America Version 2.0

I woke up at 8:41am on the morning of November 4, 2008 to the incessant beeping of my five year old clock radio.
On November 5th, the same monophonic tones emanating from the tiny speakers roused me from my slumber at exactly the same time.
Nothing has changed.
Everything has changed.

Tuesday morning, I grabbed the familiar box of Corn Flakes - the one with Michael Phelps on the front - and poured a generous helping into a bowl awaiting its contents.
On Wednesday, the same cereal, topped with a delicious banana and a handful of withered raisins, hit the same bowl, breaking my fast for the day.
Nothing has really changed.
Everything has changed.

On November 4th, I opened the shutters to see low laying cirrus clouds covering most of the Metropolitan DC area. Rain.
The following day, those same grey clouds remained. No rain.
Nothing has changed?
Everything has changed.

A palpable tension was in the air on November 4th; stifling like the humidity preceding a summertime thunderstorm.
November 5, 2008: the crisp breeze of an autumnal zephyr welcomed me as I strolled from my apartment to my office.
Has nothing changed?
Everything has changed.

Yesterday, I worried about the future of America... I was wary of Americans' abilities to engage forthrightly in the democratic process, and believed that although our best days were ahead of us, we would be focused a lot on the politics of the past.
Today, I know America's best days are ahead and have regained my faith in this finicky system known as Democracy.
Something has to have changed.
Everything has changed.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, despite the rhetoric, saw America as a collective of bitterly divided states: red, blue, purple, and, in some instances, gray.
On Wednesday, those colors remained, but other, more presaging terms came to define America: bastion, hope, astonishing, great, proud.
Something has to have changed.
Everything has changed.

Yesterday, I went for a walk down a deserted street in Tenleytown and watched a little Black boy of about four being pulled on his arm by his mother. He stopped and tilted his head, like an unknowing puppy, smiling as he did so. The mother stopped too, but only to pick up her straggling son. Her puffy black coat, covered in coffee stains and little tears in the fabric, bore a white sticker: "I Voted!" it said. She continued to walk, glancing my way for the briefest of seconds... in that moment, I saw fear, anger, unrest, and wistfulness. In the second that our eyes connected, I noticed the look of anticipation, anxiety, and justice painted across her brown face. Our eyes disengaged and I strolled away. I was anxious.
Today, I went for a walk down that same street in Tenleytown, and although I didn't see the boy or his mother, I watched people of all colors and creeds sharing laughs, stories. A feeling of harmony was all but tangible and a tear came to my eye, knowing that this accord was only the beginning. Yes, poverty still exists, and will continue to exist. Sure, a walk in downtown DC will prove to anyone that homeless is rampant. A visit to any inner-city or rural schoolhouse will show you that inequalities remain. It wasn't Utopia by any means, but this... this feels different.
Something definitely changed.
Everything has changed.

On November 4, 2008, I waited with bated breath until 8pm, watching the political returns on close to five different networks and three different websites. I wondered aloud if America was ready for post-racial politics... if we as a country can begin to look past the exteriors that have dominated our social and cultural landscapes for almost half a millennium and really begin to judge one another, as Dr. King so eloquently put it, "Not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."
On November 5th, I realized anything was possible.
Everything has changed.
Everything really has changed.

Thank you, America. Thank you, Barack Obama. For the first time in seven years, I am proud to call myself a citizen of this country. For the first time since I can remember, "U.S.A. U.S.A." is not an imperialistic chant but a representation of this country's best. For the first time in my adult life, I am and feel like a true American. Hope for change, change for hope - progress.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the dawning of a new era. Welcome, one and all, to America 2.0.

A Break From the News...

Brandon Boyd from Incubus once beautifully sang, in the opening verse to the underrated song, "Consequence," "Blink and you'll miss a beat..." It seems odd to connect a 2001 song from an American alternative rock band to the 2008 presidential election, but the linkage cannot be clearer. It seems that if I neglect to tune into MSNBC each evening, I will miss something potentially catastrophic for either the McCain or Obama campaigns. If I don't refresh the CNN website every two minutes, I risk missing the "BREAKING NEWS" red banner that flashes across the screen as if I had just "won" a Nintendo Wii. All I have to do is complete these 17 offers? Sounds too good to be true! The news media has the attention of the American people, and have been holding it hostage for the past twenty months. Despite what the poll turnouts of the past eight years have suggested, it seems that now, more than ever, people are interested in the future of our country and the role they can play in its development. Sure, Barack Obama went back on a promise to accept so-called "public financing" when he was a longshot candidate back in December 2007, but once he was the presumptive nominee, and he realized that the amount of money that he could raise would far exceed the $80 million in taxpayer funds available to him through the Federal government, he opened his campaign to the American people. In the process, he has raised over $600 million, a whopping eight times as much as would have been initially available to him... but how? Through highfalutin events, cocktail parties, and million-dollar auctions? No. Over two million people have given an average of $83 each. It is truly a campaign that is funded by the people and run for the people. But my post isn't about continuing the election overkill, nor is it about lambasting the media for its nauseating reporting of every single pitstop, rally, or handshake performed by a senior member of the Obama or McCain campaigns. The crux of this post is about people. Random people making unorthodox, bewildering statements that I have overheard during the past two weeks. It really is baffling just what offal spews out of people's mouths and how willing we all are to accept it. For example, I strolled past this group of three as they were in the middle of a heated discussion...

