Talking with the Associated Press on Monday, Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said he's got concerns President-elect Barack Obama will lead the nation toward some kind of Gestapo-like Marxist dictatorship — this in apparent ignorance of the fact Nazism and Marxism were at odds during the Second World War.

Says Broun of Obama's call for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military:

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Broun was referring to a campaign speech Obama made calling for an expansion of America's foreign service.

What Broun seems to miss is that Obama was looking to increase America's diplomatic corps as well as build a civilian reserve corps devoted to postwar reconstruction efforts, rather than create an actual civilian police force — concepts that were also championed by current Secretary of State Condi Rice. But then Rice is probably just another secret sleeper Gestapo-Marxist agent that Rep. Broun just didn't have time to out — over the last eight years. And she's probably a Muslim, too!

It should be pointed out that as he's been caught spewing hate Broun now "regrets" having made the remarks.

"The point I tried to make is that he is extremely liberal," said Broun.

Yeah, you know, the way the Nazis were all liberal like that.

Regardless of his lame pullback, Broun's blatant hate talk is not only nonsensical, it's offensive on many levels. Intellectually, of course. But having been said the day before Veterans' Day it's offensive to anyone who actually wore a uniform and fought Nazism, as it is certainly offensive to the victims of the Nazi genocide to make the equation to Hitler. Beyond that, loose hate talk only breeds more hate and I think that's something we can pretty much do without.

You'd think after the election that the radical wing of the Republican Party would have learned that fear-mongering doesn't work any better than race-baiting. But as they will be a political non-entity for at least the next two years, they'll have plenty of time to meditate on just that.

Sounds a little strange, sure. Emotionally, obviously. But what about practically?

Obama ran as a post-racial candidate. During his campaign, he suggested replacing race-based affirmative action with measures weighted toward socioeconomic factors. He gave a Father's Day speech encouraging black dads to be more engaged. And for his trouble, he was reward with an offer of castration from Jesse Jackson.

Which, as an aside, makes me wonder if on election night Jackson was crying tears of joy, or if he was getting misty-eyed because he knew his day was done?

Obama isn't alone in inciting ire for extolling personal responsibility. Comedian Bill Cosby delivered his "Pound Cake" speech on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and claimed that not all blacks were "holding up their end of the bargain." In return, he was accused of being a race traitor. As if self-reliance equaled self-hatred.

Sorry, but not waiting for somebody else to get it done is a value that brought people of color up from slavery, through a failed Reconstruction and Jim Crow, to the shared experience of this past Tuesday.

The fear for some is that Obama's election will start people thinking, "Hey, guess we can roll up the civil rights carpet." Hardly. Let's face it: There are gonna be bigots in America for the foreseeable future.

But the cry of the Old Schoolers that American is a racist nation begins to ring hollow. In the era of Obama -- along with Oprah and Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and business executives Dick Parsons and Ken Chenault and on and on -- are those who've made bank flogging the victim stick ready to quit talking about who needs to be cut where and start admitting that yes, we can?

There was a text message sent around before the election that read: "Rosa sat so Martin could march. Martin marched so Obama could run."

Well, Obama was ready, willing and able to run for all of us. Are all of us ready for him?

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin speaks during a campaign rally at the Silver Spurs Arena in Kissimmee, Fla., on Sunday.

Matt Stroshane/Getty Images

Let's just go ahead and call this thing for Barack Obama. If I've done my math correctly, I'm giving him 369 electoral votes. Clinton-esque numbers.

Now, if you have no interest in talking about the "other side" of politics, consider the above your takeaway.

Take it. Go away (but please come back some other time) while I lament the short, could-have-been-brilliant career of Sarah Palin.

Over the past eight years, the Republican Party has imploded. In this election cycle, the conservative intelligentsia has effectively split from the "base," that portion of the party that is seemingly "excited" or "energized" not by issues of war or oil or the economy but by those that forge a social wedge. Add to that the shifting demographics of America and the Republican Party's woeful inability to attract people of color, and there is a very real possibility that for the foreseeable future the Republicans will be reduced to a nonentity within politics.

