One Opinion

Okay, people, really, the whole National Don't Buy Gas Day idea is irritating me. I'm tired of seeing bulletins like that all over MySpace! Please quit posting them.

Look, if we boycott gas, chances are the petrol companies will have to declare bankruptcy. Let's say that happens...guess what? How are they gonna make up for lost revenue? They're NOT GOING to lower gas prices. They're going to raise them. And who will suffer? Those of us who choose to buy gas on September 3, 4, 5, 6 and from that point on.  However, that's not how things work.

And let's say the above doesn't happen. Shell, Chevron, Texaco...they don't regulate gas prices. OPEC (Oil Producing Export Countries) regulates the prices of gas. Truthfully, we all could be paying around $1.50 per gallon of gas (I remember when it cost just 99 cents back in 2001). However, Shell and Chevron and all of those places have to pay to ship the oil from the Middle East to the United States. It's cheaper to pay for gas in Europe than in the US because gas does not have to go across the ocean to get to people's cars. By the time gas reaches you, it's travelled thousands of miles.

Believe it or not, it's not a matter of supply and demand. It's a matter of OPEC being antagonistic and raising gas prices. Boycotting gas will just cause more price hikes. Boycott the Mideast if you wanna boycott anything. Otherwise, tough it out.

In addition, what will boycotting gas for one day do?  All we're gonna do is buy the same amount of gas on a later day (for most of us, the very next day--September 4th).  Earlier, I said that "things don't work that way."  Why don't they work that way?  Oil investors calculate their stockpiles on a weekly basis not daily basis, and since we'll all be buying gas a day later, the same amount will be sold (and probably more if we're too dumb to conserve gas the day before).  We run the risk of the oil companies PROFITTING from this boycott!

My one opinion:  There's only one boycott that might work.  If we didn't buy gas for a whole week, it might hurt the stockpiles of the oil companies.  However, you and I both know this is not possible.  We have to go to work and school.  Truck drivers need to do their jobs.  Airplanes have to take off.  Homes need to be heated (yes, some people still use gas in terms of generators).  We have too much of a demand on petroleum for us to afford a boycott.  Sorry, but National Don't Buy Gas Day...it won't do squat.

Today during a conversation with KMGX's Michael Groff, I asked why it was so hard for us to find and caputer Osama bin Laden.  It seems like so many family members of those lost on September 11th feel no closure or justice because the leader of al-Qaida has not been found and prosecuted.  This quickly developed into another more interesting story.

A man who worked atop the 106th floor of one of the World Trade Center's twin towers was killed when the tower collapsed on that frightful day.  In compensation, our United States federal government awarded her some five million dollars...more than, I'm sure, any of us will come into contact with in our lifetime. 

There have been several widows and widowers who have received government compensation [who am I to say how much, though?].  They have gone around, actively participating in outreach programs to those affected by the tragedies of September 11th and developing some of their own programs.  A good example being Lisa Beamer, the widow of Flight 93's Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen her on MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, NWI and other channels, standing by the sides of people hurting and reeling from the effects of the terror attack.  She is doing some good with her post-9/11 life, and I've never heard a case of government compensation abuse come from her or people like her.

The same can't be said for the 106th Floor Widow [as I'm so affectionately dubbing her here on out].  The 106th Floor Widow is now filing for bankruptcy, this after spending her $5 million on things like shoes and breast implants for a friend. 

With that said, here's my one opinion:  Look at Sarah McLachlan's World On Fire music video.  Arista Records set aside $150,000 for Sarah Mac's video, and they spent only $15 on it, the price of a Sony DV tape.  The premise of the video was to show how $150,000 could help over one million people around the world, and in four short minutes, they take us on a journey throughout the world, showing how the money spent well on clinics, schools, teachers, and aide in some of the world's most impoverished places.

Now, take a look at the story of the 106th Floor Widow.  She set aside money for luxuries and is now feeling the burn of how splurging on life's nothings gets her nowhere.  Mike suggested she may be "helping people" in her own way...I can only imagine the breast implants were so her friend could improve their career in pornography.  I can only imagine the shoes were for students at a run-down elementary school...a "good faith" move on her part, right?  I doubt it, seriously.

