In praise of John Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the United States.

Historians aren't kind to Calvin Coolidge. A good and decent man by any measure, nonetheless most historians view President Coolidge as an ineffective president who did nothing in office.

Nothing in office? That's a bad thing? Coolidge presided over the strongest economy is U.S. history by doing what presidents should do: Nothing. Let business do the business of the nation. Unemployent under Coolidge was an astounding 3.6 percent! Coolidge believed that government should not exist soley to collect taxes. Under Collidge, the nation's wealth increased almost 18 percent because he lowered taxes of rich folk thereby increasing government revenue and unburdening the lower and middle classes (hint: when rich folk have more money, they pay workers more and create more jobs).

Historian Robert Sobel offers this insight into Calvin Coolidge's approach as president: "As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments."

So sometimes doing nothing is a good thing.

So next time you see one of those hyped presidential polls and Coolidge--again--ranks near the bottom, remember to take the survey with a grain of salt--a grain of salt the size of Manhattan.

Naming conventions.

I'm somewhat obsessed with names and naming conventions. Nicknames are a subject that I'm especially opinionated about.

My wife and I are very fond of nicknames. We named our son Robert but we call him Bobby or Bob. We named our daughter Mary and call her Mare some of the time. I think parents who insist that their kids be called by the formal version of the name might as well insist that their child should be called Mr. Smith or Ms. Jones. To me, it sounds silly to address a kid--especially one under the age of twelve--as Robert instead of Bobby or Joseph instead of Joe. My brother was always Steve, even though his full name is Steven, my sister was always Katie even though that's short for Kathryn. In my location, it is extremely popular to use the formal version of a given name rather than a nickname. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that one of my son's classmates goes by Jimmy instead of James! That's the way it should be. No? Well, perhaps not, but my preference is the nickname.

This is an all-purpose blog so here's a ditty I wrote. . .

I'm not conceited enough to consider the following a poem. It's little more than a ditty (though ditty isn't really accurate, either, as it is not meant to be sung). Lyric? Composition? Whatever it is, read it and let me know what you think.

The Winds of Winter by Joseph White

The rains of springtime, a sapling growing,
Finding a twin,
Two trees together,
Relying on the other, young, strong and close,
They grow in springtime.

The sun of summer, branches intertwine,
Closer, closer,
Two trees together,
Pushing against the other, older now, closer,
They push in summer.

The storms of autumn, limbs that pushed fallen,
Farther, farther,
Brush grows between them,
Storms push them still further, shoved from the other,
They go in autumn.

The winds of winter, oh how they blow,
The winds of winter blacken my soul,
The winds of winter, long dead friends,
The bitter winds of winter, is this the end?

Blogs and Demagogues and Football.

It's been awhile. A few things have happened since I last blogged:

The Democrats took control of both houses of congress. Boo! Boooo!

Talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennet, and Laura Ingraham (among others) continue to demagogue the issue of illegal immigration with their characterization of anyone who supports a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration as an amnesty advocate. This is such a lie and it's shameful that Rush and Sean (et. al.) are calling comprehensive immigration reform amnesty. It is not amnesty that President Bush and many senators--both Democrats and Republicans--are pushing for. For one thing, illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor, for cripes sake! Yet Hannity and his ilk want those who have committed a misdemeanor treated like hardened criminals. President Bush wants those who violated immigration laws to pay fines and past taxes. How is this amnesty? Amnesty is allowing illegal immigrants to not pay any sort of restitution. Yet no one in the Bush administration is advocating this approach. I think much of the hysteria on the right about this issue is because the chief law enforcement officer of the United States--attorney General Alberto Gonzalez--is Hispanic. No, I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I just think Rush and his buddies are afraid Gonzalez will sympathize and take it easy on other Hispanics, in this case illegal immigrants. There's no evidence for this but this kind of demagoguery needs no evidence.

