Secret Agent Man

Posted in Infuriating on December 18, 2010 by easilyangered

So, Wikileaks….  I don’t get how the US thinks they are justified in charging a non US citizen who broke US laws outside of the US.  I don’t get it.  Are we now claiming jurisdiction and legal claims over the entire world?  I think that the person who released the documents to  wikileaks and abused the trust of the US Government should certainly face justice, but really, we have no powers over Mr. Assange.  Let’s ignore the fact that this information NEEDED to be released to keep the corruption of the Government in check.

Advertisements

Raising awareness of how stupid you are:

Posted in Infuriating, Irritating on October 3, 2010 by easilyangered

I’m really sick of raising awareness.  Breast cancer awareness, Autism awareness, diabetes awareness.  What good is being aware of these things doing anyone?  I’m  aware that these conditions exist, but I don’t care, all you’re doing is making me more aware of how pissed off I am and how dumb I think you are.  The wort part is, women, being the biggest consumers of products, and also the demographic most likely to get breast cancer, are seemingly too stupid to realize they are being marketed to, not saved.  Here, buy this food processor, it’s pink!  It doesn’t match anything you own, but it will sure make the one person in your life who may happen across is at your house realize HOW MUCH YOU CARE!   Do you assholes even realize that the amount of money given to a research firm for that product you bought is miniscule?  Do you realize we are also no closer to finding a cure than we were 25 years ago?  More women die of lung cancer than do breast cancer every year, but there isn’t a nice little ribbon and branded products being sold for that is there?  I wonder why that is….  Could it be because it’s a non offensive way to link your products to titties?  Sex sells after all.

Another type of awareness that just pisses me off is all these history months we have.  I mean, who gives a shit if the 35th person to accomplish something happened to be a minority?   Are you saying that their race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or creed is a handicap?  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for celebrating people who were actually trail blazing, like Madame Curie, Mr. George Washington Carver, etc…  But here’s the typical thing that gets mentioned in women’s history month as an example: Junko Tabei was the first woman to scale Mt. Everest in 1975.  Well who gives a shit?  How many people climbed it before her?  Does being a woman make it a harder climb?  Why doesn’t the second guy to set foot there get any recognition?  I’m tired of making a big deal every time a minority farts in public, it takes away from true trailblazers and cheapens accomplishments.  By all means if the first person to do something is a minority, let’s give them their due, but copying what another did is not an accomplishment no matter what color you are, or what is between your legs.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses… but legally

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on September 14, 2010 by easilyangered

The 14th Amendment needs to be amended to at very least, require that one parent also be a legal citizen in addition to birth on native soil, this is the requirement for many other countries around the world, and is neither hurting anyone deserving of citizenship, nor helping those who seek to obtain it by less than honorable means. Those who believe the Constitutional protections only extend to US citizens however need to rethink their position. The Constitution assumes that ALL men have inherent rights and does not enumerate them for the people, but rather limits the powers of the government to infringe upon them. To deny Constitutional protections to a person on US soil is to deny their humanity, since their very existence entitles them to the rights of man

Let’s not allow bigotry and xenophobia to lower ourselves by denying people rights based on the location and circumstance of their birth.

I have a perfect plan for the “immigration crisis”:

1.  Seal the borders:  People seem to think this is impossible, but I have a solution.  Why not  redeploy the troops from ending the “combat mission” in Iraq to the US border instead of sending them to Afghanistan to kill more people?  This would be a temporary measure until the remaining provisions of my plan are put into place.

2.  Repeal or alter the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, requiring that in addition to being born in the US, citizenship is conferred only when one or more parents is also a natural or naturalized citizen.

3.  Provide all those who are here illegally an amnesty period where  a temporary citizenship including a legal Social Security Number will be granted, provided they show proof of employment and can demonstrate a basic understanding of the English language, as well as pass a criminal background check.  The temporary citizenship will be for sufficient time required to complete the additional steps necessary for naturalization.

4.   Those that are willing to serve a minimum of 4 years in the US Military supporting our nation, upon honorable discharge will receive citizenship for themselves, their spouse and any children they are claiming as dependants.

5.  Those who cannot meet the employment and English requirements for a citizenship pass will be offered the chance at their own expense to enroll in a program that will teach them the skills to find employment and learn English.  If they are unable to pass the course and become a productive member of society, they will be deported to the country of their birth.

6.  If you are a citizen or an accepted person under provision 2 or 3, you may sponsor residence for any member of your family by blood or marriage, provided you can show proof that you can full support them financially, and medically, provided they pass a criminal background check.

7.  OSHA will be given additional personnel, and the scope of their purpose will be widened to ensure that companies are employing legal people as well as fostering a safe work environment.  Any company or individual found to be employing an illegal resident will be fined so heavily as to nullify any payroll savings that snubbing the law would allow.