The Republicans desperately need their Barack Obama.

It could have been Sarah Palin.

Could have been, except for John McCain's gut-check, Hail Mary, game-changing, unvetted decision to take an inexperienced "small town" politician and dump her on the national stage with little more than 60 days to go before votin' time.

Palin instantly struck a chord with the "don't care about nothing except 'values' " portion of the party. What Palin brought to the ticket was an ability to blunt the Democrats' message of change — personified by Obama and Hillary Clinton and even Bill Richardson on a national level — while being able to speak the language of "values" with the GOP base.

However — token hire that she was — Palin 1.0 alienated Republicans who don't support affirmative action that puts the underqualified at the front of the line. (And I give those Republicans credit for at least being consistent on the question of capability.)

And no matter her folksy ways, in those 60 or so days, Palin got stung by some controversies, nontroversies and gaffes. Same as any other politician and, for that matter, anybody who's in the eye of the media storm 1,439 minutes of each day. But when all that happens on your first date with America and is further exacerbated by the Liberal-Elite-Sexist-Gotcha-Not-Pro-America-Part-Of-America media that you mostly refuse to talk to, what chance do you really have?

Truthfully, seriously, can you imagine what it might have been like if — starting at this year's Republican National Convention, much as with Obama in 2004 — Palin had been given a slow and thoughtful rollout? You don't have to be a Palin supporter to acknowledge — tested, vetted and brought up to speed — she would have been positioned to truly lead her party, as opposed to merely appearing as the illegitimate love child of Dan Quayle and Geraldine Ferraro.

That is not to say Palin couldn't be rehabilitated within the next four years. Hey, if Nixon could make a comeback...

But McCain's missteps, the taint of failure following his loss and questions that will surely linger about the woman herself give much ammunition to those in her own party who would potentially run against her.

Palin's major hurdle in the next cycle will be explaining her "pallin' around" with the AIP, a radical organization that seeks the breakup of the United States.

That is quite a lot, and I haven't even mentioned having to live down the catchphrase "I can see Russia from my house." However, overcoming all of that — as Reagan overcame the vapid actor tag — is only going to make the governor all the stronger. If so, Palin 2.0 will be a force to be reckoned with.

This cliche dates waaay back to the Great Depression, when the only two things anyone could seemingly spare a dime for were bootleg liquor and Busby Berkeley musicals.

Makes sense. When times are tough, people want to escape to somewhere fantastic without having to pay actual escape-to-somewhere-fantastic cash.

And offering a couple of hours away from the ordinary is what the movies do best.

So as our economy falters once again, will America look west to us godless heathens in Hollywood to lift the nation from its doldrums — and make a buck to boot?

History says yes. The "recession-proof" line isn't just Hollywood lore. According to Time magazine, domestic box office returns were up five of the last seven times the economy was down.

For example:

1981. We had the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, a steep jack in oil prices — and Raiders of the Lost Ark, which snatched an arkful of $209 million.

The 1973 Oil Crisis. God, oil again. Good thing we don't have to worry about that anymore. That actually ran until 1975. During that time, Hollywood cranked out hits like American Graffiti, The Exorcist, Chinatown and Godfather: Part II.

And then there was this little picture called Jaws. A $7 million investment that turned into a $69 million domestic first-run windfall.

Not only does Hollywood make money — it seems to make better movies during recessions. I'm sure a lot of studio executives wish we could have one every year.

And if there was ever a time us heathens needed some box office heroics, it's now. As the brilliantly executed writers' strike cost California billions in revenue and thousands of jobs, people all over the state are hurting.

So how's this year looking? This summer we had snappy financial receptions for Iron Man, the ladies from Sex and the City and another Indiana Jones again.

And then there was The Dark Knight, which at $527 million is the largest domestic hit in 11 years.

So can Tinseltown once again buck the financial trend? Well, in Hollywood, there's usually a happy ending.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks to Tom Brokaw during a taping of Meet the Press Sunday in Washington. Powell discussed his endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images for Meet The Press

To hear Rush Limbaugh tell it, it sounds like a scary story shared around the fire when he's at sleepaway camp in the "pro-America" parts of the country: Colin Powell, the once Trustable Brother? He's possessed! He's voting for Barack Obama!