My prediction of an Indianapolis Colts/Dallas Cowboys Super Bowl looks realistic as both Dallas and Indy are headed to the playoffs and both will likely win their respective divisions. Seattle--the defending NFC champions--are looking better and better and will pose a serious threat to Dallas. Chicago is still the best team in the NFC and that's a tough obstacle for Dallas to overcome especially since Chicago may end up having home-field advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. The chances of anyone winning on the road in Chicago in January don't seem great. The Indianapolis Colts, meanwhile, are posed to clinch home-field advantage throughout the AFC playoffs. And despite recent playoff dissappointments in Indy, the Colts have to be the favorites in the AFC. Keep in mind I'm no fan of the Dallas Cowboys--I'm a Forty-Niner fan--but I don't let personal feelings interfere with my NFL predictions. If it is indeed a Cowboys/Colts Super Bowl, I'll be rooting for Indy.

I'll try to blog more often. Seriously.

Gotta be more careful (diet news).

I'm cheating on my diet. Nothing major, just a little extra here and a little extra there. It's enough to slow down my weight loss to almost nil. So. I've gotta follow my diet strictly. It's how I lost weight before. It's how I will lose the weight this time around.

Gotta be more careful.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

In light of recent comments by Democratic congressmen saying that more people hate America now than before (it's a badge of honor, in my opinion), I dug up this quote by Ann Coulter:

"Gore said foreigners are not worried about 'what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.' Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs." - Ann Coulter

Dangerous Diet Territory.

While overall my diet has gone well, the last couple of days haven't been rosey. I fudged a bit by going over my WeightWatchers point limit. This isn't a huge deal now but, from past experience, it could completely derail my diet plan. I must be careful and stick to my points.

Idiot of the Day: Rosie O'Donnell

Sigh. Just when you think the Left in America cannot possibly grow more stupid, Rosie O'Donnell opens her piehole and states that "radical Christianity" (!?) is as big a threat to America as radical Islam.

First of all, I don't recall Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Gordon B. Hinckley telling their followers to "kill all the infidels" and "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth". I cannot seem to remember the last time a pissed off Christian flew passenger jets into a skyscraper. Nor can I recall the last time Christian leaders told their followers to kill homosexuals.

Ms. O'Donnell needs to remember that while Christians may disapprove of her homosexual acts, that's about all we do: disapprove. Radical Islamists have homosexuals executed.

Yet "radical" Christianity and radical Islam our the same in her eyes. Congratulations, Rosie, you are the idiot of the day.

Diet update.

Days six, seven and eight of the diet have been successful. It's now day nine and thus far, I'm doing fine. I've lost about five pounds and nearly one belt size. Cool!

Day four and five of the diet: Success!

Day four and five of the diet went well though there were a few times when it was difficult to stay on. It is Sunday morning, day six. Sundays are difficult because it is easier to be idle. I'll just have to keep myself occupied with tasks that will steer me away from anything too tempting.

Diet update; Salt Lake City mayor.

Day two and three of "the diet", as I like to call it, were successful. I stayed on it. So stay tuned.

----------------------------

As many of you are aware, President Bush recently paid a visit to Salt lake City, Utah to deliver a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their annual convention. Salt Lake City's mayor, Rocky Anderson, instead of being a decent host and representing Salt lake and the entire state of Utah in a dignified fashion, held an anti-war rally. The speech is long and full of Democratic Party talking points so I'll just give you a few of the highlights (for the full text of the speech, you can go here) : deseretnews.com

"And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth? So let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!" Because if we had had the truth, we wouldn't be here today."

This screed was very early on in the speech. I've heard the audio and you can hear the venom and vitriol in Mayor Anderson's screaming (yes, he was screaming). The claim that the Bush administration lied is false as has been proven time and time again. Mayor Anderson is a very intelligent man. He knows this. If he truly believes the poisonous leftist propaganda he is spewing, then perhaps he isn't as smart as I thought.

"Let no one deny we are patriots. We support our nation's troops. Let's hear it for our nation's troops! We have so many veterans here today. Let's here it for the veterans! We are grateful to our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms."

