5 Reasons Torture is always Wrong

"The word "torture," tellingly, comes from the Latin torquere, to twist. Stine Amris and Julio G. Arenas, who have done extensive studies on the effects of torture, define it as "the infliction of severe pain (whether physical or psychological) by a perpetrator who acts purposefully and on behalf of the state"."

"The debate in our nation today concerns what measures can legitimately be taken to extract information from prisoners held by us in the "war on terror" and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As such, it is a debate about the proper use of government power in a liberal democracy. Can that power ever rightly extend to the use of any form of torture?"

This article from Christianity Today addresses the torture issue and speaks directly to fellow Christians. It begins with an overview of the debate, then proceeds to give its' 5 reasons as to why it's wrong, period.

We have today, a very vocal segment that proclaims the U.S. to be a Christian nation, yet follows, and accepts, the teachings of some very un-Christian political and religious leaders who claim to speak to and receive guidance from God. What puzzles me is why so many who claim Jesus as their savior, willingly accept practices that they should know, Christ would never allow. This goes beyond ignorance of biblical teaching, since the bible is accessable to everyone in this country. These aren't the days of early Christianity when the faithful had to take the word of their leaders for what the bible said, back before the printing press and learning to read. What puzzles me is why these people make big points about how they believe that Islam is a murderous religion, without acknowledging all the death, destruction, slavery, and wars that were initiated by the zealous Christian over the millenniums. Of course, I'm not really puzzled, I know hypocrites when I smell them.

This article tries to explain particularly to Christians why toture is wrong. I wouldn't think, that in a nation that claims itself to be so close to God, followers would need to be shown how wrong it is. Simply looking at Christs' life, should be enough to see that torturing, war mongering, wishing death on others, and generally being hateful, violates everything He stood for, and anyone who advocates it in His name, violates Him as well, and should not be followed.

Rumsfeld's Roadmap to Propaganda

"A secret Pentagon "roadmap" on war propaganda, personally approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but provides for no such limits and claims that as long as the American public is not "targeted," any leakage of PSYOP to the American public does not matter."

"Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University and posted on the Web today, the 74-page "Information Operations Roadmap" admits that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa," but argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."

"The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, amended in 1972 and 1998, prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences; and several presidential directives, including Reagan's NSD-77 in 1983, Clinton's PDD-68 in 1999, and Bush's NSPD-16 in July 2002 (the latter two still classified), have set up specific structures to carry out public diplomacy and information operations. These and other documents relating to U.S. PSYOP programs were posted today as part of a new Archive Electronic Breifing Book."

"Several press accounts have referred to the 2003 Pentagon document but today's posting is the first time the text has been publicly available. Sections of the document relating to computer network attack (CNA) and "offensive cyber operations" remain classified under black highlighting."

Well here it is, the document from our Defense Departments' Ministry of Propaganda. I haven't read it yet, but wanted to get it out there as soon as I found it. I'm sure I'll post my opinion on it when I do. In the mean time, refresh your memory on the few things I said about its' practice, in earlier posts:

U.S. military propaganda for Iraqis
Bush concern at Iraq 'propaganda'
Pentagon rolls out stealth PR

Court upholds airline ID check

"A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the constitutional arguments of a Bay Area tech millionaire who had refused to show identification or undergo an especially rigorous search before boarding an airplane."

"John Gilmore of San Francisco declined to show ID or submit to a more intense search than other passengers when trying to board a Southwest Airlines flight July 4, 2002, from Oakland International Airport to Washington, D.C. When barred from the flight, he tried to take a United Airlines flight the same day from San Francisco International Airport, with the same result."

"The regulation requiring ID at airports is deemed "Sensitive Security Information," the government contends, so Gilmore has never been able to see a copy."

This is a follow-up to a story I posted on earlier entitled

Secret Laws,

and comparable to another,

United States v. Deborah Davis.

Obviously, when both stories first broke, I considered it bullshit to have a law that you can't even be allowed to see. Now it looks like it's now the law of the land, that you can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist. Sure, it might be written down somewhere. It might even actually be a law, but if you can't show it to me, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. It means that from now on, whether there's really a law or not, they can get away with simply saying there is, and that's good enough for the courts. It means they can lie and say you broke this or that law, and get away with it. They can make up anything they want, and we have no defense.

