The War On Hype

This is a series of opinion articles from a San Francisco papers' website, by different authors. They all take on the excessive amount of publicity that keeps us (meaning you, not me) in a constant state of fear of everything from terrorists to plagues. The purpose is to put a little perspective back in your lives, and try to snap you out of the politically motivated trap that causes people to demand more and more protections just to "make us safe". I try to stress that point whenever I can, because I know that's a fruitless pursuit. No one can ever make you safe. It's always to the benefit of the power structure that you be made to fear anything and everything since those in power want nothing more than to create more power for themselves, and less for you.

Here in America, this is not a new phenomenon, it's a natural part of any society whose leaders (in government, business, religion, media) succumb to the taste of power. Power is a force unto itself, and consumes everything and everyone in it's wake. No matter how benevolent it is at birth, it always grows, if allowed, into an unstoppable entity that will sooner or later become intolerable to even the most meek and tolerant. Some societies are created by force, to overcome a previous force, and retain that ideology of force. Others, like ours, used force to overthrow colonial governance, and replaced it with governance by consent.

The problem today is one that grew throughout the last century. It grew from a desire to act outside of the wishes of the governed. Because dictitorial force was considered anti-American, a method other than pure force was used; manipulation. Our society has fallen victim to mass propaganda efforts designed to allow authority to take greater and greater power over every aspect of our lives, by convincing us that "it's for our own good". It's done subtly through the media, government, and the pulpit. It's done through marketing campaigns that gauge your current opinions, and devise ways of altering it to serve the purposes of others. Leaders learned that if you can be easily manipulated into buying a certain brand of food, car, or household product, you can be manipulated into accepting anything. If a marketing campaign can be established to convince you that you can't live without a new product that you never needed before, and could still do without, you're putty in their hands. All they have to do is market fear.

The only protection is awareness, and to that end, I submit these articles:

Risk to U.S. of withering terrorist hit is overblown

"Conventional wisdom says that none of us is safe from terrorism. The truth is that almost all of us are."

"The conventional belief is that in response to terrorism, the federal government has spent huge sums on homeland security. The fact is the increased federal spending on homeland security since Sept. 11 pales in comparison to increases in the U.S. defense budget. But homeland security has costs beyond spending, costs that conventional thinking rarely considers. U.S. homeland security policy conjures up a flawless enemy that could strike at any moment, in any place. That policy institutionalizes the fears terrorists created and harms liberal values."

America's fleecing in the name of security

"Rest easy, America. As a response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the Princeton, N.J., Fire Department now owns Nautilus exercise equipment, free weights and a Bowflex machine. The police dogs of Columbus, Ohio, are protected by Kevlar vests, thank God. Mason County, Wash., is the proud owner of a half-dozen state-of-the-art emergency radios (never mind that they are incompatible with existing county radios)."

"All of these crucial purchases -- and many more like them -- were paid for with homeland security grants."

The deadly terror lurking around the corner may not be such a big, ominous threat after all

"Americans receive a steady stream of warnings and alarms about new and horrific perils that await them. Pandemics, dirty bombs, cyber attacks, bioterror and other exotic threats are always on the verge of being unleashed onto a shamefully unprepared republic. Yet, judging from statistics on life expectancy, violent deaths and war, we live in much less perilous times than any generation before us."

Democracy in the Balance

"How do we nurture the healing side of religion over the killing side? How do we protect the soul of democracy against bad theology in service of an imperial state?"

This is a 2004 speech given by one of my favorite journalists and speakers, Bill Moyers. It was two years ago, but still just as relevant.

Voting machine tampering found in 2004 election logs ?

"The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night."

"Black Box Voting successfully sued former Palm Beach County (FL) Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to get the audit records for the 2004 presidential election."

Oh, well, with all the machines used across the country, there's bound to be a few glitches somewhere. There must be more to it......

