Nobody likes to be called a simpleton, even if that person has no idea what it means. It’s the way the word sounds that makes it so off-putting, the plosive “p” and “t” at the middle and end of the word. It just sounds venomous.

Beyond the specificity of that particular word, I think we can all agree that nobody likes be called an idiot in any fashion. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that a new book, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future, is sending ripples of agitation across our youngest gene pool.

Written by Mark Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University, the book argues how advancing technology’s influence on today’s youth, despite its original promise and intent of unveiling a brave new world of learning, has actually done the opposite. Now morons surround us.

Bauerlein’s message is an iron fist in a velvet glove. In many of his interviews—readily accessible through YouTube and other online media outlets that are destroying the I.Q. of this nation—his castigations are sandwiched between two thin slices of dry compliment.

In an interview with Emory University’s student newspaper before the book’s release, Bauerlein elaborated on why he was writing the book:

“Because in my limited experience as a teacher, I’ve noticed in the last 10 years that students are no less intelligent, no less ambitious but there are two big differences: Reading habits have slipped, along with general knowledge. You can quote me on this: You guys don’t know anything.”

And there you have it. Bauerlein, in an interview conducted by a student, for publication in a student newspaper specifically targeted at students, called students fools.

Of course, the knee jerk reaction of any student with an above average intelligence (as rare as Bauerlein thinks those are) would be to immediately dismiss his message on the grounds of his being an old curmudgeon, like the old “What’s wrong with kids these days?” lecture we’ve all received at one time or another.

But this isn’t so according to Bauerlein. His Website specifically states, “Anyone who thinks this is mere intergenerational grousing, the time-worn tradition of an older generation wagging its finger at a younger one, should think again.”

And yet, even though Bauerlein claims his book is not an exercise in “intergenerational grousing”, I doubt America’s youth will be able to see it that way.

No matter how he spins it, it’s still an older man’s reprimand of a younger generation for failing to meet certain intellectual standards in comparison to those of generations past. Further, his age and experience makes him an authority on the subject since it’s obvious that things were different, and presumably better, when he was our age.

If this argument were to be made by an author in his early twenties this would be a different story, more of a peer evaluation than a reprimand.

It would, however, be foolish for any of us to claim that his message is 100 percent inaccurate.

We’d have to be even dumber than Bauerlein claims if we didn’t admit this country has its fair share of dunces. A good many of them are youthful, and a good many of them are all grown up and running the nation, but for Bauerlein to shout at all of America’s youth from the rooftops, “You guys don’t know anything,” is a hasty and dangerous generalization.

It’s also a little odd that Bauerlein would write a book about this in hopes that today’s youth, whose literacy is slipping, would bother to pick up his book and read it.

His message would have a better chance of reaching its intended audience through episodic online broadcasts, but then he wouldn’t make any money.

And that would be stupid.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

High school reunions are, among other things, a surreal exercise in mental agility and tolerance. Strolling down amnesia lane at a reunion is fun for some, hellish for others, but at least it’s never boring.

Thanks to social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace, the practice of physically reuniting with old friends (and enemies) is becoming yesterday’s news. God bless the Internet for giving us one more reason not to leave the house.

Reunions have always been the most optional of traditions, but if you’re the kind who enjoys talking to old friends face to face, then making a conscious effort to journey back “home” is part of the fun—unless you’re the kid that never left town. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

MySpace, Facebook and instant messaging all provide the convenience of making a physical separation thousands of miles wide seem trivial—though technology still hasn’t found a way to make long distance relationships work. That’s the excuse I keep getting, anyway.

Yet we all know the utilization of social networking sites to usurp the necessity of physical interaction is nothing new, so in that respect the inevitable demise of reunions makes sense. But doesn’t it cheapen the experience?

Chris Farmer of Vancouver, B.C., was recently asked a few questions about this topic in an Associated Press story. Farmer is responsible for creating a Facebook group called, “Facebook Has Eliminated The Need For A High School Reunion.” Subtle, no?

Farmer told the AP that his Facebook account allowed him to reconnect with old high school friends and expediently sift through the “good stuff,” like the cheerleader who ended up in a convent or the or the basketball star that just graduated from ballet school.

But after digesting the nostalgia there wasn’t much left for Farmer. “Seeing people in real life,” he told the AP, “seemed a little pointless.”

That could be true. Still, isn’t it the whole point of a reunion to stand around a punch bowl with old cliques, commenting on the expanding waistlines or receding hairlines of those you used to know?

