Randi Rhodes Covers H.R. 1955 - And Nails It.

[reprehensor]

Yesterday, Randi Rhodes covered H.R. 1955 on her radio show in a long segment in the final hour of the show. Here is the relevant segment, with the commercials snipped out;

http://media.putfile.com/Randi-Rhodes-on-HR-1955---11-2...

D/L entire show from White Rose Society;
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.html

This is bad business. Please read up on the criticism of this Bill which is couched in terms of protection, but in action, has the potential to become an Orwellian nightmare, including the loveable concept of Thoughtcrime.

Philip Giraldi covered the Bill at Huffington Post on November 26th;

"Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

Writer for NYC's "Indypendent", Jessica Lee, wrote a lengthy piece on this legislation in the November 16th issue;

"For U.S. historian Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, H.R. 1955 can be added to a long list of government policies that have been passed to target dissent in the United States.

“This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration,” Zinn said in an email to The Indypendent. “During World War I, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act sent close to a thousand people to jail for speaking out against the war. On the eve of World War II, the Smith Act was passed, harmless enough title, but it enabled the jailing of radicals — first Trotskyists during the war and Communist party leaders after the war, for organizing literature, etc., interpreted as “conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence.”

“In all cases, the environment was one in which the government was involved in a war or Cold War or near-war situation and wanted to suppress criticism of its policies,” Zinn said.

Regardless, Zinn remains optimistic. “We should keep in mind that an act of repression by the state is a recognition of the potential of social movements and therefore we need to persist, through the repression, in order to bring about social change,” Zinn said. “We can learn to expect the repression, and not to be intimidated.” ...

Democracy NOW! has been one of the few alternative media outlets to give this legislation critical coverage;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9fyZ62U8fc

JESSICA LEE: Right. When I started to look into this bill, what I found was a great influence by the Rand Corporation, which is a government affiliated think tank. Twice, Brian Michael Jenkins, who is an expert on terrorism, gave testimony in the House on this bill.

AMY GOODMAN: He is from the Rand Corporation.

JESSICA LEE: He is from the Rand, yes. They largely tried to push this bill through on this idea there are these extreme political Islamists in our country and they did not do a very good job stating the actual threat. But when you look through the Rand Corporation's other reports in 2005, they had a report called “Trends in Terrorism”. And they had one chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats”. When you look in that chapter, there’s nothing about political Islamists. In fact, its all about anti- globalization people on the right and left side of the spectrum. The animal rights and the environmental movements; and anarchists. And to me I found that very interesting that that testimony was not mentioned at all when this bill was passed. That this legislation is not just gonna look at so-called violent, religious people, but also people who have been very strong opinions against this administration.

My letter to Jane Harman;
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/reprehensor/5...

And the presentation that inspired it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5MeGSlINMc

This is definitely worth a call to your Senators. At the very least the Bill should be thoroughly debated, so that's it's not just a cash-cow for RAND and other eaters of corporate Government Cheese. This Bill was NOT debated in Congress;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

"Oct 23, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting."

In its current state, this Bill is ripe for abuse, and should be voted back into Committee, or killed.

My fear is that it will be slipped in to yet another omnibus bill, so really, it must be destroyed.

[MindPilot]

1. A kick and a nom-- this is incredibly important

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Sorry, but planning violence now is illegal and is grounds for a warrant

So while I respect the Goddess, in this case, the interpretation is wrong.

[snappyturtle]

7. Read the underlined section below:

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`In this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

This underlined part is one thing that bothers me. What you said is true but when you read this do you see a definition of "extremist"? And what is considered a violent act? A protest? This is way to open to interpretation in my book. imho

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. The key word is violence ... sorry, but you're not going to recruit me n/t

[Canuckistanian]

55. But there are already laws against violence

The committing, the conspiracy, the complicity.

Why is this bill necessary? What possible scenario is this bill meant to cover that isn't already??

[Fredda Weinberg]

78. See reply #63 and calm down please n/t

Cosponsors
Rep. Christopher Carney
Del. Donna Christensen
Rep. Yvette Clarke
Rep. Charles Dent
Rep. Norman Dicks
Rep. Al Green
Rep. James Langevin
Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Rep. Nita Lowey
Rep. Daniel Lungren
Rep. Ed Perlmutter
Rep. Ted Poe
Rep. Dave Reichert
Rep. Bennie Thompson

This is not a partisan issue.

[Canuckistanian]

97. You're a great "calmer" aren't you Fredda?

Nothing to see here, no conspiracies, right?