Mayor Anderson may believe he supports the troops by opposing the war, but it is simply impossible to do both. I believe Mayor Anderson doesn't want to see our troops hurt. But there is a big difference between wishing good health to our servicemen and actually supporting them. Let's put it this way, if we showed our troops in Iraq the text of Andersen's speech, do you really believe that our troops would feel they were supported by him? I don't think they would. It's like saying "I support (then) presidential candidate John Kerry (in 2004) but I voted for President Bush." If you voted for President Bush, you really didn't support Kerry, did you?

"So to James Evans and these folks who financed this massive radio campaign these last few days, let them understand that blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism. A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."

No one--and I mean no one--is telling people concerned about our country to "sit down and be quiet". This is a lie perpetuated by Mayor Anderson and his lefty buddies. And no one is showing "slavish, blind obedience" to our leaders. This is rhetoric of the worst kind. Perhaps Mayor Anderson should listen--honestly listen--to conservative talk radio where dissenting opinions--from callers and guests on the left and the right--our heard every single day. The right in this country have been critical of the Bush administration on a number of fronts--including the war in Iraq. There is strong disagreement on many issues among conservative talk show hosts. And can not think of one talk show host--not Hannity, not Limbaugh, not anyone--who has shown slavish and blind odedience to the administration. Just the opposite. All conservative talk show hosts have questioned the war in Iraq. And while most support it still, not every one of them does and some do so reluctantly. And, just to point out a fact, the administration isn't dishonest, Mayor. Show me exactly where they are dishonest? These accusations without example are easy to make, harder to prove.

"What incredible ineptitude and callousness for our President to talk about a Crusade while lying to us to make a case for the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country!"

Dude, you need a history lesson. Crusade is the most appropriate term for our war on terror. The Crusades several hundred years ago were justified as it was Islam--just like today--that declared war on Christianity first by invading Europe and putting people to the sword who refused to convert to Islam.

"In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible and absolutely false claim that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."

Um, Mayor, that's Bush's opinion, not necessarily policy. Your claim that Bush's words are a false claim is a false claim.

"Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the United States."

Is this Mayor Anderson fella serious? The news media attacked the president daily during the lead up to war and scoffed at any connection between Al Queda and Saddam. There was a connection, arguably not a strong one, between Al Queda and Saddam. A prominent Al Queda leader was granted refuge in Iraq before the war, for hell's sake! Mayor Anderson lies again--or he is extremely ignorant.

"President Bush, by the way, finally admitted nine days ago on Aug. 21 during a press conference that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. It's terrific that the President has now admitted what others have known for so long — but where is the accountability for the tragic war we were led into on the basis of his earlier misrepresentations?"

There you go again. The administration never claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam even though Saddam was quite giddy with happiness after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. This is a lie perpetuated by the left and the mainstream media. Find me a quote by any official in the Bush administration stating a connection between the two. While there was a connection between Al Queda and Saddam, there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 9/11--and the president never made that case!

Anyway, Rocky goes on to scream--literally--about President Bush's lies. Lies which cannot be proven, folks. Rocky also accuses the right of slandering those who disagree with the war as unpatriotic. This simply isn't the case. Few, if any, prominent Republicans or conservatives have accused the left of being unpatriotic. However, the left accuses the right of being unpatriotic all the time. Anderson does it in his speech with phrases like the first one I use in this blog entry where Anderson is quoted as saying that people on the right blindly follow the administration and that isn't patriotism.

Rocky was on a local radio show last night talking about the speech. He lauded himself for his bravery in speaking out againts Bush. He claimed he was one of the few in the nation--other than Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, all of Hollywood, and nearly every one of the over two-hundred and forty Democrats in congress--who dared and that those who believe the war is wrong can now speak up.

I'm simply stunned at Mayor Anderson's ignorance.

Oh, by the way, the reason why Utahns were so upset that you spoke out against President Bush during his visit is not because we don't want to hear dissent, it's because what you said in your speech, just like you did two years ago when President Bush visited last time, were lies. Lies and venom and vitriol and garabage. You weren't respectful at all. It's about respectful dissent, you clown of a mayor. It's not about acting like a spoiled first-grader and namecalling and throwing a fit, which is how you acted.

That's all.

