Notes from September 2004
This is a follow-up to my previous essay, "On writing for indymedia" with an in-depth look at harassment and "psychological warfare"
Notes from September 2004
In my previous essay, "On writing for indymedia," I gave an outline of an harassment campaign, along with a timeline of when I began noticing irregularities and experiencing harassment. I thought it would be best to add some more details that pertain to the beginning of this harassment. These are both minor and major elements of the story, and help illustrate what exactly put me in such a suspicious frame of mind beginning in September 2004. This is a more in-depth look at the instances of harassment and irregularities, which could also be labeled psychological warfare.
It wasn't just the appearance of daily helicopter traffic over my neighborhood that prompted my suspicions. This began before any other irregularities however, beginning about September 6th, and continuing through the 11th. But before that there were a few things that I should have been more suspicious of, and which I reconsidered after it became apparent that I was actively being harassed and spied upon. A few things stick out in my mind: the first has to do with an indymedia posting from August 3rd, 2004. It's an article I posted called "The Terrorism Daily Gazette" and it was an examination I did of the Oregonian in it's reporting of the hyped Department of Homeland Security terror alerts that coincided with the beginning of the Democratic National Convention. Link: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294008.shtml I posted the article from a factory I was working at called Adalis in Salmon Creek, just north of Vancouver. They had two computers set up for workers to use on their breaks and at lunch, etc...I came in early and posted the article from there. That turned out to be my last day there. The next day the temp agency I had been working through called to tell me not to go back. It was a temporary assignment, but was not due to end for a couple more weeks, or perhaps a month. There was never any end date given, but it was rumoured that the job would last through August.
My next temp assignment was through a different agency, and lasted five days. I've written about it, and the last day in particular was unusual, to say the least. My explanation of my last day there reads in part like an account of what went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison. Of course, the experience from that day is what prompted me to quit the assignment. The essay about that temp job is called "Hard Times: a Look at Temp Labor," and can be found at http://portlandwriters.com
.The last article I posted about the connection between A.Q. Khan and Iraq was on September 7th, and the day after that there was a big brush fire in the back alley of my apartment complex. There are large evergreen bushes in the back alleyway that separate two levels of the apartment complexes. Fortunately the bushes aren't next to any structures except garbage dumpsters. It was especially fortunate in this case because the fire was very large and quick spreading, with flames that shot up about 20 ft. The bushes are very thick and wide, likely decades old, and provided a lot of fuel for the fire. There was immense smoke from the fire as well. Two fire trucks showed up, one on the lower alleyway and one on the upper one, and doused the fire. It seemed to have started next to a small garbage bin enclosure on the upper level of the apartments. Two or three cars were damaged from the heat, since they were parked next to the bushes.
By coincidence, there were a string of arson fires in the Vancouver area around that time, and these were linked to one fire in Portland. All of these fires targeted communications towers or equipment, and one ham-radio tower. Most of them were in the north Vancouver area, with the first one in the Salmon Creek area on 7/29/04. The last fire targeted some utility poles near Andresen Rd., on 9/9/04. The serial arsonist stopped after that and was never caught. After the last fire, Comcast pledged a reward of $15,000 for information leading to the suspect, because cable, high-speed Internet and digital telephone service had been interrupted to more than 3,000 people. The fire in the back alley of my apartments was an accident, as far as I know, and even if it was intentionally set, there was no apparent target, except the bushes, dumpsters and garbage bins, and cars parked next to the bushes. As big as the flames got though, the fire could have easily sent bits of flaming material onto nearby roofs, and started an apartment fire. The fire brought about 40 people out of their apartments, who watched the flames and then the firemen. By coincidence, Comcast will be mentioned later in this essay, as I came to experience some unique problems with my cable service.
On the 9th or 10th of September, I looked for my pellet gun and noticed it missing. Earlier in the year an adult video of mine disappeared, and I felt pretty certain about who had taken it. When I saw that my pellet gun was missing, I assumed the same person had taken it. The only difference was that my pellet gun reappeared at some point in the next several weeks. When I looked in the spot where it had been, several weeks later, it was there. My initial reason for looking for it was self-protection. I never confronted the person that I suspected about either the adult video or the pellet gun. The person lived briefly in my apartment in early 2004.