Compared to the physical experience, online reunions seem so shallow an insincere, don’t they? Isn’t it a little too sterile to know some of your former acquaintances are interested in catching up with you, but not interested enough to shake your hand?

It seems paradoxical to think using social networking sites can make a person antisocial, but there you have it.

Isn’t social tension part of the experience? Aren’t the awkward conversations with that person you had (or may still have) a crush on part of the ride? Don’t you want to see you old locker again and snicker at the fact that you can have a glass of single malt while doing it?

I know this sort of experience isn’t comfortable for everybody. That’s perfectly understandable. It’s true that high school reunions can be uncomfortable and overrated, but if you think about it, they’re supposed to be uncomfortable and overrated.

So was high school.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

Rev. Wright’s voice has stopped reverberating in the media, former President Clinton seems disinterested with making waves, Barack Obama seems comfortable, and Hillary doesn’t seem to be rattling her sabers as often; a strange thing on the eve of a West Virginia primary that she’s expected to win by a mile.

With the exception of Tim Russert’s anything-but-tepid predictions, the media has sheepishly begun to declare Obama the inevitable Democratic nominee. Since a projected win in West Virginia won’t be enough to remedy Sen. Clinton’s ailing delegate math, political talking points have shifted to the consolation prize—the veep.

Over the weekend, CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider wrote an article exploring the significance of a decisive win for Sen. Clinton in West Virginia.

Schneider predicted that the Democratic constituency in West Virginia represents a serious problem for the Obama camp during the general election if he ends up winning his party’s nomination.

So much of a problem, concluded Schneider, that “If Obama gets the nomination and it looks like the only way he can win is to get those West Virginia Democrats back, you can be sure he will think seriously about asking Clinton to go on the ticket.”

This topic has been dealt with before, but once is never enough. Just like those really annoying inextinguishable trick birthday candles you buy your friends, the issue has flickered back to life again.

The “ticket” being referred to here, of course, is the Obama/Clinton “dream ticket” that so many love to fantasize about, but perhaps the notion of an Obama/Clinton ticket should be called the “pipe dream ticket” instead.

Media speculation that Clinton would seek, or that Obama would offer, the veep position on the Democratic ticket is a great way to fill airtime, but that’s about it.

Referring ad nauseam to a bad idea will never turn it into a good one, and this is especially true if there isn’t any concrete evidence to base the discussion on.

Let us not forget that despite an impeding sense of doom, Sen. Clinton has no intention of dropping out of the race. On “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton’s top strategist, Howard Wolfson, said that “We think Sen. Clinton is going to be the nominee,” and that he has “seen no evidence of her interest” in the veep position.

There is also an inherent fallacy of the “pipe dream ticket” that isn’t getting the attention it deserves: the “pipe dream” would make both candidates appear soft.

Sens. Clinton and Obama have spent a great deal of time and money debating change versus experience and how Washington can’t possibly endure both.

So to place themselves on the same ticket, in any order, would immediately cancel out both arguments, communicating only that neither candidate was serious about their political philosophies from the start.

It would, in short, be a terrible mess.

Still, this discussion has endured with complete disregard for the only two individuals that actually need to have it, and in the future, when this “pipe dream” fails to become a reality, I’m sure it will continue in the past tense.

“Can it happen” will become “Should it have happened”.

In either case, the answer is no.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

–38 year-old singer Mariah Carey and 27-year old actor Nick Cannon tied the knot in a secret ceremony in the Bahamas, and they have tattoos to prove it. “To me rings are special and exciting, but tattoos mean more than anything,” Cannon said. “They’re forever and ever. They professed our love.” Strange, I overheard the same thing at a truck stop last week.

–CNN ran a cute little article this week about what it’s like to be a reporter traveling with and covering the president. Apparently, one of the biggest drawbacks to this privilege is the evil lure of calorie-laden food . . . must be those loads of crap the president likes to feed people.

–“Actress” Lindsay Lohan has been dumped from the upcoming movie “Manson Girls” because the film’s producers couldn’t find a single big name actress willing to work with her. I’m not sure what’s next for Lohan’s career, but I’m pretty sure it’ll involve VH1.

–Despite the looming possibility of being shut down by an actor’s strike, filming has already begun for “Terminator 4.” I’ll start praying for a strike immediately.

