“By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.” — George Carlin
The bill contradicts itself somewhat as well, as it also contains language such as:
“Nothing in this act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.”
Language evolves naturally, and controlling that evolution is like herding an uncountable number of cats, so linguists just study that evolution.
Unclear terminology inundates our world as a part of that chaotic grow.
Our need to tune language into better certainty to minimize both misunderstandings (e.g. improve diplomacy and other forms of conflict resolution) and the power of reason abusers (deceiving us all to increase their comfort amongst mass pain) is undeniably paramount — yet eerily missing.
The only ingredient in law is language. There’s the direct wording of law and its intent, and then the wording of its interpretation.
When the wording is unclear, power rests with the interpreters, so gives rise to the same problems leading to the American revolution and the consequent effort to keep an oligarchy in check by constitutional grounding.
Senator Feinstein was the de facto champion of the “Cyber-Patriot Act” bill called CISA, and the reason she was for it was “cybersecurity.” Yet, the new bill she proposed seems to attack cybersecurity in the U.S. at its core. It’s not clear why the Senator, who was the Senate Intelligence Committee head until 2014, can’t see just how contradictory in their goals the two bills really are.
Gently putting aside my need to fix italics styling to sometimes avoid unnecessary color alteration usually leveraged for emphasis, when I mention the Great Hypocrisy is effectively discriminatingly “leading” society, that’s a solid example of what I mean.
What’s apparently unclear to the author of the prompting piece is perfectly clear to yours truly. The Senator (part of the oligarchy) believes empowering the oligarchy for security is good (regardless of abuse potential, if not historically revealed imminence), but empowering the masses (inclusively defensively against that oligarchy) for security is bad.
That empowering (as one among way too many examples) falls under the worst scam within humanity — relatively rare instances of abuse justify mass harm by (usually publicly invisible and) oligarchy-favoring law “to protect the children”.
In other words, major abuse disguised as public benefit is the illusive-but-popularly-convincing solution to minor abuse.
Hypocritical leverage is out of control and too often publicly considered clever (reinforcing that leverage), and the result is like monkeys “cleverly” flinging crap at each other with one serious caveat — sometimes the crap sticks in the form of legal entrenchment that negatively affects many millions (if not billions) of lives spanning generations.
As I repeatedly sensibly maintain sadly without traction here (come on, folks, we need love on this front — or at least a reason explaining your disinterest), when law is overly complex (because it’s only subjectively “grounded”), the public overall refuses to necessarily tune in with the legislative process to keep our societal leaders honest for actual public strengthening.
Upon sufficient organization, the public at large is the strongest human force, so the only human force capable of stopping a selfishly rogue oligarchy, but instead effectively lamely embraces being cattle bending over for whatever surreptitious lump of righteous-sounding judicial confusion ruled convenient for oligarchical folks (e.g. people strongly funding lobbyists) — and the resulting damage affecting everyone from the powerful through powerless (a net-resulting stupid nation is obviously a doomed nation against every-national-one therein/herein).
Do I really need to sugarcoat this most-critical issue that I frankly assume reads like eating bark, so we can then generate the minimal traction necessary for growing into a powerful public movement of genuine truth to optimally protect liberty without (inclusively recklessly) subjective discrimination?
Comedians such as George Carlin leveraged entertainment to raise awareness of the ruling danger, and so too shall I in my own style (it would be embarrassing to try to match the great and sadly posthumous Mr. Carlin in this regard) — but a bluntly dry message is sometimes needed to cut to the chase to reduce unjust suffering.
The disconnect between the oligarchy and everyone else is increasingly resonating terribly, because law is generally an oligarchical weapon to keep the masses in check “to protect the children”.
The result is too many oligarchy members doing major things such as fabricating our economy via massive injection of unbacked credit (like pouring fake board game money into society to make it seem like a reasonably healthy economic sustainment), continuing horribly mass destructive and unending wars of vagueness for profit, upholding outrageous price-fixing from a monstrously hideous medical monopoly at severe taxpayer cost, and selfishly complexly forming taxpayer-expensive laws that effectively merely prevent legitimate small competitors effectively representing the masses from unseating corrupt powerhouses “too big to fail” (or such).
