Against Universal Consciousness

The only way human beings can understand the world around them is through their own experiences. This is limiting and predisposes each of us to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the inability to view the world from any perspective other than one's own and the tendency to frame all issues in terms of how they relate to the needs of the self. So, in discussions of politics, I respond to all comments from my individual, egocentric worldview. Likewise, my deliberations on topics ranging from sports to business to child rearing must all be interpreted through the filter of my ego. Egocentrism manifests in every aspect of human life.

A natural outgrowth of egocentrism is the inclination to anthropomorphize. Because we are restricted to understanding external items through the lens of human experience, we often

attribute human characteristics to non-human subjects. While my dog, Zeus, certainly understands his world as only a dog can understand it, I constantly (and inaccurately) bestow upon him a full range of human traits. It is intuitive to me that folks who assume the universe is endowed with cosmic consciousness are, likewise, anthropomorphizing.

While human consciousness was once a subject considered too enigmatic for scientific study, recent technologies have helped to demystify consciousness.
Historically, consciousness has been described as being like a stream. Indeed, people may subjectively perceive thoughts as flowing like a stream, however, “stream of consciousness” is a misleading and ultimately inaccurate metaphor. “Hive of consciousness” is a better fit for our current understanding of the phenomenon. “Stream” implies a linear progression of thoughts moving forward from a central source. Neuroscience informs us that human thought patterns more closely resemble a popcorn popper than a stream.

Consciousness is composed of neuronal firings from different parts of the brain. In simple terms, consciousness is a byproduct of the brain interacting with itself. Remove part of the brain and consciousness is altered. Remove all of the brain and consciousness is eliminated. 

Consciousness changes but does not stop during sleep. The brain remains active and different areas of the brain are still able to communicate with one another during sleep. When one awakens from sleep, one typically still

has some awareness of the passage of time and may remember dream experiences. However, when a person is put under general anesthesia, communications within the brain are blocked. When one awakens from general anesthesia, there is no sense of the passage of time and no dreaming. Consciousness is eradicated when internal communications between various parts of the brain are obstructed. Consciousness is produced by the brain and can not exist independently of the brain. No brain, no consciousness.

Since consciousness is a function of the brain, and there is no evidence that the universe itself has a brain, it would stand to reason that the universe is not conscious. 

Wise and powerful caregivers comfort the egos of human children. The egos of human adults desire similar comfort. In the absence of an actual wise and powerful caregiver, human adults invent gods or anthropomorphize the universe to meet this egocentric need.

Conspiracy Theorists are Lazy Thinkers

I used the term "lazy thinkers" to be provocative.

The truth is that lazy thinking is nothing more than "natural thinking." Every lower animal on the planet operates on intuition, or "what feels right." Humans who have not learned the skills of critical thinking naturally engage in the same thinking patterns as other animals.  

I am attracted to conspiracy theories. There is something about the idea of a conspiracy that titillates a paranoid vein that runs through the human psyche. However, conspiracy theories say much about us and very little about reality. It is not that conspiracies are impossible, just that the likelihood of successfully executing a large scale conspiracy approaches the impossible. The old adage, “Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead,” rings true more often than not.

For any given belief, we will encounter disputing evidence (indicating that the belief is false) and supporting evidence (indicating that the belief is true). Folks with highly developed critical thinking skills approach these two pools of opposing evidence by objectively evaluating the quality and the weight of both pools. The foundation of a developed intellect is the willingness to change positions when disputing evidence clearly outweighs supporting evidence. This requires a great deal of emotional maturity. Our beliefs are rooted in our egos and we are wired to protect our egos at all cost. Shifting positions when disputing evidence outweighs supporting evidence also requires a deep commitment to truth. Truths are often uncomfortable and/or undesirable. Critical thinking requires that objective truth (what is true) must take priority over individual ego needs (what feels true or what we would like to be true).   

The Critical Thinker's thought process looks like this:

The Conspiracy Theorist engages an entirely different process when presented with conflicting pools of evidence. The conspiracy theorist accepts ALL supporting evidence, regardless of quality, and rejects ALL disputing evidence, also regardless of quality. Disputing evidence will either be ignored or the source for the evidence will be baselessly maligned. The ultimate result of this process is the elimination for the opportunity to learn, aka willful ignorance. In the words of Dudley Field Malone, "I have never in my life learned anything from someone who agreed with me."

