With December just starting, we are now being bombarded, accosted even, by the relentless disgusting drone of Christmas music all over the radio. Everywhere you go every store feels the need to play the same 10 songs that have been played like a compulsive’s tick at this time of year since before I can remember. This year, however, we’re going to examine a few of these songs and go over just why they are so headsplittingly horrible and why they need to be banished from existence.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are a couple of Christmas songs that really are awesome pieces of music. John Lennon’s “Happy Xmas (War is Over)” comes to mind, along with The Band’s “Christmas Must Be Tonight” and Band Aid’s “Do They Know It’s Christmas?“. The vast majority though are cheesy, pieces of crappy music that really are only well known because they have the word Christmas in them.

The worst of these would have to be the song “The Christmas Shoes” by NEWSONG (from a TV movie of the same name, starring Rob Lowe of all people). This is a song I had never heard up until a couple of weeks ago, when it was played for me by a friend (Stellaluna, you bastard!) and it was then that I knew that Christmas music had hit a new Lowe (Screw you, Rob. If you are going to shit-ass TV movies about cancer and Christmas, you deserve a horrible pun flashed in your direction).

At least in the context of this movie, the song makes sense because it directly follows the plot. The fact that this song gets played on the radio is a completely different story. What a horribly depressing song to celebrate the “happiest” time of the year. The song focuses on a kid who wants to buy his mom this disgustingly ugly (according to the video) pair of shoes because she’s sick and dying and he wants her to look beautiful if she meets Jesus tonight.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t help but laugh at that one. Besides a brilliant advertising campaign for Payless, this has to be the worst plot for anything ever. He doesn’t have enough money, someone helps him out, he gets the shoes, puts them on mom’s disgusting cold feet and she “meets Jesus” which really means she bites the big one and spends the rest of eternity underground decomposing in the 5,000 casket that daddy will have to spend the rest of his miserable life paying off. Happy Christmas.

I think upon her “meeting Jesus”, Jesus would probably say something like: “Bitch, you’re dead! What kind of dick-in-his-mouth moron son are you raising there? He wasted all of that money he could have spent on meaningful things like booze and whores, on these ugly ass Dorothy wanna be shoes that frankly, I don’t even care for. I’m not impressed. Looks like the elevators going down. Say hi to Hitler for me, you Maya Gallo from Just Shoot Me looking wannabe skank.”

And if Jesus could speak to the little boy, he’d probably say something like: “Look what you did, son. Now Mommy’s in hell and it’s all your fault. And to top things off with a cherry you can’t return the shoes because you didn’t pay full price for them. All sales are final in Hell, sonny boy!”

Too far? I think not.

The point is this: This song sucks. Bad. It is not bringing anyone any sort of Christmas cheer, or even a new pair of shoes. It’s bringing everyone down. The producers couldn’t even resist dipping their dicks in the proverbial well of cheesiness by adding the children’s choir at the end to shore up the wrapping paper on this box of dog shit. When is someone going to stand up and call shenanigans on this song? It’s AWFUL. It makes me want to throw up green and red under the mistletoe (the red hopefully being blood from ulcers that I can sue the creators of this song for physical damages). Until that can happen, I urge you to change your radio stations. I urge you to x out of your youtube windows. I urge you to write your congressman (or Rob Lowe) and explain just what a detriment this song is to society. The truth is, it’s just really, really bad.

Fresh from the “No Surprise There” file, it has just come out that “Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Dublin covered up decades of child abuse by priests to protect the church’s reputation” according to a three year investigation. Let’s check out some highlights from the investigation:

1. The Irish government has stated that the result of the investigation “shows clearly that a systemic, calculated perversion of power and trust was visited on helpless and innocent children in the archdiocese.”

2. The Dublin Archdiocese attempted to get an insurance policy in 1987 for future legal costs and compensation claims, all while claiming to be completely ignorant of the whole situation. However according to the investigation“At the time, bishops knew of at least 17 priests linked to abuse cases, the report said, and “the taking out of insurance was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the archdiocese.”

3. “One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years,”

4. Three Dublin archbishops — John Charles McQuaid (1940-72), Dermot Ryan (1972-84) and Kevin McNamara (1985-87) — did not tell police about clerical abuse cases, instead opting to avoid public scandals by shuttling offenders from parish to parish and even overseas to U.S. churches, the commission found.