The guy is so full of himself. It's quite breathtaking. He may be the most arrogant politician in the USA.

Day one of my diet plus Super Bowl prediction.

Yesterday was day one of my diet (for a look at my trails and tribulations with my weight, read previous post). It was a success. Thus far, I'm having no problems on day two. I'll update tomorrow.

----------------------------

Every year for the last twenty years I have made my Super Bowl prediction right before the start of the regular season. Tomorrow, the NFL's regular season starts. This year I've had a bit of a problem picking the champions of the AFC and NFC. The AFC is filled with strong teams: Denver, Kansas City, possibley San Diego, possibley Oakland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, maybe Baltimore, Cincinnatti, New England, and possibley Miami. That's ten teams but only six will make the playoffs. Which one to choose? I will immediatley discount the "maybes" so Oakland, San Diego, Baltimore and Miami are out. Pittsburgh had a miraculous season last year being the sixth seed and grabbing win after win on the road. In a tough AFC, I don't think the chances of Pittsburgh repeating are good. New England isn't the same team they were when they won three Super Bowls in four years so I reluctantly exclude them. Cincinnatti hasn't proven to me that they can play defense so they are out. So we're down to KC, Denver and Indy. KC is an intriguing choice because the presence of new head coach Herm Edwards alone will likely make the defense better. And KC certainly doesn't have problems on offense. Denver is a good choice as well as they were one win away from the Super Bowl last season. They are strong on offense and defense. As for Indy, they went an amazing 14-3 last year including the playoffs. As badly as they played against Pittburgh in the second round of the AFC playoffs, they still almost won. They've lost Edgerrin James but their running game still looks good. And they've added Mr. Clutch, kicker Adam Vinatieri. Had they had the King of Clutch last year, they probably would have beaten Pittsburgh. He could be the difference. I predict he will be the difference. Colts win the AFC.

The NFC is not nearly as strong as the AFC. In my mind, there are only three teams worth talking about in the NFC: The defending NFC champs Seattle, plus Carolina and Dallas. It would be easy to pick Seattle because they were so dominant in the NFC last year. And they have pretty much the same team returning this year. Carolina, with the addition of receiver Keyshawn Johnson, makes wideout Steve Smith even more dangerous. But it's the addition of Terrell Owens in Dallas that I believe will give the Cowboys the NFC title. Owens is the most talented player ever to line-up as receiver and he's only one of three players in the NFL that can score from anywhere on the field (Tomlinson and Vick are the other two). TO gives Dallas so many more options on offense now. Bill Parcells will take advantage of it. Dallas wins the NFC.

Super Bowl Prediction: Indianapolis Colts versus Dallas Cowboys. I'm not going to predict a winner.

Incidently, last year I picked Indianapolis and Philadelphia. Guess I really screwed up on that one, eh?

The many purposes of the blog; weight loss is one.

When I first set up this blog, I set it up with the intention of it not just being a political blog or a sports blog or a blog about my personal life. It is supposed to be all of those things. I've tended to write about poloitics most of the time but that isn't the sole purpose of this blog. In that spirit, and for the forseeable future, this blog will be my weight loss diary.

I'm putting a lot on the line here as I'm not comfortable sharing intimate details about my life. I'm overweight (at least I think so--my friends and family don't understand the fuss) and I feel the need to lose the extra pounds. Three and a half years ago, I weighed 245 pounds and, over the next eight months, I dropped 50 pounds. I was down to 195. But since then, I've put the weight all back on and then some. I now weigh 256 pounds and I'm not happy about it. I know what to do to lose weight, I know what works (Weight Watchers). It is just a matter of will.

My goal weight is 200 pounds. I remember what it was like when I weighed around 200 about 3 years ago and it felt good. I know that keeping a journal of my weight loss--with goals spelled out--will help me (I hope) and sharing my struggle with the 3 of you that read this blog may give me the incentive I need to lose the weight a second time.

It's on the line. I start today. Thanks for your help.

Idiots on parade

If you want a good idea of what the left really believes, check out this article and the response it has generated at newsarama.com. Comic book writer/artist Frank Miller simply states that America should win the war on terror and adds “I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had showed up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Patriotism, I now believe, isn’t some sentimental, old, conceit. It’s self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation’s survival.”