8.  Anyone found after the amnesty period violating the immigration laws or any other law while in this country illegally will be stripped of everything they own and escorted to the border and dumped, that’s how they came here, they can get back the same way.

Once the employment opportunities that are enticing people to come here dry up, the military will no longer be needed to patrol the border.

Ask, tell, but still be a second class citizen.

Posted in Infuriating on August 18, 2010 by easilyangered

It seems the country is poised on the precipice of overturning the DADT legislation and allowing openly gay people to stop denying who they are and serve without fear of discrimination.  This is pretty much a non-event to a lot of people in the military.  I have served at quite a few places with people who are gay, and really, most people know, or suspect; very few care.  We are surprisingly tolerant of people in the military, contrary to the Neanderthal impression many people have of us.

I had the opportunity to attend a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell brief that was supposed to “feel out” the troops and garner our opinions and such and had really high hopes that I would learn something about coming policy shifts.  I should have known better.  It seemed that no one wanted to ask any meaningful questions, we got the “I’m against it because of my religion, will I be able to not serve with one of dem gay boys?” morons; to which my thought was “You’re serving with them now asshole, what about Jesus’s words on acceptance and not judging?”  Then we got “Will people be offered the opportunity to end their enlistment since they didn’t sign on for this?” ; My opinion is that you signed on to serve, not serve with only people you like, so shut the fuck up, I can’t get out because I have to serve with a dumbass like you, so you can serve with gays and lesbians.

My question was this: “Since there is already a pretty big disparity in the housing allowances for single and married members, and several states are right now preparing to recognize gay civil unions and marriages, how is the military going to treat members who are married in one of those states in regards to family separation pay, housing allowances, and relocation costs?”  I was thrilled to be allowed to ask this question, because in my pie in the sky idealism, I thought the military would do the right thing by these people; unfortunately, the answer was basically that there is a Federal Defense of Marriage act, which would allow the Military to not treat these people as married, and thus allow them to get screwed out of thousands of dollars a year.  YAY Government!

Unfortunately, we ran out of time answering questions from bigoted assholes before I could ask my second question, so I had to catch the presenters afterward to find out this:  “We base our harassment claims on the perception of the person who is offended.  How are we going to protect the religious person’s freedom to express their religious beliefs under the First Amendment, while still avoiding a hostile workplace for someone who may be offended by being told their lifestyle is a sin or one that is unnatural to God?  The answer was a very non-committal “well, uh, we have uh, rules and regs in effect about harassment already, so, uh, we’ll have to follow and see how they go.”

I was totally underwhelmed.

They’re so FIERCE!

Posted in Irritating on August 18, 2010 by easilyangered

I love Werewolves. They are my favorite movie monsters of all time. I remember the first time I saw a Werewolf show. Well, it wasn’t really ABOUT Werewolves, it was more about a guy living with 2 girls and pretending to be a Werewolf to not look improper. Used to be a day that you couldn’t come right out and say a character was a Werewolf, they had to use mannerisms and styles of dress and whatnot to imply lycanthropy without actually showing the transformation. You’d often be guessing, “Is that guy a Werewolf or just a really snappy dresser?” Then sometime around the late 80’s it was more OK to be in touch with your lupine side so we started getting more shows featuring Werewolves who weren’t afraid to be out in the open, they’d prance around and talk about how they were going to go to the theater, or to a musical. Then along came the show about the Werewolf and his live in roommate who was a totally hot redheaded Jewish chick (no boobs tho) and their incredible friend “just Jack” who was wolfed out all the time!  It was an awesome show!  Then they had the one where 5 Werewolves would show a regular guy how to act, dress, and generally clean up into a modern guy.  And who could forget the movie about the 2 Werewolf cowboys….

Oh, wait, I’m sorry…

I seem to have mistaken homosexuals and Werewolves.

well, at least now maybe now you’ll understand why I have to punch you in the mouth if you say you like vampires and start talking about Twilight.

Why is this an issue?

Posted in Interesting on August 7, 2010 by easilyangered

There is a big stink over a “mosque” being built in NY near the site of the trade centers. This is causing controversy.

Part of the perception on the one side is that the Muslim community as a whole does not denounce these attackers and therefore they support the actions. It doesn’t help when our news media shows people in Muslim countries dancing in the streets after the attacks (NM that the footage was possibly old and unrelated to the attacks, but I’m not a conspiracy nut.) This is where the average American perception that it’s all Muslims come from. Keep in mind, these average morons get their info from the same manipulative news media and can’t tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim either.

Another just outright distortion is that this church is being built ON GROUND ZERO OMG!!!
When actually it’s a community center and being built a couple blocks away, but all you need is our wonderful news service to mention that for thousands of years building a temple on an area you conquered has been a common practice and the people get worked up into a frothing rage again, at least until the next celebrity sex tape.

