![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More or Less
Oct. 30th, 2005 12:30 amI'm not entirely sure why I'm rehashing this now, other than the reason if I don't do something or try something now, I hate myslef later. This has left me do extremely stupid things, like post fanmixs, fanficiton, and pretty much everything that I write on here.
I might as well say something while I have an audience, though. Of course, this may one day have me investigated for sedicious speach, or advoating sucide bombing, or thoughts on how to build a dirty bomb, or ideas on how to beat security, or promoting illigal immigration, writting a how-to guide on body disposial, and talking how I would murder specific people. I'm more worried about people not getting that I would never condone killing anyone. It's the crazy atmmosphere when I can't tell my mother something that I saw on the news in the airport if the story related to anything at all with airline security.
Enough with the backstory and on with the actual purpose.
The act in question Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.H.R. 3162. And though a brilliant bit of politcal manouvering, the acryom of the bill just happens to spell "USA Patriot."
By the Consitution, all bills must recive three readings in both the House and Sentate. Of course, the first and last readings only require the name of the bill, and the summery of the bill. The sumery is rather good: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. That coupled with the name makes the bill sound inncouus.
And the only full reading of the act sounds extremely confusing. Such as Sec. 106 does not competely re-write the entire section of the admended act, but only the bits of the sentances of the act. One of the lines just say to delete the comma in one line and insert "and."
But I should also say that any bill in either houses, the majority of the work of Congress is done in committee. The reason why the classic senes of the majority of Congrees debating in thier houses are largely a myth, since the politics has gone for quanity over quality in the number of bills that are introduced, there is not enough hours in the day for every single polition going over every single bill. This is because politions are afraid to look like they aren't doing anything, besides all of their other actual work.
So, most of them don't read the bills in the areas that don't fall under their juridiction or with thier consituants conceners. Add to this that because of their committe work, congress is usually not in their houses but in their committess. (For something important like this, and this pandered, they would show up.
But with esoteric language, a single reading, and a catchy summery, how could any polition could resist? They didn't, since there was almost no debate about this bill, and showing how qucikly it went into law, it was praticaly run though the place. Plus, I never want to see The Date ever again, which is up and down all over the document.
But someone had the sense to have of provisions that had to be renewed to check their effectiveness and whether or not these previsions were being abused. Though quite a few other provisions that are being abused are still on the books.
It's like this: the time period I study the most is the cold war era. I do so because I want to understand why people acted so stupidly from fear and vauge, inmaterial threats. People have always had this pattern, but the espinoge and the apycolyptic feeling gives makes it a bit more intersting.
What is happening now, reminds me a lot like the cold war era. But instead of striking at the shadow of communisum, we're striking at the shadow of fear itself. The ways of means of terrisiom is, of course, fear. Fighting fear with fear is not like fighting fire with fire, since what kills the fire isn't the fire but the fire getting removing the fuel that keeps the wildfire from growing. Fear, even the judicous use of fear, is absolutely no help in smothering fear. Only knowlage can root out fear.
But what kind of knowlage can be used to reduce fear? In some cases, that the fear of change is irrational, and that everything will change in time, no matter how much one fights against it. Knowlage to admit that one was wrong, and that there are some problems in our own goverment and society that need to be worked out before we go proclaiming that we are all rightous. Knowlage that people are using one's own fear against them.
Maybe if one knows one's enemy as well as thierself, then one can realise that their enemy is not really their enemy. But that's only if one actually takes a look at their own self.
I might as well say something while I have an audience, though. Of course, this may one day have me investigated for sedicious speach, or advoating sucide bombing, or thoughts on how to build a dirty bomb, or ideas on how to beat security, or promoting illigal immigration, writting a how-to guide on body disposial, and talking how I would murder specific people. I'm more worried about people not getting that I would never condone killing anyone. It's the crazy atmmosphere when I can't tell my mother something that I saw on the news in the airport if the story related to anything at all with airline security.
Enough with the backstory and on with the actual purpose.
The act in question Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.H.R. 3162. And though a brilliant bit of politcal manouvering, the acryom of the bill just happens to spell "USA Patriot."
By the Consitution, all bills must recive three readings in both the House and Sentate. Of course, the first and last readings only require the name of the bill, and the summery of the bill. The sumery is rather good: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. That coupled with the name makes the bill sound inncouus.
And the only full reading of the act sounds extremely confusing. Such as Sec. 106 does not competely re-write the entire section of the admended act, but only the bits of the sentances of the act. One of the lines just say to delete the comma in one line and insert "and."
But I should also say that any bill in either houses, the majority of the work of Congress is done in committee. The reason why the classic senes of the majority of Congrees debating in thier houses are largely a myth, since the politics has gone for quanity over quality in the number of bills that are introduced, there is not enough hours in the day for every single polition going over every single bill. This is because politions are afraid to look like they aren't doing anything, besides all of their other actual work.
So, most of them don't read the bills in the areas that don't fall under their juridiction or with thier consituants conceners. Add to this that because of their committe work, congress is usually not in their houses but in their committess. (For something important like this, and this pandered, they would show up.
But with esoteric language, a single reading, and a catchy summery, how could any polition could resist? They didn't, since there was almost no debate about this bill, and showing how qucikly it went into law, it was praticaly run though the place. Plus, I never want to see The Date ever again, which is up and down all over the document.
But someone had the sense to have of provisions that had to be renewed to check their effectiveness and whether or not these previsions were being abused. Though quite a few other provisions that are being abused are still on the books.
It's like this: the time period I study the most is the cold war era. I do so because I want to understand why people acted so stupidly from fear and vauge, inmaterial threats. People have always had this pattern, but the espinoge and the apycolyptic feeling gives makes it a bit more intersting.
What is happening now, reminds me a lot like the cold war era. But instead of striking at the shadow of communisum, we're striking at the shadow of fear itself. The ways of means of terrisiom is, of course, fear. Fighting fear with fear is not like fighting fire with fire, since what kills the fire isn't the fire but the fire getting removing the fuel that keeps the wildfire from growing. Fear, even the judicous use of fear, is absolutely no help in smothering fear. Only knowlage can root out fear.
But what kind of knowlage can be used to reduce fear? In some cases, that the fear of change is irrational, and that everything will change in time, no matter how much one fights against it. Knowlage to admit that one was wrong, and that there are some problems in our own goverment and society that need to be worked out before we go proclaiming that we are all rightous. Knowlage that people are using one's own fear against them.
Maybe if one knows one's enemy as well as thierself, then one can realise that their enemy is not really their enemy. But that's only if one actually takes a look at their own self.