Technical sabotage and psychological warfare
One major thing I didn't mention in my first essay has to do with apparent technical sabotage of cable t.v. programming. This is a very tricky thing to explain, so I left it out of my other essay. By sabotage, what I mean is the slight altering of the digital imagery and corresponding audio. It may be a matter of slowing down the t.v. content, or manipulating it in other ways. What it appeared to be was the twisting around of the imagery and audio, done so carefully so as to appear like genuine programming. Maybe it was so slightly altered that it didn't affect the overall appearance of the programming, or it may indicate a mastery of technical manipulation.
Explaining this stretches my powers of description, and the description may not be totally adequate at conveying the information, yet the apparent sabotage of the cable airwaves is a major thing, and along with the daily helicopter traffic and the other things I've mentioned, was a major indicator that something was up. In other words, I didn't just have a "funny feeling" about things, and it wasn't my lack of sleep at the time that led me to the conclusion that there were serious irregularities going on. The apparent sabotage also represents a major crime, not just an irregularity. A crime aimed at me, as a form of psychological warfare, (though it may have affected cable for other people in the immediate neighborhood). As such, a burden is then placed on the criminal(s) to erase any evidence of technical manipulation, and to keep an eye on the victim (me) to see what effects the altered broadcasts had or may have, and especially to see if I would be able to write about or otherwise record information about the altered broadcasts, in a convincing way. Such technical manipulation must have been done at great expense, and must also have been done with a purpose in mind—namely, to subject me to a unique form of psychological abuse. This would also help explain an extended harassment campaign, which serves the purpose, among other things, of making me forget or focus less on the initial instances of harassment.
First of all, I don't know if cable "airwaves" is the right term, or if digital cable broadcasting comes from fiber optic cables. I think it's the latter, so I won't write in terms of the airwaves being manipulated. It may be a moot point, but for the sake of clarification I need to show that my technical knowledge is lacking, and so my descriptions may suffer for it.
So what I'll be describing are apparent instances in which the programming I saw on cable t.v. was altered slightly, enough so that I could recognize the alterations, but not so profoundly that the programming could be described as fake—in fact, the changes were so slight and fleeting, in most cases, that they appeared totally natural. Only by comparing the original programming, or feed, and the suspect feed, could one definitively detect the differences. In a couple instances though, I'm sure the altereration was more significant, and the differences would be plain to anyone.
I first noticed the alterations on September 11th of 2004. It was chiefly on the night of the 11th that I noticed them, and came to understand the significance of the issue. But the night before I began to have suspicions about fake broadcasts, and there may have been some slight alterations on the 10th that first clued me into what was happening. Unfortunately, I was not taking many notes on the alterations, so the exact time frame is a little sketchy. On the night of the 10th though, I was watching CNN and there was a brief news clip about a Ukrainian church in Connecticut that had blown up and was destroyed. There was helicopter footage of the destroyed church, and it was so neatly laid out that I wondered if the image was fake. It didn't look like it had exploded, mainly because there was no fire damage noticeable. Since it was the night of September 10th, I wondered why the news anchor made no mention of the explosion possibly being terror related and meant to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. The anchor, Rudi Bakhtiar, said in effect, "Wow, it looks totally destroyed" as the helicopter footage was displayed on t.v. The explosion happened early in the morning of 9/10/04, and no one was injured.
I then wondered if the news clip itself was fake or not. I listened to BBC radio that night and heard no mention of the destroyed church. I figured that since the cause of the explosion of the church was unexplained, and since speculation might point to an intentional bombing, that the story would be big, especially on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary. But when I heard nothing about it on BBC news, I was confused. This year I checked on that story, and found out that the explosion was suspected to have been caused by a propane tank, but officially the cause was never determined. The church was flattened, but there was apparently no fire. When I Googled the church's name, St. Mary's Ukrainian Catholic Church, I saw that at least one blogger was suspicious about the real cause of the explosion. My suspicions about the CNN newscast may have been overblown however.
The following day, on the 11th, I was watching CNN in the evening, and there was reporting on a terror attack at the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, which happened on September 9th, I believe. I recall clearly the tone that Rudi Bakhtiar used when reporting on that bombing. At the end of the report, the part where they say, "and authorities believe it was...," she said "al-Qaeda" in a way that sounded sarcastic, as if she was calling into question the guilt of al-Qaeda for that bombing. It was said in a subjective way that indicated she perhaps doubted whether al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, or whether al-Qaeda even existed. The tone also suggested that she was tired of repeating the name "al-Qaeda" for every terror story. (Remember, the question of whether or not al-Qaeda exists is a constant theme on indymedia, among other circles). There was another anchor on concurrently with, or just after Rudi Bakhtiar, who is also a woman of Middle Eastern descent, and in reporting on the Jakarta bombing she said "al-Qaeda" in the same fashion, but she followed it up with, "...at least that's what authorities are saying." So her report would end with something like, "al-Qaeda is believed responsible, or at least that's what authorities are saying." Those last words were said quickly and with a hint of doubt or skepticism.