What the media would tell you if they were responsible, is that Muslims don’t hate us, in fact the average Iranian citizen loves America, it’s the crazy government that doesn’t. Iraqi nationals would BEG us to come back and help them from Saddam between the original Gulf War and the 2003 one. But, you’ll never hear this on the news, nor will you hear that Ideology doesn’t make people become terrorists, Iran tried for about a quarter century to get people into a murderous frenzy against the US based on Ideology, but was unable to do so. Where did the 911 Hijackers come from? Our “Allies”, Saudi Arabia, a place where we have troops stationed. al-Qaeda discovered a very simple psychological truism in that it is easy to turn someone into a combatant against a foreign invader, much harder to do it because god said so. I would bet that had America not had troops occupying 137 countries around the globe and didn’t automatically jump to Israel’s defense in every conflict, we could very easily be at peace instead of war.

Anyway, my thoughts: Build a mosque, a cathedral and a synagogue (and whatever other type of church there is) RIGHT ON TOP of ground zero, make them share a common entrance to the area to show the religious zealots out there that this is America, we welcome all people, regardless of faith, and their intimidation tactics only reinforce that and make us come together, not tear us apart

You know there’s more than 2 of them right?

Posted in Interesting on August 6, 2010 by easilyangered

It seems to me everyone knows about the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution. They are the only two that ever get any airplay, occasionally you hear about the 5th, but frankly 1 & 2 are the rock stars. I’ve been thinking about the others a lot though lately and how people’s relative unfamiliarity with them might mean that they are giving up a big portion of their personal rights without even realizing it. So I’m going to give my take on the bill of rights.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice if you will above that the words separation of Church and State do not appear anywhere in this text. In fact you will also note that this pertains to teh Government being unable to deny you the abilities to do these things. You do not have the freedom of speech in a private forum; an internet message board owner can very well deny your “right” to free expression on the servers they are paying for. I do however wonder how states and localities make people get a permit to assemble? Maybe they get around it by the Congress wording up there. I do however think this makes the famous Bush “Free Speech Zones” a very shady practice.

2. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are a few things I’d like to point out about this one. First, the well-regulated militia part that gun control people like to mention: Well regulated meant operating efficiently. People like to point out the well-regulated section to justify their draconian laws, but seem to always overlook the last part: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If you look into other documents and essays written at the time, and by the same people who wrote and signed the Constitution, you will find they were very much FOR people having the same weapons as the government should an overthrow be necessary. As for those people who want to claim that all they had were muzzleloaders and didn’t foresee the automatic weapons we have, well, I’ll counter that point with they didn’t see email either, does that mean you can’t practice freedom of speech or the press on the internet?

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Don’t even see this one becoming an issue any time soon.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is rapidly becoming one of my favorites. Do you realize that stores can not force you to show your receipt and do a bag check without your consent? If you don’t want to wait in the long assed exit line, just walk right the fuck by! The troubling thing about this is that we submit to searches without probable cause or warrants every time we travel by air. The TSA is terrible. I hate them. I will make another post specifically about these wastes of life and how they make us no safer at a later date.

5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is another one I like. I’m dead set against eminent domain, I think private property shouldn’t be able to be seized for public use except in case of a needed road or other public service. Seizing in order to sell the land to a facility that will generate more tax revenue is reprehensible. As for the Self Incrimination and testifying against yourself portions, I think this video and this one speak for me.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
You have the right to confront your accuser, be represented by counsel, and must be tried speedily and publicly. This is of course if you are a US Citizen, personally I disagree with holding suspected terrorist indefinitely, it isn’t a good practice.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Again, I don’t see many issues with this one, except for terror suspects. This is why the importance of classifying civilians as “enemy combatants”.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Excessive bail, well I guess the judge is free to decide what is excessive, but I wonder for a minimum wage guy, isn’t $500,000 excessive? Isn’t the purpose of bail to insure you go to trial so as not to lose your money, rather than keeping you locked in? Cruel and unusual punishment; I think getting stuck in a place you are sure to get raped is cruel and unusual, why is prison rape a joke and not something we protect our inmates from?

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
now it gets interesting again. People misunderstand the Bill of Rights all the time. They think that it list what rights you have, when in fact, it actually puts limits on what the government can do to you. Also note that it states that because a right is NOT listed here, that does not mean you don’t have that right. The rights belong to the people, not to the government to grant to you. Stand up for your rights.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Notice here that it says if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY grant a power to the Federal Government, that power resides in the states or to the people. This clearly states that the powers rest with the people or the state, not the centralized Government. States should be free to make their own laws, the Fed should stop running roughshod over people’s lives and trying to rule us. that makes us subjects, not Citizens, and HERE is where we get problems.