Snyder makes several arguments as to why he put the program under fire – and from the earliest periods of his campaign he’s made no secret about his intentions. Snyder has often claimed that incentive programs cause the state to play favorites, and it has been his position that the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking “winners and losers.”

Except by pulling the rug out from under a developing industry, the governor has done exactly that.

Already, Michigan workers are feeling the hurt. Several films that had been slated to be produced in Michigan, including Marvel Entertainment‘s upcoming big-budget blockbuster “The Avengers” have cancelled their shooting appointments in the state, which has in turn shut down all the necessary support staff and ancillary workers that would have had work as a result. With one announcement, Governor Snyder has cost about 1,000 people their jobs.

Since April 2008, Michigan has been offering media creators up to 42% back on their Michigan-based expenditures, on the basis that the money spent would circulate through and help revitalize Michigan’s struggling economy, as well as create fantastic PR for the beleaguered manufacturing state. On Monday, a new Ernst & Young study was released which found that every dollar spent in these tax breaks in the state lead to $6 in economic activity.

About $163 million in incentives were approved for 2010 alone. Considering that the money isn’t paid out until the completion of the project, meaning that Michigan pays nothing up front, that 600% return should be looking pretty good.

Of course, Snyder and his advisors aren’t looking at it that way – critics of the program claim that the incentives cost the state more than the revenue they bring in. Perhaps in a black and white, 1-to-1 ratio of income to expenditure, that may be the case. Michigan’s program is the most generous in the world. However, without taking into account the circulation of the money that’s paid out, and the taxes paid on each transaction that money makes, it’s not the whole picture.

In 2010, the media incentives were responsible in large part for creating 3,860 full time jobs for Michigan residents.

“The caterers, the florists, the furniture providers, event companies, tent companies that were only seasonal, all of a sudden they’re hiring people,” Ken Droz, consultant for Michigan-based Maxsar Studios and formerly of the Michigan Film Office told The Detroit News. “It’s an industry that has tentacles all over the place that you don’t necessarily see, especially on a spreadsheet.”

The study was reportedly presented to Snyder before his budget presentation, but clearly its findings were considered inconsequential. Opponents of the program and the study, like Mackinac Center for Public Policy, claim that the system is altogether flawed.

“We think (Snyder) should go further and eliminate the program wholesale,” said Michael LaFaive, the Mackinac Center’s director of fiscal policy. “Every dollar used to incentify film production is one dollar deprived to entrepreneurs and other people across the state for their own use.”

This however, begs the question. Other people like whom? Like Philippe Martinez, founder and CEO of Maxsar? How about Brad Wardell at Stardock? Maybe the several investors behind Hangar 42 in Grand Rapids? Or Sean Hurwitz at PixoFactor Entertainment in Royal Oak? They’re all entrepreneurs – but of course, that’s just one industry. Mr. Snyder has said nothing about Michigan’s incentives for venture capital and angel investment, which benefits the investment groups Avalon Investments and Ardesta LLC, both of which he founded. I’m sure we’ll hear something about this sooner or later, since the governor is so very interested in creating a “level playing field” and not letting the state pick “winners and losers.”

Here’s the bottom line. Rick Snyder knows business – he would not be the successful guy he is today if he didn’t. But breaking the back of a new and booming industry in a state that sorely needs one or three, is not the way to economic recovery. Any Michigan citizen is well aware of the budget woes facing the state, and the governor is required by law to balance the budget. Certainly Snyder has some tough decisions to make in the coming months, and I for one, appreciate that he has the stones to make them. But this at least, is a move in the wrong direction, and will hurt far more than it will help.

I’m joining my colleagues in the creative media industry in urging Governor Snyder to rethink his plans regarding the incentive program. We’re all aware that it needs tweaking and can use some adjustments, but to cripple the program means crippling an industry sector in its growth stages – and in a state that is itself crippled by unemployment and a deserting population, it’s not something that we can amiably ignore.

More information and ways to take action can be found at www.rickswrong.com.

Update – July 12: According to The Detroit News, Governor Snyder has officially capped the program at $25 million across the board, starting in the upcoming fiscal year beginning this October. Moreover, a project can now be offered lower than the originally promised 42% with no floor mentioned. It will be interesting to see if the state offers anybody anything other than the generally solid percentages offered by other state programs elsewhere. This, the day after Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signs a bill that enhances his own state’s programs, is a clear demonstration that the State of Michigan will only work with the automotive industry.

