Landon Donovan Lovechild: Is it really a scandal?

News - Landon Donovan: My Wife Means So Much to Me Now - Celebrity News - UsMagazine.com

The revelation that Landon Donovan may have fathered a lovechild is quickly running out of steam on the scandalmeter because he is a soccer player, and now that the US is out of the World Cup, soccer is no longer at the forefront of our cultural focus.

Besides, Donovan wasn't that big of a star to begin with. This sudden concern about his estranged wife, his lovechild, and his mistress is feigned. It was a way to make Americans care about soccer in time for the World Cup.

Look at the way some of our most popular magazines have begun publicizing all of those "sexy soccer stars." This is a ploy for ratings, and it becomes even more important now, since the American team has been eliminated.

Trying to make the Landon Donovan story into a scandal is a weak attempt at publicity. It will disappear in a few weeks, after the obligatory World Cup hype is over.

Chris Brown Cries During BET Awards

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEWS: Chris Brown Breaks Down Crying During BET Awards Tribute To Michael Jackson RadarOnline.com

Was Chris Brown's emotional rendition of Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror" authentic or just a publicity stunt to try and resurrect his tanking career? The singer got very choked up during his tribute to Michael Jackson at last night's BET Awards, so much so, that he couldn't even sing some of the last song. RadarOnline.com reported that Brown's performance "stole the show."

One gets the sense, when watching Brown, that his tears were more an expression of grief over what once was, then they were over Jackson's death. His career has never been the same since his infamous fight with Rihanna, and his last album "Graffiti," suffered from poor sales and reviews.

Will this latest PR stunt manage to revive Brown's floundering career? Will his tears convince people that he is not a violent abuser of women, but really a sensitive artist whose emotions got the best of him? Celebrities interviewed at the BET Awards last night seemed to think that Brown should be left alone by the media and should be allowed to have his career back. One thing is for certain, it will take a lot more public repentance before Chris Brown is going to be trusted again.

The Toy Story Phenomenon

Look at the box office snapshot of June 27, 2010. Seven of the top ten movies blatantly exploit the innocence of youth, and obviously to great effect. Why, then do studios keep trying to tell us we should crave something else? I'm sick of critics pretending they're shocked when period pieces, dramas, or romantic thrillers fail. These are AUTUMN MOVIES, people. Haven't you realized that by now?

It's summer and my mind wants to go on vacation. I want sun and fun, beaches and Fantasyland. No stuffy wood-paneled rooms, cubicles, or desolate ghost towns. I want Katy Perry singing about "California Gurls" and Buzz Lightyear, the enduring staple of youth, comforting me with shouts of, "To infinity... and BEYOND!"

Seven of the top ten movies this week are staples of our youth, and if not our youth, then that of our children: innocent, enduring, and secure. "Toy Story 3," "The Karate Kid," "The A-Team," and "Shrek Forever After" are remakes, variations on a time-tested theme that has proven successful; while, "Get Him to the Greek," "Grown Ups," and "The Prince of Persia" capitalize on the rituals of male adventure, bonding, and virilty.

These are unsure times. We have enough to worry about, with terrorism, nuclear threats, increased surveillance, and impending economic collapse an everyday reality. We need fantasy and escape, comfort and security. We need to feel safe again, like we did in our youth.

Impending doom has always dogged us, the everpresent shadow ready to snatch us up at any given moment, but when we were kids, we didn't care. We were bound and determined to experience life, to imbibe of as much as we could before we ran out. Money, alcohol, drugs, and sex: the fleeting summers bonding with friends; memories you carry with you throughout your life, and that placate you as you grow older.

Security. Cartoon characters that never get old, heroes that never die. Sequels represent summer and are expected by audiences the same way they expect catchy pop songs and risque clothing. These staples are even more in demand today, because times are indeed bleak. So why don't the studios save some money, forego the pretense, and just give us what we want?

Lindsay Lohan Can't Get a Fair Trial ANYWHERE!!!

EXCLUSIVE: Lindsay Lohan Can't Get Fair Trial, Says Lawyer RadarOnline.com

Lindsay Lohan's lawyer says she can't get a fair trial in Beverly Hills, or anywhere else in California, for that matter; but I've got news for Lindsay and her attorney: She can't get a fair trial anywhere! Lindsay recently announced she was filing a $100 million dollar lawsuit against Etrade for using her first name in reference to a "milkaholic" baby.

