Primary Sources- I'm a big fan

From The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html



Holy shit!



The media...




...the POWER...




... THE MEDIA'S POWER TO SHAPE OUR THOUGHTS!






[I wish I controlled the media!]


Check the spin:




On some sites, these are referred to as "Obama's Torture Memos."

Other sites say, "Bush Torture Memos released by Obama."

Objective sites refer to, "Torture memos."












Wow. I wish I controlled the media. No, I wish our 2 party system would GET OVER THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDISH WIN-LOSE WORLDVIEW!






Anyway, I think they're all here, for those of you who are interested in forming your own opinions from primary sources.

Worth a listen

from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvFz8ghX4Gs

Aluminum can crusher, Non-apology # 2, "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

When the first atomic bomb in the history of mankind was dropped from a the Enola Gay to utterly and completely destroy a city and all living things within it, the pilot uttered a quote, "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." I would like to think he uttered these words with tears in his eyes, comprehending the full extent of pain and suffering he had unleashed. Unfortunately, it was probably just preplanned quote arranged with some consultation, similar to "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind..."

Anyway, I have an aluminum can crusher featuring a variant of the atomic bomb dropping quote:




Of course, someone pointed out to me that this is totally tasteless and offensive.

No, it is not. I interpret that reaction to mean, "I am not courageous enough to think about troubling issues."

Words are just words. It is the act associated with these words is horribly brutal and offensive.

PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR AND TRY TO PAY ATTENTION. This t-shirt is meant to be provocative! Wait, haven't we been over this before once already?! (see post from Wednesday, April 23, 2008, entitled, "brunch, bbq, t-shirt non-apology."


Provocation is needed, especially as we enter an era of a nuclear armed world run by kids who did not live through the cold war, while simultaneously paranoid former Soviet, first-strike advocate generals still hold positions of influence.


"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

brunch, bbq, t-shirt non-apology

Hi,

My name is Crockett Dunn.

Here are a few of the things that I am:

1. IT business owner
2. passionate music lover
3. aspiring serial entrepreneur
4. obsessive systems optimizer.

Lately, over the past 3-6 months, I've had a lot on my mind related to the state of stuff in our world, especially some non-optimal systems. The thing is, I've been busy servicing my clients whilst seeking an operations manager for CDLLC, so the lots on my mind had no previous opportunity to settle into proper organization.

Yesterday I went to a housewarming party/BBQ with my wife, Dr. Marki-Dunn, and hung around with her doctor friends and their IT spouses. I had the opportunity to talk about some of the stuff that I'm curious about with Jason. I can't remember Jason's last name, or if he generates revenue online and therefor desires a plug/link. [Jason, let me know if you want a link.]

{update 5/18/2007- Jay commented, and he does in fact have a blog here.}

Some of the items Jason and I discussed were capitalism, socialism, wealth, interdependency, culture, hedge funds and certain investment vehicles increasingly removed from the actual items of real value, survivalists, elitism, television and how it teaches us what to think, revolutions, civilizations, a trend of increasing socio-economic class division, warfare, fire arms and the second amendment, federations/nations, mankind/humanity/human condition, and our ability to destroy the human race.

I just finished brunch with one of the 5 most kind/compassionate/helpful individuals from my days at Duke University. Her name is Russell Colver, and she does ADHD Coaching in Durham, NC.

So here is the important point in all of this- similar to ideas in previous posts about "c'mon, let's not all destroy each other," and this other post I wrote in the muggy heat of Mobile, AL in August of last year.

I've got this t-shirt depicting a mushroom cloud (which is really not a cloud at all, it's a ball of fire, similar to a pyroclastic blast resulting from a volcanic eruption, but faster, with a larger destruction radius, ergo deadlier.

I can't remember who I upset this time but yes, a t-shirt depicting a mushroom cloud is meant to be provocative and needs to be provocative, especially as we enter an era of a nuclear armed world run by kids who did not live through the cold war, while simultaneously paranoid former Soviet, first-strike advocate generals still hold positions of influence.

So here is my problem. My kindergarten classes have got stuff figured out more than the various governments of the world. If all world governments were on the TV show, "are you smarter than a 5th grader," they would lose in the cooperation category.

Here's the deal: collaboration, cooperation, interdependency, everyone being indebted to one another, global community, teamwork- whatever you want to call it- results in better life. Better, in this extremely general sense, means more problems solved = survival. Some examples of this "better" include

1. reduced chance of starvation
2. reduced chance of death by diarrhea resulting from lack of clean water
3. reduced chance of being randomly killed by an intentional act of anger-motivated violence
4. reduced chance of dying of disease
5. reduced chance of dying as the result of natural disaster.