Why?

Why? Because they're both black...ish. They've got that light-dark-skinned soul brother thing going on. It's the only, ONLY reason Powell is voting for Obama!

Though Limbaugh is an admitted satirist and I'm sure is just making ironic comment on Powell's eloquent, heartfelt, cogently explained reasons for supporting Obama.

By reducing those reasons to race. (Though, no, Powell hasn't endorsed any, as Limbaugh puts it, "inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates." He's just supported an inexperienced, very conservative, white candidate for years.)

Unfortunately, there might be a few people on the far, far right who don't get satire — the folks who did the 1/2 Hour News Hour, for example — who might actually buy into the nonsense that blacks are giving Obama "he's one of us" votes. That, in turn, forces me to take time from my busy schedule to prove the right wrong.

Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan, too (whom I work with at MSNBC and who I will say is decent even when he's way wrong, so I will cut a little slack), make their "he's one of us" vote claim regarding Powell in particular (blacks in general) in spite of the fact that a person of color has run for the White House in every presidential election over the last 24 years: Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. Gov. Douglas Wilder of Virginia in 1992. Former ambassador and conservative activist Alan Keyes of Maryland in 1996 and 2000. Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York in 2004.

Plenty of opportunities for Powell and other blacks to willy-nilly support a brother (or a sister).

Conservatives may argue that, well, none of those candidates was even worth Powell's attention. But if Powell is — if blacks are — just going to vote for a "darkie," then won't any "darkie" do?

None carried the black vote to any significance. Certainly not Keyes. Not Wilder and Braun, arguably the most qualified candidates at that time. Jackson had some strong showings but could not come close to closing the deal.

And what about Sharpton? Shouldn't he be the closest comparison to Obama in terms of blacks just "giving him" their votes? Sharpton, too, gives a good speech, and he ran most recently.

In 2004, in the District of Columbia primary, Sharpton came in second to Howard Dean. D.C. at the time was 70 percent minority. Sixty percent black. Yet the minorities and the blacks "gave" their votes to Dean. In South Carolina, only 1 in 5 blacks voted for Sharpton.

Clearly — more important, factually — most blacks don't vote for blacks just because they are black.

This should have been evident in the early stages of Obama's campaign, when Sen. Hillary Clinton initially outpolled Obama among blacks, to the surprise of everyone except people of color, who knew going in we weren't a monolithic voting bloc. Should've been evident when blacks and liberals had to ask the inane question, "Is Obama black enough?" Even Michelle Obama was reduced to saying that one day black America would "wake up and get it" with regard to voting for her husband based on race.

Beyond the merit of that, or of any of those positions, it does not appear as though black America is handing Obama a "he's one of us" vote.

Rather, the majority of black Americans are giving their votes to the man who, as Powell said, has passed the tests of leadership, particularly over these past seven weeks.

I think the confusion is with the conservatives, who wouldn't cast their votes for someone who's not "one of us." They apply a very narrow litmus test — excluding the "macacas," or the "uppity," or people who don't come from those "pro-America" parts of the country. But that doesn't mean the rest of us — those who have a more open mind — necessarily vote for a candidate simply because he is "one of us."

Barely a year later, and any talk of immigration reform has seemingly ended. In Wednesday night's final presidential debate, the word "immigration" was used only once — separate from the word "illegal" — and it was a reference by John McCain to a perceived distortion within a Barack Obama campaign ad.

There are a few reasons illegal immigration as an issue has fallen off the national radar.

Certainly the tanking economy has taken center stage. But wasn't illegal immigration tied to the economy? Weren't "those people" either dragging us down as leeches on social programs or engines of domestic growth by doing the jobs that Americans wouldn't do? Surly the issue was important enough then that it should be put into some kind of perspective now.

