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
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
John McCain Wears Flip-Flops; Sarah Palin Dons Scandals
In a matter of hours, Sarah Palin, known by a relatively small number of Americans - those under her neoteric governance in our nation's forty-ninth state and politically-savvy pundits alike - has become a household name. Palin's relative "hotness" according to Google, is volcanic. Indeed, just minutes after the official announcement of her candidacy for the second highest office in our nation, the number of searches for her name increased one-hundred fold; that, and she's probably the most attractive politican to come along since Margaret Thatcher. Now there's a fox! Me-ow!
Anywho, by choosing a politican who is not just a relative unknown, but one who has spent less than two years as governor in a state some forget is part of America, John McCain and his dogged campaign have accomplished four things:
First, they were able to run an ephemral story at the perfect time to refract any lengthy discourse about Barack Obama's historical speech 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. first dreamt of peace and harmony. It was one of the campaign's wiser moments. Second, by nominating a female, they guaranteed that it is not only the Democratic party poised to make history in November. It was almost as if, with this pick alone, John McCain said, "Hey, you don't have to vote for Obama if you want to be a part of history." Indeed, it is all but certain that, come November, for the first time ever, a team of white males will not occupy the desks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With this pick, John McCain and Sarah Palin invited those vacillating and disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters along for the ride. Noting that "the women of America aren't finished yet," and that they can "shatter that glass ceiling [the one frequently referenced by Mrs. Clinton in many of her speeches] once and for all," Sarah Palin produced her first rallying cry. Admittedly, it is an enticing offer for many women who know little about politics and even less about Ms. Palin. I will introduce her to you in a moment, but I wanted to briefly touch upon the other two things the McCain campaign has accomplished. By nominating someone whose political experience consists of being a two-term city council member and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (google maps, anyone?) before launching a failed campaign to attain a lieutenant governorship, the now-governor Palin brings nothing but a new face to the campaign. It also destroys John McCain's strongest argument about Barack Obama. For months, John McCain has hammered away at Obama's relative inexperience, while touting his own lengthy stay in Washington as a positive element to his campaign. He has told the country that they cannot take a chance on someone who, by McCain's account, is not ready to serve. Now, by bringing aboard a political newcomer to be the second-highest ranking figure in America, someone who has to always be ready to assume the title of commander-in-chief, someone who has not even been involved in politics at the national level, McCain's most powerful rallying cry must trickle to naught but a whisper. How can anyone in the McCain camp decry Sen. Obama for inexperience when their number two has even less than he does? How can John McCain possibly discuss Sen. Obama's lack of preparedness when his number two has only been governor for less than two years. To put it in terms the former PTA mother of five might understand: it is the political equivalent of asking a second-year graduate student to be an assistant principal; like asking a resident doctor to be the assistant to the chief of medicine. Simply put, it is not only ridiculous, but ridiculously insulting to those with much higher credentials. Lastly, with this token pick, Sen. McCain has thrust an unprepared Sarah Palin into the spotlight and has left her record free to be examined at will by journalists, members of the media, and those of us in the blogosphere. I promised you an introduction, didn't I?
Sarah Palin welcomed herself to the national stage by giving a bland, but informative, introductory speech to let the 299,000,000 Americans not living in Alaska get to know who she is on a more personal level. She mentioned volunteering for the PTA, being a hockey mom, and loving her five children - one of whom, Track, enlisted in the U.S. Army last September. What she didn't mention was the following:
- On May 22, 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that the state of Alaska would be suing the Department of the Interior for listing the polar bear as a threatened species. Her reason? The conservation of the animal and its natural habitat threatened the development of oil and natural gas. Despite many reputable scientists arguing for the preservation of the bear, Palin let loose with a revisionist history and a complete inaccuracy of the animal's numbers, saying "Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." (Source: http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html) Even the Bush administration did not go that far.
- July 2007: Matanuska Maid Dairy was a state-owned business. When the State Dairy Board recommended closing it because it became unprofitable, Palin fired the entire board and appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the company, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole. The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy, in a vain attempt to control fiscal losses, despite the fact that milk from Washington was already offered in Alaska stores for less than Matanuska Maid milk. Ultimately, the dairy was forced to close, and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts, but no bids were received. (Source: http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/mat_maid/story/9261530p-9176496c.html) Sarah Palin's clear lack of fiscal responsibility forced not only the closing of a once-profitable business, but the loss of jobs held by honest, hard-working Americans who happened to show her the truth she never wanted to see.
- July 11, 2008: Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down. The right of the governor to fire him is not in dispute since the Commissioner serves at the will of the governor, but Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann. Showing her penchant for never mixing personal and professional life, Governor Palin is currently under independent investigation to determine if she abused her power when firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. (Source: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/469135.html)
Ladies and gentlemen, please give Sarah Palin the welcome she deserves: a hearty congratulations for being only the second female in history to be nominated as vice-president, and give John McCain a handshake for committing political suicide. Sarah Palin, once America gets to know the real you, like the timing of your nomination, you too will soon be ephemeral.
