Since 9/11, several major hurdles to martial law inside the United States have been removed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. All that really remains at this point is an excuse.

The first domino on the road to martial law comes in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress on September 18th, 2001. The Authorization says:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This effectively gives president Bush a blank check in his use of the military for terrorist fighting as long as he can link the people involved to al Qaeda, who is believed responsible for the September 11th attacks. What the law clumsily fails to preclude is the use of the military to fight al Qaeda on American soil. President Bush has repeatedly used this Authorization as the green light for the War on Terror which the U.S. Military is fighting in many countries around the world (including the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, etc).

There are many issues that could be considered second dominos in a chain of events leading to Martial Law: The Patriot Act's curtailing of the Bill of Rights; The Administration's end run around FISA to spy on Americans; and, Cheney's "Continuity of Government" which ran the U.S. government from a secret location for months after September 11th are all good possibilities.

Let's skip ahead to the final dominos that now have us an excuse (or gut feeling?) away from Martial Law:

Last year, the Republican Congress, as part of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, overturned the Posse Comitatus Act, which barred the military from a domestic police role, and made revisions to the Insurrection Act that allow the president to assume control of the National Guard -- something that belongs to the Governors on domestic affairs.

Whether we believe the Bush Administration is truly capable of declaring Martial Law or we believe the military will follow such orders is beside the point. The Democratic Congress needs to act to reverse as many of the dominos as they can, starting with amending the Authorization to limit the use of military force to oversees operations.

As the House Judiciary Committee prepares to seek formal contempt charges against current and past administration officials, they have released a report detailing specific accusations of misconduct and outright illegal activity in relation to the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the subsequent effort to cover-up the mess.

The Washington Post has the story of the committee's report alleging the administration "may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records."

The report further alleges that people who have testified before congress on the issue so far "appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel."

To me, the second issue spells perjury. Now, I seem to recall some recent precedent for impeaching someone in the government for perjury. It happened back in the 90's. That was something the Republicans who Controlled congress then were all for. Surely they'd support impeachment of Gonzales now, right?

The memorandum also details specific scheming on the part of Karl Rove to seek the removal of some U.S. attorneys:

In one of more than 300 footnotes, the Democrats point to a Jan. 6, 2005, e-mail from an assistant White House counsel that says that Rove "stopped by to ask . . . how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow them to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc."

Do we finally have our Watergate? Bush seems determined to stay in office and do as he pleases no matter what Congress or the American people think. Perhaps Congress can at least use this issue to seize control of the Justice Department before U.S. Attorneys become total political puppets.

If the purpose of the Justice Department firings is political, as nearly everyone believes, then the potential consequences are dire if Congress achieves nothing. Rove style mudslinging can be taken to a whole new level. Imagine democratic candidates being hit with empty charges of voter fraud in just a few tight races. Even if the charges prove false, they will change the outcomes of some elections.

Further Reading:
      Justice Department Working To Shrink Voter Rolls
      Gonzales Plans Annual Political Reviews For U.S. Attorneys
      Gonzales Uses Interim Appointments Against Congressional Wishes

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net

During his January 6th, 1941 State of the Union address, Franklin D. Roosevelt laid out four fundamental freedoms that should be enjoyed "everywhere in the world": Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of every person to worship in his own way, Freedom from want; and Freedom from fear. It is interesting to contrast these notions given in a speech as America was watching the world become increasingly engulfed in a world war that would draw in the U.S. by years end with the current "war on terror."

I was inspired to look at the Four Freedoms in a modern context after a weekend visit to the Norman Rockwell Museum. Norman Rockwell painted illustrations of the four freedoms that became part of the most successful War Bonds drive in U.S. history.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

Freedom of speech and expression is probably the most recognized of the four today. Yet, many people will not stand up for the rights of others to say what they please. Consider the whimper of protest around the Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick (a.k.a. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".) The court decided that since the banner, displayed at a school sponsored event could be interpreted as promoting drug use, that the school could restrict such speech.

Also consider the White House policy that blocks protestors from being at events attended by the president. It instructs that a designated protest area be established out of view of the event and the motorcade route. We've witnessed countless examples of this especially including the crack down in NYC during the Republican convention.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

This freedom is perhaps the most misunderstood in contemporary society. Liberals cite any entanglement between Church and State as a violation of the establishment clause. But that is not what the establishment clause means. The establishment clause does not bar public religious expression, it bars the government from establishing an official state religion. Mandatory school prayer, particularly if it is scripted, could be argued to be a violation of the establishment clause. A nativity scene erected on government property really isn't.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

This is really an argument for free trade and is likely tied to FDR's efforts to open up trade with other nations -- like his use of the lend-lease program to pry open Britain's colonial monopoly (arguably what really got the U.S. out of the depression.) Free trade has definitely improved our standard of living: we can buy many of our basic necessities for cheaper than we can make them.

