Top of the world looking down on creation

Texas public schools are at it again.

On Monday, the Austin American Statesman printed a story about a charter school operator and the questionable science curriculum that they are teaching with regard to evolution. I use the description “questionable” as this is what the God Squad would like you to believe. The fact of the matter though is that they are undermining science with religion, using the specious idea that science is “questionable” and they are promoting “critical thinking skills” to the student body.

The article can be found here:  http://www.statesman.com/news/news/critics-say-students-are-taught-creationism-in-two/nc3hC/

The schools in question are Lanier and Travis High Schools whose biology curriculum states: “Many leading scientists are questioning the mechanisms of evolution and are disputing the long timeline required for the evolutionary process.”

Experts say that this is an outright lie. Further, they say that discrediting evolution in such a manner, undermines science, and “…invites students to consider creationism as an alternative.”

It is not.

The Charter School operator, Responsive Education Solutions' CEO, Chuck Cook says that their “…science curriculum teaches evolution, noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories,…”

There are no “competing theories"; this very idea is an affront to science and does a disservice to students.

Responsive Education Solutions receives $80 million in state and federal funding, and has been served with a cease-and-desist letter by at least one national advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and could be open to lawsuits for violating the First Amendment.

The Texas State Board of Education has been under fire for nearly a decade with regard to it’s stances on science and social studies standards. These problems, though lessened in recent years, are still under scrutiny for their bowing to pressures from the public to make political and religious based curriculum the standard in Texas public schools, as opposed to fact based, scientifically and historically accurate teaching.

The Board’s response to this brewing “controversy” is to point to their own 2009 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) guidelines which state: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific explanation, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

Responsive Ed’s Cook responded in a letter to staff and parents that, “Our science curriculum does examine all sides of the scientific evidence relating to evolution - both for and against - just as we are required to do by the [Texas standards] for biology.” This in their effort to provide a “…balanced look at differing opinions on the theory of evolution…”.

Nice try Mr. Cook, but “opinions” have no place in the realm of scientific study, and there is no legitimate science that goes "against" the theory of evolution.

Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and author of the very textbook approved by the state of Texas for biology education, says that the standards explicitly require the curriculum to be centered on scientific - not supernatural - explanations. The textbook contains no mentions or allusions to creationism.

Yet Responsive Ed’s curriculum crosses the line into the realm of religion, creationism, and intelligent design. The section called Origin of Life includes the bible quote, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” This does not appear in the textbook, and Miller points out that, “The TEKS standards are quite specific in requiring the scientific explanations.”

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, going back to the 1960’s, that teaching creationism in public schools is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State has said that by requiring science teachers to explore “all sides” of evolution, the state of Texas has invited them to talk about creationism.

This allows personal opinions to be compared with the scientific method, a wholly deplorable notion in and of itself.

“The court rulings are crystal clear”, says Boston, “Another thing to consider is that charter schools are public institutions. This curriculum, it fits in with the more modern attempts to bring creationism into the schools.”

Likewise, activist Zack Kopplin questioned Responsive Ed’s curriculum in an article on Slate.com, were he accuses them of teaching “stealth creationism” by seeking to discredit evolution. “They will give you evidence for it [evolution], but, right after that, say the evidence is weak,” he told the American Statesman, “They undercut all the evidence they provide.” He went on to state that students are “…likely to see creationism as an alternative, so it’s effectively teaching creationism in the classroom.”

The Austin Independent School District is conducting a review of the curriculum, going through it line by line, in an effort to see “…what’s been taught each day.”

So, given this story, and the consistent stupidity displayed by all official governance starting with the Board down to the very teachers in the classroom, I think it is time to go over a few facts…

First and foremost, scientific theory can be tested. A theory exists based on not proof, but the body of evidence that supports a theory. Evidence acquired through extensive testing, experimentation, and observation. Theories such as gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution are real. They have withstood rigorous and extensive testing, experimentation, and observation, all of which support the theories in question. There are no competing theories to these, nor does evidence exist that disprove these theories. That is why they are theories and not hypotheses.

