From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4a15f37e49a5b1948756051d9b8a24fe0de5eff0bd9a1ec048089081717f0c06
Message ID: <199705020430.VAA16643@fat.doobie.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-02 04:54:52 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:54:52 +0800
From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:54:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: SAFE Bill / Fuck You (an inch at a time)
Message-ID: <199705020430.VAA16643@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Jonah Seiger wrote:
> However, despite our concerns about the criminal provisions, we believe
> strongly that the SAFE bill, and the bills in the Senate sponsored by Burns
> and Leahy, are vitally important and should be passed.
When is the last time you saw a Volvo ad that said:
"It's the safest car on the road, unless you corner too fast."
Or a Chrysler ad that said:
"Our air bags will provide you with complete protection, although
they may kill your children."
When Ford had a problem with Pinto gas tanks exploding on
impact, and Richard Pryor set himself on fire, freebasing, I
started selling T-shirts in Austin, Texas, saying:
"I'd rather freebase than drive a Pinto."
Ford Motor Company sent TWO legal eagles down from Ford
Country, to exhort me to cease and desist.
Car companies have better sense than to broach these subjects,
even when they are truthful, because they know that the citizens
won't put up with it. If they have a problem, they deny and avoid
it--totally. They know that the citizens will *vote* with their
wallets.
Government, on the other hand, has so totally snowed the citizens
that they no longer even bother, in many cases, with the pretension
of providing us with a product of superb quality.
Instead, we get:
"Our product/legislation has a few flaws, but hell, it's better than
nothing at all."
or,
"I'm supporting this legislation because it will get me elected in
my district. So what if it fucks a few dirt-farmers halfway across
the country?"
or,
"We already have dozens of laws covering this issue, but its a
current hot-topic, so we'll pass another one, and add a few
dozen items for special-interests groups which fuck a variety
of citizens in the ass, but which we can still justify as being
'for the greater good.'"
I mean, let's get real, here.
We put up with crap from our government that we wouldn't accept
from someone trying to sell us a mouthwash. The reason that we're
not all drinking the "New Coke" is that D.C. has siphoned off all
of the spin doctors/brainwashers from the corporate advertising
industry.
I'll lay you even money that, given sufficient funding, I could
be elected as the next President of the U.S. using slogans like:
"I promise to only fuck you a little bit at a time."
and,
"As your President, I will move us more slowly towards a total
Police State."
Why do we put up with blatantly "flawed" legislation, when we
wouldn't put up with the same thing in a consumer product?
It is because corporations fear the consumers, to a certain
extent, but government has no fear of the citizens, for the most
part. The government used to fear the Press, at least marginally,
but they now have them in their back pocket, so the Press no
longer has the power to serve as an element of protection/information
for the citizenry.
So the government can pass legislation which gives us rights
which we already have, without it, and cut off another inch or
two of our freedom/privacy at the same time.
And, in the process, we will hear, from both the government and
the Press, about the virtues of "compromise."
THE ONLY THING BEING "COMPROMISED" IS THE CITIZEN, THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY.
An inch at a time. Slowly but inexorably. It's called "compromise."
It's called "reality." It's called "you scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours."
Of course, when its done all at once, then it's called dictatorship,
and fascism.
That's why we don't do it "all at once" here. Because this is a
"free country." So we just do it an inch at a time. And then another
inch. And then another...
Personal aside, to Mr. T.C. May:
"We'll drop the felony charges of 'using encryption in the
commission of a crime' if you will plead guilty to the 'jaywalking'
charges."
(You never should have encrypted that letter to your mom, Tim,
and put the floppy in your pocket. Sure, you can fight the jaywalking
charges, if you're willing to risk 20 years in prison on the felony
encryption charges.)
TruthFelon
Return to May 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>”