And those are just the highlights!

I still believe that the whole epidemic (and that’s what it is, an epidemic) of WIDESPREAD child abuse by the Catholic Church has not even begun to hit its peak. It will come out one day just how many thousands and thousands of innocent children were abused by a money grubbing, disgusting excuse for a “godly” organization.

Keep in mind, this didn’t just happen in one city, or one state, or one country, or one continent. This happened in churches all over the entire world. Any “believer” who doesn’t see that the Catholic church is a HUMAN organization controlled by people who DEFEND their own when they’ve sexually, emotionally and physically abused children, and make active attempts to cover up these horrific actions is truly a blind sheep who simply cannot think for themselves. Any believer who doesn’t see that you are being taken advantage of by a system that rewards child molesters, is a sad excuse for a just human being. It still amazes me that more people aren’t disgusted and outraged at this whole situation.

Widespread sexual child abuse from those supposedly close to God and active attempts by those in power to cover it up. Threatening the children and their families to keep quiet. Controlling the governments to protect themselves. Is that what your God stands for?

Happy Thanksgiving.

It’s 3:55 am and I’m tired.

I’m tired of the NHL throwing how little they think of the fans right back in our collective faces every chance they get. The latest fiasco to rock the NHL officiating world was the goal Red Wing Brad May scored that would have tied last Wednesday’s game against Dallas at 2-2. I’m not going to go into all the detail about the goal here (Puck Daddy does a pretty good job of it) but I do what to say one thing:

Even after the NHL admitted that the Wings had been robbed of a goal, they still failed to address the underlying issue here. The NHL officiating is so bad, it doesn’t even know when to call what. The intent to blow the whistle argument should not have mattered because THERE WAS NO REASON TO BLOW THE WHISTLE. Brad May’s goal went right into the net, not under the pads of Dallas’ goalie. Why is nobody saying this? Not only is the ‘intent to blow the whistle’ rule a joke worthy of a little league playground, but this doesn’t even apply because the ref would have been blowing his whistle at NOTHING. You have got to be pig-fucking-a-goat kidding me.

Why is it that the NHL cannot just come out and say: “You know what? We fucked up. We’re constantly fucking up. We have the least popular mainstream sport and for some reason we’re doing all we can to keep it that way. We are purposely ruining the game of hockey and turning off the die hard fans who are our lifeblood, because we are fucking complete morons with no sacks.”

Perhaps if they said that, things would at least be a little bit more honest around here. The NHL is making it really hard to be a fan and they don’t even care. I think those in charge are laughing at us, and playing a game of how much they can get away with right in front of us. If the NHL was a business, the man in charge (in this case Gary Bettman) would be fired immediately.

…oh wait, it IS a business. Fuck me.

Last Sunday, I had the pleasure of sitting down and watching a new episode of my favorite television show of all time Curb Your Enthusiasm. The episode was about several different things including women who wear shirts showing off a less than flattering midriff, not scooting over to make room for someone at the dining table and of course, Larry’s character having trouble controlling his medication-induced extremely strong stream of urine. Needless to say, three brilliant concepts to pack into one show. At one point, Larry accidentally splashes a picture of Jesus with spray from his strong steam and his midriff-showing secretary and her mother take it to be a miracle as it appears the piss makes Jesus look like he was crying. Hilarious, and a pretty awesome social satire in my humble opinion. Of course, some people didn’t think so.

Bill Donohue, the president of the “Catholic League” (what kind of sport they play I’m not exactly sure) released this statement regarding the episode:

Mention Larry David in a word association game and “Seinfeld” rolls off the lips. That show, which David created, wrote and produced, was brilliant. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is not. Indeed, last night’s episode demonstrates that David’s best years are behind him. He ought to quit while he’s ahead.

At one point in the show, David goes to the bathroom in a Catholic home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus; he doesn’t clean it off. Then a Catholic woman goes to the bathroom, sees the picture and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her equally stupid mother and the two of them fall to their knees in prayer. When David and Jerry Seinfeld (playing himself) are asked if they ever experienced a miracle, David answers, “every erection is a miracle.” That’s what passes for creativity these days.

Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother? This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on “Real Time with Bill Maher”), and David is Jewish, we’ll never know.

Pretty ridiculous, right? I thought so too. Let’s start with the first paragraph of this so called “statement”.

