The food trend becomes ever more alarming. For people like Ronlyn and myself, who eat out of our garden, it has little impact, but for millions who don't have that option, the story is becoming ever bleaker. The Obama Administration's active complicity in this trend should be a national scandal.
In this video, Dane Wigington gives a presentation in Northern California on the harmful effects of Geoengineering, declaring that there is no more critical topic today. The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs. This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.
Attached is another excellent report by Patrick Cockburn on the disorientating nature of contemporary yellow journalism in the Syrian Civil War.
Of course, disorientation is not a new problem in war: Sun Tzu said, “All war is based on deception.”
But the ability to manipulate data and images with high-tech computing technology and then distribute that manufactured ‘reality' nearly instantaneously, and at very low cost, has increased and decentralized the power to deceive. This decentralization of the power to disorient has made everyone from Barack Obama to John Q. Average American more vulnerable to the self deception of an incestuously amplifying OODA loop*, and in so doing, it has spread confusion, disorder … and culpability throughout the political decision-making system.
This ambiguity goes beyond centrally orchestrated propaganda and raises what may the central question of contemporary governance in a system based on the assumptions of a representative democracy : Who are the real decision makers in an evolving decision making system (or OODA loop) that is pulled and twisted by a plethora of ephemeral shadows in a cave?
World View: It is naive not to accept that both sides are capable of manipulating the facts to serve their own interests
Patrick Cockburn
Independent, 30 June 2013
Every time I come to Syria I am struck by how different the situation is on the ground from the way it is pictured in the outside world. The foreign media reporting of the Syrian conflict is surely as inaccurate and misleading as anything we have seen since the start of the First World War. I can't think of any other war or crisis I have covered in which propagandistic, biased or second-hand sources have been so readily accepted by journalists as providers of objective facts.
The United States has been accused of bugging European Union offices and accessing EU computer networks, according to secret documents cited in German magazine Der Spiegel.
EXTRACT:
The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, says if the report is correct it will have a “severe impact” on relations between the EU and the United States.
“On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the US authorities with regard to these allegations,” he said in a statement.
Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn told Der Spiegel, “if these reports are true, it's disgusting”.
“The United States would be better off monitoring its secret services rather than its allies,” he said.
Spending cuts have been applied by Congress to both military and non-military spending.
In my view, the military cuts are much too small and the non-military cuts should not exist at all. In the view of most liberal organizations, the military cuts — like the military spending and the military itself — are to be ignored, while the non-military cuts are to be opposed by opposing all cuts in general.
But, guess what?
The spending limits on the military are being blatantly violated. Both houses of Congress have now passed military budgets larger than last year and larger than is allowed under the sequester.
Meanwhile the sequester is being used to cut away at all that is good and decent in public policy.
In fact, the House Appropriations Committee proposes to make up for its violation of the law on military spending levels by imposing yet bigger cuts to non-military spending. And what's the harm in that if all cuts are equally bad?
The sequester, like the anti-torture statute, the war crimes statute, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, or the U.N. Charter, turns out to be one of those optional laws.
Laws are for certain people. The top general now being investigated as a whistleblower does not have a nude isolation cell at Quantico in his future, even though Bradley Manning was treated that way.
Laws are for certain things. Shooting children in a U.S. school is a crime. Dropping a missile on a foreign school is something more like law enforcement. Mothers in Yemen now teach their neighbors' children at home so that they can avoid going out to school while the drones are overhead. That's called freedom, the spread of democracy.
If you read my essay, A Sense of Proportion. (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephan-a-schwartz/surveillance-national-security_b_3436083.html) you know that I think this is the important unasked question. The answer though, as I have already published on this site, is that the terrorism argument is a cover for a deeper purpose, controlling society in the face of breakdown resulting from climate chan! ge. Here is a take from Germany, and you can see that other countries take considerable umbrage at the U.S.'s hubris. And have begun, as this report spells-out, to ask the right question.