I think a more liberal interpretation of "freedom from want", which Rockwell portrayed using a Thanksgiving dinner, suggests having basic necessities met. People should neither starve nor be sick simply because of poverty. We do some to help with each of those conditions amongst the poor in this country, but certainly not enough. There are working poor, for example, who get quickly shut out of the assistance programs.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

Boy have times changed. Instead of reducing armaments, the U.S. mass-produces them and gives them away as "aid" to other countries. Instead of resisting aggression between countries, thanks to the Bush Doctrine, we now perpetrate it. Eisenhower was right to caution against feeding the beast he called the Military Industrial Complex. There's a great saying that I think is metaphorically appropriate when it comes to the military's role in Bush's diplomacy: "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

But, let's take the concept of fear in a different direction. Consider this full quote, also from FDR:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Today, we deal with fear using a color-coded system and duct tape. Instead of inspirational speeches asking us to overcome our fear, we are kept in a perpetual state of fear through terror warnings about gut feelings.

We waged war -- real terror -- on another nation because we feared they might have weapons they could use on us. Even if Iraq had WMDs, is that a rational response? There are many countries with WMDs in this world. Are we going to attack all of them?

I don't have the answer as to how we return to a time where we believed in the four freedoms, but I feel as though we are moving away from them rather than toward them.

Speech is only respected as free if it is wholesome, patriotic, or something we agree with.

We only tolerate private religious expression, and we prefer it be Christian. Don't believe me, ask a Muslim their opinion.

Freedom from want has become "money is good, greed is good." Charity because I get a tax break is not the same thing as empathy.

Freedom from fear is nowhere to be seen. Our politicians foster it in the U.S. and abroad. In Iraq, we've done little to establish these freedoms. Some might say that there was little of them before the invasion, but I would argue that they are no closer now and nearly a million of them have died for it.

I think the biggest difference between the Four Freedom's and the current efforts by the Bush Administration to spread democracy is the uneducated, soundbite notion that democracy equals freedom. You cannot make someone value the freedoms that make American democracy work. Freedom does not exist because of democracy. Democracy exists because of freedom. People have sacrificed freedoms in past democracies only to watch their government give way to totalitarianism. Napoleon was elected. Hitler was elected. The Patriot Act was passed buy a scared, democratic government. If we do not work diligently to restore a value of freedom in society, our democracy will run out of fuel and fail.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

A group of researchers working for a company called Independent Security Evaluators have managed to crack/hack their way into iPhones using either WiFi or malicious code on sites visited by the iPhone's web browser.

The New York Times has the story (registration required) of the groups effort.

Although Apple built considerable security measures into its device, said Charles A. Miller, the principal security analyst for the firm, "Once you did manage to find a hole, you were in complete control." The firm, based in Baltimore, alerted Apple about the vulnerability this week and recommended a software patch that could solve the problem.

The firm demonstrated the flaw to the NY Times reporter, showing the phone handing over files in response to malicious code on a site they setup to prove the exploit. They are putting up a site that explains the exploit at http://www.exploitingiphone.com/.

A spokesperson for Apple says they're reviewing the report from ISE and that they take security very seriously.

ISE has been working on finding security holes in Safari for some time and were planning to reveal an exploit when it occurred to them to see if the exploit existed in the version of Safari on the iPhone. It apparently does.

Reprinted with permission from Mia Mobi.

Ted Carpenter, vice president of the Cato Institute, has stated his belief that departing U.S. Forces would not leave Iraq in the hands of al Qaeda; and, he's got the numbers to prove it.

UPI has the coverage of Carpenter's citation of some persuasive statistics in his assertion that al Qaeda is incapable of filling any void left by a withdrawing American force.

The first point contrasts the sheer numbers. While al Qaeda was a meaningfully sized 18,000 fighters in Taliban-run Afghanistan, there numbers are much smaller in Iraq, perhaps only 1,300. That is a small force compared to the nearly 26 million Iraqi civilians. That's a ratio of one al Qaeda fighter to every 20,000 Iraqis.

The second point is the results of a poll conducted in 2006 regarding civilian support for al Qaeda amongst Iraqi civilians. While a mere 94% of Sunnis disapprove of al Qaeda it gets even worse amongst Shiites and Kurds at 98% and 100% respectively.

Further Reading:
      Saudis Largest Foreign Part Of Iraqi Insurgency
      Bush Still Trying To Link Iraq And September 11th
      Obama Calls For New Role For U.S. Troops

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net.