Creationism however does not even rise to the level of scientific theory or hypothesis. Testing cannot be performed. Experimentation cannot be performed. Observation cannot be performed, only explained away with theology. If creationism were theory, it would provide evidence of the existence of god, ending religious and spiritual inquiry altogether with concrete explanations of the divine.

It has not.

Second, evolution does not compete with religion. There is nothing to stipulate that evolution is not a part of a grand design, or that it is. It cannot stipulate one way or the other, because again, scientific theory requires examination, experimentation, and observation. It can examine, experiment, and observe the evolution of species, but has not unequivocally determined the origin of the existence of life on Earth or throughout the universe. Evolution neither confirms or denies the existence of god, or a grand design. But, it doesn’t try to.

The flip side of that equation though, is that creationism and intelligent design in fact do deny evolution. They stipulate that evolution is unscientific, and largely an atheist attack on faith. God created the universe and gave man dominion over the Earth and all of it’s flora and fauna. For, it is written…

These views are not only antithetical to scientific theory and exploration, but in my opinion, border on criminal negligence. Stupidity has no place in public schools, and creationism - as “theory” - is just plain stupid. Anyone affiliated with a public school that spreads this ignorance should be banned for life from any contact with the public school systems, including membership in the PTA.

Third, the state guidelines stipulate: “…analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific explanation…”. I would posit first that students do not have the ability - no matter gifted they may be - to do this using the scientific method. I would also posit that one can analyze evolution, and even observe it in action, however they cannot do so with creationism. Therefore, creationism cannot be evaluated scientifically, and has no place in a science classroom.

Fourth, it is a false equivalency to pose this as “controversy”. There is no controversy when putting science side-by-side with theology. This is an apples to oranges comparison, and by calling it “controversial” it tries to make an apples to apples comparison. It is not.

Parochial schools, many of which provide fine educations, such as top notch Catholic high schools and universities, do not make such “controversy”. Students are taught science in science classes - including the theory of evolution - and are taught theology in philosophy courses. This further attests to the fact that evolution and religion are not incompatible, and can exists in their own forums.

Fifth, this only serves as a solid argument for a national curriculum. There is a reason why American test scores and educational development lag far behind many other nations. Local and state control of schools give way to school boards being populated with “Flat Earthers”, housewives, religious leaders, and people with political agendas. These are the same people who question whether or not sex education courses should be "medically accurate". I shit you not; this is a topic of discussion right now in a nearby school district.

These people have no place setting curriculum. They might effectively manage school districts, but the material taught in schools should be designed by people in the respective fields of science, math, history, and English; not by people who have no background, therefore no credible or pertinent knowledge of such subjects.

Lastly, in a secular society, religion should not be a concern of public schools. No accommodations should be made with preference to any religious activities. Prayer groups should not be allowed, dietary restrictions should not be allowed, and gender segregation should not be allowed. It is not up to the schools to make sure the religious lead a life of piety, it is the responsibility of the pious. The only time that religion should ever be mentioned in school outside of the personal opinions of the student body, should be in a philosophy class, where it can be discussed in relation to other religions and spiritual movements. Not taught, but discussed.

Schools have a responsibility to society. We need to continually encourage them to meet those responsibilities, and not allow them to churn out ignorance disguised as science.

Tsunami warning

Oxfam reports that 85 people own the same amount of wealth as 50% of the world’s population. The other 7 billion of us fight over the rest of it like scurvy dogs.

John Kennedy said: “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

But a boat is not safe against a tidal wave.

Everything that we know and love is threatened by the ever growing tsunami of income disparity. Life as we know it is threatened with extinction, and there is nobody around to usher us two by two into the safety of an ark.

There is no high ground. This wave will cover the earth, leaving no stone unturned, and no plant untouched. There is no safe harbor. No seawall to protect us. No Coast Guard to perform daring rescues at sea. No Poseidon to save us; only the Kraken and Davy Jones’ locker.