Nice job Bill, you’ve managed to point out that Larry David was a co-creator of Seinfeld, something that everyone and their brother (Jerry Christ in Jesus’ case) knows. Further more, I like how you mentioned that Larry’s days of brilliance are behind him and that he should quit. That’s really Christian of you. Who knew that you could judge people and personally insult their work and it would be perfectly within the bounds of how Jesus said a Christian should live? And, who made you the authority on what is considered good and bad? I personally don’t like Seinfeld and never did, yet I find Curb Your Enthusiasm brilliant and important all the same. The difference being, I don’t pretend to adhere to religious dogma that tells me “Don’t Judge, Lest You Be Judged.” That’s your guy that said that Bill, remember? It’s in that one book, I think. Strike one.

Larry David, Creator and Star of Curb Your Enthusiasm

Cross the desert with 12 men and land right on paragraph two. You take issue with the fact that Larry pisses on a picture of Jesus, but doesn’t clean it off. Would it be better if he had cleaned it off? What difference does him cleaning off the picture make? It’s a picture, it’s not like he’s pissing on Jesus Christ himself. Here’s the funny part, later in the episode Larry accidentally DOES piss on his bare midriffed secretary and you seem to have no problem with that. According to your logic, wouldn’t that be offensive to women? Shouldn’t you take issue with that? Don’t the rights and respect of women matter? I also like how you point out that the CATHOLIC mother and daughter tandem in the episode are “stupid”. That’s really great that you’d call your own folks by such a Christian-appropriate term. The funny thing is, this kind of thing happens all of the time across the country. People see the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese sandwiches, Jesus in pancakes, the baby Jesus on a brick wall, but these people are perfectly logical? Or, are you calling all of the people who follow your sect of Christianity stupid?

Also, I find it really funny that you have a problem with Larry saying “every erection is a miracle”. Perhaps if it weren’t so easy for your lot to get erections from sexually abusing underaged altar boys against their will, I’d be interested in your take on this situation. You are not the judge of humor and you certainly aren’t the judge of who does what with their sexual organs. Strike Two.

And here we are at your swan song, the third and final paragraph. You bring up the fact that Catholics are apparently being targeted by HBO which is just so blatantly untrue it’s laughable. In the case of Curb Your Enthusiasm alone I’ve seen Larry David make fun of Jews, Christians, African Americans, Asians, dentists, doctors, patients, nurses, comedians, parking attendants, lawyers, chefs, holocaust survivors, survivor cast members, lesbians, Ted Danson, old people, child singers, private investigators, adoption, cousins, Richard Lewis, hookers, corpses, dogs, hurricane Katrina survivors, dolls, children, deli’s, HBO, freaks, car salesman and women who wear bras, and that’s probably just one season. Boy, it is time for you guys to grow up and stop making everything about you. It’s vain, and I’m pretty sure Jesus was against that too.

Also, nice job making mention of Sarah Silverman and Larry David, and pointing out that Larry happens to be Jewish (so is Sarah for the record which I’m sure you knew, hence mentioning them together). So, to get this straight it’s not okay for Larry to poke fun at people of the Christian faith, but it’s okay for you to insinuate that Larry can make fun of Catholics (which he never does directly by the way) because he is Jewish? That sounds pretty pretttttty pretttttttttttty anti-Semitic to me, buddy. Strike Three, you’re out.

So, Bill, here we are. You’ve officially shown us in a short three paragraph “statement” about the last episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm that the truest of Christian ideals and values apparently don’t need to be applied to someone in a position of authority in the “Catholic League” like yourself. Why should these humble values of charity, forgiveness and lack of judgment apply to the stupid (your word) followers of your religion but not yourself? Sounds kinda hypoctrical there, Bill.

What Larry David did with Seinfeld and what he is doing with Curb Your Enthusiasm is to point out some of the more ridiculous aspects of our society for the sake of amusing people, making people laugh. Larry David takes what our society has given him and puts something positive back out into the world, in the form of humor. Rather than judge and insult Larry David, why not commend him for encouraging people to not take themselves so seriously and allowing them to laugh at themselves and the world around them? Why not show the world that the Catholics can turn the other cheek and laugh just like every other group (including fat people, bald people, Paul Simon fans, independent clothing store owners, and widows alike) has been able to do? Or, if none of this suits what you want to do, why not change the fucking channel?