This is an act of a dictatorship that feels itself so far above the law that they don't even have to bother with such trivialities as proving that a law really exists, or go through the troublesome process of creating a law in the first place. Isn't it bad enough that we now have real laws that violate the principles of a so-called free country, without having ones that are so secret we aren't even allowed to see them?

This proves that no single entity within government is to blame for the losses of our freedoms. This proves that Bush is not some anomalous lone wolf, that all we have to do is get rid of him, and this fascist process stops. No, in spite of what many seem to want to believe, it's the entire government that's simply been waiting for a good enough excuse to cut through the burdensome red-tape of Democracy, to treat us like they think we should be treated; as sheep to be manipulated and coerced into allowing them to play their geopolitical games unimpeded by us peasants.

The fact that neither the courts nor the legislature are even attempting to challenge the executive branch on this, proves to me at least, that they too wanted this type of authority all along. To be able to just say you're violating some phantom law, is nothing short of tyranny. The fact that both original stories never even made national mainstream news, shows how complicit the media is in this New World Order. And let's not forget the fact that there's no apparent public outcry against "secret laws", which proves that this campaign of fear, called "The War on Terror", is attaining it's true goal of making us so afraid, we'll submit to any degree of Constitutional subversion. It proves that we ourselves are complicit in our own subjugation.

U.S. Gvt. Funding Anti-Lavalas Groups in Haiti

U.S. Gvt. Channels Millions Through National Endowment for Democracy to Fund Anti-Lavalas Groups in Haiti

"We want to continue our Haiti coverage leading up to the election by looking at the activities of a government-funded organization that is pouring millions of dollars into trying to influence the country's political future. The National Endowment for Democracy is one of a handful of state-funded groups that have played a pivotal role in the internal politics of several Latin American and Caribbean countries in the service of the US government."

"The NED operates with an annual budget of $80 million dollars from U.S. Congress and the State Department. In Venezuela, it's given money to several political opponents of President Hugo Chavez. With elections underway in Haiti, it's reportedly doing the same to groups linked to the country's tiny elite and former military."

What hypocrites we are. We consider "Promoting Democracy" to mean buying opposition groups to see to it that countries can't decide their own fate. Pouring money into foreign countries to influence elections are about as undemocratic as you can get, since it subverts the internal process.

It's hypocracy since we don't want to allow other nations to do the same to us. Remember the Clinton scandal involving the Chinese contributing to the Clinton-Gore campaign?

From the Congressional Record, 1998

"Whereas the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is currently investigating the unprecedented flow of illegal foreign contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign during the 1996 Presidential campaign;"

"Whereas more than 90 witnesses in the investigation have either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States to avoid testifying, including 53 persons involved in raising money for the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-Gore campaign;"

"Whereas among the 53 persons who have either asserted the fifth amendment or fled the United States to avoid testifying are former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell; former White House aide Mark Middleton; longtime Clinton friends John Huang, Charlie Trie, and James and Mochtar Riady; and Chinese businessman Ted Sieong and 11 members of his family;"

"Whereas democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung has told Department of Justice investigators that he funneled more than $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions from a Chinese military officer to Democrats during the 1996 campaign cycle, according to a New York Times report on May 15, 1998;"

Sooo, if we don't want that sort of thing happening here, why are we doing it elsewhere? Well this isn't new, and doesn't surprise me. What does, is that we accept it. We spend billions of dollars to influence the political processes of other countries, and usually cause much greater suffering in those places, then if we'd just stayed away. Think of all the people who've paid a high price because they had to defend themselves against U.S. backed counter-insurgencies in this hemisphere alone. Everytime the people voted in leaders who tried pulling away from our influence, or overthrew brutal U.S. backed dictators, and/or went Communist, we went in and funded, trained and armed, opposition groups that would start a civil war. To be sure, many of those governments would've caused some degree of suffering on their own, but our interference assured that millions throughout the hemisphere would be killed, tortured, imprisoned, and starved, all in the name of "Defending Democracy".

What's really disgusting to me about our long, well documented history of creating unrest wherever big business is inconvenienced, and calling it "Defending American Interests", is that we go along with it so passively.

