Let the mudslinging begin!

With elections looming on the horizon and the historic vote on health care reform about to take place, politicians are taking no prisoners in their ad campaigns. These emotionally charged and sometimes completely unethical attack ads and the masterminds behind them have no problem calling their opponents’ morals and integrity into question, all the while sinking to new levels.

In February, California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina released an ad against her opponent Tom Campbell that could quite possibly be the strangest and most disturbing ad in political history. The ad, which has been described as both psychedelic and terrifying, features images of a red-eyed demon sheep frolicking with its ruminant fellows, a seeming wolf in sheep’s clothing. While obviously meant to be serious, the ad is so bizarre, so outlandish that it seems almost impossible to watch it and still keep a straight face. This animal themed ad is obviously not cut from the same cloth as Ronald Regan’s memorable 1984 “bear in the woods” television spot.

Fiorina’s more recent ad targets Barbara Boxer, depicting the senator as a gargantuan head, floating over California like the Goodyear Blimp while an ominous voiced narrator tells of her “liberal partisan elitist ways”.

Sure they may border on fear mongering and character assassination, but this type of political mudslinging is nothing new and the television ads have been around nearly as long as the medium itself.

Who can forget the “Daisy” ad, a campaign commercial for Lyndon B. Johnson that only ran once during the 1964 presidential election? The ad juxtaposed images of childlike innocent with images of nuclear war, while a voiceover used phrases like, “These are the stakes!” and “We must either love each other, or we must die.” Preying on the public’s fear of the escalating threat of nuclear war, the ad portrayed Johnson’s opponent, Barry Goldwater as some kind of nuke-happy psychopath who would bomb the world into oblivion if elected. It only aired once, but that was enough. The seed had been planted in the public’s subconscious and, in the end, Johnson won the election by a landslide.

The newest attack that’s stirring up controversy targets not only Ohio representative Steve Driehaus, but also his family. The ad, which prominently features Driehaus’ underage daughters, has been called outrageous by critics and even earned an apology from the Washington-based committee responsible for it.

The art of frightening and confusing the public while simultaneously hurling accusations and allegations at lightening speed is as old as politics itself, but how much is too much? Where does one draw the line on what information the public needs to know and, more importantly, how that information is conveyed? Perhaps voters will be able to look past the floating heads and demonic sheep and see the real issues at hand, and make an informed decision on voting day. More than likely, they’ll find the ads offensive or even laughable and simply change the channel whenever they appear. Whether full of surreal imagery or overly emotionally, ads like these only succeed in alienating voters and being counterproductive to their true purpose.

Another One Bites the Dust

The flashbulbs have burnt out, the cameras have stopped rolling and the myriad of screaming teenage girls have all grown up. Another former child star joins the ranks of the gone-too-soon club.

Cory Haim, the actor who became a household name with such movies as “Lucas”, “License to Drive” and “The Lost Boys” died on March 10 of what is now being called a suspected drug overdose. Haim, who gained notoriety in the 1980s, experienced a subsequent career slump with a stream of direct-to-video releases before making the inevitable jump to reality TV. He also experienced severe drug problems and had been in and out of rehab a reported 15 times.

What is it about gaining stardom at an early age that lends itself to a troubled adult life? Is it merely as case of too much too soon? Though they may not be earning as much money or working as many hours as their adult counterparts, child stars often have to shoulder the burden of adult responsibilities and many go on to crack under the pressure.

No doubt the fast paced Hollywood party lifestyle is also a factor in the destruction of many a young star. With drugs and alcohol readily available at every turn, is it any surprise that so many are unable to resist and end up going down that dark and twisted road?

The combination of adult sized responsibilities and temptations and young minds not mature enough to handle them almost always leads to tragedy.

Certainly Haim wasn’t the first child star to meet a tragic and untimely end. The tradition dates all the way back to Dana Plato of “Diff’rent Strokes” fame and includes such big names as River Phoenix, Brad Renfro and even Michael Jackson.

Even when it doesn’t end in suicide or an overdose, several other former teen and child stars have descended into lives plagued with career mishaps, drug problems and brushes with the law.

Jodie Sweetin, who played precocious middle child, Stephanie on the sitcom “Full House”, went on to develop a daily methamphetamine habit that expanded to include cocaine and ecstasy.