Guy: "...fuck that mouse..."
Girl: "I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to eat its face..."

Perplexing.

Girl: "...and I threw up all over Scott, all down my dress and on my shoes, it was fucking gross."
Girl 2: "Oh, sweetie. Are you okay?"
Girl: "Yeah, I'm fine, my head just hurts a little."
Girl 2: "Awww... wait... which shoes?"
Girl: "The white ones with the bangley things"
Girl 2: "Oh my God, bitch, I love those shoes."
Girl: "I know, right!"

It really shows that as we wind down the last few days of this two-year long election season, people are really talking about the issues. Take this exchange between a parent and child, for example:

Mom: "So where is this stadium?"
Student: "It's right down there (points at building) to your right"
Mom: "Where, [Student's name]? I can't see it." (Mom pulls down glasses to get a better look.
Student: "Mom, it's right in front of you, we're walking towards it now."
Mom: "Do you think one of those Navigation things would work?"

And this exchange between a guy and his female friend:

Guy: "How could you do that?"
Girl: "So what? So I had sex with his five cousins."

I was mortified... and really, really curious. I guess all I'm trying to say is that if you feel overwhelmed by election news, by the McCain campaign's lies, by Obama's cult of personality... take a breath, go outside, and listen to people talk. You'll be amazed what you can hear.

I would be remiss if I didn't end this post with the following:
Go out and vote on Tuesday, November 4th. Vote like your health, your life, your present, and your future depends on it, because they do.

Barack Obama and the Environment(al Economy)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Sean McGrath

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.

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.

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.

It's All Fun and Games Until Someone Throws Up Dinner

Like any Nintendo Wii owner, when the plans were announced to release Super Mario Galaxy three weeks before Christmas, I was ecstatic. I'm nowhere near an avid gamer, but having made quick work of Super Mario 64 and really not taking too much of a liking to the Gamecube version, the anticipation was building. Everyone's favorite overweight plumber with the poor choice in clothing and facial hair would be, once again, saving the world from certain doom. I was not about to go barging into my local Game Stop and demand a copy be relinquished to me at once. I was going to do as countless other Americans when finding an item of interest with less than five weeks remaining in the year: I would ask Santa for this gift. You would not find me waiting hours outside my local Best Buy to procure the "limited edition" of a certain first-person shooter. Don't you think that if the editions really were limited that 750,000 people would be leaving the store, like you, $120 poorer and holding a multicolored cardboard box for your efforts? Marketing campaigns never cease to amaze. Anyway, the reviews online all claimed it to be the "best game of the year," the "one you can't afford to miss," the "reason to own a Nintendo Wii," the "sexiest female on the planet..." The list went on, as did the days, and when I finally opened the presents underneath my Pagan-styled Christmas tree, I was both surprised and excited to see a giant black moustache staring up at me. Once I cleared my dad's pile of 1970's porn away from my gifts, the cover of Super Mario Galaxy was something to behold. Despite my desire to play the game, my brother had just gotten Rock Band AND I was going to London for a week. Both, clearly, held priority over rescuing the infuriatingly gullible Princess Peach.
Upon returning from London, my girlfriend and I sat on my couch, both eager to see the "game of the century" as one ostensibly over-zealous game review put it. The story line needs almost no introduction, and really, I skipped it. The Princess has been captured by Bowser once more and it is up to Mario and his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to save her. The game looked awesome, but visually and, just because it's a Mario title, in terms of game play. The controls seemed to be fluid and upon entering the castle five minutes in, I was impressed at how Bowser was able to whisk away the Princess without catching the ire of her absentee father. Come to think of it... who is the King of Mushroom Kingdom? Is he married? Did Princess' dad get betrothed to a female Toad? At the risk of making myself out to be a larger nerd than I already am, I watched Mario get his ass handed to him by the undulations of the ground as the castle itself was yanked out from its presumably weak foundations.
At this point, Mario found himself in a world where he was able to run "off of the board" and onto the bottom of the piece of land. The camera swerves and sways along with him, and when I had Mario standing literally on the side of a grassy knoll and jumping in a manner that typical gravity wouldn't allow... I became dizzy. When the camera followed his every move, ebbing and flowing in whatever direction I chose to move our moustachioed hero in, I nearly vomited. I turned the game off and lay down on my girlfriend's lap, as I would much rather her affection than that of a computerized plumber. My head was pounding and I felt as if I had just been through a bout of turbulence whilst descending into JFK.
Perhaps, I thought as I lay there, waiting for the throbbing and nausea to subside, I have an unbalanced equilibrium... maybe I should see if anyone else has this problem with this game. I did just that, going, for the first time, I may add, to a video game forum. Unofficially, three of every four posts dealt with the nausea and sick feeling that one got while playing the game. Their solution was to "play the game for two hours and ultimately it will go away." Others chided those who felt ill with poor spelling and ridiculous intimations, "maybe if I tayed [sic] up for like 2 days straight and ate nothing but junk food and energy drink [sic] I might get one of those... otherwise u moight [sic] just be unhealthy or somethin... [sic]." Some cute Asian-themed emoticon usually followed, and I was incredulous. "Sure," they were practically saying to those not of their strong-stomached ilk, "get yourself sick, but this game is TOTALLY WORTH IT!" No thanks. I'm sure the game is fantastic, the gameplay unparalleled, and the storyline compelling, but I'll be much happier with my fifty dollars and sense of equilibrium.