"The evidence indicates that someone accessed the computers after the L&A (Logic & Accuracy tests) and before the election, and that this access caused a change in the machine's reporting functions, at least for date and time. Such access would take a high degree of inside access. It is not known whether any other changes were introduced into the voting machines at this time. As learned in the Hursti experiments, it is possible for an insider to access the machines and leave no trace, but sometimes a hasty or clumsy access (such as forgetting to enter a correct date/time value when altering a record) will leave telltale tracks."

You know, this is just one of the counties that used voting machines. As close as that race was in most states (in spite of the lies claiming Bush won by a "landslide"), it's real handy to have a voting system that can be so easily corrupted. Was this tampering, or just clumsy maintenance? Who knows, who can tell for sure? Well that's the crux of the voting machine debate, isn't it. If you can't accurately and reliably depend on the system used for exercising democratic decisions, then what's the point? If those that control the machines can make whatever changes they want, and do so to influence the outcome of elections, as all the voting machines are capable of doing, then real voting in American has officially ended, and only the pretense remains.

Unmarked Graves Across the U.S. Border

"More than 3,800 people have died in the U.S.-Mexican border region since 1993. Some 1,000 of them are buried in unmarked graves."

"Thousands of people from Latin America and the Caribbean die in the attempt to reach the United States or other destinations by the most varied means imaginable and trying to outwit ever stricter border controls. Some get lost or die of exposure in inhospitable desert areas, others are shipwrecked on the high seas, murdered, or suffocate in shipping containers, boxcars or trucks."

"Nobody knows for sure how many deaths there have been, but the numbers continue to mount."

Yes, many anonymous dead bodies, and who cares, really? Everyone's concerned about the porous nature of our borders and wants all intruders shot, or they're in favor of bringing in migrants because they help the economy and take jobs Americans won't take (but don't get me started on that friggin lie).

The issue always centers around whether we should let them in or not, instead of ending the reasons for their desperate need to come here in the first place. We all know they come here because they're poor. We all "should" know why they're so poor they're willing to spend life savings, and risking death, just to find work here. We all "should" know that, in spite of our callous disregard for, or blind ignorance of, the behaviour of our government, our corporations, and our influence over international developement agencies, it is they that have treated everything south of our border like their own private playground, keeping the vast majority poor, and the select few in power. We "should" know all that, but if we did, wouldn't we be trying to eliminate the the reasons for people to leave their own countries for work, especially since we're responsible? Should we be acting so selfishly in pretending our only concern should rest at our border? The world to our south is exactly how our leaders designed it, and it's time we owned up to it, and stop allowing it.

Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre

Right on the heels of the previous Fallujah post, I suggest you watch this video documentary. It does show dead and wounded, so you may not want to actually look at the whole thing, but do try to listen.

80,000+ red-flagged on "No Fly" Lists

"The latest figures that I have seen are that at least 80,000 Americans are now on FBI and Homeland Security's red-flagged "no fly" lists with another 325,000 on yellow-flagged "watch lists" (the latter being subject to body and luggage searches). Hundreds more names are added every week."

"The criteria for being put in these lists is secret, and there is no official procedure for getting off a list."

"Government propaganda for these lists implies that only "known terrorists" and terror "suspects" are on the lists, but the reality is far different."

Those are interesting numbers, and I wish he'd provided a source for them. Assuming those numbers are accurate, then either we're literally crawling with terrorists, or, like everything else in government, something is ridiculously wrong. Only known terrorists are supposed to be on the list, but at 405,000+ names, something's not right.

The article is very short (it actually qualifies as a "memo"), and it only makes the point that the lists real purpose is to monitor and control us, implying that they will be used against government opponants. I suppose it's possible, and those numbers are just too damn high to be only "known" and "suspected" terrorists, all American. I wonder how large the non-American list is?

