 3 months already since my last post.  I've had about a half-dozen posts on the go now since at least the summer.  I forgot how challenging it is to write!  I haven't had to do any writing of any great significance since high school.  If anything, this blog has definitely given me some well needed practice.

I think I might also be getting harder on myself as I go along; I'm dealing with a lot of subject matter which is outside of the mainstream and so I guess I feel the need to be a lot more careful with my fact checking and providing links and reading material which back-up my claims.  I also find myself trying to preemptively address the many arguments one can make against the opinions expressed in my posts, which I realise is an impossible task.  This in no doubt stems from my own propensity to be critical of people who make weak arguments or arguments based on faulty logic.  Heaven knows I do it too, but now I'm more conscious of it, so much to the point that it's slowing down my progress quite a bit. 

So I've been feeling pressure lately to post something, anything, to keep people interested in this blog o' mine.  I just want to assure the few of you who follow it that I haven't disappeared.  Here are a few things I am working on and hope to post in the near future:

• The Climate Change debate
• Wikileaks: Benevolent truth seekers or something else?
• The importance of empathy and mindfulness
• More on my move from being a self-described left-winger towards the ideas of anti-statism

So, fingers crossed, I hope to actually post something new soon.  Rest assured, I'm working on it.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Before I present my opinions of the "nothing to hide" argument, can anyone tell me anything about the origin of this statement?  I've also seen the variant "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".  I've been unsuccessful in finding any background information on the web, so if anyone has any info, please do leave me a comment!

************************************

This statement really makes me cringe and there once was a time when I agreed with it. I don't even know where this adage comes from, nor who said it first, nor in what context, but I used to state it as if it were fact; this is yet another example of me being a repeater (and after having googled the phrase it would appear that I am far from the only one!)

These are currently the main problems I have with this argument:

• It confuses a want for privacy with prudishness or deceitfulness,
• It fails to address the implications of data aggregation,
• It fails to address the dangers of incrementalism,
• It fails to address the security of the personal data gathered by CLOGs, not to mention how easily the data may be accessed in the future and by whom.
• It does not take into account changes in legal statutes/social norms in the future,  
• It ignores the hypocrisy demonstrated by the CLOGs who enjoy spouting this mantra,
• It also ignores the question: Is this truly being done for my security?

"It’s not about having anything to hide, it’s about things not being anyone else’s business." 

I found the preceding quote in an essay titled 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J. Solove, an Associate Professor at George Washington University Law School (available as a free pdf download here). It perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the matter.

I think the "nothing to hide" sentiment muddles the definition of privacy; it seems to make the assumption that as long as you are not ashamed of something then you shouldn't mind also exposing this "something" to other people — as if things that you might not want others to know are tantamount to things that shame you or that are morally wrong. 

I am not ashamed of my sexual history, but that doesn't mean I would share the details of my sex life with just anyone, nor would I want anyone to record or publicize such information or activity without my explicit permission.  There are also thoughts, emotions, and even moments in time, which I will choose to share with a very close and few individuals, not because those thoughts/emotions/moments are morally wrong, embarrassing, sinful or dangerous, but because they are special and sometimes vulnerable moments, and they are my own.

Plainly, the "nothing to hide" argument confuses privacy with prudishness and/or deceitfulness and I think this mindset sometimes causes people to allow infringements on their privacy simply because they are made to feel guilty for not allowing the infringement — almost as if wanting to hide something automatically makes that something "wrong".

Just because another person or entity wants to know something about me, and that something about me is nothing to be ashamed of, this does not automatically give them the right to know this information; only I have the authority to allow or disallow someone else from knowing something about me, as long as that something about me doesn't cause harm to someone else's person or property.

Putting the puzzle pieces together

The "nothing to hide" mantra also ignores the fact that the individual bits of data that one might not feel the need to "hide" can be put together with other bits of data gathered about oneself in order to create a larger profile of an individual.  What is scary is that the resulting profile can be run through algorithms in order to assess the "threat level" that this individual could potentially possess or to even predict possible crimes he or she might commit in the future.

One might be surprised of the types of profiling technologies currently being considered, developed or implemented by law enforcement around the world:

• As described in this ABC News piece, there is software being developed to "predict criminal behavior" and "if the software proves successful, it could influence sentencing recommendations and bail amounts." (What does one say when WTF just doesn't cut it?!)

• Then there is this article from The Guardian about a brain scanning technology being developed that allows one "to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act."  And as the article suggests this technology "could be used to help interrogate criminals and assess prisoners before they are released [and] may be able to spot people who plan to commit crimes before they break the law." (Do the words "thoughtcrime" or "precrime" ring any bells?...Hello???!!!) 

