Crimes of Passion
September 10th, 2006If you’re disappointed with me for the fact that I haven’t updated in days, you should be, but bear with me a moment. I attempted to return on Friday to post, and I couldn’t. There were technical difficulties with this website into Saturday morning, and I’ve been gone this entire weekend until just now. But, rest assured, I am back, now. For real.
Apparently, ABC wants to release a docudrama about 9/11 that shows Clinton in a very negative light, and Democrats are throwing a fit over it, as they should be. Republicans, of course, are countering that the airing of it is free speech and we should allow it. Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer shows why Philadelphians are some of my favorite people, not only pointing out the Hypocrisy of Democrats and Republicans on this issue but noting the true problem at the root of this all: the entire concept of a “Docudrama.” History is the greatest passion play, and does not need to be dumbed down for excitement.
Today, I came across two embarrassing news stories. There’s this political advertisement being run, an advertisement so absurd that if one of my candidates ran it I’d pull my support from them. The other is the fact that, yesterday, certain types of political advertisements criticizing Congressional candidates can’t be run past a certain date. Don’t you love it when the government meddles in the name of reform and makes things worse by, say, cutting criticism of its policies during election years?
It’s okay, some say, because McCain and Feingold are passionate about electoral financing reform, but I come from the school of thought that says, Crimes of passion are not acceptable, especially not if your passion is a love of power. I’m in favor of changes to our financing in campaigns — mainly tweaks to help eliminate corruption — but I don’t believe in McCain Feingold anymore than I believe in Cheney-Rumsfeld.