Monday, November 8, 2010
A Heaping Helping of Hate Speech
During the campaign Christine O'Donnell was asked about a recent supreme court decision she disagreed with. She couldn't name any. This put her in a very exclusive club called 98% of the US population. I thought to myself, how many decisions, as the aspiring law student I am, do I disagree with. Then I thought, how many recent decisions not in a casebook am I even aware of. I came up with three. I'd be worried about judgment if I knew that everyone reading this probably came up with the same number. The one that sticks out to me is Citizens United. And if I was a drunk ladybug, I would tell that to a reporter when asked which decisions I disagree with. I don't disagree with the ruling. I think limiting any sort of speech near an election when it counts the most is bad. I think if you want to publish Why Hillary Clinton Killed all the Unicorns on Nov. 2 the Constitution allows this. It also allows you to spend half a billion dollars on an election, and then once elected, condemn a decision justifying your actions. There is a name for that, I think its leprosy. The reason I disagree with the decision is because it represents te worst part of the election cycle, terrible campaign ads. (Ok the real problem is all the money being spent but this is the brunt of what it is spent on) Campaign ads are just terrible. Why on earth would I want to vote for some lunchbox wearing a hunting vest with his dog who is running for comptroller. Unless the fiscal situation is so dire we need a duck hunt to feed the masses, this guy will not be getting my vote. And then there are negative ads, which I have a love/hate relationship with. I hate them because they are just so pointless. If you love Saxby Chambliss (best name in government), an ad by his opponents saying he drowns puppies and then eats their eyes probably isn't going to sway you. Robert Byrd had some role in the KKK, I don't know how big, probably small, but like they say their are no small roles, just small Klansman. Anyway, he won numerous terms with that real life nugget in his past. Sure for 40 years he ran against someone who wore a severed horsehead around town, but that's besides the point. This is why I propose a gentlemen's agreement, if there are any left in government. Let's stop spending billions of dollars, (think of all the monkey smoking experiments we could do with that money) and just have publically televised debates. A recent study (I omit all references, message us if you want them) found that negative ads had very little sway on people because they did not speak to the issues and how a congressman would vote. Boom, debates. And civilized ones, Alan Grayson I'm looking in your direction. We save billions and get to actually hear these suits talk and explain their positions. And for good measure, the closing 2 minutes are given to whomever finishes the American Gladiator course first. (Have to keep the advertisers happy) The one exception to this rule is Carl Paladino. You can't stifle that sort of crazy, just have to sit back and watch it implode.