Anywho, by choosing a politican who is not just a relative unknown, but one who has spent less than two years as governor in a state some forget is part of America, John McCain and his dogged campaign have accomplished four things:
First, they were able to run an ephemral story at the perfect time to refract any lengthy discourse about Barack Obama's historical speech 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. first dreamt of peace and harmony. It was one of the campaign's wiser moments. Second, by nominating a female, they guaranteed that it is not only the Democratic party poised to make history in November. It was almost as if, with this pick alone, John McCain said, "Hey, you don't have to vote for Obama if you want to be a part of history." Indeed, it is all but certain that, come November, for the first time ever, a team of white males will not occupy the desks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With this pick, John McCain and Sarah Palin invited those vacillating and disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters along for the ride. Noting that "the women of America aren't finished yet," and that they can "shatter that glass ceiling [the one frequently referenced by Mrs. Clinton in many of her speeches] once and for all," Sarah Palin produced her first rallying cry. Admittedly, it is an enticing offer for many women who know little about politics and even less about Ms. Palin. I will introduce her to you in a moment, but I wanted to briefly touch upon the other two things the McCain campaign has accomplished. By nominating someone whose political experience consists of being a two-term city council member and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (google maps, anyone?) before launching a failed campaign to attain a lieutenant governorship, the now-governor Palin brings nothing but a new face to the campaign. It also destroys John McCain's strongest argument about Barack Obama. For months, John McCain has hammered away at Obama's relative inexperience, while touting his own lengthy stay in Washington as a positive element to his campaign. He has told the country that they cannot take a chance on someone who, by McCain's account, is not ready to serve. Now, by bringing aboard a political newcomer to be the second-highest ranking figure in America, someone who has to always be ready to assume the title of commander-in-chief, someone who has not even been involved in politics at the national level, McCain's most powerful rallying cry must trickle to naught but a whisper. How can anyone in the McCain camp decry Sen. Obama for inexperience when their number two has even less than he does? How can John McCain possibly discuss Sen. Obama's lack of preparedness when his number two has only been governor for less than two years. To put it in terms the former PTA mother of five might understand: it is the political equivalent of asking a second-year graduate student to be an assistant principal; like asking a resident doctor to be the assistant to the chief of medicine. Simply put, it is not only ridiculous, but ridiculously insulting to those with much higher credentials. Lastly, with this token pick, Sen. McCain has thrust an unprepared Sarah Palin into the spotlight and has left her record free to be examined at will by journalists, members of the media, and those of us in the blogosphere. I promised you an introduction, didn't I?
Sarah Palin welcomed herself to the national stage by giving a bland, but informative, introductory speech to let the 299,000,000 Americans not living in Alaska get to know who she is on a more personal level. She mentioned volunteering for the PTA, being a hockey mom, and loving her five children - one of whom, Track, enlisted in the U.S. Army last September. What she didn't mention was the following:
- On May 22, 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that the state of Alaska would be suing the Department of the Interior for listing the polar bear as a threatened species. Her reason? The conservation of the animal and its natural habitat threatened the development of oil and natural gas. Despite many reputable scientists arguing for the preservation of the bear, Palin let loose with a revisionist history and a complete inaccuracy of the animal's numbers, saying "Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." (Source: http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html) Even the Bush administration did not go that far.
- July 2007: Matanuska Maid Dairy was a state-owned business. When the State Dairy Board recommended closing it because it became unprofitable, Palin fired the entire board and appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the company, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole. The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy, in a vain attempt to control fiscal losses, despite the fact that milk from Washington was already offered in Alaska stores for less than Matanuska Maid milk. Ultimately, the dairy was forced to close, and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts, but no bids were received. (Source: http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/mat_maid/story/9261530p-9176496c.html) Sarah Palin's clear lack of fiscal responsibility forced not only the closing of a once-profitable business, but the loss of jobs held by honest, hard-working Americans who happened to show her the truth she never wanted to see.
- July 11, 2008: Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down. The right of the governor to fire him is not in dispute since the Commissioner serves at the will of the governor, but Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann. Showing her penchant for never mixing personal and professional life, Governor Palin is currently under independent investigation to determine if she abused her power when firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. (Source: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/469135.html)
Ladies and gentlemen, please give Sarah Palin the welcome she deserves: a hearty congratulations for being only the second female in history to be nominated as vice-president, and give John McCain a handshake for committing political suicide. Sarah Palin, once America gets to know the real you, like the timing of your nomination, you too will soon be ephemeral.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A Call to Action from.. Disney?
Movies have long been an acceptable and appropriate form of entertainment; of ignoring the realities of the time and immersing oneself in the actions and words played out by characters on a screen. They are the modern-day scripted stage plays, providing revelry (or consternation) for those in attendance. Indeed, from Buster Keaton and Al Jolson to Brad Pitt and Will Smith, people tend to flock to the big screen to see larger-than-life actors portray diverse and disparate characters so they can disregard the fact that their homes are being foreclosed or that the choice between dinner and gas is a familiar reality for a few laughs or Michael Bay-esque explosions. Indeed, it is why movies like Stop Loss, Charlie Wilson's War, War Inc., and The Love Guru have proven to be unsuccessful box-office flops - people do not want to spend two hours and $11 getting depressed about the current state of affairs when they can simply flip on any dignified (read: non-Fox News) media outlet and do the same. That, and no one wants to see Mike Myers trying his same, tired schtick that stopped being funny somewhere after the 35th installment of Austin Powers.