So after seeing those reports, I was left to wonder if CNN had adopted a new policy of letting the anchors be more subjective in their reporting, casting doubt on the whole notion of war on terror, and generally being non-supportive of the claims of authorities in regard to al-Qaeda. That would be something akin to the partisanship of FOX News commentators, but it would represent the opposite viewpoint of FOX News, taking a skeptical view of war on terror. I also wondered if the subjective-sounding reporting by the two women anchors might have been due to the fact that they were both of Middle Eastern descent, and possibly fed up with war on terror and Arab-baiting. Overall, I thought the subjective-sounding reporting was evidence of a shift in media coverage of war on terror, with CNN leading the way.
Of course, that couldn't have been the case. CNN would never allow their anchors to inject subjectivity into their reporting, especially if it casted doubt on war on terror, or on the guilt or existence of al-Qaeda. CNN would also never issue directives in regard to subjectivity either. It took me a little while to realize that this wasn't CNN leading the charge against war on terror propaganda, but was a slight tweaking of the audio, so as to give that impression. The subtlety of the manipulation was such that it showed how narrowly targeted and case-specific it was, and also the efforts taken at keeping the changes natural looking and nearly indetectable. This is exactly what I described in my previous essay in regard to harassment and irregularities out in public. It's the same method, different medium.
On the night of the 11th I was mostly watching channels 44-47 (CNN, CNN Headline News, CNBC, MSNBC). I watched The Real Deal with Donnie Deutch on CNBC from 10:00-11:00 pm, and there were some serious alterations in that broadcast. Jon Voight was one of the main guests, and the strangest apparent alterations took place when he was being interviewed. There's the chance that what I saw was dramatically different from the genuine broadcast, at least momentarily. I draw that conclusion because of how odd and seemingly out of place a certain part of that interview was.
Jon Voight was promoting some new movie or show of his. There was a preview of this, and it was apparently shown on a large screen t.v. in between Voight and Deutch, as is common on the late-night shows. But in this case, the screen that opened may have been a wall t.v. I remember a screen that showed the preview just over Voight's left shoulder, and he was kind of glancing up at it. The preview showed some kind of animated green alien creature, it looked like computer animation, with a stomach that kept expanding for some reason. Both Voight and Deutch were laughing heartily at this, and I was laughing too because the display of the alien creature seemed so senseless and I couldn't quite figure out what the preview was for, or how Voight was involved in it, unless he was the voice of some animated character on a show. So I started laughing at the alien with the stomach that kept expanding for some reason, and Deutch was laughing, but then his laughter seemed to be exaggerated for a moment, or stretched out a little too long. I think there was a farting sound that accompanied the expanding stomach of the animated creature, which may have been why Deutch was laughing so hard.
There was a black singer on the show, and Deutch mockingly sang a version of Yesterday to show just how terrible a singer he was. Watching that, it looked as if the audio/video was in slow motion or irregular motion. The singer implored Deutch to stick with his gig and not try singing as a career. There was also a brief segment about the show American Idol and the Simon character from that show. In my journal at the time I recorded some of the material: "Simon doesn't like young girls...that's your problem Simon." In tandem with that was an image of a young girl crying, it looked like she was in a darkened backstage hallway, with her parents standing next to her. That seemed bizarre and may have been altered in some way. Also on that show there was an Asian singer/actress that Deutch interviewed, and I seemed to detect some slight irregularities in that interview as well.
I've thought about getting a transcript of the show, but it's $49 which is kind of steep. It occurs to me though that someone out there may have a copy of it, and might be interested to compare my version of it with an original version. Also, these changes may have affected cable t.v. for others in my neighborhood, in which case my description may contribute to a record of noted irregularities. It may re-air sometime as well, (right now I don't have cable). The show first aired on 9/08/04 and I saw the re-airing on 9/11/04.
