Thursday, March 24, 2005

My letter to the Federal Election Commission.

Feeling that bloggers can't be trusted with the sharp object free speech, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is strongly considering the regulation of internet-circulated political speech: blogs. So stupefied is the FEC that they're actually asking for feedback on whether or not it's a good idea to put a sock in blogs, thinking there are pockets of people who'd like very much like to see bloggers have their digital tounges removed. After you read my letter, send your thoughts to
Dear Federal Election Commission:

I appreciate your request for feedback from the commoners on the FEC's continued debate on keeping the peasants from talking politics on anything more than a soap box.

I think it's a fantastic idea to regulate, fine or shut down internet sites that write about politics if said writer hasn't shown up hungover to enough to get their Columbia degree.

After all, the common mortgage broker, lawyer, physicist or doctor can be highly irresponsible with a keyboard and an internet connection. Not the faux irresponsibility of the government-protected child-molester favorite NAMBLA, but the kind of obscene irresponsibility that interprets the over-used First Amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." to mean that bloggers actually have the right to talk about people involved in or hoping to win elected positions. Who do these bloggers think they are, Americans?

Allowing only political pontification from people who get paychecks from people who print the work that ultimately lines bird cages is a much better policy. Not only does a J-school degree uniquely prove one's ability to arrange letters into words, but only J-schoolers should be allowed to comment/editorialize/criticize when the subject matter involves men and women trying to convince the public that their opponent is inadequate for a job paid for by the people they're both trying to convince. Very complicated.

On such complicated a complicated topic, surely only someone with a notepad and pen can be trusted with an opinion. Their credentialed legitimacy is obvious, their work takes up a couple square inches of processed pulp infused with ink. You can't take a 'writer' seriously if their work can't get on your fingers.

I trust that you will move forward in regulating political internet speech. Not only are bloggers a bunch of mavericks, generally in their pajamas, but they're unaccountable, unedited and fact challenged. That's a recipe for freedom and it must be stopped. Look what it did to Dan Rather.

Federal Election Commission, march straightly on, with confidence in the spirit of McCain-Feingold. Be not discouraged that election '04 realized unprecedented, record-breaking, unaccountable millions in campaign donations, the antithesis of what McCain-Feingold intended. Batting .000 doesn't mean you shouldn't proudly step again into the box.

If you need an example of an irresponsible, irreverent blog that takes advantage of the rights afforded to him, visit The name alone tells you how distasteful many bloggers are. We need to mandate that only writers with their laminated picture around their neck can be creative. I encourage you to tell all your associates to visit as an example of what happens when a blogger is free to practice pseudo-journalism.

Best Regards,


free web counters
Blue Nile Diamonds