Related posts:

U.N. Acceptance of 'Collatoral Damage' Worries Haiti Group

Consultants Advisory Group (CAG) Spying in Haiti

New Blood, New Visions, and a New Political Party.

"Working class people, especially progressives, must come to understand that our interests are not being served by hitching our political wagons to either the Democratic or the Republican Party. The Republicrats represent a capitalist system that has given rise to class division, the unequal distribution of wealth, private ownership, and a system of wage slavery that does not serve democracy, but plutocracy. It condemns workers to being the property of their employers. Capitalism is the opposite of Democracy. We are only deceiving ourselves—falling into an old trap—by casting our votes in a system that not only excludes the majority of us, but also treats us with utter contempt."

This writer rambles on about the same things I have, about the need for a new political party. I don't see why he says "especially progressives" though, since the problems affect us all, and it would take us all to make any meaningful changes. He also advocates dumping the entire current system, while I'm not sure that's necessary. I believe we can successfully make due with the system we have, but major changes need to be made that only a loud vocal majority can achieve. Unless the majority takes a stand, only a small special interest will be heard making noise that will be ignored be the powers that be. So I don't see why "especially progressives", since that seems to be saying that they, more than non-progressives, need to be made aware there's a problem. I would think it was the reverse. It's those that have been going along with the flow, not rocking the boat, and just accepting that those in charge are doing what's best for us, that need to be enlightened.

One of the biggest problems he doesn't address is information. Without the truth being spread in a way that the average person will understand what's going on, and get mad enough to want change, nothing will happen. The information problem is the media. With most media being owned by an ever shrinking number of billionares and corporations, who support the status quo, they will use their powers of persuasion to lull the people into thinking that everything's ok, and that "those radicals" are against the "American way of life", and want to subvert Democracy. Or more likely, just ignore any desenting opinions. This isn't the 60s when there was a seemingly infinite number of independent news outlets, they've all been acquired by a small number of mega corporations that are among those that have subverted the current system by buying candidates.

He also doesn't address the problem of why it became subverted in the first place; greed. Not the greed of those with the money, but the greed of those that are supposed to be representing us. Regardless of what system is put in place of this one, you're going to have those in government who are going to be corrupted by big money. I don't have the answers either, but unless the financial profit is removed from those in office, no form of government would be any less susceptible then this current one.

One hint as to the authors' solution is at the begining where he mentions "private ownership" as one of the problems of this capitalist system. This seems to suggest that he would like to see an end to it. I definately disagree. I don't see how you prevent the corrupting influence of big business by eliminating private ownership, while allowing people to create small businessnes for themselves, that can grow and benefit society. Maybe that's why he says "especially progressives". Maybe he thinks that everything should be owned by the State. If that's the case, then the people will have no more say regarding the course of their lives than the average Soviet citizen had. Let's not go there.

The original ideals of this country were right, but we must remove the corruption. If we can't cleanse this system, we can't prevent it from infecting any others we may create in it's place. So let's save this one.

Shielding Big Pharma

"It's an image that haunts pharmaceutical CEOs’ private moments—Big Tobacco CEOs swearing to tell the truth on live television. And later, tobacco companies were ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages to their product's victims."

"Pharmaceutical CEOs can't wipe those images away, because they know that they also knew. They too knowingly and purposely obfuscated, obscured, fudged the facts and, when push came to shove, lied about the known dangers of some of their most profitable products. Now they are terrified that their crimes of commission and omission could reap them the same whirlwind harvest of accountability."

"That's really all you need to know to understand what George W. Bush’s FDA was up to last week. Ostensibly, last week's news conference was to unveil new rules—long demanded by consumer advocates and fiercely fought by drug companies—requiring clearer labeling of prescription drugs, particularly about possible harmful side effects."

At first glance this appears to be a victory for consumers. It's an example of what we can accomplish, and also an example of how big business must constantly be forced to be fair and honest.

However, as you know, neither corporations nor governments, can be trusted. That was the good news, now for the bad.

"The second rule change announced that day would bar state courts from hearing individual or class-action liability suits against drug companies. The reasoning behind this change was that, because a federal agency—the FDA— approves drugs before they can be marketed to the public, only federal courts should hear cases where someone claims they were injured by those drugs. It's called “federal preemption,” and, if upheld, it will require anyone wanting to sue a drug do so in federal court."

