CLICK HERE FOR BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND MYSPACE LAYOUTS »

Monday, June 17, 2013

who told you to put a balm on?

I'm pretty annoyed about the whole NSA surveillance thingy, and am surprised by the number of people who are relaxed and cool with it, like, "I'm pretty boring and have nothing to hide; why should I care?"  I can't figure out if they're being serious--there was a pro/con surveillance opinion piece in the newspaper yesterday in which the pro-surveillance person (a Republican, because you know how they're such fans of limited government) made an argument so inane and childishly worded that I can't be entirely certain it wasn't actually a point/counterpoint lifted straight from The Onion.  Among other things he was saying that people volunteer information about themselves online all the time, so why does this bother them, and I'm just like, "DUDE.  Because they chose to volunteer that information."  Does he really not see the difference between the two scenarios?  Does he really not have a problem with the government spying on us without permission?  And lying about it until faced with evidence that they were?  I thought there was a huge vein of "BUT THE CONSTITUTION!  THE FOUNDING FATHERS!" running through the Republican party--does he not see the hypocrisy in his position?  Maybe he's just really good at compartmentalization.

I have seen Cedar City now, and it is a fine place.  Too hot and windy for me to live there, but they have a superb shaved ice stand that has earned my undying loyalty.  Shaved ice is one area in which I happily welcome and embrace all the artificial colors and flavors they care to throw at me.  Tiger's Blood with shelf-stable ultra-pasteurized cream poured on top?  Bring it on.  Pineapple/Orange/Strawberry with a sweet white substance that has not been identified stirred in?  Likewise.  The guys upgraded us to mediums for free because we told them we were shaved ice connoisseurs who had sought them out after hearing reports of their good ice--all true.  Also while were were in Cedar City we visited Cedar Breaks National Monument, and that is a gorgeous eyeful.  I was a mostly non-embarrassing soccer parent at Grant's games, and I can sometimes detect an offside situation now, so there's that.  No goat babies came while we were gone, for which I am grateful.  Roger, Sally's baby, is thriving and has started jumping around like a little deer.

I have a problem with poltergeists stealing my lip balm.  I have lost three tubes in the past month.  Maybe it's the NSA!  Maybe they're collecting my DNA to make an army of mes!  Joke's on them, I am weak and lazy.

1 comments:

beckster said...

I am pretty annoyed, but not surprised. Much of the legislation that passed after 9/11 was very reactionary and not well thought out overall, emotional legislation, not logical legislation. It would be nice to have some actual information about the process of monitoring. If they have prevented so many attacks, were the terrorists just stupid, i.e. would they have been caught anyway? With the experts saying that most future terror attacks will be carried out by small groups of loners, will they even leave a trail of anything to monitor? If they did not collect this data, would people be satisfied if we did not prevent a terror attack? Do people understand that we cannot actually prevent insanity from occurring no matter how much we monitor people's private lives? Are people willing to give up the freedoms that make up the foundation of this country to try to avoid the inevitable? It's an emotional conundrum, just like gun control. I fear the genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it is disturbing.