Also, McCain joined with Sen. Ted Kennedy to sponsor the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform act. Or was it the amnesty bill? Whichever, it was a bill Barack Obama voted in support of. It's already hard enough for McCain to differentiate himself from Obama, what with McCain adopting the cloak of "change." Underscoring yet again where he agrees with Obama does McCain no good.

And, too, the Hispanic vote is shaping up to be the game changer — the buzzword of '08 — in this presidential election. Hispanic voters could make the difference in swings states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even North Carolina — a fact McCain must be very mindful of.

When McCain co-sponsored the bill with Kennedy, he alienated fellow Republicans. After the bill failed to pass in the House and he flip-flopped back into a more conservative stance, McCain alienated Hispanics. Obama enjoys a wide advantage among Hispanic voters. McCain can't afford to alienate anyone else by substantively talking about illegal immigration.

Which is unfortunate. Though illegal immigration has actually decreased slightly as our economy has worsened, immigration reform remains an important issue. Despite both candidates supporting the Kennedy bill, there are differences of approach between McCain and Obama that should be discussed.

The electorate deserves talk on the issue. Clearly that's not going to happen until after Nov. 4.

Ohio agrees with me.

Death row inmate Richard Cooey had received a last little bit of infamy by claiming that at 5-foot-7, 267 pounds he was "too fat" to be executed. While it sounds like a joke on the surface, the concern was it would be too difficult to find a vein for lethal injection and the subsequent efforts would lead to "cruel and unusual punishment."

Much like fatness, I'm open to discussions on the death penalty. Either we should have it, or we shouldn't and since we have it it should be as humane as possible considering you're killing somebody.

That said...

I certainly have no sympathy for Cooey's fat defense. The guy was convicted of the sexual assaults and slayings of two University of Akron students. Again, two students. Ages 20 and 21. Cooey was convicted back in 1986, which means he spent more time living on appeals then his victims actually spent living.

And it should be noted that Cooey blames prison food for 75 pounds he's put on since his incarceration. Here we live in a country where too many kids still go to bed hungry at night and this cat was complaining about the penal system was packing on his pounds.

Anyway, the matter is now moot. Cooey was executed at 10:28 this morning. Let killers beware. If you want to live, you gotta come up with something better than "does this prison jumpsuit make me look fat?"

Being overweight is no excuse for keeping a vicious killer alive.

However, the demographics have clearly shifted around, though the Republican Party seems nearly blind -- and tone deaf -- to the fact.

Conservatives got too complacent playing bait-your-way-to-victory and failed to notice that in 2008 it's minority voters who may very well decide the outcome of this presidential election. The same minorities that conservatives have been handing a slap to the back of the head at nearly every opportunity. From not-so-subtle euphemisms to open slurring, how much is conservative race-baiting going to cost the Republicans?

Probably the presidency.

President Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. In contrast Barack Obama currently has a more than 2-to-1 edge with Hispanic voters over John McCain. That may have something to do with conservative "satirist" Rush Limbaugh encouraging Hispanic voters to either "shut your mouth, or get out." The Latino vote could shift the election in Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina. All states that in recent years the Republicans could nearly bank on. North Carolina especially is turning into a dicey proposition for Republicans.

In addition to Hispanic voters, there's expected to be an increased turnout among black voters who should top the 85 percent support they gave to John Kerry in 2006. That combo has given Team McCain enough worry that they've had to feverishly dispatch running mate Sarah Palin to North Carolina in an effort to shore up the state.

While the historic candidacy of Barack Obama has an obvious emotional pull for people of color, Republicans had been making inroads among black voters. In 2004, President Bush took 11 percent of the black vote nationally, an increase from about 7 percent in 2000. But in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, Bush was able to claim as much as 16 percent of the black vote to help solidify his victories. John McCain is not expected to poll above the single digits with black voters in either state.

The Republicans are losing Asian voters as well. Forty-one percent of Asian-Americans support Obama and 24 percent McCain (though with a large 34 percent undecided, Asians could tip for McCain). And file this under Kinda Ironic: broken down by country of origin, the only group of Asians in which McCain out polls Obama are Vietnamese, 51 percent to 24.