After that show, I kept it on CNBC and there was a rerun of Tim Russert interviewing Colin Powell, possibly a rerun of Meet the Press from the previous week. I watched this closely and it seemed that Powell was talking in circles, though this was different than the usual talking in circles associated with politicians. It seemed like a Colin Powell image was just mumbling in circles about North Korea, Iran, and other topics, and then contradicting himself, then coming back around to the original point. In other words, it seemed technically inaccurate. At that point I was trying to take notes about what I was seeing, but I only wrote a few. I wrote about the person(s) I believed could be behind such a thing: "They're saying that they can create anything at anytime, and make it look real." In the interview, one of the topics was a major explosion in North Korea that was rumored to have been a nuclear blast, either a nuclear test or accident. The blast was later found to have been conventional explosives.
The changes I perceived in that interview are hardest to explain, because it was just Colin Powell talking. There were no apparent images or sounds added to his monologue. The most memorable thing about it was that he seemed to speak for an extended period, and his monologue was circular and nonsensical. There even seemed to be slight technical oddities that were noticeable, mostly image changes. One of the characteristics of these changes might be a completely expressionless face, one that doesn't seem technically accurate, missing a few lines maybe, combined with a slightly extended period of suspended animation. Just a dull blank stare, almost non-human, maybe more like claymation than reality. Someone who can explain the difference between digital and analog imagery might be better able to explain these changes, but it seems that digital imagery is more bendable, at least in expert hands. That's one of the conclusions I came away with after this experience. Not only in Colin Powell's interview did I notice these apparent facial changes, but in the next few weeks I also noticed apparent alterations in the debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, and in the senatorial debate between Patty Murray and George Nethercutt.
In the Murray/Nethercutt debate, I noticed the improbable blank, ghostly stare in both faces, as if it was a cadaver. Those instances seemed to coincide with an effect similar to suspended animation. In the Cheney/Edwards debate, there seemed to be some altering of Cheney's face when he made a particular point about a "loose nukes" scenario in the U.S. In his closing argument, that was what he ended on: the specter of a nuclear terror attack in an American city. His facial expression just at the point where his argument ended seemed frozen and improbably grim, possibly a case of suspended animation. In that case especially, it's a very close call as to whether there was technical manipulation. If there was it was very slight, yet still noticeable.
I first perceived these technical manipulations on the night of 9/11/04. They had a profound effect on me, to put it mildly. After the above mentioned Colin Powell interview, I began to wonder if my mind could grasp this new concept. It was a critical point in my life, to be honest. That day had been quite unusual, with helicopter fly-overs, bizarre front page newspaper images, and other irregularities, combined with a lack of sleep. The manipulation of t.v. images strained the limits of what my mind could endure. Sitting in front of the t.v., I had to question if everything I knew was only relatively real. Everything had to be called into question. If I literally couldn't believe what I was seeing on t.v., which I had been raised on and which was a constant companion, then what was believable? It took a while for a hypothesis to develop: I was watching digital cable, and given the advances in technology, the slight manipulation of digital imagery, covertly and as a form of psychological abuse, might be possible. This idea would take up a lot of my thoughts in the succeeding days, as I wondered exactly where this sabotage might be coming from.
The t.v. that I saw all this on went out in mid-October 2004, and since then I've watched little cable t.v. In the weeks and months that followed, I would often see Comcast vans on my street—it seemed as if they were always around, sometimes two or three of them. I haven't noticed them around much in 2005 however. I wonder if other Comcast customers in my neighborhood were noticing irregularities, prompting them to give Comcast a call.
When I first attempted to search for any information online relating to this, I searched for "fake broadcasts" or "media propaganda" or "psychological warfare" and similar keywords. The only information I found was about the partnership between CNN and the U.S. Army to create fake news to broadcast to insurgency or insurgency-held areas of Iraq. I found nothing specifically about what I had seen and experienced, except the quote from Dr. Igor Smirnov that I included in my first essay: "It is easily conceivable that some Russian "Satan," or lets say Iranian-or any other "Satan," as long as he owns the appropriate means and finances, can inject himself into every conceivable computer network, into every conceivable radio or television broadcast, with relative technological ease, even without disconnecting cables, and intercept the radio waves in the ether and modulate every conceivable suggestion into it. This is why such technology is rightly feared."
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004
This was the day when the "swarming" incident happened on McGillivray Blvd. which I described in my previous essay. Some more explanation of that day would be instructive.
