I'm growing tired of incompetence in government spending, but it could be worse--I could live in Chicago. Understand, I'm a fan of swearing, and I only refrain from letting the profanities loose now to show a little savior faire, but the noble legislators in the Windy City have decided to elevate the penalty for public profanity from a simple citation to a fine of up to $300.
I would expect some cut-throat lawyer to come out and explain the city's decision with some complex jargon that nobody can really understand or arguing that such legislation will help America's youth become more moral and stuff. Much to my surprise, though, the Budget Committee Chairman simply came out and said the obvious: this is just to aid the state's atrocious budget.
Yep, he'd like to convince all Chicagoans that once the swears stop, so will the gangs, the drugs. But he isn't even bothering with clouding the truth. I immediately ask whether this marks the beginning of a "rash of truth" era in politics or whether he doesn't care to lie because no one will do anything about it anyway.
The hikes began last month and so far the moral police have issued 3,000 citations this year that have generated a cool $144,000--hooray for justice! Chicago hopes to rake in double that next year.
This will balance things out, though, perhaps even make up for the pay raise the legislators just gave themselves. The same sensitive fellows will raise the fine on several other citations, but I focus on this one because of the First Amendment.
The government seems to be stealing our constitutional rights. There's just one chink in the armor: Chicago legislators have also passed two policies regarding the First Amendment that have opened doors to guarantee liberty.
First, because of a May 2001 lawsuit field by the American Civil Liberties Union, permits for the right of assembly are now given for concurrent time slots, allowing for every protest to accommodate counter-protesters.
Also, the right of expression now extends to homosexuals, who were previously not allowed to show explicit acts affection in public. This doesn't sound much like the oppression the smoky-den conspiracy theorists speak of.
This does sound like appeasement, however, since homosexuals vote and protesters are good for press exposure. Neither of these policies will lose the state any money. States would never pass anything that gave the public a break from the consistent and omnipotent tax collectors we have enforcing the law.
Were the legislator concerned with conservative notions of ethical behavior through law enforcement, then allotting for larger protests and for formally "atypical" sexual expletives would be quite a contradiction. This shows that these laws against swearing have some ulterior motive.
It all goes back to the never-ending vortex of governmental funding. Act blindly, lose money and tax to supplement. The politicians aren't the one's who have to make amends for their mistakes either, the policemen do the dirty work, accruing even more appalling reputations. Along with the police maxim, "To protect and serve," we must now add, "to generate revenue."
I'm willing to guess that the people pushing this solution will never see this fine because of their political standing, so they don't care. The fines will never see the homeless and the vagabonds, either, because they cannot afford to pay it. Those fined are the same working class people who had nothing to do with the budget going awry in the first place: the taxpayers.
Since our budget is about as fearsome to look at as the Medusa, we might expect some similar action to come into play in Arizona. I may have to learn how to swear in Swahili, 'cause $300 is about what I make in a semester.
So, be assured that our constitutional rights are safe, just so those wishing to use them are carrying their checkbook.
Darren Todd is an English literature senior. Reach him at lawrence.todd@asu.edu.