What that means is that the government will cover it's own, and drug companies' asses, while screwing you in yours. You'll say the drug company did you wrong, and the feds will say that since they complied with federal regulations, and met with our approval, your case is without merit, so bend over.

Read the rest of the article to see that our representative form of government no longer works for us (did it ever?), but soley for big business. If there was ever an example of why we need campaign reform, this is it. As long as our government is for hire, we'll be screwed every time.

Bolivian leader sworn in as the Left advances on US doorstep

"Evo Morales, a former llama herder and coca farmer, was sworn in yesterday as Bolivia's first indigenous Indian president, the latest in a string of Leftists sweeping to power across Latin America in a backlash against US-backed free-market policies."

"The 500 years of Indian resistance have not been in vain," Mr Morales said in his inaugural speech. "From 500 years of resistance we pass to another 500 years in power."

"The inauguration of Mr Morales, 46, who won last month's elections with the strongest mandate of any president since the end of the military dictatorship in 1982, attracted leaders from around the world. South American presidents turned out in force along with Spain's Crown Prince Felipe."

Well since I went on a rant about the region in my last post, only moments ago, I'll just point back to it, and say; "Ditto"

Sizing Up Hugo Chavez

"With Caracas hosting the annual World Social Forum and Washington pondering the pronounced regional tilt to the left, it may be time for a clear-eyed look at the most radical protagonist of that leftward tilt, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. There is no easy characterization of Chávez, but it is clear that he has become one of Latin America’s most astute, self-confident and, for now, influential political leaders, intent on changing the Hemispheric balance of power, significantly improving the lot of the region’s poor majority, and happily—at times with a twinkle in his eye —engendering hopes and fears from South America to Washington and beyond."

This is a brief look into what's going on in his country. It points out a few problems, but nothing that isn't also present here in the U.S.

This should start you off on getting more aquainted with some of the changes taking place there, after which, fire up your search engine to find more details. I feel it important to look a little closer at what's going on south of our border, as the changes there will affect us up north. If the "regional tilt to the left" continues, and is allowed to build in strength, you will hear more and more grumblings from our government, who will be looking for excuses to intervene on behalf of all the corporate interests that are seeing their profits fall.

We need to watch closely, and look for facts, and not become dependant on the Washington rhetoric that will tell us there's evil afoot. The only real issue will be in the regions' attempt to become their own masters, which they should be allowed to do. We as Americans need to stop allowing our government to subvert the development of other nations, simply because they choose not to be told what to do, by us.

If you look up the histories of all our southern neighbors, you find a history of U.S. meddling on behalf of some corporation. They've used human rights, or American citizens in danger, or the spread of communism, or anything else to mask the fact that whatever revolution that took place down there, was caused by an economic stranglehold we've had on them. Whenever profits have been endangered, we've gone down to set them straight. In the past whenever anyone in our "backyard" tried socialist policies that were bad for big business, their only recourse was to seek military alliance with the Soviets for protection.

Well, there's no more Soviet Union, and China, though still very much communist, has been considered "good for business" by our government, so the Cold War threats of yesterday won't work. Even if they mistreat their own people, that shouldn't be used as an intervention excuse, even while we attempt to punish Saddam for that reason, since like we did in Iraq, we've gleefully supported brutal dictatorships throughout the world, as long as they've allowed our corporations to pollute their environment, and exploit their resources and labor. So that's no excuse. We ourself are currently accused of human rights violations, so we have no moral ground to stand on.

We are left with one course of action; inaction. Lets leave them the hell alone, and let them develop in their own way, for better or worse. If they want to rebel against corporate abuse, our government should stop being "corporate hitmen".

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

What's probably been obvious to any independent thinkers out there, who've observed our political process for any length of time, appears to have been proven a fact. It's because I've seen this in action for years, that I've refused to ally myself with any political party or group. This is what's wrong with institutional ideology. Once a group forms their ideas and grows to become influential, most all the members become emotionally disturbed. They just can't seem to adjust to any information that may run counter to their beliefs. Those that do adjust, are usually forced by conscience, to leave and start a new group, then, fall right into the same trap themselves.