Is it me or is everyone today a complete and total asshole? I feel like literally everywhere I go, from restaurants to stores to anything where you have to deal with some sort of employee, that person couldn’t be more rude and non-caring about helping the customer with what they need. This seems to be at an influx right now for some reason and it’s getting ridiculous. Regardless of what people might think, it is NOT hard to be a decent person to the people you interact with on a daily basis. I’m going to go further and say that you have to go OUT OF YOUR WAY to be a complete and total rude asshole and it’s just getting ridiculous. It’s time for people to get over themselves and learn how to interact with others. I’m not saying you have to be ‘Sweetie Mcsweetnuts’, that’s not what I’m expecting. But, I am expecting you to return the same kindness I show you by saying please and thank you. It’s not about being a good employee or salesperson, it’s about being a decent human being. It’s just not that hard.

Please watch in full.

The woman at my polling place asked me do I believe in equality for gay and lesbian people. I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?

In light of all the “hubbub” and excitement surrounding the release of the new film “Sherlock Holmes” starring the very talented Robert Downey Jr, and the less talented yet still enchanting Rachel McAdams and Jude Law, I wanted to bring up an interesting fact about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of the literary giant Sherlock Holmes) that most people know nothing about. Mr. Doyle was a very big believer in Spiritualism and all things of that nature and even went as far as to say that Harry Houdini actually had real psychic powers and just wasn’t really telling anybody the truth. Although Houdini and Doyle were friends, Houdini would (obviously) deny this statement on a basis of rationality. Houdini, while being the pre-eminent magicians of this or any time was also a dedicated student of rational thought and skepticism. Houdini detested when people claimed to have supernatural powers and often set out to prove those who proclaimed such a feat, false, and always succeeded. So, with such a reputation as an anti-supernaturalist, why would his friend Arthur Conan Doyle put forward that he really believe this to be true?

Because Arthur Conan Doyle believed in “fairies” and was a nut-job.

Let me backtrack. In 1917 two English cousins by the names of Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths aged 16 and 10 respectively, borrowed Elise’s father’s camera and used some elementary cardboard cut outs of fairies and took pictures of themselves interacting with said “fairies” and thus was born the Cottingley “Fairies” incident. The girls claimed the photographs were real, and that only they were the medium which could view and take pictures of the “fairies” and that if anyone else was witnessing the photos being taken, they wouldn’t work (nothing too suspicious there). One look at the grainy photos and any rational thinking person (like Houdini himself) would realize that these picture are fabricated and are a product of two teenage girls’ tom foolery.

There is the first photo that sparked the world’s interest in the existence of real fairies. That is Frances posing with the “fairies” although if you look closely you can see the waterfall in the background is blurred due to slow shutter speed on a moving object. However, the “fairies” though jumping, appear crystal clear with no blurring, an obvious check in the fabricated column.

There is picture number two. This time Elsie is shown with a “gnome”.

Arthur Conan Doyle saw these photos and was so convinced they showed true “fairies” in existence, that he wrote two pamphlets and an entire book on arguing the existence and explaining the history of “fairies” entitled The Coming of the Fairies, which is still in print. Conan Doyle also argued that only with more pictures could the argument for the existance of “fairies” finally be proven. So, low and behold, three years later the girls produced more photos featuring them patrolling nature with the “fairies” by their side. Conan Doyle was convinced and continued defending the “fairy” theory for years.

Of course, with most hoaxes, the shit inevitably hit the fan when Fred Gettings in 1971 found the very book that Elsie and Frances took the pictures of the “fairies” from (a children’s book that had come out in 1914 or 15) and the final nail in the coffin came when the girls themselves went on to confess that the photos were indeed faked, as if anyone with a rational thinking mind had any doubt. It’s just too bad that spiritualist and talented author Arthur Conan Doyle wasn’t around to hear how it was his belief in them and celebrity influence, that drove the girls to keep quiet about the truth behind those events.

And so, here we are. How is it, you ask, that Conan Doyle could create such a literary juggernaut as Sherlock Holmes, a rational thinking, level headed hero of thought and logical reasoning and he himself be fooled by pre-teen girls playing with cardboard cut outs and a father’s camera, not to mention go so far as to defend it to the point of published novels and pamphlets defending their authenticity? That, my friends, sounds like a case for Sherlock himself. Someone call Robert Downey Jr!