The Conspiracy Theorist's thought process looks like this:

Identifying Quality Sources of Information:

In the midst of the information age, distinguishing good information from bad information can be extremely difficult. People untrained in recognizing logical fallacies can be easily manipulated to believe even the most absurd claims (examples: The moon landing was faked. Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim. The government is hiding UFOs. Hillary Clinton is a serial killer who runs child sex rings. Ronald Reagan was in the Illuminati.). Relying on "reasoning" from outside sources to establish where one stands on the issues is akin to relying on a car salesman to determine which automobile you should buy.

• Despite claims to the contrary, mainstream sources of information tend to be of much higher quality than unconventional sources. Every place in the free world gets pretty much the same news. The mainstream media in the US reflects reputable news outlets in England, France, Germany, India, Australia, Japan, etc. The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, Google News, The BBC, Reuters, and most professional journals are reliable, albeit not perfect sources for accurate news. These sources mirror the news from the rest of the free world. News reported by outlets in countries with authoritarian governments such as those of Iran, Russia, and North Korea, like news reported by Right Wing media outlets and fringe Left Wing outlets in the US, report very different news that is often in direct conflict with legitimate sources.
• News sources from authoritarian regions, as well as, sources from Right Wing and fringe Left Wing American outlets, use the "news" as an instrument for propaganda. However, citizens in countries with authoritarian governments have no choice but to consume fake news, while a huge percentage of mainstream Right Wingers and nearly all fringe Left Wingers in the US avoid legitimate news by choice. THIS is how a narcissistic, predatory, conspiracy theorist, who makes fun of the handicapped and spouts obscene vulgarities, became President of the United States.
• 

  Mathematics and scientific research represents the gold standard for quality information at this time. The statement, "any position can be proven with statistics," is patently false. It is true that statistics can be used by dishonest presenters to manipulate those who are untrained in statistics, however, there is an ultimate truth that will be revealed through the scrupulous use of statistics.
• While scientific research is often inaccurate, every advancement in the modern world has resulted from the application of science. As yet, there is no process more effective in the discerning accurate understanding of the physical universe than science. If the efficacy of science is not overwhelmingly evidenced by your own life experiences (as it should be to any self-aware human being), then developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method and the peer-review process should dispel any lingering doubts.

Consider The Global Warming Hoax:

Everyone knows the statistic that 97% of climatologists concur with the research that supports global warming as a legitimate phenomenon exacerbated by human activity. 

The conspiracy theory holds that first, global warming is a hoax conjured by the Democratic Party in the US. Second, scientists have skewed their research data in favor of global warming in order to procure grant money from liberal universities.  And third, because the Democratic Party has a greater interest in conservation and environmental protections and the Republican Party has a greater interest in protecting industry, Democrats benefit from the acceptance of climate change as an actual and man-made phenomenon.

•  Global warming was dreamed up by the Democratic Party.
• The 97% of scientists figure is not limited to American scientists. It means that 97% of the scientists in the entire world accept the findings on climate change. Even if the Democratic Party were important enough to American scientists to risk sabotaging their own careers by falsifying data, it is inconceivable that scientists from every other country in the world would be so invested! Even if we were to change the premise from a plot invented by the Democratic Party to a plot invented by liberals in general, the idea of such a global initiative is ludicrous.
• Scientists receive research grants from liberal universities.
• Many scientists work for universities. Others work for government agencies. Still others work for industry. At any rate, the funds provided for research grants are typically supplied by outside sources and not by universities. Even if we accepted the bizarre idea that scientists across the globe could be bribed into torpedoing the integrity of their chosen profession, we would still need an industry capable of providing the motherlode of funds needed to accomplish the task. Which industry would stand a better chance of pulling this off, Big Oil (which benefits from disproving global warming) or Big Windmill (which benefits from proving global warming true)?
• Democrats profit from the efficacy of climate change
• Which makes more sense? 30 years ago, some Democrat mastermind or thinktank randomly invented an environmental phenomenon and was able to secretly coerce 97% of the scientists on Earth to fake research data... Or that the most lucrative industry in the world advanced a conspiracy theory to protect its own interests?