In my view, this behavior isn't limited to politicians or anyone else in positions of status or authority, it must also take place in the average person. I don't see how else to explain why a person would vote a straight party ticket, all their life, in face of obvious discrepancies between the partys' platform, and what they actually do. That's never made any sense to me. Whenever someone points out flaws in a persons belief system, any system, they react similar to this studys' results. I believe that everyone who puts all their faith in a system, or a person, is susceptable. How many times in your life have you faced resistence after trying to explain and prove why a persons faith is misplaced? I think it's just human nature to attempt to avoid acknowledging when we're wrong. I, of course, don't have that problem.

Dr. Michael Parenti: "Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy"

"OCTOBER 9, 2002, VANCOUVER: Dr. Michael Parenti, one of North America's leading radical writers on U.S. imperialism and interventionism, fascism, democracy and the media, spoke to several hundred people at St. Andrews Wesley Church in Vancouver."

"Dr. Parenti has taught political science at a number of colleges and universities in the United States and other countries. He was written 250 majro magazine articles and 15 books and is frequently heard on public and alternative radio."

This is a flash video that as of this writing, isn't available. However, the page does have download links for the audio presentation in RM and MP3 formats.

I've never heard of this guy before, and because there's no printed transcript on the page, was about to pass it up. I'm really glad I didn't. I think it was the word "Conspiracy" in the title that made it sound like it was going to be one of those wild irrational theories that are more entertaining, than having anything to do with reality. The trouble with exposing/promoting conspiracies is that skeptics give these people the name of "conspiracy theorists", and laugh them off by lumping them all into the same barrel, with believers in secret government UFO connections, the moon landing hoax, Bigfoot having been created by aliens, Elvis sightings, etc, etc, thus effectively ridiculing them in the eyes of the general public who are told it's all a bunch of sillyness. Remember Bush speaking at the rubble of the WTC towers right after 9/11, warning us not to believe in "conspiracy theories" that will arise in the coming days? That was a pre-emptive strike against anyone not going along with the "official" story of what had happened.

The thing is, conspiracies take place all the time. The word does not equate to "wildly improbable nonsense". Any two people getting together and discussing a plan that they don't want the general public to know about, is a conspiracy. People are conspiring all the time, to commit murder, robbery, political corruption, adultry, and so on. So my point is that even if you've been conditioned to flinch whenever you hear the "C" word, don't immediately dismiss it, thinking it's something from the paranoid "aliens are among us" crowd.

With all that said, I believe you'll find this speech worth hearing because what's being said are not wild theories, but the way things are actually happening, and any doubters can easily jump on a search engine and check on some of the things he says. Any regular readers of this blog will recognize many of the things the speaker says, as I've covered them in previous posts. He talks about globalization in a way as to make you understand why I've blasted the behavior of multi-national corporations, particularly in poor countries. Like me, he doesn't have an inherent problem with basic capitalism, but we both can't ignore the blatant abusiveness of mega-corps once they embed themselves in countries that are to weak and poor to fight for basic economic, environmental, and workers rights. He explains what capitalism is doing around the world.

Like I said, I've never heard of him before, so I'm not too sure about where he stands on solutions. My latent "anti-commie" indoctrination kicked in a couple of times when he seemed to be favoring socialist economies. Anyway, he does remind you of the reasons we have it so good hear in American. As a history buff, I've mentioned it myself. Over the last hundred years we've fought (and died) against unrestrained capitalism, and forced it to conceed to our demands for a living wage, decent working hours, worker safety, child labor laws, environmental protections, equal opportunity, pension plans, etc, but since the Reagan era, all those advances have been slowly erroding. Poorer countries, many still living with the corrupting legacy of colonialism, haven't been able to successfully restrain capitalist domination of their countries by creating and enforcing the laws that we have, because everytime they try, we send in the marines, or subvert their political process, to make the world safe for corporations. They're erroding here at home now, because those same companies are crying broke, and need relief from the oppressive wage, economic, and environmental retrictions we've placed on them, to protect ourselves from being abused. And they're getting their way. Meanwhile, our standard of living is steadily going down, yet we're told the enonomy is doing great. Great for whom?