Color me offended.

I made the horrible mistake of paying $10 tonight to see “The Invention of Lying” with a friend of mine. Not only was this a mistake on the surface (this movie was a level of shitty that a public toilet smack dab in the middle of Mexico city couldn’t imagine) but it also re-lit the flame of dissapointment and disgust within me. Yes, this was yet another movie that published the same horrible lie I’ve been fighting against for years. This movie potrayed a situation that had to offend not just me, but everyone (the other two people) in the theater as well. This movie once again bet it’s hand on an age old assumption and lie that just flat out isn’t true: It’s possible for a fat guy to get the attractive girl he desires.

Now, Ricky Gervais isn’t the only guilty party here. The Simpsons, Family Guy, King of Queens, According to Jim, Still Standing and plenty of other sitcoms and feature films have done their part to perpetuate the myth that fat guys have any sort of chance at getting the attractive girl they want. In every one one of these examples the woman looks past the fat guys’ fatness and other turn offs and falls in love with the man and they live happily ever after. I call shenanigans on this bullshit.

This kind of things DOES NOT happen in the real world and it’s time society accepted it. Let me speak for fat guys everywhere when I say; “enough is enough”. I’m tired of being expected to suddenly walk out of a theater with hope that Jennifer Garner (who let’s be honest, isn’t much of a looker herself) would have any interest in Ricky Gervais. It just wouldn’t happen. Stop giving us hope that it will.

And now a message specifically for my brethren:

Fatties everywhere, heed my words. Give up on the hope of falling in love with the cute girl from work, or the girl who thinks you’re funny behind the deli counter. Save your self the agony and pain because regardless of what CBS tells you, it’s just not going to happen. Sure, you may be funny and able to make her laugh, but in the end that means nothing. Face Facts. Face your Fat. There is no hope.

Now….go ahead and finish your sandwich.

Part Two: Attempting to Delegitimize Barack Obama’s Presidency

Holding the office of the President of the United States of America is a position that grants you the utmost respect in the world, quite literally. This doesn’t mean everybody loves you and this certainly doesn’t mean everybody agrees with you (including up to 49% of the country the day you take office). But what this does mean is you’re granted a series of titles, positions and formalities that are unique only to the President and his predecessors. For instance, although a President may have no military background, he is automatically the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military. Even if the President has no experience in the Judicial branch of government, he automatically in granted the power on January 20th, to select nominees to serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime term.

Another automatic aspect of the President of the United States is the instant amount of respect that is given to you, both in your own country and overseas. The President is quite literally the leader of the free world, a symbol for America and all that it represents around the world (which probably to the chagrin of many nay-sayers, still represents hope, opportunity and freedom to those impoverished and under privileged). He is greeted by Governments around the world with the most lavish of accommodations in the most traditional and respectful ways that particular country’s cultural history deems. This is the case regardless of the religious denomination, political affiliation, background and race of the President. If this is the case overseas, why is it not the case here in the United States?

What I’m going to attempt to show you is how the Presidency of Barack Obama has been a historic one; and not just because of the overwhelming support he received and all the ground he broke winning the Presidential election last year. More what I’m going to focus on are his opponents; those who not only reject Barack Obama on his political beliefs, but something more. I believe there is an underlying effort (whether it be a conscious effort, or one that is springing up from the subconscious of his detractors) to delegitimize the Presidency of Barack Obama for no other reason than his skin color. We’re going to exploring two different examples here which will hopefully show you where this theory comes from, and why I believe it to be true.

Example 1:

On September 8th, 2009 Barack Obama planned to address the nation’s school children on the importance of working hard, dedicating themselves to their education and taking responsibility for their learning. Nowhere in his plans, nor in the actual speech would President Obama even come close to mentioning anything about Democratic policy, liberal ideals or attempt to “indoctrinate students with Socialist ideology.” Although this was clear to the reasoning, common sense using folks here in America, it didn’t stop Republican opponents and critics of President Obama of claiming he would attempt to do those ridiculous things. These pointless and politically motivated accusations went as far as convincing school districts across the south of banning their students from hearing a positive and inspiring message from the most powerful and important person in our country.

