Reflections on a world with too much spying

**POTENTIALLY TRIGGERING THINGS BELOW**. To the extent I could, I softened and worked around them. I asked this question on FB to see if I’d get any answers at all, if there was anyone capable of separating disgust from survival instincts and admitting it, and for I think I counted eight or so reasons after I posted it. One of those reasons has again to do with the destruction of movements based on the character—real or perceived PSYOPd—of its participants. That is, if the leader of BLM were found to have a record of spousal abuse, what effect does that have on the movement as whole? What if the allegations are exaggerated or wholly phony? What if they are true? It’s all over the place. But one can surely see the value of having people in key positions with weaknesses or closets in the skeleton [sic] for control purposes. Maybe you allow them to waste time and resources on ineffective exercises and action and make sure they never do any real harm to the opposition. Probably the most he

From FB: 

Plus human experimentation of course. I guess…? See bottom portion. Listened in on a NYT run Twitter event that had a reporter who wrote a book on the subject and two psychiatrists who have dealt with the question of whether or not the mental health system can stop mass shootings. Several things stood out. The first is in a sense not that surprising. Even if the system were well-funded and every single future mass shooter were screened by mental health workers, it would only reduce mass shootings by 4%. This is because from a legal and technical standpoint, only 4% of mass shooters exhibited the symptoms and other indicators necessary to have police seize their weapons and have them committed to a mental health facility. So, simpler…only 4% of mass shootings could be stopped by the mental health system if it were working perfectly and funded properly. The caveat here is this is about the screening process only, that is, if they can determine if this person is a threat to others and is

CALL - the Center for Army Lessons Learned. The Army Lessons Learned Program’s intention is to create a system whereby the Army can adapt to situations by allowing the upward flow of information from soldiers and civilian DoD employees. An unclassified publication  (pdf) about it refers to potential reports or tips as being positive (sustain) or negative (improve or change). This got me thinking. What was it that put this into CALL’s thesaurus? Mirror copy here  with those scientist guys. Was removed from public view a decade or so ago by DoD. During what I referred to as the Burn Notice Welcome Wagon in Minneapolis, Ed Vogel mentioned an incident in the US Navy where a pair of sailors sought to shoot down a couple of MiGs during a tense confrontation at sea. I don’t recall which crisis this was. He said their commanding officer spent ten minutes shouting at them so that that idea would never again enter their head. This, I thought, was a funny way to phrase it. I also noted, and Ed ch