[Fredda Weinberg]

98. In real life, it's my job. Why lose reason online?

We see these overwrought claims every day - I take time to examine them ... if there's anything there, I'm the first to shout out. Why be surprised that most of the alarms are false?

[snappyturtle]

94. I agree with you. Why is this bill necessary if there are other bills

for use when "violence" occurs? I think we'd all be guilty of promoting extremist idealogy. That really concerns me.

[sofa king]

77. I think the Bush Administration falls under that definition.

And if they do, the National Commission or the Center for Excellence established by this toothless bill might go and file reports on the subject, and Congress might even hold some hearings.

Seriously, I don't know why you folks are all huffy about this bill. We already sold all our rights down the river with the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, their reauthorizations, and the unchallenged Presidential signing statements which warped those laws into total perversity.

We don't have any rights left to lose.

[bonito]

4. Also known as S 1959

Cross-posting this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... Obama is on the committee and hopefully will intervene.

[pberq]

5. Kick & Nominated - thanks for Randi for covering this

[bdamomma]

6. K&R

[Bolo Boffin]

9. More crap about this bill.

The only thing it does is set up a commission and a university study group. These two groups are going to try and frustrate actual terrorists from using the power of the Internet, and they are SPECIFICALLY charged in this bill to find ways to do so that respect civil liberties.

Any group that advocates and plans violence should be afraid here. The rest of us should simply keep track of this. It certainly doesn't necessitate all this Chicken-Little crap.

ETA: Randi gets this bill exactly wrong. It is targeting people who are planning VIOLENCE. Religious association? What the fuck is Randi smoking?

[bonito]

18. Must be the same shit I smoke as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Bolo Boffin]

22. I'm glad the ACLU is on this...

...and are working to ensure the Senate version protects civil liberties. Nothing wrong with that.

[bonito]

56. Thanks!

[HamdenRice]

93. You don't seem to have any grasp of jurisprudence or political theory

Hence you don't seem to grasp the difference between horatory language in legislation and the institutions that are created. (Of course, with your deep theoretical background, you must know what horatory language in legislation is.) The fact that legislation says a institution "should" only be used on certain kinds of people doesn't mean that it will.

Do you really, actually believe, for example that "citizens councils" in the segregated south did nothing except study citizenship?

Try to read a book on history or political theory, and then get back to us.

[TahitiNut]

10. I doubt they had Eric Rudolph in mind. After all, abortion clinc bombings are A-OK, right?

Gay/lesbian nightclubs were also on the "approved" list. It was only LONG after the Olympic Park bombings that they got serious about ol' Eric. (Too bad they couldn't hang it on Richard Jewell, huh?)

[Junkdrawer]

11. Check these posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Bolo Boffin]

12. The concern for civil rights PRESENT in this bill

SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`Sec. 899A. Definitions.

`Sec. 899B. Findings.

`Sec. 899C. National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.

`Sec. 899D. Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.

`Sec. 899E. Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.

`Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.'.

[FreepFryer]

25. The preferred 'auditing mechanism' isn't a DHS officer's opinion - it's the Constitution. (nt)

Or, in the words of a dear friend, "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin".

I fail to see how this legislation does anything to protect anyone - what it does do is criminalize dissent.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Please point out the SPECIFIC part of this bill that "criminalizes dissent."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-...

Put up or shut up.

[FreepFryer]

32. Please point out the specific part that protects civili liberties (rather than 'audits' to see if)

[Bolo Boffin]

35. You didn't answer my question.

Because you can't. Nothing in the bill "criminalizes dissent."

Here's the specific part that protects civil liberties:

SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

That's how you put up. Now do so, or shut up.

[FreepFryer]

37. No, that's how you falsely claim bs. I'm shutting up, because you're parrotting.

Here's the prohibition (sic) this act would claim as acceptable to avoid stifling dissent instead of preventing terrorism:

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

So a yearly report is all we can count on - not the transparency of a public judicial system, and warranted searches.

BULLSHIT LEGISLATION.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. For the record, the poster asked me to deliver, I delivered. I asked the poster to deliver...

...the poster ran away.

[FreepFryer]

41. Already did - and you parrot and parrot claiming 'truth' because the bill says so. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, you did not. n/t

[FreepFryer]

44. Yes, actually I did. Enjoy the last word, though. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

46. No, you did not. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

45. This is the audit of the commission and the study group!

Jesus Christ, will you PLEASE read the bill and what it actually does???

