Schmear Campaigns

     My short fuse is already reaching a critical point with the Republicans this year, and we're not even out of the primaries. The only reason I'm singling out the GOP is because they are the cats campaigning right now. Specifically, it's how they're going about campaigning, and every politician is guilty. After each debate, viewers might not even be clear on the issues at stake, but they could sure tell you who burned who. So much effort is put toward the person-to-person zingers, as usual, and annually it massively distracts from the actual issues. What can we possibly expect from politics if all the effort is going to defamation instead of ideas for national progress?
    In my glorious utopia, that will only ever exist in my mind, political debates and campaign strategies would be unrecognizable from the current childishness. Each candidate would only talk about themselves, and so when each side gets asked about fixing the economy, or Medicare controversy or whatnot, their answers would be an apples-to-apples comparison. "This is how I will fix the economy" will square off versus "this is how I will fix the economy," and the ideal solution becomes plain. At present, though, there is no comparison of platform or plans, only attacks on opponents. Whats worse, it works! All the undecided voting sheep hear the debates like it's two poor people cussing each other out on Springer!
     The ignorant, uninterested and misinformed people seem to eat up that kind of politics. I don't want to say that past words and actions of politicians have no bearing on the current elections, but the focus needs to be on the issues our country is facing. If a candidate is over-the-top too unacceptable or inappropriate, it generally becomes apperant quickly (the only Herman Cain reference in the whole post!), outside of the debates and campaigning. Perhaps we should actually hold all politicians to some tangible moral standard, then there might be a basis for the ad hominem argumentation. In the big election next year, I'm sure the onslaught of slander ads will be staggering, so I'm hoping people will take a little more initiative than usual, and demand politicians offer up their plans, rather than let them have their pissing contest and let the best dirt-digger win. Please, voters, take the time to wade through and find what's actually relevant and beneficial in your politician's campaign; then see if he or she is really who we want to put in command.

Oh, Is That All?

   When I first heard word that there was an Internet censorship bill before congress, my thoughts turned to the darkest, most revolting corners of the 'net. And in defense of freedom of expression and thought, I was planning out a blog post toeing the gray areas of our First Amendment. I thought maybe kiddie porn sites, or prostitution under the guise of an escort service. When I started poking into it, I was floored. Piracy?? Media-swapping? That's what they're considering allowing broad censorship of the web for? I recognize the intent, and from a purely legal standpoint, the end result is certainly clear and right: to stop information piracy and protect intellectual property. However, I absolutely do not see how the ends justify the means in this case.
      What I see when I look at this bill is a gang of miserly lawyers and record company CEOs who want to be even richer coercing our government to use a blowtorch to kill a ant. Or to be fair, millions of ants. However an exterminator uses a very guided, surgical approach to remove ants, not burn down the house. The government hasn't been able to effectively stop individuals from pirating music, so they are lashing out at the mode of piracy: the websites. Would they also suggest that boatmakers and weapons manufacturers be liable for what Somalian pirates are doing in North Africa? People are the ones breaking laws and pirating music, not the websites themselves. The bill would allow websites to be sued or taken down if their subscribers are suspected of pirating media through their site.
     As usual, the big corporations will remain largely out of danger and the biggest casualities would be the smaller, less popular sites with less means for legal defense. The government and lawyers will truly be shooting the messenger on this one, due to their own ineffectiveness at stopping piracy from the actual individual people copying music. Media piracy is illegal and if the lawyers and companies with claims to the media want to take their own action thats fine. But this kind of commissioned legislation creates far too much collateral damage. There is an answer to preventing piracy, but this is absolutely not it. This seems to be still another another case of government over-action in response to the lobbying of the wealthy that will hurt more innocent people than it helps. I don't know how many more ways I can say it: the ends don't justify these means.