Tangents aside, when I first saw the trailer for Wall-E, Disney/Pixar's latest vehicle, I was probably the only person in the theatre who was underwhelmed. While women, men, children, and two seeing-eye dogs alike ooh-ed and ahh-ed over what is possibly the cutest CGI character to be created this millenium, (after, of course, the human Princess Fiona from the Shrek trilogies - vavavavoom!) I saw it as nothing more than pandering to the children who are notably going to scream and cry for every robot-based action figure, video game, and cereal box toy that is inevitably going to come out, with subtle nods to parents in the audience who would have to sit through another humdrum animated movie (think The Incredibles or Shark Tale). Still, with a Rotten Tomatoes average of 97% and rave reviews from friends who already spent Hamiltons, my girlfriend and I decided that it would be endlessly better than the abovementioned War Inc. or the forced You Don't Mess With the Zohan. No, sir, I did not.
In short, Wall-E was the best movie I have seen since V for Vendetta, and although packaged as a movie for kids (indeed, the new Wall-E video game for XBox, Wii, and PS3 all but attests to its marketing) it most certainly is not. For at the heart of Wall-E is not just an adorable love story between two robots - the neurotic, magpie, almost Woody Allen-esque protagonist and the courageous, eco-seeking EVE (Earth Vegetation Excavator) - but a call to arms for anyone who ignores the ominous warning about the synthetic end of civilization. Seven hundred years into the future, humans have not only brought about the extinction of an inhabitable Earth, but spend their time plugged into a computerized viewing screen controlled by the Buy N Large corporation, which has become one with the global government. Because they spend all day plugged into their devices, humans have become fat, indolent, lazy, and have forgotten how to walk. Indeed, movies like Wall-E and books like Feed postulate a future that at one time seemed to be ludicrous - humans forcing themselves off of Earth because of wasteful habits, becoming dumber because of increased specialization, and creating an uninhabitable environments for themselves. Sure, seven hundred years into the future means absolutely nothing to us now, because all of us - with the exception of Keith Richards and Joan Rivers - will be long dead, but at a time when Earth is simply becoming too small - or, rather, people are becoming too plentiful - to handle the transience and disposability of our species, the time for action should be now.
We hear the mantra, "reduce, reuse, recycle" so much that it has lost all meaning. We think of "going green" and "sustainability" as corporate buzzwords because that's what they've become. Our dependency on foreign oil is such that we are fighting wars against our fellow humans for the black gold so that people here can use what once belonged to someone else. And we chastise kids for stealing. Be that as it may, our wasteful habits have gotten to the point where overpollution is literally destroying the Chinese landscape as it attempts to prepare for the Olympics. Now that we've filled many of our landfills to capacity, it is all but certain that the next venue for garbage disposal is outer space. Oh, wait...
It is considerably telling that in a world where conservation and environmental protection has become the new black, that companies that promote the reduce, reuse, recycle, rethink mentality simultaneously advocate a conspicuous consumption far beyong anything ever imagined. It's like selling snow to eskimoes. Now is the time where we have to take a look at our habits and ask, "Do I really need to be driving around in an all-terrain vehicle designed for the US Army?" "Is that disposable plastic dinnerware set from China really on my grocery list?" "Do I always talk to myself outloud?" For it is up to this generation, our generation, my generation, to not only fix what our predecessors broke, but to ensure that future members of our race, the human race, are not forced to imagine what a plant looks like or what clean water feels like. We need to conserve: buy local foods, walk or bike instead of driving, think durabilty over convenience - sure, no one wants to wash dishes, but where do you think your styofoam plate is going to end up? These may be small suggestions, but anything is better than spending a future wondering exactly why we didn't do anything when we could. Many people think that our planet is doomed and that our time may be running out, but it is never too late to slow down the clock. My suggestion is that you do so now. The only thing you have to lose is your celestial home.
By the way, go see Wall-E, it's an excellent film.
Tangents aside, when I first saw the trailer for Wall-E, Disney/Pixar's latest vehicle, I was probably the only person in the theatre who was underwhelmed. While women, men, children, and two seeing-eye dogs alike ooh-ed and ahh-ed over what is possibly the cutest CGI character to be created this millenium, (after, of course, the human Princess Fiona from the Shrek trilogies - vavavavoom!) I saw it as nothing more than pandering to the children who are notably going to scream and cry for every robot-based action figure, video game, and cereal box toy that is inevitably going to come out, with subtle nods to parents in the audience who would have to sit through another humdrum animated movie (think The Incredibles or Shark Tale). Still, with a Rotten Tomatoes average of 97% and rave reviews from friends who already spent Hamiltons, my girlfriend and I decided that it would be endlessly better than the abovementioned War Inc. or the forced You Don't Mess With the Zohan. No, sir, I did not.