The house judiciary committee has approved legislation to reform the U.S. patent system. Much of what is being proposed is unlikely to make the system any better, however.

PC World has the story of the committee's efforts to reform the patent system. Highlights include:

• The bill gives more latitude given to judges to consider the value of an entire invention in determining damages rather than just the infringed component.
• The bill moves patents from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, but gives inventors who publish their invention a grace period to claim their patent.
• The bill allows the patent office to review a patent it has already granted for legitimacy
• The bill extends the review period for patent applications and allows for outside input on the patentability of an invention
• The bill makes noises about changes to the litigation process to make patent infringement lawsuits harder to bring

More latitude in determining damages is clearly a nod to patent attorneys and makes it more likely for lawsuits to be brought as the damages can be bigger.

Moving from first-to-invent to first-to-file will either be ruled unconstitutional, as the constitution actually says patents go to the "inventor". If it is not ruled unconstitutional, we'll see even more bad patents as people can no longer feel protected by the fact that they invented something. Were first-to-file the law in Alexander Graham Bell's time, we would likely have no idea who he was. He'd have surely lost the patent for the telephone if he could not prove he was first to invent.

Allowing the patent office to review a patent is not the same thing as compelling the patent office to review a patent. Undoubtedly, they will continue to view patent legitimacy an issue for the courts and continue rubber-stamping the applications.

Extending the review period and allowing outside input is nice if it actually occurs. But here's the problem: Ask any patent attorney if you should read someone else's patent if you are working in the field and they'll tell you know because knowingly infringing a patent goes far worse for you in court than doing so inadvertently. So, who's going to do the outside reviewing? Probably, no one. As a bonus, the longer review process will grant an even greater air of legitimacy to the patents granted because of the opportunity for public review.

The bill talks about limiting litigation through a variety of easily circumvented means like limiting so-called "venue shopping." However, the bill allows any entity to file the suit, so it's easy enough to establish an entity in the venue of your choosing for the purpose of venue shopping.

The patent system needs real reform. This is a step backwards, not forwards, which has been bought and paid for by trial lawyers and big pharma. The net effects of these changes favor big pockets over the little guy and are likely to increase damages, which increases the likelihood of lawsuits and increases the legal costs all around. The little guy inventing something in his garage is in a world of pain under these changes.

Further Reading:
      Why Software Patents Are A Bad Idea
      Software Patents Invade Online Classroom
      Chinese Bring Patent Suits In U.S. Courts

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic point man for steering the successful Democratic Senatorial election efforts in 2006 and the upcoming elections in 2008, believes that they can make the Republicans who talk against the war but vote for it pay with their jobs in the 2008 election.

Schumer says he plans to target vulnerable Republicans "in Minnesota, Kentucky, New Hampshire and New Mexico." Those would be: Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell, John Sununu, and Pete Domenici.

Coleman's talk: "I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi."

Coleman's cloture vote: Nay

McConnell's Talk: "The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it. That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant."

McConnell's cloture vote: Nay

Most of McConnell's speaking about Iraq is really wait and see in lockstep with president Bush, but that runs contrary to his acknowledgement that the Republicans are working against the will of the people at this point. As Senate minority leader, he's as close as Democrats can get to running someone against Bush in '08.

It is hard to find actual word from Sununu against the president's war efforts, but actions are easy enough. Sununu is a cosponsor of a bill to implement the proposals of the Iraq Study Group contrary to Bush's wishes. He favors bringing troops home in 2008, just doesn't want to give a deadline: "The study group clearly speaks of the goal of withdrawing combat troops in 2008. That is different than legislating and announcing the day you're going to begin withdrawing troops and the end (date) you're withdrawing troops and communicating that information to your enemies."

He's clearly trying to have it both ways, but at the end of the day, his cloture vote: Nay

Domenici's talk: "I am unwilling to continue our current strategy. I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward."

Domenici's cloture vote: Nay

It is important that people understand that these people are talking out both sides of their mouths. The most consistent of the four, McConnell and Sununu, would have nothing to lose in voting for cloture and everything to gain. Had the democrats gotten cloture and actually passed their amendment, there is no way it would pass a presidential veto.

These men are at no political risk from the right. Hell, I cannot even imagine a Democrat trying to run against them from the right. They can safely move to the center to try to save their seats, but they're not doing so. To me, that says they are true believers regardless of what comes out of their mouths. Their talk about their displeasure at the course of the war could easily be backed by meaningless action making them much harder to ridicule, but they don't do it. For all their talk, they're with the president. Don't be fooled.