• There is also software being implemented known as Operation Blue C.R.U.S.H. that uses "statistical information to target crime hot spots and chronic perpetrators" — this is a 2006 article from the Memphis Daily News and another by the Memphis Flyer from 2007.  These articles make the software sound innocuous enough and they talk about how it helps the police to focus its resources thereby more effectively reducing crime as well as costs.  But I also cannot deny my skepticism when I read statements such as this excerpt from the Memphis Flyer article: "The program also does not track the race of an offender. '[Ethnicity] doesn't directly figure in the data,' Janikowski says. 'The reality is that [with] arrests in Memphis, just like nationwide, the overwhelming number identified in criminal activity are young African-American men.'" The skeptic in me says that although they claim not to be "tracking" this information, you can almost bet that they are recording the ethnicity of those "identified in criminal activity" and so that data-set could easily be used at a later date.  And am I the only one to find it unsettling that this software was developed by IBM? o.O

• Update: Then there's this article from the Washington Post from Dec 20th, 2010 about how "the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators." During their investigation WaPo also found that "the FBI is building a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously," and "the Department of Homeland Security sends its state and local partners intelligence reports with little meaningful guidance, and state reports have sometimes inappropriately reported on lawful meetings."  There is also a quote from a former CIA official who states that "some senior people in the intelligence community" question whether such a large-sweeping security profiling system is even an effective way to catch terrorists. 

• Update:  And now in the wake of the 2013 revelations made by whistle-blower Edward Snowden regarding the NSA wiretapping program, there is this article from Bloomberg about how private companies in the US (everything from makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies, etc...) are sharing data about their customers with the NSA, CIA and FBI.  And you can bet that much of this data pertain to non-Amercian citizens as well...

There is also the danger of assuming that, just because you are innocent and that there is nothing about yourself that could possibly cause any alarm, or nothing which could ever implicate you in any sort of crime, the fact is that this "innocent" information about yourself could still be misconstrued by law enforcement and used in an attempt to implicate you in a crime.  To better understand what I mean, I suggest watching this very enlightening 49 minute video titled "Don't talk to the police":  In it, Law Professor James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police, no matter how seemingly innocuous any knowledge they possess may be, directly followed by a presentation by George Bruch from the Virginia Beach police department who goes on to agree with Professor Duane.

Update: This 2014 article from Al Jazeera in the wake of the Snowden revelations points out: When investigators have mountains of data on a particular target, it’s easy to see only the data points that confirm their theories — especially in counterterrorism investigations when the stakes are so high — while ignoring or downplaying the rest. There doesn’t have to be any particular malice on the part of investigators or analysts, although prejudice no doubt comes into play, just circumstantial evidence and the dangerous belief in their intuition. Social scientists refer to this phenomenon as confirmation bias, and when people are confronted with data overload, it’s much easier to weave the data into a narrative that substantiates what they already believe.

If you're okay with that, then you won't mind this

Furthermore, the "nothing to hide" viewpoint is shortsighted: It does not take into account the slippery slope that is created by the legal precedents that make room for increasing infringements to our rights to privacy, right to travel, etc., nor does this viewpoint speak to how future CLOGs will choose to interpret these new "freedoms".

You know those fancy new backscatter X-ray units that they have been installing in airports around the world in order to increase "our security"?  Well, I've seen a lot of discussion about these devices and there are certainly people who object to having naked images of themselves being viewed and stored by private companies (i.e. airport security); then of course there are those who say: "Who cares if they see me naked? As long as it keeps weapons and bombs off the plane, I'm happy." While I am not ashamed of my body, that doesn't automatically make it okay for a stranger to see it.  Even if we really don't mind showing strangers our naked bodies, we should also be asking ourselves what our limits are when it comes to our security, BEFORE someone presents the next option.

The fact is, these same backscatter X-ray machines are only able to see beneath one's clothes, but if you have something **ahem** inserted into yourself, the object becomes invisible to these scanners. So, let's say another "terrorist plot" is planned or executed on or around another airport due to the "terrorist" being able to get past the body scanners with their "inserted" goods; would it then surprise you if airport security/the government were to suggest random cavity searches?  Now, if such exams were performed by registered physicians alone in a room with just the two of you, would that be okay too?  I mean, it's no more intrusive than your yearly pap or prostate exam, right?  And if those scanners can't detect materials stashed inside one's body and all of these "terrorists" keep hijacking and attempting to bomb commercial airplanes, we need to do something to stop it, right?  Are the same people who put down others as being "prudes" for not wanting fairly detailed naked images of themselves being taken of them at airports and stored in a database willing to "spread 'em" in the name of "security"?  I mean, there is nothing to be ashamed of, especially if it's just you and a physician in a room together, right?

And did you know that there are plans to use vans equipped with these same backscatter x-ray machines so that law enforcement agencies are able to look through walls of buildings and vehicles simply by driving by them? Sure, you might not know that they are x-raying your home, but the chances of it ever happening are slim, and it's no different than the amount of radiation you would experience during an airport scan....