In short, Wall-E was the best movie I have seen since V for Vendetta, and although packaged as a movie for kids (indeed, the new Wall-E video game for XBox, Wii, and PS3 all but attests to its marketing) it most certainly is not. For at the heart of Wall-E is not just an adorable love story between two robots - the neurotic, magpie, almost Woody Allen-esque protagonist and the courageous, eco-seeking EVE (Earth Vegetation Excavator) - but a call to arms for anyone who ignores the ominous warning about the synthetic end of civilization. Seven hundred years into the future, humans have not only brought about the extinction of an inhabitable Earth, but spend their time plugged into a computerized viewing screen controlled by the Buy N Large corporation, which has become one with the global government. Because they spend all day plugged into their devices, humans have become fat, indolent, lazy, and have forgotten how to walk. Indeed, movies like Wall-E and books like Feed postulate a future that at one time seemed to be ludicrous - humans forcing themselves off of Earth because of wasteful habits, becoming dumber because of increased specialization, and creating an uninhabitable environments for themselves. Sure, seven hundred years into the future means absolutely nothing to us now, because all of us - with the exception of Keith Richards and Joan Rivers - will be long dead, but at a time when Earth is simply becoming too small - or, rather, people are becoming too plentiful - to handle the transience and disposability of our species, the time for action should be now.
We hear the mantra, "reduce, reuse, recycle" so much that it has lost all meaning. We think of "going green" and "sustainability" as corporate buzzwords because that's what they've become. Our dependency on foreign oil is such that we are fighting wars against our fellow humans for the black gold so that people here can use what once belonged to someone else. And we chastise kids for stealing. Be that as it may, our wasteful habits have gotten to the point where overpollution is literally destroying the Chinese landscape as it attempts to prepare for the Olympics. Now that we've filled many of our landfills to capacity, it is all but certain that the next venue for garbage disposal is outer space. Oh, wait...
It is considerably telling that in a world where conservation and environmental protection has become the new black, that companies that promote the reduce, reuse, recycle, rethink mentality simultaneously advocate a conspicuous consumption far beyong anything ever imagined. It's like selling snow to eskimoes. Now is the time where we have to take a look at our habits and ask, "Do I really need to be driving around in an all-terrain vehicle designed for the US Army?" "Is that disposable plastic dinnerware set from China really on my grocery list?" "Do I always talk to myself outloud?" For it is up to this generation, our generation, my generation, to not only fix what our predecessors broke, but to ensure that future members of our race, the human race, are not forced to imagine what a plant looks like or what clean water feels like. We need to conserve: buy local foods, walk or bike instead of driving, think durabilty over convenience - sure, no one wants to wash dishes, but where do you think your styofoam plate is going to end up? These may be small suggestions, but anything is better than spending a future wondering exactly why we didn't do anything when we could. Many people think that our planet is doomed and that our time may be running out, but it is never too late to slow down the clock. My suggestion is that you do so now. The only thing you have to lose is your celestial home.
By the way, go see Wall-E, it's an excellent film.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.*
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.*
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Response to America's Proponents of Offshore Drilling
From Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA: Fox News was showing footage of people in Venezuela standing up to Hugo Chavez and his spy bill. In this bill were provisions for neighbors to be jailed if they didn’t tell on each other. The streets were filled with dissenters as far as could be seen. Chavez decided to rescind the law.
It is time the American people stood up to Congress because of its stupidity. We could have prevented the oil crisis if Congress had not been so obstructive to the president’s agenda. The bill on drilling oil should have been passed in 2001. We would be independent from foreign oil. Congress cares more about its hatred of the president than for the welfare of our nation.
In Venezuela, the price of gas is 12 cents a gallon. There also are very low prices in the Middle East. Hugo Chavez, Castro and Ahmedinejad have teamed up to wreck our economy. They are succeeding with the help of Congress.
John McCain criticized the president over Katrina. The president stood before the nation and declared a state of emergency for the Gulf Coast on Saturday afternoon. The Category 5 hurricane hit in the wee hours on Monday. The governor said she didn’t want federal aid; she wanted Bill Clinton’s FEMA team. Florida had just been through four consecutive hurricanes before Katrina struck. Louisiana now has a new governor.
My two grandsons have more knowledge of the problems of this nation than any of the candidates. They have nothing but rhetoric.
Gas prices will not get any better unless we drill and build refineries and ignore the EPA. We have to put God first. He controls the climate, not the politicians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to the American people who, like, Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA, who foolishly believes that off-shore drilling is the panacea to our economic woes:
The oil crisis was continued, not by a Democratic Congress dissenting with a hawkish president, but by the initial invasion of Iraq and the attempts to control the oil fields. It was started in the 1970s when the United States removed a secular, but non-western dictator, named Shah Pahlevi, in Iran, and replaced him with the despotic, but western-friendly, Ayatollah Khomeni. Khomeni, according to many, sold out his people and their resources to America, increasing much of the hatred they have for us today. Compounded upon that egregious blunder is the burgeoning demand for worldwide oil - especially by China and India - that siphons the Middle Eastern shipment to the U.S. causing supply to remain lower than usual. Additionally, with futures speculation on oil a legal loophole thanks to the so-called "Enron loophole" passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress in 2000, traders wanting the price of oil to increase for their own profits are going to invest millions upon millions of dollars into the industry to continue to raise prices. Finally, with Big Oil lobbyists fighting and pressuring an increasingly timid Congress to shoot down bills investing millions of dollars into new-energy technologies, the dependency on foriegn oil has never been greater.