To actually think that Mr. Obama would be using this speech to school children as a way to spread his political message is an insane prospect. It takes a mind who would actually think of doing something like that themselves to assume that the President of the United States would ever stoop to such a level. It’s a ludicrous notion and one that comes from an interesting twist of purpose. Most opponents of this speech protested that they didn’t want their children being indoctrinated with political rhetoric and wasting time that could be spent on normal school curriculum. In reality, they didn’t want Barack Obama’s liberal, Democratic ideals to be force fed down their children’s throats, which was never going to happen in the first place. So, what did they do? They banned their students from hearing the speech from the Presidents on the importance of education. By their actions alone, they showed their impressionable young students which political philosophies are okay, and which are not. By opposing Mr. Obama’s speech on the grounds that it might politically influence a young kid who has no business being politically influenced, they have successfully politically influenced their children into believing that what President Barack Obama stands for is wrong, easily dealt away with, and not deserving of respect. The words “stunningly hypocritical” come to mind.

What these superintendents and parents around the country have done is not only a detriment to their children, but also a detriment to America itself. Perhaps a young child watching this speech could have been inspired to work hard, and learn to love school and eventually become the President or a politician in his or her own right. Perhaps a young child in the south would have been inspired and surprised by the  accessibility of the most powerful man in the world and impressed with his dedication to the children of this country and changed the way they thought of government. And most importantly, perhaps a child would have been able to see his leader, The President of the United States talking directly to him about education and self responsibility and learned a certain amount of respect for those who’ve worked hard before him, relied on themselves and worked hard to achieve success. But, alas, with the selfish acts of these “proponents of education” we will never know.

You might be asking, what does this have to do with the president’s Race? Simple. Both Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush gave similar speeches to school children, and though they may have been criticized publicly (no such evidence can be found for the Regan speech) they both went off to school children around the country without a hitch. The legitimacy of the message was never called into question to the point where banning the speech seemed like a logical choice. The educators and parents of the time felt like most rational minded independent thinking people did today, that the Presidents speech about education was simply that. Regardless of how you feel about the Presidents political opinions, they are still the President of the United States. They are still the most powerful man in the country and they deserve respect. Regardless of who is President, they’ve undoubtedly have had to make sacrifices to get where they are and that is a good role model for school children. regardless of their political affiliation, or yours for that matter.

It’s no surprise that a majority of the watch-bans on the Presidents speech happened in the southern part of the United States. The south has a well documented history of prejudice against all minorities, particularly African Americans. Although many forms of racism have been combated by groundbreaking acts such as The Civil Rights Movement and the eventual Civil Rights Act, there still exists many, underlying forms of prejudice woven deep within the bloodlines of the southern population. Racism has moved out from being socially acceptable in the mainstream, but perhaps more dangerously, it has moved under the rug and into the silence. Southern racism has gone from white only drinking fountains, to white-only ways of thinking. Harboring such anger and hatred toward a group of people with no outlet, is perhaps more dangerous than being able to outwardly display you’re bigotry and this is what is happening in the south. This isn’t to say all southern people are racist, far from it. But for those who hold such grudges against the President that they’d be willing to jeopardize the educational and patriotic well being of their children, their racist feeling (once again, whether it be a conscious or subconscious feeling) is clearly a motivating factor in this heinous decision making. I would be hard pressed to believe a video message from a white Republican President would be met with the same type of scrutiny and (false) “concern for the educational value of the speech.” If John McCain were the speaker instead of President Obama, no qualms would be raised about his political message or purpose. Kids would be encouraged to sit back and listen to the words of a self made, successful man. How sad that they missed out on this wonderful opportunity.

Example 2:

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) was made infamous by his inappropriate outburst during President Barack Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress on healthcare. Mr. Wilson yelled out “You Lie” when President Obama made a point about Illegal immigrants receiving healthcare in America. I want to make something clear. This event didn’t take place during a debate or panel on a specific issue. Mr. Wilson chose to interrupt the President of the United States while he was giving a State of the Union type speech to the joint session of Congress. This simply is not done. The level of inappropriateness of this action is so far out of scope a word to describe it simply eludes me. There is a certain level of respect, a certain level of sanctity about the way our government does things. No matter what else happens, things are run on a platform of respect and tradition because that is simply just the way things are done. Never would anyone have the right or let alone the reason to interrupt the President in a situation like this. Joe Wilson has embarrassed himself, the people of South Carolina (the state he represents) and the entire American population both at home and around the world.