However, we must not let the actions of one woman, compensated for a death in one of the worst tragedies on Earth, be the face for all those who were justly, and in some cases, unjustly, compensated.  On September 11th, the world was attacked.  There were Arabs, Islamists, Hindus, those of the Jewish faith, Catholics, Christians, Caucasians, Blacks, Hispanics and so many others working everyday nine to fives in those towers.  And just as the towers carried a little of the world when they came crashing down on Church Street in Manhattan, New York...so arose a little bit of the world.  The impoverished, the greedy, and the beneficial.
 

High school graduates across the United States are finding that life in their post-diploma world is different than that of their previous public-education driven life.  Along with the challenges of applying (and being accepted) into college, entering the workforce or armed forces, taking aptitude tests and beginning a new life, some of us face the biggest hardship of all...saying good-bye.

I've lived in El Paso, Texas for four years (nearly five).  When I first arrived in May of 2001, I initially thought that it wouldn't be any different than any place I'd lived at.  In four years--a little over 48 months--of residing in the Sun City, I've come to find I was wrong.

I'll never forget the events that created strong bonds between myself and others, and led to some of the best education and real-life learning I've ever encountered:  September 11th, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the elections of 2004...just some of many worldwide events that hit so close to home.

El Paso is where I built up on what is sure to become my career, even if it was in practice.

Yesterday, I got the worst reality call (or perhaps, the best).  For months now, I've planned to leave the Sun City, not of my own accord, for San Francisco, California.  I managed to make it through graduation and Project Celebration (a meeting of schools at the end of the year for one last time) without shedding any tears.  But yesterday, at a small community centre in the downtown district of the city, it hit that I was really leaving.

For a few weeks now, I've had the privilege of becoming a part of a small youth community at the El Paso GLBT Community Centre.  On any given Saturday, there's probably never more than fifteen of us...youth ranging from 21 and under...to receive insight, education and harbor a safe place to have fun and hang out.  Until I began attending these meetings, I had no reason to look forward to Saturdays (you can imagine how much that changed after I began going). 

Suddenly, my entire week was spent looking forward to and planning for Saturday afternoons to roll around, when I'd see people who actually cared about me, almost as if we were a small family.  In some ways, we really are...I honestly believe we'd do anything for each other there.

Yesterday was the last time I'd be visiting my Community Centre family for a while.  I can recall sitting outside the small converted building on that one-way street, recollecting on the memories I'd forged in my short time there.  I can also remember the minutes before I walked out the door for the last time...the entire time, knowing I didn't want to let go of the people I was hugging, but knowing that I had to let go. 

Stepping out of the car for the last time, on the last ride I'd get coming back from the centre, I receive the best compliment of my life from someone who attends regularly.  On top of that, I gained a little more insight...that as much as I loved each and every person at that centre, they loved me back.  Until last night, that's something I never even imagined, and something I really didn't think was possible. 

It was hard to let go, but as I sit here, staring at this entry screen (as I've done many times in the past...usually complaining about some wrongings in today's world or calling for change), I realise that life is a series of hellos and goodbyes.  We renew ourselves with every "Hello" and we grow with every "Goodbye".  In two days, I will be moving back to California, back to where I started life some 18 years ago...back to a "clean slate" and back to square one.  As scary as this is for me, I realise this is a time to grow...and what's better, I realise that everyone at the community centre wants me to grow with this. 

My time in El Paso has been unsatiated...there's still so much I could have done, but rather than recollecting on the past things that could have been done, it's better to look back on what was accomplished.  I'd say, a lot was done in this town that has a big population with a small town state of mind. 

And, believe me, I'm coming back.

First off, for those of you wondering about Coast One, the launch date has been pushed back to June 8th.  This will be the blog I write at as part of my annual Summer Blog Ditch thing.

Also, I'd like to welcome new readers from the Bel Air NFL Student Congress tournament (El Paso, Texas) as well as alumni of San Francisco State University (Bay Area, California). I'm not planning another editorial until probably next week, but be sure to enjoy the archives.

The above people (Bel Air/SFSU), please e-mail me at matthew.keys@gmail.com so I can have a way to contact you, as I'd like to keep in touch and neglected to get e-mail addies and phone numbers while I was there.  AIM and e-mail contact information appears in the right-side module on this site.

Lastly, I wasn't aware that Blog.com now offered a blog profile (I usually use MySpace for that or my blogger profile at Google).

I said lastly, I lied--there are now Xanga and LiveJournal mirrors of my BlogSpot journal (sometimes called my blogger journal at Google).

This update will become void one week from posting (as always) and will be removed, so as always, don't comment!