Maybe we can arrange for them to have a chat at the next Republican Governors Association meeting or something.

The first thing to consider whenever talking about any law regarding the regulation of games is the medium’s First Amendment protection. This was first called into question back in 2002 when a U.S. District Court judge, Stephen Limbaugh, ruled that they did not in fact, deserve such protections. This was overturned in 2003 when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, citing other unusual works and their First Amendment protections, and the simple fact that video games are a “novel medium” does not negate the right to First Amendment protection.

So fast forward seven years to today. Since that time, several states have tried to pass legislation to restrict the sale of violent games to children, and spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to do so, and each time these states have failed to make it stick. Why is that?

Well, it goes back to the very first thing to consider – games as protected speech under the first amendment. We may not like gory, schlocky, ham-fisted violence carnivals, but we as citizens have every right to produce them. To stop this would require the United States to create an exception in the First Amendment for games, which to date has only been done for porn, which one would be hard-pressed to equate games to porn. After all, if there are no Federal regulations on films, or books, why should games get set up for a metaphorical headshot?

Of course, no law as presented tries to restrict this: That’s true enough, but here is the sticker. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, we are guaranteed that no state may make a law that deprives citizens of our general rights, which we can interpret to include our entrepreneurial freedoms and freedom of enterprise. So logically, no state may enact a law that stops a store from selling unregulated material to whomever they want.

Further, to this point every law proposed suggests that government regulate these sales based on the Entertainment Software Ratings Board’s E through AO rating system. This goes against the Federal code of ethics, in which the government may not endorse a private enterprise. So that’s right out.

With the legal status of the laws or potential laws established, let’s look at the practical side of things.

One wonders how states or districts would enforce such laws, with many police departments stretched thin already, especially here in Detroit. Things aren’t as cushy as they look on Detroit 1-8-7. It’d be a waste of time and resources.

And further, the gaming industry does everything it can to make families aware of the content in the games they buy for their children. The ESRB has websites, pamphlets, point-of-sale documentation, shelf liners, all of which they distribute and are placed in stores to help parents make good decisions for their kids. It doesn’t take a whole lot of time or energy to take a look at what one’s son or daughter is asking after and determine whether it does or if it doesn’t have a place in the home. Of course, if one DID take more time on the subject, it could be a great jumping off point for some rather potent discussions between parent and child, and provide some great opportunities for parents to get involved and create some learning opportunities for kids. Everybody wins in that situation.

The fact of the matter is that legislating against games, whether they be violent or otherwise, is not possible from a legal standpoint. The furor that arises from this issue is the same that showed up when rock music first appeared, or TV and movies actually depicted couples kissing and Rhett Butler told Scarlett that he didn’t give a damn. It’s the same threat to our nation’s “family values” that was posed by Gangster Rap, and that “dilemma” was solved with a sticker.

Certainly there are games out there that kids should – perhaps even must – not be allowed to play. However, the answer to the problem does not lay within creating new laws, and new restrictions on our Constitutionally-declared freedoms. The answer lies in education, and a little bit of dedication and interest on the part of our families. Retailers as well, could do better in observing the ratings suggestions and in many cases – following their own corporate policies by keeping sales within those guidelines. Our legislators however, and our judges, need to keep out of it. They’ve got bigger and better fish to fry.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, “the new 35% rate applies to what is known as “carried interest,” which is income that only materializes if fund managers wisely invest the fund’s capital and only after other investors in the fund have benefited. Venture and private equity fund managers already pay normal income taxes on their regular salary derived from management fees. The carried interest, no sure thing, represents a capital gain on a successful investment and has therefore been taxed that way.”

Even better, the whole thing was couched as an addition to a completely unrelated research & development bill. House Resolution 4213, otherwise known as the Tax Extenders Act, is billed as legislation that “renews a crucial research and development tax credit, as well as tax credits for middle class families and teachers.”

And lest the whole thing be dismissed as scaremongering by News Corp., the Coalition on Human Needs highlights the bill in their report from that week, and the press release from the House of Representatives is right here.

This is the kind of thing that has to stop. In the press release, it states that “the bill, which is deficit neutral, is paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow investment fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than other Americans, and by empowering the Treasury Department with new tools to crack down on tax evasion.”

