Finally, we have bipartisanship on the Senate Floor!

After years of bickering and pouting, the Senate Democrats and Republicans have finally come to an agreement on something, the internet is scary. Apparently, with the Iraq War spiraling out of control, New Orleans still in a state of emergency and health care costs making it impossible for Americans to simply go to the doctor, the United States Government has decided to take on the real enemy... bloggers!

As you read this, there is a bill floating around the Senate that would require any blog with a readership of 500 or larger to "register" with the government and submit quarterly reports. Of course, this isn't the spelled-out focus of the bill, it's hidden inside a larger bill on ethics reform targeted at our elected representatives and their relationship to big money lobbyists. However, I find it very difficult to believe that someone with a blog readership of 500 people would count as a powerful lobbying group. Surely any sane person would agree.

I'd love (oh, how I'd love) to blame this one on the embattled Republicans in Congress. Unfortunately, this bill is cosponsored by members of both sides of the aisle, including Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and everyone's favorite, Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Apparently, the growing popularity of blogs has Washington shaking in their boots.

Obviously, this isn't going to change the way I do business on this particular blog in the least. I'd absolutely love to have a regular, daily audience of around 500, but I don't think anyone would believe me if I even suggested that it might even be close. In fact, I have a small, but apparently dedicated base of around 50 people that seem to genuinely care what I have to say. However, in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference between fifty and five hundred? In a nation of 300,000,000 people, does anyone believe that an e-pulpit with a congregation of 500 is going to make a difference? At that's assuming that the 500 readers of a given blog are slaves to that particular writer and fully plan on voting exactly the way they are told.

The idea of blogging, for me at least, is centered around one's ability to share thoughts, stories and ideas with anyone willing to read. It's like talking to your neighbors in an age when your neighbors now have five locks on the door and are afraid to make eye contact with you. It's a round of drinks at the pub in a time when the pub is now overrun with conversation-killing dance music and gaudy decor. However, to your politicians, blogging seems to be a terrifying and unchecked means of affecting political policy. It seems that they've become so fearful of the idea of actual free speech that it has become a top priority, in a world gone straight to hell, that they find a way to regulate, control or at least supervise what's actually going on.

I have issues with campaign finance reform. I've always felt that it was wrong for huge industry to use their muscle in such a way as to change domestic and foreign policy. We've seen it time and time again as "big oil" keeps us in a constant state of pollution and warfare, as "big tobacco" killed off millions of Americans and as "big internet tech company" (still too new to have a flashy name) grows ever richer on the back of monopoly. However, I do find it difficult to tell someone to whom and how much they're allowed to contribute their own money in an election. It's a slippery slope either way, so I tend to err on the side of caution and try to keep them out of the People's House as much as possible.

However, this is a completely different animal. This is reaction to fear. This is an effort to keep track of free speech, not being spewed by multinational industries with agendas, but by regular people with opinions. No one owns my blog, there is no editor, there is not staff... it's just me with a keyboard (and a series of goofy images - see below).

Frankly, it comes down to a very simple fact. The people don't trust the government and the government doesn't trust the people. I certainly don't, and most people I know don't either. The problem with all of this registering, documenting and eavesdropping goes deeper that the initial shock. It's a slow, methodical process to keep an eye on everything that we say and do the "post-9/11 world" in which we live.

No one is going to come to your house and strip you of your rights tomorrow. That kind of shock would cause rioting in the streets. This kind of thing always happens in a far more subtle manner. Slowly, things that you take for granted start to disappear, and before you know it the America that you grew up in no longer exists.

It's easy to dismiss this kind of claim, to blame it on the conspiracy nuts. However, let's think about the conspiracy nuts for a second. Sure, they come off with some pretty crazy ideas from time to time, but let's not forget that occasionally their ideas have merit. Thanks to conspiracy nuts we now know that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't really necessary, we know that the "lone gunman" theory brought about by the Warren Commission is probably bunk, and we know that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a fraud. This doesn't mean that any crackpot's ideas are 100% accurate, but it does mean that they're a relevant part of the American discourse and should be allowed to flow as freely as the opinions of the establishment.

No one has the right to tell you that your ideas aren't valid, that they're dangerous, or that they don't have a place in modern society. No one has the right to keep track of your opinions, intimidate your thought or monitor your speech. Above all, no one has the right to tear up the United States Constitution for any reason, not for safety, not for the "good" of society, and CERTAINLY not to be re-elected.

My opinions are my opinions, and if Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer want to monitor them, they can do exactly what you're doing right now. They can point their browser to www.corygraham.blogspot.com and check it out for themselves. But try to keep the hits to a minimum, as I'd rather keep it under 500.