Global collaboration would produce a world of abundance where with basic needs met... well, we would be free to have fun, party, watch soccer and football- play.

OK, so for this reason, in kindergarten and most school systems, when someone attempts to solve a problem using physical violence (example: can I have that apple? no. ok I punch you in the face and take apple) is considered unacceptable to the point that both parties involved- both aggressor and victim- are usually suspended or otherwise punished.

So why do educational institutions consider violence so unacceptable? Because violence creates fear, hatred, a desire for revenge- it awakens our animal instincts- and this becomes a cycle which is very difficult to break. In some cultures this cycle has been running for 1000s of years.

Does this make me a Utopian? No- I think sometimes people enjoy indulging their animal instincts- it's human nature. Even when we try to satisfy our animal instincts by proxy, spectator sports, often the spectators engage in violence (riots, etc).

Utopian/idealist/romantic I am not.

Pragmatist I am.

I like being alive and would like to continue being alive as long as possible. And again, we are entering an era of a nuclear armed world run by those whose childhoods did not include looming fear of the destruction of the human race, duck-and-cover drills, the concept of mutually-assured-destruction/lose-lose warfare, visions of entire cities leveled and the fall of western civilization.... all because our global community isn't governed by the basic rules of kindergarten school children.


Suggested reading:

• Alas, Babylon
• War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink

gotta run- dinner time. more links later

shame... 911 audio, "You're dead," BOOM

There are so many things wrong here (911 audio tape of man saying, "you're dead," before shooting and killing two suspected burglers) that I don't know where to start. For now, let us completely disregard the absurd self/property-defense argument given, taking into consideration the fact that the voice on the phone was in direct contact with a law enforcement officer who was clearly and repeatedly ordering him to not leave his house and not shoot anyone.

And to give the voice on the phone the benefit of the doubt, we will assume he was drunk or perhaps has served time in prison, which could explain why he's acting more like an animal than the moral beings we purport to be.

Wise men have said to always ask, "why we fight." Unfortunately this incident supports my long-term suspicion. For some people, the answer to "why we fight," is simply, "because deep-down inside, I'm itching to hurt someone." In other words, because WE WANT TO.

I'm really disgusted. Let's save this kind of crap for the football stadium, television, and other opt-in, legal recreation, and not make a habit of destroying one another.

Thanks, Drew, for sending me this.

monk-beaters & journalist-killers

Who in hell beats monks and murders journalists?!? Apparently the military government of Myanmar a.k.a. Burma.

(unchecked power + military technology) * fear = evil

worth watching

nice to see some talking before we jump to fighting:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14547.htm

Wow this guy is quite a politician. Talk about playing both sides!
"Death to America,' or, "Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue, and cultural exchanges."

tippity tappity tap tap dance!

I don't know if I should be encouraged by this amicability, or utterly terrified, because this reminds me of the peace talks of November 1941 with Japan before they hit us at Pearl Harbor.

FINALLY, all the power of a nuclear warhead, but without those pesky side effects!

How many times have you said to yourself, "I want to cause mass destruction and carnage, but I've had it with those yucky, radiation-related side-effects?"

Well, you're prayers have been answered:

The main destruction is inflicted by an ultrasonic shockwave and an
incredibly high temperature," the reports said. "All that is alive merely
evaporates."
Rukshin said: "At the same time, I want to stress that the
action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a
nuclear one.

From Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1155952320070912?pageNumber=2

Pick a punchline, or write your own:

1. FINALLY, an environmentally friendly way to blow shit up!
2. All the carnage... without the guilt!

outrage and alarm

If you are a supporter of civilian oversight of the armed forces, nuclear non-proliferation, and the survival of life & technological civilization in general, then you should be outraged and alarmed about this: A B-52 armed with six nuclear warheads flew around a little bit last week.

Oops. I wonder if the rest of the world noticed. I wonder how close former Soviet countries came to a pre-emptive strike. You should wonder about these things, too.

Interested? I encourage you to read War Scare, by Peter Vincent Pry.

It is my understanding that nuclear weapons are usually transported by military cargo planes.

Good news is that the warheads were supposedly on their way to being decommissioned.

For the love of god, people, let's not destroy ourselves.

celebrate war... good times!

Not!

Something has really been bugging me, but I haven't been able to compose a blog-worthy (although as I type this I realize my blogworthiness standards are low) analysis. A couple weeks after reading Slaughterhouse-Five, viewing The Fog of War, and immediately after watching the HBO documentary film, White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (2007), I am disturbed enough to share my unpolished thoughts.

It has often occurred to me that war is usually, if not always, NOT a smart move. Especially when one considers the human cost, the long-term cost (read: blowback) of the bad-will generated by the conflict, and the eventual resentment held by the defeated (how's that Afghanistan reconstruction going? And how are the losers of the United States Civil War faring in comparison to the winners?).