Can you see how the same arguments can be used over and over again, as more and more ridiculous demands are placed upon us? Things that, only decades ago, would have been considered preposterous? Some have called this the boiled frog syndrome — if people become acclimated to some policy or state of affairs over a sufficient period of time, they come to accept the policy or state of affairs as normal.  And the best motivator is fear, and boy, do the CLOGs and the MSM know how to use that one!

The problem about giving away freedoms in the name of security is that the same types of arguments can be used over and over again to get us to submit to more and more abuses of our rights — cuz let's face it, the MSM tells us the world is an increasingly scary and dangerous place.  We really need to draw a clear outline and set very specific limits to what CLOGs can do to us in the name of security.

Your secret is safe with us

 
No data are 100% secure — no one can guarantee that some information or data won't get leaked in error, or accessed by a hacker or **gasp!** a terrorist.  Just think of all the stories in the news about hacks into bank records, governmental and medical records being lost due to human error, etc...  I mean, even the Pentagon has been hacked on several occasions and surely they must have some of the world's top experts on data encryption working for them!  No matter what assurances a CLOG gives you about how your data will not be shared with others, the fact is they can only assure you that they will not knowingly or voluntarily share your data with anyone. That doesn't mean someone else won't take it from them.

"Ignorance of the law excuses no one"

Wow, there's another mantra that irks me; nonetheless, this is the opinion of those who create and enforce statute law, and in knowing this, those who repeat the "nothing to hide" mantra should also consider that something which is perfectly legal today, might become illegal tomorrow.  In other words, something that you don't feel the need to "hide" today may become something to "fear" tomorrow.  And what if you are completely unaware in the change?  Are you expected to be constantly and consistently aware of all of the ordinances and statute laws held over you?  And if the law changes and you don't know it, does that then become "your problem"?  Apparently so.

What's good for the goose...

If you will all excuse me as I drift into some ad-hominem, I think it should not go unnoticed that the very same CLOGs of the world who wish to use controversial data mining, and other intrusions on ones personal lives, in the name of "security" — the very same CLOGs who love to throw the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" argument at anyone who complains — have all SORTS of excuses for why they should be able to hide their own activities from the people: What did Ben Bernenke say when Sen. Bernie Sanders asked him  "will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Of course he said: "No." And whenever there's a press conference regarding the Afghan and Iraq missions at the White House and hard-hitting questions are asked about the death counts, human rights abuses, or anything else that the government doesn't want to answer, they always bring out the "I can't because it is a matter of national security" or that it would "put our troops in jeopardy" or "affect their morale".

And what do police officers and security guards tend to do when someone so much as points a video camera in their general direction? Just ask this person, or this person, or this person.  Many security officers would also have us believe that filming certain buildings is against the law, such as in this video and in this video at about 4:17.  And here is Dan getting harassed yet again at about 5:05 in this video, to the point where security tells him he can't even stand on the sidewalk and has to move on to the road!

People are even harassed by police for filming officers on duty from their own private property, such as this guy from the UK and this guy from the US who, as the video shows, was eventually arrested for doing just that.  It would seem that not even MSM news camera men are immune.  And here is another great video specifically about photographer's rights in the UK.  And this article from the Washington Post speaks to photographer's rights in the US and gives many more examples of people being harassed for taking photos on supposed "private property". 

Isn't it strange how policy enforcement officers will often ask (or demand) that a person not film them for "security reasons", yet the very reason they claim that they need to record our images, is for (you guessed it!) "our security"?!

This is for whose security?

To use CCTV as an example, with all of these "wonderful" cameras placed in public areas for "our security", and police dashboard cams installed in police vehicles for "our security", isn't it funny that when someone is mysteriously injured, or even dies while in police custody, the cameras happen to "malfunction" or to be turned off? There are even situations were several cameras in the same location coincidentally fail to work at the exact same moment — as in this story about a man who died while in Scotland Yard custody, whereby several cameras in the same train-station where the death occurred either had blank recordings or happened to have had their disks removed the day before the incident in question.

I also wonder why the police were so keen on putting CCTV all over downtown Toronto during the G20 summit this year; presumably it was to track and identify individuals possibly causing harm to people and property, and yet when such activities actually occurred and those images were being streamed to whatever agency was monitoring those cameras, somehow the police still failed to call anyone to the scene of the vandalism, instead letting people smash store windows and set fire to police cars without any officers in sight.  Instead, they proceeded in the following days to just arrest anyone and everyone, even people simply passing through on their way home from work.

Where is that camera footage and just how did it keep the public safer and more secure that weekend?  And how much money did those seemingly useless "security" cameras cost us in the end?

