DREGULATOR VOL. VII #4 : WHEREFORE ART THOU, H.R. 1955/ S. 1959?

Three murky questions have been smoldering in the back parking lot of the collective mind, this early February.
#1: Why Do The Kennedys Hate The Clintons So Much?
TIME magazine was about as sexy and helpful as an automated customer support menu, tepidly suggesting that Caroline Kennedy’s three teenagers managed to steer her over to the Obama camp with the persuasive vim of the energetic Yooth Vote. A distaste for Bill Clinton’s stumping style – fairy tales and racial humma-humma, etc. — has been the sole reason reported that Uncle Theodore, too, threw his panties at Obama.
But these reasons seem too small and benign, and come off rather like the early suggestion than Heath Ledger died from an irresponsible combination of Ambien and Lunesta.
Fortunately, a forum of cycling enthusiasts on Bicycle.com shed more light:
“(Ted Kennedy’s) minimizing potential damages,” said a commenter named ‘Soylent’. “The fallout from backing (Hilary) and having her lose is potentially greater than the same happening if he backs Obama.”
“I think it’s how (politicians) signal they would be available as a running mate,” responded ‘Bigwood Nate.’
“If Obama wins, he’ll owe the Kennedy clan big time favors… If Obama loses, the Kennedys still have enough clout in the party to get what they want. They know if the Clintons win, Hillary will still need Kennedy support to work with Congress,” wrote the clever ‘Baron von Steuben.’
“What’s Kennedy gonna say? ‘If Clinton wins the nomination, I will pledge my support to McCain or Romney‘?” asked ‘Elevation.’
The Dregulator’s own friend Nancy explained that Caroline (despite the fact that she seems to be being played by Martin Short), is “Lace Curtain Irish,” and would therefore take a dim view of tacky Clintons, an analysis shared by Bicycling.com commenter ‘Jerry near St. Louis’ :
“Class warfare…The Kennedy’s (sic) are upper class, silver-spoon types. The Clinton’s (sic) are Arkansas trailer-trash.”
That explains that.
Back-burning question #2: “How Much Is Britney Getting From Tabloids Like TMZ.com to Enact Perpetual Meltdown?”
The “Britney industrial complex,” according to an article in Conde Nast Portfolio, brings in 20 per cent of the US paparazzi business; Spears cover shots spike tabloid sales 33 per cent for an estimated value of between $110m and $120m annually, of which Britney reportedly “gets under ten percent” — which is still a good living, unless you factor in the insurmountably bad karmic weight of sucking enough actual news out of the air to be the Typhoid Mary of national stupidity.
“Britney loses it, the world watches,” says a caption on TMZ.com; a rare truth from the journalistic equivalent of unprotected sex with infected baboons.
Question #3: “How come there’s no mainstream news reports on H.R. 1955/S. 1959?”
In October 2007, this bill, in its phase as H.R. 1955, sailed through the House of Representatives. Now it is believed to be lurking in the Senate as S. 1959, or as lefty bloggers call it, “The Thought Crimes Bill.”
Penned by congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, the bill says alarmingly disparaging things about our great dumpster of information in the sky:
“The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”
(Even though we mostly use it to look at porn. And Britney.)
Other parts of the bill are worded ambiguously enough to drive a lot of Joe McCarthy-style buses through – buses that civil liberties activists fear will be filled with civil liberties activists and driven to dark, underground domestic Gitmos:
“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.”
Italics mine: The definition of “force” has some people worried, since it is intended to mean something other than “violence’…like, possibly, intellectual persuasion, writings, and peaceable assemblies deemed “radical” by a ten-member National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.
OpEdNews.com claims that this bill is the subject of a “press blackout,” and is still in committee, but that the measures are “already being implemented.”
Read all the bicycling websites you can, while you can, fiends, and remember your code of omerta when the busses come for thee: snitches get stitches.