Etrade is a national company, whose spot aired during the Super Bowl and the winter Olympics, and whether or not they did have insinuating intentions with their overindulgent baby, her suit against them has brought national attention to her drug and alcohol problems. She has long been fodder for late-night talk shows, and the mere mention of her name conjures up images of alcohol-monitoring bracelets and wild parties. So, where in America would Lindsay be able to get a fair trial?

EXCLUSIVE: Fergie Ready To Leave Black Eyed Peas, Feuding With Will.I.Am | RadarOnline.com

EXCLUSIVE: Fergie Ready To Leave Black Eyed Peas, Feuding With Will.I.Am RadarOnline.com

RadarOnline.com reports that Fergie's status with the Black Eyed Peas is uncertain, and that she probably won't be joining the band on its 2011 tour. Will she sustain fame on her own? I believe the answer is yes. Fergie has already proven to be a solo success, and was the face of the band as well. She will profit from a solo career the way Gwen Stefani did when she branched out from No Doubt.

Fergie has the looks and the voice to keep her successful, with or without Will.I.Am. And she can act too! (Her performance in "Nine" was great!) I have to admit, it will be kind of nice not to have to hear whatever new Black Eyed Peas' song is out every 20 minutes, like I did last year on the radio. They're good, but they are a little played out. ("Boom, Boom, Pow"??) I felt like I was being subjected to some kind of psyops warfare or something. They have a good sound, and make catchy music, but Fergie can do that by herself, without having to share the spotlight with Will.I.Am.

"Knight and Day," Cruise, Diaz, Fail to Impress

Cruise-Diaz movie 'Knight and Day' opens to soft $3.8 million at box office Wednesday

Ben Fritz reports in the LA Times that predictions of a disappointing opening for the Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz film "Knight and Day" were right on, as it opened a distant second yesterday to "Toy Story 3."

According to Fritz, the film failed, despite studio efforts to generate buzz. He writes, "In order to counteract what appears to have been ineffective marketing and a lack of interest among audiences in Cruise and Diaz, distributor 20th Century Fox held nationwide sneak previews for 'Knight and Day' on Saturday and moved up its release from Friday to Wednesday."

Looks like Cameron Diaz's desperate bid for publicity didn't pay off in any big way, yet the actress is still trying. Starpulse.com has Diaz quoted as saying she loves having sex outside.

Note to Cameron: Nobody's buying. Can you please stop talking about your sex life now?

But, let's not blame it all on her. This movie has myriad things going against it, namely its relevance. It's 2010, and no one really cares about Tom Cruise or Cameron Diaz anymore. They are fond faces from another decade, but we have moved on. "Twilight" is coming out; the World Cup is going on; it's summer, and we're trying to forget our problems and just enjoy life the way all those pop songs tell us we should. Why would we devote over two hours of our hectic and overscheduled lives to watching "The Weird Guy" and "Justin Timberlake's ex-girlfriend"?

No amount of Cameron's naughty sex talk would've saved this film. Trying to remain relevant in a Miley Cyrus, "Jersey Shore" kind of world is difficult. This is a harsh and frenetic reality we live in, and you have to constantly be seen to be relevant. Unfortunately for them, Tom Cruise is constantly seen in the wrong light, while Cameron Diaz is just transparent.

Kristen Stewart Rape Comment

News - Kristen Stewart: Fame Is "Like Being Raped" - Celebrity News - UsMagazine.com



Does Kristen Stewart have an insecurity complex or what? She reminds me of the nerdy girl who scores the jock in one of those cheesy John Hughes' movies. Her latest publicity piece in "Entertainment Weekly," in which she has her boyfriend defend her, because people like him better, is downright pathetic. Kristen chooses to use two major media buzzwords in her controversial interview with Britain's "Elle" magazine, "paparazzi" and "raped," and then acts like a massive injustice is being done when people criticize her.

Come on! When she told "Elle" that she felt like the paparazzi was raping her, what did she think would happen? If she had simply called the paparazzi out on their aggressive tactics, she would've appeared righteously indignant, like Elton John or Princess Diana's brother; but she chose to use an emotionally charged word that was sure to elicit attention and controversy.