Still, it is foolish to think that opening up our petroleum reserves and drilling in wildlife refuges is going to have a positive outcome for this country. The average money saved by each American by 2017 if we were to open up every single area to production and start shipping the oil immediately would be 3.7 cents. Read that again: 3.7 cents in 10 years. Why? It takes years to bring oil wells online, and even more time to begin the actual process of drilling. With all of the shipyards that build platforms - a two to three year endeavor - all booked up, it would take significantly longer, and may end up costing you more at the pump. How do you think the government is going to pay for all this new equipment?
Ms. Counts, your grandsons may have a greater knowledge of the problem than either of the two candidates, but if you are simply spouting off their ideas and mixing in some of your own beliefs, it's clear that your combined knowledge of solutions is nil. Barack Obama wants to end this country's dependency on foreign oil and is committed to investing in new, American-made, technologies - John McCain is, as you correctly point out, hype and rhetoric, who doesn't know what he wants. As recent as three weeks ago, John McCain, at a Greenvale, Wisconsin campaign stop, had this message about off-shore drilling to the audience, "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later." That was three weeks ago.
Lastly, Ms. Counts, if you are ludicrously suggesting that God, rather than wind patterns, geographical location, and atmosphere control climate, I implore you to do further research on this topic.
Hugs and kisses,
Sean McGrath
It is time the American people stood up to Congress because of its stupidity. We could have prevented the oil crisis if Congress had not been so obstructive to the president’s agenda. The bill on drilling oil should have been passed in 2001. We would be independent from foreign oil. Congress cares more about its hatred of the president than for the welfare of our nation.
In Venezuela, the price of gas is 12 cents a gallon. There also are very low prices in the Middle East. Hugo Chavez, Castro and Ahmedinejad have teamed up to wreck our economy. They are succeeding with the help of Congress.
John McCain criticized the president over Katrina. The president stood before the nation and declared a state of emergency for the Gulf Coast on Saturday afternoon. The Category 5 hurricane hit in the wee hours on Monday. The governor said she didn’t want federal aid; she wanted Bill Clinton’s FEMA team. Florida had just been through four consecutive hurricanes before Katrina struck. Louisiana now has a new governor.
My two grandsons have more knowledge of the problems of this nation than any of the candidates. They have nothing but rhetoric.
Gas prices will not get any better unless we drill and build refineries and ignore the EPA. We have to put God first. He controls the climate, not the politicians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to the American people who, like, Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA, who foolishly believes that off-shore drilling is the panacea to our economic woes:
The oil crisis was continued, not by a Democratic Congress dissenting with a hawkish president, but by the initial invasion of Iraq and the attempts to control the oil fields. It was started in the 1970s when the United States removed a secular, but non-western dictator, named Shah Pahlevi, in Iran, and replaced him with the despotic, but western-friendly, Ayatollah Khomeni. Khomeni, according to many, sold out his people and their resources to America, increasing much of the hatred they have for us today. Compounded upon that egregious blunder is the burgeoning demand for worldwide oil - especially by China and India - that siphons the Middle Eastern shipment to the U.S. causing supply to remain lower than usual. Additionally, with futures speculation on oil a legal loophole thanks to the so-called "Enron loophole" passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress in 2000, traders wanting the price of oil to increase for their own profits are going to invest millions upon millions of dollars into the industry to continue to raise prices. Finally, with Big Oil lobbyists fighting and pressuring an increasingly timid Congress to shoot down bills investing millions of dollars into new-energy technologies, the dependency on foriegn oil has never been greater.
Still, it is foolish to think that opening up our petroleum reserves and drilling in wildlife refuges is going to have a positive outcome for this country. The average money saved by each American by 2017 if we were to open up every single area to production and start shipping the oil immediately would be 3.7 cents. Read that again: 3.7 cents in 10 years. Why? It takes years to bring oil wells online, and even more time to begin the actual process of drilling. With all of the shipyards that build platforms - a two to three year endeavor - all booked up, it would take significantly longer, and may end up costing you more at the pump. How do you think the government is going to pay for all this new equipment?
Ms. Counts, your grandsons may have a greater knowledge of the problem than either of the two candidates, but if you are simply spouting off their ideas and mixing in some of your own beliefs, it's clear that your combined knowledge of solutions is nil. Barack Obama wants to end this country's dependency on foreign oil and is committed to investing in new, American-made, technologies - John McCain is, as you correctly point out, hype and rhetoric, who doesn't know what he wants. As recent as three weeks ago, John McCain, at a Greenvale, Wisconsin campaign stop, had this message about off-shore drilling to the audience, "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later." That was three weeks ago.
