Barack Obama and the Environment(al Economy)

After a pleasant debate with a friend and fellow Adelphi University alumnus regarding the environment, I decided to do a bit of research into Barack Obama's official position on offshore drilling. He, a proud supporter of Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney (who stands as much chance at winning the presidency as Libertarian Bob Barr and write-in candidate Howard Stern) lampooned Obama's flop-flipping and centrist shift when it came to this pressing issue. I supported Obama's call for environmental bipartisanship, but he kept up the assault, saying, "You're saying Obama doesn't support offshore drilling, but that he's just willing to let it happen. That's still unacceptable considering the urgency of the climate crisis." I agreed with his comment in theory, but I wanted to find out more. Truthfully, I was less than satisfied with the theories and articles that covered his stances, and found videos of Sen. Obama making promises that he will not drill offshore and then acquiescing to doing just that. With nowhere else to turn, I wrote the campaign, something I did before regarding the FISA Bill. After receiving an adequate answer pertaining to the latter topic, I expect a similar response to the former. My correspondence is below and when I receive an answer to my query, I will post it and hope that it adequately addresses the concerns I and many other Americans have.


Senator Obama and Vested Members of the Campaign,
I wrote once before regarding the issue of the FISA bill and received an answer that I believe to be most satisfactory, though without the stronger language I would have liked. That's okay, though, I understand that in a campaign season, heated rhetoric must be tempered with a more rational vernacular.

This time, however, I am deeply concerned about the seeming shift to the center when it comes to our energy efficiency and offshore drilling. Back in July of 2008, Sen. Obama lambasted Sen. McCain over his assertion that the answer to our environmental woes lay with drilling offshore. In August, Sen. Obama seemed to be more open to offshore drilling, telling reporters that his interest is in "...making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." (Source: CNN, 8/3/2008) Again, although I don't agree with the drilling aspect, I think showing flexibility is necessary to win major elections.

Still, one month later, the official answer from the "Q&A" page is borderline self-parody when juxtaposed with Obama's rhetoric on the environment under the "Issues" tab.

Under the Q&A section: He (Obama) has strongly opposed efforts by the Bush Administration to gut environmental laws and open pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Under the Environmental issues tab: An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

With all offshore drilling destined to destroy the natural flora and fauna of the area, and with Sen. Obama's position on drilling creeping from rigid refusal to gentle acquiescence to subtle promotion, my question is two-fold: 1. What is Senator Obama's official stance on offshore drilling? 2. How or will this be tempered with a more rational and friendlier energy policy?

Thank you for your expedient reply to my earlier query. I expect nothing less regarding this pressing issue.

Sincerely,
Sean McGrath

An Open Letter to America's Ersatz George Carlins

Dear All Ersatz George Carlins,

On Sunday, June 22, 2008, America lost not only a comedian, but possibly the last public figure who was not afraid to tell the truth: bluntly, plainly, and without hesitation. His bits were more than just a gimmick or angry tirades against an "unjust" society, he spoke from and bared his soul (although he thought such a concept to be ludicrous) for an admiring public. His thirteen HBO comedy specials is a record that is a mere pipe dream for today's comics, and his books, compact discs, and DVD sales have reached well over the ten million dollar mark. In essence, George Carlin was a person who came up through "the system," became anathema to the system, and used that same system to profit while still assailing it for its incongruousness and hypocrisies. He was a regular on both Ed Sullivan's program and the Tonight Show when it was still hosted by Jack Paar in the 1960s. He wore a suit and tie - since doffed in favor of turtlenecks, bell bottoms, collared shirts, long-sleeved shirts, or jeans - and was known by his fans as the clean-cut, funny wordsmith from New York. Carlin, however, felt alienated from his fan base and changed with the times Mr. Bob Dylan intuitively sung about. He grew out his hair and beard, donned the abovementioned items of clothing, and began steering his comedic materials towards topics other comics of the time wouldn't dare go near: Vietnam, the counterculture, drugs, the government, and, perhaps most famously, obscenity.

This, however, is not all Mr. Carlin should be remembered for - the now-famous, once-infamous, 1972 Supreme Court ruling "The Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television." Sure, it is perhaps the most well-known and beloved acts he ever performed, but to myopically look at the life of a legend and spend hours discussing one fifteen minute bit is a grave injustice. Now is not the time for all you choosing to pay homage to one of the greatest comics of time to personally crusade in his honor. Even worse, Carlin-lovers of the blogosphere, is trying to honor George Carlin's legacy by attempting to leave one of your own. Now, I am sure it is tributary more than profiteering, but it is, nonetheless, disgraceful and unfunny. The man already capitalized on the ridiculousness of governmental censorship - for you to claim his landmark work as your own is downright blasphemy. Take Linda Caroll's hilariously unfunny "Seven Words You Can't Say in E-Mail. No obligation? Free sample? Oh Linda, you're so edgy, I don't think even Fox would want to run the risk of publishing your hip work. Generally, I find cracked.com to be a great "lists" website and much of the writing is at a level more advanced than half the crap that passes for written entertainment these days. Still, I didn't think they would have to tackle "an updated version" of Carlin's work for a laugh that doesn't really come.

These are the tributes that aren't. Attempting to modernize an erstwhile comic's material is one thing... but George Carlin is not an erstwhile comic; he's a rabble-rouser, (he honestly rouses the rabble) a pioneer, a voice for those too meek or timid to speak out, a role model, a man who has more knowledge of the English language than many of today's writers, and a man who spoke out against not simply censorship and constant bowdlerization, but injustice, war, death, drugs, and life in general. George Carlin should be idolized for what he is and what he did, not for fifteen minutes in his life... to not see that is to completely miss the point of what he stood for most: integrity.

Yours truly,
Sean McGrath

*George Carlin, you will be missed, and not just for the humor you bestowed upon so many and the laughs that continue to come even when you aren't around to personally give them, but for the way you composed yourself, for the intelligence you had, and for the influence you held over so many people - comedians or not. Your brand of humor is what so many strive for but very few achieve. You, sir, are without counterpart, unrivaled in your unique outlook on life. Thank you for the opportunity to have watched you live, and for the opportunity to have watched you live.*