We tie ourselves to the mast as the sirens call to us. The sirens sing of success and ownership, but they offer us only greed and servitude, if they don’t devour us instead. But whether we heed their call or not, we are still perilously close to the shore, carried by the powerful current. Either way, we will be smashed upon the rocks, shipwrecked.

The flood with surely sweep us away. We will sink to the depths like famed Atlantis. Drowned.

Many are torn from their moorings already. They have endured unemployment and foreclosure. Forfeiture of lands and theft of resources. A drought of opportunity and stagnant pools of fetid poverty that breed diseases.

Many others are doomed to be capsized, keel up, destined to end in the drink. The life jackets that we cling to will only serve as bright orange beacons to help locate and identify the dead. As if their identification will serve any other purpose than to verify the body count.

When the sea ebbs, all that will remain is silt and debris, the broken reminders of a once great human civilization. The eddies and tide pools will churn with death, while the sharks creep into the shallows.

Those who survive will be marooned. They will be flotsam and jetsam, strewn upon an empty beach. Our sand castles washed away, eroded by the crashing wave.

We are lost between the Scylla and Charybdis. To one side a beast that threatens to eat us alive. To the other, a swirling whirlpool - a cesspool - threatening to swallow us whole.

The Occupy movement gave a brief glimmer of hope. A spark that flashed for a moment, and then was gone. I see know that the flame was engulfed by the moist sea air; extinguished before a fire could be built to keep us warm. We are to be sunk under our own weight, as our bilge tanks erupt and overflow, and the crews dive overboard in panic. The engineers will be buried alive in the sludge. The navigators - blinded - pushing us into uncharted territory.

Our rudder is torn asunder, and we careen hither and yon, adrift. The ship cannot be righted, as we float helplessly in an unforgiving ocean. We burn under a blistering sun, circled by man-eating predators, and dying of thirst while surrounded by water.

Few of us man the lighthouses, and even we will eventually be swallowed. The buoys are off anchor, while men muddy the waters with the detritus of their foaming ideologies of liquidity and adventurous notions of piracy.

They ignore our warnings, while the wave rushes on and a perfect storm builds on the horizon. And all will be washed away, leaving nothing in it’s wake, but death and destruction.

And mankind will sleep with the fishes.

Debunking the debunkers

As a life long, die hard, in-your-face Liberal (spelled with a capital L), it irks me to be in agreement with the right, unless they have crossed the aisle and embraced a progressive cause. But the NSA scandal has actually left me in agreement with many on the right. Although in agreement, I would like to think that my opinion is based a bit more on rationality, and pragmatic common sense, as opposed to their usual jingoistic 'Us vs. Them' mentality.

I read an article the other morning posted at Mother Jones. They had picked in up from another website (TomDispatch) and posted it in an effort to debunk so-called “myths” surrounding NSA surveillance. As I read through it, I was dismayed at the overreach of the writer, and the broad based assumptions and specious arguments made in an effort to debunk said “myths”.

Please read the article as posted by Mother Jones (at the link below).

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/10-myths-nsa-surveillance-debunk-edward-snowden-spying?page=1

(Afterward, please read my point by point rebuttal arguments below. It may be helpful to read them side by side, in order to contrast them together more efficiently, and maintain continuity.)

As disconcerting as it is even to me, I recognize that this is a very complex issue. The moral questions are obvious, however looking at it objectively, there are few clear cut solutions or obvious fixes.

Ultimately, per our system of government, we must allow the Congress and the Judiciary to do their jobs, and strike a balance between liberty, safety, and morality.

*****

1) NSA surveillance is legal

Legal. Not with “quotation marks”, and not final, but legal. Just as slavery was once legal, legal does not differentiate between good law or bad law. Legal is law.

Until such time as these surveillance programs are deemed illegal, they are still legal. This is not a question of semantics, this is a question and point of law. Even if down the road the Court finds that some or all of these legal techniques are unconstitutional, that will not negate their legality today, it will only make them illegal moving forward. Just like owning slaves before Emancipation didn’t make you criminal, only owning them afterward did.

