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.*

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

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

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.

If Britney Spears Were Dessert, We'd All Be Morbidly Obese

Gluttons. Americans are notorious for their continual and unrelenting consumption of empty calories, and unwholesome and synthetic foods yielding little more than lethargy and bad gas. Enter Britney Spears. For years, we have watched this one-time teen icon grow from Mickey Mouse princess to a sultry pop queen, posing in magazines ranging from Glamour and the New Yorker to High Times and Cat Fancy (okay, not really.) Five years removed from her tantalizing open-mouthed kiss with Madonna at the MTV Video Music Awards, Britney heard the collective groans of program watchers nationwide as she schlubbed her way through moves choreographed for toddlers at the Mommy and Me Dance Classes offered Friday afternoons at Gymboree. So what is it about Britney Spears that has made her fall from grace so ungraceful? The answer lies with you, the television viewer.

You were there when she asked you to hit her, baby, one more time. Sure, you shook your head and wondered how a sixteen year old girl could possibly be a role model to her peers, but secretly, you recorded the music video to add to your own collection. You couldn't get enough - we couldn't get enough. Britney was our breakfast and we were having the best morning ever.

She realized, however, that the same people who loved her for wearing that skimpy little school-girl outfit were the same people who were outgrowing the uniforms of their own: going to college, getting a job, etc. So, Britney altered her music slightly, and brought with it a lovesick feeling experienced by many college-aged females (and males). In one video, she even drowned herself in a bathtub to show how a lack of love has left her for dead. This borderline-artistic symbolism was not lost on many people, and Britney became even more loved and admired as she was "able to transcend the girl-pop genre" and become more than just another pretty face. Article touting weight-loss with "The Britney Spears Diet," websites with Britney fan-fiction stories, and magazines exposing every facet of her life to a hungry and ravenous public were soon commonplace. As Britney grew up, so did we; our breakfast became our lunch, and the afternoon wasn't looking so long after all.

Soon after her (obviously) public break-up with *NSYNC lead singer Justin Timberlake, Britney hit a downward spiral Trent Reznor could only hope to sing about: abusing Starbucks and cocaine on a regular basis, showing her va-jay-jay in a manner most unbecoming, and, perhaps worst of all, marrying, procreating with, and subsequently divorcing hip-hop megastar, wrestler, and disc jockey, Kevin Federline. "What is she thinking?" You'd ask yourself as you passed by yet another magazine stand excoriating Britney for her poor parenting skills. You'd claim to have better judgment than she, but ultimately it was you, not her, who paid $4.50 for sixteen pages of Britney in various scandals so you could place it on your treadmill and walk off the dinner consisting of Ms. Spears and her pitfalls. You'd call your cousin and discuss the reasons why Britney shaved her head; you'd talk to your parents about Britney going berzerk on the paparazzi. You'd even speak to your spouse or significant other about the "terrible life those kids are going to have." You'd be stumped, however, when asked why America was in Iraq, or what the name of the current Secretary of State is. Things are exactly as they should be.

We as consumers of popular culture see our beloved celebrities as expendable. We'll eat what they're serving and encourage them to give us more, even if we're completely full. It's the reason why channels like E! and Oxygen do so well. We force them to stay in the spotlight and show us their bajingoes so we can judge and admoish them for their poor habits and choices. Sure, celebrites chose to be in the spotlight, but thinking of them as chattel for our own personal entertainment is irresponsible and does little but make news out of the mundane. The government wants us to stay complacent and hopes that we watch every drop of Starbucks coffee that falls from Britney's lap as she's driving, because it means that our attention is diverted from the real issues: 9/11 truth, war, recessions, the environment... The more ignorant we are, the easier it is for intelligent views to be labeled as leftist or conspiratorial. My suggestion? Put down that second serving of Britney and pick up that first dose of relevance courtesy of your local newspaper, because in the grand scheme of things, the Spears clan will be but a remnant of an era past while the current events could shape generations to come. Which would you rather be a part of?