Robert Pattinson then stands up to defend her in "Entertainment Weekly," by calling out the "nerdy bloggers" who inflated the story, despite the fact that she was criticized by RAINN, a support group for survivors of rape, abuse, and incest. What do bloggers have to do with anything? If it wasn't for those "nerdy bloggers," Robert Pattinson wouldn't be half as famous as he is today.

Kristen then uses Pattinson's comments as an excuse to whine about how she could never say that because nobody likes her, and everybody's always picking on her, blah, blah, blah...

Dear Kristen, You can't, on the one hand, start taking shots at the media, while at the same time crying and running away. Harsh words spoken in a desperate plea for attention will have the intended results. You decry the media, "screaming and taunting" you, "to get a reaction," but what are you doing to them?

The Glass Closet

Cameron Diaz has joined the ranks of Christina Aguilera, as female celebrities eager for some cheap publicity, overpublicize their supposed sexual liberation and bisexuality. Since when has finding the same sex attractive become such a shallow marketing ploy?

Diaz told "Playboy" magazine that she "can be attracted to a woman sexually, but it doesn't mean I want to be in love with a woman." She adds, "If I'm going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn't mean I'm a lesbian."

We haven't seen such masterful parsing of language since Bill Clinton sought to define the word "is" and courted liberal groups while publicly disavowing being a "liberal" himself.

If Diaz is truly attracted to women, why does she have to qualify it? Why go to "Playboy" magazine, the embodiment of passive female degradation, to extoll her enigmatic sexuality?

It's interesting that this marketing ploy only works for women. Although there are a few male celebrities, like Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz, who have admitted to having bisexual tendencies, for the most part, men are sex symbols precisely because they fit into the popular mold of male virility. They wear their rugged sexuality on their sleeves, and are unequivocally attracted to women. What would it do to Brad Pitt's or Robert Pattinson's career if they publicly admitted to being bisexual?

Women like Katy Perry, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and now Cameron Diaz are being told that ambiguous sexuality is a strong selling point. They cannot be lesbians, but they can be bisexual; yet these supposed "bisexuals" are never seen out with dates other than men. So, is your sexual proclivity even relevant? If you're married with children (like Christina), engaged to a man (like Katy), or simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (like Gaga and Cameron), then why do we care? It's not like you're a tireless activist for the movement. Your "bisexuality" is simply part of your marketing plan. Shock value, titillation. (yaaaaaawn)

Cameron's disavowal of lesbianism is hardly an endorsement. It's like having a spokesperson who films commercials cavorting with your product, only to turn around and tell everyone that she doesn't even use your product, or she only uses it sometimes.

Note to Cameron's publicist (and Christina's, and Katy's, and Gaga's as well), just stick to the entertainment. Leave the fight for true equal rights and acceptance to those people who don't have to pretend.

When Humbert Met Lolita: Part 2

People.com reported that Bret Michaels was to perform with Miley Cyrus today on "Good Morning America." The promo photo for the performance shows Miley, with a skimpy shirt, pulled up to reveal her waist, wearing one of Michaels' signature cowboy hats. Michaels is seen smiling, with his inflated pout and his arm around her.




The article refers to them as "family friends," but we all know what is really going on here. It's the same old Hollywood song and dance, the "Battle against Age" that forces underage female celebrities like Cyrus to strip down and branzenly exploit themselves, while overage males like Michaels defiantly flaunt their diminishing virility.



This tired dynamic should bore us all by now, or at least disgust us, but it doesn't. We keep clicking on the photos of Cyrus exposing herself getting out of a limo; we keep tuning in to the reality shows where washed-up celebrities like Michaels desperately try to convince us of their still-relevant sex-appeal.



Maybe these shows comfort us and serve as an escape from the everyday problems of our mundane lives. Maybe if we see Michaels, still rocking in 2010, still attractive to much younger women, we feel a little better about growing older ourselves. Cyrus is titillating, an escape from the bills we have to pay and the problems we have with our own children. We can look at her and say, "Well, things could be worse."



But are these images good for anyone (besides the promoters making loads of money off of this double exploitation)? Shouldn't young women be afforded more positive examples of maturity than just another clueless Lolita, taking her clothes off for money? Why can't she be celebrated for being accepted to Harvard or for some kind of writing or directing exploits? And why can't Michaels show us how to age gracefully, without a horde of women surrounding him? Why can't he be celebrated for his wisdom or his business acumen? He did win "Celebrity Apprentice" after all.