The lefty idiots immediately attack Miller as a right wing kook and, of course, the responses to the article quickly degenerate into namecalling (not legitimate namecalling), more lefty lies about the War on Terror and Iraq, and, ultimately, Miller, of course, is compared to Nazis. What is so hysterical about the response from the left is they feel somehow Miller's comments are an attack on their patriotism which they are offended by even though they readily admit patriotism is a silly notion! And then they imply (and I infer) that Miller is the one that is unpatriotic. In this context, Miller is belittled because Miller believes himself to be patriotic and the responders believe Miller is not patriotic and attacked their patriotism which they (the responders) think patriotism is silly in the first place!

Take a look. And you tell who is being unreasonable, Miller or the comic book kooks?

Full disclosure: I read comic books.

Global warming versus Islamonazism.

Al Gore spoke at the MTV Music Video Awards the other night. A former vice-president of the United States of America has stooped lower than any former vice-president I can think of. Nixon was once vice-president and a failure as a president but even in the darkest days of the Watergate-era, Nixon never--never!--helped celebrate an institution that has done so much damage to society. Twenty-five years of MTV has reduced women to nothing more than sex objects. Yet MTV touts itself as progressive and for womens' rights.

Think about how absurd that is. There is nothing progressive about the dehumanization of women.

Al Gore spoke about the alleged threat of global warming and how it's the biggest danger to humanity. He received cheers. I guess if your anti-global warming, it's okay to dehumanize women.

Kinda like Islamonazis and the way the dehumanize women--and non-Muslims. No, anti-global warming zealots are not on the level of Islamonazis--not even close--but it's a good segue.

Islamonazis commit terrorist acts almost daily in India. They've recently committed (or attempted to commit) terrorist acts in Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand and the U.S. Earlier this week an Islamist terrorist used his SUV as a weapon and ran down fourteen people in San Francisco (a terroist act the mainstream media has covered up). A year ago (October 1st, 2005), a Muslim student tried to blow up the football stadium at the University of Oklahoma during a game in which 84,000 people were attending. Then there was the DC sniper case a few years ago.

And 9/11.

And Al Gore says global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity? While there is some evidence for global warming, it takes three enormous religious leaps of faith to come to the conclusion that global warming is the threat Gore says it is.

First, you must believe global warming exists (not a huge leap of faith because there is some evidence for regional warming in different part of the globe--I guess that could be global warming of a sort).

Second, you must believe human beings caused it (huge leap of faith--volcanic explosions do more damage to the environment than human beings have ever done).

Third, you must believe that it threatens our very existence (this is the biggest leap of faith because there is not one shred of evidence that human-caused global warming--if real--would be able to threaten the existence of mankind).

Al Gore and his ilk are dangerous because like an Islamonazi, they are true believers. You can't reason with them because it is not about facts, it's about faith.

For those of you who fear Christians and Judeo-Christian values, tell me which is more dangerous: A Christian or Jewish "zealot" who believes in the Ten Commandments (no stealing, no murder, no lying, etc.) or an anti-global warming zealot who will try to destroy the economy by stopping alleged toxic emmissions, take your land in the name of enviromentalism, and curb your rights in the name of progressive policies?

I have no answer, no solution. I don't think Al Gore and most anti-global warmings folks are evil, but they are most definitely morally confused.

Human evil--Islamonazis and their kind--are far more dangerous to the survival of mankind than global warming.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day

"What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence -- not a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say, with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal." -- Ann Coulter "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

Quote of the day.

"If any other industry were doing as much public harm by producing a similarly substandard product, the press would be screaming for the government to take action." -- Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com referring to the mainstream media and their anti-Semitic one-sided reporting of the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Even more Survivor!

I do no not want this blog turned into a Survivor Blog.

But in response to even more absurd handwringing and pants-wetting about the new season of Survivor, I'll add this:

I do not pretend to understand why a racially segregated Survivor is a big deal. This is TV, after all, and anyone who watches Survivor knows that the segregated tribes will only be segregated for the first couple of episodes. After that, you'll see the four tribes become two tribes.

