[Geezer]

Scatty, I don't necessarily agree but I respect your opinion. I should have said more dangerous because only in the last few decades has the potential for mass destruction been this great. Even during the cold war you had the feeling that the general sensibilities of those involved would keep any deliberate mass destruction from taking place. Can't say as I feel that way any longer. I am ashamed at the role that the U.S. has had in that. But, it is a global problem.

It is interesting the different perspectives of this problem that are taken by people from different parts of the world. Everyone has their own values and ideologies that are shaped largely by their experiences in life. The people from my part of the world (Midwest U.S.), in large part, agree with my take on things and it is not because we are some kind of red neck ultra-conservative right wingers. It has a lot to do with the fact that we have seen many of our privacies and freedoms being compromised by the need to monitor people walking the same streets that we do. We now have to be x rayed and patted down to get on an airplane. People grow more and more suspicious of their neighbors who might happen to have a different faith or nationality. We have to have thorough background checks to rent an apartment or get a job. Never used to be this way.

Most of us resent that this has had to happen but also know that it has been made an inevitability by the acts of terrorism and the need for safety. We are angry at our own government for being so careless as to let this happen (the leak of sensitive information). Aside from that, what has set us off about this whole Assange/wikileaks thing is that what we now have to tolerate is being compromised by a group that thinks they need to be the caretakers of some sensitive checks and balances of the private citizens against the evil and corrupt goings on in our government. We already have that balance taken care of here. It is called a democratic election. People like Assange just can't seem to accept that the views they have are not held by the majority of the people. If they were, national security would not exist. That is probably why they call themselves "reporters without borders". They can't seem to come to grips with the restrictions that any civilized society would place on them. They sound like anarchists to me. Needless to say that is not an ideal that I subscribe to.

Peace.