The question of the secrecy of these laws, is a question of national security. Classified and Top Secret information is kept from the public and not from the people charged with oversight of such programs. There are certain things that the public does not have a right to know, specifically when it comes to intelligence matters. This is not an opinion, this is factual based on FISA rulings, several Supreme Court rulings throughout the years, as well as upon precedents set by lower courts.

2) If you’ve done nothing wrong…

The Constitution does not in fact guarantee a right to privacy. There is an implied right, but not a guaranteed right.

The Fourth Amendment prevents the illegal search and seizure of your person and property. This boils down to the fact that the State cannot search you or your belongings without a warrant in your home. In public is another matter.

The police do not require a warrant to perform a search of your pockets, your vehicle, or even your blood alcohol level when you are outside, in the general public. All that they require is probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The information superhighway is a public domain, and not something that you can hide in your sock drawer at home. This does not make it right, but it is the law.

That said, police use many different means during an investigation. Many such means cannot be used against you as evidence (lie detector tests and psychological profiles for instance), however they are investigative tools used to establish the viability of a suspect.

So although the concept of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is a distraction, it is disingenuous to claim that investigative tools used to establish or exonerate a suspect’s viability are somehow illegal and draconian. If the information is deemed by the courts to be inadmissible as evidence, then they cannot be used against you in a prosecution.

3) The use of “metadata”

Again, this would fall under the realm of an investigative tool. Like a lie detector, it may not be admissible in court, however it would establish motive and opportunity, proving the viability of a suspect in order for the State to zero in on a suspect and collect evidence. Establishing the whereabouts and movements of a “person of interest” is a standard investigative tool, and one that is quite legal and Constitutional.

Alternatively, if the tracking of someone’s whereabouts and movements brings the police to your door with questions, those questions would also be a part of the investigative tool chest, and could either make you a “person of interest”, or clear you in an investigation.

4) Checks and balances…

Yes there are checks and balances and oversight of the NSA and surveillance programs. The problem with checks and balances is that they are only as thorough as the questions being asked.

The lack of proper oversight can be laid at the feet of those who failed to properly oversee such things. If the proper questions were not posed to the NSA, one cannot blame the NSA, they must blame the inquisitors.

I personally warned of the possibility for abuses to Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff, and was rebuffed like some scared little conspiracy theorist while the USA PATRIOT Act was being debated.

Granted, Snowden’s information has lead to finally asking the proper questions, however he didn’t take that information to the overseers, he took it to the foreign press. A whistle-blower would have brought this to an oversight committee or a member of Congress in an effort to expose a lack of oversight and his concerns of malfeasance, and hopefully establish better oversight and proper lines of inquiry. If that was unsuccessful, then exposing his concerns to the press would have been a last line of defense, at which time the press would have brought this information first to those charged with oversight, and only then to the public at large.

There are laws in place that provide a venue for whistle-blowers and protections for the same. Snowden could have blown a whistle, but instead leaked classified information to a foreign press agent.

(note: My article on Edward Snowden can be found at the link below)

http://incendiarylanguage.blogspot.com/2014/01/for-whom-whistle-blows.html

5) But I trust the President on this…

This is an entirely false premise, as the President (Bush, Obama, and their predecessors) only receive national security information. They do not collect it. They do not oversee it. They only receive it, and use it to the best of their ability to fulfill their Constitutional duties.

6) The private sector uses personal information so why not the government?

This goes back to the information superhighway. The internet is not a government run entity. Sharing your personal data with facebook is a choice and a function of agreement. But once you do, it is now out there in the ether - public domain.

The Fourth Amendment prohibitions of illegal search and seizure do not apply in the same way when you broadcast information publicly, which is what you do every time you use the internet or a cellular phone.

If you want the Fourth Amendment to apply, keep your communications inside your home. Write letters and get a land line, as both require a warrant before they can be reviewed by the State. But once it is out there in public, your implied right to privacy is diminished greatly.

7) Isn’t surveillance for our own good?