From the beginning of the primary season, Republicans -- in contrast to the Democrats -- looked less like a representation of modern America than a reenactment of Founding Father's demographics. By the time their national convention rolled around, the Republicans had managed to put together the whitest political jamboree in recent history. Just 13 percent of their delegates were minorities.

To be fair, Republicans have in the past tried to reach out to minority voters. Most recently there was an RNC minority outreach program spearheaded by Ken Mehlman, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida. The effort should be acknowledged. And President Bush has obviously done a commendable job of appointing minorities to high profile positions.

But conservatives have to understand that outreach cannot be an empty buzzword highlighted by making a speech at the Edmund Pettis Bridge 43 years after the fact. Outreach means taking a stand when your members use slurs like "uppity" and your operatives call Hispanics "stupid and unskilled." True outreach means not skipping events such as the All American Presidential Forum organized by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University and the Univision debate. And if you want to attract some voters of color you certainly can't allow Sarah Palin to get away with making the racially charged comment that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America."

Based on Republican demographics, certainly Palin is far more correct than she knows.

But I guess, for Sarah, when your only previous foreign relations experience is being able to gander at Russia from your lawn and a single trip abroad, experience by osmosis is not so ludicrous.

Although we can't really be sure.

Pool reporters were supposed to be allowed to take pictures -- just some sweet, little hang-'em-on-the-fridge-photos -- of Sarah's big day with the "old boys club." Only, last minute, Team McCain decides to pull the pool reporters for fear they might accidently hear Sarah speak on something -- to express an opinion that wasn't focus-group tested and talking-point ready.

From the LA Times regarding Palin's sit-down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai:

"The pool of reporters, which was to include a television crew, was supposed to be in the room for a few moments -- just to capture the opening of Palin's meetings. But when the campaign announced that even the pool television producer -- who is charged with capturing editorial content for the five networks -- would not be permitted in the room, the networks threatened to pull their cameras from Palin's events today."

Eventually, the campaign relented and allowed a CNN producer into the room for the meetings. But there were no wire service reporters or print reporters present for the first meeting, with Karzai.

According to the pool report from the CNN producer allowed into Karzai's hotel suite, Palin was seated a few feet from Karzai; seated slightly behind her were foreign policy advisors Steve Biegun and Randy Scheunemann.

Two policy advisers backing her up. She and President Karzai talked about his son.

Well, clearly we're in good hands.

On August 29, John McCain promised us a candidate who was ready on day one to be VP. It's been 26 days and counting and Palin has yet to hold a press conference. This from a presidential candidate who claims his administration will be more open and transparent than the most previous. I think about now Dick Cheney's in his undisclosed secret bunker going: "C'mon, go siddown with Michelle Malkin. She'll give you a foot massage."

But, no, we get nothing from the Alaskan Sphinx. The clock is literally ticking. The conversation about the effectiveness of being a hockey mom VP is fading into so many yesterdays. Like a reveler showing up to the party late, Sarah is just getting up to speed on world affairs and the conversation has already turned domestic.

I image she'll have that the economy down around, oh, Nov. 5 or so.

Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia has said he didn't know "uppity" had an offensive connotation.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Awhile back I wrote a piece about Karl Rove referring to Barack Obama as "arrogant" and asserted that when the Roves of the world use that word around Obama, what they really mean is "uppity."

As to be expected, there were those who've never had to decode codification who took the stance that sometimes arrogant just means arrogant.

Sure.

And sometimes eggplant just means eggplant.

Be that as it may, the arrogant/uppity debate is now moot, as there seems to be a spate of folks quitting the euphemisms altogether and going straight for the pejorative. Over the few last weeks, we've had U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican, refer to the Obamas — both Barack and Michelle — as uppity, and had Rick Goddard, a GOP congressional candidate in Georgia, use the same word to describe MSNBC reporter Ron Allen. Goddard used the word in reference to a slightly testy interview Allen conducted with Newt Gingrich at the bastion of diversity that was the Republican National Convention.

The word "uppity" has a long and ugly history, and was usually part of a two-word phrase that roughly ran: "uppity n*gger."