That morning I woke up and ate peanut butter from a jar for breakfast, since that was about all I had available to eat. I had got some sleep the night before, but not much, if I recall. Shortly after my breakfast, I collected some garbage and newspapers to take to the dumpster in the back alley of my apartments. When I got to the back alley, I noticed a young man of about 20 standing in the small enclave in which the apartment mailboxes are. He was just standing there, looking slightly tense. It was about 8:00 am. I didn't ask him why he was standing there, but just threw some things into the nearby dumpster, and walked back to my apartment. This was a very surreal moment, but I suspected it was staged for some purpose, so I tried to act indifferent to the young man. We were the only two people around there that morning. As I was walking back to my apartment, I heard some metallic clicks and some shuffling around from an upper floor apartment balcony that looks out over the alleyway. I didn't look up to see what the sounds were, but it quickly occurred to me that the sounds were suggestive of a rifle being loaded and cocked, or possibly unloaded. That then suggested that the young man had been placed behind the mailbox as a "witness" by some benevolent force, (and that otherwise perhaps I would have been gunned down). He certainly looked like he was standing there involuntarily. Now this all seems silly, but it gives an indication of the efforts taken to get my attention.
After that I began watching The Godfather part 2 in my room. I opened a letter which looked like a credit card advertisement and noticed what looked like a small puff of white powder come from the letter, (it's possible this was just the paper fibers of the envelope). Fearing the worst, I made a big commotion of splashing water on my face, turning on a fan, and putting the letter in the garbage with a wet towel over it. I wouldn't usually overreact this way, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the moment. I continued watching the movie, and it was the scene where Michael Corleone is talking with his girlfriend at a wedding. He is relating some of his family history, and he says, "...my father told him, either your signature or your brains are going to be on that contract." Just before the Michael character said that, I turned off the fan to hear it more clearly. After he said it, within a few seconds, at least two cars drove off from the dead-end street outside. I took note of that, thinking it was significant in some way. It was suggestive of the people in those cars listening in on me closely, and reacting to my action of turning off the fan so as to hear that scene better. That particular line is dramatic, so there's also the suggestion that the dramatic nature of that line prompted the people in the cars to take off just at that moment, since conceivably they would have heard it better after I turned the fan off. Or perhaps they couldn't hear anything with the fan on, so that when I turned it off the dramatic line would be heard loud and clear. (This scenario is reminiscent of a famous scene from Home Alone).
But more importantly, the sound of cars leaving apparently in a hurry, and apparently in response to sounds from my apartment, trained me to be more aware of the comings and goings of cars on the dead end street in front of my apartment, and to attribute significance to those sounds when I heard them. It trained me to think that the sounds of the comings and goings of cars was a meaningful code, and that the sounds were attributable to things I was saying or doing in my apartment. Ever since then, traffic on my dead end street has increased sharply.
Shortly after that, I left my apartment and rode my bike along McGillivray Blvd. and that's when the "swarming" incident occurred, which I've described as suggestive of a rendition scenario. The time was around 9:00 am.
I returned home just before 10:00 am, and turned on the radio to OPB. I listened to Writer's Almanac with Garrison Keillor, which comes on at 10:00 am. It was the anniversary of some Napoleonic battle, so Keillor recounted Napoleon's push into Russia, and at first it seemed historically accurate. There was mention of the resistance the armies faced as they pushed into Russia. Then there was a shift from that to the historically inaccurate recounting of a victorious Napoleon, who along with his armies feasted and toasted to their success in Moscow.
There are some other frame of mind issues that are relevant to this episode that I'm leaving out. But I was paying close attention to Garrison Keillor's recounting of that history, and when there was that historically inaccurate shift, I suddenly felt unsettled. I recognized this as a form of technical sabotage similar to what I'd been seeing on t.v. As with the t.v. incidents, it seemed as if the manipulation of the radio broadcasting had been done seamlessly. After hearing that shift in Garrison Keillor's narrative, I was disturbed enough to leave my apartment again.
Either later that day or the following day, I bought groceries at the Safeway on Mill Plain and 136th Ave., including Safeway brand Earl Grey tea. At home, I had a cup of this tea, and these symptoms immediately followed: anxiety, edginess, slight blurriness of vision, slight disorientation, and diarrhea. This was apparently a "bad batch" of tea. I've used coffee grounds that were no good before, but never heard of tea that had gone bad, and the symptoms from this tea were quite severe. That first cup may have had an off-taste to it, but I can't remember. I tested a few more of the tea bags, and noticed that both the taste and smell of the tea indicated something was wrong with it. A couple of the tea bags were apparently OK, and produced no dire symptoms. I still have most of the tea bags from that box, and may have some of them tested for indications of any contamination. The expiration date is March 2005, so back then the tea should have still been very fresh.
