Fried Catfish - PodCast: A Brief About the Egyptian Uprising

A brief explanation about the issues that the Egyptian people face, the country and its leader's connection with al-Qaeda, and the possibility of a democratic domino effect happening in the Middle East.

A Rare Look at Joel Olsteen Talking About Sin

A rare interview where Joel Olsteen talks about sin. And not just a little white lie-type sin. He addresses the issue of homosexuality. Take a look:

The Christian Fundamentalist and Homosexual Clergy: A Critical Analysis

DISCLAIMER It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right.  Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis.  The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view.  So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not.  I welcome and encourage your feedback.

There is a pattern that the United States is experiencing today.  Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant.  But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the United States: Christian fundamentalism.  This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism.  For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words?  The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.

In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline.  Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals.  And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations.  Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals.  The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.

Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right."

Take for example the creation story in Genesis.  Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe.  Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began.  Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened.  But there have been changes in this view.

A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.[1]  And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.

There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today.  It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms.  There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology.  The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples.  But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be  caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.

There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues.  One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position.  The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups.  This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches.  During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve.  An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.  

Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it.  Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion.  But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy.  And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society.  But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.

Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement.

The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.[2]  In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married.  Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.[3]  Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.

This is very much an argument of fundamentalists.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning.  The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.

If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin.  Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.[4] [5]

To sin is to err.  To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin.  And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.[6]  Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.[7]  Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.

Take for example adultery.  If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin.  And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer.  This is the same for homosexuality.  The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act.  And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals.  Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness.  Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not.  To know forgiveness is to bear fruit.  Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.[8]  When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”[9]

Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.[10]  The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life.  Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.[11]

Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future.  And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle.  But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church?  Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.

As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin.  Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.[12]  The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy.  It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.

In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin.  But it seems they are ignoring something.  Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin.  In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.

Matthew 19: 1-9

 ¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]

⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]?

⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10: 1-12

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

³ “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

⁴ They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

⁵ “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

⁶ “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’^[a]

⁷ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,^[b]

⁸ and the two will become one flesh.’^[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.

¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 

(emphasis added)

The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin.  Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery.  As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin.  And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts.  Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first.  From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse.  And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce.  The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine.  This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church.  The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4.  The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption.  Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse.  And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.

This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow.  The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other.  Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be.  And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.

---

[1] Church of the Nazarene. Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 2009-2013. Nazarene Publishing House, 2009. (p.373). “903.9. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless

interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7)”

[2] When translated literally, these verses represent the fundamentalists’ position on condemning homosexuality: Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:8-10.

[3] 1^st Timothy 3:2, 12 – Although speaking of the clergy, it is still applicable in this context: ‘overseers/deacons are to be a husband of but one wife.’

[4] Metanoeo n./ Metanoia v. – Meta meaning "after" and noia meaning "mind" – having an “after-mindedness” or deciding today what your mind will be tomorrow and there on out.

[5] http://www.heavendwellers.com/sb_107_metanoeO.htm

[6] Hamartōlos – to be devoted to sin, sinner.

[7] Matthew 6:24

[8] Matthew 7:16

[9] Galatians 5:24

[10] Romans 7:14-25

[11] Not to be confused with the forgiveness that comes with salvation, the sinner spoken of here is one who has already accepted Christ.  Both Armenians and Calvinists believe that there is freewill outside of salvation.

[12] This assumes that the individual’s repentance was pure and true and not an empty, disconnected commitment.

Wikileaks' Threat on the U.S. Citizens' Civil Liberties

There is a new terrorist on the block and he is causing quite a bit of a ruckus at the Pentagon.  Wielding a quarter million cables that hold potentially embarrassing accounts of foreign countries given by U.S. Ambassadors, Wikileaks has redefined “leaking” classified information by initiating a series of information “dumps” – or leaks in bulk.  This drive for transparency is not just focused on governments either.

In December of 2010, the figure most associated with the organization, Julian Assange, spoke about a Bank of America hard drive, ostensibly holding pre-meltdown data spurring the company to appoint a damage control council.  The organization does not just operate on a whim.  A copy of all of their files is kept by a company operating in an underground bunker that was made during World War II.  Additionally, the organization keeps a 1.4 gigabyte-sized file named “Insurance,” so if anything happens to Assange the contents would be made public.  Although the file is posted to be a dangling threat to many world governments, it could also serve as a temptation to those that think they can take on such a project.[1]  But the most important issue is that Wikileaks is, in fact, seen as a threat to national security.

Because of the threat that they now pose, the U.S. government has been driven into action.  Most notably, the CIA developed a task force to assess the impact of Wikileaks’ file dumps.  Interestingly enough, very few CIA documents have been in Wikileaks’ hands. That fact necessarily brings about the question of whether or not the task force’s acronym, “W.T.F.,” was deliberate and intent on sending a distinct message to the other agencies that contributed to the compromise of the government’s classification of sensitive information.[2]  But the fact is that Wikileaks busted on the scene quite quickly.  And considering what they have accomplished already, it is only logical to follow up with the question “who is Wikileaks?”

