Blog 2.1

Brain Terminal has a snarky post today about the emerging nanny state in the United States. I’ll be investing in bubble wrap companies.

Wednesday’s post regarding a controversial bill in the US Senate got me more comments this week than I usually get in a month. Today there is more news about this bill: the bit requiring “grassroots” political bloggers to register and report to Congress as lobbyists has been struck from the bill.

Worth noting, however, is that I discovered more detail about how the bill defines “grassroots lobbying firm”:

(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm’ means a person or entity that–

(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.’.

As such, it appears the bill was targeted at such things as radio talk shows funded by advertisers (thus the Republican opposition) and other “astroturfers” (think fake grassroots). It would not, however, target media funded by contributors like MoveOn.org.

Would this section of the bill been a positive element if it had been retained? I still think it’s hard to say. Personally, if the bill was supposed to target “astroturfing” then I think it should have done so more clearly. As it was written, however, the bill seemed to target the activities of one party and not the other (which explains the partisan split on the vote).

For anyone from Missouri who’s counting, Kit Bond (and the rest of the Senate Republicans) voted to remove the controversial section of the bill. Newly elected Senator Claire McCaskill (and all but seven Democrats) voted to keep the section in.

I might have to install a virtual velvet rope at the entrance to my blog. I discovered today that the first bill introduced to the Senate this year (the one that is officially supposed to “provide greater transparency in the legislative process”) has a well-hidden side effect: Bloggers with a readership of over 500 people must register with and report quarterly to Congress, or else. Or else what, you ask? That’s what amendment 7 (passed on January 7) of the bill clarifies: it creates criminal penalties, including up to a year in prison, if someone “knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.”

So there you have it. If this bill passes, citizens will have to register and report to the Congress if they want to publicly discuss policy. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself.

You can find the contact information for your Senator here. If you like reading or writing political blogs, I suggest you contact your representative and explain to them what the First Amendment is all about.

His prose is heavy-handed and I don’t buy his Democrat power-grab conspiracy theory, but Mr. Boortz makes several comments I agree with whole-heartedly. Among them are a few passages about the federal government having grown grossly too involved in our daily lives, including this little gem:

“We love living as adult children with our mommy and daddy, in the form of government, taking care of our basic needs while we sit around worrying who the next Falcon’s head coach will be and who is going to be the next American Idol.”

The federal government swallows up about one-quarter of my income; for two hours a day I’m working for Uncle Sam rather than myself. And for what? So that the federal goverment can manage my retirement via Social Security and Medicare? No thanks; if I manage that money myself I might actually see it again in 40 years. Meanwhile, people live all around me downtown in the exact same apartments while paying a fraction of the rent. Why? Because I’m paying their rent through my taxes. My work and success is siphoned off to prop up their lack of ambition and contentedness with mediocrity.

Personally, I’m tired of hearing all the rhetoric about how people who are successful should fork over their money to the federal government to “assist” those who are not. Making excuses for people who cannot be successful by their own doing only serves to trivialize the hard work and dedication that others have put forth in order to better their own lives.

I believe that “redistributing” wealth by taking it from people who work hard and giving it to those who do not is a recipe for disaster. Why work hard if I can count on the federal goverment to provide me with the fruits of the labor of others?

I would go on, but I’m in danger of rambling on and on like so many other bloggers. In the meantime, I’ll just have to wait and watch… with my fingers crossed that Mr. Boortz is sorely mistaken.

John Stossel writes today in his article at RealClearPolitics:

“The food prohibitionists don’t understand that there are ways to influence people’s behavior without resorting to coercion — remember, coercion is the essence of government. The public fuss about harm from trans fats has already induced many food makers to remove them. It’s suddenly become a competitive advantage to boast that your products are trans-fat-free. Such voluntary action is the best way to move toward healthier food.”