I Was Going To Give This Post a Title, But Then I Got High and Supported Terrorism Instead*

It seems that ever since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency, there have been myriad half-hearted and inane attempts to derail his campaign with audacious accusations about his character. Fox News has been the biggest supporter of impugning Obama, claiming that he not only has Hussein as his middle name (gasp!), went to a "Muslim school" in the Philippines, (no, not Muslim!) and is... (mothers, you may want to turn your children away from the computer screen at this point) a smoker! That's right! "Mr. Change" himself is not only one step away from being a full-fledged supporter of Al Qaeda, but if he's not opposed to slow suicide via cigarettes, what else could he be hiding?! A hidden moustache? A connection to the Nazi party? Walt Disney's head?? C'mon. This line of thinking is elementary at best. In fact, a fifth grader being taught deductive reasoning for the first time could see through these tenuous arguments. This smoke-and-mirrors tactic is what Fox News does best: blind its audience with extremist American fervor, rile them up to the level of "blind patriot" and spoon-feed them the news that couldn't be fair and balanced if it were a white woman standing in the middle of the Liberty scales. As he is a freshman senator from Illinois, his record is cleaner than most, which means these neoconservatives have to go digging deep. The latest news item from the "always American" right is the claim that Barack Obama was only supportive of decriminalizing marijuana when he wasn't a prominent figure in the public eye (i.e. before he announced his candidacy) and is now against such measures. In fact, even the most basic research will show those self-proclaimed dispassionate dramatists at the Conservative-leaning Washington Post (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/1001)
that this is simply erroneous. Barack Obama has always been the only candidate, and that includes my preferred nominee prior to withdrawal, John Edwards, who has been for the decriminalization of marijuana.

I think, at this point, we must ask ourselves just what the big deal is. Why is marijuana stigmatized now, as it was in the 1930s, with the moniker of "assassin of youth"? What properties, contained therein, are so detrimental to a person's well-being, that simply by being around them would cause great personal harm? The main ingredients in cannabis sativa (the plant from which marijuana is cultivated) are pistillate plant leaves and dried, aged flowers. The by-product of this flora is a chemical known as Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC to you hipsters) which, when rendered as a molecule, looks a bit phallic in nature. Just saying. Combining the THC inherent in the plant with the product itself causes an adverse reaction in its consumer: dizziness, nausea, mild hallucinations, increased heartbeat, increased appetite, reduced reaction time, and the ever-dangerous short-term memory loss. Perhaps these are reasons alone to ban marijuana completely and call Barack Obama to the gallows for daftly insinuating that weed offenses should be lessened. I argue to the contrary.

With the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937," yes, that's 1937, marijuana was made illegal in the United States. Increased knowledge of the adverse side effects of certain drugs, including cocaine, opium, and snuff led to this widespread ban on all narcotics. Spreading the myth that pot is a gateway drug, that increased use will lead people to "...tune in and drop out," and, more recently, that smoking marijuana is akin to giving money to terrorists, the United States government has spent more money to prosecute those who smoke the wacky tobacky than they have on the No Child Left Behind Act. Disregarding the facts that Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were born and raised, has over $10 TRILLION invested in the U.S. economy and that simply by relying on foreign oil produced by terror-supporting nations, we as Americans indirectly support terror, in 2002 over $12 billion was spent destroying marijuana plants grown in the southern Atlantic states, including Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. This continued prohibition of a drug with known medical benefits is absolutely preposterous. The War on Drugs has been fought continuously since 1937 and it does not look like the American troops are faring well in this one. Perhaps they should take a page out of President Bush's agenda and withdraw soldiers... wait...

The killer side effects I mentioned earlier are found, not only in alcohol, but in products consumed by Americans of all ages: sugar and coffee among the main offenders. Naysayers will claim that continued pot use will result in incurable lung cancer due to the carcinogenic components of the THC contained within. These same naysayers will make this claim whilst lighting up a cigarette, putting six sugar-substitutes into the venti chai extra-whip no frap macchiato beverage from Starbucks, cleaning their floors with ammonia and bleach, eating McDonald's french fries, and using over 12,000 other products that may cause cancer. The disease argument must be taken with a grain of salt that may or may not also cause cancer. In 2006, 13,470 people died on U.S Highways as a result of alcohol, with the number being slightly higher than the previous year. Yet, except for the ubiquitous Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), cries for prohibition, regulation, or even temperance were nowhere to be heard.