The problem isn’t only the fact that Mr. Wilson embarrassed himself and acted completely inappropriately by interrupting the President of the United States, it’s what he interrupted him by saying. In a time where the perception of America around the world is perhaps at it’s most unsure, Mr. Wilson took it upon himself to disrespectfully call out the most internationally popular President we’ve had in recent history. What Mr. Wilson failed to realize is that not only is he offending every person in America by acting so inappropriately, but he’s also tarnishing the opinions of the millions of people around the world who supported Barack Obama and stepping on their beliefs as well. In the eyes of the world, Mr. Wilson took it upon himself to attempt to delegitimize the power, knowledge and intentions of America’s leader by calling him a liar. No word choices could have undermined President Obama more and been more damaging. His choice was clear and purposeful.  His choice to act so inappropriately was motivated (whether conscious or not) by his prejudice against African Americans.

You don’t have to search hard to find incidents and involvements in Mr. Wilson’s past that would lead you to these same conclusions. Mr. Wilson openly and purposefully defended the flying of the Confederate Flag (a clear symbol of racism and treason) above the South Carolina state house building, and even went as far as to defend the Confederate heritage as being “very honorable”. He was one of 7 members of the 43 in the South Carolina senate to actually publicly vote to keep the Confederate flag flying. It has also been reported that Mr. Wilson is a current and active member of the group “Sons of Confederate Veterans” which has been linked to a neo-confederate mindset, as well as being supporters of secession and dismissing the horrifying instituation of slavery as “benign”.  Going even deeper, Mr. Wilson was mentored by and served under notoriously racist and long serving senator Strom Thurmond  (who performed the longest filibuster in history, attempting to halt the passing of the civil rights act) who was later found out to have fathered a bi-racial daughter. When Mr. Thurmond’s daughter finally came forward with the information of who her father was, Mr. Wilson described her and the situation as “a smear on the image” of Mr. Thurmond. Mr. Wilson later apologized (something he’s been doing quite a bit of recently).

I will be the first to admit that I do not think that Mr. Wilson sat listening to President Obama’s speech on healthcare and was consciously thinking about how he could purposefully delegitimize Mr. Obama’s Presidency. In truth, I think it goes deeper than that. Based on his actions and associations, it’s quite clear that Mr. Wilson has a lack of respect for African American’s as a whole. He may not outright hate people for the color of their skin, but because of his lack of respect and ill will toward that specific group of people, he deemed it acceptable to interrupt Barack Obama as he spoke to the joint session of Congress, something that is simply not done. Mr. Wilson thinks that Mr. Obama’s Presidency is illegitimate. He does not think that (whether it be consciously or subconsciously) that Barack Obama deserves the same respect that a white President would or he simply would have never made such an outburst. Something deep within the mind of Joe Wilson has lead him to believe that a black man, a black President should not be taken seriously. Mr. Wilson, for whatever reason, sees President Obama as an inferior, even though he has risen to the level of ultimate superior in this country. Mr. Wilson’s complete lack of respect for American tradition, politics and the processes we’ve adopted is downright embarrassing and is worthy of an in-depth look into his purpose and ethics.

You might be wondering how President Barack Obama responded to all of this. He responded just as you would think an intelligent man of any race would. He simply called it a “mistake’ and accepted Joe Wilson’s half hearted, sincere-less apology. Would Barack Obama ever come forward and say that this outburst was motivated by race, even though it clearly has the markings of something that could be? No. Would Barack Obama ever come forward like former President Jimmy Carter came forward and declare Mr. Wilson’s actions racial motivated and completely inappropriate? No. Barack Obama did exactly what you expected him to do. He shrugged his shoulders, turned the other cheek and simply went back to work on what he believes will help make America better for Americans, whether they live in South Dakota or South Carolina. He showed patience, forgiveness and ability to move past pointless acts of childishness and bigotry, which, I don’t know about you, but to me sounds like an awfully good lesson for our school children.

“For example, in the United States some 40 percent of the population doesn’t believe in Evolution (and) believes that the world was created within the last 10,000 years. That’s an educational disgrace and those people, the majority of them couldn’t possibly believe that if they were exposed to the evidence.” – Richard Dawkins

Educate yourself