Anyway, I haven't seen those figures anywhere other than that page, but earlier this month there was a Senate Committee Hearing on the subject you might be interested in:

TSA's Secure Flight and Registered Traveler Programs

Thursday, February 9 2006

"Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Co-Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) have scheduled a Full Committee oversight hearing on commercial aviation security for Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The Committee expects to examine two of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)'s aviation passenger screening programs, Secure Flight and Registered Traveler, to discuss the issues that have prevented these programs from being launched, and to determine their future."

If you're interested, you can watch the video stream (1hr 53min) of the Hearing, or click on the names of any of the speakers and you'll be taken to a page to download that individuals' testimony as a PDF.

Al Jazeera Reporters Give Bloody First Hand Account of April ’04 U.S. Siege of Fallujah

"In April 2004, the United States launched its first assault on Fallujah, the Sunni town west of Baghdad that had come to symbolize Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation. The offensive came a few days after four American military contractors from the private security firm Blackwater were brutally killed in the city."

"The siege was one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerillas resisted U.S. attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died and over 1,000 were wounded. While the U.S. military claimed at the time that the vast majority of those killed were members of the resistance, media reports from within Fallujah indicated a large number of civilians were among the dead."

This page gives a transcript of the interview broadcast yesterday on Democracy Now. You can listen to the audio as well, but if you can, I suggest you view the video stream, as it includes some of the photos taken during the assault. This is important because if you only pay attention to the officially sanctioned reports coming from agencies that were told at the start of the war that if they report negatively, their access will be prevented, you will never get close to the truth.

Don't concern yourself with the nonsense coming from our administration about Al Jazeera being "with the terrorists", they only make that claim because they can't control the information it puts out. Most all Arab governments hate them for the same reason, which, in my mind, is to be applauded. When governments get along with the media, that's when the truth gets hidden. I won't go as far as to say that everything Al Jazeera reports is true, just that it's important to hear more than one side.

Fallujah happened some time ago, but it shouldn't be forgotten. What's usually bypassed in the story of that city is the fact that the assault was forced upon the U.S. troops as a result of having little control over private contractors, who aren't looked upon favorably by our troops. They pretty much do as they please, with little coordination with the military, and in this case, got themselves killed. It was their deaths that created political pressure that forced our military to abandon (supposedly) more effective plans for dealing with the area, and launch a retaliatory assault that these reporters found themselves witness to.

In case you missed it in an earlier post, here's a link to a page that gives a little background on the contractors killed, without much detail:

Ambushed Contractors

This is from the same site, with links to information on contractors, along with a link at it's top, to a video documentary:

Private Contractors

That video also discusses the deaths of the contractors. In the rest of the links, notice just how profitable war is these days, to corporations. The fact that they're so extensively used, means they have way too much influence on events during conlicts. If we have to outsource anything to conduct a war, we shouldn't be in one. Not to meantion all the other reasons.

1st chips implanted in U.S. workers

"An Ohio firm has implanted silicon chips in two of its workers in what is believed to be the first known case in the United States of electronic tagging of employees for security purposes."

"The employees volunteered, but the move by CityWatcher.com, a private video surveillance company in Cincinnati, raises a question: When will you be tagged?"

"Probably not ever, say workplace experts. But it could become increasingly common for employees to be required to carry electronic chips on their person, with keys or around their necks, said Kenny Colbert, president of The Employers Association, a Charlotte firm that advises 700 companies on human resource issues."

"But that is a radical thought -- to have the chip implanted," Colbert said. "I just don't see this being a wave of the future by any stretch of the imagination."

The trouble with listening to "experts" and their predictions is that they're often just plain wrong. You have just as good a chance at guessing future trends as they do. These implants may be a radical thought today, but at one time, so was traveling through the air, or even into space. Speaking directly to someone on the opposite side of the planet was thought to be a dream of lunatics. Sitting in your home while listening to music, watching "moving pictures", as well as live events, on a little box, was unheard of, and laughable. More recently, who in their right mind would think that the U.S., after experiencing what the rest of the world always experiences, would be frightened into passively accepting dictatorship just to "keep us safe". Some "experts" imaginations simply don't stretch far enough to the real world to be of any use.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that after another terror attack, public opinion could be steered into universal acceptance some type of chips. At first, they'll become widely used as suggested in the above quote, in key chains, neck chains, or bracelets. Once enough people are using them that way, there would be far less resistance to having them placed just under the skin. You wouldn't have to worry about lossing, or someone stealing, your pass. And then there's always that ever-present admonition by those that have no concept of the meaning of "freedom"; "If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?"

Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain

"The global consumption of bottled water reached 154 billion liters (41 billion gallons) in 2004, up 57 percent from the 98 billion liters consumed five years earlier. Even in areas where tap water is safe to drink, demand for bottled water is increasing—producing unnecessary garbage and consuming vast quantities of energy. Although in the industrial world bottled water is often no healthier than tap water, it can cost up to 10,000 times more. At as much as $2.50 per liter ($10 per gallon), bottled water costs more than gasoline."

I was never stupid enough to fall for the marketing hype that has so many of you toting around your little highly expensive bottles of water, as if you can't survive that trip to work, school, the library, to a friends' house, the store, or wherever it is that requires you to pack "supplies" for a 15-20 min trek through city streets. The downside of your habit, as spelled out in this article, was immediately and obviously apparent to me the moment I first saw this craze arise. Oh sure, I've heard all the lame excuses about bottled water supposedly being safer and healthier than tap water, both scientifically refuted years ago. There's no excuse for it here in the U.S.

It just seems incredible that even people so concerned about the environment, doing their best to act eco-friendly, can be so wasteful in this regard. I get plenty of water, and never feel the need to carry it with me through my travels around town (or room to room, like some of you). If I were to ever find out, from my doctor, that like many of you, I simply could no longer live without sipping water at 3-5 minute intervals all day every day, I'd have the common sense to get a reusable container (you do know they make them, don't you?), and use tap water, which is at least regulated by local health departments.

Yes, this issue pisses me off. There's no excuse for this here in the U.S. and I wouldn't care if the only point was that suckers were getting fleeced, but as the article makes clear, it uses a hell of a lot of resources, and causes disposal and various other issues that affect us all.

Now if you live in other parts of the world, under conditions where your only source of safe drinking water is through bottles, then pay me no attention, I'm not bitchin at you, I'm eyeballing only those who've fallen for the corporate snake-oil sales pitches. And they know who they are.

Hidden history of US germ testing

Fifty years ago, American scientists were in a frantic race to counter what they saw as the Soviet threat from germ warfare. Biological pathogens they developed were tested on volunteers from a pacifist church and were also released in public places.

We also tested on our own people without their knowledge, just as we did when developing chemical mind control techniques using LSD and other methods. Even if one considers that it was important to conduct tests like these on volunteers, doing so on people completely unaware of their participation as guinea pigs, is certainly a crime.

I like to post "old news" like this specifically to show the long history of behavior that demonstrates to the uninformed "true believers" who insist our government can do no wrong, or only acts in our best interest, are simply delusional. The pattern spans both major political parties so it's useless to dream that it's only the "other" party that's to blame for any of our problems. The patterns are an integral part of the whole bureaucratic institution of government, not simply limited to whoever controls the Whitehouse at any given moment in time. These patterns expose the fact that even when revealed to the public, and steps are said to be taken to prevent further illegal and/or immoral acts, those acts are continued, and it's the prevention of their revelation that's really acted upon.

The pattern continues today, in the exposure of civilians and our own troops to the effects of depleted uranium weapons, in the same way that was done with atomic weapons testing in the 50s and 60s.

The fact is, that no government can or ever should, be trusted. Governments inevitably develop their own agendas, separate from the needs and welfare of their own people. Governments should never be given blind faith, because it makes it that much easier to abuse you, and get away with it.

Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past

"Washington D.C. May 12, 2004: CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s described "coercive techniques" such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to the declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive. The Archive also posted a secret 1992 report written for then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney warning that U.S. Army intelligence manuals that incorporated the earlier work of the CIA for training Latin American military officers in interrogation and counterintelligence techniques contained "offensive and objectionable material" that "undermines U.S. credibility, and could result in significant embarrassment."

This is a supplement to the previous post; History of CIA Interrogation. I meant to include this in that post, but I forgot. This page leads to a PDF version of the CIAs' KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual from 1963, that was mentioned by Professor McCoy in his Democracy Now interview.

Wounded Soldier, Widow Awarded $102.6 million

"A soldier wounded in Afghanistan and the widow of his slain comrade were awarded a $102.6 million judgment from the estate of a suspected Al Qaeda financier."

"U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said the lawsuit may be the first filed by an American soldier against terrorists under the Patriot Act."

From the "WTF" department comes a story that almost seems like a joke. You mean to tell me that our troops can now sue their attackers for damages?? Now I could see if they were just minding their own business, and not on active duty in a war zone, which is what that whole country is. Not that they'll ever collect a cent, but what's the point? Oh, wait....it does make sense. With the way our government really supports the troops, especially when they get wounded, this could be the only aide they get from their service. Yeah, that's the ticket. Where the government fails, bring on the lawyers.

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells

"Radiation detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report."

"Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain."

"Government officials, however, say the sharp rise in uranium detected by radiation monitors in Berkshire was a coincidence and probably came from local sources."

This article wastes its' time in a dabate as to whether or not the depleted uranium ammunition we used against Iraq caused fallout as far away as Britain. The REAL issue is that we used them at all. We used them in the first Gulf War as well as the second, but there were only a few mentions of it during the first one, then it disappeared from the media. What we've done, in my mind, amounts to a war crime, since we've contaminated the population (and probably the whole region, along with our troops) with radiation that will likely affect them for decades.

Mayor Daley wants security cameras at bars

"Mayor Richard Daley wants to require bars open until 4 a.m. to install security cameras that can identify people entering and leaving the building. Other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day, including convenience stores, eventually would have to do the same."

"There is no reason to mandate all of those cameras unless you one day see them being linked up to the city's 911 system," says Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union. "We have perhaps reached that moment of critical mass when people ... want to have a dialogue about how much of this is appropriate."

I say none of it is appropriate. Not one damn camera. It's one thing to lie about needing them on city intersections to promote traffic safety, when in reality, they're just new ways to enhance city revenues, but it's a whole different can of worns to mandate businesses to install cameras. This is getting crazy, and getting little opposition outside the traditional civil liberties groups. The public in general, just doesn't seem to give a damn. I'm glad I don't live in Chicago, or any other city mentioned in the article.

The story also contains one of my most hated phrases; "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?". People who say that just don't get it. People like that don't believe in a free society (or one that pretends to be), because being under surviellence wherever you go, for whatever reason, means you're not the least bit free. When are people going to grasp the simple fact that cameras don't stop a damn thing. Nothing. The clear evidence of that can be viewed on any American news broadcast. Despite the claims of security and safety, it's all bullshit. Cameras have been in banks and other businesses for decades, and yet they still get robbed, right in front of the cameras. At most, all they ever do is make it a little easier for the cops, after a crime has been committed. And the ones aimed at traffic, are only there to raise money, without having to pay a cop to sit an watch. Not one damn camera's going to "make you safe".

AL-Manar TV

"Al-Manar is a Lebanese TV station, it beamed its first terrestrial signal in the 1991 and it began broadcasting via satellite in the year 2000. The Channel approaches Arabs and Muslims all over the world with an open unifying speech."

"It assumes objective policy motivated by the ambitions of participation in building better future for the Arab and Muslim generations by focusing on the tolerant values of Islam and promoting the culture of dialogue and cooperation among the followers of the Heavenly religions and human civilizations. It focuses on highlighting the value of the human being as the center of the Godly messages which endeavor to save his dignity and freedom and develop the spiritual and moral dimensions of his personality."

