Right to Privacy for ALL Citizens?

Something that has always interested me is the way the private lives of politicians and authority figures becomes subjects of scandal in the media. As a general rule of thumb, I dislike politicians anyway, but I also do not think someone's extra-marital affairs are reason for them to have to resign or be fired. Given, if you make a career of being in the spotlight, expect people to publicize everything you do, but I think some things are blown way out of proportion.
For instance, when most people think of Bill Clinton, they think of the sex scandal. I understand he was impeached for lying under oath, but I don't blame him. I don't want the whole world knowing about my private life either. What does it really matter? It doesn't.
Recently, David Letterman announced on air that he had indeed had sexual relationships with women whom he worked with. Surprise, surprise. It's rich and famous. It's what the rich and famous do. Someone tried to extort him for 2 million dollars with this information, and if that's seriously all the "dirt" the guy has, I'm not impressed. I thought Letterman handled the matter humorously and casually, and if you watch the clip, you would think that would be the end of that.
Anoter scandal that happened recently was assemblyman Mike Duvall discussing his affair with someone under a microphone. No, that was not a smart thing to do. But I don't think he should have had to resign over it. If you don't know this story, here is a video.

I'm sure most of you disagree with me :p But that's good. Tell me what you think.

Bush Song vs. Obama Song

Haven't done a good job with keeping up with this thing, so I'm going to get a little spammy in the next couple days trying to catch up. But feel free to comment on any previous post if I make a new one before you get a chance. I appreciate the discussion in my last post, that's what I'm looking for! :D
In class today, an issue came up about the school children singing "praises" to Obama. Someone brought up the point that the same thing happened with school children right after Hurricane Katrina singing similar "praises" to George W Bush. Here's a link I found to that story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/

The published date of the article is April 2006, so some time ago. Although most of us may not have heard about it, myself included, it's not something that's just now surfaced, even though it's being brought up now in response to the Obama song.
I think the reason the Bush song didn't get as much publicity and isn't nearly as creepy is because people weren't naming their children after George Bush before he was even elected (commence digging up stories on people who named their children after him -- one or two doesn't count). People have and do literally praise Obama, so I think that is why this story is getting so much attention in comparison to the other one.
What do you think?

Fairness Doctrine Debate

Today we did the debate on the Fairness Doctrine. The resolution was "The government should enact a 'Fairness Doctrine' in order to better ensure that coverage of political issues by broadcast stations be balanced and fair". I was on the negative side, which I readily volunteered for on the first day of class. Here is the text of everything I said in my introduction in case anyone missed it:

What’s important to remember about freedom of speech is that it is not a “right” given to people by the Constitution or any other government-issued document. Each individual is born with the natural rights to life and liberty. What the Constitution does is lay out what the government cannot do, not what the people CAN do. The freedom of speech and expression is part of liberty, of being free. The Fairness Doctrine, a bill passed in1949 by the Federal Communications Commission, infringed on these natural rights. This document required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, as well as quote reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. Parts of it began to repeal in 1985, until it was finally completely repealed under the Regan administration in1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine quote had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance. But there are still politicians who advocate for its return. While the media portrays the opponents of the Fairness Doctrine as irrational fear mongers, this ignores the substance of the bill itself.
First of all, the point of having the freedom of speech is TO hear opposing viewpoints; why impose government mandates on something that already exists? In a melting pot like the United States, there are millions of different opinions and voices. Radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz exist and remain in popularity for the same reason people tune into Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC; they want that political slant. Liberals want to hear liberal personalities, and conservatives want to hear conservative personalities. While we would all agree that it is good to be exposed to differing points of view, there is no benefit in having some views forced upon us at the expense of others in the name of fairness. I take the time to listen to the SiriusLeft station on my satellite radio, not because I have to but because I want to. I think there are many people like me who enjoy listening to what they don’t agree with, and for that reason the Fairness Doctrine is pointless. Furthermore, government would be overstepping its bounds in telling broadcasters what they can and cannot say on their own programs.
My second point is, who is at liberty to decide what is “reasonable” but each individual? As mentioned, there are millions of different opinions in a society. No one opinion is exactly the same as the next, so what constitutes reasonable contrasting viewpoints?
Although it is mostly democrats that are in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, liberal Alan Colmes formerly of Fox’s Hannity & Colmes strongly opposes it. In an interview with Brian Jennings, Colmes said, “There is a better way than the Fairness Doctrine if increasing viewpoints is the goal. Diversity in ownership. Government should not be involved in programming content. But what government can do is discourage monopolies and make sure there are limits as to how much of the public airwaves can be controlled by one entity in a given market.”
Under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters avoided controversy for fear of reprisal by the government. Programs were poorly rated and failed to generate revenue. British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie put it best in these words: Without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist.

In case you couldn't tell -- my nervousness may have overshadowed it because I do so hate speaking in front of crowds -- I am very much an opponent of this bill.
I found it odd that the negative side made fun of my bringing up the subject of freedom of speech, because to me, that is exactly what this issue is about. What about it has nothing to do with infringing on that right? Opinions!

Snaaaaaaaaake Snaaaaaaaaaake!

Ignore the title if you don't get the reference ;p
Snake is back and comments are working! Hurray! Been searching DrudgeReport for something to blog about but nothing is striking me. Hopefully in a little while. So this post is pointless and just to let everyone know that I got the layout and comments to cooperate with each other.

HTML Troubles

If you were having problems posting comments to my posts, the problem has been fixed. Seemed there was something I missed in the layout I was using. So the awesome snake is gone until I can figure out how to fix it. Sigh. Hope to see some comments now, I was wondering what was up. Thanks for your patience :)