The fact that I cannot help but echo often enough is objectivity (in its conclusive, not suggestive, form) is required for fairness, so (by definition) justice.
Without objectivity, there’s no justice.
Feel free to mentally repeat that last sentence until it sinks permanently in — especially considering we live in a global society crushingly dominantly content with usually leveraging irrationality even for judicial purposes like there’s no negative consequences from that inevitable and risky/dangerous dishonesty (irrationality begets irrationality).
Society ignores that fact in order “to protect the children” by complexly judicially defining risk via questionably dominating political pressures ironically at serious risk of abusive law in any of its many mass-destructive forms.
If we can’t (e.g. collectively refuse to) get language right, then we can’t get society-insisting stressors right (at least a major source of drug abuse, violence, poverty, illness, etc.)
If we can’t get language right, then we can’t improve education (the only possible risk management solution within a civilized form of national freedom necessarily primarily against law abuse).
This isn’t idealism. This is working together to establish and promote hardcore basics (starting with addressing the mass refusal to care about conclusive objectivity being required for justice).
Complexity without objective basics is chaos — exactly what’s happening now (society is terribly operating like a house vulnerably off of its foundation).
While I responsibly passionately believe in scientific constitutionalism as the only rational (so realistic) way out of the constant waves of oppression putting us all at risk/danger, which includes carefully leveraging the power of language education (formal and otherwise) to responsibly insert certainty to reduce harm (e.g. a hard-line distinction between use and abuse to prevent judicially impacting harmless acts to supposedly address harmful ones), this remains a lonely endeavor on my caring part to still hopefully reach enough open minds that truly understand how powerfully serious this endeavor must become for us all logically throughout posterity.
As the oligarchy presses for more power for itself, and as the masses basically foolishly accept that unethical dominance, people such as yours truly (with no conflict of interest against public safety, so a good person to support and work with) can only watch and experience in varying degrees of pain as the oligarchical stressors continue complexly tearing our nation into inevitable instability and the repeated spark of revolution to bloodily come pitifully for the same reasons igniting the last revolution here.
Then what happens?
As a fitting aside, that’s one of my favorite questions to perpetually repeat against antagonists in a scientifically boundless existence requiring balance for stability, because the answer at some point must be the antagonist pays in painful full for their “progress”. Logically speaking, defeat is always ultimately mutual.
Continue with a new oligarchy and pathetically allow them to subjectively define law “for public benefit” to repeat the distortedly rising-oppression cycle until critical mass deeply violently against at least one upcoming generation?
Based upon excessive public apathy and/or whatever else forming the absence of responsible organization and mature press against abusive power, the answer is a resounding — yep.
It’s obviously time to end that largest human vicious circle, especially considering the smaller, less expensive, and much more powerful weapons that (even crazily dangerous irrationality-embracing areas of) humanity is generating to possibly end that circle by self-destructive extinction.
Conclusively objectively defined law (with a simple foundation that anyone can promptly learn, so the public can remain sufficiently responsibly tuned judicially in) solely focusing upon dealing with people actually causing harm, while education focuses upon risk, is the only logical solution — one that ensures the reason abusers and thugs experience suffering for the sake of civility, instead of recklessly selfishly ruling us all to their dominating comfort by the absence of an effective and responsible public care.
Communication is obviously needed for societal order, so the quality of language is directly connected with the quality of that order.
Language is the true base of societal problems, while unhealthy stress is synonymous with those problems.
Not drugs, guns, capitalism, or any other high-level area being usually irrationally addressed these days by recklessly passionate (and well-funded) demonization, but language abuse selfishly childishly fuels those problems.
Without largely publicly (nonetheless promptly) pressing against that fundamental abuse, all else fails to matter in the maelstrom of lacking (or dishonestly selfishly disguised) civility.
Logically speaking, to ignore scientific constitutionalism (as concisely defined in our Liberty Shield informational roots) is to side with the expedited and tragically justifiable fate of humanity (which may be agonizingly deadly stressed against generations meeting your care).