Yeah, well, that's what they say about themselves, but what others say, is something totally different. Here's a couple of articles from 2004:

U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror

"Al-Manar, one of the most popular television networks in the Arabic-speaking world, has been removed from U.S. airwaves after the State Department designated it a supporter of terrorism."

"State Department officials placed the satellite television network, run by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, on its Terrorist Exclusion List on Friday because of what they described as its incitement of terrorist activity. The designation means foreign nationals who work for the network or provide it any support can be barred from the United States, officials said."

Al-Manar and 'TV terrorism'

"The US decision to list the Lebanese television station Al-Manar as a terrorist organisation, days after a French ban on the channel, is a mistake that sets a dangerous precedent, according to media watchdogs."

"Criticising the move to blacklist a media organisation, Reporters sans frontières, or Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has urged Washington and Paris not to confuse anti-Israeli broadcasts with the fight against terrorism."

Yes, it's Hezbollahs' own media outlet. Since they've stepped up in the world, winning the Palestinian parliament in, ironically, a democratic election that seems to show that simply being "democratic" isn't good enough for us, I thought I'd give you a chance to see their side. It doesn't really matter that you'll get propaganda, you get that from all other media outlets, but what's important is that you hear their words from them, not just soundbites and interpretations of what they say, from your own media. Go directly to the source.

Rumsfeld's Pet Tyrants

"When it comes to "the war on terror," North African governments can teach even U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a thing or two. And Rumsfeld seems to have been in a mood to listen on his sweep through Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco earlier this week. "Each country has been, in its way, providing moderate leadership and been constructive in...the struggle against violent extremism," he said at the outset of his trip. "It's something we value and want to strengthen."

"But a closer look at how North African regimes have dealt with Islamic fundamentalism gives pause for thought. Long before the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 alerted the Bush administration to the political advantages of declaring a global war on terrorism, North African governments had discovered that they could use the struggle against terrorism and Islamic extremism as a pretext to justify cancelling elections, neutering opposition, locking up political opponents, closing down political debate, and securing Western economic and military assistance."

This piece gives a glimpse into what has been the standard practice of our foreign policy, dating back through the Cold War. Much of the problems of the world today can be traced back directly to the world being carved up into two halves; half for the Soviets, half for us. For our part, we supported any regime that claimed to be anti-communist, even the most repressive and brutal. The results, long after the end of the Cold War still ring loudly. Much animosity still exists towards us, from the populations that lived under U.S. sponsored repression. Now, we're continuing the practice for the war on terror.

Nothing really changes. As long as a government is friendly to us, we'll give them any kind of support they need, no matter how much suffering it brings, as long as they claim to be "fighting terrorism". Just as in the past, these governments are really only interested in suppression of any opposition to their authority, which of course leads to desperation by the repressed, leading to insurgencies and terrorism. As always, we're not interested in little details like that. We don't care that it's the governments themselves that have caused most of the suffering, giving the people no alternative but violence. All we care about is whether their government is friendly to ours. That's the way it's been, and nothing has changed.

This is why the war on terror is a farce. As long as governments rule in opposition to the wishes of their people, there will be terrorism, committed by both sides. The people running our government know this, which is why they've insisted from 9/11 on, that this "war" will last for decades to come. They know their actions and support of certain governments will perpetuate the violence. There never should've been a war on "terror", but a war only on the people who attacked us. If we'd been committed to that, and used the amount of resources we've used so far just in Iraq alone, Al-Qaeda and it's memory would be practically gone by now. But that was never the plan.

The Long Emergency

"Most immediately we face the end of the cheap-fossil-fuel era. It is no exaggeration to state that reliable supplies of cheap oil and natural gas underlie everything we identify as the necessities of modern life -- not to mention all of its comforts and luxuries: central heating, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, electric lights, inexpensive clothing, recorded music, movies, hip-replacement surgery, national defense -- you name it."

"The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion."