Let me address our elected officials for a moment: Friend Representatives, reclassifying a category of income is not closing a loophole. It is not even a ‘crackdown’ on tax evasion. This is rejiggering the books, pure and simple, and to hide it in this manner is shameful, and wholly unacceptable. I do not expect all our elected officials to be economists, or even well versed in economics or investment-related things. However, when attempting to pass a resolution of this nature, some education is paramount to the creation of quality legislature. So if I may – a capital gain is a profit that comes from the investment into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate. It is the very result of the axiom “buy low, sell high.”

Unless one wishes to claim that a fund manager is employed by the very companies they invest in, then this is not regular income and should not be classified as such. It’s basic stuff, really, but the need for clarification is apparent – so I’m just doing my part, my civic duty.

Thankfully the bill is only through the House, and it’d be great if this thing is nipped in the bud. But if the President is serious about stimulating small-business growth, especially in science and technology, then he needs to make that capital gains elimination permanent, instead of a mere one-year tease, and take steps to ensure that this kind of tax increase does not, and will not happen under his watch.

After all, the goal is to grow the economy, not frustrate it.

Update, May 2010: I wrote the President about it, and I got a response back. This is what it said.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing to me.  I appreciate hearing
from you and value your input.

Each day, I am moved by the messages I receive
from people across the country.  Far too many Americans
are struggling–falling behind on mortgage payments,
coping with illness, or losing a job without warning.  My
Administration is working to address the serious challenges
our Nation faces.  I am committed to taking immediate
steps that generate job creation and economic recovery, and
I am determined to make investments that lay a new
foundation for real and lasting progress.

As I move forward on key initiatives, I am making
my Administration the most open and transparent in
history.  Part of delivering on that promise is hearing from
people like you.  I take seriously your opinions and respect
your point of view.  Please know that your concerns will be
on my mind in the days ahead.

I hope you continue to explore
www.WhiteHouse.gov, which is regularly updated and
more interactive than ever before.  Thank you again for
writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

I’m not entirely sure he read my letter.

A smashed computer in a Tehran University dormitory, suspected of Tweeting news outside the country

“Kasra is dead & I don’t know where is Masood, lost him in the crowd yesterday.” So writes a young Iranian, formerly known only as “Change_for_Iran,” on the Internet service known as Twitter. (He or she has since changed their username to avoid detection by the national government.)

“I see many ppl with broken arms/legs/heads – blood everywhere – pepper gas like war,” writes persiankiwi, another Twitter user. “They were waiting for us – they all have guns and riot uniforms – it was like a mouse trap – ppl being shot like animals.”

These and other “tweets” – the term used to describe the brief, 140 character messages posted on the Twitter service – paint the terrifying and bloody picture of life in Iran after the June 11 presidential election, in which Mahmood Ahmedinejad was declared winner mere hours after the ballots closed, and opposition leaders claimed fraud.

In the days and weeks following the election, as we are now all aware, Iranian citizens took to the streets in riot and rebellion, decrying the current regime and demanding a true democratic resolution to the election, in which candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi was heavily expected to win by a wide margin. In an effort to crack down on the civil unrest, state-run media and technology attempted to put a clamp on the news escaping the country. Foreign journalists received “suggestions” to leave, cell phone traffic and MMS messages were halted, and Internet connectivity was heavily filtered. Among the sites first blocked to Iranians were Facebook and Youtube.

Soon Iranians, many of them students, began to spread the idea of using Twitter to make their voices heard, as well as coordinate the movements of their growing rebellion. For the better part of two weeks, these Twitter users were the only ones reporting on the status of the country and the Iranian people.

It wasn’t long before the Iranian government learned about this news leak and began to attempt to block Twitter as well. But at this point, the rest of the world began to intervene and provide private proxy servers, in many cases people rigging their own personal computers so that Iranians could use them as Internet gateways, to reach the outside world.

Government agents began using the service to spread misinformation amongst the rebellion, as well as attempt to track user accounts and discover these proxy servers, so to shut them down and prevent further unrestricted access to the Internet by Iran’s citizens. As the days wore on, users started to become more secretive about their messages, urging each other to watch what they say, and even going so far as to request that Twitter users outside Iran to change their location and time zones to Tehran, working off the assumption that the Iranian government can’t block everybody, and the more users they have to sort through, the tougher it will be to block actual Iranians.