Sex is one of life's greatest mysteries, the thing that defines and confuses us the most. We seem to think we can master it through studying the exploitation of others; as if a more thorough understanding of it will be gleaned by reveling in celebrity degradation. When will we finally realize that true understanding does not come from another reality show or scantily clad young beauty. True understanding comes from self-analysis and respect for others, even the clueless young and the undying old.

Battle in High Gear Over Dennis Hopper Estate

Battle in High Gear Over Dennis Hopper Estate


So sad that the entertainment industry is mired in greed. Here's another example of a great actor's legacy being tainted by scandal after he's gone. It's important to preserve the memory of Dennis Hopper, and all of the other great actors, without glorifying the scandalous culture surrounding them.

True, it was his life. He married this woman after all... and had a child with her. But now this is becoming just another sensationalized battle over money. What is sacred in Hollywood? Is that an oxymoron? Should we be focusing on the dirty war being waged in probate court over Dennis Hopper's estate, or should we let that lie and remember him as the wonderful entertainer he was?

Don't get me wrong, I love a good tabloid story, but where does sensational reporting become irreverence? Shouldn't we be memorializing the dead and his work? This is where the lines become blurred. We can either ignore the battle being waged between his wife and his estate, or we can acknowledge it and move on. What is the media's responsibility here?

Either way, it's tragic, because Dennis Hopper should be remembered for his work and not his personal scandals.

Christina Aguilera Kissed a Girl and She Liked It

Christina Aguilera has joined the ranks of the utterly predictable, telling Company magazine that she is attracted to (GASP!) both women and men. Just as with Lady Gaga, this type of behavior is no longer shocking. We've seen it all before.


Female pop stars follow a predictable road to superstardom, marketing themselves as the “good girls gone bad.” They start out as mediocre talents (in Christina’s case, she is actually talented, but real singing now takes a backseat to sensationalism), then turn to the dark side, dressing more provocatively, singing overtly sexual lyrics, cavorting with other sex kittens, and eschewing everything decent and moral.

There is a difference between expression and exploitation. A woman truly attracted to other women should be allowed to express that in song and action without having to play to the lurid fantasies of a male audience. When lesbianism is exploited for sensational shock value, it becomes nothing more than another way to keep women down. We are again defined by our sexuality, instead of by our intelligence or our talent. This is not liberation. This is subjugation in another form.

Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" video

Lady Gaga Bores Me Now

Oh that devilish Lady Gaga! She's at it again, making people gasp with some provocative clothing and a blasphemous video. But, is any of this really provocative anymore? Didn't we see this exact scenario with Madonna, 20 years ago? We knew Madonna was a marketing genius, who knew how to sell albums; and it worked, for her, 20 years ago. In 2010, we have become immune to it. Lady Gaga is a complete imitation.

Think about it. Nothing about her is new or original. Her act is like Madonna, and her music, like Abba. The media thinks that we are apathetic enough to buy it. And you know what? We are.

There is something comforting about stasis. We all remember the exhilirating feeling we had when we were kids, of enjoying something taboo. Lady Gaga is a manufactured rebellion, a heavily corporatized puppet. Watching people create false controversy over her derivative music video is about as exciting as watching Miley Cyrus spiraling out of control. We've seen it all before. Where are all the new stories and why are they considered "boring"?

Ponder This...

Are media images like this good for women?

What about this?

Then again, what does this say about men?

People (men and women) are all-too-willing to exploit themselves for money.

A Feminist Reading of Just about Everything

Caryl Churchill’s play, “Top Girls,” uses the trope of 80’s women’s liberation as the lens through which it views feminist history. The play features a character, a “modern woman,” who comes breezing into the employment agency, where she works as an executive, on a Monday morning, still ecstatically giddy over spending the weekend with her lover, while his wife was away. “It was just like we lived together,” she says wistfully.


Which brings me to this question: Does the modern portrayal of women in art contain any dignity, or is it merely the same message of grateful repression hiding behind a different disguise? The concept of “reality” shows springs to mind. The “Real Housewives” series on Bravo features a group of wealthy women who came into money and power through their husbands. “Kendra” features a young, beautiful wife and mother who came into money and fame through Hugh Hefner (and now her pro-football-playing husband). Is it hazardous to glorify these images of women at the expense of all of the other ones available to us today?