As I stated the other day, Survivor has always been about segregation. Last season the original tribes were segregated by sex and age. In past seasons, we've seen tribes segregated by sex and by popularity.

The idea that a TV show--a GAME show of all things--will set back race relations fifty years is absurd.

Does anyone really believe that only whites will be rooting for the white team and so on?
The answer is no. Most men (black, white, whatever) will be rooting for the team with the hottest women. And from a cursory glance at the CBS website, it looks like that'll be either the white team or the Asian team. Most Americans in my estimation don't care much about race. I could be wrong.

If Survivor shows us anything about race this season, it'll be how racial categories are meaningless. Have you seen the contestants? Not all the black contestants are that black, some of the Hispanic contestants look white to me (yes, I know, the term Hispanic is supposed to denote ethnicity, not race).

The reaction by many to this season of Survivor--which no one has even seen yet--is over-the-top. As I reported in a earlier post, I heard one local radio talk show host call it "just about the most despicable thing he's ever seen". I wonder if he really believes that. It seems in the history of crimes against humnanity, Survivor rates pretty low.

People need to sit back and think about what this really means in the greater scheme of things: Nothing.

Go blacks!

More Survivor plus some Star Trek..

Last night as I drove home from work I listened to a local radio talk show. The hosts were discussing the upcoming season of Survivor in which four racially segregated tribes will square off against one another. The host--in a moment of sheer stupidity--said "it was just about the most despicable thing he's ever heard of".

Moron. Idiot. It a @#$%! TV show, for heavens sake. This is the kind of over-the-top nonsense the media--and in this case--television viewers are engaging in with what should be a non-issue. I might add there is some inconsistency here from folks critical of CBS for this move. Ever watch a television comedy over, say, the last thirty years? Ever notice how many of those half-hour sitcoms are mixed racially?

Not so many, huh?

So I ask what the Hell is the big deal and why is this any different?

----------------------

When I was fifteen, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I became a huge fan of the entire Trek universe from the classic series to The Next Generation and even on up through Voyager and Enterprise. I rarely missed an episode, I worshipped Spock and even recorded over four hundred--four hundred!--episodes of Star Trek.

I was obsessed with it.

I was an idiot. Star Trek is truly an awful concept set up in an awful universe with awful characters and horrendous storylines. With the exception of three or four seasons of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek is completely unwatchable to me now. How could I have been so foolish as to get sucked in to the idiocy that is Trek? Why couldn't I see the destrutive moral relativism and backward socialist values shown on The Next Generation back then? How could I have stomached the anti-capitalism (re: anti-freedom) screed so prevalent on Deep Space Nine? What about the silly techno-babble and pseudo-science? I'm actually nauseated by the fact that I used to love Trek.

Do you know what showed me the light? It wasn't my conversion to conservatism that saved me (I was still in denial even then), it was real science fiction that saved me. It was shows like Lost and Babylon 5 and Firefly and, especially, the new Battlestar Galactica that showed me the light. After watching the first few episodes of Galactica, I suddenly realized how infantile, how juvenile Star Trek really was. I mean, Galactica is real. Not true, mind you, because its obviously a science fiction show. But real in the sense that this is how real people act. This is how real people handle impossible circumstances. This is what people would really be like in the future. Same thing goes for Firefly and Babylon 5. It's no coincidence that Ronald D. Moore, Galactica's producer, created the only watchable trek series in Deep Space Nine. Now free of the ridiculous restraints of the Star Trek universe, Moore has made what is possibly the best science fiction television series ever. His ideas are challenging. He takes on modern issues in a real way, not a superficial, cowardly way like Trek almost always has done.

You want controversial issues handled intelligently? Galactica tackles abortion and comes to the conclusion--surprising for television--that because of humanity's dire circumstances, abortion makes little sense and is thusly outlawed. They're saying, yeah, when things are going great and our society is in no danger of becoming extinct, we can afford liberal silliness. But when the crap hits the can and you're out of toilet paper, only good ol' pragmatic classic conservatism will save the day. Meanwhile Trek's take is stunningly stupid. The crew of the Enterprise finds out that a bunch of colonists have secretly and without permission cloned them (the crew) and what do they do? They simply and stupidly murder the fully grown clones!