One week ago, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II was released from the suffering he felt here on earth and rejoined his God in Heaven.  The pontiff passed away after a heavy battle with Parkinson's disease at the age of 84.  Prior to his passing, the religious leader of over 1.070 billion Catholics suffered kidney, liver and heart failures.

It's a wonder anyone could continue living in pain with those ailments bestowed upon them, but the Pope showed tremendous courage and strength throughout his pontification and set an example for, not just Catholics, but human beings worldwide as to the strength one can have during a time of difficult--a strength that is self-discovered.

Take a look at the first paragraph.  Can you clearly see all the facts?  You can even note some in the second paragraph as well.  Perhaps this has something to do with the continuous, non-stop, twenty-four hour coverage that major media outlets have been allocating to the passing of the Pope.

It was clear to me that the media would dedicate at least a day to the passing of the Pope, as they did with the news of Terri Schiavo's passing.  This was made obvious by the way the media was playing out the story when Pope John Paul II was sent to the hospital wing in the Vatican.  However, I wasn't aware that Fox News would, at 3AM Eastern Time, pride itself with being the "only news outlet still delivering continuing coverage."

That's when I had to ask myself this question:  Why in the world would a news outlet that calls itself "respectable" continue delivering coverage on a four-day-old story?

Let's backtrack to about three years ago, when the United States awoke to a terror plan unfolding before their eyes.  The events of September 11th, 2001 set off a media frenzy, not because everyone wanted to cover the story first or gain the exclusive rights to interview Mr. Person A or Mrs. Person B.  The media frenzy was caused by sheer shock and awe--yes, even the media didn't see this one coming, and they stayed with us throughout the day and night for at least a week following the collapse of the towers.  Again, they stayed with us not to report the story, but trying to make sense of the story themselves.  Not only was this true with ABC, CBS and NBC (as well as the three big cable media outlets), but even the most farfetched places for news like NASA kept on top of the terror attack.

Why contrast the passing of our Pope to the terror attacks of that morning three years ago?  For a few reasons.

First off, the passing of the Pope was imminent.  Everyone, from the professional reporters at CNN to the amateur reporters of the blogosphere, knew that this event would take place.  The question was "When?", and that question was answered last Saturday.  Why, then, did Fox News decide to remain on for at least four days straight with limited commercial interruption?  And why, to a lesser extreme, did CNN, NBC News and others follow in foot?

Secondly, the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 were unpredictable.  All you have to do is see the absolute lack of creativity on a usually bustling and glamorous CNN.com from that morning to see that this event had everyone on their feet within a matter of just two hours.  The same can't be said for the passing of the pontiff.  Yes, it was an event that will change the world, but where was all this media attention with the passing of Pope John Paul I back in the 1970s?  You can't tell me that technology was different back then--about a decade earlier, the three big affiliates in the United States had constant coverage of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Here's my One Opinion:  The large and powerful media outlets of today (such as NewsCorp, which owns both Fox News and Sky News, as well as AOL Time Warner, which owns three different CNN channels) are scared.  They're scared that a story of the same extreme, or even greater, than the terror attacks on the United States will unfold before a worldwide audience on television and the Internet, and they won't have a part of that audience.

The passing of the pontiff wasn't the only story that I can back that theory up with.  When "vegetable" Terri Schiavo passed away, the media cut regular programming and had continuing coverage of the story from Pinellas Park, Florida.  Even CNN, the "most trusted name in news," merged it's four primetime television shows ("Anderson Cooper 360", "Paula Zahn Now", "Larry King Live" and "Newsnight with Aaron Brown") to provide one night of live, open forum on the topic of life and death (perhaps mirroring a similar move done by ABC News and Peter Jennings...who, by the way, now has lung cancer caused indirectly by September 11th...took preceeding the terror attacks when it aired a special program dedicated to opening the forum floor to America's children on the attacks). 

The media is no longer looking to find out what the story is, as they did in the days following September 11th.  Instead, they're reporting on the same story over and over again, wasting time at 3AM Eastern, just so they can pride themselves on being the network news broadcaster that braved the early morning to provide continuous coverage on a four-day-old story.

After seeing one of my hometown television stations reporting on the marriage between the UK prince and his long-time girlfriend, I'm hoping (...or should I say, I'm praying) that this won't become the next drawn-out, tiring media event.  Besides, Fox News still has Michael Jackson for that, right?

First, the Terri Schiavo article never made it up here.  The entry about the passing of the pontiff didn't seem to arrive in time either.