The feminist would argue, of course, that the media’s decision to glorify these women illustrates how subjugated we still are. These women acquired money and power through their relationships with men; in fact, it is because of men that these women are wealthy or powerful at all; and although they start their own charities and plan their own parties, these are more along the lines of “busy work,” meant to create rating-enhancing drama and lucrative tax write-offs (which, again, benefit their husbands).

An anti-feminist would disagree. She would see in this media glorification the underlying message of equality; for no matter how they chose to come into their money and power, they were still making conscious choices, a feat that represents true equality. Kendra may never be as famous as the man who discovered her, but she is certainly more famous than her husband. She is the star of her “reality” show, not because she kowtows to men, but because she makes all of her own decisions. People have the freedom to change the channel and find something more “feminist friendly” if they so desire.

Is that true? If we do change the channel, what other archetypes of women will be waiting to greet us? I thought about why there wasn’t a “reality” show about poor women, single-mothers struggling to get by, or teachers or doctors. When we do see women in these roles, they are fictionalized, decorated, and beautiful. What kind of “reality” is that?

Maybe I’m making too much of things again, I thought. Maybe images of men are just as shallow. Maybe it’s just a symptom of the times. Honestly, “The Situation,” from MTV’s “Jersey Shore,” cannot be doing anything to advocate for men either. The difference is, however, that there are a plethora of powerful men on TV. Powerful men are all around us; and they usually did not get there by relying on their wives’ money.

I would like to see the tables turned a bit: a “reality” show that features a group of young hunks with gorgeous bodies, former pool boys and gardeners, whose older wives are the bread-winners. Let’s watch the lively hijinks that ensue when their disparate personalities collide, as they use their spouses’ money and reputation to attract attention. Oh, and they have to stand out on street corners, usually drunk, in the middle of the night, verbally attacking one another, at least once every episode, kind of like “Jerry Springer” in Prada. Think anybody would watch it?

Which brings me back to “The Situation” and the fact that much of our society already does. We love to watch people humiliating themselves. Just look at competitive shows like “Wipeout,” on ABC. Men and women trip, slip, and fall off things, all in the name of money. When a society blindly chases profit, as America does, it objectifies everyone, regardless of gender. Until we begin teaching people authentic skills with which they can use to help others, we will continue to worship greed and money; and as long as we worship greed and money, women will go on being objectified, the only way they know how.

A Response to Amanda Marcotte's Slate article

The modern women’s movement, as Amanda Marcotte points out in her article, “A short history of ‘feminist’ anti-feminists” (http://www.slate.com/id/2256184), effectively manages to combine the oppressive yearning of a simpler time with the progressive gains that increased women’s collective economic vitality. Sarah Palin embodies what Marcotte calls the “feminist anti-feminists,” women, who while professionally successful themselves, advocate for repressive laws against other women, limiting access to abortion, increasing guilt, and denying women’s true sexual liberation.


Sexual liberation doesn’t mean a willingness to succumb to your inevitable captivity. It means escaping from the hysteria-inducing mainstream culture that incessantly threatens women with their inherent ugliness. It means awakening to the reality that you are an intelligent human being, capable of infinite possibilities, with or without the help of a man. Men are our equals. We do not have to swoon for them, or lie there helpless, desperate for their guidance and wisdom. We are capable of wisdom and guidance ourselves. This does not make us unattractive, or in any way worthy of contempt.

True equality will never come unless women first band together and work toward a common goal. Until we come up with an agreed-upon definition of what we are working for, we will be our own biggest obstacles. Our houses are always divided, jealousy consumes, and the movement stagnates. We have to broaden our definition of what “being a woman” really means. It does not mean simply “virgin or whore,” “skinny or fat.” It simply means “being a human being.”

Playing Like Girls

My son’s baseball coach likes to tell the team, when they lose, that they “played like girls.” My son doesn’t even know what that means. I’m the one he grew up playing baseball with, throwing the football with him, and taking him to games. I’m the one he can talk stats with. I know all the players’ names and their positions, and I don’t cheer for teams just because I like their uniforms (Although I must say that the Cleveland Browns’ colors need to go).