An organization that preaches transparency by leaking secret information should prompt the country’s citizens to demand answers for many important questions before showing any type of support for the organization.  And as a matter of principle, the organization preaching the message ought to live by the motto and values for which it advocates.  But it seems that this is not the case.  For someone who is taking such a solid stand for transparency, they seem to be peculiarly unconcerned with the transparency of their own organization.  It does not stop there.  Front man Julian Assange has been adamant with communicating to volunteers that any type of information they have on him is to be kept secret, prohibiting them from talking to anyone associated with the media.  He has had three prominent volunteers resign because he suspended them from volunteering after they gave out already-known information to the press.[3]  

The most publically criticized hypocrisy the organization has faced is the veil it has placed over its finances.  Because of this lack of transparency, many feel that Wikileaks could be financed by a number of “shady” adversaries, or even the U.S. government itself.

Another ambiguous trait of the organization is the shortage of sources that confirms its board members.  While a record of its consultative board members had been posted on the Wikileaks website at one time, many of those listed have yet to confirm anything close to a consultative relationship with Wikileaks.  But this is the most intriguing part of the organization.

A large portion of those board members listed as “advisers” had no idea they were on the board.[4]  And as far as the other board members are concerned, there are little to no sources that confirm their advising role.  These seemingly loose connections between those on the advisory board and Wikileaks necessarily shifts the focus of the original question.  And with the identity of the advisers and a financial record masked by what is often described as a dictatorship, defining the identity of Wikileaks by looking at the organization, seems to be a lost cause.  Therefore, by defining the dictator, the authoritarian shroud is gradually lifted and the face of a pure, simple quest for truth inadvertently becomes a depraved, complex attack on individual freedom.

With board members unknowingly a part of Wikileaks and key volunteers quitting because of Julian Assange’s dictatorial management approach, the task of painting a picture of the organization proves difficult.  But removing the noise and shifting the focus on Assange yields a much clearer portrait, allowing the intent of the organization to be critically examined as opposed to getting trapped in focusing on its public identity. 

The information available on Assange is limited, but it is known that he is an experienced cryptographer and hacker.  He was taken to court for hacking into “thousands of systems” including a few belonging to the Department of Defense.[5]  An email exchange posted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows Assange collaborating with NASA scientist Fred Blonder and Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Michael C. Neuman on a project nearly two-years before his prosecution.[6]  These scientists were in top positions at prominent national security research institutions.  This puts Assange connected to a seemingly tight-knit community of national security scientists.  And it’s not the only ambiguous trait of his past.

Assange has reportedly attended thirty-seven separate schools and six universities, many of which have yet to be mentioned by name.  Nor is there information or proof of his actual credentials or the work that he had performed prior to the Wikileaks project.  The best information available is in a biography which states that he is a “…prolific programmer and consultant for many open-source projects and his software is used by most large organizations and is inside every Apple computer.”  But yet he has not appeared in any sources open to the public as being a freelance contributor to Apple.[7]

The fact that an advocate for transparency has such a blurry past does very little to support the thought that they are conspiring with others.  It does, though, point out major discrepancies in Assange’s credibility by revealing the possibility of manipulating the public by manufacturing a past that can answer any questions that arise.  And even though there is a need for the anonymity of Assange and Wikileaks’ board members, there is also a need to portray the group as being open and trusted.  But that’s not the case.  Wikileaks has as sketchy and unknown of a past as the governments they seek to change.  Pot, meet kettle.  Of course, there is always the idea that Assange and Wikileaks are funded and controlled by the U.S. government to provide reasoning for internet regulation.  Although it is an interesting claim, it is difficult to prove.

Okay, it may not be a conspiracy, but there are still many questions that need to be answered before I relinquish my foil hat.  The simple fact is that Americans are now in a compromising position because of what Wikileaks has brought to the table.  The possibility of regulating the internet may be laughable, but the reality is that there were reports that both military and university leaders spoke out against reading the cables on line.  It is far from absolute regulation, but it is as close to a knee-jerk reaction that I need to register in my mind that it could very well be a route considered by the government at a later time.

It is clear that Wikileaks is a threat to government transparency.  And much of what is happening parallels a perfect storm that could both obligate and justify the government to go to extremes in combating the organization.  Therefore, even though Wikileaks may be expressing and testing our freedom of speech and press, those rights are contingent upon the extremity the government wishes to go in the name of national security.  When looking back at the PATRIOT act or Ollie North’s Rex 84, it is not so far fetched to see that because of the threat that Wikileaks poses on our government, it, inadvertently, poses a similar threat to our civil freedom.