The one clear message from this is that we have to correct things ourselves. We can't count on politicians, even the Democrats. No one is going to put things right, unless we force them. And that won't happen without knowledge of what's wrong, plus a little anger.

Walking Wounded

"The observant will have noticed that we hear little from the troops in Iraq and see almost nothing of the wounded. Why, one might wonder, does not CNN put an enlisted Marine before a camera and, for 15 minutes without editing, let him say what he thinks? Is he not an adult and a citizen? Is he not engaged in important events on our behalf?"

"Sound political reasons exist. Soldiers are a risk PR-wise, the wounded a liability. No one can tell what they might say, and conspicuous dismemberment is bad for recruiting. An enlisted man in front of a camera is dangerous. He could wreck the governmental spin apparatus in five minutes. It is better to keep soldiers discreetly out of sight."

"So we do not see much of the casualties, ours or theirs. Yet they are there, somewhere, with missing legs, blind, becoming accustomed to groping at things in their new darkness, learning to use the wheelchairs that will be theirs for 50 years. Some face worse fates than others. Quadriplegics will be warehoused in VA hospitals where nurses will turn them at intervals, like hamburgers, to prevent bedsores. Friends and relatives will soon forget them. Suicide will be a frequent thought. The less damaged will get around."

Exactly! The article (from a conservative site, mind you) raises issues that are simply not being talked about. Whether you're a "bring'em home now" type, or a "stay the course" person, you need to ask yourself where the veterans are. We certainly hear about the deaths, but not about the survivers who are leaving substantial parts, both physical and mental, of themselves, on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't see them anywhere, as if they don't exist, and as this article states, it's because they really don't exist to the people in power. Those "people in power" include the media. You would think there would be plenty of "human interest" stories out there for the media. We do hear from some, but for the most part, they're the ones who hadn't lost limbs.

I had my misgivings about the elimination of the draft when it ended back in the 70s. It was very clear back then that among other factors, the inclusion of the general population in the military had a lot to do with ending that war. It was the returning vets, many wounded, many that were forced to serve in the first place, that added their voices to that anti-war movement. They spoke out on the true nature of that war, but more importantly, they didn't have to wait until they returned to voice they opinions. For those of you who were not around back then, we got to see them on TV, every night, being interviewed by non-"embedded" reporters. We saw our wounded on TV, both in the battlefield, and here at home. They weren't being hidden from us like they are now. The military said they learned lessons from Vietnam, and this is one of them. If they can keep the soldiers quiet, they'll have less an impact on the American publics' opinion. They also learned to keep much tighter control on the media.

This time around the government was ready. Two of the most powerful voices of the Vietnam war, the soldiers and the media, have been softened to a whisper. If you think that media is properly critical of the war now, it's nothing like it would be if our journalists were allowed to roam free over there. It's hard to hide some things because there are other countries' reporters roaming around there that avoid being restrained by our military. But they pay a high price for their independence. How many times have you heard reports that American troops have killed a foreign journalist? Sometimes, those of our allies.

It's really shameful that our government cares so little for our troops, but acts so concerned that their morale will be hurt, if they hear from us, the things they already know first-hand. But that's only while they're still fighting. Once they're wounded and sent home, they reverse the process, and see to it the vets don't speak out and hurt our morale. At least that's what they're trying to prevent.

Here are a few related posts:

Fewer Iraq Casualties Fatal
Veteran Unemployment Rate Skyrockets
Bush - AWOL from Supporting our Troops

Peak Oil Debunked

"Debunking peak oil hype with facts and figures, and exposing the agendas behind peak oil."

I should have an opinion on the subject of peak oil, but I don't. I've paid little attention to it, mainly because of the limited number of hours in the day. I've posted on other oil issues, but regarding the debate on future availability, I just don't know enough.

I've heard things about it, ranging from virtually unlimited supplies, to running out in a couple of years, but never really looked it to it. The politics of oil is one thing, but how much of it there is left, is something that's going to determine the course of societal evolution, and that's no small matter.

I'm presenting this site, not because I'm siding with it's author, but I have to start somewhere, and I just happened to trip over this site last night, and haven't even read much of it. So, if you've also been lax in looking into this debate, let's learn together.