To the people who read One Opinion, I'm extremely sorry for the hassle that this blog has been giving you guys.  On a lighter note, didn't I editorialize once before about the harshness of technology?

Soon, One Opinion will be back to 100% and it'll be time for more cornering Coulter, fighting for rights and unifying through democracy.

Okay, I'll keep it real:  It'll be back to more complaining of problems and offering solutions.

It was reported last month by the online journal Queer Day that a Maine Conservative Representative has proposed legislation that would stop a woman from having an abortion if she felt that the fetus carried a so-called "gay gene".

Brian Duprey (R-MA) says he came up with the idea while listening to an episode of the Rush Limbaugh Show.  The proposed legislation is one that, Duprey says, is supposed to promote gay rights.

The Portland Press-Herald in Portland, Maine quotes Duprey as saying, "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong."

Critics of the bill have said Duprey's intentions are, "disingenuous," according to Senate President Beth Edmonds, a Democrat representing the Freeport area of Maine.  "It is just something to get him press time. It is not a realistic proposal," the Press-Herald quotes Edmonds as saying.

My one opinion:  I believe this legislation has nothing to do with homosexual rights.  As much as I am an advocate for gay rights, I believe this legislation is merely an attempt at getting representatives in the Maine Congress to choose between gay rights and abortion rights.

After all, Duprey introduced a gay rights bill last month and then opposed it himself, citing that he only pushed the bill because a constituent asked him to.  Now, Duprey--who says himself that he is in opposition to abortion--is contradicting himself by pushing a piece of legislation that would, supposedly, give rights to unborn homosexual fetuses (if such things even exist) while at the same time, blocking abortion.

Duprey backs up his legislation by stating that science can determine whether or not a fetus will contain the gene mapping for Down Syndrome.  However, he's also basing his legislation on the false assumption that science has proof that homosexuality is caused by a gene.

Things that aren't disputed by the scientific community:  Wind traveling down a mountain slope will increase in speed than when it initially traveled up the slope.  The sky is blue because it takes on a reflection of the water.  Ultraviolet rays are harmful to the skin and may cause skin cancer.  Cats have whiskers to aide them in their sense of touch.

What can't be proven with science yet is whether homosexuality is caused by a gene, by choice, by a chemical in the brain, or even nothing...and according to Sujatha Byravan of the Council for Responsible Genetics, it's not an issue that's on the front burner of scientific controversy.

So, while this legislation may do wonders for the future of gay people (starting before they're ever born, and if someone can prove that the mother wants an abortion because she feels the baby she's carrying may be homosexual), it's useless as written now.  This is an attempt for Duprey to make Maine Congress choose sides betwen homosexuals and abortion--both two equally controversial issues in this day and age.

Duprey makes one last stab at trying to change my mind:  "Technology is changing every day. They could map the homosexual gene tomorrow."  And when they do, then you can introduce the legislation again...and hopefully, it'll be because you want to represent the people of Maine, not because a constituent asked you to.  Be true to your feelings and represent your people well, or you'll be out of a job faster than you know.

There was an op/ed by Ann Coulter that I almost agreed on.  When I first saw the title, Calling The Kettle Gay, I had a stipulaton that I might not agree with it, though.

In the editorial, she cited how Liberals were attacking gays or attacking Conservatives by making the accusation that they were gay.  Okay, I've never heard any Liberal make an accusation that someone was gay, but that's not to say it hasn't happened.  I also haven't heard much gay bashing from prominent Liberals, but again, that's not to say it hasn't happened.  So, I was basically fifty-fifty on the piece, until I read the following:

Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.

Is that so, Ms. Coulter?  You think our agenda is to transform, somehow, the Pentagon (the headquarters of our nation's military) into the Office of Homosexual Studies?  This is a completely absurd argument to bring up in a piece that really has nothing to do with the quote.

By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"

Again, completely absurd.  Personally, I think Liberals out Conservative family members, relatives, or even friends to make a point:  "Look, you want to take these civil liberties away from your friends?  What kind of a friend are you?  Are you looking out for the interest of your country or yourselves?"

My one opinion:  Coulter hasn't gotten her facts straight.  She is an editorial writer who takes any given situation and randomly attacks anyone and everyone within her line of firing.  Her writings could compare to blindfolding an executioner right before firing on death row inmates--more than the accused are going to get hurt.

Coulter--stop turning things into something they're not and try to make a change for this country.