In truth, the global warming phenomenon has no more to do with politics than gravity theory or germ theory. Scientists simply support the efficacy of global warming because there is an ocean of high-quality supporting evidence for the theory and a tiny drip of low quality disputing evidence against the theory. If new, high quality, evidence disputing global warming grew to outweigh existing supporting evidence, every scientist worth her salt would shift positions and we would find the vast majority of scientists denying the theory. This is how the developed intellect operates.

Four Resons Why Religion Should Be Avoided at All Cost

REASON 1

Religion is an obstacle to moral development. According to psychological theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, the first stage of moral development centers on the individual modifying his/her behavior in order to avoid punishment and earn rewards. Small children, dogs, and adult sociopaths tend to operate at this level of moral development. 

In the second stage of moral development, the individual desires to be considered a good person and so conforms to an external system of rules (example: laws, cultural norms, family values, and religion). An internal moral sense cultivated by indoctrination to external belief systems becomes deeply ingrained in people. At this level of development, moral "feelings" are mistaken for undeniable truths. For many reasons, questioning the validity of religious morals can ignite extreme hostility and defensiveness.

The pitfall of uncritically accepting a moral code learned from one’s culture, such as that offered by religion, is that it may include elements that are truly harmful to others. An individual raised in the environment of Nazi Germany would have the same deep commitment to that moral code as anyone indoctrinated into any external moral code.  In the pre-Civil War South, ministers used the Bible to justify the enslavement of other human beings. The Bible and the Koran are currently being used to justify racism and homophobia. The results? Torture, murder, and suicide.

The highest level of moral development requires a critical examination of values using universal litmuses like harm done, fairness, and empathy. Without a rational, compassionate evaluation of every aspect of one’s moral code, the potential for harm is great. Religion is a barrier to advanced moral development.

REASON 2

Religion inhibits intellectual development. The touchstone for intellectual growth is changing positions when disputing evidence for a pre-existing belief outweighs supporting evidence for said belief. Most of the dominant religions require accepting the legitimacy of their doctrines not on evidence, but on faith. Faith is often considered an admirable quality. However, faith and gullibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. Webster's defines faith as, "(a)firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Gullible means, "easily persuaded to believe something." So, aren't faith and gullibility inseparable? In other words, wouldn't it require gullibility to firmly believe something without proof?

Believing without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god? Disregarding evidence in favor of faith-based beliefs perpetuates ignorance. Religion is a barrier to advanced intellectual development.

REASON 3

Religion obstructs social development. In a modern global community, appreciation for the benefits of cultural diversity is paramount. Of the six Americans who won Nobel Prizes for Science in 2016, all were immigrants. By nature, religions are exclusionary. They create an "us and them" mentality wherein the "us" are good and the "them," not as good. This kind of social identity has been at the root of every war since the dawn of time. 

Prepackaged, religious beliefs rob people of the opportunity to create personal meaning and to truly define a unique understanding of self separate from cultural definitions. The number one regret of terminally ill patients is that they conformed to the values of others rather than living lives true to themselves. Religion is an impediment to social development.

REASON 4

Religion is a barrier to emotional development. Emotional maturity results from coming to terms with difficult, often frightening, realities. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions is one aspect of emotional immaturity. Children tend to blame others or make excuses for mistakes. Mature adults take responsibility, attempt to make reparations, and try to learn from mistakes. While Christianity holds the individual accountable to a degree, it also provides an easy loophole. Per Christian doctrine, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was absolved of responsibility for his actions before his death because he sincerely asked for God's forgiveness. 

Another element of Christianity inconsistent with taking responsibility is the concept of Satan. Satan is ultimately responsible for all evil in the world and God is ultimately responsible for all good. 