Seriously, starting an unnecessary war is just intellectually lazy. The action itself indicates that it has not been thoroughly considered. We understand this about nuclear war: No one wins, so no one starts global nuclear wars. Good for us.

I mean, the violence of warfare is about as glamorous as a multi-fatality motor vehicle accident. If high-tech civilization & society are a organisms, then war is our cancer. See what I'm saying?

OK- we all agree: war sucks. I think everyone who has seen first-hand death & violence knows that, right? Sure, military might is cool (awesome toys), but destroying lives is not. So why do we keep fighting throughout recorded history? Certainly powerful men are well versed in history. So am I naive? Or perhaps I lack a certain predatory gene or brain region?

Or am I the only sane one around here?

What if a nation took the unprecedented action of sending a ton of diplomats to live in a rogue state, rather than tons of destruction?

If we can all agree that generally humans want (1) to survive and (2) to not hurt, then why do we still fight wars? Well, someone has to start them, right? Who? Maybe the leaders who are also starters of war lean more towards the socio/psychopathic than true representation of the will of the population?

Koreas to make historic train cross of Cold War line

Koreas to make historic train cross of Cold War line
from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSEO21134820070517?feedType=RSS

Wed May 16, 2007 8:55PM EDT
By Jon Herskovitz
SEOUL (Reuters) -
Trains from North and South Korea will pierce their heavily armed border on
Thursday, restoring for the first time an artery severed in their 1950-1953 war
and rekindling dreams of unification.

The Globe as a Country, or, "Practical Idealism"

Two things have been bugging me for the past couple of decades:

1) Can our global community be seen as analogous to the federation of the United States? The answer is no, right? Interactions between countries on the planet follow a different set of rules than interactions between states or people within a country of laws. Or do they?

Within the United States system, citizens value "civilized" values such as non-violence, human life, diversity, individualism, and tolerance.

But we live within a global community that includes periodic genocide and regular war. I don't see a parallel to this with people within the United States. Violent crime, I suppose, is the "war" between individuals, but I haven't seen much interstate strife unless you count private-public sector strife (businesses over-billing governments).

Either I am sheltered, naive, and/or elite, or the global community is still closer to the wild west than the current United States system.

2) Other thing that's been on my mind is Scarcity vs. Abundance: Is there really enough to go around, or do we in fact have to fight for a way of life? I would like to talk to an economist about the world's energy and food sources.

What I am wondering is, if there is NOT enough to go around, are our leaders making a decision to act a certain way within the global community in order to preserve a standard of living and way of life? If so, there needs to be a public dialogue about this.

I will say that again. There needs to be a public dialogue about this. U.S. citizens deserve the right to choose how our country will behave within the international community. We can consciously choose what we're willing to do in order to preserve a way of life, or what sacrifices we are willing to make to avoid international conflict. Why doesn't anyone talk about this?

If there IS enough to go around, well then, why can't humanity get its act together? I suppose we're doing OK when one looks at the past few hundred years' views of slavery, "savagery," and religious self-righteousness.

I'll tell you the answer. Everyone needs Internet access and education (although I'm not sure if everyone actually wants that).

Over and out. I will continue saving the world another time.

processing vtech

It's been a busy week in my technology world, and only today am I beginning to come to terms with the gravity of the Virginia Tech shooting and what it means for our society.

"The scene was something these experienced officers had never witnessed. As they entered each room, they asked the students to hold out their hands, show that they had no weapons, and then led those who could walk down the stairs and outside. But there were so many bodies. Blood everywhere, pieces of flesh. The shooter himself, with a gun lying nearby, was almost unrecognizable, a face destroyed. And the innocent victims did not just have bullet wounds, the police would recount later, but were riddled with bullets, gushing blood. The scene was so emotionally overwhelming that many officers could not hold back tears even as they went about their business."

There's not much I can add to the gravity of the scene described in the above text, so I won't even try.

Thoughts are beginning to formulate in my active-unconscious mind regarding how this event:

• affects our sense of security
• fuels both gun control advocates and opponents
• draws scrutiny, criticism, and hopefully improvement to our mental health system and overall mental health awareness
• encourages us to rethink our public and private safety
• encourages us to rethink our humanity in the age of isolation, technology, and connected anonymity (word has it that some of Cho's attempts at human connection were in the form of IM correspondence with women that degraded into harassment and/or stalking).

Other stuff comes to mind, though, including a sign I see in town for an exhibit in Los Angeles, "In Violence, We Forget Who We Are," a title inspired from a Mary McCarthy quote. I haven't even seen the exhibit, but these words haunt me. Not sure why. Maybe a thought will solidify later.