This article is a year old, and claims that some experts estimated that world oil production would peak sometime in 2005. Whether it has or not, is still up for debate, though the reality of its' consequences are frightening. The description in this article of things to come, brings to mind all of those post-apocalyptic Road Warrior style Hollywood movies of the 80s, with the only difference being that those were based on the aftermath of a thermonuclear war.

Though this was directed at an American audience, its' repercussions will obviously span the globe. As the article points out, it's folly to think that many of the propsed substitutes will be of much use, as their production is still based on an oil ecomomy. It suggests that our societies will shrink down as we will no longer be able to afford long-distance travel, which means no food or energy will be forthcoming from outside our "little villages", in any amount that we've become accustomed to. All production of all our needs will have to be made locally.

The coming world, as described here, is nothing short of doom and gloom. It doesn't offer any solutions, aside from suggesting we reinvigorate our rail systems, which use less energy and require less maintainance than our current automotive infrustructure. It's not real hard to imagine a world without ready supplies of oil, and regardless of when it begins to run out, we're going to have one hell of a time re-ajusting to living similar to the old days of the 18th and 19th centuries.

If you think it all unbelievable, and far too pessimistic, then keep in mind that this same scenario has played out over and over throught history. History is about to repeat, because just like the others of the past, we're in denial that anything so dramatic could possibly harm our great and fabulous society. Remember the old saying; "don't put all your eggs in one basket", well that's what we've done with oil. Everything we have depends on it, and we depend on everything we have. But for how long?

CIA chief sacked for opposing torture

"The CIA’s top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as “water boarding”, intelligence sources have claimed."

"Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was “not quite as aggressive as he might have been” in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks."

"Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: "It is not that Grenier wasn’t aggressive enough, it is that he wasn’t ‘with the programme’. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists."

It's nice to know we do have some spies with principals. Not all are sadists, and fortunately, not all are willing to keep their mouths shut. I hope that no matter how many "Chiefs" they replace, those leaks keep coming. It's one thing to oppose the necessary evils of activities of intelligence agencies, but quite another to oppose, and reveal activites of operations that clearly cause more harm than good to our national security, national interests, and international moral standing. Before continuing, I should define what I mean by "national interests". I don't mean the interests of corporate geopolitics, but rather that which average Americans want our nation to stand for. Perhaps we need different words to describe the two, since they're diametric opposites.

We need leaks like the ones we've been getting because they highlight actions that cause hatred towards us. Every time we abuse people, particularly ones who only happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, we create another enemy of the U.S.. When they're already guilty of some crime against us, that's one thing, but we're doing irreparable harm to our nation by kidapping, torturing, killing, and any amount of other cruel treatment we place upon the innocent. Mistakes are bound to happen, but with a "gulty until proven innocent" approach, we seem to end up just collecting people to kick around just for the hell of it, rather than getting any real intelligence benefit. There are way too many stories of people caught up in the dragnets of this war on terror, that have nothing to do with it. Some of them will try to restart their lives the best they can, but others will see legitimacy in those that support some terror cause against us, and join them.

The leaks, as well as vocal opposition to these policies from within intel agencies (that cause some to be "relieved of their posts"), are what the people here need to know, so they can stop pretending that there's no reason in the world for anyone to hate us. They need to be able to awaken from the dreamworld their President has painted for them by lies of the terrorists "hating us for our freedoms", and other intelligence-insulting nonsense. They've grown far to dependant on official propaganda spread through mainstream media. Stories like this get almost no widespread coverage (outside the internet), or they're spun in the opposite direction, and the public just follows along believing what they're told is important, because the government and media emphasis is shifted from what was revealed, onto who revealed it. In the mainstream, it's more important to stop those criminal leakers, than stoping the crimes they've actually leaked about. This is why, the more leaks, the better. Leaks don't hurt us when they reveal crimes, the crimes do. One revelation can cause temporary problems for those in charge, but constant leaks help to pull the delusional public back to reality, if only for a while. Denial of reality is very hard to overcome.