While many throughout the world have found it to be heartbreaking, being able to watch and interact with these Iranians embroiled in a truly dangerous situation, but unable to help, it has also been a fascinating case study of the use of technology in facilitating what may well be a national revolution.

The shift in some users’ Twitter pages is interesting, such as in the case of one user known as “smileofcrash,” who spends his days complaining about his exams and anticipating the upcoming season of Lost, to reporting on the status of the injured and arrested during the pro-Mousavi demonstrations.

Other users’ experiences are significantly more dramatic, with persiankiwi and Change_for_Iran being some of the bigger examples. As persiankiwi writes about constantly fleeing from location to location, stealing Internet connections where she and her group can, uploading photos and videos of the day’s protests, and Change_for_Iran providing gut-wrenching descriptions of the violence in the streets, Twitter has become a place of riveting human drama to watch, unfolding.

While for the last couple of years, Twitter has been examined as a unique piece of the Internet, as the service has played roles in reporting the California wildfires in 2007 to the spreading of news, evacuation reports and shelters during the disaster wrought by Hurricane Gustav, the freeing of an American student jailed abroad and even its use by candidates during the 2008 American presidential election. Yet, skeptics remained critical of the service and its utility, wondering aloud who would ever care to use a messaging service so limited in its scope and service?

Critics have dismissed it as simply another outlet for Internet-based narcissism, for people to reach out for attention. The UK’s Times Online posted an article in February in which one clinical psychologist is quoted as stating that “Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.”

Another neurologist at the University of Sussex adds, “Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.”

And yet, it is clear by now that at this point, Twitter has gone beyond notifying one’s friends and family what dinner consisted of, or how traffic is on the 405.

It’s been said that the elections in Iran will be Twitter’s coming-out party, where the world can see just how revolutionary the service is to the way we communicate. Only three years old, the site’s audience has surged more than 1000% in the last year, boasting more than six million users as of this printing. Small stuff compared to other Internet services, but certainly that will be changing in the near future. And with founders Biz Stone, 34, and Evan Williams, 36, rejecting offers upwards of $500 million to purchase the service, it remains to be seen what kind of growth lies ahead for Twitter. Certainly, it is a Silicon Valleyite’s dream come true.

But for university students in Tehran, its value is much more elemental. It is the means to communicate, coordinate and in some cases, survive.

A young Iranian woman shows off her ink-stained fingers from voting

persiankiwi’s last posting was on June 24, where she wrote “in Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat – blood everywhere – like butcher” – she wrote again minutes later, stating “we must go – dont know when we can get internet – they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names – now we must move fast.” She signed off with “Allah – you are the creator of all and all must return to you – Allah Akbar - #Iranelection Sea of Green” – and has not been heard from since.

Change_for_Iran and Masood were, however, reunited.

As of this printing, the situation has yet to be resolved.

As it happens, he is not to become the next President of the United States.

Barack Obama, then, the former senator from Illinois, will ascend into the White House on January 20th to become the 44th president of our nation. His story is history, and if for no other reason after the next four to eight years, we will remember him for that. Depending on who you ask, he will be the first biracial, or the first black president of our country. Either way you look at it, it is a tremendous step forward for the United States in terms of racial equality and perception.

But that is, of course, a non-issue in the greater scheme of things. That is not to say that what his achievement means to the issue of civil rights and race relations is to be diminished or trivialized in any way, far from it. Rather it is a credit both to him and to the nation, that instead of dwelling on what it means to have a man of African descent as Commander-in-Chief, the focus can instead be on what really matters. Restoring strength to the country’s economy, managing our military conflicts and the stabilization of the Middle East and western Asia, renewing America’s efforts toward energy independence and preparing the country to again take the lead in technological and scientific innovation.

What, then, can we hope to see from this man after he is inaugurated in the early days of 2009?

Unlike many Republicans and Republican-leaning centrists, I do not look at this as a portent of disaster ahead. Though, as Obama said in his acceptance speech, “there will be sacrifice.” Already I have seen damage done as a result of President-elect Obama’s stated policies, in this case the intent to raise the Capital Gains tax. A good friend of mine, a realtor, lost a number of his listings as clients decided not to pursue a real estate sale, knowing their net profit would not be worth the sale of their holdings. This mass drawback of listings may cost him his job. I suspect he isn’t the only realtor facing a similar issue tonight.