Jaimee Foxworth of the TGIF staple, “Family Matters” would battle depression and substance abuse, star in a number of pornographic films and eventually find her way back to television by participating in Dr. Drew’s “Celebrity Rehab.”

But what of the former child stars who managed to avoid the life of debauchery and depravity, the Melissa Gilberts, Alyssa Milanos and Tatiana Alis? What elusive factor do these success stories have that keeps them from heading down the path followed by so many of their costars, a path littered with drug abuse, eating disorders, DUIs and death?

Jason Bateman, who achieved teen idol status in the mid ‘80s with roles in “Silver Spoons” and “Teen Wolf Too”, went on to become the Director’s Guild of America’s youngest ever director at 18, and earned roles in such hits as “Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story”, “Juno” and “Hancock”. In 2005, Bateman won a Golden Globe for his role on the series “Arrested Development” as well as being nominated for several other awards, including an Emmy.

While his character Doogie Howser dealt with the pressures of being an adolescent in an adult world, Neil Patrick Harris was able to successfully make the transition from former child star to well-adjusted and established actor. Developing cult following from his role in the Joss Whedon Internet musical “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” and as Barney Stinson on the CBS sitcom “How I Met Your Mother”.

For the current generation of child and adolescent stars, only time will tell. Abigail Breslin, Dakota Fanning and Jaden Smith among others could all enjoy long and successful careers in the industry, could find their calling in another field (hello, Danica McKellar) or could go in the opposite direction, joining the long line of stars who burned too hot and fell from the heavens far too soon.

Free speech threatened on college campuses

On March 3, a Texas university football coach publicly praised a number of his players for removing every issue of the campus newspaper from stands because it contained a story on a teammate’s recent arrest on drug charges.

Texas A&M Commerce’s coach Guy Morris lauded the action as the “best team building exercise we have ever done.”

Though there have been no arrests made in the removal of the 2,000 copies so far, the paper’s Editor is estimating the loss at about $1,000.

At the risk of sounding callous, who cares about the monetary loss? There are much more important and disturbing things at play here. For Morris to condone any act of theft by his players (no matter how small) in unconscionable. Is this how we treat our college athletes, as if they are somehow above the law? Perhaps it’s good practice for when they become professional athletes and they really can get away with anything, and breaking one rule to cover up another violation will garner little more than a slap on the wrist.

Was the story somehow libelous? Was it not true? Is that why the football team took it upon themselves to censor it? Had that been the case, maybe their actions would be more understandable. Many U.S. universities have speech codes in place to prevent the publication of libel, harassment or hate speech, but unless any of those were present in the story, it should be allowed to be printed and remain on the newstands.

Perhaps it’s safe to assume that neither a football coach nor his players have extensive knowledge of censorship laws, so chances are the papers were stolen because of the potential negative reaction of the public when they discovered that one of the team’s players had been arrested on drug charges. After the glory of a 5-5 record last year, a drug scandal would have no doubt been devastating news and quite detrimental to the team.

Here’s news for YOU, Coach Morris and for your players; it is not up to you to decide what information the public can and cannot have access to. An arrest is considered public record and, as such, is available for public scrutiny as dictated by the Freedom of Information Act.

Sonoma State is now planning to release its new and revised free speech policy, “Campus Expression: Time, Place and Manner.” Though it’s not nearly as extreme as the theft of 2,000 student newspapers, it remains a limitation on freedom of speech and is therefore unconstitutional and unacceptable.

Place and manner aside, the time is now, time for students to stand up and ask why such extreme measures like this are even necessary. Is the First Amendment not enough? Why do universities and administrators feel the need to restrict the automatic rights granted by the U.S. Constitution? As centers of learning, of diversity and open-mindedness, it is imperative that freedom of speech (and of the press) exists unfettered and unrestrained on college campuses.

It’s obvious that Coach Morris was laboring under the assumption that he was protecting his team from potential public ridicule and perhaps even protecting the public from a story that he saw as damaging. It’s also seems obvious that universities with so-called “free speech policies” believe they too are protecting something, whether it be their learning environments by ensuring that nothing disrupts or threatens them, or their students, who just don’t want to be bothered by hearing or seeing anything unpleasant.

As all these shields fall into place in the form of restrictive policies and when the noose of censorship gets tighter and tighter under a guise of security and protection, will anyone protect the inherent Constitutional rights granted by the First Amendment or will they be slowly gagged and chocked until they are cut off completely?