That's just one example.

So, to sum up this, uh, rant: Galactica good. Star Trek bad.

Go blacks!

Survivor segregated.

So the new season of CBS's Survivor will have four tribes segregated by race (black, white, Asian and Hispanic). This has caused quite a stir in the internet community.

I'm a Survivor fan, I admit it. I guess you could call it a guilty pleasure of sorts. I've followed the show from the beginning. (Important note: I'm not a reality show fan and I still maintain my boycott of reality shows. Survivor is most certainly not a reality show. It is simply a game show that lasts thirty-nine days).

I'm fine with tribes segregated by race. They always start the season with two to four tribes which are, obviously, segregated. They've segregated tribes by sex, by popularity, by age, by age and sex so why not race? Race relations will hardly be influenced by a popular game show. So those of you who are upset, settle. It's TV and TV is not the real world--err, no pun intended.

Lighten up. Watch and enjoy. Go blacks!

Great article on "world opinion".

Dennis Prager has written an extemely important and timely article which you can read by going to townhall.com.
Prager has a knack for clarifying the differences between the right and the left. In his recent article, he nails why America (and Israel) should not pay attention to "world opinion.

Hurricanes and dikes.

My work computer--which I share with five other employees--has its homepage set to msn.com. One of the flashing haedlines reads: "Grim warning from hurricane chief; megadisaster worse than Katrina will hit U.S. someday".

Why is this a headline? Why is this news? Do the media widely believe that Katrina was the hurricane to end all hurricanes? I guess when you believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind (yes, I said mankind!), you'll believe anything.

------------------------------

Some conservatives are acting stupid. Many are disillusioned by the Republican party and are threatening to not vote come November. Apparently, they want to send the GOP a message by putting, by default, Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House and Ted Kennedy in as Senate Majority Leader.

How stupid can you get? How childish. "I can't get my way! The Republicans in congress won't give me what I want! Wahhhh!" This foolishness seems to be fairly widespread. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't expect miracles out of our GOP representatives in congress. This is what I expect (and I'm paraphrasing Dennis Prager): I expect the GOP in congress to be a dike (not that kind of dike). I don't expect a dike to give me tax breaks or make me laugh or be my best friend. I simply expect a dike to hold back the sea. I expect a dike to stop the waters from over-running my home, my family, my country. I expect the Republicans in congress to keep the Democrats out of power. Because as much as people cry about the GOP, if the Democrats get into power, the dike will burst and your home, your family, your country will be overrun.

Vote Republican, keep the ocean at bay.

Say what?

As I do nearly every morning, I was listening to sports talk radio. One of the local morning sports shows features a guy by the name of David James (he also happens to be a sports anchor on the local CBS affiliate KUTV). David James is a funny guy and his impersonations and observations can be quite humorous. However, a serious NBA analyst James is not. Not only was he beating up on the Utah Jazz for having a very successful season in spite of two serious injuries to two of there three top players, James ran down the list of who he thinks are NBA title contenders now that the season is all but over and, frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Spurs (check), Pistons (check), Nets (huh?) (James went on to trash the Heat, of all teams, as a pretender).

A few things are just so wrong with his "analysis". Maybe I missed it, but where on New Jersey's roster is there a hall-of-fame caliber big man? Maybe James hasn't been paying attention to the last sixty (sixty!) years of NBA history but a hall-of-fame caliber big man is the one position a team must have in order to win an NBA championship. Michael Jordan and the Bulls being the only dynasty that is the exception. The last seven NBA champions should have been the first tip to those who ignored the first fifty or so years of NBA history: The Spurs had Tim Duncan and David Robinson in '99 and Duncan in '03 and '05; the Lakers had Shaq is '00, '01 and '02; the Pistons had Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace in 2004. It's simple. Unless you have Jordan on your roster, it is virtually impossible to win an NBA championship without a hall-of-fame big man--usually a center--on your roster. Even though Jason Kidd is still the best point guard in the league and even though New Jersey finished the season very strong, the Nets are most certainly not a title contender.