Yet, there are qualities that I do admire in our soon-to-be president, things that are worth emulating, things that are worth ensuring he follows up on. Obama has been an unusually tech-savvy candidate. In no other election have we had a candidate who is as informed on the issues that affect technology businesses in the way Obama is. Though President Bush has recently added a position to his administration to address the issue of copyright, certainly to the approval of the ESA, the RIAA, MPAA and other such organizations, it is the president-elect who has the right idea, or even espouses any idea at all, on such issues as network neutrality and the proliferation of broadband Internet connectivity.

He has also proposed significantly increased direct access to government officials, through the creation of weekly Internet-based ‘town hall’ meetings. While it is yet to be announced what technology this would utilize, whether audio and video options would be put to use or if simple IRC channels would be put into play remains to be seen, it’s a great idea that can hopefully be implemented effectively.

Moreover, Obama is the first presidential candidate – perhaps appropriately at this point in history – to leverage technology to unite his supporters and rally them. Some have called him the first Web 2.0 candidate. It’s certainly true that Barack Obama had a better website than John McCain, but Obama went a step further, utilizing SMS messages, and even the development of unique applications for Apple’s iPhone and iPod touch devices. Without a doubt, this is the future of the political campaign. There will not be a viable candidate in the future who does not make use of these vital pieces of technology.

Obama has proposed, no, promised trillions of dollars in new spending on new programs. It is unavoidable, the money will have to come from somewhere. That ‘somewhere’ is the pocket of the American taxpayer – all of them. Despite his promises to the contrary, taxes will have to go up. These promises must be broken in order to fulfill his other ones. Promises of national health care, free money for college, funding for the arts and sciences. Everybody wants these things in some way, but the money must come from somewhere.

As a business owner, I am not as troubled as others may be. My company is structured as a C-corporation, so its income is not tied to my own. And I am okay with saying so publically, my income will not cross any of the thresholds Obama or his associates have stated would be the bar for a tax increase – or as they put it, a “restoration” to Clinton-era levels. (Which, after eight years of lowered taxes, is hard to take seriously as anything but an increase.) Though we all know by now, sole proprietors, limited partnerships and S-corporations will be fair game, and will suffer under Obama’s proposed tax policies.

I believe we will see a lot of incorporations before the end of 2008 as a result.

There’s nothing wrong with that.

After all, as patriotic as it is to pay more taxes, most Americans rightly know they are already patriotic enough, by that barometer.

It is important to note that we are not necessarily headed for a silver-lined Morning in America however, despite what Obama’s iconic logo would have us believe. Most states have elected Democratic representatives and senators, and indeed even on the federal level the Senate is only 60 Republican seats away from a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.

There is nobody who can rightly believe that uncontested power is good for a democratic nation. For the last two years, there has been a Democratic majority and it has been the least-approved of, least accomplished Congress in history. Many of the old players of our most recent boondoggles, vis a vis the housing market and the Freddie and Fannie flops, like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank will still be around. Except now they’ll have even more support.

With a Democratic executive, a Democratic legislative, a likely-to-become Democratic judicial and many Democratic-leaning states, one wonders how our celebrated system of checks and balances will hold up in the years to come. This is an issue we must be vigilant about. Not for partisanship, not out of fear for what may come to pass that we disagree with, but more for the vital underpinnings of what makes our system of government work best, what enables us to enact such a smooth transition of power and that such a transition can even occur. For one ideology to rule utterly, that is no longer a democracy and it would behoove us to remain keenly aware of the fact.

Ultimately, we as Americans must take care to remember that the election season is over – we are no longer divided by the goal of the electorate, but are again bound by the indissoluable ties of nationality. Again we have but one overarching goal, and that is to improve and perfect our wonderous Union. Whether that be by improving our businesses, improving our relations with each other, improving our families or our communities, that is the goal we must now share.

If one might be inclined to shy away from this new president, let them at least embrace one thing: it is time to put away the pettiness of partisanship, so that we can work together toward a common goal. Should you not care for the man, at least respect the virtue his office. I think the man who will be president has espoused at least this one goal, of which we can all get behind with open minds and whole hearts.