---

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/

[2] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/cia-wikileaks-wtf.html

[3] ABC | Brian Ross Investigates: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 Season 1 : Ep. 36 (20:08) Air date: 12/17/2010

[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va

[5] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikirebels-documentary/

[6] http://diswww.mit.edu/menelaus/bt/204

[7] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va

Wikileaks is a Threat to Civil Liberties Part II (Miami Student)

Wikileaks' Threat to Civil Liberties Part I

Obama Administrator Supports Covert Domestic Operations

FRIDAY, JAN 15, 2010 08:16 ET

GLENN GREENWALD

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

BY GLENN GREENWALD

Salon/iStockphoto

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. 

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those whoappear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."  Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked.  Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote.  This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees.  Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class.  All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.

* * * * *

Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates.  The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon.  Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such asArmstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts.  In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens.  In response to all of this,Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda.  Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda."  By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves.  His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise.  Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself.  He acknowledges that some "conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples:  the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters).  Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements?  Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous.  Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim.  More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture:  when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes.  That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

* * * * *

Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber toprovide consultation on the President's health care plan.  With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely -- as an "independent" or "objective" authority.  Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed.  This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).

In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned.  Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack "intellectual integrity"; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case.  Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being "just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals."  What is one key difference?  Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views -- he favors health care -- and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he's defending are dismissed as a "fake scandal."

Sunstein himself -- as part of his 2008 paper -- explicitly advocates that the Government should pay what he calls "credible independent experts" to advocate on the Government's behalf, a policy he says would be more effective because people don't trust the Government itself and would only listen to people they believe are "independent."  In so arguing, Sunstein cites the Armstrong Williams scandal not as something that is wrong in itself, but as a potential risk of this tactic (i.e., that it might leak out), and thus suggests that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," but warns that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."  In other words, Sunstein wants the Government to replicate the Armstrong Williams arrangement as a means of more credibly disseminating propaganda -- i.e., pretending that someone is an "independent" expert when they're actually being "prodded" and even paid "behind the scenes" by the Government -- but he wants to be more careful about how the arrangement is described (don't make the control explicit) so that embarrassment can be avoided if it ends up being exposed.  

In this 2008 paper, then, Sunstein advocated, in essence, exactly what the Obama administration has been doing all year with Gruber:  covertly paying people who can be falsely held up as "independent" analysts in order to more credibly promote the Government line.  Most Democrats agreed this was a deceitful and dangerous act when Bush did it, but with Obama and some of his supporters, undisclosed arrangements of this sort seem to be different.  Why?  Because, as Sunstein puts it:  we have "a well-motivated government" doing this so that "social welfare is improved."  Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite detention, military commissions andcovert, unauthorized wars, what was once deemed so pernicious during the Bush years -- coordinated government/media propaganda -- is instantaneously transformed into something Good.

* * * * *

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world.  That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power:  namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption. 

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation?  And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government?  The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources:  namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant.  The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements.  Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is.  In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

UPDATE:  I don't want to make this primarily about the Gruber scandal -- I cited that only as an example of the type of mischief that this mindset produces -- but just to respond quickly to the typical Gruber defenses already appearing in comments:  (1) Gruber's work was only for HHS and had nothing to do with the White House (false); (2) he should have disclosed his payments, but the White House did nothing wrong (false: it repeatedly described him as "independent" and "objective" and constantly cited allied media stories based in Gruber's work); (3) Gruber advocated views he would have advocated anyway in the absence of payment (probably true, but wasn't that also true for life-long conservative Armstrong Williams, life-long social conservative Maggie Gallagher, and the pro-war Pentagon Generals, all of whom mounted the same defense?); and (4) Williams/Gallagher were explicitly paid to advocate particular views while Gruber wasn't (true:  that's exactly the arrangement Sunstein advocates to avoid "embarrassment" in the event of disclosure, and it's absurd to suggest that someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars is unaware of what their paymasters want said; that's why disclosure is so imperative).

The point is that there are severe dangers to the Government covertly using its resources to "infiltrate" discussions and to shape political debates using undisclosed and manipulative means.  It's called "covert propaganda" and it should be opposed regardless of who is in control of it or what its policy aims are.

UPDATE II:  Ironically, this is the same administration that recently announced a new regulation dictating that "bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently."  Without such disclosure, the administration reasoned, the public may not be aware of important hidden incentives (h/t pasquin).  Yet the same administration pays an MIT analyst hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate their most controversial proposed program while they hold him out as "objective," and selects as their Chief Regulator someone who wants government agents to covertly mold political discussions "anonymously or even with false identities."

UPDATE III:  Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions."  I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place."  That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment.  Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.

UPDATE IV:  Paul Krugman has replied to the part of this post which pertains to him and Jonathan Gruber; my response to that is here.

-- Glenn Greenwald