Lastly, Ms. Counts, if you are ludicrously suggesting that God, rather than wind patterns, geographical location, and atmosphere control climate, I implore you to do further research on this topic.
Hugs and kisses,
Sean McGrath
Thursday, June 19, 2008
An Open Letter to America's Automotive Industry
Dear America's Automotive Industry,
Stop. Please, just stop it already. With the price of gas soaring and no real end in sight, your ostentatious and misleading bravado undermines the average American consumer. The economy has been in a downturn since the end of 2007, families are struggling now, more than ever, to put rice on the table, and the usage of ethanol-based biofuels is the hot topic of the moment... so what do you and those of your ilk do? Show commercials that promote the usage of those same biofuels that helped to spur this recession in the first place. That, however, does not raise my ire as much as your biggest transgression: the liberal and unrelenting usage of the term "fuel efficient." It is, at best, laughable, and at worst, deceptive and harmful.
Back in 1973, Honda Motor Company introduced America to the two-door Civic coupe. It was the first vehicle to meet the standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act and obtained a remarkable forty miles per gallon. It was hailed by many as the standard-bearer for future cars, and many Americans rushed out to pay $2,200 for this upstart model. Considering that in that same year, OPEC had cut production to the United States directly creating gas rationing, shortages, and lines for petroleum stretching miles in either direction, forty miles per gallon meant that even though gas was at a hitherto high of 55 cents (the horror! *Adjusted for inflation, $.55 is roughly equivalent to $3.07 per gallon*) these ridiculously long queues could be bypassed with greater frequency. Think about this for a second: thirty-five years ago, Honda was touting a car that has since become the most purchased car in the world, that was able to achieve forty miles per gallon. Today, however, it would seem to any unknowing observer that we are awash in fuel-efficient vehicles: Kia, you have launched this admittedly clever commercial that exalts your Spectra for its "fuel-efficient" thirty-two highway miles per gallon (which means that city mileage is about twenty-five) - eight less than the original Honda Civic. Hyundai, you are developing fuel-cell technology as we speak, but it does not excuse you from this abomination in which you claim YOUR thirty-two miles per gallon as, yet again, "fuel efficient." Everywhere I checked, there was another car company claiming that their 22 miles per gallon car was "fuel efficient." That term seems to be just another phrase used by people to make them feel good and informed - like "sustainability" or "health-conscious."
I understand that in order to peddle your product, you must appeal to the consumer, and right now, gas prices are the hot item. But please don't insult the intelligence of those bright enough to realize that 28 miles per gallon is hardly fuel efficient for 1973 let alone 2008. Sure, America's dependence on foreign oil does not seem like it is going to wane any time soon, and the off-shore drilling that many in your cavalcade are proponents of will save the average American consumer 3.5 cents per gallon by 2017. It is time for the lot of you to get together and say, "Hey, the higher gas prices rise, the worse our sales are going to be. Hell, people are paying $8,000 for 1991 Geo Metros because they get 41 miles per gallon, why would they want to 'lease a [17 mpg highway] 2008 Lincoln Navigator for only $339/month? Let us promote policies that are in our customer's best interests, not the oil companies who just received contracts to operate in Iraq." You won't do it, though. Your hydrogen cars, water vehicles, and electric jalopies will take back seat to the slew of "fuel-efficient" automobiles sitting in your warehouses. Until you, the car companies of America begin to show real progress towards an energy-independent future, the American public will be at the mercy of big oil... at least until the reserves are depleted. Take charge, stop the pandering, stop the deceit, and most of all, stop using buzzwords... they're annoying.
With love,
Sean
Stop. Please, just stop it already. With the price of gas soaring and no real end in sight, your ostentatious and misleading bravado undermines the average American consumer. The economy has been in a downturn since the end of 2007, families are struggling now, more than ever, to put rice on the table, and the usage of ethanol-based biofuels is the hot topic of the moment... so what do you and those of your ilk do? Show commercials that promote the usage of those same biofuels that helped to spur this recession in the first place. That, however, does not raise my ire as much as your biggest transgression: the liberal and unrelenting usage of the term "fuel efficient." It is, at best, laughable, and at worst, deceptive and harmful.
Back in 1973, Honda Motor Company introduced America to the two-door Civic coupe. It was the first vehicle to meet the standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act and obtained a remarkable forty miles per gallon. It was hailed by many as the standard-bearer for future cars, and many Americans rushed out to pay $2,200 for this upstart model. Considering that in that same year, OPEC had cut production to the United States directly creating gas rationing, shortages, and lines for petroleum stretching miles in either direction, forty miles per gallon meant that even though gas was at a hitherto high of 55 cents (the horror! *Adjusted for inflation, $.55 is roughly equivalent to $3.07 per gallon*) these ridiculously long queues could be bypassed with greater frequency. Think about this for a second: thirty-five years ago, Honda was touting a car that has since become the most purchased car in the world, that was able to achieve forty miles per gallon. Today, however, it would seem to any unknowing observer that we are awash in fuel-efficient vehicles: Kia, you have launched this admittedly clever commercial that exalts your Spectra for its "fuel-efficient" thirty-two highway miles per gallon (which means that city mileage is about twenty-five) - eight less than the original Honda Civic. Hyundai, you are developing fuel-cell technology as we speak, but it does not excuse you from this abomination in which you claim YOUR thirty-two miles per gallon as, yet again, "fuel efficient." Everywhere I checked, there was another car company claiming that their 22 miles per gallon car was "fuel efficient." That term seems to be just another phrase used by people to make them feel good and informed - like "sustainability" or "health-conscious."