–MSNBC reported that “American Idol” ringmaster Ryan Seacrest is in “serious negotiations” to take over “Larry King Live.” Larry King told the press that Seacrest is a “classic generalist”, which only confirms my suspicion that nobody really knows what Seacrest actually does.

–In Duluth, Minnesota, the driver of a 1997 Honda Civic that sustained damage after hitting and killing a 13-pound dog is suing the dog’s owners for repairs totaling $1,200. The dog’s owners are countersuing for $2,400, but the level of idiocy in this lawsuit is priceless.

–According to “The Rough Guide to England”, a newly revised travel manual, England is an “irritating and insular country full of overweight, binge-drinking, reality TV addicts.” I had no idea England loved our culture so much.

–According to a recent poll of 2,000 Canadian baby boomers between the ages of 44 and 62, 40 percent said they feel ignored by advertisers who cater to a younger demographic. These feelings of “neglect” are usually the first signs of “getting old”.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

In its first full week of sales the controversial new video game “Grand Theft Auto IV” has sold 6 million copies, earning its developer, Take-Two Interactive Software, more than $500 million. But with triumph comes opposition.

If you don’t know anything about the game, let’s just say GTA IV content is not for the easily offended. Critics are lambasting it as well, expressing particular outrage over the game’s mature and explicit subject matter.

In GTA, players are able to participate in a wealth of illicit adventures from running drugs in stolen cars to assaulting strangers with stolen guns. There’s even a point in the game when a playable character is tasked with driving a car drunk.

The drunk driving sequence has met with adamant disapproval from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who are the latest addition to GTA’s growing number of detractors.

MADD released a statement in conjunction with GTA’s release on April 29 stating, “MADD is extremely disappointed by the decision of the manufacturers of the game Grand Theft Auto IV to include a game module where players can drive drunk. Drunk driving is not a game and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable.”

MADD went on to call for tighter restrictions to be placed on GTA’s sales by requesting the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to “reclassify Grand Theft Auto IV as an Adults Only game”. They would also like “for the manufacturer to consider a stop in distribution”.

So in essence, there is fear that GTA would justify illegal behavior, causing those who play it to mimic their experience in real life.

Now, MADD does wonderful things for this country. Their cause is a noble as they come, and if they feel the need to make their outrage known on a national stage, that’s their right. The only drawback taking such a hard-nosed stance against the influence games like GTA might hold over the masses is this:

It undermines the importance of personal accountability and espouses a lack of confidence in humanity’s judgment.

As it stands now, GTA has a “Mature” rating. That means the game is suitable only for persons aged 17 and older. If the game’s rating were to be changed at the request of MADD to “Adults Only” then it becomes suitable for persons aged 18 and older.

So the question then becomes, what’s the difference between 17 and 18? Is there some kind of safety mechanism in the minds of teenagers that doesn’t kick in until their 18th birthday? Certainly GTA’s critics can’t believe that a 17-year old could mimic what they see in the game without thinking it’s wrong, while an 18-year old could somehow be immune?

I don’t deny that drunk driving is a heinous thing, but to think the problem would somehow be alleviated through stringent legislation of a video game is not addressing the problem.

It’s not the charge of Take-Two to play surrogate parents to a nation. Playing parent is a parent’s job, and if a parent decides that a game like GTA has no place in the home, then so be it. In their press release, MADD stated that, “drunk driving is a choice”, but so is dropping $60 on a video game.

Choose wisely.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

Nominated for 31 Emmys (and winning five), Alan Alda was also nominated for an Academy Award in 2005. For 11 years he played Hawkeye Pierce on the hit TV series M*A*S*H, hosted PBS’s Scientific American Frontiers for another 11 and also starred in the TV series West Wing. Besides that, Alda also writes and directs.

His second book, Things I Overheard While Talking to Myself (Random House 2007; also available through Random House Audio read by the author and will be released this September in paperback), is a follow up to his autobiography, Never Have Your Dog Stuffed. And yes, his eccentric family did have the family dog (who died from eating bad Chinese food when Alda was seven) stuffed and placed in their living room. Alda talked about all of that and more to RED.

You personify normal, but your childhood was anything but. Your mother was diagnosed as schizophrenic and tried to stab your father, actor Robert Alda. And you spent part of your childhood hanging around strippers while your parents performed onstage. You also had polio. How did you become so stable?

When Carl Reiner read my book, he told me I had a right to be a lot crazier than I am. But I credit my wife, Arlene, whom I’ve been married to for 51 years.

