Still Need To Be Sergeant-at-Arms Of The Senate
Senate Bill 1959 (text, analysis) is the reason why I need to be the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, the person whose job is is to slap Senators when they're fucking up. My definition of "fucking up" is not quite the same as the official rules of the Senate, but I'm sure that they'd grow used to my regimen.
It is also a reason I may need to emigrate. Ireland might be nice.
It is also also a reason why if someone says "sure, this bill will grant people new privileges without a restraint or oversight mechanism but we're totally sure that they won't abuse them!" you can consider it a signed, sealed, and monogrammed guarantee that said privileges will be used for villainy at some point. Probably sooner rather than later. This kind of subversion what could be a damn fine democracy is the kind of thing that makes me advocate hive-minds as a solution for everything.
EDIT: After a good night's sleep and some patient comments, it looks like I'm overreacting to SB1959. I took Newstarget's analysis uncritically, which is a bad idea anyhow, and worse when they're a source I don't know. I think that the general point stands - but this specific bill probably isn't as bad as I thought it was. It's just bad, not utterly disastrous and evil. Considering the current junta's tendencies, I suppose that's as much as one can hope for.
It is also a reason I may need to emigrate. Ireland might be nice.
It is also also a reason why if someone says "sure, this bill will grant people new privileges without a restraint or oversight mechanism but we're totally sure that they won't abuse them!" you can consider it a signed, sealed, and monogrammed guarantee that said privileges will be used for villainy at some point. Probably sooner rather than later. This kind of subversion what could be a damn fine democracy is the kind of thing that makes me advocate hive-minds as a solution for everything.
EDIT: After a good night's sleep and some patient comments, it looks like I'm overreacting to SB1959. I took Newstarget's analysis uncritically, which is a bad idea anyhow, and worse when they're a source I don't know. I think that the general point stands - but this specific bill probably isn't as bad as I thought it was. It's just bad, not utterly disastrous and evil. Considering the current junta's tendencies, I suppose that's as much as one can hope for.