Okay, I know that we, as a species, have this undeniable urge to pretend that every moment in our lives is somehow historical, dramatic and should never be forgotten... for at least a week. It's why so many people are convinced that the Apocalypse will occur in their lifetime. How popular would they be in the afterlife? "Yeah, no big deal. Out of the 100,000 years of human existence, the Big Guy chose the 80 year span in which I happened to be alive to bring it all to an end. Yeah. So, um, is Sheryl getting down on this thing? Cause I was kinda hoping for the two of you."
On Tuesday, when Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat (that he will probably lose in 2012), mainstream commentators all across the country declared it, by fiat, to be a game-changing, life altering happenstance that we were all lucky to be present to witness. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
However, on occasion, something really important does happen. Like yesterday. And and some of those occasions, your attempts to discuss it can be derailed.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that corporate entities have the same inalienable right to free speech that all the fine citizens of this country do. So, the majority concluded, there should be no limits regarding what corporations are allowed to spend promoting a political candidate or issue. The logic behind the ruling purports to be a "leveling of the playing field." I'm still feeling out the issue, but it seems to me that if you want a level playing field, then organizations with hundreds of millions of discretionary spending dollars and a unique opportunity to influence the elections of the very people who will be regulating them should not be considered the same as individual people who have, say, an extra $27.50 each week that they may or may not use to purchase flowers for their girlfriend in exchange for sex.
That may be a rather gross oversimplification of the issue, but that's Blogging 101. At the Blogging Academy. Which I obviously attended. But I still consider myself an amateur at this "oversimplification" thing. Here's how a pro would frame the debate:
Supporters Of The Ruling: Moronic puppets of big business, happily trading away the sovereignty of their minds in exchange for visceral pleasures like fancy cars and iPhones.
Dissenters: Soft-headed sheeple who have bought into the liberal agenda and would rather be living on a commune with Chairman Mao than in a place with electricity and running water.
Yeah. I am really not looking forward to any of this.