I understand that in order to peddle your product, you must appeal to the consumer, and right now, gas prices are the hot item. But please don't insult the intelligence of those bright enough to realize that 28 miles per gallon is hardly fuel efficient for 1973 let alone 2008. Sure, America's dependence on foreign oil does not seem like it is going to wane any time soon, and the off-shore drilling that many in your cavalcade are proponents of will save the average American consumer 3.5 cents per gallon by 2017. It is time for the lot of you to get together and say, "Hey, the higher gas prices rise, the worse our sales are going to be. Hell, people are paying $8,000 for 1991 Geo Metros because they get 41 miles per gallon, why would they want to 'lease a [17 mpg highway] 2008 Lincoln Navigator for only $339/month? Let us promote policies that are in our customer's best interests, not the oil companies who just received contracts to operate in Iraq." You won't do it, though. Your hydrogen cars, water vehicles, and electric jalopies will take back seat to the slew of "fuel-efficient" automobiles sitting in your warehouses. Until you, the car companies of America begin to show real progress towards an energy-independent future, the American public will be at the mercy of big oil... at least until the reserves are depleted. Take charge, stop the pandering, stop the deceit, and most of all, stop using buzzwords... they're annoying.
With love,
Sean
Friday, May 2, 2008
You May Be Wright, I May Be Crazy...
Back in 2005, the Terry Schiavo case garnered wall-to-wall coverage, with all major news networks showing the same footage of a moribund woman in a vegetative state seemingly looking at her husband while photogs and other hospital room intruders greedily snapped their camera shutters. Schiavo, as I'm sure you probably recall, suffered brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest back in 1990. The long periods of time she spent without oxygen caused severe and irreversible brain damage, and Mrs. Schiavo was fitted with a feeding tube to keep her alive while doctors worked tirelessly to find a cure. In 1993, Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael, entered a "Do Not Resussitate" injunction into her will based on the testimony of Mrs. Schiavo's doctor who claimed that her hope for recovery was almost nil. Twelve years passed, and Terry Schiavo, after being at the center of multiple court cases, was no closer to being cured than she was when she was first institutionalized. The legal battles between Mr. Schiavo, who desperately wanted his wife's hospitalization to end, and Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who claimed that their daughter could feel pain and should be kept alive, continued. In 2003, Florida passed Terry's Law which gave the State government the ability to intervene as a quasi-in loco parentis. Suddenly, the Schindlers and their right-to-life supporters were thrusted into the middle of a national debate with Mr. Schiavo and those who believed Terry Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed. Sure, the pain of one family could be put on display for America to discuss over their dinner tables, but the right of this person to have her feeding tube removed, as was stated in her will, was disallowed by an "pro-life" governor whose only interest in the case was his political career. Soon, the case sparked Federal interventions, through the Palm Sunday Compromise, and the raging right-to-life versus right-to-die debate exploded throughout the media. Almost exactly three years later, Barack Obama currently finds himself in a Schiavo-esque situation: he and his supporters continue to disavow any political or idealogical connection to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and hope that the story dies while his detractors and the media force feed it down our throats like a feeding tube inside someone who barely realizes its presence hoping beyond hope that some feeling is evoked.
The problem with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not his belief in America's lousy foreign policy being the cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for if that were the case, Republicans would have denounced Ron Paul a while ago. It is not his unabashed promotion of a vengeful and angry God, for if that were the case, John McCain would not have sought the endorsement of a figure even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. I'm referring, of course, to Pastor John Hagee. Why the Jeremiah Wright story is so powerful is because America clings to the notion that angry, black men sell. Americans want to see black men angry at their "white oppressors" and act out in a manner that gives credence to stereotypes and cuts short the notion of civic and civil progress. It is the media's continual harping on a story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a poor judge of character. Twenty years ago, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were married by a priest whose controversial rhetoric, while not hateful, inspired Mr. Obama to not only become a Christian, but run for public office. Using titles of sermons from which he, himself, drew strength - "The Audacity of Hope" being of the most notable - Mr. Obama won a senate seat in 2004 and used that to propel himself to the national level of politics. His bipartisan and transcendentally inspirational messages of hope, change, and improvement have not only emboldened millions of people to take ownership in their communities and to take part in politics, but they have encouraged and empowered people to believe in the future once more; to believe in America. Now, because of the attention paid to this story, and not to the issues that truly matter, Barack Obama is getting caught up in the old school politics of the twentieth century, and is playing right into the Republican machine and the Clintonian Democrats.
