Apparently our congressmen no longer find free speech as sexy as gay hookers

[justira]

So.

Anyone else terrified and disappointed?

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

This is my cue to move to Canada, right after I cockslap everyone involved in this and a host of like legislation with my awesome voting power next election. Then I will wait in Canada until the cockslapping takes effect...

... 10 years down the road. Fuck.

Note: If there are more/better links on this subject (I can't imagine everyone's keeping quiet on something like this) please point me to them, but I like this one and it's the one I was given by bottle_of_shine, who deserves a hat tip.

Hey, added afterthoughts:

I am actually REALLY, REALLY angry. Not just about this bill. But... at least a large part of it is the ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RIDICULOUS expansion of executive power.

Not just with this administration.

See, all you fucking whiners in the Bush administration complaining about the legislative or judicial branch "stealing" power from the president, throwing off the checks and balances system: listen up.

The balance of power in the United States government has been royally fucked since shortly after the Cold War started. You see, the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders was meant to give equal power to the three branches -- okay, you can argue with me on the judicial branch, since its primary role today, judging the constitutionality of laws, was an added feature rather than written into the Constitution, but I can abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you that the founders were pretty cautious about the threat of tyranny.

Short attention span translation: the legislative branch and the executive branch were meant to be in balance. This means equal or at least comparable power.

YES YOU FUCKWITS, EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR.

Jesus Christ, the political framework of this country was written shortly after a war. Remember that war? The war for independence? That one?

This country was doing pretty well up until the Cold War. Then the balance really started going downhill -- the executive branch began to gain a lot of power. Most of the power the executive branch has today, the power Bush is using? That's NEW. That's from the COLD WAR, a brilliant, well-thought out, morally-grounded conflict with no near-disastrous (or actually disastrous) consequences.

And the Bush administration is whining about the legislative and judicial branches hogging all the power?

WHAT THE FUCK.

God, I want to write about this longer and more eloquently but for now, let me just say: read the article linked above, watch the Naomi Wolf video linked there, and think about how far we've gone from the balance we started with.

Then. Why am I saying "we"? I don't identify as an American. I'm not sure WHAT I identify as, but I know where my family comes from: Russia. I'm pretty familiar with how executive power gets out of hand. And honestly America is getting kind of scary.

I might write an essay on this later, like my voting essay. To explain about the expansion of executive power during the Cold War.

Right now, I just want to froth about this.

Oh. And when I say "you" in this post, I'm probably referring to members of the Bush administration.

... and people who agree with it.

Fuck you.

Comments

[ellisbben.livejournal.com]

Well, there are lots of good points to be made arguing that our executive branch is becoming too powerful, but this bill is going through congress in the usual fashion.

I think discussing the Cold War is very pertinent; the Cold War really shaped the way people think about danger and conflict and helped to normalize worrying about external threats and annihilation. The problem is that terrorism isn't the USSR and is nowhere near as dangerous.

The one good thing that I can offer about this bill is that it looks like an easy candidate for being challenged and declared invalid.

So, in the Wikipedia article there is a section about the findings contained within the bill 'which specify, among other things, that terrorism exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security, that the Internet has aided in facilitating home grown terrorism, and that preventing home grown terrorism cannot be accomplished through traditional law enforcement efforts.'

AFAIK, all discovered "home-grown terror plots" in the U.S. have been ridiculously weak and run by dumbasses. Operationally, they get nothing done until infiltrated by a member of, say, the FBI, who says, "well guys, if you want to blow something up, you kinda need some explosives..." to prod them along into incriminating themselves. Thankfully, that seems to be the extent to which terrorism exists in the U.S. and it doesn't seem to pose much of a threat.

The internet has aided in facilitating terrorism? Yeah, it also aids in facilitating the purchase of shoes. When the internet is discussed as a weapon (and not in the sense of intrusion into systems or DOS) it means nothing UNLESS you consider it a weapon because it can be used to communicate or *gasp* spread ideas. The best defense against this weapon is that most people will think these "dangerous" ideas are retarded.

