The Internet and Space

A recent tweet by Gleen Greenwald led me through a very important line of thought.

We are debating about torture.  It has become okay for us as Americans to consider at what point we cross a line from making someone uncomfortable to torturing them.  The crazy thing is, we are actually arriving at agreed upon, empirical lines of demarcation.  Case in point: I heard someone speaking on the radio yesterday and they were drawing a line between a detainee being slammed up against a wall 30 times as being torture, and less than 30 times as not being so.  To wit, 29 wall-slams is okay.  30 wall-slams, and you’ve tortured someone.  This sort of debate is dehumanizing.  It’s part of an overall strategy to get you to forget that you’re dealing with other humans and not cyborgs sent to kill us from the future like in some sort of sci-fi plot.

My point is the this: we have risen as a nation from the oppressive regimes of imperial monarchies, with liberty and freedom as our banner.  Now we are trying to toe an imaginary line between torture and not-quite-torture.  This concept has become acceptable or “normalized”.  You’re still consciously hurting another to save yourself.  This is not what I have been taught about the purpose of life.  This is not what I have been taught about the value of life.  This isn’t even what secular Americans have believed about life.  Americans, since the Revolutionary War, have believed, “we die so our children can be free.”  Today, it’s, “they die so our children can be free.”  Remind me how is that different than jihad.  Here, in this “debate,” life is being devalued.

“Torture” is a definition that floats with the shifting winds of our “morality”: today it’s 30 wall-slams, tomorrow, it may be 50.  We also seem to be sure of the definition of “terrorist”: today it’s Islamic fascist-driven jihad, tomorrow, mere christianity?  Who is setting these definitions and why do you trust them?

The Obama administration has just released the Bush OLC Memos justifying the use of torture.  Read them.

ACLU has them here.

I’ve never liked Coldplay.  I’ve always been indifferent to Coldplay.  That is until I heard the uncanny similarities between one of their hit songs (bonus points for anyone who can name the Coldplay song, because I can’t) and Kraftwerk’s “Computer Love.”  Kraftwerk’s song is my favorite song in the entire world.  My indifference towards Coldplay quickly froze in to a solid block of dislike.  Yesterday, that solid block of dislike petrified into absolute disdain.  Check out what NPR has covered.

Is Coldplay capable of writing their own hit songs?  I’m sure they can, but they almost certainly can’t write songs with any musical merit by themselves.

Note: to be fair, it is now my understanding that Coldplay “sampled” Kraftwerk.  Nevertheless, my last two sentences remain unaltered.  Further, if you really love an artist, do you pay homage by simply using one of their melodies as the melody for one of your completely unrelated song (I fail to see how the Coldplay track references Kraftwerk even slightly except via melody).  I would submit that Coldplay has merely taken an amazing melody, re-couched it in a completely different song and sold it to a multitude of people who may never know who is Kraftwerk.  Paying homage would have meant magnifying Kraftwerk’s melody.  Instead, Coldplay has taken their glory.  Of course, if the melody is truly sampled, Kraftwerk only have themselves to blame as they would have had to approved such a use.

Glenn Greenwald discusses here.

I would also like to proudly say that I am a member of EFF.  Please visit their website to see more about them.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people should have nothing to hide from the people.  It also should not be allowed to destroy due process owed to the people.

“The Times They Are A-Changin’” by Bob Dylan