By encouraging belief in a fantasy afterlife, religion inhibits adults from maturely coming to terms with mortality. Developing the emotional maturity to deal with the realities of death, unanswered questions, and all of the other uncertainties of human life without resorting to magical and superstitious fantasies requires courage and unyielding integrity. One must be committed to all truths regardless of how scary or difficult. Religion impedes emotional development.

Given that religion is an obstacle to nearly every domain of human development, I consider it a social ill. It is clear to me that outcomes such as charity, love, kindness, and peace have been mistakenly associated with religion. Historically, the opposite outcomes of greed, hate, cruelty, and conflict have just as often been the fruits of religion. Benevolent outcomes result from empathy, a quality independent of religion. If I value the Greek ideal of the fully developed person, I can not also value a system that prohibits human development. 

How to NEVER be Suckered by Statistics on Race Again!

If you don't understand how statistics work, it is easy to be manipulated by intentionally misleading data. Since the races are not evenly represented in our population (64% White, 16% Hispanic, 12% Black, 4% Asian, 2% two or more races), a direct comparison between races in America on any phenomenon will be racially biased and lead to a false conclusion.

Hypothetically, suppose .1% of all Americans have been falsely arrested. Half of them were white and half were black. Saying that 50% of Americans who were falsely arrested were white and 50% were black is true, but it is a racially biased statistic because it doesn’t account for the fact that 64% of Americans are white and only 12% are black.

To factor out this bias, comparisons must be made per 100 black people and per 100 white people (or per 10,000, or per 100,000, or per 1,000,000). By calculating per 100 black Americans, these same data would show that 64% of the people who were falsely arrested were black. And, per 100 white people, only 12% of people who were falsely arrested were white. Now the data lead to an informed conclusion rather than a biased one.

So, the next time you see statistics on race that fail to show the data per 100,000 (or some other round number), you will know that someone is trying to sucker you!

How to Develop the Intellect: Why Emotions Matter… A LOT!

 This article is not about smart and stupid. Smart and stupid are terminal states over which one has no control. Conversely, intellectual development, like physical development, can be acquired by nearly anyone willing to put in the necessary work. Intellect is the capacity for reason and for acquiring an objective mental grasp. The key words in this definition are “reason” and “objective.” Reason is the ability to arrive at an understanding through logic. Objective means not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So, a developed intellect requires both logic and objectivity.

First, one must be able and willing to apply logic. This means adhering to strict principles of validity. There is a necessary logic to the arrangement of parts in a gasoline engine, an electrical circuit, and even a simple door latch. The validity of the arrangement of the respective parts is shown by the effective functioning of each device. If the parts are arranged illogically, the device won’t function properly. The scientific method is applied logic. The validity of the scientific method is shown by the myriad advancements we enjoy in modern life. Nearly every object in your field of vision as you read this post resulted from the application of the scientific method. The profound impact of science on human life cannot be overstated. Adhering to a belief that is clearly disputed by logic signals an intellectual blind spot.

Second, and equally as important as logic, is objectivity. Why would one stubbornly hold on to a belief that is obviously illogical or disputed by huge amounts of scientific evidence? The answer is simple… emotions. Our emotions evolved for one reason and one reason only, to keep us in the gene pool. Emotions guided primitive humans to behave in ways that kept them alive long enough to bear offspring. In the short run, emotion has far more power over our choices than does intellect. Emotional responses to danger quickly override intellect and prompt us to run or fight. These knee-jerk behaviors served us well for thousands of years. Emotions are about survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, our incredible intellectual capacity was an awesome upgrade, but not much of a survival feature.

Emotional responses are closely linked to another human survival trait, egocentrism. Every animal on earth, including the human animal, strives to preserve the “self.” It is our nature to evaluate situations in terms of the self in opposition to everything that is not the self. So, when illogical information is presented to a human animal in a way that makes the self feel emotionally validated, it is a very natural human reaction to accept that piece of information as true. In psychology, we call this cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is the primary obstacle to intellectual development. The scientific method is a series of procedures that help supersede our cognitive biases. Compare the relative pace of human advances prior to and then after the scientific revolution. This comparison makes it crystal clear that the survival traits that worked so well for so long also kept us from moving forward in our accurate understanding of our world.