Hillary Clinton threw fuel on this fire, and now that it is raging and threatening to cause a foundational collapse in the Obama campaign, is calling on the same media who originally picked up on her comments to focus on the issues she had wanted to muck in the first place. This is the same person who questions Mr. Obama's judgment, for how dare he align himself with such an anti-American and divisive figure? Shouldn't he have known better? Perhaps he should have. Maybe a younger Barack Obama, upon knowing that he would run for president, should have realized that Rev. Wright's animated style would not play in America's sticks and he should have distanced himself from his family pastor from the beginning. What concerns me is the fact that absolutely no one has brought up the fact that maybe Hillary Clinton should have had the foresight to know that her husband was a philandering womanizer. Why should her poor spousal judgment be considered taboo while Obama's religious affiliation is continually called into question? What makes one person's poor judgment less valid than another's? Similarly, why has no one paid attention to the political craftiness of Hillary Clinton's latest story about George Bush supposedly allowing the outsourcing of Indiana jobs to China when it was, in fact, her husband who signed the 1995 bill. Where is the Democratic outrage when Hillary Clinton, a supposed liberal spender, and John McCain, a fiscal conservative, support the suspension of a national gas tax that will save Americans a whopping $30 this summer? The problem is that the cameras are all away, focused on America's newest angry black man, hoping that he says something else inflammatory to distract people from the real issues.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to end the Iraq War with a speech about God. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to turn this country's economy around and make America the economic powerhouse it once was by making remarks about the white devil. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to assure that all Americans have health care by talking about state-sponsored terrorism. America, stop pressing the snooze button on your alarm clocks and wake up! Barack Obama, the voice of hope, reason, and a better future, is being dragged down by partisan politics and the noise being made by a pastor whose fifteen seconds of fame have almost expired. Listen to the message of the man and not the self-aggrandizement of a person whose inflammatory remarks are made just to be made. This election is about the issues, it's about change, it's about real leadership in Washington... don't let that ideal become just another casualty of hope.
The problem with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not his belief in America's lousy foreign policy being the cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for if that were the case, Republicans would have denounced Ron Paul a while ago. It is not his unabashed promotion of a vengeful and angry God, for if that were the case, John McCain would not have sought the endorsement of a figure even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. I'm referring, of course, to Pastor John Hagee. Why the Jeremiah Wright story is so powerful is because America clings to the notion that angry, black men sell. Americans want to see black men angry at their "white oppressors" and act out in a manner that gives credence to stereotypes and cuts short the notion of civic and civil progress. It is the media's continual harping on a story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a poor judge of character. Twenty years ago, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were married by a priest whose controversial rhetoric, while not hateful, inspired Mr. Obama to not only become a Christian, but run for public office. Using titles of sermons from which he, himself, drew strength - "The Audacity of Hope" being of the most notable - Mr. Obama won a senate seat in 2004 and used that to propel himself to the national level of politics. His bipartisan and transcendentally inspirational messages of hope, change, and improvement have not only emboldened millions of people to take ownership in their communities and to take part in politics, but they have encouraged and empowered people to believe in the future once more; to believe in America. Now, because of the attention paid to this story, and not to the issues that truly matter, Barack Obama is getting caught up in the old school politics of the twentieth century, and is playing right into the Republican machine and the Clintonian Democrats.
Hillary Clinton threw fuel on this fire, and now that it is raging and threatening to cause a foundational collapse in the Obama campaign, is calling on the same media who originally picked up on her comments to focus on the issues she had wanted to muck in the first place. This is the same person who questions Mr. Obama's judgment, for how dare he align himself with such an anti-American and divisive figure? Shouldn't he have known better? Perhaps he should have. Maybe a younger Barack Obama, upon knowing that he would run for president, should have realized that Rev. Wright's animated style would not play in America's sticks and he should have distanced himself from his family pastor from the beginning. What concerns me is the fact that absolutely no one has brought up the fact that maybe Hillary Clinton should have had the foresight to know that her husband was a philandering womanizer. Why should her poor spousal judgment be considered taboo while Obama's religious affiliation is continually called into question? What makes one person's poor judgment less valid than another's? Similarly, why has no one paid attention to the political craftiness of Hillary Clinton's latest story about George Bush supposedly allowing the outsourcing of Indiana jobs to China when it was, in fact, her husband who signed the 1995 bill. Where is the Democratic outrage when Hillary Clinton, a supposed liberal spender, and John McCain, a fiscal conservative, support the suspension of a national gas tax that will save Americans a whopping $30 this summer? The problem is that the cameras are all away, focused on America's newest angry black man, hoping that he says something else inflammatory to distract people from the real issues.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to end the Iraq War with a speech about God. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to turn this country's economy around and make America the economic powerhouse it once was by making remarks about the white devil. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to assure that all Americans have health care by talking about state-sponsored terrorism. America, stop pressing the snooze button on your alarm clocks and wake up! Barack Obama, the voice of hope, reason, and a better future, is being dragged down by partisan politics and the noise being made by a pastor whose fifteen seconds of fame have almost expired. Listen to the message of the man and not the self-aggrandizement of a person whose inflammatory remarks are made just to be made. This election is about the issues, it's about change, it's about real leadership in Washington... don't let that ideal become just another casualty of hope.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