September 14th was the beginning of radio irregularities that I noticed, and they've continued since then, though on a lesser scale than what I've just described. On the following day, the 15th, I again detected the apparent manipulation of narratives, both on OPB and KBOO. I can't remember many of the details of that, but I recall there was a bi-polar aspect to what was aired—a viewpoint would be argued by a speaker, and after a while the speaker would begin to espouse the exact opposite viewpoint from the initial one. In both cases, there was a tilt to the right or far right in the viewpoint that was being argued. On KBOO it was something to do with labor, and the speaker went from KBOO's usual stance of left-leaning and labor supporting, to the exact opposite viewpoint of being anti-labor. This was similar to the Colin Powell monologue that I watched on 9/11/04, in that it seemed circular, contradictory and nonsensical. Though with the KBOO labor show I was listening to, there was a careful shift in the speaker's argument, by degrees, from a left viewpoint to the exact opposite viewpoint, and the shift came with no glitches in the audio (such as the speaker's voice) or other indicators that the broadcast had been altered. That was on 9/15/04, at around 10:00 or 11:00 am.
This detection of radio irregularities gave me the same feeling that the altered cable t.v. broadcasts had given me. It strained the limits of my mind. Rather than question reality though, when I was subjected to radio manipulation on that morning it led to a dread feeling of hopelessness. I had a feeling that the radio was my last hope at getting information that wasn't tampered with. Of course, I was also very worried about the source of the manipulation, and the implications of it. There were other factors involved with my fears at that time, such as lack of sleep and food. Would these manipulations have been so evident if I was well rested, and sitting with my tape recorder? It doesn't seem likely.
Since then the radio irregularities have more to do with apparent technical glitches, such as dead air, or the apparent speeding up or slowing down of content, so that certain content might exactly coincide with something I'm doing in my apartment which is closely related to the content. It's like a codified system meant to give me signals or attribute significance to things I'm engaged in, in the comfort of my apartment.
Still, even recently I've detected what appears to be actual audio manipulation. On July 8th, in the first hour of NPR's Morning Edition, (starting at 3 am), there was a brief report about companies that saw their stock jump as a result of the July 7th bombings in London. They were security and biometric firms, and the first business mentioned was an Israeli company. The female host of the show said "Israeli" with a note of wariness or exasperation, as if injecting some hidden commentary or emphasis into the report. It was how one might expect a FOX News host to say the name "Kofi Annan." And of course, NPR would never, ever give any impression of bias or inject hidden commentary into the reporting, either intentionally or accidentally, which made me consider that there was just a slight tweaking of the voice in that case.
Just a few weeks ago I was cleaning off my phone in my living room, and seconds later I walked into my bedroom. KBOO was on and there was a pledge drive, and the host said, "OK, lets clean off those phones and call to support KBOO..." It's little things like that which are like constant reminders of a shadowy Big Brother figure in the darkness somewhere, manipulating the airwaves. Yet many of these instances are barely worth taking the time to document.
Much of what I'm describing can be called psychological warfare. It's strange, because I'm not a country, and it seems that psychological warfare is a tactic reserved for hostile countries, used in advance of sending in ground forces. In a sense, these major instances of psych-warfare from September 2004 did preclude a more varied campaign of harassment carried out by "foot soldiers" which in many cases have been people in cars. What I've experienced has all the hallmarks of a military campaign, and there are many indications of experimentation. Whether experimentation was a goal or turned out to be a by-product is unclear. Maybe harassment was a by-product of experimentation; a ruse or distraction from an experiment gone awry. It's hard to tell.
With the manipulation of cable t.v. and radio programming, it wasn't and isn't so much the additional content that is so damaging, but the fact that the underpinnings of reality seem to be called in to question. Especially for a person who's relied on t.v. so much, as so many of us have. Those famous words spoken by an unnamed Bush official, in an interview with Ron Suskind, really apply here. The unnamed official criticized Suskind for living in the "reality based community" and went on to explain that the Bush team creates realities. I wonder if that will hold up in court.
add a comment on this article
discussion from this article