Being somewhat new to Cracked.com, I was pleasantly surprised to find an article about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. It starts off quite well, saying things that need to be said. The first is that you don’t have to wait until you are in a jail cell to be able to say that there are serious infringements of liberty going on. I especially like how the author addresses the question of whether Obama is a liberal, making the point I made on No Time 4 Bull that most political labels are meaningless. Are modern liberals supposed to care about civil liberties and be anti-war? Try and find one. Or better yet, try and find one who won’t be an apologist for Obama. And yet, the Cracked writer seems to come out and say that there is no such excuse in this case.
Regrettably, however, the second page of the article does not tidy things up well, as it seems to defend the rationale for the NDAA (and makes me question whether I should even recommend the piece)! I was very surprised, as the first page was so very insightful about the sad state of the public’s knowledge of the police state and the effort to combat it, yet the second page lives in some statist fantasy land, where 9/11 events could be around any corner. If this were the case, why would the US government have to create so many false terror plots? [Note: I can’t claim that I’ve read and verified everything in the preceding link. It is just meant to provide examples.]
Anyway, I don’t agree with everything in the Cracked.com posting, but I’m glad that a variety of outlets (including comedy sites) are bringing NDAA up. People should be aware of what their rulers plan to do to them.