Then there are the questions as to whether surveillance methods pushed on us as a "necessary evil" so that we can "catch the bad guys" thereby "reducing crime" and "increasing our overall security" really reduce crime at all.  CCTV perhaps being the most glaring example of this:

• Eye on the City: Do Cameras Reduce Crime? (ABC News)
• Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved (London Evening Standard)
• Are CCTV cameras a waste of money in the fight against crime? (The Independent)
• One crime solved for every 1,000 cameras (The Independent)

CCTV is but one type of surveillance that CLOGs are using around the world. What is perhaps even more troublesome are the powers that CLOGs are increasingly giving themselves to conduct various types of surveillance without oversight, or even so much as a warrant, such as the internet wiretapping bill being pushed by the Obama administration and powers that the FBI are already using to eavesdrop on people by using the mic in the person-of-interest's own cell-phone.  And if you don't think that this could be done on your laptop, think again:  Google has developed software to listen in on a laptop user's mic so that Google can identify a piece of music or TV show playing the background and offer up "relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject"; I would almost bet that the same software could be tweaked by CLOGs to listen for key words.  And here's a story about a high school in Philadelphia who used laptops provided to students to surreptitiously take snap-shots of them in order to spy on them, even as they slept at home.

************************************ 

So, I hope I may have convinced some people who would have otherwise agreed with the "nothing to hide" mantra to reconsider their position on the matter.   As usual, I welcome any and all commentary.

If you are interested in reading-up or watching more videos on the subjects of privacy and surveillance you might consider reading the essay I mentioned earlier titled 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, available as a free pdf download here.  There is also this short but well edited video titled "Big Brother Truth Now! The police state is no longer a conspiracy".  And if you want to watch longer films on the subject here is a whole page of related video links from Esoteric Tube — a website that provides links to many free, on-line documentaries on various alternative and esoteric topics.

Are public demonstrations an affective agent of positive change?

I've been composing this post for a few months now.  In the beginning I had titled it "Do protests really accomplish anything?" but, as I continued writing, I realised this was not a good question for a couple of reasons: A) While it would seem to me that most people in the Western World tend to picture public demonstrations and rallies when they hear the word "protest" (I'm sure due in no small part to the fact that the MSM usually refers to public demonstrations as "protests" and anyone in the vicinity of a march or rally as a "protester"), protests truly come in many forms, such as petitions, pickets, strikes, acts of non-compliance, artistic expression, acts of destruction, and even acts of violence; I believe that some of these methods are more effective than others and so I didn't want to speak to "protests" as if they were all the same. B.) History has shown us that positive social change has followed protests of various sorts around the world, so to simply ask whether protests are an agent of positive change didn't seem right. Yet, conversely, as time goes on and I read more and more historical accounts from sources outside of what is fed to us in public-school history classes, I'm beginning to question everything, even socio-political changes that have seemingly been made in the name of morals, ethics and human progress.  (More on that later.)

So, although I have been wrestling with the question for quite some time now, it has definitely been on my mind a lot more lately since the events at the Toronto G20:  Do a bunch of people marching, holding signs and chanting slogans really change anything?

While I'm starting to question how much of an impact public demonstrations have really had on socio-political change in the world,  I do believe that public demonstrations have served, and continue to serve, to highlight issues and bring them to the attention of people who would not have otherwise heard about them via the MSM.  I also think that the work of such grassroots groups as We Are Change, Press for Truth, and The Love Police, and the propagation of videos of their interactions with various government/corporate/law enforcement agents on video sharing sites such as YouTube, is actually reaching people and causing some to question things about the "realities" presented to us by the government and the MSM.
 
However, while history tells us that public demonstrations have been responsible for positive social change, I think that the effectiveness of demonstrating en masse with picket signs etc... has unfortunately jumped the shark.

I think there was a time when images of peaceful demonstrators, especially images of them being abused and mistreated by military/law enforcement officers, brought a human face to civil rights issues, resulting in changes in popular opinion and causing larger portions of the populace to pressure their governments into action, but I think the PTB have long since learned from this; they have decided that the way to better control populations and to quell dissent is to demonize the people who take part in public demonstrations. The MSM also do their part by devoting a disproportional amount of airtime to acts of violence and vandalism -- as well as images of people carrying misspelled, offensive or down-right crazy signs -- far more than the issues being presented by the much larger group of peaceful, reasonable and well-meaning demonstrators.