[FreepFryer]

48. Stop all the invective and distraction. It's a DHS Officer who designs the 'mechanism'...

...DHS isn't qualified to police itself against constitutional rights violations. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

51. The audit is about the commission and the study group.

PLEASE read this bill.

[FreepFryer]

53. Stop all the yelling and accusations of ignorance. I read it and it's clear. (n/t)

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. LOL.

You have no idea what that bill says, or you DO know and you're avoiding having to deal with it.

And didn't you promise me the last word a few posts back? That's a Bill O'Reilly tactic, right?

[FreepFryer]

65. No, I just knew you'd keep insulting others and demand the last word (just like O'Lielly does)

[Bolo Boffin]

67. I am attacking a message. No messengers.

If you don't like what I have to say, then combat that, not me.

[FreepFryer]

68. LOL. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

13. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization..."

Is there anyone here that will deny that statement?

[Junkdrawer]

14. Especially those damn Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, right?

Jail 'em.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Bolo Boffin]

15. I have never advocated the jailing of AE911Truth.

Learn to read.

Now this is a distraction from my point. Do you deny that "the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization"?

[Junkdrawer]

16. Well, DUers can read the link I posted on #14 and decide for themselves...n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

17. TALK ABOUT THE OP. Stop your stupid distracting.

Do you deny that "the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization"?

[tkmorris]

21. And so what? So have telephones.

There is absolutely no need for this legislation.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. There is "absolutely no need" to look into this problem...

...and see if solutions exist which frustrate terrorists and yet protect civil liberties?

Is that the position you really want to stake out for yourself?

[FreepFryer]

27. 'Solutions' to what, exactly? Dissent, or terrorism? (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Terrorism. Violent acts. Read the legislation. n/t

[FreepFryer]

34. Already did. It's nonsensical crap and it will die in committee.

It's foolish to outlaw conversations about actions, because that implies a right to listen in without a warrant. Whatever USA ATRIOT nonsense is currently going on, in the true law of the land (the Constitution), they don't have that right.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Please point out the SPECIFIC parts of this bill that is "nonsensical crap" and explain why.

And if you could avoid using actual nonsensical crap in your explanation, it would be most appreciated.

[FreepFryer]

40. Already have in this thread - the DHS cannot guarantee my rights thru 'audits'. Public trials can.

[tkmorris]

49. Look away. But why the legislation?

There isn't any need for it.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. What does the bill do?

It sets up a commission and a study group to look at the problem. The ACLU is on top of the bill and will be on top of any commission and study group that results from it, and will be on top of any proposed law that comes from this process.

In the meantime, all it looks like is pork for Jane Harman.

[noise]

58. Isn't that the insinuation

Harman is making...that the 9/11 'conspiracy sites' are emboldening terrorists? One could make the case that government secrecy is emboldening terrorists and thus a commission should study why Harman thinks it is appropriate to cheerlead for terrorists by way of failure to declassify evidence. Or maybe a commission to study why the US government considers state sponsors of al Qaeda ALLIES IN THE WAR ON TERROR!!! Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? What is Harman's problem?

Internet, books, pamphlets, speeches, etc. Communication methods are used to facilitate violent radicalization. Why is Harman so focused on the Internet? Could it be because it is a platform for citizens to talk about her shitty ideas? Is the Internet not censored enough for Harman's liking?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. No.

Actually, I'd advocate civil lawsuits against people who publish demonstrable lies that are used in these ways.

[FreepFryer]

19. So have books (ban bookstores?), and songs (ban nightclubs?). Same w/the net. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Not in the same realtime way the Internet does. n/t

[FreepFryer]

24. How is that even relevant to the original post? (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Terrorists using the Internet to talk realtime about plans, targets, fundraising...

You can't do that in books or songs.

[FreepFryer]

29. The issue isn't "the internet", it's "terrorists". You FAIL if you subvert civil rights on the net.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. That quote about the Internet is DIRECTLY QUOTED from the bill.

Of course, this is part of the issue. You're blowing smoke here.

[FreepFryer]

33. I am aware of that - I'm saying the focus is 100% wrong. You cannot outlaw conversations.

Because that implies you have a right to listen in and 'fish'. You don't.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Next? Next? What the fuck are you talking about?

Deal with the bill. The focus of the bill IS terrorism. The Internet is one of the ways terrorists operates, and the bill is about exploring ways to frustrate this while protecting civil liberties. Deal.

