6 Replies to “Backwards Baby Scream”

  1. Outrageous. So, if you don’t agree with somebody, you can just make ‘m deaf – that’s the implication here. Of course, to sell this to the general public, they’re working the terrorist angle again. Sickening.

    -E

  2. *Ordinary* baby screams can bring me to my knees in anguish and frustration … I can only imagine what it would sound like in reverse and cranked up to unbearable volume…

  3. This is the disadvantage of having your country occupied by foreign invaders. Whatever rights you have are subject to the invaders’ generosity or lack thereof. Were the tables turned, Saddam probably would have just had them shot. Alive and deaf beats dead, IMHO, and an occupying power *must* maintain order and coersion of the occupied people, because they are hopelessly outnumbered if the people take it into their heads as a group to rise up against the occupying power. So it goes.

    The fact that we’re occupying Iraq is a much thornier issue, but I think the use of this nonlethal weapon is more humane than the alternatives. If they start using it in the United States, it becomes a much, much different issue. And this being the Bush administration, I have no doubt that they will. Once. And then the manufacturer and the police department that used it will be sued out of existance for blowing the hearing of everyone effected. Could that be avoided with foresight? Sure, but this administration has yet to show any.

    -Jim

  4. Jim, re: More humane alternatives: What’s wrong with stun guns, rubber bullets, or good old tear gas? What about the other sci-fi techniques: movement-arresting foam, slippery snot, etc. IOTW, there are a lot of ways to incapacitate without killing and without causing permanent cell damage or hearing loss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.