Western governmental bodies have come to the realisation that they can't just ban demonstrations without being (rightfully) accused of trying to infringe upon the people's freedom of speech.  They realise that even people who don't believe in the demonstrators' cause might still stand up for their fellow citizens' rights to express their ideas and opinions.  The PTB have learned over time that the trick is to get the general public to not just ignore the issues of the protesters, but to feel outright hostility and antipathy towards them.  They've realised that whenever a demonstration happens, all they have to do is plant a few agents provocateurs in the crowd in order to cast the first stone (sometimes literally), then eventually group psychology takes over causing many of the angry, disaffected people attending the demonstration to get whipped up in the frenzy and join in.  As a result, when the police react violently towards "protesters", much of the public is left to comment: "Well, they got what they deserved," and "the police have a tough job to do, so I don't blame them for being forceful with these anarchists"

And this does not happen just to the mainly left-leaning individuals and groups  (keep in mind, as I use this labels, my opinions on this left/right CONstruct) who attend G20-type rallies. The tea-party movement in the States is an example of this subversion game: Whenever a grassroots organisation or cause starts gaining momentum, private/governmental interests jump on the bandwagon, subvert the cause to their own agenda, a few extremists join in and get all of the press, then soon every crazy lunatic and their uncle shows up with a Hitler mustache slapped on to a blown-up picture of whomever is the "enemy-du-jour". These situations are made even worse when the MSM -- who no longer ask important or pertinent questions -- lap up the footage of the crazies and the violence, playing it over an over again causing it to far overshadow the coverage of the legitimate issues being raised by the demonstrators.  As a result, much of the public is left to comment: "What a bunch of dumb hick hatemongers."  Meanwhile networks like Fox will actually bring some of the more extreme crazies and disingenuous GOP politicians on board to put the focus on the more sensational issues and viewpoints, almost totally ignoring the valid constitutional arguments being put forth by the people who started the tea-party movement and those faithful to that original vision.

This game has been referred to as the Hegelian Dialectic, or in a phrase coined by David Icke: "Problem-Reaction-Solution".  So if the problem is that there are a bunch of demonstrators out there bringing up valid socio-political issues that the State would rather keep hush-hush (I'll use the various issues being raised by demonstrators at the Toronto G20 as an example) and the State would like to quell their descent by force, but don't want the general populace to decry the State's infringements on the individual's right to protest, then what the State does is fabricate a violent reaction by the supposed Black Bloc so that they can provide their solution in the form of quelling the descent of demonstrators -- including those simply bringing up valid socio-political issues -- by force. Et voilà, the police use violence and force to prevent people from exercising their right to protest and much of the public not only barely pays any notice to the actions of their government and their enforcement agents, but actually defends and praises their violent actions.

So what about passive resistance?  Again, I am starting to question my beliefs on this matter, which brings me back to my point about questioning history:  I used to think that as humans evolved, became more worldly and better educated that, eventually and inevitably society at large was no longer be able to justify the irrational theories which formed the bases for racial and sexual discrimination; I believed that brave pioneers such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan et al, were able to articulate the injustices of inequality in such a way and with such unwavering conviction that paradigms were shattered so that eventually the general populace could no longer deny the absurdity and illogicality of inequality.  Conversely, I've always been surprised that governments, or any other power structure, would relinquish any power they seemingly hold over others, (as I went into in  my post about absolute power), regardless of how upset it makes some of their populace.  It really makes me wonder if some of the socio-political pioneers I just mentioned really did change the government's mind, or whether the government really only agreed to go along for their own personal gain somehow.

For example, it has been argued that the feminist idea of the getting more women in the workplace and empowering women to see themselves as more than just homemakers was not so much a movement against the establishment, but was actually pushed by the establishment because they realised that putting women to work meant that many more consumers/tax-payers would be plugging their money back into the system which was hemorrhaging debt.  The same has also been said about the abolition of slavery in the West: Turning slave labourers into "equal members of society" meant that they too could be taxed and turned into mindless consumers of goods and services.

The progress in civil rights around the world seems to make for some very noble and proud moments in human history, but the cynical, suspicious side of me questions whether the power structures around the world are really such softies at heart.  I mean, if they can tax us while wasting our money at the same time, if they collude with corporate interests and tend to put the rights of corporations ahead of the rights of their citizens, and if they still sanction and profit from slavery in other parts of the world, then why would they be so "kind" as to look out for the rights of any of its own citizens?  Why would they relinquish any of their power if there wasn't something in it for them?

I've also held quite an interest in Gandhi and how he his followers who were able to gain independence for the peoples of India from British rule without the use of violent force.  I have even gone so far as to praise Gandhi's accomplishments in the comments sections of various articles and blogs in response to comments such as "what can you do, the system sucks but we're stuck with it" or those sanctioning some sort of violent revolution claiming that it is the only option. But I have also heard it argued that the British Empire was long on its way out and that Gandhi just provided the straw the broke the camel's back.  I have also heard it claimed that Gandhi was just the lesser-of-other-evils and that the Empire saw working with him to be less distasteful than others vying for power in the region as the Brits left.