As already noted, James went on to trash the Heat in his half-assed analysis. How absurd! The Heat came within one two-minute stretch in the fourth quarter of game seven of the Eastern Conference finals last year to advancing to the NBA finals. And that was before the Heat made several smart off-season personnel moves to add depth and offensive punch to the team. Shaq plays for the Heat and that should be enough to grant the Heat automatic title contender status. But according to James, a team that almost beat the Pistons--the defending champs last season--and then went on to improve the via trades and free agency (while the Detroit Pistons did not) is not a contender. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think James thought this one out well.

David James's idiotic analysis aside, there are only three contenders for the NBA title this year: the San Antonio Spurs, the Detroit Pistons and, yes, the Miami Heat. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the history of the NBA.

Demagoguery from the Right on Illegal Immigrantion.

The rhetoric on illegal immigration has reached a fever pitch. Some of the demagoguery from the right is over-the-top. It's hysteria. Because of the hysteria from some on the right, there are some radio hosts I will not listen to anymore especially those whom were also hysterical over the Dubai ports deal and the Harriet Miers nomination. There are some conservative columnists and talk show hosts who have only been hysterical on one of the three. Fine. I can give them a pass. But to those who have been hysterical on all three, I say good-bye. Your emotional ranting and fear-mongering have driven this right-wing Christian conservative Republican away.

Bill Bennett, you've done a lot of good things. But I'm done listening to you're dumb remarks about Harriet Miers (according to Mr. Bill, she isn't smart enough to be a SCOTUS justice). Mr. Bill also lied about what the Dubai ports deal was all about (he kept saying the UAE was "taking over our ports" when in reality the company from Dubai was taking over a few terminals in our ports). And now he wants all illegal immigrants to be deported. All twelve million. Mr. Bill says the current senate legislation is amnesty. He's dead wrong. It's not amnesty to pay a fine for a misdemeanor. Yes, it's a misdemeanor for someone to illegally enter the country. People who committ misdemeanors are not normally considered criminals. But Mr. Bill and his ilk want them treated as such. Forget that it is literally impossible to deport all illegal immigrants. Forget that even if you could do so, you'd be breaking up families (children of illegal immigrants born in the country are U.S. citizens). Forget that most Americans who committ misdemeanors have to pay a fine, but that's not good enough for Bill Bennett. I'm done with Bennett. I'm done with the shrill conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. I'm done with Joseph Farah of worldnetdaily.com (this guy is a real whacko). I'm done with anyone--anyone--who demonizes illegals and wants to criminalize (as opposed to "misdemeaorize") millions of people who love and appreciate America more than most Americans do.

It is far better to create a path to legalization for most illegals. Let them pay a fine and start the process of legalization. It is not amnesty to force illegals to pay a two-thousand dollar fine and start a citizenship process which will take six years. Paying the fine for illegally crossing the border is called taking responsibility for your actions. I thought conservatives were for that sort of thing.

Now go away. I'm tired.

Super Bomb.

Super Bowl XL is over. And while I'm happy for Bill Cowher and the Pittsburgh Steelers (is there a more classy organization in the NFL?), the game sucked. Both teams were sloppy; Roethlisburger--normally a mistake-free QB--had a horrible game and the Seahawks couldn't make a field goal or manage the clock well.

Perhaps the last eight Super Bowls leading up to XL spoiled me. I mean, we've had some of the greatest games in Super Bowl history over the last eight years: Elway's helicopter dive to beat the Pack in SB XXXII; Dyson's goal-line reach that fell short against the Rams in XXXIV; the Patriots three-point victories in XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. Things have been good recently. There is certainly no other eight years period in SB history as good as these last several years have been. But the Steelers and Seahawks dissappointed. The referees let us down. Even the Rolling Stones sucked.

I'll feel better next year when the Seahawks meet the Broncos in XLI in Miami.