Of course, now that the word is out there, uppity's got its defenders, too. They say that since it can be directed toward anyone of any race, it can't be offensive exclusively to people of color. Except, really, how many times do you hear the word used in conjunction with a white person? White people are supposed to have ego and ambition, so they can't possibly be uppity. It's minorities who have the temerity to want to rise above their station.

And it's journalists of color who have the nerve to ask conservatives tough questions.

Though unapologetic for the use of the word, Westmoreland says he didn't know that uppity had an offensive connotation. A difficult claim to believe coming from a 58-year-old man who grew up in the segregated South. I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's dismay when he was informed that it's inappropriate to refer to New York City as "Hymietown." Who'd have thought?

Westmoreland's final fallback position is the same as most who refuse to either man up and apologize or just get honest and admit they're bigoted: Webster's. Westmoreland says that because there is a dictionary definition for "uppity," people's sensitivity to the word is overdone.

I would point out there are also dictionary definitions for "coon" and "tar baby" and "macaca."

And there is also a dictionary definition for "cracker." So I'm sure neither Westmoreland nor Goddard would take offense if I refer to them as one.

Tech writers are herded like sheep into a Bay Area venue, where they wait for Apple CEO Steve Jobs to bestow upon them some Clarke-ian magiclike scientific device. These events often end with a final tease from Jobs of "One more thing..." before he wows with a last, fantastic toy. Among the gifts handed down from the Infinite Loop Olympus: the amazing iPod and the revolutionary iPhone.

But as fabled as these Special Events have been, they are starting to become decidedly routine. A prime example is Tuesday's Apple "Let's Rock" Special Event that yielded ... not much of anything special: some new iPod Nanos that were most spectacular in that they did a 180-degree from last year's shortened form factor. A slightly updated iTunes music store that debuted an in-house version of the freakishly cool Pandora. And NBC Universal returning to the Apple fold after making a big show of pulling its content from iTunes in favor of the Hulu Web site that it co-owns with News Corp. and that you never heard of before.

And while all that is nifty if you happen to dig Apple products — just to let you know where I stand, I'm writing this on my MacBook Air — none of that is really stop-the-presses material. To the point, before the event Apple was doing some arm twisting with the tech media, trying to get them to "please" come with promises of something truly special to be revealed. I'm guessing more than a few tech writers are feeling a bit played.

The problems with Apple and its Special Events are multiple. Foremost is that Apple is a victim of its own success. Tiny digital media players with full-color screens and accelerometers might be light-years beyond the competition, but for MacAddicts such refreshes have become commonplace. If Apple isn't presenting something on beyond the iPhone, all else seems Dullsville. And Apple's fan base is so, well, fanatic, there are a bunch of Web sites more dedicated to vetting Apple rumors than John McCain was to vetting Sarah Palin. Pictures of the new iPod and specs for Version 8 of iTunes were on the Web days before the event. All of that kinda takes the surprise out of the surprise party.

But more than anything, I for one am becoming Special Event fatigued. After all, if every Apple event is special, how can any of them be unique? When Apple finally comes out with a tablet computer, by all means Special Event away. But in the meantime, I think an old-fashioned press release'll do fine.

One more thing... Considering the recent roll-out issues that Apple's had — the MobileMe fiasco and the iPhone that drops calls more often than [insert pop culture reference here] — I'll take an ordinary event with a product that works over another rushed Special Event any day.

Unless it's an ultraportable tablet. Then just give it to me buggy, and firmware me later.

Won't you take a moment to learn some Palinguage? Here are some of my helpful tips, a version of which appeared here earlier today.

REPEAT THE FOLLOWING:

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire."

If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

If you live in an urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy."

If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning, noon and night.)

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic."

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're the quintessential "American story."

Similarly, if you name your kid Barack, you're "unpatriotic."

Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual, you're "reckless."

A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a "maverick."

If you say that for the "first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country," it makes you "unfit" to be first lady.

If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession, that makes you the governor's "first dude."

A DUI from 20 years ago is "old news."

A speech given without proper citation from 20 years ago is "relevant information."