What made you decide to write?

When I was recuperating from surgery, I just had the overwhelming obsession to write. And as I’d walk around my apartment in New York, I would scribble down thoughts on little pieces of paper and stick them in my bathrobe pockets. Listening to yourself is hooking into the little modules that are working on things. Listening to these things and getting to the point where you trust yourself brings them to the surface.

You seem to find humor in almost everything, including the emergency operation you had in La Serena, Chile several years ago.

That’s how my mind works. I remember when Dr. Zepeda explained what he was going to do before the operation. He told me that the blood supply to some of my small intestine had been choked off, and it was dying. He was going to go in and take out the bad part and then sew the good parts back together. And I said, oh, you’re going to do an end-to-end anastomosis. He asked me how I knew that and I told I did many of them on M*A*S*H.

Friends and family mean a lot to Alda. He and Arlene have three children and numerous grandchildren. The family frequently vacations together but that doesn’t mean Alda has slowed down his work schedule. He’s in two films this year, Flash of Genius with Greg Kinnear and Dermot Mulroney and Diminished Capacity, and he also has another in post-production, Nothing But the Truth with Kate Beckinsale and David Schwimmer. Alda talks to RED about family time.

So tell us about your annual family vacations.

We’ve been going to St. John Island at Christmas time for the last 30 years. First, it was us and our children and then us and our children and their families and that kept growing and growing and growing, so we have a big bunch of people that go with since we have grandchildren now. We get everybody together, we lug presents down there to open and then we lug them back. It’s a good thing we love presents.

You must really like the island, why did you choose it?

know St. John, which is in the American Virgin Islands, very well. I’ve been all over the Virgin Islands in both a speedboat and a helicopter when I shot the movie The Four Seasons down there. I scouted all around there to find locations for the movie and looked all over the place. We were trying to find the perfect place and I wound up back there because that was the most beautiful I could find. So it just seemed right for all those reasons.

So are you a beach bum when you’re down there?

I don’t go to the Caribbean for the beaches. The sun is too hot and salt makes you sticky. I can do without it. Not liking the beach but loving the Virgin Islands is probably one of the many things that made Peter Jennings (who was a trustee for the British Virgin Islands) and me good friends. What he did for the British Virgin Islands was so terrific. I felt very badly when he died, it happened so fast. I think he thought he would be able to be back on the air but it just didn’t happen. He was very heroic, too. I never saw anybody face death the way he did.

Well, do you do water sports?

I never liked snorkeling much, which did not come in handy when I was hosting PBS’s Scientific America Frontiers, which I did for 11 years. I also don’t like boats and I don’t like the ocean. It’s hard to believe, but I don’t go to the Caribbean to go in the ocean, to go snorkeling or to sit on the beach. Usually I go in the ocean once or twice on our whole trip. The ocean scares me. The thing I don’t like about the ocean is it’s so unpredictable. It’s a big, heavy thing and it’s got a lot of force. I’m not a brave person and yet was constantly in dangerous situations when filming down there, so I must be stupid because I don’t really want to be on a boat and a lot of the filming was on the boat or around the boat. In an emergency, I do fine. I don’t quiver and shake—I just take care of business, but I don’t like the sound of things that could be emergencies on boats or on or near the ocean.

So what do you do in the Caribbean if you don’t go in the ocean and don’t hang out on the beach?

I play tennis a lot and they have great tennis down there. But, because of the heat, you can only play in the morning or late in the afternoon. What I do like about the Caribbean is the weather and the beauty of the islands and the people and the food and the culture. It is all wonderful and amazing. It’s also a great place for our family to be together. It’s a perfect place for our family—all of them—and our presents.

–Interview by Jane Ammeson, RED Editorial Staff
–Photos courtesy of Random House

If people weren’t familiar with how much of a circus the Democratic presidential race has become, they’d have to be living under a rock in Guam. But after last weekend, even that wouldn’t be much of an excuse.

Sen. Barack Obama managed to slide by Sen. Clinton in Guam’s Democratic presidential caucus Saturday. Obama won by a small margin—only seven votes—which might be the only thing in Guam smaller than Guam itself.

What isn’t small about this development is how much media rotation Guam is receiving, which is good news for their tourism board.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive towards 173,456 Guamanians, but let’s be honest here.
If Democratic Guamanian caucus results are getting top billing on Websites like CNN, that should be the final indicator of how ridiculous this race is getting.