[FreepFryer]

43. If it relied on public trials and warrants, rather than DHS audits, I'd agree. But it doesn't.

It only says that DHS can decide whether its actions are justiified (i.e. "preventing terra") or unjustified ("stifling dissent against the current administration").

DHS isn't qualified to police itself against constitutional rights violations.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. The audit is about the commission and the study group.

Jesus, you have NO IDEA what this bill says.

[FreepFryer]

50. Nonsense. DHS isn't qualified to police itself against consitutional rights violations. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

52. The audit is about the commission and the study group.

PLEASE read this bill.

[FreepFryer]

54. Please stop accusing others of ignorance, and spamming. (n/t)

[seemslikeadream]

57. Have you ever been to the dungeon?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Please stop being ignorant of what this bill says. n/t

[FreepFryer]

64. Calling people 'ignorant', 'stupid', etc. is the sign of an unarmed debater. Check the ACLU:

I trust their views a lot more than yours.

"Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."

The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.

The ACLU has raised multiple concerns with H.R. 1955 at different points during the last 13 months. We appreciate the steps that have been made to improve the legislation, but we still have reservations. As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one’s personal beliefs. Fredrickson explained that during hearings on the legislation called, "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism," the focus on the internet was problematic. "If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then the ACLU will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment activities. Why go down that road?"

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.h...

Clear?

(discussion thread there):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Bolo Boffin]

69. You are demonstrating your ignorance of this one particular thing.

You have no idea what this bill actually authorizing it. You have been dancing ever since I asked you to bring back the SPECIFIC PART of this bill that "criminalizes dissent" (your words). You dragged back the audit clause (auditing the commission and the study group does NOT criminalize dissent) and you've been attacking me ever since.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-...

There's the bill again, FF. Go find any part of that bill that "criminalizes dissent."

[FreepFryer]

70. Nonsense. The ACLU is quite clear in their opposition to the bill, and I agree with them. Read it!

[Bolo Boffin]

71. AGAIN, you duck bringing back the SPECIFIC PART of the bill that "criminalizes dissent" (your words)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-...

Go do it! Now would be good.

[FreepFryer]

72. Nonsense. You don't get to command others to do your bidding. I don't respond to name calling.

And I've already made my own points wth clear citations, I don't have to (nor will I waste time) disproving your views for you.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Again you duck, because you can't.

You haven't made your point at all. NOTHING in that bill "criminalizes dissent." If there was, you would have brought it back by now and rubbed my nose in it.

[FreepFryer]

74. The ACLU's sumup is quite clear. OP & my posts are clear. Browbeating will get you nowhere. (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Can't do it, can't do it, can't do it. n/t

[FreepFryer]

76. Have a lovely day. (n/t)

[seemslikeadream]

59. CRIMETHINK.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

From the foregoing account it will be seen that in Newspeak the expression
of unorthodox opinions, above a very low level, was well-nigh impossible.
It was of course possible to utter heresies of a very crude kind, a
species of blasphemy. It would have been possible, for example, to say
BIG BROTHER IS UNGOOD. But this statement, which to an orthodox ear merely
conveyed a self-evident absurdity, could not have been sustained by
reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available. Ideas
inimical to Ingsoc could only be entertained in a vague wordless form,
and could only be named in very broad terms which lumped together and
condemned whole groups of heresies without defining them in doing so.
One could, in fact, only use Newspeak for unorthodox purposes by
illegitimately translating some of the words back into Oldspeak. For
example, ALL MANS ARE EQUAL was a possible Newspeak sentence, but only
in the same sense in which ALL MEN ARE REDHAIRED is a possible Oldspeak
sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed
a palpable untruth--i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or
strength. The concept of political equality no longer existed, and this
secondary meaning had accordingly been purged out of the word EQUAL.
In 1984, when Oldspeak was still the normal means of communication,
the danger theoretically existed that in using Newspeak words one might
remember their original meanings. In practice it was not difficult for
any person well grounded in DOUBLETHINK to avoid doing this, but within
a couple of generations even the possibility of such a lapse would have
vanished. A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no
more know that EQUAL had once had the secondary meaning of 'politically
equal', or that FREE had once meant 'intellectually free', than for
instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the
secondary meanings attaching to QUEEN and ROOK. There would be many
crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply
because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable. And it was to be
foreseen that with the passage of time the distinguishing characteristics
of Newspeak would become more and more pronounced--its words growing
fewer and fewer, their meanings more and more rigid, and the chance of
putting them to improper uses always diminishing.

