[ censored -- another, related video substituted ]
I was the grumpy guy this evening, having a hard time keeping my misanthropy in check.
Polo read a superb poem he'd written, the dancing and music were good, plus we had some OK speeches, so what was my problem?
I'm not a big believer in "powerful men" I suppose, as if we had any, we wouldn't still be dinking around with this stuff, trying to ban these godawful WMDs. What's the point of letters and petitions? There's nobody out there, besides wimpy politicians on soap boxes, echoing back what we wanna hear, might as well talk to a mirror. I feel trapped in The Matrix without a phone, and no "red pill" either.
Truly powerful men would've moved on by now, would have more interesting problems to deal with besides trying to prevent "pushing the button" and committing mass murder. We're just a buncha losers mousing around in Facebook.
Hey, I do it too, have my pet Facebook causes. I joined "people against using dogs as live shark bait" and if my CSN idea kicks in, I'll be able to send 'em real money, as a consequence of some furious game playing brought to me by Jack Daniels or Red Bull or whatever.
I should breath into a paper bag, take a Xanax or something (no, I've not tried one).
How about powerful women, do we have any of those? Given the men have struck out, one would hope that we did.
Actually, I think we have powerful individuals of both genders, but they're far outnumbered by the power hungry. A lot of these latter need nuclear weapons for an ego boost, helps 'em feel "in control" like with Viagra (I've not tried that yet either).
Here's a recent dialog I was having about the above 1957 Disney Youtubes, made over a decade after August 6 and August 9:
Me: Ironic about "seeing no downside to atomic energy" given what was already in the rear view mirror at the time, i.e. the script here is already highly sugar coated, what Disney is good at.Am I against civilian nuclear power? What do I care what I think, I'm not the one to ask. I do think it makes sense to stop blurring the two. You can have the power without the weapons.
Him: You have to understand that when this was made, nuclear reactor meltdowns were the stuff of science fiction and the dangers of atomic bombs (other than the destructive power of the explosion) were virtually unknown.
Me: Check the date re "dangers of atomic bombs... were virtually unknown" -- two cities already vaporized, effects of fallout evident. That's what's so amazing -- these were made later ("virtually unknown" thanks to willful forgetfulness?).
Him: The effects of fallout were not evident. Yes, two cities got destroyed (not vaporized... the two first atomic bombs were firecrackers compared those we have today) and people got burned and died but the thorough effects of radiation were not known. Hell, the very EFFECTS of a nuclear detonation weren't known until the first one went off. Many scientists believed that it would ignite the entire atmosphere.
Me: Yes most people were indeed still ignorant of radiation effects this many years later, thanks to all the effective dumbing-down PR, agreed.
Now that Iran has come this far with those facilities, they should just turn those suckers on already, start feeding the grid, send power to Baghdad etc.. Or maybe they've done that already?
The global data we're getting is so piss poor, so degraded, we'd likely not know.
Is Gitmo empty yet? Would they even tell us?
Who cares about informing the public. TV is all fiction, all fake. I don't believe most of what anyone says about nukes. I don't recognize any real authorities on my tube, just pundits and their short half-life belief systems, espousing whatever the "insider du jour" is supposed to espouse (snicker).