This is the "Old Reliable" argument. Although I find it personally distasteful, I do see the viability of surveillance as a deterrent and preventative measure to attacks on our national security.

Although rife with possibilities for abuse, surveillance tactics have been vital in maintaining the safety of the U.S. as a nation. Surveillance tactics were used to apprehend Al Capone, John Gotti, and the Oklahoma City bombers, among others.

Again, the tactics and methodologies used by law enforcement are tools. But evidence used in a prosecution must meet the bar of Constitutional protections. These investigative tools are used to prevent crimes and/or apprehend criminals by establishing their viability as suspects. They are not used as evidence in their prosecutions in a court of law. We are after all a nation of laws, with the right to review the evidence against us and to face our accusers.

8) Terrorists are everywhere and dangerous

Indeed. Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, but so too was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. Osama claimed responsibility for his crimes, making him the primary suspect. Tim McVeigh only did after being arrested, and he was arrested by law enforcement officials who used investigative tools and a snitch, while Rudolph was on the lam for decades, and it took years to find him and build a case.

If fertilizer sales been reported before hand (which they are now), McVeigh could have been apprehended before carrying out his devastating attack. Had metadata been scrutinized (which it is now), Rudolph could have been established as a viable threat, and the Atlanta Olympic bombing could have possibly been thwarted.

The same people who vilify Bush and his administration for “not connecting the dots” are the same people who now glorify Snowden for bring our attention to the fact that the NSA is now trying to “connect the dots”. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

9) We’ve stayed safe. Doesn’t that prove its efficacy?

Not at all. That said, it doesn’t disprove it either.

10) Doesn’t protecting America come first?

This argument is the most egregious of all. Protecting national security and providing more for the infrastructure are two entirely different things.

Though I whole heartedly agree that we as a nation do not do enough to rebuild ourselves and reclaim our standing as a Great Society, I also believe that keeping our nation safe from threats, both foreign and domestic is a responsibility that we have as a government, and as a people.

If one were to try an prioritize what comes first, my argument would be election reform and taking money out of the electoral process.

But the government doesn’t have that luxury or get to prioritize. It has to maintain all of it’s functions, all at the same time.

Matters of life and death

Two stories have been making national news, both involving “brain death” and “life support”. Both are reported from agenda driven standpoints, without any serious journalism, all the while ignoring basic common sense.

The first case is Jahi McMath, the thirteen year old declared “brain dead” after complications arising from a “routine” tonsillectomy.

First of all, there is no such thing as “brain dead”. Once brain function ceases, a person is dead. Period. This is not only the scientific definition of dead, but it is also common sense, as without brain function, all other bodily functions cease as well. The heart won’t beat, circulating blood throughout the system, and the respiratory system fails, no longer converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.

There has never been a reported case of brain function suddenly restarting, and the patient coming back to life. That is the realm of science fiction, and not science fact. The notion of “brain dead” is a euphemism for “machines can keep the organs functioning artificially”.

Second, the term “life support” would only apply to machines that keep a patient alive. This presupposes that the patient is alive, which Jahi McMath most certainly is not, as her brain function has ceased. A ventilator is not “life support” in this case, because the only function it has is to keep her lungs working, something that her lifeless body can no longer do on it’s own.

The media has tried to make this a tragedy, and I guess it is, but not for the reasons that have been reported. The media would like you to believe that this was a “routine” surgery, that somehow Children’s Hospital of Oakland was negligent, and that her parents have lost a child, something that no parent should have to face.

The real tragedy here is child abuse and neglect.

This was no “routine” surgery. A tonsillectomy is a routine procedure for tonsillitis, inflammation of the tonsils caused by infection. This procedure was performed in an effort to alleviate Jahi’s sleep apnea.

This child was morbidly obese. Her sleep apnea was a direct result of this condition, and not an infection. This procedure was done to help her breath at night. It was an elective procedure, and had nothing to do with her tonsils, but with her respiratory dysfunction.

