I really don't update this as often as I want to. I am really going to try to make an effort to have something new every two weeks from now on. If I can keep that up, someday I will go to weekly. Eventually, I hope to update this site daily. I have newfound respect for those that must output a daily column. It is much harder than it looks.
Also, as some of you may have noticed from the title graphic, this is going to be another political rant. However, I urge
you to read the column (even though it approaches 2,000 words), as the subject directly affects your life, and the
continuation of This Republic as we know it. I use this space to discuss whatever is on my mind when I set out to write
a new column. This week, it happens to be a piece of legislation that you have probably heard of, but may not yet
understand.
One last thing. This picture of a flag used to be on my page, long ago when this was just
The Lazy Surfers List, and the whole thing was just one page of HTML.
I have decided to fly it again. We cannot let those that we elect ever forget that this flag, not the one we fly today,
truely represents this Great Nation. This flag represents the spirit our country was founded on, "The Spirit of
'76" it was once called. If you feel the way I do about recent events, steal this .gif, and display it proudly
on your own page. Don't tread on me!
Up Against The Wall, Mxxxxxfxxxxx!
Note: Yeah, I censored the title. It seems that a search on my employer would bring up this page, even though I don't mention them on this page. So they were a little miffed. I know it's lame.
Well, if you haven't noticed (although I suspect you must have), our elected Representatives have decided to repeal the Bill of Rights. For those of you not keeping score, so far the second, fourth, fifth, and tenth amendments have been rendered moot by a combination of executive order, legislative action, and judicial pronouncement, mostly in the name of the war on drugs, and more recently, the war on terrorism.
Now, the mighty first amendment has fallen as well. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 has passed both houses, and has
been forwarded for Presidential confirmation. I do not think our President will veto the bill, as much as I wish he would.
A shame really, as he had my vote in the bag up to this point. The current crop of republicans are all nuts in one way or
another, and I don't believe the Democratic Party will oppose the re-election of Mr. Clinton.
Still, it is not too late to write to the President, and urge him to veto this patently un-American, and debatably
unconstitutional, legislation. You should really do it right now, before it's too late, so
visit the White House server and fill out the
form. This is the most efficient way to write email to him, even though it gets filtered and sorted, and read by
nameless, faceless functionaries. However, your feelings will get relayed to the President relatively quickly. Take
advantage of this new ability to affect the legislative process. It may be the last hope for freedom in America.
For those of you reading this from other parts of the country (as if such persons existed, I think my mother and myself
are the only ones who read this), I must personally apologize for this latest rape of the constitution. The representative
for the Georgia 4th District (In which I abide), Mr. John Linder, acting for theRules Commitee (on which he serves), helped
to push this legislation to a vote before the rest of the body, or thepublic, had a chance to inspect it. From the
Congressional Record,"Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 353 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 353
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 652) to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous materialin the Record.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 353 provides for the consideration of the conference report for S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The House rules allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
In addition, the regular rules of the House provide for a motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a complex piece of legislation that is the product of many long months of negotiation. I believe that the conferees have worked in good faith to create a balanced bill which equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the telecommunications industry."
The aforementioned Mr. Beilenson, of California, also had comments on the bill, and specifically on the rush to vote that
Mr. Linder had predicated,"...Beyond that, there is no compelling reason or legitimate need, so far as this legislation is concerned, to waive the standing rule of the House that gives Members 3 days to examine a conference report before being required to vote on it. That is an important rule. It exists for the protection of Members of Congress and for the protection of the people we represent, to afford us all an opportunity to study and to review and to understand the legislation on which we are going to be asked to vote.
The importance of that rule, Mr. Speaker, is particularly relevant in a situation such as this when we are, as the gentleman from Georgia has pointed out, debating landmark legislation which completely rewrites our existing communications law that regulates industries worth nearly $1 trillion. Because this rule waives a reasonable and important time requirement, Members could be approving provisions that are not fully understood and that could have repercussions that no one has had the opportunity or the time to think carefully about, or think so carefully about as necessary.
We are concerned, too, about statements that indicate that there are plans to complete this conference report and have it signed into law, and then later on consider legislation later this year that will undo some of the agreements we are rushing through today.
In sum, it would have been much preferable if Members had been given the 3 days required by the rules of the House before being asked to vote on a conference report as complicated as this one, with its enormous economic, political and cultural consequences for the public and for businesses and for the Nation in general..."
Mrs. Schroeder of Colorado had similar feelings, as evidenced by her remarks on the floor of the house. I would really
rather put her remarks here in their entirety, but this is getting too long as it is."...For all of those who think they know all of this [Here, Mrs. Schroeder is referring to the waiving of the 3 day review rule, and six pages of technical corrections to the legislation. PAR.] and this is fine and this is terrific, let me tell you about one of the things that we stumbled over as we looked at this page upon page of corrections and stuff. We came across section 1462, which I think very few people know is even in this bill. What it says is absolutely devasting [sic] to women. What we are going to do is put on a high-technology gag rule with criminal penalties. Have a nice day.
Yes, let me read what this brings into the law through one of these little things. It says that any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion or for any indecent or immoral use or for any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of those giving any kind of information directly or indirectly, no matter what it means, this is going to be deemed a Federal penalty, a Federal crime, if you transmit any of this over the Internet. Now, this is a gag rule that is off the charts.
One of the major things people wanted to use Internets [sic] for was telemedicine. Does that mean anything dealing with women's reproductive parts they cannot do this? There will be people standing up and saying, `Oh, Schroeder, cool off, that will never be considered constitutional.' Well, if we are going to vote for things we think are not constitutional and we are going to do it in this fast a pace, we ought to give at least part of our salary to the judges. We are just going to mess everything up over here and send it over to them. I do not think so.
Let me tell you what lawyers tell me. Lawyers tell me do not be so quick about saying this is not constitutional; there was a pre-1972 case that upheld the constitutionality of this. And, second, we are talking about an international Internet. That is what our companies want to get on. And we have now seen one case with Germany talking about standards and what they want, and this, I think, would only give some international gravitas to limiting what you can say about women's reproductive health in and around the Internet no matter which side of this issue you were on..."
"...I must say I am very saddened we are coming to the floor with this rule saying we have to waive the 3-day proposal where we have time to read this and digest this, because I really do not think anybody here could pass a test. I really do not.
I was on the conference committee. Let me tell my colleagues, those conference committees were absolutely nonsubstantive. We would all gather in a room, best dressed, the TV camera from C-SPAN II would pan us, that would be the end of it.
I really hope people vote `no' on this rule."
.
As you can see from just these excerpts of the record, even though this bill passed by a landslide, the house really
shouldn't have had to vote on this legislation Thursday. So again, I offer my personal apology to the people of America
for the actions of my representative and the commitee on which he serves. It is now too late to do anything about it.
However, I would suggest that, if you live in the 4th District of Georgia, you carefully consider the candidates for this
seat the next time it comes up for re-election.
I offer to you the entire text of Title V of this legislation, Known colloquially
as "The Communications Decency Act of 1996", as a public service. Read it. Understand it. Print it out and post it
everywhere. You are Paul Revere, and the redcoats have been here for quite some time. Get on your horse, and tell the
people what is happening.
In closing, I ask you to exercise your franchise intelligently. Call or write your congressperson. Write to the President.
Tell your friends about this heinous attack on their freedoms. If this legislation goes unchallenged, how long do you really
think it will be before you get a tap on the shoulder, and a man who wears a badge, but conceals his face, says to you,
"Up against the wall, Mxxxxxfxxxxxx!"