Let me put this in a more historical context. When was the last time that results from a Guamanian caucus played a pivotal role in deciding a party nominee? If you’re answer is “never,” then you’d be spot on.

Last Saturday marked the first time Guam has been a major player in a political process they have very little to do with. I say that because the people of Guam aren’t allowed to vote in November’s general election since Guam isn’t officially a state. It’s a territory.

No matter. Since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting for delegates like a couple of kids over grandma’s cookies, the peaceful shire of Guam has recently found itself inundated with all those parts of mainland American political culture that, if I were in Guam, would not be missing.

Former President Bill Clinton called Hit Radio 100.3 FM (Guam’s apparent #1 hit music station) to brag about all of the nifty things Hillary has in store for Guam if she wins a general election no Guamanian will take part in.

Barack Obama even opened a campaign office in Hagatña, Guam’s capital, and in early April Obama released a statement saying, “A strong and prosperous Guam is good for the people of Guam”. Almost Bush-esque in its complexity, no?

There are several issues that the people of Guam are seriously concerned with, health care, economy and the ability to be able to vote chief among them.

That said, part of me wonders if Guam shouldn’t be careful what they wish for. There are certain advantages to only claiming a partial stake in America’s privileges. I can name plenty of people (myself included) who would rather sit on a beach in Guam than have to face another second listening to Fox News anchors complain about Rev. Wright.

Also, voting in Guam’s southern region of Inarajan was moved ahead of the regular date because the caucus interfered with a local fiesta, something Guam would have to kiss goodbye if they were granted statehood privileges.

Moving an election around might be fine for Guamanians, but Howard Dean wouldn’t stand for it.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

Negotiations between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers (AMPTP) are now in their 15th day, and the future is being described as “uncertain”.

It’s beginning to look bleak again in Hollywood.

So far, the smart money says Hollywood is going to lose money again. If SAG and AMPTP fail to reach an accord by the end of today’s negotiations, it’s going to invoke an eerily familiar feeling in Tinseltown. There aren’t any more talks scheduled between now and June 30, which is when the guild’s contract is set to expire.

All we know for certain is that neither side has shown the slightest inclination of compromise, and after 15 days, that’s not a good sign.

Skepticism is compounded by the secretive nature of the talks as well. Negotiations are being held behind closed doors, and so far there haven’t been any “anonymous” sources on the inside willing to leak detailed information to major media outlets.

I find that a tad divergent from Hollywood’s normal procedure, but it should also attest to the seriousness of this negotiation.

SAG officials have been especially tight-lipped in recent days. They aren’t returning messages seeking comment with any sense of urgency, and the extent of their public commentary can be seen in the brevity of their press releases.

Here’s one from yesterday afternoon. “Screen Actors Guild and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers have concluded for the day and will resume Friday at 10:00 a.m. We have no further comment.”

I have to hand it to SAG for handling this potential fallout so quietly, and I’ll bet their stoicism is politically motivated. It makes SAG appear calm in comparison to the AMPTP, who are beginning to let their frustrations show.

Variety.com reported yesterday that the AMPTP “blasted the guild over its demands for doubling of DVD rates, hikes in basic pay rates and terms in new media that are better than what the DGA and WGA negotiated.”

Loosely translated, if the AMPTP initially thought the WGA waned too much money, then there isn’t even an adjective to describe what SAG is asking for.

Unfortunately, there’s no evidence for anyone to believe that SAG president Allen Rosenberg intends to budge on this. Rosenberg has been planning this request for a year now, and during that time, he’s slowly been preparing SAG’s 120,000 members; telling them his negotiations won’t follow the WGA.

In order for SAG to walk out on Hollywood, 75 percent of its members will have to approve. SAG plans to inch themselves even closer to the breach by surveying its members in a kind of “test vote” soon.

The last strike cost the Los Angeles are an estimated $2.5 billion dollars in economic losses, so there’s no telling how much this one will cost.

All I know is that sequels are generally more expensive.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

It’s an annoying feeling when the media tricks you into reading a story. Here’s an example. ABCnews.com is currently running a story on their Website with this headline: “Envisioning a World Without Men, Scientist Says Female-Only Reproduction Is Only a Few Years Away.”

The article is about the eventual extinction of men (and only men). To read the headline you’d think all men are doomed, and is suppose they all are, but it’s certainly not going to be within our lifetimes.