So, I suppose it is of no coincidence that I recently came across this video, which features Derrick Jensen and other speakers who argue against passive resistance and its effectiveness; the video also deconstructs the legend of Gandhi as it is most often presented to us in the West.  This video clip is from the upcoming documentary END:CIV.  I'm still trying to decide what I think about Mr. Jensen and his theories.  I have not read any of his books, and so far I have only seen a some clips of him in interviews, but I have already seen more than a couple of clips where he makes statements that sound like they make sense, but then I also find some of his logic supporting those statements to be a bit flawed and some of his analogies to be a little heavy-handed and simplistic.  But again, I am beginning to question EVERYTHING these days -- including what any "official history book" tells me about events past.  And I don't discount the possibility that story of Gandhi and India's independence has been slanted and twisted with time; in fact, (like most of the West's interpretations of history), I almost expect that it has.

Nevertheless, even though I question Gandhi's true involvement in India's independence from British rule, I do not discount Gandhi's philosophies.  Far from it.  Part of me thinks that the answer to positive social change truly is for one to "be the change you want to see in the world."  I think living by example is the key, or must at least go hand-in-hand with demonstrations and other forms of protest.  I think you can go and protest en mass, chant slogans and pass out pamphlets all you want; you can spread the word about volunteerism, living off-grid, having community bartering to get away from using fiat currency, ridding oneself of the SIN/SSN/NINO and the farce of statute law, and so on, and so on, until you are blue in the face; you can attend a million protests with billions of others, you can write a billion blog posts, you can start a facebook group and share it will billions of people, and spread your ideas to as wide an audience as possible; and even if every last one of the people who receive your message were to wholeheartedly agree with your principals and theories, the fact is the vast majority will still never actually do anything about it themselves unless they can see someone they know succeeding at it; most people do not like to step out of their perceived idea of reality unless one can physically prove their alternate reality to them. I include myself in that category, I'm afraid, but I am working towards changing that.

I also have difficulty with the idea of forceful, violent revolution.  I think that violent action can lead to the serious injury or death of innocent people and could very well turn those who could have been allies against your cause.  I also believe that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can easily hijack violent actions and worsen them to their own advantage, let alone provoke them themselves.  We also must remember that, although we-the-people may vastly outnumber the PTB, even if every person on the earth had their own personal weapons arsenal, the PTB have sound cannons, nuclear armaments, satellites watching the globe, CCTV on the ground, tanks, submarines, fighter jets, missiles -- and that's just the stuff we know about. Violence is their game and we are not even playing in the same league.

Does this mean I believe in just being enslaved? Not at all, but you can most certainly resist something, even physically, without having to resort to physical violence. Personally, I believe non-compliance/civil disobedience is the key: If we all walked into our banks tomorrow and said “I want my money” they would be screwed. If we all refused to pay our taxes, they would be screwed. If we all said “fuck your fiat currency, me and my neighbours are going to barter and swap to support and feed one another”, they would be screwed. If we all grew our own food, produced our own energy, made our own clothes, furniture, you name it, they would be screwed.  Now does that mean that governments and other power structures around the world are just going to throw up their hands and say "okay, you win; I guess the jig is up"?  Of course not, and I suspect that before this CONstruct is dismantled there will be false arrests, illegal seizure of property,  intimidation, incarcerations, and there may even be some bloodshed and loss of life -- all of which are definitely unfortunate and avoidable, to say the least.  Unfortunately upheaval does not come easily nor gently, at least not on the part of those who are in the position to lose great power.

So I guess in the end, while I support those who take to the streets to demonstrate/protest against policies and agendas which they feel to be unjust and unfair, I hope that in addition to doing so they actually work towards an alternative solution, live it, and manifest it.  I also hope that those who have found or do find a better way to live also make sure to share that information with others, even if that means bringing possible endangerment/harassment/marginalisation from government agents or fellow citizens upon themselves.

In the meantime, I hope to live these ideals myself.  Wish me luck!

Common knowledge

I spend quite a bit of my time on the internet posting comments to various blogs, news sites and YouTube.  I like a good debate and I'm quite the devil's advocate at times (plus my ego loves to garner feedback and validation).  So if while in a comments section I find someone is making a "concrete" statement based on what I believe to be faulty logic, or shaky to non-existent "evidence", I will often question them on it, even if I ultimately agree with the conclusions they have come to.  This is because I am still trying to figure out things for myself.  I'm trying to find out if the conclusion or idea being presented is truly sound and well thought out before I make the decision to agree with it, discount it or to investigate it further.  I also hope that I am helping at least all small fraction of these people to question their own beliefs about things, to truly ask themselves: Do I really know this to be fact or am I just repeating a comment I heard someone else make, simply because it made sense to me at the time when that other person said it?

So when people make seemingly definitive and concrete statements about why something is "right" or "wrong"  -- particularly in the realm of ethics and values -- I will often ask them how they came to these conclusions.  Every so often people respond with comments about "common knowledge" or "common sense" or how the the action or comments of another person were "wrong" because they were  "outside the community standards of common decency" or "out of bounds" .  I will often ask these same people: Whose bounds?  Can you provide me a list of these "standards"?  How do you know what the "community" is thinking on any topic at any particular moment in time?