A developed intellect requires a willingness to bypass your ego's emotional needs

and accept information that often"feels" uncomfortable. This is a tall order and it requires a lifetime of practice.

Why Government should NOT be run like a Business

I think this conclusion should be a no-brainer for anyone who takes the time to think about it. What is the primary function of business? On the most basic level, the function of business is to generate profit. Profit is good and necessary for any successful business. But, profit is a motive without conscience. When profit is the guiding force, higher human motives such as patriotism, fairness, social responsibility, loyalty, honesty, generosity, and kindness become subordinate.

What is the primary function of government? The function of government is to serve the citizenry. The US Constitution articulates this purpose very eloquently: "establish Justice (fairness), ensure domestic Tranquility (peace), provide for the common defense (protection), promote the general Welfare (social responsibility), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity (protect the rights and freedoms of current and future generations of American citizens)."

Consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after business, who is motivated by personal profit to the exclusion of all other influences. This individual would be characterized as a sociopath and government would be charged with protecting the populous from him/her.

Now, consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after government, whose dominant motivators in life are to stand up for people who are being treated unfairly, to maintain social harmony, to protect those who are in danger, to share with those who are in need, and to support the freedoms and rights of all people. This person would be characterized as a hero.

Running government like a business is not just a bad idea. It is an immoral one. Government protects society by enforcing laws and regulations that restrict individual citizens and businesses from engaging in behaviors that harm others. This must be accomplished while ensuring that the liberties of each individual are protected and that there is a level playing field for the free market. 

This is not rocket science. When one’s moral compass is not compromised by base motives (greed, bigotry, selfishness, arrogance, clannishness, indifference to the suffering of others, cruelty, etc.), direction becomes clear and obvious. 

The Difference between Feeling True and Being True

In her book, Being Wrong, Kathryn Schultz explains that being wrong feels exactly like being right! It is our nature to assume that the knowledge we possess is correct. Our level of certainty tends to remain constant regardless of whether we are actually right, or if we just mistakenly think that we are right. We enjoy an ongoing sense of rightness until the very moment we are proven wrong. 

In teaching General Psychology, I found that each chapter we cover carries the underlying message that, as humans, we are nearly always wrong about nearly everything. Our memories are erroneous. Our sensory perceptions are flawed. We are unable to conceptualize large numbers and great spans of time. We are easily fooled by appeals to emotion. Our innate tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on tiny bits of information creates an environment of near-chronic wrongness.

Despite chronic wrongness, it is natural for us to trust our feelings, our thoughts, and our perceptions. Navigating human life would otherwise be impossible. Our sense of rightness enables us to make decisions and take necessary actions. It is an unfortunate side-effect of living in this bubble of pleasant certainty that we experience shame when proven wrong. We stubbornly resist opportunities to improve on the accuracy of our respective funds of knowledge, because being proven wrong is so unpleasant. We are mortified as the false perception, “if I am proven wrong, then I am made a fool,” emerges. Evidence abounds to suggest that the accurate interpretation should be, “if I am proven wrong, then I am learning, developing and improving.”

• Make friends with being proven wrong. The moment you understand that being proven wrong is necessary to becoming a better you, a world of opportunity materializes. As Dudley Field Malone said, “I never in my life learned anything from a man who agreed with me.”
• Be a skeptic. Skeptics are not the same as pessimists. Pessimists are characterized by feelings of negativity and hopelessness. Skeptics are simply people who require evidence before believing a piece of information. Being skeptical is the opposite of being gullible. 
• Don’t be fooled by emotionally persuasive manipulations. Arguments that are supported by appeals to tradition, popular opinion, common sense, weak analogies, attacks on character, and false generalizations all exploit the human tendency to trust gut feelings and emotional responses.
• Learn to identify actual evidence. Very often, actual evidence will conflict with gut feelings and emotional responses. True evidence is measurable and empirical. I may feel that this was the hottest summer ever. However, if measurable data indicates otherwise, I must trust the empirical evidence over my feelings.

So, if I am interested in finding the truth, then I must understand that, while gut feelings are useful, they are an extremely fallible resource. I must continuously test my gut feelings against objective litmuses like logic, mathematics, research results, and physical properties. I must learn to trust real evidence, especially when it conflicts with my emotional leanings. 

