I can't - and won't - vouch for the mental health of any Pentax user.
That well understood, and since the thread is multiplying and in good
health conditions...
ANY proposed law, ammend or bill serves the interests of its creators.
There ARE lots of levels in the simplest statement - and legalese is
obscure on purpose. Fine print is NOT there to save trees.
ALL proposed laws, ammends or bills end up with a series of mods, that
would change its original meaning to some extent - and those changes are
there because someone would like them in place. Remember I said legal
language is obscure? Now sort the add-ons. Then the add-ons to the
original add-ons.
All laws, ammends and bills are human-created, so offer either lopholes
or end up more restrictive than expected - either they fall short or
present some colateral damage. Including those interested in granting
bread and circus, ensuring everyone gets above-average pay, or adding
clothes to nude statues by some old and shameless pagan.
Yes, you should worry - once it's turned on, there may be a hell of a
problem to turn it off. I'd vote, if I could...
LF
paul stenquist escreveu:
On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:09 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: John Francis
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:57:45PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> > So it's on that background I'm a bit puzzled as to why this (legal)
> bill emerges now. It made me wonder if someone, somewhere, perceive
> the current situation much more threatening (to the US) than I do
from
> up here in the Frostpit...
I think you're making more of this than it warrants.
While it's possible that this is a blatant powergrab by extremists in
the government, this view is largely espoused by the same folks who,
six months ago, were claiming that GW was going to invoke some wartime
emergency powers to suspend the constitution so he could serve a third
(and fourth, and ...) term in office.
My take in it is that it probably started out as a response to some
earlier attempt to coordinate interception of VOIP calls or the like,
where it was found that existing legislation didn't really address
the issue (having mostly been written before the internet came along,
let alone VOIP, text messaging, and so forth). Then the lawyers got
hold of it, and the scope was broadened excessively so that almost
any forseeable circumstance would be covered.
The wording of the proposed bill is rather troublesome in parts, but
mostly it doesn't offer any new powers that are not already available
to the president in a declared emergency. And any extensions will
need to stand up to constitutional challenge before the supreme court,
which has generally not been over-eager to favour imperial presidency.
Have to read the ENTIRE text of the bill. Somewhere in the swampland
section, in that small fine print, somebody's getting a payoff.
Might not even be in there yet. Maybe they're planning to wait until
the bill is passed and add it in during the conference, just before
the final voice vote to approve the conference report ... but some big
telecommunications corporation is getting something they want out of it.
Paranoia.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
