Some of my favorite topics don't currently inspire much motivation in me. Although I'll continue to write about them, and enthusiasm will return, it's hard to pump up the cheerleading squad when an issue's outcome is mostly pre-ordained.

The next raunchy expression or inappropriate show of skin could cost a radio or television broadcaster up to $325,000 in fines under a bill heading toward congressional passage.

The House is to vote Wednesday on the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which would increase maximum fines the Federal Communications Commission can levy for indecent material on the airwaves tenfold from the current top punishment of $32,500.

The Senate approved the legislation last month and the president is expected to sign it into law.

I suppose showing a same-sex marriage on television will soon constitute obscenity. Until we get politicians who care more about the Constitution and liberty, and less about ideology and pandering to specific constituents, the fight seems almost worthless. I can mention the First Amendment 500 times, but this lack of logic is all the passes for justification today:

"By raising the fines to $325,000, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope, and our kids will be better for it," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.

How will our kids be better for it? By not learning about boundaries because they're never experienced? By learning that boundaries are to be artificially placed by authority rather than self-monitored by the logical consequences of an action in the framework of a free society? I'm sure those are the best lessons to teach our children to preserve the Union.

Not to mention:

Tougher penalties for broadcast indecency violations have been a high priority of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, which said the bill would go "a long way in raising that cost for the networks that violate decency standards in a quest for higher ratings."

Or it'll go a short way in pushing "indecent" material to pay services. While I'm comfortable with paying for entertainment as a business model, it should be within a Constitutional boundary. Buying Howard Stern on Sirius is excellent as a delivery channel, since I can listen when I want, but it's a bastardized interpretation of the Constitution that's gotten us to this point. That needs to stop, but I don't know when we'll replace our politicians with leaders. Until then, bastardized¹ is better than ignored.

¹ Bastardized only applies to the Congress. The Executive branch is beyond the "ignored" stage. That is desecration at its worst. Congressional inaction on the administration's activities borders on the same. As only splitting hairs allows me to separate the two.