Though Barkley has some interesting ideas on the American presidency – notably that the American president, despite being the most powerful person in the free world, does not have an impact on a person’s day to day life. I call this an interesting idea, because lately it seems that by and large, a lot of folks have this weird belief that President Bush has been climbing into their window at night and sucking their blood or something. Though I do believe Barkley takes the notion a little too far, as he continues to say “realistically, whoever the president is doesn’t have a huge effect on anybody’s life, to be honest with you.”

Noting the intended policy decisions by both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain in this current election, I think this could not be further from the truth. In a world where a President Obama would levy increased taxes on the population making anywhere from $42k-$300k per year, where fees would be inflicted on companies that don’t provide health care despite paying additional taxes to provide for the nationalized program, or where a President McCain would tax health care benefits for the first time in history, there are very real effects that the average citizen would experience, acutely and directly.

Barkley does make a number of good points with regard to race and education. Being but a stone’s throw outside the Detroit Public School system, his points are more keenly felt. In the wake of a shooting death at one of the local high school, Barkley’s point that “(unless) we as black people stop killing each other, not getting our education, we have to do better. Racism does exist. It is always going to exist, but until we as a people stop killing each other and stop not getting our education we are never going to be successful” hits harder than ever. He isn’t just speaking for his home state of Alabama. A similar cancer plagues Michigan, it plagues Louisiana, it plagues even our major cities like Los Angeles and New York.

Though he’s no economist – Barkley makes no bones about how the Republican party “ran (this) economy into the ground.” It’s not for a complete lack of awareness, I think Mr. Barkley simply buys into the Democratic party line that the Republican president caused all our woes, when in fact congressional and house Republicans have been pushing for years to enact the regulation which would have forestalled if not prevented the economic crisis we now face. Of course, regulation is not necessarily a Republican precept, so it’s understandable that one might not quickly come to such a conclusion, but the evidence is out there.

Regardless, overall I could get behind a Barkley administration. His heart seems to be in the right place and with the right state advisors behind him, I think he could make some good things happen regardless of ideology. One doesn’t need to be a Liberal or a Conservative to want better schools for our children and better economic opportunities for our citizens. It’s not a bipartisan issue to want to improve our states and bring up the level of our general welfare.

It’s not even a political thing. It’s an American thing.

And now here they are, posting illegally-obtained emails from Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s personal email accounts. Private family photos. Personal email contact lists, including her husband, and other family friends. Phone numbers of her children. (who all but one are minors, by the way)

The accounts have since been taken down, and while Imageshack and 4chan – where the group who claims responsibility was formed – had them for awhile, those have since been removed as well. But Gawker, knowing that this information was obtained illegally, and knowing that this information serves zero purpose in exposing any alleged use of personal email for state business. They’ve gone ahead and posted this stuff for the sole purpose of being spiteful and hurtful, because their authors’ and/or editors’ politics don’t mesh with hers. Gawker, which has spent so long masquerading as a legitimate media group has shown itself for what it really is, little more than a garbage tabloid. Except I don’t think even the National Inquirer would run this story.

As far as I’m concerned, this is beyond low.

I may display a little partisan bias here, in noting that you never see this kind of behavior displayed on behalf of the Republican party. You never see costumed idiots rushing the stage at the Democratic speeches and conventions. You never hear about the families of Democratic officials being dragged out into the public eye, the way Governor Palin’s has this last month. (And let’s leave the Kennedys out of this, most of them are officials themselves, and Billy Carter reveled in his own infamy, as did Roger Clinton.)

But I will promise you this, reader: Had it been Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi I’d be equally angry.

I am angry because this is not the political process. It is not even the process of justice, if one believes there is justice that needs to be served to this woman. It is simply the result of blind fanaticism, taken to a foolish and idiotic extreme, all in the name of readership numbers.

I am angry at the hypocrisy in the Internet ‘elite’, who clamor for privacy in all things only to lash out and violate someone else’s.

And I am angry at Gawker, for stooping to this level. While some will say that “they’re only a bunch of blogs,” I think it is reasonable to say that blogs have long become mainstream enough media that as long as they are breaking original stories, they should be beholden to the same rules of journalistic integrity as any other media employee.

This won’t blow over anytime soon, as far as I’m concerned. I hope other people will see this issue for what it is as I do. I hope people stop patronizing their sites and providing them ad revenue. I hope people stop providing them with readers to justify their banner pricing. Their behavior is no way to run a media organization.

I would just as soon get my news coverage from Perez Hilton. At least with that dude you know what you’re getting into.