In addition to this fact, Jahi’s mother, Nailah Winkfield, not only chose this surgery for her little girl, but with her mother being veteran nurse, she was well aware of the consequences and complications that could possibly arise.

Anyone who has ever been under the knife knows that pre-op releases are required which detail such things, and that anesthesia itself can cause a patient to die on the table. Especially if that patient has underlying conditions such as respiratory issues and obesity. This was in no way a surprise to her family; the surprise was that it happened to them. These things only happen to other people.

The second case is the case of Marlise Munoz of Fort Worth, Texas. Marlise was fourteen weeks pregnant when she collapsed from an apparent blood clot, and lay unconscious for at least an hour before being rushed to the emergency room.

When she arrived at the hospital, her brain had been deprived of oxygen for too long, and she too was pronounced “brain dead”. In Texas, “brain death” is clearly defined as legally dead, and would have meant automatic disconnection from a ventilator. But in trying to revive her, they detected a fetal heartbeat.

The controversy in this case is the state's fight to keep her on “life support” due to Texas’ anti-abortion laws. Although Marlise’s desire to not be placed on “life support” is well known, she too is dead, and therefore cannot be kept on “life support”.

But her child is not.

The argument that she is being placed on “life support” is fallacious, as she is quite scientifically and legally dead. But keeping her on a ventilator does not keep her on life support. Keeping her on a ventilator keeps her child on life support, that life support being her uterus. The ventilator at this point is simply the power module of her as an incubator. Her body is the life support machine until the child is either born or miscarries.

Her husband, Erick is trying - some would say valiantly - to fight this procedure in Court, saying that the state is overstepping it’s authority by keeping his “brain dead” wife on “life support”.

I am not a pro-life advocate. In fact, I am vehemently pro-choice, and actually think that in some cases, abortions should be mandatory. But this child is in it’s second trimester, and it’s parents, Erick and Marlise chose to bring it into the world.

It seems to me that, now that Marlise is no longer alive and is unable to care for the child, Erick would rather see it die as well. How’s that for a caring and sensitive husband? He says very little about the child inside his dead wife, but insists that the state remove her from a ventilator, per her wishes, and let her rest in peace. The result of such action meaning the assured death of their unborn child.

Both of these cases touch on sensitive issues that many people have their emotions heavily invested in; at least that is the way that the media report it. But both cases are obscured in legal wrangling, while ignoring the common sense implications.

Jahi McMath is dead, not due to malpractice on the part of Children’s Hospital, but due to the neglect of her parents to properly care for her health and well being. Instead of seeking restitution from the hospital, they should be charged with child abuse and neglect, and prosecuted as an example to other parents who let their children become morbidly obese, and try to fix the condition with surgery.

Marlise Munoz is dead not through anyone’s direct fault, but by an unforeseen accident. As Marlise can no longer speak on her child’s behalf, the state has, determining that her bodily function being prolonged is necessary for the health and well being of the child that it nourishes. Regardless of her wishes and her DNR order, this is no longer about her. Erick Munoz’s determination to have her ventilator disconnected, knowing full well that their child will die as a result, is nothing short of attempted murder.

One family seeks to use the legal system to place blame on others, while the other family seeks to kill an infant because it won’t have a mother to care for it.

Both cases, in reality, are people shirking their own responsibilities, and hoping that you won't notice.

For whom the whistle blows

You do not have a right to privacy. The Constitution does not provide us with a right to privacy. There is an implied right, established by the Courts, however, privacy is not one of the inalienable rights as defined. Never was, and short of a Constitutional Amendment, it never will be.

For a society that feels compelled to broadcast the most mundane thoughts via Twitter, and uploads photos of every meal, pre and post, on their facebook pages, the idea of privacy rights is laughable at best, and ridiculous at worst. Keep banking online and being surprised when your personal information gets hacked. Hacks.

Our digital footprints are almost as widespread as our carbon footprints, and both are harmful to our overall health. Anyone who thought that their online ramblings were not being monitored by both the public and private sector are fools, plain and simple. Likewise, our phone calls aren’t monitored or tapped, they are tracked in order to expose possible threats - that is a big difference. Have you called Syria, Pakistan, or Iran recently? If not, then you have nothing to fear.