And, finally, if you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife's recurrence of cancer, you're a "questionable spouse."

If you're a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn... Well, we don't know what that is 'cause THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.

Got some Palinguage? Let me know.

Michelle Yeoh at the Japan premiere of 'The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor' on Aug. 4.

Toru Yamanaka/AFP/Getty Images

Well, that's it. Summer's about over. Hope yours was good. How was mine? Thanks for asking. Well, I'm not given to absolutes, so I'm gonna say in terms of what Hollywood gave us, this was just the demi-most offensive summer ever at the multiplexes. Offensive, if you happen to be a person of color whom Hollywood in turn mocked, lampooned or humiliated ... that is, when we weren't just being completely ignored.

There was Jack Black supplying the voice of a Chinese bear in Kung Fu Panda. I guess the producers of the movie thought that it would be alright for an occidental to voice one of the most revered symbols of China, since they gave actual Asian actors Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu all of like five lines in supporting roles.

We had Mike Meyers entertaining himself by flogging Hindu and Indian stereotypes. And the lovely Jennifer Hudson playing a 21st century Hattie McDaniel to the Sex and the City gals. Excuse me, Jennifer's the one with the Oscar. Shouldn't they be fetching Jennifer's coffee?

Yes, there was Will Smith as a superhero. An alcoholic, abusive, foul-mouthed superhero. And, yes, there was redemption at the end of Hancock, but the path was so coarse as to be unsuitable for my kids to watch. So, the only hero of color they saw this summer was The Incredible Hulk. Which, by the way, why does a movie with nary a minority in it have to end with the Hulk destroying Harlem?

Honestly, this summer's offerings couldn't have been any more offensive if they released the director's cut of Birth of a Nation. On Blu-ray.

Out of 36 films put into wide release between May 2 and Aug. 22, only four had any minorities in leading roles.

In fact, the two performances that really stand out in big summer Hollywood films are Michelle Yeoh in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor -- she manages to bring grace and gravitas to every performance. And Robert Downey Jr. playing a white guy playing a black guy in Tropic Thunder. Sorry, but that one passes the funny test. It was funny. What can I tell you?

Now, maybe you think this is just complaining to complain, but remember this is the summer that featured Tiger Woods gutting out one of the greatest performances in sports history on a shattered leg, China having its coming out party with the Beijing Olympics, and Barack Obama making history in Denver. Now, I know truth is stranger than fiction, but when did reality become more fantastic than fantasy?

So, to all my dear, dear friends in Hollywood -- particularly the ones who can green-light -- maybe before you finalize next summer's slate of films, it's time to put down your trade papers and pick up some real newspapers.

Bruuuuce's "Born in the USA" is a classic, but the wrong anthem for these games.

Lennox McLendon/AP

Sooo ... the Redeem Team won the men's basketball gold at the Beijing games. If Russia thought it was suddenly resurgent as a superpower, it'd better think again.

But what was up with playing Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as the last second ticked off the clock?

NOTE: Maybe "Born in the USA" was ubiquitous for Team USA victories, but other than women's race walking and some kinda thing where people were paddling some kinda boat, a replay of the end of the men's basketball finals was all I saw of the Olympics, so I gotta limit my observations to that.

Anyway ...

While the song has all the trappings of great American-bred rock, as I'm sure most of you know, nary a more anti-American imperialism screed has ever been put to electric guitar: forgotten vets, jobs disappearing from the Rust Belt, Amerasian kids left "in country," and a to-the-point rendering of the Vietnam War.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Yellow man? Helloooo, China!

Now, I'm not picking on Springsteen. I'm just curious as to who thought this was the tune to use when celebrating U.S. dominance in hoops? Americans who dig musical hooks, but aren't up on lyrics? Chinese who have a shrewd sense of irony? Or was it Bob Costas trying to make up for erroneously telling Brian Williams that Springsteen had dedicated the song to Michael Phelps at a concert? (Yes, he already publicly corrected himself.)

So, the next time somebody brings up the trope that music is ruining society, tell 'em clearly no one listens to the lyrics.