I have yet to receive a direct response to these questions.  Usually at best I get a link to a definition of "common knowledge" or the person will avoid these questions entirely and simply continue to provide arguments in favour or against the topic being discussed.

If there is someone out there in cyberspace who is reading this post and believes that there is such a thing as "common knowledge", "common sense" or "common decency", please do leave me a comment to explain how you know that something like this exists and where you are getting this information from. Who are the holders and arbiters of this "common knowledge", "common sense" or "common decency"? How is one able to "know" what this "common majority" of people think about things? Is there a website I can go to?

Then there are the semantics of what one defines as their "community" or who one defines as being a "common person"; when one speaks of the "majority" I have to ask: The majority of what? Middle class white people? Canadians? North Americans? People of the Western World? And are you including immigrants and aboriginals?  What group of people you are pulling this data from?  Is it just from speaking with people you have run into throughout your life?  And have you associated with a truly heterogeneous and equal mix of peoples of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, economic classes, educations levels etc...?  Or is the "common person" someone who is like yourself in these respects?

I believe the idea of "common knowledge" is a figment of our imaginations, and that to different people "common knowledge" means different things, which kinda negates the idea of this knowledge being at all common.  Maybe others have some sort of mental ability that I have yet to comprehend, but I personally do not know what everyone else thinks; I have no psychic powers that I know of, and I have yet to find a person or group of persons that knows the whole truth about anything.  Even if I did know what the majority think about a particular topic at any one time, I also recognise that this doesn't mean that the belief or opinion of that majority is any more true than the beliefs of those in the minority.  I also recognise that ideas about what is "politically correct" or "morally objectionable" or "publicly acceptable" not only vary between individual people, or between larger cultural groups, but that the opinions of said individuals and cultural groups are ever evolving in themselves.  Just think of things we do and say today which would have been considered exceptionally rude, shocking or disgusting many years ago.

I'm not sure how to conclude this post, except by entreating any and all people who read it to leave me a comment about what they think about the concepts of "common knowledge".  Does such a thing truly exist?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

I would venture to guess that the majority of people agree with this statement.  (Or maybe I'm wrong; if someone disagrees, please leave a comment -- this topic might need a separate thread!)  While I do not believe that anyone is innately evil, nor do I believe that man is ultimately depraved at heart, I do believe that extreme concentration of wealth and power affects people in negative ways.

On a smaller scale, I'd be willing to bet that most people reading this have personally known someone who either came upon a large sum of money, or who was promoted to a position of power and who, as a result, had a big change of personality.  And the MSM certainly loves to bombard us with stories of people who gain fame and/or a large fortune and either burn-out, go crazy or die from it.  Then, of course, on the world scale there are the numerous situations in history whereby a small group of people (i.e. government, oligarchy, monarchy, religious group, etc...) has endeavored to control another group of peoples.

So assuming most would agree that absolute power corrupts absolutely (yes, I'm building a house of cards -- sue me!) then why do many of these same people scoff at the idea of a coming police state, a New World Order, or a concerted effort by the Powers That Be to control the world's population?

Okay, so let's argue that governments in the Western World are truly only giving themselves the freedom to do such things as perform warrantless searches and wiretaps on its citizens, unlawfully detain people who the government arbitrarily deems to be a "threat to national security", capture all of its citizens' movements using CCTV and IDs with embedded RFID chips, all simply because they are concerned about threats of "terrorism".  Let's also argue that the government has (or should I say, had) absolutely no intention whatsoever of making use of these new "freedoms" against regular citizens who have nothing to do with "terrorism" (whatever that is).  If you believe these things, then please explain to me: What stops governmental,  military and law enforcement groups from abusing those powers going forward? And not only the current government, but future governments for which you may not have even voted?  For example: Self described right-wingers in the US might have been okay with it when Bush's administration started the "Patriot" Act, but how are they feeling knowing that the "socialist" Obama now has those same powers and has even extended them?  And even though self-described left-wingers might console themselves with the thought that Obama will not abuse such powers, what if the GOP gets back into office in 2012? 

Let's be honest: Everyone works in an office where there is at least one Machiavellian, sociopathic douchebag (if not several), so why would we expect those in positions of power within governments, armies or police forces to be any different?  And I would even argue that people who run for political office or who decide to take on some sort of security or law enforcement position will tend to have a higher percentage of douchebaggerie among their ranks -- after all, the very nature of said positions is to wield power over, to make decisions for and to enforce rules and regulations upon other fellow humans.

