NDAA

I read some stuff this week that got me a little fired up.  Something called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It's political season, and the biggest thing that pisses me off about all these adds and bitching is that, you absolutely CANNOT get a straight answer on anything.  It can't go 'Oh, NDAA, a bunch of people are bitching about this, I better look up what it is!'  Trying to do so gets thousands of pages of people bitching about one side or the other of it.  Try that with anything anyone is government is promoting, and you do not get FACTS, you get OPINIONS.  All that is available is random fuck heads interpretation of what was done, not what actually IS.  So, the shit that pissed me off is some guys opinion on what the NDAA means.  The article is here. 

It is a good article, and well written by a guy whose work I have read in the past, and I respect his opinions on things.  His discussion regarding why the NDAA is a bad thing was well reasoned and coherent, but unfortunately it does not reference the letter of the law, or the precise content of what is written in to the NDAA, merely conjecture from other sites and discussions about it.  I would recommend reading the article, but the gist of it is that the NDAA is a law allowing the U.S. government to detain someone suspected of terrorist sympathies or activities indefinitely, without council or anything else we enjoy under the protection of things like Habeaus Corpus.  He was against the law, and suggesting not that we vote for or against Obama, but just that the law was passed in the first place.  In fact, the very first sentence of the very first article that he references actually betrays his entire point.

It wasn't the article itself that pissed me off.  The article got me thinking about why Gladstone was upset, and I agree.  It does appear unconstitutional to hold anyone without due course, merely on the suspicion of terroristic action.  But, I also agree that, it was a decision that had to be made.  What pissed me off was the moronic, short sighted, vacuous, hate mongering jack fucks that were spewing gallons of bullshit in wrong headed support of the article.  As if the author was instigating outright revolt against our government.

As I said, as distasteful as the idea of detention without question is, it was a decision that is necessary in the current state of the nation.  Even though we have beaten them thoroughly in to submission, the terrorists won a huge victory that day.  They put us ridiculously on our guard, and have made us do stupid things and generally fucked us up for a decade.  Whatever their ultimate end goal was, they succeeded in rocking us back on our heels.  Now we live under the forcible perception that we are potentially under attack at any time.  In WWII, Roosevelt made the extremely difficult decision to imprison anyone in the country of Asian descent.  Why did he do that?  For fear of EXACTLY what happened to us in 2001.  Was it justified?  That can be debated for ever and ever, but the fact is, it happened.  It happened because of Pearl Harbor.

The debate on that issue goes that we were behaving in much the same manner as Hitler... by detaining 'undesirables', and impuning on their rights to humanity.  We had perfect justification for the action at the time, and that does not make it any less barbaric, but it IS something that happened, and with good reason.  For the greater good of the nation and its people.  It was a horrendous decision, one that no one should have to make ever... but there was one man whose job it was to decide things like that, and it was the duly elected president of the nation.  It is his JOB to decide things that should never have to be decided. He should never have been put in to a position to imprison hundreds of thousands of human beings, take them away from their homes and their families, lock them in to camps, hold them against their will for years... but he had hundreds of MILLIONS of other people to care for.  What was he to do?  No man should ever be put in a position of judgement against another man, but dammit, SOMETIMES it just has to be done.  We all know that there are some people in this world that just absolutely need an ass kicking.  Some motherfuckers just absolutely REFUSE to learn, until you beat the shit out of them.  Is it up to any man to decide when another man needs his ass kicked?  It shouldn't be, but by-fucking-god, sometimes a motherfucker just needs punched in the fucking head. 

I have seen other things this week. Take the 4 minutes to watch that video, and you will see what I mean.  Now, that security guard probably received a reprimand, but he made the right decision.  The dickbag with the camera probably uploaded the video expecting to get someone fired, and just solidified the point that the guard made the right decision.  That dude needed punched in the fucking mouth.  We live in the BEST country on the entire planet.  We have freedoms that most other nations dream of... yet, you have to understand that you still cannot just do what ever the fuck you want to do, and not have consequences!  I have the right to be an unrepentant, screaming fuck-hole.  I can hate all the black, white, and brown people I want, loudly and proudly.  I can talk all of the shit about how I hate my country and everything sucks here, and we should blow this whole thing up.  But, the second I slap my dick on the counter at Arby's and ask for some hot sauce for this sexy hunk of meat, I'm going to get arrested.  And, I fucking deserve it too.  It is a terrible, horrendous, heinous idea that someone may need to snatch up somebody for just THINKING about whipping their pecker out... but if it stops me from having to see Mr. Veiny while I'm eating my curly fries, then I'm going to have to go along with it.  Even in the event that it puts my own self at possible risk of detainment.  Because, I truly believe in my government.  I truly believe in people's general goodness and consideration of morality.  I believe in the process of Democracy, and elected officials, and that while not every single law passed makes sense to me, I believe that it makes sense to over half of my peers, and I am going to have to respect that.

I also believe I'll have another beer...




The Angry Man

Offense - Law

This is about some shit that happened to a friend of mine last week that just frosts my buns. He was a passenger in a car, and was given an $80 seat belt ticket when the vehicle was pulled over.

I have a serious problem with that. He is an adult, and was riding out to a job site for work, and forgot to strap himself into the vehicle. The state has been given the right to monitor our private activities to the point of levying fines for behavior potentially unsafe to OURSELVES. What in the fuck is THAT about? Why hasn't there been an outcry of huge proportions over this? People are so god damned worried about losing their freedoms in the form of public health care, yet are perfectly willing to allow this utterly moronic injustice to pass.

Look, I don't have a problem with seat belts. I understand the function of them, and that they may save my life in car accident. I understand that it is important for my children's safety to have them fastened into the vehicle. I do not think it is fair that the government gains revenue by fining its citizens for not following these warnings. Cigarettes come with a warning label for pregnant women. Alcohol and beer have the same warning. Are pregnant women fined for drinking and smoking? Absolutely not. Its the woman's body, and her fetus to damage, so lets just let her go!

I think the same thing about helmets. I get hassled for not putting a helmet on my 8 year old when I was teaching him to ride a bike. He is LEARNING to ride it... meaning he is not going to go careening down a cliff face, jumping over fallen logs and attempting back flips. No, he is in fact going to plod along at barely walking speed with me right behind him in case he falls. An officer is obligated to ticket ME, were he to see MY child riding a bicycle without a helmet and pads. Law does not replace parenting, and I will make the decision concerning protective gear for my children, thank you very much. (Now go track down one of those crack smoking pregnant women, officer, and leave me the fuck alone!)

If I owned a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet. Dumping a motorcycle is much more common, and much more deadly, than wrecking a car. It makes sense to wear one while travelling at excessive speeds. But to make a law DEMANDING that I wear one? That's like making a law fining me for not wearing a condom. Sure, its a good idea, but they are just so danged uncomfortable that I usually don't wear it, unless someone asks me to. I guess the only difference is one protects against death, while the other protects against life.

Think about that next time you are bitching about Obama bowing to a foreign emperor. We've got a LOT bigger problems than him shaking hands in another language...

Give me a fucking break

The Angry Man