 The National Security Agency is the preeminent spy agency in the world. Established in 1953, this agency’s mandate is to collect intelligence on threats to America’s security, from within and without. Specializing in cryptography and communication, the NSA headquarters has earned it’s nickname - The Puzzle Palace. Telephones and the internet are a means of communication, therefore - by law - legitimate targets for scrutiny by the NSA.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) became law in 1978. Like the creation of the NSA, these measures were put in place by the Congress, and operate under their oversight. With every new technological advancement, the NSA has had to adapt to the swiftly changing environment. FISA has had to as well, which has required the Courts to adapt accordingly, usually after the fact. This all happening up until September 11th, 2001, and beyond.

Through this period, nearly 50 years, deeply entrenched bureaucracies did their jobs to the best of their ability, generally successfully, quietly, and covertly, doing their jobs. But, September 11th, as we are constantly reminded, “changed everything”…

The attacks lead to a knee-jerked, brutal, and unrepentant offensive stance from our government, which lead us to the USA PATRIOT Act. This law reinforced the Intelligence State that we are all immersed in today. Suspect, subject, and scrutinized by the state, the existing agencies did what all bureaucracies do - they expanded and entrenched themselves further.

Our system of government is designed and functions as a bureaucracy, with redundant oversight, yet that oversight is predicated upon due diligence and asking the right questions. Unfortunately, the Congress wasn’t asking the right questions when this was egregiously exposed to the public. And that is our fault, and nobody else’s.

What these agencies were doing, and why, was never particularly secret; how they did it was. We created them in the halls of the Congress and administer them as the bureaucracies that they are. The mandate of the NSA, the FISA Courts, and the PATRIOT Act all happened on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. In plain view, and under the watchful eyes of the Congress, these laws and agencies have been with us for a very long time.

Largely, the concerns of people such as myself had been ignored by the press and our Congressional representatives, which are just now being taken seriously because of the scandal. So granted, Snowden’s “revelations” have played a significant role in opening the eyes of Congress, leading them to finally ask the right questions. But it didn’t need to be writ large, as headlines.

The NSA may or may not be off it’s leash. At this point, Congress is asking the right questions, even if their goal is simply to place blame instead of wrangling them into the corral (although assuredly some roping will go along with their wrangling). Additionally, the Courts are reviewing the legality of the NSA’s actions. This too is playing out in public, far more publicly than it should.

The problem here is that a real whistle-blower would have brought this to their attention privately, allowing them to accomplish their task of oversight, and waited patiently for the hearings to begin. This didn’t happen though. Instead, the alleged overreach of these laws and agencies were splashed across the front pages, creating an international scandal that will affect our foreign and domestic affairs for decades to come.

Let’s get this straight: Edward Snowden is no hero - he’s a fucking traitor.

He is trying to paint himself as a whistle-blower and an advocate. The papers that benefited from his treason - the Guardian and the New York Times - are seeking clemency for his actions as a self-serving effort to cover their own complicity in his treason, and their own lack of journalistic integrity and investigative reporting. As news agencies, they intentionally dropped this ball when it didn’t sell papers, back when Snowden was still in grade school, and in the case of the NSA mandate and FISA laws, before he was ever born.

Additionally, many of our ignorant, apathetic, and myopic fellow citizens buy this excuse, and believe that Snowden did the right thing. Chalk this up to the stupidity and fear of our uninformed populace, bent on taking umbrage at things that we don’t understand.

He didn’t do the right thing, and here’s why…

A whistle-blower actually blows a whistle, and alerts the proper authorities to malfeasance, whether public or private. They bring their allegations to the attention of those charged with oversight, and let the proper authorities investigate the charges, and resolve those issues.

This high school drop-out turned Constitutional scholar didn’t tell anyone but the press.

