J.J. Smith's "Numbers"

The NDAA does not give our government the right to detain and/or murder American citizens without a right to fair trial. Despite what many people believe, the NDAA is not the death of our Bill of Rights.

Credit to Jason Easley of Politicsusa.com:

“…Obama then strongly debunked once and for all the notion that the NDAA detention provisions apply to American citizens, [saying,] “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

How much clearer can it get?

- -

Unfortunately, any official news comes from newspapers and TV networks, mediums which lobbyists control in order to spin the facts. And any unofficial news comes from bloggers who aren’t necessarily being dishonest, but they aren’t checking the details before they post them either.

So it is the rush of things, the immediacy to be on-top of an issue, the want of readers and viewers and more “site hits” that cause misinformation to spread. And it spreads fast. Unbelievably fast. Many people are already convinced that Obama would willingly sacrifice our basic rights as American citizens. Many of these people received their news from facebook, from shared blog articles; it only took a matter of hours for these people to believe these falsities.

- -

all is relevant

(C.)

I met the end of Argument (B.) with a pondering of outliers (those items which fall outside the realm of functionality.) I came to this as a result of modifying the emboldened statement:

All is relevant; with relevance, comes infinite functionality.

Furthermore, I now modify it:

All is relevant and infinitely functional.

From there, it seems almost too easy to push ahead and rightly assert that

all is infinite

if All is never irrelevant in any form and if All never loses its function. No part of All (and I must phrase it this way, as “Nothing” is a specific item) is ever useless.

But the end of Argument (B.) introduced items lacking functionality. Of course, how does one determine functionality? I see functionality as pertaining to the usefulness of a thing to any other thing; more specifically, I see “functionality“ as the state of being useful to the Multiverse.

Still, though, I am backed into a corner. I was wishing to move ahead and tie this into the Internet Functionality Paradox, but I cannot move forward until I solve the dilemma of the outliers; that is, until I prove their usefulness or until I backtrack to reassert my Arguments.

- -

For future thought:

Oftentimes, a person may feel overwhelmed with the abundance of new music, new books, new films, new television programs; these are mediums through which a person may receive some version of solace. Such solace is needed as a result of feeling overwhelmed with the abundance of daily tasks, the utterly mundane of human routine. And the dilemma of the source for solace becoming overwhelming is a happenstance of the Internet. In fact, the Internet results in a functionality paradox.