When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with
the past would have been severed. History had already been rewritten,
but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there,
imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one's knowledge of
Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments, even
if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and untranslatable.
It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless
it either referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday
action, or was already orthodox (GOODTHINKFUL would be the Newspeak
expression) in tendency. In practice this meant that no book written before
approximately 1960 could be translated as a whole. Pre-revolutionary
literature could only be subjected to ideological translation--that is,
alteration in sense as well as language. Take for example the well-known
passage from the Declaration of Independence:


WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL,
THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS,
THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN,
DERIVING THEIR POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. THAT WHENEVER
ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THOSE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT...


It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while
keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing
so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word CRIMETHINK.
A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby
Jefferson's words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute government.

[FreepFryer]

60. Cheer up, brother. Choco ration's up 25g this month! Doubleplusgood, eh? (n/t)

[Uncle Joe]

79. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, represhensor.

[Tom Joad]

80. who among the presidential candidates is supporting this dumbass stuff?

or so the answer can be shorter... is anyone opposing this?

[femrap]

81. Saw Naomi Wolf on 'Democracy

Now' tonight and we are Germany 1935-36. I think the fascists are going to kick ass in '08.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. We are Germany 1935-36? That's a completely idiotic comparison.

The Weimar Republic was long gone. The Concentration Camps were already being built. Sterilization programs were in effect. All states' rights had been completely consolidated into the Federal Government. The Night of the Long Knives had already happened.

Please get a grip.

[BeHereNow]

83. Adds a whole extra dimension to "You're either with us, or against us..." EH?

Not to mention that oldie but goldie by Ari Fly-shit,
"Watch what you say."
Or think...

The whole damned thing is straight out of Carl Schmitt's
playbook about enemies and friends, which worked very well for Hitler BTW.
http://www.albany.edu/rockefeller/rockreview/issue2/Pap...
BHN

[Bolo Boffin]

84. If you're not advocating violence, you have nothing to fear. n/t

[BeHereNow]

85. Get back to me AFTER you have read the Patriot Act.

Until then, stop boring the shit out of me.

BHN

[Bolo Boffin]

86. :eyes:

Your reading this bill would be the appropriate first step here.

[BeHereNow]

87. I read it. Have you read the Patriot Act?

Clearly not, so please, don't make a fool
out of yourself on its relationship to this bill.
I, and others are increasingly, collectively embarrassed for you.

BHN

[Bolo Boffin]

88. The Patriot Act isn't being discussed here. Would you like to take up the "criminalizing dissent"

challenge?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-...

There's the bill's text. Please bring back the SPECIFIC PART of the bill that you think empowers anyone to do anything like what you're so terrified of.

[BeHereNow]

89. Pssst...let's let you in on a little secret, shall we?

You can not intelligently discuss this bill or it's implications
without being familiar with what the Patriot Act says.
Now, will you PLEASE stop making a fool of yourself?
It's really painful to watch, time, after time, after time.
You never know when to stop.
I feel sorry for you, really I mean that sincerely.
It's like watching a drunk at the party fall down again and again,
all the while insisting he isn't drunk.
Pathetic. Really.

G'night and I hope you're not driving.

BHN

[Bolo Boffin]

90. I understand. You can't perform the task. Neither could the other guy.

Goodbye. Sweet dreams.

[BeHereNow]

96. No, I understand- you have not read the Patriot Act.

And therefore do not understand this discussion.
Somehow, considering the majority of your
spam postings, I am not surprised.
What is surprising is the complete lack of
any sense of embarrassment on your part.
I can never believe how long you ramble
on about the same thing and say absolutely nothing
of merit.

BHN

[Occulus]

92. The great fear is that they'll find us and people like us "violent" "radicals"

Why is that so hard a concept for you and Fredda to wrap your minds around?

ESPECIALLY Fredda. Shame on her.

Look, do you really think the people who were later accused during the McCarthy hearings had any idea that anything they had done or said or written could or would later run afoul of a government commission? Do you honestly believe that Senator McCarthy used the existing laws as they had been intended to be used when they were passed?

This isn't at all about what this bill actually says; no- it's about the perception of what it means, and the precedent that it sets. Do you really think this law will be used only and always as intended? Are you honestly that naive about this maladministration?

I think I'll address this post to Fredda as well, since you and she seem to be of one almost indistinguishable mind on this. It's a ruinously shortsighted stance to take, of course, but like the McCarthy hearing victims, you haven't the faintest notion that it all could one day apply to you, all bent out of shape, amended to death, and reversed from its original intent.

