Some Minor Rumblings and Ramblings

Again, I apologize to all my avid readers that I haven't been updating like I did in April. I will try harder to update at least once a week, but one every other day or every two days.

This post is not going to be on any specific topics, just what has been in the news lately, because I'm not really fuming on anything. Today's topics haven't been all that exciting, either.

So we have all this torture talk, with what seems like new information everyday. Am I alone in thinking this subject is getting very tired? We have two extremes on both sides of the political spectrum: the right is pretty much defending torture, or at least the Bush admin's use of it in some doomsday scenario "we've got a ticking time bomb". On the left we have calls for senior Bush officials to be prosecuted, including Bush and Cheney themselves, which seems like an act that would further divide this country with every taking sides on every issue, the others on each side calling one another morally suspect.

It seems we are at an impasse. I can understand the left's calls for prosecution of torture. It's bad. Really bad. And it has been said time and time again that it is ineffective on all counts. It's only logical that it would be ineffective, since humans will do anything to prevent themselves from feeling pain (physical or psychological). If you are being hurt, and you are being told what information the person hurting wants, the only way to make them stop is to tell them what they want to hear. Thus, the pain stops. You probably have no idea what you said, and it is most likely false information that will be used against you later. It still made the pain stop. Along with it being really bad, it is also globally illegal. The US wasn't a founding member of the UN for no reason. We had an obligation to decide what was right or wrong during times of war or otherwise.

I obviously don't agree with the right on any of their arguments regarding torture, because they lack any evidence or justification under jurisprudence. They may be rationalized nonstop until the wars end, but that's not going to justify them. However, one bit I do agree with is can we stop with the talk of it already. There are many people strongly arguing on both sides, but I think we've heard enough, and we need to stop running our mouths about it. There is only so much speaking we can do on a subject before it is dead and boring. Sure new information comes out daily, whether leaked or otherwise, but it doesn't mean we should spend 16 hours of the news cycle beating and flossing a dead horse. If there isn't going to be prosecution, can we let it go. I mean, I was unhappy about Bush being president, but was anything done about it? Obviously not. So if lawmakers and the people in charge are not going to do anything about it, then please stop talking about it. I beg of thee liberals, I beg of thee Dick Cheney, I beg of thee neo-cons. 

Of course, by no means do I not want prisoners of war treated with any disrespect or without habeas corpus. If there are detainees that are not guilty of anything, release them. Just like we do here in the US. Sure, if they were guilty, and go out and commit another crime, then by all means take 'em down. However, the argument of "oh, but you'll be subjecting innocent lives to a person who wants to see them die" is not valid. You can't know what is uncertain. There is a principle in chemistry, created by Heisenberg, which basically says that subatomic particles are so energetic, that once you get a lock on one, it has already moved, so it is impossible to determine its position and momentum at the same time. So, to put it in the terms I'm talking about: You think crazy Muslim extremist will do harm when he is released, but he has done nothing wrong that can be ascertained by empirical means. Therefore, you have his position, but not his momentum. You think you have his momentum too, but its too tricky to tell. If you focus on momentum too much, you'll lose his position, and you will never know if he will do any harm. Uncertainty to the fullest. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and foresight is blind. So why not afford due process?

So that went a little longer than I had anticipated, but no worries. I have a slightly different topic to cover now: Miss California Carrie Prejean. First off, shut up. Beauty pageant contestants should not be heard about anything (e.g. Mrs. Palin), because all they offer is their opinion. If you have no real solutions, then who gives a shit about your opinion? I can say that I believe everything should be free, but if I have no solution to make that happen, it is just words. It's not surprising that Trump didn't fire her because is fucking doesn't matter. It's not like she's doing anything noteworthy. IT'S IN THE FUCKING TITLE: BEAUTY pageant. It is also not shocking that she's guest-hosting Fox & Friends, joined the national marriage haters group that think a "storm" (gay storm, in case you weren't aware) is coming, and is an all-around idiot (Two things: she call it opposite marriage for fucksake, and she was saying that Satan asked her the question; I wouldn't give Perez that much credit). Can we end her 15 minutes already?

And lastly: Can we please get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? It doesn't make any sense. Period. First of all, not asking is irrelevant, because it shouldn't be any business of the military to know whether or not someone is gay. Secondly, shouldn't military personnel be upfront with everyone about their lifestyles. "Oh, I wear women's clothing and kill bunnies," is an ok lifestyle, but as soon as that guy says he has sex with other men, it's no good. Getting rid of Arabic translators is also fucking retarded. You know what, let's send it the guys who speak Spanish to Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean full-blooded Latinos, because their machismo will prevent them from being gay and they can speak Spanish to the natives. Yeah, that's sounds real fucking golden.

It's a stupid program and law and needs to die. If I wanted to live int he 12th century, I'd build a time machine and go there. I rest my case.

Barack Obama Spoken Backwards is Satan

So, I'm sure you've all heard about reverse speech found in music and spoken words. It is something that is made fun of by comedians and anyone with a brain. It is used by fear mongers to advance an agenda to the unwitting public. But it actually has some psychological underpinnings. It can be studied, and it has been studied by cognitive psychologists. But first a little taste:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So Barack tells us to serve Satan, and all that jazz, just by reversing his phrases. You would totally be surprised at how many words int he English language when reversed sound like Satan. Now, I used the word "sound like" because no one can be totally sure the reversed audio is actually saying "Satan".

The term used for reversed audio is backmasking, which basically means hiding a message purposefully in reversed music or speech, for a dastardly agenda, like telling people to subconsciously serve Satan. However, if one is not told what to listen for, then most of the time you won't hear what is purported to be said. The main problem with the Rachel Maddow clip is that she shows us what is being said, written on the screen, so your brain doesn't hear the audio without any previously gained knowledge. It is the main difference for top-down and bottom-up processing of information. Bottom-up processing is what your brain would have to do to the reversed audio if you never heard it before and weren't given any cues as to what is being said. Top-down is what the clip did. You read the information presented on the screen, and the more times the audio was played the better you "heard" what it was saying. You were given the knowledge beforehand, which makes it top-down processing.

Not to bore you, but the research I have done, and hope to continue to do, is instead of presenting the actual words of the phrases of the backmasked audio, I presented visual stimuli, i.e. pictures, of what the main item of the phrases were. The majority of the people could not decipher the reversed audio. Which means that the visual stimuli did not present the information necessary to make the processing top-down. Thus, it can be said that backmasking may not be real if one is not told what to listen for.

There are people that are huge proponents of backmasking, essentially with the evil messages of Satan and telling kids to kill people or smoke stuff. Now, I have a test for you:

Listen to the first video/audio for the forward music. Then listen to the second one for the reversed audio. Comment what you think the reversed one is saying. NO cheating either!

The Beatles - I Am Tired Forward

The Beatles - I Am Tired Reversed

(They are links to .mp3 files; they should play automatically in your browser depending on what you're using.)

If you can't get it, I'll tell you later, but you have to work it out for yourself. It is gonna be hard, just a fair warning. However, if you've heard it before and know the answer, it will be as apparent as forward speech. I've heard it so many times, I cannot get it out of my head unless somebody hits me really hard, and even then, who knows if it will be gone.

So the moral of the story is: don't believe everything you hear. Just support Obama and Satan.

Just a quick edit: Here's a site that has a good amount of backmasked audio from famous music sources: BackmaskOnline