Some of the posts about this show would appear to mirror the unfortunate debate currently going on in the Democratic party about whether or not it should even try to compete in the South. Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of abandoning a whole region to the Republicans (for the record, I think it's profoundly stupid), such discussions encourage the shallow thinking of "red states vs. blue states" without bothering to ponder the complexities of politics examined by region, county, urban vs. rural, etc.

I'm a native Southerner who now lives in Minnesota, and I can tell you that there's no shortage of Bush-supporting, nativist, fundamentalist nutjobs up here. Kerry only won by three percentage points here in 2004 - in the state of Humphrey and Mondale no less. Not only that, we just reelected a Stepford-like, incredibly reactionary Republican governor who's expert at affecting the wholesome Mr. Midwest Niceguy persona while taking this state backward at an alarming rate.

Northern right wingers are even worse than their Southern counterparts because they know enough to be politically correct while still pursuing their horrible policies. One interesting statistic: Minnesota has the greatest gap between white and black educational and economic levels than any state in the country. White people like me tend to do very well here, black people not so much. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of this state's politics.

I'm not trying to slam my adopted state. I like living here and wouldn't stay if I didn't. I'm merely pointing out that maybe there isn't such a great difference between us and our Southern cousins. It simply wouldn't have taken that much to tip us into the Bush column in either 2000 or 2004. Then where would all these holier-than-thou liberals be?

Yes, the South has a lot of problems, which is ultimately why I left. But it also has a lot of charm and graciousness on a personal level, something that's often lacking in the North. We're all one country. Aren't liberals supposed to want to bridge divides, rather than build them?

I'll be interested to see "Maxed Out" to see how even-handed it is. While yes, there are people who turn to credit cards out of desperation when catastrophe strikes (illness, etc.), I'd wager there are plenty more people who get into trouble simply because they cannot or will not rein in their spending habits. I've personally known at least one person who was underemployed out of choice (couldn't be bothered to work full-time), yet kept charging everything and ultimately ended up in bankruptcy. But it was all the fault of the Man.

We're a very narcissistic culture; self-denial or even delayed gratification are horrible offenses to our delicate psyches and the sheer wonder of me, me, ME. Whatever happened to the idea of not buying things you can't afford? If you want to see something really chilling, but also hilarious, rent Mike Judge's suppressed "Idiocracy". It hits a little too close to home for even the allegedly sophisticated art-house crowd.

The habits of American consumers have become so thoroughly retarded that we deserve whatever punishment the credit card companies want to mete out. If you don't want to be beholden to them, then quit buying all this crap. For most people, it's that simple.

Yes, Inhofe is an idiot, but I'd tend to agree with him on the limited point that the whole system of "pollution credits" is a con. He's also correct to point out that wealthy liberals like Gore love to lecture the rest of us on global warming while doing nothing to limit their own profligate energy use. I bet I wouldn't use the amount of energy in 10 years that Al Gore does in six months.

The bottom line is that Mother Nature doesn't care about cute little gimmicks like these "markets". As long as there continues to be a net increase in the amount of carbon-based fuel burned (is a decrease even remotely possible?), the globe will likely continue to warm.

Another item no one will ever bring up because it's supposedly taboo is population control. All the technological improvements in energy use can make a difference, but only if we still limit consumption. Macro-level conservation is an incredibly difficult trick to pull off as long as population is still increasing.

I noticed Gore tried to deflect Inhofe's admittedly clumsy attempt to get the former Vice President to address his own staggeringly wasteful energy use by claiming that he was using wind power and other renewables. Sorry, Mr. Gore, but that doesn't excuse you from responsibility for conservation just like everyone else.

As is all-too-common for limousine liberals, Gore is just using the environment as his vanity cause and personal hobby horse - one he can ride to public acclaim and admiration. If he were serious about everything he says, he would acknowledge that we all have to make changes in the ways we live. Stop buying SUVs, live closer to work, take public transit, walk. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Stop buying so much plastic crap. Have fewer children.

Moreover, Gore should do these things himself and set an example. However, that would require him to give up his lavish creature comforts. It's all relatively simple, but we Americans - the wealthy like Gore least of all - cannot for one moment seriously entertain the thought of giving up their cherished "lifestyle" and all its wasteful accoutrements.

Unfortunately, people still define their status by how much they consume. Gore - in his flagrant hypocrisy - is a perfect example of our environmental dilemma. It's a lot easier to talk about than it is to change ourselves.