Which brings me to an important question: As a single mother raising two boys in the twenty-first century, how do I explain feminism to them? It’s sort of an outdated word these days, and the concept has certainly changed since its heyday in the 1970s. Feminism today encompasses more than battles over birth control and abortion (Although these battles still do exist). Women make up 52% of college students and a significant number of the workforce, yet our pay is still lower (by about 80 cents to a man’s dollar). Women still bear the brunt of most household chores; and we still do not have daycare in the workplace.

When I engaged a woman on Facebook about the concept of feminism, she was quick to label me a man-hater because I advocated for equal rights. There was also some charge of wearing “comfortable shoes” lobbed at me, as she babbled incoherently about the cute stilettos she buys, with her husband’s money, in order for him to take out the trash. The implication was that since I called myself a feminist, I was a butchy, ugly woman, who hates men and wants to tear down all distinctions between the sexes.

We saw these same arguments being used during the ERA debates. Anti-feminist voices like Phyllis Schlafly, excelled in frightening women with dark scenarios of equality like unisex bathrooms and women forced to look and act like men. The epithets stuck. The ERA was famously defeated, and Reagan ushered in an era of uberfeminine women, reveling in their evangelism and their dutiful subservience to their husbands.

I don’t even think women today know what being a feminist really means; it means nothing more than wanting to be treated like a human being. If women would take a moment to study the not-too-distant past, they would see how far we have come. Not too long ago, we were expected to forego college, and to throw ourselves, heels first, into a life of service to our husbands and children, the middle-class American Dream. We could not apply for our own credit cards, but had to have our husbands procure them for us. There were no laws to protect us from sexual harassment, and very weak ones to protect us from domestic violence and rape.

Feminism changed all that; it brought women’s issues to the forefront of the national debate, proclaiming that women could be independent and intelligent and, yes, still sexy. But all women saw in the media were the bra-burners and the lesbian activists and the radical voices screaming that pregnancy is a deplorable, parasitic condition that we must overcome. This is not feminism. This is radicalism. Just as we do not judge a movement solely on its most insane expressions, we should be careful not to base our opinions about feminism on these myopic illustrations, for they do not represent what this movement is really about.

I will do my part to resurrect the movement, to convince American women that supporting feminism is indeed in their best interests; but I will not be drawn into silly debates about my shoes or whether or not I wear makeup every time I leave the house. There are differences between the sexes. Real feminists do not deny that. We simply believe that those differences should not condemn us to a life of subservience, a life not of our choosing.

What Is Fairness Anyway?

It’s easy, when listening to Rush Limbaugh ranting about “Feminzis” or Rand Paul trying to wriggle out of civil rights, to get behind something like the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates equal media coverage of opposing viewpoints as a counterbalance to pundits’ opinions. Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson, a Constitutional lawyer, has now proposed a bill requiring journalists to register with and receive approval from the “Board of Michigan Registered Reporters,” before they are allowed to broadcast their opinions.


Not only is State Senator Patterson’s legislation unfair, it also privileges the same moneyed interests presently in control. His bill is an infringement upon our Constitutionally protected right to free speech, and a form of discrimination. Journalists must pay not only an application fee, but a registration fee as well; they are also required to show proof of “good moral character” and “ethics standards acceptable to the board.” What this means is not defined, nor are the people who will make up the deciding body.

The required credential litany doesn’t end there. To be considered for approval, applicants must have a journalism degree or a degree in another relevant field, three or more years reporting experience or other relevant background, awards or recognition for their reportage, and three or more writing samples. In other words, those who did not attend college need not apply. Those who, because of arbitrary financial realities, could not attend college need not apply. Those who received a degree in art history, but feel passionately about saving the environment or ending the war, and have the tenacity to express those opinions in a blog or journal, need not apply.

Fairness is a relative term. What’s fair to me, a single-mother of two children, things like the right to healthcare or equal pay for equal work, may not be considered fair to a millionaire or to a white male with an MBA. Fairness is not about money. Just as we tell our children that they can do anything they put their minds to, so should it be in the larger society. Fairness is not where you went to college, or even if you went to college; and in the United States of America, it should be about more than groveling before some kind of council of elders. It should be about freedom: the freedom of thought, the freedom of access, and most of all, the freedom of speech.