It is truly sad when people who claim that the United States does not have the best interest of its citizens in mind are starting to look less and less loony. The only reasons I can see for the denunciation of marijuana is lack of profit, lack of historical significance within the United States, and lack of complete knowledge about the drug. By telling U.S. citizens that they cannot do something because it is illegal and wrong is akin to putting a giant red button in the middle of a room, a la Ren and Stimpy, and saying, "Now kids, whatever you do, don't push this button." Yet, I have found that the continued criminalization of marijuana in the United States is almost directly related to social status. Naturally, those in poor, urban environments are likelier candidates for drug use than those in the middle- and upper-classes, and by persistently prosecute those who use marijuana recreationally, it allows a continuation of the class war within the country. Indeed, with over 250,000 inmates currently incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses in our nation's prisons, I think it's time that we take a look in the mirror, take a deep breath, relax, and press that red button. I think if you check your facts, Washington Post, you'll find that Barack Obama was most definitely a fan of Ren and Stimpy.

*Note: I neither got high nor supported terrorism before, during, or after this post.

Maybe Stephen Lynch Should Be Arrested for Inciting a Riot

Enough. E-nough. Ever since I was five years old, I could remember the vitriolic hate speech coming from the gullet of the Reverend Al Sharpton. Under the guise of political activism and civil rights, Sharpton's racist tirades and pointless hatemongering have unfortunately become the face of Black America. Courting the so-called "Black vote" means having to kowtow to the unruly whims and ridiculous needs of this potentate of preposterousness. Just how big of an imbecile is this "civil rights leader"? Jeff Jacoby of the Capitalist Magazine points out the following:

1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.

This is, of course, in addition to the now-infamous Don Imus scandal and Sharpton's latest smoke-and-mirrors tactic: boycotting the Golf Channel due to the use of the word "lynch" by White correspondent Kelly Tilghman. Tilghman suggested that golfers "lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley" to stave off his resplendent gameplay and top notch skills. A poor choice of words on the part of this former college golfer, but ones that were following with a formal and personal apology to Woods and all those she offended with her ludicrous statement. Woods, ever the consummate gentleman, and noting the mistake his friend, Tilghman, made, accepted the apology, and the two remain "on the best of terms," according to a publicist for the Golf Channel.

The matter should have ended there, but no. As the fire died down, our beloved anti-hero was there to engulf the matter with hate rhetoric and racist gasoline. Like an over-involved parent charging his progeny to cease play relations with a disruptive classmate, Al was there, taking a break from the job he seems not to have to call for the immediate dismissal of Ms. Tilghman. Calling the incident "an affront to the entire Black community," Sharpton claimed he would "pickett [sic] the station" if the Golf Channel did not force Ms. Tilghman to resign her post. Historically, the number of Blacks who watch or even flip past the golf channel is infinitesimal, and a Sharpton boycott would do more to bring in viewers than drive them away - after all, even bad publicity, some would suggest, is good publicity. This matter would be a non-issue if Tilghman happened to be Black. Indeed, there have been plenty of anti-White harangues from prominent celebrities both Black and White that received nary a mention from the Reverend. Among them:

Sonny Carson (black activist in New York, when asked if he was anti-Semitic): "I am anti-white. I don't limit my 'anti' to just one group of people." [Mark Mooney, "Ex-Dinkins Organizer Boasts He's 'AntiWhite'" New York Post, October 21, 1989, p. 3.]

"What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world." [REV. JAMES CONE- Quoted in David Horowitz, Hating Whitey, Spence Publishing, 1999, p. 44.]

Eldrege Cleaver (former Black Panther leader on why he raped white women): "Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women." [Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, McGraw-Hill, 1968, p.14.]

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people."(SISTER SOULJAH (rap artist and black activist [R.W. Apple "Jackson Sees 'Character Flaw' in Clinton's Remarks on Racism, New York Times, June 19, 1992.]

Conspicuous by his absence is the ever-dogmatic Sharpton. Indeed, instead of holding rallies or political meetings to figure out how to end the seemingly perpetual poverty much of urban America seems to find themselves in, or using his apparently infinite cash flow to curtail street gangs or even the aggrandizement of the gangster lifestyle in hip-hop music, a style favored by many inner-city denizens, Sharpton misappropriates his funds to deal with a slip of the tongue.

Al, my suggestion to you is to grow up. Stop playing race games that are no longer cute. Stop inciting riots and protests because someone is expressing an opinion. Use your intellect and intelligence and get a real job; be the beacon of light and hope for a Black community that, for whatever reason, seems to depend on you. Lead by example. Denounce racist and misogynist speech no matter what a person's race is. For all you spew about Martin Luther King, Jr., you sure don't seem to believe in the whole "content of character" portion touted by the famed and beloved Civil Rights notable. Apologize to the world for your political misguidance and become a reformed and respected leader. I think your reform, Al, is long overdue. The world waits on your decision.