So, to get back to my point:  Even if we believe that the intent of "Patriot" Acts and the like are being implemented for our protection, therefore the loss of some civil liberties are okay, who is to say that some powerful douchebag, or group of powerful douchebags, isn't going to eventually abuse these powers?  Even if all the world's wars were to come to an end and all "terrorists" were wiped off the face of the Earth, what governing body do you think would ever give those powers back?  Do you really think your government would say "Phew!  Glad that's over!  I guess we can take this security act off of the books now..."

I mean, come on.  I've worked in the telecom industry for over a decade and I know of employees who have checked their boyfriends'/girlfriends'/coworkers' text messages and call lists; I been told of people checking in on coworkers who have called in sick by pulling their cell tower location to see if they were actually at home; I've caught dealers activating fraudulent accounts for friends using their dead grandfather's ID, and that's just stuff that I have personally been aware of and I don't think the company I work for is any different from most corporations.

So again, I ask you:  If we accept IDs containing RFID chips, if we accept subjecting ourselves to dangers of scanners such as these when exercising our common law right to travel,  if we allow ourselves to be under the constant watchful eye of CCTV, then are you really going to be surprised if someone or some group of individuals decides to use this data against us even though we don't consider ourselves to be in anyway close to a "terrorist"?  Are you really going to be surprised if they use this data and these new "freedoms" in a way that they claimed they never would -- like this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this or these ways?  Do you really trust politicians, banksters, corporate oligarchs and their military/security personnel any more than the people you work with?

I also find it interesting how (at least in the Western world) there seems to be a common sentiment that if there were no government or no laws and regulations telling us how to live then our lives would descend into bedlam and violence causing us to live out some dystopian nightmare reminiscent of Mad Max.  I have two questions for people who believe this:  #1)  Are you telling me that the only reason you that you don't steal, rape and pillage is because there are laws preventing you from doing it?  #2) If you truly believe that Man is ultimately an evil sinner that cannot control itself and that, if left unchecked and unconstrained by outside laws and regulations, Man would descend into chaos and turmoil, then how does it follow that the solution to this problem would be to allow a some small minority of humans to make decisions for and to enforce rules upon the much larger majority?  Do proponents of this opinion think that there actually is an elite group of people out there who are better than most humans and who really know what's best for the rest of us?  A group of people who, by some stroke of luck, have none of the evil and inevitable propensities to rape, steal, and pillage that the rest of us do?  And doesn't that sound an awful lot like how the masses were "saved from ourselves" by the various monarchies/religious oligarchies of history -- saved by blue bloods who knew what was best for us, the slovenly masses, because somehow they were "blessed by the divine" to be better than us?  I mean, who is really wearing the tinfoil hat in this debate?

I've also had people tell me that they have a hard time believing that there are people out there so evil and cruel as to want to create such an oppressive state.  Really?!  Do I really have to give the plethora of examples in human history where a small group of individuals has abused and subjugated its populace?  I get the impression that when people tell me "I just can't see that happening" what they are really saying is "I don't want to believe that can happen".  It's like closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and saying "La la la, I can't hear you..." I don't want to believe something so horrible either, but the fact that I don't want to believe it has nothing to do with whether or not it is an actual possibility.

If you think the idea of an attempt by the PTB to create some sort of oppressive, fascistic world government is impossible, just because you have a hard time believing that there are people out there who would be so evil and cruel, and yet you acknowledge that there are "paranoid conspiracy theorist losers living in grandma's basement" who are imagining this stuff, then why is it so hard to believe that rich and powerful paranoid losers could be imagining the same stuff from their meeting rooms?

And if you think the idea of an elite group of industrialists and bankers conspiring together to create a global fascist state is just some tinfoil hat-wearing craziness, consider this:  It was already attempted in the US during the Great Depression -- Check out this radio broadcast from the BBC.  (Or if you don't have the RealPlayer installed you can listen to it here on YouTube in 3 parts.)  And here is another article on this plot which originally appeared in 1995 in the magazine History Today.  And given the power that the banksters have been abusing around the world long after WWII, do you really think they've given up on this idea since then?

Large government is wrong for the same reason that large corporations like Walmart are wrong: The extreme concentration of power and ultimate detachment that those in power have from the people.  Cutting a couple hundred thousand jobs in nothing to them.  We are no longer flesh and blood beings, we are numbers on a computer screen.  To them we are nothing more than voters, tax payers, money makers and resource wasters.  Plus it could easily be argued, especially in the States, that large corporations are the government since not only do they wield massive lobbying power, but the last few administrations, from both the so-called right-wing and left-wing, have been riddled with banksters and other corporate agents.

And as much as we in the Western World like to tout how great our "freedoms" are, when it comes down to it, what is more important to us, our freedoms or our security?  I'm hoping it is the former, but the way things are going these days, particularly in the US, Australia, the UK and in Canada (see my post on the G20) I'm beginning to think that the majority of the populace finds security to be more important.  Which is sad, because once we lose our freedoms we no longer have any security.