If you read the newspaper in the U.S., you might be helping terrorists.

You see, we have a free press (because of the First Amendment to the Constitution--which was first for a reason, folks), meaning that the press can print whatever they want as long as it's close to being true. This, according to a column in the Washington Post last week, is our weakest link in defeating terror. You see, the U.S. media puts out so much information about possible targets that all the terrorists have to do is read the paper, and they can get all the information they need.

So we have to shut everyone up, you see. We're at war.

Well, that is the argument. It doesn't really wash with me.

The paper runs terrorist warnings most weeks, about places or regions that are at risk from terrorism. So far, none of these warnings have been right. Not unlike thunderstorm warnings when there are no clouds to be seen.

It might rain, but probably not. Everything might get blown up, but probably not.

Now here's my question to the man who wrote the article (he analyses terrorism for the government--no bias there): if the terrorists are getting all their info from the papers, why doesn't the FBI read the papers, too? Wouldn't the papers give us clues since this is, allegedly, where all of the terrorists counter-intelligence is coming from? It seems like data collection would be really easy if we know exactly where all the info is coming from.

I have a feeling the guy who wrote the column actually wrote it to justify his job and try to get a raise. There is an interesting sentence describing the nature of people who have his job:

"This is a rather difficult field that requires the imagination of Walt Disney, the patience of a kindergarten teacher, the mind-set of a chess player, the resolve of a Boston Red Sox fan, the mental acuity of a river boat gambler, and the forecasting ability of a successful stock market analyst."

I think he forgot one qualification: the ineptness of a government employee.

If we had hundreds of people with those qualifications working on counter-terrorism, you'd think we'd have more positive results. You'd think we wouldn't have to create a cabinet position for Homeland Security. You'd think the FBI and CIA would do a little better than saying, "We gotta shut the papers up, they're giving away the whole game."

The whole game is this sham we're calling the War On Terrorism. It's a lot like the War On Drugs, the Cold War and the great Red Scare of the 50s.

In other words, it's a smoke screen. A political move that keeps the ball forever in the Prez's court, because if there is an immediate threat against the country, most people feel really good about and support whoever is in charge.

Not much has happened since September 11th except the Anthrax mail scare, which was coordinated (apparently) at about the same time. But somehow we're still on alert. There are no missiles pointing at us, but we've got the finger on the trigger. The skies are clear, but we're advising everyone take their umbrellas to work just in case.

We got through the Olympics (held right here in the U.S.), the World Series, the Super Bowl, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup and most of the World Cup with no bad things happening other than the usual rioting by joyous citizens.

Star Wars: Episode II opened without all the theaters in the U.S. blowing up.

Eminem came out with a new album, and we're all still fine.

Of course, we've got that Axis of Evil thing, which has done nothing for the egos of citizens in those countries. Hasn't done much for us either.

We've still got armed guards in airports, bomb sniffing dogs and airline security going through Al Gore's suitcases when he flies.

The worst place to be in the world is Israel, where violent and random death actually does happen every day. The Prez talks about a path to peace, but doesn't make the Israelis concede anything. This is kind of like trying to get back with an old girlfriend without addressing the reasons you broke up in the first place. In other words, it's not going to work.

And making the press out to be some kind of scapegoat isn't gonna work either. How can you keep everyone on edge without publishing terrorist warnings, lapses in airline security and forest fire reports? As a matter of fact, why haven't we arrested suspected terrorists connected to all the fires burning in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.

I guess it's too preposterous even for our government to blame the burning on Osama's operatives.

Matt Worley is relieved that the opening of "Betty's Summer Vacation" at the Vortex Theater wasn't firebombed. It was covered by a lot of the press in Albuquerque--anyone could have just read the paper and found out about it.