The ability to override gut feelings enables humans to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to intuition. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, logic, mathematics and the scientific method provide a means for humans to break the bonds of primitive thought processes. Determining the difference between feeling true and being true is the mechanism for transformation.

Are You an American Patriot, or an American Nationalist?

In his book, Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism, Woden Teachout distinguishes American patriotism from American nationalism.[1] American nationalism requires love and support for our country. I relate nationalism to the commitment one feels for a favorite sports team. Regardless of who is playing on the team, who is coaching the team, who owns the team, and how well the team is doing this season, the fan proclaims, “My team is the best!” Likewise, regardless of the foreign policies of this country, domestic policies of this country, and data on how this country ranks in the world on myriad issues, the nationalist proclaims, “America is the best!” Nationalistic flag waving support for any and all military actions initiated by the US very much resembles a sports fan rooting for his/her favorite team. The mantra of the American nationalist is, “AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!”

Conversely, the focus of American patriotism is love and support for the ideals of our country. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution articulate these values:

·         Popular Sovereignty: The people are the ultimate source of the authority for the government. It derives its right to govern from their consent.

·         Majority Rule and Minority Rights: While decisions are ultimately made by the majority, these decisions may not infringe on the rights of the minority

·         Limited Government: The powers of government are limited by law and kept in check through separated and shared powers, due process of law, and leadership succession through elections

·         Basic Rights: Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.[2]

There is a significant correlation (.78) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the economic elites in America.[4] There is a near zero correlation (.03) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the average citizen in America.[5] These statistics demonstrate that popular sovereignty does not currently exist in the US! The American patriot is outraged by such information that cuts to the heart of our democracy. The nationalist may shrug it off as, “just politics.”

American patriots ensure that minority rights are protected. The Constitution is very clear on this point. However, disregard for the rights of minorities are in the news every day. African Americans represent 13.2%[6] of the US population, but are arrested at a rate “10 times higher than people who are not black.”[7] Unfairness to any minority group is repugnant to a patriot, but may be seen as trivial or even "getting what they deserve" to the nationalist.

American patriots support the separation and limitations of power in government. Laws like Citizens United nullify the checks and balances put into place by the framers of the Constitution to ensure that power is never in the hands of a privileged few. When the economic elite fund politicians from both sides of the isle at all levels of government, there is no longer any real separation of power. Any process that undermines our democracy will outrage a patriot. Nationalists, however, will continue to wave the flag and shout, “We’re the best!”

American patriots support the natural rights of everyone everywhere to live freely and pursue their own happiness. Freedom is a fragile and complex notion. Initially, a capitalistic, free-market economy is a healthy environment to foster freedom. However, anyone who has played the game Monopoly knows that it always ends the same way. One player will own everything while the other players have nothing. Monopoly is an unrestrained capitalist, free-market economy. In the real world, if a society wishes to preserve freedom, capitalism must have checks and balances that continuously even the playing field. Regulations on banking, Wall Street, and others at the top of the food chain protect liberty and freedom for the average citizen.

American patriotism, by its very nature, prohibits nationalism. A true American patriot holds government accountable to the people. The Iraq War, which ultimately killed between 144,745 and 166,468 civilians and orphaned over half of Iraq’s children, was initiated despite the CIA’s “best Intelligence” indicating Saddam Hussein did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.[3]  A war precipitated by ignoble motivations is tantamount to mass murder and should be repellant to a real American patriot.

The fundamental values outlined in the Constitution are forever in the hearts of American patriots. American liberals and American conservatives should also be American patriots. Nationalists wrapped in the American flag, who claim patriotism, need to be outed for what they really are.

---

[1]  Teachout, Woden (2009). Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism. New York, New York, USA: Basic Books. p. 230. 

[2] "CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY." CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[3] Taylor, Peter. "Iraq War: The Greatest Intelligence Failure in Living Memory." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[4] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[5] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[6] "USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[7] Heath, Brad. "Racial Gap in U.S. Arrest Rates: 'Staggering Disparity'" USA Today. Gannett, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.