Further Reading:
      Senate Republicans Kill Troop Protection Bill
      White House Ready For Withdrawal?

In another case of the Department of Justice selectively enforcing laws comes a tale of disenfranchisement of voters. The Justice Department's Voting Section is pressuring ten states to purge "ineligible" voters from their rolls. At the same time, the same body refuses to compel the states to enforce new laws that require people applying for social services be given an opportunity to register to vote.

This seems to be a clear case of an agenda to disenfranchise the poor. The head of the Voting Section, John Tanner, is being shielded from testifying before congress for an array of past disenfranchising actions:

Tanner was involved in the uneven distribution of voting machines in OH that caused large disparities in wait times between Republican and Democratic polling stations.

Tanner was involved in the approval of a Georgia Voter ID Law over the objections of DOJ lawyers. The lawyers objected to the plan as it was likely to discriminate against black voters.

It has even been suggested that Tanner was involved in getting Tom DeLay's Texas Redistricting approved.

It seems, even as the administration watches the sand run out of their hour glass, they are busy plotting a Republican victory for 2008 through selective, discriminatory voting policy that they will oversee during the next election. This is, after all, what the U.S. Attorney firings were about: many of them refused to jump into the middle of an election at the first suggestion of voting irregularity. Expect U.S. attorneys riding into the '08 election on behalf of Republican candidates.

In a world of sound bites, presidential candidate and Democratic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, is playing a very cynical game. Amidst paragraphs of speech talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq, she buries her intention to keep troops in Iraq if elected.

While many reports simply repeat the withdraw mantra, if they even bother with that, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post deserves credit for paying attention to Clinton's speech:

IOWA, July 10 -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton traveled to this crucial caucus state today to assure voters that she would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future because "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."

In truth, the best we can expect from Clinton is a move toward the Baker-Hamilton proposal of falling back to a training and supporting position. However, anyone with practical insight into how wars are fought know that if the new force, the Iraqi Army, isn't prepared to replace American troops before we pull back to a training roll, we will give serious ground, perhaps precipitating all out civil war. No Commander in Chief is going to pull troops out of a combat role with replacements not ready to take over if the troops will remain in the combat theater.

Clinton is not alone in her pro/anti war duplicity. Democratic candidate Barack Obama issued a policy statement to Foreign Affairs magazine that is remarkably similar to one Mitt Romney issued for the same issue of the magazine. Both had a very 'Stay the Course' flavor and both even advocated increasing the size of the military.

If you want a candidate who will pull the troops out on January 20th, 2009, I'd look past Clinton, Obama, and Romney who all seem intent on future military operations in Iraq and the region at large.

Further Reading:
      Obama Calls For New Role For U.S. Troops

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net.

Past studies have condemned using high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a substitute for sugar because it was believed it interferes with leptin, a hormone that tells your brain you've eaten enough. New studies point to some far more disturbing things about HFCS.

According to Dr Robert Lustig, appearing on The Health Report, a significant culprit in the obesity epidemic is fructose. Widely believed to be a good substitute for sugar for diabetics because of it's relatively low impact on insulin levels, fructose has been shown to have other effects that are potentially worse.

Due to changes in food formulation we've gone from consuming about half-a-pound of fructose a year in 1970 to almost 56 pounds a year now. Invented in Japan in 1975 as a substitute for the more expensive sugar, HFCS, which is 90% fructose, is in everything from soda to spaghetti sauce.

Recent studies suggest that part of the problem is that only the liver can process HFCS while the entire body processes sugar. All this work done by the liver depletes phosphate stores and results in increased uric acid production which raises blood pressure and can lead to gout.

Fructose processing by the liver also leads to an increase in LDL Cholesterol (the bad kind).

Another effect Fructose has on the liver is produce a hormone called "Junk One" which blocks insulin reception in the liver causing it to rise throughout the body to compensate. It also leads to what doctors refer to as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

So what is to be done about this? Well, we can stop artificially inflating the price of sugar in this country. This artificial inflation is what makes using HFCS cost effective. We actually have quotas limiting the production of sugar at a cost estimated at over a billion dollars a year to American taxpayers. That doesn't even factor in the indirect costs precipitated by the health care needs from all that fructose.

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net.

When asked about the issues raised in the movie 'Sicko', Republican presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, deflected the issue by suggesting that overweight people like Moore are the reason for rising medical costs.

While Moore could not be reached for comment, one of the producers of 'Sicko' told the associated press that she believes the comments were nothing more than Huckabee sticking his hand out to the Insurance industry for donations.

