What's so bad about a good time?

The card says...
    By Dave Oppenheim

If one were to take a survey of the most important problems facing the nation today, the answers would be predictable: crime, taxes, and education, in some order. The government has thus far been unable to "solve" any of those problems, mainly because crime prevention and education cost tax money. One problem the U.S. does seem to have licked, however, is overpopulation. In fact, we have so much space that we can afford to have states whose populations consist entirely of three crazed hermits with explosives.

One way we've managed to avoid an overpopulation problem is through a program that allows people to do dangerous things—pushing up the good ol' mortality rate—and preventing them from doing fun things, which could lead to sex and a rise in the dreaded birth rate. If you don't believe me, consider the following:

There is no minimum legal age for handling a firearm, yet one can now be tried as an adult for the misuse of that gun at age 13. In most states, one can operate a motor vehicle at 16. At age 18, an individual can get sent to war and/or be given cancer by Joe Camel. Also, at 18, we can vote. The citizens of Minnesota now understand why this last one is dangerous.

To do stuff like buy booze and rent pornos, however, the government requires people to be 21. Gotta protect the citizenry from cutting their thumbs on bottle tops and dropping videotapes on their toes. For the past few years, our concerned members of Congress have been trying to crack down on online porn as well. Their efforts thus far have been stymied, as just last week a federal judge in Philadelphia struck down the latest version of the Children's Online Protection Act, the original having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997.

That whole freedom of speech thing is turning out to be a downer for the fun patrol. This group is nothing if not stubborn, however. Ten Republican members of Congress have already released a statement that they intend to take up the matter again. Not surprisingly, all 10 were old white guys. They represent the government's right arm in the fight against overpopulation.

Simply put, these guys can't handle sex. Why is a matter of speculation. Perhaps they subscribe to the strictest interpretations of organized religion: any religion. Perhaps they are opposed in principle to any activity in which a person's wallet is separated from their person. Most likely, they never got any and childishly don't want anyone else to either. While the causality remains in question, I think it's fair to say that a group of people who would impeach the leader of the free world over a blow job have some issues with the birds and the bees.

On the issue of pornography, they are often joined by a group that is usually ideologically opposed to them, the liberal feminists. Rather than objecting to sex, this group objects to the way sex is portrayed. Specifically, they subscribe to the theory that dirty pictures reinforce stereotypical gender roles. Banning such material attacks only an indicator of the problem, not the problem itself. There is a reason that people like Larry Flynt can afford to fight Jerry Falwell in court for years and pay a million bucks for dirt on Republican Congressmen: people buy his product. The concern of women's groups should be eliminating the demand for porn, not the supply.

The argument employed by both groups that the porn industry is bad for the models is patently ridiculous. In fact, porn is the only genre of film in which female stars earn more than male stars. Thus, according to opponents of porn, since there is clearly both a ready supply and a demand for porn, the only solution is for the government to step in. After all, the general public is, like a child, too dumb to know what's good for it, right?

I don't think so, and the drafters of the First Amendment didn't either. The whole point of freedom of speech and expression is for ideas and images to compete in the marketplace. Those that are found favorable are kept and thrive; those that aren't wither away. The courts have recognized this; hopefully Congress will too, right after it bans all physical contact between humans. After all, we need more states like Montana.

What do you think? Respond in Speak your Mind.