..out of the dark

And no one cares. Except the people who know what it's about, and haven't already received substantial campaign- contributions from the Telecom lobby.

So, in solidarity with Dodd, as he attempts to break the first 24h period before the cloture vote, I'm going to incessantly blog about how goddamned stupid the entire country is, and how they've allowed their leaders to get away with caving so ridiculously to the Bush- administration, that if Bill Clinton was in his place, he would've started to protest. He would've said: "...now, hold on. I need to know if you're with me on this - no don't answer right away! Damnit, at least pretend like you're giving it some thought before you agree with me, ya'll are taking the whole fun out of trying to convince people. No, look, I'm going to explain this whether you agree or not. Allright, pretend like you're in disagreement. No, sorry, I can't do this. No, you're not listening, and you're say.. No, I'm going to Canada, and that's final. Yes, I'm going. Right now. Ah! No. I'm going. Ye... yeah, damn straight it's fine. Goodbye. I'm going right now. Any minute now... is this camera on?".

..Unfortunately, I'm bored already, I'm afraid. So here's a link to Dodd's campaign on the web. And in closing: this is the one time when you should be proudly remembering to have called your senators for something that mattered. Something that actually was important. And I know that if you didn't, you'll regret it. Not because you'll feel bad about being a complete slacker - oh, no. You're the goddamned nr.1, anyway, aren't you.

No - you'll regret it because you didn't do the right thing, even though it was completely futile. And passed up a goddamned opportunity to have a taste of doing something.. heroic. Isn't that right?

Anyway. I'll name this day the "US Backbone Remembrance Day".


addendum:
And while we're on the subject of organised stupidity:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3169

This is where a well- renowned think- tank argues that - through careful parsing of the constitution (it says: the houses shall have the power to enact rules to govern themselves. And so does not say explicitly that a 2/3rds majority is needed), and the "fundamental" idea that a "new house" cannot be held hostage to previous house rules (more reference to parsing the constitution) - it is in fact perfectly possible to overturn existing rules without a 2/3rds majority. I.e, that it's not merely possible to establish rules for the senate with a simple majority, but that any rule governing the senate or the house can, at any time, be overturned by a simple majority vote - even though it's decided that a rule- change (that is, in english, a change of an existing rule) must have a "supermajority". In other words, a new rule, or a governing rule - heck, the simple majority should be able to set it aside, and then pay for it in the voting booth if the little people doesn't want proto- fascism.

Just taste the weasely intellectual attempt here: since every "house", which means through careful parsing that a new house is established every two years, can establish it's own rules - a simple majority can be used to overturn governing rules voted in in the olden days requiring a rule- change to be supported by a 2/3rds vote.

The purpose of that ridiculous argument, naturally, was simply to "explain" how the "invisible" filibuster of the modern times was too strong, and so should not infringe upon the Bush- administration's god- given right to do whatever the hell they'd like. And should in any case at least be opposed by an invisible counter- argument.

Strangely, no one seems to argue right now that the democrats should be allowed to change procedural rules by simple majority. I wonder why? ..I know! It's because people aren't as excessively clever as the people on the Cato institute!