But do go on ahead with your support of this bill. I hope it's not abused against you if it becomes law.

[Greyhound]

91. Is that the sound of jackboots marching in the street that I hear?

There is a new world order coming. What are you prepared to do about it?

[gasperc]

95. Hartmann is also pounding hard on this bill

if Kucinich voted no, he must have read it, and if he read it, it must be shit.

[seemslikeadream]

99. They'd like to jail and waterboard this terrorist I'm sure

As someone who has dedicated a part of my life to the alleviation of animal suffering in various parts of the world, it is my wish that upon my death, my body be used to further that same goal. It is with this purpose in mind that I make the following directions and designations relating to the disposition of my final remains. I make these directions and designations after thorough consideration and pursuant to my firm belief in the purposes for which they are made.



1. Upon my death, it is my wish that my body be used in a manner that draws attention to needless animal suffering and exploitation. To accomplish this, I direct that my body be donated to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, to be used in whatever manner it chooses in order to accomplish the specified purpose, with the hope that most of my body will be put to use in the United States, with parts also dispatched to awaken the public consciousness of governments and citizens in the United Kingdom, where I was born, in India, my beloved childhood home, and in Canada, Germany, and France.

2. While the final decision as to the use of my body remains with PETA, I make the following suggested directions:

a. That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed;

b. That my skin, or a portion thereof, be removed and made into leather products, such as purses, to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is “fabric” nor needed, and that some skin be tacked up outside the Indian Leather Fair each year to serve as a reminder of the government’s need to abate the suffering of Indian bullocks who, after a life of extreme and involuntary servitude, as I have seen firsthand, are exported all over the world in this form;

c. That in remembrance of the elephant-foot umbrella stands and tiger rugs I saw, as a child, offered for sale by merchants at Connaught Place in Delhi, my feet be removed and umbrella stands or other ornamentation be made from them, as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations;

d. That one of my eyes be removed, mounted, and delivered to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a reminder that PETA will continue to be watching the agency until it stops poisoning and torturing animals in useless and cruel experiments; that the other is to be used as PETA sees fit;

e. That my pointing finger be delivered to Kenneth Feld, owner of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, or to a circus museum to stand as the “Greatest Accusation on Earth” on behalf of the countless elephants, lions, tigers, bears, and other animals who have been kidnapped from their families and removed from their homelands in India, Thailand, Africa, and South America and deprived of all that is natural and pleasant to them, abused, and forced into involuntary servitude for the sake of cheap entertainment;

f. That my liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras;

g. That one of my ears be removed, mounted, and sent to the Canadian Parliament to assist them in hearing, for the first time perhaps, the screams of the seals, bears, raccoons, foxes, and minks bludgeoned, trapped, and sometimes skinned alive for their pelts; that the other ear be removed, preserved, and displayed outside the Deonar abattoir in Mumbai to remind all who do business there that the screams of the cattle who are slaughtered within its walls are heard around the world;

h. That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation;

i. That one of my thumbs be mounted in a downward position and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, has gone against the changing tide of societal opinion and frightened and hurt animals in some egregious manner;

j. That a little part of my heart be buried near the racetrack at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix;

k. That anything else be done with my body that PETA believes will serve to draw attention to and so abate the plight of exploited animals.

3. As a resident of Virginia, and pursuant to Virginia law, including
§ 54.1-2825 of the Virginia Code, I designate PETA as the “person” who shall make arrangements for carrying out the directions contained in this document for the disposition of my remains upon my death. If, at any time, PETA is unable or unwilling to carry out these directions, I designate, in the alternative, Daniel Mathews as the individual who shall make arrangements for carrying out the directions contained in this document for the disposition of my remains upon my death. If Daniel Mathews is unable or unwilling to carry out these directions as required, I authorize either of the two listed “persons” in this paragraph to designate a third party to make arrangements for carrying out the directions contained in this document for the disposition of my remains upon my death.

4. While I prefer that my directions be first executed in the United States, I also direct that parts of my body be transported to the United Kingdom, of which I also am a citizen, and to India, my beloved spiritual home, to be executed there. If my directions cannot be executed in any of these countries, I authorize the transport of my remains to any location where my disposition directions, in whole or in part, may be lawfully executed.

5. I authorize the person carrying out these directions to deviate from them in any manner he or she deems appropriate to further the purpose expressed herein. If any provision or provisions of this document shall be held to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable, or in conflict with the law of any jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.


Last Will and Testament of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA

http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html