He didn’t go to the Justice Department. He didn’t go to either Intelligence Committee, in the House or the Senate. He didn’t go to the Department of Homeland Security. He didn’t contact the White House. He didn’t get in touch with any of the 535 people on Capitol Hill that could have done something about it. Instead, in his infinite wisdom, he contacted the press.

He had every opportunity to blow the whistle, but instead, the action that he chose to take was the equivalent to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. He created a panic, not just among the American people, but across the world. A whistle-blower tells management that he smells smoke. A traitor screams “fire” and then watches the crowd trample each other running for the exits.

According to Snowden, he took his concerns to the NSA, threatening to take his allegations of overreach to the press. He didn’t go to management with his concerns; he threatened to out his boss if he didn't get his way. This is called extortion.

There was a time in this country, for better or worse, when the mere idea of threatening an intelligence agency directly would have brought about a mysterious disappearance or a tragic accident. These are spy agencies, and they keep the secrets.

I’m not advocating a firing squad, but lets be real here - thirty years ago there would have been no question about it, and that would have been the fate that he faced. Instead, he faces a microwave oven and free cable TV in his dorm room at Leavenworth, all while still getting his fifteen minutes of fame. Oh the humanity…

He stole national security secrets. Had he done the right thing, his crime would have been immunized, and he could have testified before Congress as a whistle-blower, with all of the protections that this status would have afforded him. We are a nation of laws you know.

Instead of taking his “evidence” (stolen files, held as collateral) to anyone in Congress charged with NSA oversight, he splashed it across the front pages. The House or Senate Intelligence Committees would have been interested, as well as the Justice Department. He would have given them the information necessary for Congress to begin reassessing the agency and asking the appropriate questions. The supposed overreach by these agencies could have been uncovered, quietly, and dealt with accordingly.

If Snowden were a whistle-blower, he’d have blown a whistle; instead he outed his boss, quit his job, and skipped town. Whistle-blowers take responsibility for their actions, and stand by their principles. Cowards and traitors flee and make statements to the foreign press that display malleable principles and fungible justifications.

Let’s not forget that Bradley (Chelsea) Manning had balls enough to stand trial and take responsibility for his (or her) criminal actions. This was another case of treason disguised as whistle-blowing, because people are too imbecilic to understand the difference. Snowden and the other social media addicts of the world failed to learn anything from Manning's actions.

Snowden followed through with his threat of blackmail though, and took his “story” to the press. Classified and Top Secret information leaked to the public, friend and foe alike, regardless of consequences to national security or international affairs. The ripples are still spreading outward, and the repercussions are creating a potentially dangerous wake worldwide.

He snitched on us and now we’ve been caught by everyone with our hands in the cookie jar. But let’s not be fooled, intelligence agencies worldwide spy on each other. We spy on our adversaries, and we spy on our allies. And they do the same. It’s no secret that we all have secrets, and that secret activities are no secret at all. But that’s a secret that the public can’t be trusted with because they can’t keep a secret.

Congress has been asking the right questions since the information was made public, however Snowden denied them the opportunity to inquire earlier and more discretely, instead on the front pages of the world.

Instead of being aired in the privacy of the conference rooms on Capitol Hill, or even semi-publicly within the halls of Congress or the Judiciary, he aired the NSA’s dirty laundry to the neighbors. Again, this came as no surprise to anyone in intelligence agencies throughout the world, but their governments have to save face with their own people by crying foul.

These are not the actions of a man. These are not the actions of a patriot. These are not the actions of a concerned citizen, or ethical person with unquestionable integrity. These are not the actions of an advocate or a whistle-blower.

These are the actions of an ignorant and egomaniacal sociopath with an axe to grind, wanting to play out his own Ian Fleming fantasies of international intrigue. The fugitive anti-hero, caught between the former enemy, and the sunny beaches of Brazil, threatening to continue his crusade against evil and supporting the right to “privacy”, having given up very important secrets himself.

Too bad he didn’t believe in privacy until it suited him. One cannot be taken seriously as a privacy advocate when the only reason they are known is for violating the privacy of a nation.

Privacy,... yeah right.