I don't exactly know what the writers of this bill considered traditional law enforcement practices, so I can't say why they consider those inadequate. I think it's an overreaction to say that we need to use totally different methods because traditional methods have caught several (improbably stupid) terror plots in the U.S. and a little bit of information-sharing on top of normal policework would've stopped the attack on the WTC & Pentagon.

[justira.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not saying Congress isn't also at fault. It definitely isn't helping by rolling over to executive demands and/or coming up with and approving fuckwit ideas completely independently. But I also can't help thinking that part of Congress's complicity consists of being cowed by the screeching coming from the executive branch.

I want to give you a more interesting and cogent response, but really I'm (a) still too angry to think about it very rationally and (b) packing for my flight in a few hours. Thanks very much for the considered commentary here, though! I'll try and come back here soon.

[owlmoose.livejournal.com]

What worries me the most about this bill is that this is the first I've heard of it.

This does strike me as the kind of bill that is unlikely to get out of the Senate (most likely because they'll sit on it until it expires -- that's what happened with the bill that would have practically banned all social networking sites). But it's still worth agitating to make sure it stays that way. Thanks for the heads-up.

[aciel.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'm also not quite willing to believe that Americans will enforce such a law. Oh, some will, but if you take away an American's right to protest, you'll have peaceniks standing shoulder to shoulder with Westboro Baptist Church in the revolution. (Well, maybe not WBC. They'd tend to blame it on teh gay rather than teh government.)

Incidentally, ira, cockslapping? Is there something I don't know about you?

[justira.livejournal.com]

No John, my cockslapping is purely metaphorical XD

By the way, I don't actually read my flist, so this is news to me, but your LJ has some pretty fascinating discussions. I should wander over there sometime.

Also, pardon my ignorance, but will you be in Northern Virginia over the holidays at all?

[aciel.livejournal.com]

You're always welcome.

I fly in on Tuesday and leave again first thing January 6th. I think I'll be in Blacksburg briefly, as well. Lindzey tells me you're doing the school thing again; I take it you're asking because you will also be in the Seven-oh-three?

[justira.livejournal.com]

Indeed! I'm actually leaving tonight, and will be in town starting in the wee hours of Sunday through, um... January 19th or something. I'll be working, probably, and I have wisdom teeth removal surgery (WAH I DUNAWANNA WAAAHHHHHH) on the 21st next Friday, but I'll be in town! I'd be very happy to see you =D

[justira.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you know what, that's part of what has me really frightened. Why the hell haven't I heard of this? This is the first I heard too, from bottle_of_shine, and I like to think of myself as relatively politically aware! What the hell happened?

And yes, I think (or want to think) that this has little chance of actually passing, but it's pretty sad that is passed the House so overwhelmingly. I know the House kind of throws itself a lot around, but... 405 to 6? Only six Representatives thought this was worth voting against???

PS: nice icon.

[first-seventhe.livejournal.com]

I agree with KJ - where the hell has the publicity for this been? Eeek.

P.S. BUT GAY HOOKERS ARE A LITTLE BIT HOT?

[justira.livejournal.com]

GAY HOOKERS ARE A LOT HOT. My problem with the gay hookers thing is that the politicians involved lie about it and find it shameful and 300% more scandalous than straight hookers. Though pretty much all of the scandal is self-inflicted by being vehemently homophobic in public. Serves them right.

[ellisbben.livejournal.com]

Gay pimps are also pretty awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L00gu5_9YY)

[justira.livejournal.com]

This is very true.

(although my personal favourite is Lookin' Cute / Feelin' Cute)

[first-seventhe.livejournal.com]

I agree! Let's just all admit that bisexuals exist, and everything will be cool, right? RIGHT??

[lassarina]

I'm also astounded that this is the first i've heard of it. I grant you that I am not a terribly politically active creature (mostly because it feels a great deal like banging my head against an Immovable Object and I am certainly not an Irresistible Force), but I know lots of people who are, and at least one of them should have brought this up to me ere now.

Thank God I live in Illinois, where my senators are (by and large) sensible men with regards to such things, but still. I...what the fuck.