Huckabee's apparent discrimination against overweight people, like an ex-smoker who hates cigarette smoke, may be informed by his commendable personal weight loss of over 110 pounds. An experience which prompted him to start a weight-loss program for Arkansas state employees. He now advocates a controversial notion that employers take the lead in managing the health of their employees.

With the stock market booming and the trade deficit with China at an all time high as well, it is strange that the U.S. dollar is headed in a different direction.

A falling dollar, or any falling currency, doesn't really mean a lot domestically except when it comes to imports. A falling dollar should drive the cost of imports skyward; and, it, no doubt, has contributed to the rising costs for food and oil. So, why is the trade deficit with China continuing to grow? China's currency is tied to the dollar and is effectively falling with it.

That simple explanation of the trade issues with China is exactly why Clinton and Obama have endorsed plans to levy tariffs on Chinese imports until the practice of tying their currency valuation to the dollar ends.

What is more confusing is the rise in the stock market despite a falling dollar. The disparity in currency values encourages foreign investors to pull money out of the U.S. markets and encourages domestic investors to invest overseas. For that apparent disparity, I have no explanation.

Further Reading:
      Trade War With China Coming?

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net

After the failure of several contractors to deliver badly needed equipment on time, the U.S. Military's procurement practices have been called into question by the Pentagon's Inspector General.

The report questions whether the pentagon should have given non-compete contracts to exclusive contractors when the equipment was needed by troops that have already been deployed. This despite Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling the procurement of such equipment a "top priority." The equipment in question is a variety of armored vehicles and body armor.

It is difficult to reconcile the conservative mantra "We Support The Troops" with incidents like war profiteering, er, I mean, no-bid procurement contracts, and the travesty that is the VA system.

It is also difficult to reconcile visions of a truly determined U.S. pulling out all the stops to win World War II, complete with housewives building airplanes, versus the business as usual procurement strategy of the current administration.

The only way I can reconcile the apparent disparities is to believe that the administration cynically wants the chaos that we have now. The uncertainty has certainly done well for their friends in the oil industry. Also, a U.S. presence destabilizing the middle east fits in nicely with the Project for a New American Century's Neo-Conservative agenda, which was calling for using the invasion of Iraq as a model for democracy in the middle east before Bush even came to power.

After September 11th, the administration could have called for and gotten the kind of sacrifice the American people went through to win World War II. But, instead, they decided to take us into war with a business as usual mindset.

This could be explained away as simple hubris. A simple misunderstanding that advanced weaponry isn't a match for IEDs and desperation. But when you consider the administration's consistent efforts to almost actually thwart success like outsourcing the attack on Tora Bora to get bin Laden, and calling off the attack on senior al Qaeda figures in Pakistan, you have to wonder if there isn't a more cynical agenda underneath it all.

Further Reading:
      Ron Paul: It Had To Do With Oil
      Bush Wants Troops In Iraq Indefinitely
      U.S. Middle East Diplomacy Continues To Unravel

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net.

Speaking in Cleveland yesterday, president George W Bush, took his audience through his warped logic that links Iraq and the September 11th terrorist attacks in his mind.

"al Qaeda is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence," Bush told a business group in Cleveland, Ohio. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims."

As this report points out, the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" insurgent group came into being after the war began in 2003 and, at least initially, was not linked to Osama bin Laden's group.

Senior U.S. intelligence, which obviously excludes Bush, consider the sectarian violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis a more serious threat the the stability of Iraq than the al Qaeda movement.

Expect another round of this fear mongering from Bush as Congress begins another attempt to change the course of the war.

Further Reading:
      White House Ready For Withdrawal?
      Two-Thirds Of Voters Believe Iraq War Creating Terrorists
      Iraq Missing Key Benchmarks Set By Bush and Congress

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net

If Lockheed Martin gets their way, the U.S. government may shell out as much as $10 Billion dollars to protect the U.S. coastline from Boston to Washington D.C. from cruise missile attacks.

Lockheed Martin is heavily lobbying congress to fund their plans for a cruise-missile defense system for the U.S. coastline. The pentagon had cut the project dramatically in its 2007 budget and requested no funds for the project for 2008; so, Lockheed Martin is turning to Congress, which has already restored 2007 funding, for help in getting their project funded.

Lockheed Martin offers all kind of what-if scenarios in defense of their project (e.g., cruise missiles can fit inside a cargo container), trying to convince people that cruise missiles are everywhere and the "weapon of choice." Reuters, linked above, mostly just parrots Lockheed Martin's talking points and says nothing to counter their scare-mongering.

When did journalism turn into a dictation/press release service, and how do we get it back?

Reprinted with permission from apathy.net