According to Professor Bryan Sykes, a worldwide authority on genetics at Oxford University, the Y chromosome that’s responsible for determining male gender in the womb is fatally flawed, and will disappear entirely 125,000 years from now.

That’s hardly cause for panic, but that cheap shot headline notwithstanding, it’s still a pretty interesting development. Even though male extinction is a ways down the road, there’s been plenty of evidence to back it up.

Sykes is basing his prediction on some rather disturbing biological developments when it comes to reproduction. “Every generation, one percent of men will have a mutation which reduces their fertility by 10 percent,” Sykes told the media. “So of that goes on for generation after generation, eventually there are no Y chromosomes left.”

In fact, recent studies have shown that men have a more pressing problem. According to several medical studies, average sperm counts are steadily declining.

The bulk of this research has been published in the British Medical Journal, when researchers in Edinburgh, Scotland, reported that men born after 1970 had a sperm count 25 percent lower than those born before 1959. That works out to be an average decline of 2.1 percent annually.

A worldwide comprehensive analysis conducted by Danish scientists involving males from 21 countries found an alarming plunge of 50 percent in average sperm counts over the past 50 years.

So far, scientists haven’t been able to explain a reason for this decline in fertility. The only thing we know for certain is that if it keeps up, males will eventually go the way of the Dodo.

The harsh reality is that Mother Nature has apparently decided men are expendable. When she makes her mind, that’s the end of it. There are already plenty of organisms on this planet that are perfectly happy to reproduce without male assistance.

The process is called parthenogenesis, and it’s a system that works very well for creatures like the hammerhead shark and certain wasps. Now, the process has been successfully completed with mice—the genetic material from one female was used to impregnate the other.

How long the process takes to perform on human females is, I suppose, directly proportionate to how much longer women are willing to put up with men.

But if this news worries you, gentlemen, remember that genetic mutations are lethargic—almost as lethargic as some of your friends when they’re sitting on your couch eating all your nachos.

In the end, this discovery should be a lesson for men everywhere to make the most of time. So this Fall, watch all the football you possibly can.

There’s only 125,000 seasons left.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

For as dissimilar as they are, Sens. Obama and Clinton are beginning have the same problem, but exactly what that similarity was hasn’t been clear until just now.

After the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s speech at the National Press Club today, it’s obvious that Clinton and Obama’s political voice will always be trumped by those closest to them. It’s an analogous problem between the Democratic candidates; Bill Clinton is to Hillary as the Rev. Wright is to Obama.

The parallel is obvious. Every time Hillary gains ground, her husband promptly loses it by saying something inevitably offensive to someone, leaving Sen. Clinton’s campaign to resemble a modern version of the myth of Sisyphus.

And now the same fate has befallen Obama in this Democratic contest. Now the Rev. Wright is the one nudging that boulder down the hill for Obama to shoulder again.

It’s gotten to a point where people who aren’t running for office supersede the messages coming out of a candidate’s mouth. There are plenty of voters who don’t like Hillary because of what her husband says, or don’t like Obama because of what his pastor says.

The problem here is, who’s to blame? For Pete’s sake, there has to be somebody to blame for this, right? Do we hold Hillary Clinton responsible for failing to keep a muzzle on her husband? Do we hold Barack Obama responsible for associating himself (albeit distantly) with a Reverend of radical ilk?

What about the media? It’s usually their fault anyway, can’t we blame them? The answer, reader, is none of thee above. I’m afraid this one might be our fault.

Neither Rev. Wright nor President Bill Clinton are evil people, and I doubt anyone here would be so doltish as to question their patriotism. They are outspoken people to be sure, but they aren’t wrong-headed.

Despite jokes and jibes to the contrary, Bill Clinton is not trying to sabotage his wife’s political career, and I doubt Rev. Wright is trying to do the same to Obama.

What they are doing (and this is especially true with respect to the Reverend) is using their exposure to express an agenda, and as troublesome as that might be to the political longevity of Clinton and Obama, there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

In fact, there’s nothing we SHOULD do to stop it. It’s our responsibility to be able to compartmentalize what the media throws at us. Are President Clinton and Rev. Wright’s remarks often inflammatory? Absolutely, but neither man is on the ballot.

If we are going to continue this habit of judging a politician by who they associate with (or have associated with in the past), then we’re all in for a letdown of epic proportions. Call me bitter, but I’m fairly certain it’s the business of a politician to shake hands and befriend people I’d rather not know.

And that goes double for the President.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff