More reasons to thank the baby Boomers, the stupidest generation in American history, for their legacy of moral confusion.
Yesterday, eight people were murdered in Omaha. The media won't use the term murders or massacre. They'll use terms like shooting or incident. They won't call the murderer a murderer. They opt for shooter instead. This reveals a ton about the media none of which is good.
The media won't describe the Omaha murders as such because that's a value judgment. Thanks to the Age of Stupidity ushered in by the Baby Boomers in the 1960s, terms like murderer or killer are not used. Moral relativism rules the newsroom.
The term shooter focuses attention on the gun, not the killer. The media has values and one of those values is guns are evil (a term they won't even think about using for the murderer). To push their agenda, the media uses shooter to bring attention to the gun. This is an odd use of language considering we never call someone who kills with a knife a knifer. But the media isn't anti-knife, they're anti-gun.
What may be the worst thing the media does with newstories like this is they include the killer in the death tally. This is a fairly recent development in news coverage and it's an ugly development. Nine dead in Omaha shooting. The headlines should read eight massacred in Omaha. This is sickening. If you were a family member of one of those slaughtered by this piece of filth, how would you feel about including him on a list of the victims? I'm still upset that the monument to the students and teachers murdered by the Virginia Tech killer includes the killer! If I was friend or family to any one of those students I'd deface the monument. No joke. I would literally try and damage or destroy the monument.
The sad thing about this is if the killer had walked into an animal shelter and shot eight puppies, he'd be called a lot worse than murderer by the media. And more folks would be outraged nationwide. Don't believe me?
Mike Vick.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
My big problem with Mike Huckabee.
First off, I don't expect perfection from public officials. Second, unlike many conservatives and Republicans, I do not believe the field of potential nominees on the Republican side is weak. I see just the opposite: It's the strongest field of nominees in my lifetime. Think about it: America's Mayor (Giuliani), one of America's greatest war heroes (McCain), two highly successful governors (Romney and Huckabee), and a star of the screen both big and small (Thompson). It is an all-star line-up, in my opinion, even though you still have the nutters in the race as well (Paul and Tancredo).
But with my admiration of the Big Five candidates, I also have problems with each--major problems. It won't stop me from voting for the Republican nominee because, let's face it, the Democratic side is weak. If the Republican field is the Major League Baseball All-Stars, the Democratic field is a Triple A ballclub with no true pitchers, one guy in the outfield (left fielder Dennis Kucinich), and no catcher at home plate.
The focus of this post is the one major problem I have with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls. I genuinely like the guy and he is not a big government Republican like many on the right claim. However, he is for a national ban on smoking in public places. Frankly, I find that position sickening both from a moral perspective and a scientific perspective; smoking is a legal substance that doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker (excepting it does aggravate allergies and asthma). Seems Huck has bought into the second-hand-smoke-causes-cancer nonsense. Mike, organizations like the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Association, and the truth.com folks cannot cite a single example of someone dying from second-hand smoke (I mean, they occasionally attempt to cite examples but in the few examples cited--three people to my knowledge--each has been dismissed as unverifiable or non-existent). If tens of thousands of Americans are dying from second-hand smoke each year, don't you think it's kinda odd that major organizations like the ones I mentioned cannot name even one person who has died because of second-hand smoke? C'mon, Mike. I know Huckabee's intentions are good but his position on this issue smacks of totalitarianism, a defining attribute of the left.
I know what you are thinking: If this is the only thing Joe can find wrong with the guy, he'd make a pretty good president.
And you're right.
But with my admiration of the Big Five candidates, I also have problems with each--major problems. It won't stop me from voting for the Republican nominee because, let's face it, the Democratic side is weak. If the Republican field is the Major League Baseball All-Stars, the Democratic field is a Triple A ballclub with no true pitchers, one guy in the outfield (left fielder Dennis Kucinich), and no catcher at home plate.
The focus of this post is the one major problem I have with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls. I genuinely like the guy and he is not a big government Republican like many on the right claim. However, he is for a national ban on smoking in public places. Frankly, I find that position sickening both from a moral perspective and a scientific perspective; smoking is a legal substance that doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker (excepting it does aggravate allergies and asthma). Seems Huck has bought into the second-hand-smoke-causes-cancer nonsense. Mike, organizations like the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Association, and the truth.com folks cannot cite a single example of someone dying from second-hand smoke (I mean, they occasionally attempt to cite examples but in the few examples cited--three people to my knowledge--each has been dismissed as unverifiable or non-existent). If tens of thousands of Americans are dying from second-hand smoke each year, don't you think it's kinda odd that major organizations like the ones I mentioned cannot name even one person who has died because of second-hand smoke? C'mon, Mike. I know Huckabee's intentions are good but his position on this issue smacks of totalitarianism, a defining attribute of the left.
I know what you are thinking: If this is the only thing Joe can find wrong with the guy, he'd make a pretty good president.
And you're right.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Favorite Characters from Fantasy Novels.
The following is an incomplete list of some of my favorite characters from fantasy literature. Be warned! Characters from George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire series may be overrepresented.
Tyrion Lannister (from A Song of Ice & Fire series by George R.R. Martin) - A real-world dwarf (that is, he has dwarfism) in a fantasy setting, Tyrion is the ultimate underdog. Born into a family that is ruthless, powerful, and wealthy, Tyrion's only chance for survival in a world that is just as ruthless is to make sure his family--the Lannisters--stay in power. It's a sucky situation and his own family distrusts him, but every one else in the novels reviles him because he is a Lannister (even though Tyrion isn't like other Lannisters). Fortunately for Tyrion, he is very clever and usually is one step ahead of everyone who wants him dead--including some members of his own family.
Vladimir Taltos (from the Vlad Taltos novels by Steven Brust) - A sarcastic human is a world of snobby elves, Vlad seems to attract trouble. He has a knack for saying wrong things at very inappropriate times. Fortunately, he's an assassin and a witch. And a sorcerer. And he has four or five extremely powerful allies. Sometimes that's enough to get him out of trouble. Other times, it doesn't really help much.
Croaker (from the Black Company books by Glen Cook) - Croaker, a surgeon, belongs to the Black Company, an infamous mercenary organization. Croaker is jaded, weary, and has an unhealthy obssession with a evil goddess. Early on, the Company works for the goddess. But they eventually betray her. This, of course, leads to Croaker becoming the goddess' lover(?). Well, anyway, Croaker is an interesting character and his exploits are . . . complicated.
FitzChivalry Farseer (from the Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb) - Another assassin on my list. And the bastard son of a prince to boot! Fitz is recruited by his grandfather--King Shrewd--to become the king's assassin. Coupled with his natural magical skills, Fitz becomes one dangerous dude. But not as dangerous as his uncle Regal, the king's youngest and meanest son. Fitz may be a good assassin but he loses his head and becomes a brawler in physical combat. So his adopted father, Burrich, teaches Fitz to use the ax as his melee weapon. I dunno, I knda like how this breaks the stereotype of the sword-wielding, calm-and-cool-in-battle protagonist.
Samwise Gamgee (from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Tolkien) - The hero of the epic series is Sam. He does what he does not out of obligation or because it is his destiny or whatever. He does it simply because it is the right thing to do (and he is loyal to Frodo). That's my take, anyhow. One of the interesting things about Sam is that he is never--never--tempted to use the ring for his own pursuits. On occassion he uses it because he must. However, he not only doesn't think twice about using it for his own ends, the thought never enters his mind. That's pretty durn cool in a series where every other character--from elven queens to human kings to vile goblins to noble wizards is tempted. Not Sam.
Jon Snow (from A Song of Ice & Fire series by George R.R. Martin) - A bastard son of a pwerful lord, Jon has no place in his father's house so he joins the Nightswatch on his fifteenth birthday. The Nightswatch is a group of men that guards the Seven Kingdoms' northern border--the Wall--from wildmen, wights, and the ice demons known as the Others. They take an oath to do so for life. A good man, Jon still battles his temper and his cockiness. His adventures on both sides of the Wall (adventures political, social, and moral) both begin to define him as a man and define his legacy. His surprising successes and his demoralizing failures are fascinating to read.
There are more great characters I could list. These are but a few. But, hey, I don't have all night!
Tyrion Lannister (from A Song of Ice & Fire series by George R.R. Martin) - A real-world dwarf (that is, he has dwarfism) in a fantasy setting, Tyrion is the ultimate underdog. Born into a family that is ruthless, powerful, and wealthy, Tyrion's only chance for survival in a world that is just as ruthless is to make sure his family--the Lannisters--stay in power. It's a sucky situation and his own family distrusts him, but every one else in the novels reviles him because he is a Lannister (even though Tyrion isn't like other Lannisters). Fortunately for Tyrion, he is very clever and usually is one step ahead of everyone who wants him dead--including some members of his own family.
Vladimir Taltos (from the Vlad Taltos novels by Steven Brust) - A sarcastic human is a world of snobby elves, Vlad seems to attract trouble. He has a knack for saying wrong things at very inappropriate times. Fortunately, he's an assassin and a witch. And a sorcerer. And he has four or five extremely powerful allies. Sometimes that's enough to get him out of trouble. Other times, it doesn't really help much.
Croaker (from the Black Company books by Glen Cook) - Croaker, a surgeon, belongs to the Black Company, an infamous mercenary organization. Croaker is jaded, weary, and has an unhealthy obssession with a evil goddess. Early on, the Company works for the goddess. But they eventually betray her. This, of course, leads to Croaker becoming the goddess' lover(?). Well, anyway, Croaker is an interesting character and his exploits are . . . complicated.
FitzChivalry Farseer (from the Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb) - Another assassin on my list. And the bastard son of a prince to boot! Fitz is recruited by his grandfather--King Shrewd--to become the king's assassin. Coupled with his natural magical skills, Fitz becomes one dangerous dude. But not as dangerous as his uncle Regal, the king's youngest and meanest son. Fitz may be a good assassin but he loses his head and becomes a brawler in physical combat. So his adopted father, Burrich, teaches Fitz to use the ax as his melee weapon. I dunno, I knda like how this breaks the stereotype of the sword-wielding, calm-and-cool-in-battle protagonist.
Samwise Gamgee (from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Tolkien) - The hero of the epic series is Sam. He does what he does not out of obligation or because it is his destiny or whatever. He does it simply because it is the right thing to do (and he is loyal to Frodo). That's my take, anyhow. One of the interesting things about Sam is that he is never--never--tempted to use the ring for his own pursuits. On occassion he uses it because he must. However, he not only doesn't think twice about using it for his own ends, the thought never enters his mind. That's pretty durn cool in a series where every other character--from elven queens to human kings to vile goblins to noble wizards is tempted. Not Sam.
Jon Snow (from A Song of Ice & Fire series by George R.R. Martin) - A bastard son of a pwerful lord, Jon has no place in his father's house so he joins the Nightswatch on his fifteenth birthday. The Nightswatch is a group of men that guards the Seven Kingdoms' northern border--the Wall--from wildmen, wights, and the ice demons known as the Others. They take an oath to do so for life. A good man, Jon still battles his temper and his cockiness. His adventures on both sides of the Wall (adventures political, social, and moral) both begin to define him as a man and define his legacy. His surprising successes and his demoralizing failures are fascinating to read.
There are more great characters I could list. These are but a few. But, hey, I don't have all night!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
I'm a passionate centrist--no, really!
People who know me mistakenly think I'm far-right on the political scale. They think this because I rail against the left all the time. Let me clear up my politics for you folks (I'll try and use small words for those of you who are residents of Salt Lake City):
I'm basically a centrist with conservative leanings--center-right, if you prefer. The reason I come off as far-right is because I attack the American left at every opportunity. Why do I attack the left and not the far-right? Because the left is trying to destroy my country (they don't think they are destroying America but they are). The far-right--by any reasonable measure--is not a danger to this country.
One way to judge the left and right is to look at whom they embrace--not just associate, but embrace and praise and honor. The Democratic Party at their convention in 2004 gave the seat of honor--the seat next to former President Carter--to Michael Moore, for Heaven's sake. There is nothing even close to that on the right. The right along with the Republican Party distance themselves from the kooks. That nut who wrote that anti-Clinton book (the one that accused the Clintons of murder during their time in Arkansas) in the '90s was immediately cutoff from the right and the Republican Party. Michael Moore--who accuses President Bush of the same atrocities--gets to sit next to a former president at the Democratic National Convention.
Folks, I don't attack the extreme right because they aren't dangerous. They are isolated and cutoff from mainstream conservatism. However, the radical left--from the global warming crowd to the abortion-in-demand gang to the Bush lied, soldiers died idiots--are right in the middle of things not just on the mainstream left but in the heart of the Democratic Party.
The left in endangering my country. My passionate centrism demands that they be the focus of my attacks. Woof, woof.
I'm basically a centrist with conservative leanings--center-right, if you prefer. The reason I come off as far-right is because I attack the American left at every opportunity. Why do I attack the left and not the far-right? Because the left is trying to destroy my country (they don't think they are destroying America but they are). The far-right--by any reasonable measure--is not a danger to this country.
One way to judge the left and right is to look at whom they embrace--not just associate, but embrace and praise and honor. The Democratic Party at their convention in 2004 gave the seat of honor--the seat next to former President Carter--to Michael Moore, for Heaven's sake. There is nothing even close to that on the right. The right along with the Republican Party distance themselves from the kooks. That nut who wrote that anti-Clinton book (the one that accused the Clintons of murder during their time in Arkansas) in the '90s was immediately cutoff from the right and the Republican Party. Michael Moore--who accuses President Bush of the same atrocities--gets to sit next to a former president at the Democratic National Convention.
Folks, I don't attack the extreme right because they aren't dangerous. They are isolated and cutoff from mainstream conservatism. However, the radical left--from the global warming crowd to the abortion-in-demand gang to the Bush lied, soldiers died idiots--are right in the middle of things not just on the mainstream left but in the heart of the Democratic Party.
The left in endangering my country. My passionate centrism demands that they be the focus of my attacks. Woof, woof.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Director Throwdown II
In my first director throwdown, Andrew Adamson (Shrek, Shrek II, and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe) went up against Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatoulle). The consensus of those who responded to that blog entry is that Brad Bird is the better director. I didn't say where I came down in the original post, but I'll say now: I, too, prefer Brad Bird (though I love both).
So now we move on to Director Throwdown II: David Fincher vs Christopher Nolan!
Why this match-up? Because I feel both directors make movies with a similar feel: gritty, dark, and both seem to love directing movies about psychologically disturbed men. Also, each have five or six directorial credits and that helps when comparing.
David Fincher's major directorial debut was on Alien 3 in 1992. While many folks don't regard Alien 3 highly, don't be to harsh on Fincher for this one: he was thrust into the role of director at the last minute and he had to endure studio interference in the plot from the beginning. After Alien 3, Fincher directed Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Panic Room, and most recently Zodiac.
Christopher Nolan's movies are at least as eclectic as Fincher's: Beginning with 1998's The Following and continuing with Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige.
So it boils down to this:
Fincher's Alien 3 (in context), Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Panic Room, and Zodiac.
versus
Chistopher Nolan's The Following, Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige.
Get. It. On!
So now we move on to Director Throwdown II: David Fincher vs Christopher Nolan!
Why this match-up? Because I feel both directors make movies with a similar feel: gritty, dark, and both seem to love directing movies about psychologically disturbed men. Also, each have five or six directorial credits and that helps when comparing.
David Fincher's major directorial debut was on Alien 3 in 1992. While many folks don't regard Alien 3 highly, don't be to harsh on Fincher for this one: he was thrust into the role of director at the last minute and he had to endure studio interference in the plot from the beginning. After Alien 3, Fincher directed Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Panic Room, and most recently Zodiac.
Christopher Nolan's movies are at least as eclectic as Fincher's: Beginning with 1998's The Following and continuing with Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige.
So it boils down to this:
Fincher's Alien 3 (in context), Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Panic Room, and Zodiac.
versus
Chistopher Nolan's The Following, Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige.
Get. It. On!
Friday, October 19, 2007
My wife is looking hot!
My wife has lost ninety pounds since she had her weight loss surgery four months ago. I've always found her attractive but now she's turned into a little hottie!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Rant on Star Trek.
When are people gonna realize that Star Trek is just about as bad as sci-fi can get? Take off the blinders. I'm embarrased that I ever liked Trek. It's sci-fi for kindergarteners. I say this knowing that Star Trek XI will be directed by someone who actually has a brain. But I don't care anymore.
The test for science fiction is whether or not it explores new ideas, pushes the envelope, moves forward. The original Star Trek series was a bunch of standard stories set in space (the stories could have been set anywhere), Next Generation was politically correct nonsense (how many episodes ended with Picard lecturing the audience about how backwards modern America is?), Deep Space Nine was thinly disguised Israel-bashing (Cardassians = Israelis, Bajorans = "Palestinians"), while Voyager and Enterprise were just bad TV. How many people have to die in real world totalitarian nations before the socialist/communist utopian society depicted on Trek can be discredited?
I wish the franchise would die. How many people have wasted their lives devoted to the silly religion of Star Trek?
Star Trek should have died when TOS died in the late sixties.
The test for science fiction is whether or not it explores new ideas, pushes the envelope, moves forward. The original Star Trek series was a bunch of standard stories set in space (the stories could have been set anywhere), Next Generation was politically correct nonsense (how many episodes ended with Picard lecturing the audience about how backwards modern America is?), Deep Space Nine was thinly disguised Israel-bashing (Cardassians = Israelis, Bajorans = "Palestinians"), while Voyager and Enterprise were just bad TV. How many people have to die in real world totalitarian nations before the socialist/communist utopian society depicted on Trek can be discredited?
I wish the franchise would die. How many people have wasted their lives devoted to the silly religion of Star Trek?
Star Trek should have died when TOS died in the late sixties.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Rudy Giuliani's abortion stances.
- Rudy Giuliani is against federal funding of abortions.
- Giuliani opposes partial-birth abortion.
- Rudy believes that states, not courts, should decide whether abortion should be legal or not.
- Giuliani says he will nominate originalists in the same mold as justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to the Supreme Court. Originalists, by definition, do not believe that abortion is constitutionally protected.
- Former solicitor general Ted Olsen sits on Giuliani's judicial advisory comittee. Ted Olsen is someone even the most strident pro-lifers would love on the Supreme Court (when Rudy Giuliani becomes president, there's a good chance that Olsen will indeed be nominated if a vacancy appears).
I don't understand why pro-lifers are reluctant to vote for Giuliani if he becomes the Republican nominee. He is barely pro-choice whereas Hillary Clinton is stridently pro-abortion.
Friday, October 05, 2007
I'm supporting Rudy Giuliani for President.
He's the best candidate and I think the Republican field is strong (except for the nuts Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul). But I want to dig into the silly reasons why some conservatives say they won't vote for Rudy:
I support Rudy Giuliani for president.
- "He's pro-abortion." No, he's not. As he has repeatedly stated, he is personally against abortion but doesn't think it should be up to him. Giuliani doesn't support an amendment to the constitution banning abortion but, and this is key, he does support the Supreme Court in overthrowing Roe vs. Wade and giving the decision back to individual states. It should be noted that there is little presidents can do about abortion, pro or con. The ball is in the Supreme Court's, er, court. Yes, the president can appoint Supreme Court justices. But that is not a guarantee. Pro-life presidents have failed miserably in the past. Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy. And while George H.W. Bush gave us the brilliant Clarence Thomas, he also gave us David Souter. So what kind of justices would Giuliani nominate? I listened to the Dennis Prager Show on Wednesday and Sean Hannity's radio program on Thursday. Guiliani was interviewed on both programs. He stated on both shows that the justices he would nominate would be in the same mold as Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Sam Alito. He was quite clear about it. Rudy likes justices who simply interpret the constitution based on what the founders meant, not what they could've/should've meant.
- "Yeah but how can we trust a guy who has been married three times and has a ton of personal baggage to be a good president?" I wish it weren't so, but a politician's personal life tells us very little about how trustworthy he is as a public figure. Besides, in Rudy's case we already know how he will be if elected president. He will do what he says he will do. In his twenty-five years as a public figure, first as a U.S. attorney and then as Mayor of New York City, Giuliani has gained the reputation of a man who says what he means and follows through on it. Giuliani has a public record. We know who were getting as president.
- "Okay, but I still cannot vote for a man who supports gay marriage." Giuliani doesn't support gay marriage. He does support civil unions, but he is against gay marriage.
- "The abortion thing is still holding me up. I can't vote for a guy who is pro-choice." Fine. Don't vote for a guy who cut taxes seventeen times as Mayor of New York, got rid of the sex shops and smut vendors throughout the city, and reduced crime dramatically. Don't support Giuliani neverminding that you do agree with him 95% of the time. I know you won't vote for Hillary but instead will stay home on election day, or even more ridiculously support a third-party candidate like some Christian leaders have suggested (how childish and stupid can you get?). Either way, Hillary Clinton wins.
I support Rudy Giuliani for president.
Monday, September 17, 2007
More of my favorite films.
I previously posted a list of some of my favorite movies a month or so ago (check it out here). The list was incomplete so here are some more of my favorite films:
The Incredibles - This movie is pretty much perfect. As a fan of comic books and superheros, The Incredibles, with it's clever take on the genre, really made me smile. I grinned through the whole movie! Great flick! I'd give my entire comic book collection to see a sequel (as long as it's directed by Brad Bird).
Falling Down - Michael Douglas portrays a disaffected former defense worker who has a breakdown during a traffic jam. Robert Duvall (my favorite actor) plays a disaffected cop nearing retirement. One man breaks, the other heals. Duvall hunts down the broken Douglas and proves to himself he is still a good cop. An amazing film. Douglas's best role.
GalaxyQuest - A brilliant comedy that somehow pays tribute to Star Trek while lampooning it at the same time. Tim Allen, Alan Rickman, and Sigourney Weaver are wonderful and along the way we get a film that is both touching and irreverent.
Aliens - Best sequel ever. Sigourney Weaver returns to the Alien franchise and the past she thought she left behind. The fight between Sigourney's Ripley and the alien queen is one of the most memorable throwdowns in movie history.
Signs - A powerful film about faith. I think most people missed the point of this film thinking it was supposed to be something it was never intended to be. It wasn't a sci-fi film or a supernatural thriller. It was simply a story about a man, who in the midst of a disaster finds his faith tested.
Beauty and the Beast - The last great Disney traditionally animated film? This film had a great story, charming characters (even the untraditional villain was charming), breathtaking animation and truly great songs.
There. Several more movies that I think are great. Discuss.
The Incredibles - This movie is pretty much perfect. As a fan of comic books and superheros, The Incredibles, with it's clever take on the genre, really made me smile. I grinned through the whole movie! Great flick! I'd give my entire comic book collection to see a sequel (as long as it's directed by Brad Bird).
Falling Down - Michael Douglas portrays a disaffected former defense worker who has a breakdown during a traffic jam. Robert Duvall (my favorite actor) plays a disaffected cop nearing retirement. One man breaks, the other heals. Duvall hunts down the broken Douglas and proves to himself he is still a good cop. An amazing film. Douglas's best role.
GalaxyQuest - A brilliant comedy that somehow pays tribute to Star Trek while lampooning it at the same time. Tim Allen, Alan Rickman, and Sigourney Weaver are wonderful and along the way we get a film that is both touching and irreverent.
Aliens - Best sequel ever. Sigourney Weaver returns to the Alien franchise and the past she thought she left behind. The fight between Sigourney's Ripley and the alien queen is one of the most memorable throwdowns in movie history.
Signs - A powerful film about faith. I think most people missed the point of this film thinking it was supposed to be something it was never intended to be. It wasn't a sci-fi film or a supernatural thriller. It was simply a story about a man, who in the midst of a disaster finds his faith tested.
Beauty and the Beast - The last great Disney traditionally animated film? This film had a great story, charming characters (even the untraditional villain was charming), breathtaking animation and truly great songs.
There. Several more movies that I think are great. Discuss.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Director Throwdown: Andrew Adamson vs Brad Bird
For the fun of it, let us pit two hot directors against one another in Director Throwdown: Andrew Adamson vs Brad Bird.
Adamson, who was a visual effects supervisor for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, has three directorial credits to his name: Shrek, Shrek 2, & The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witvh, & the Wardrobe (he will be directing the second Narnia installment, Prince Caspian, as well). A very impressive trio of movies but does it stack up against Brad Bird's movies?
Bird has worked on The Fox & the Hound for Disney and he helped develop the Simpsons from shorts on the Tracy Ullman Show into a half-hour comedy. An executive consultant on the Simpsons for several years, Bird worked on other animated television series including The Critic and King of the Hill. Bird has directed three movies: The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Talk about a triple threat!
So it boils down to this: Adamson's Shrek, Shrek 2, & The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe vs Bird's Iron Giant, The Incredibles, & Ratatouille.
Who do you think is the better director?
Adamson, who was a visual effects supervisor for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, has three directorial credits to his name: Shrek, Shrek 2, & The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witvh, & the Wardrobe (he will be directing the second Narnia installment, Prince Caspian, as well). A very impressive trio of movies but does it stack up against Brad Bird's movies?
Bird has worked on The Fox & the Hound for Disney and he helped develop the Simpsons from shorts on the Tracy Ullman Show into a half-hour comedy. An executive consultant on the Simpsons for several years, Bird worked on other animated television series including The Critic and King of the Hill. Bird has directed three movies: The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Talk about a triple threat!
So it boils down to this: Adamson's Shrek, Shrek 2, & The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe vs Bird's Iron Giant, The Incredibles, & Ratatouille.
Who do you think is the better director?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Hypocrisy and the media.
The leftist media are at it again.
By now you've all heard about Senator Larry Craig's arrest for playing footsie in a public restroom (some say soliciting another man for sex). The media are now trying to destroy Larry Craig's life by public humiliation. This is bad enough but the real evil is that thy--the media--are humiliating Craig's wife and family and they are innocent of any footsie wrongdoing. Many will argue--both from the left and the right--that Craig deserves what he is getting and we have a right to know because what he did wrong and and because he's a US senator and so on and so on. Fine, I suppose, if you think Craig's personal problems are your business and he deserves humiliation. But his wife and family do not deserve this! The punishment the media are doling out far exceeds the crime! But, of course, the leftist media does not care, especially because Craig is a Republican (the media can accuse the right and not the left of violating standards because the left doesn't have standards).
So, of course, this whole incident makes Craig a hypocrite, right? I mean, after all, he is against special right for gays and he's against same-sex marriage and the gay agenda. So the guy, because he was apparently seeking sex from men, is a hypocrite! Nonsense. First, just because one is a sinner does not invalidate their positions on any given issue. And two, many homosexuals--many homosexuals--are against same-sex marriage. Hypocrisy is when someone says everyone should be doing this but I don't have to. Let me explain better: Al Gore is a hypocrite because he says everyone should save energy and make their homes green and environmentally friendly as possible yet he makes no effort to make his own home green. That's hypocrisy. If we say Craig is a hypocrite then no one can advocate anything because we all sin, we all make mistakes.
The media and the left have put gays (and other minorities) into a funny position. If you are gay and don't agree with the gay agenda you are a hypocrite. But no one says that heterosexuals whom support the gay agenda are hypocrites. Heterosexuals, apparently, are allowed more freedom to think than homosexuals are. This rule applies to blacks, too. We all know how bad it is for blacks who are conservative. They are publicly ridiculed and accused of not being black simply because they like lower taxes, a strong military and less government. What stupidity. The left do not think rationally. It's simply emotion. And Larry Craig and his family are destroyed because of this.
One little mistake . . .
By now you've all heard about Senator Larry Craig's arrest for playing footsie in a public restroom (some say soliciting another man for sex). The media are now trying to destroy Larry Craig's life by public humiliation. This is bad enough but the real evil is that thy--the media--are humiliating Craig's wife and family and they are innocent of any footsie wrongdoing. Many will argue--both from the left and the right--that Craig deserves what he is getting and we have a right to know because what he did wrong and and because he's a US senator and so on and so on. Fine, I suppose, if you think Craig's personal problems are your business and he deserves humiliation. But his wife and family do not deserve this! The punishment the media are doling out far exceeds the crime! But, of course, the leftist media does not care, especially because Craig is a Republican (the media can accuse the right and not the left of violating standards because the left doesn't have standards).
So, of course, this whole incident makes Craig a hypocrite, right? I mean, after all, he is against special right for gays and he's against same-sex marriage and the gay agenda. So the guy, because he was apparently seeking sex from men, is a hypocrite! Nonsense. First, just because one is a sinner does not invalidate their positions on any given issue. And two, many homosexuals--many homosexuals--are against same-sex marriage. Hypocrisy is when someone says everyone should be doing this but I don't have to. Let me explain better: Al Gore is a hypocrite because he says everyone should save energy and make their homes green and environmentally friendly as possible yet he makes no effort to make his own home green. That's hypocrisy. If we say Craig is a hypocrite then no one can advocate anything because we all sin, we all make mistakes.
The media and the left have put gays (and other minorities) into a funny position. If you are gay and don't agree with the gay agenda you are a hypocrite. But no one says that heterosexuals whom support the gay agenda are hypocrites. Heterosexuals, apparently, are allowed more freedom to think than homosexuals are. This rule applies to blacks, too. We all know how bad it is for blacks who are conservative. They are publicly ridiculed and accused of not being black simply because they like lower taxes, a strong military and less government. What stupidity. The left do not think rationally. It's simply emotion. And Larry Craig and his family are destroyed because of this.
One little mistake . . .
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Left Destroys.
Have you heard about this one?
Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has been under attack since his book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen" came out (ahem) in 2003. In his book, Dr. Bailey theorizes that some men who want to become women do so because of an erotic fascination with themselves as women. Even though the book was nominated for an award by the Lambda Literary Foundation, an organization that promotes gay, bisexual and transgender literature, many transgender women took offense to the book's premise. The militant transgender community believes that those who want to become women do so because they are trapped inside of a man's body; it's biology, not psychology, they claim.
Just a few days after the book came out, Lynn Corbay, a computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail comparing Dr. Bailey's book to Nazi propaganda. A transgender advocate and consultant from L.A., Andrea James, even went so far as to post pictures of Dr. Bailey's children on her website with explicit captions. Attacks on Dr. Bailey are numerous (I believe they are listed at Corbays site--she must be very proud).
I have no idea if Dr. Bailey is right. For all I know, the transgendered women who have taken offense to Dr. Bailey's theory are right. The point is academic freedom has taken another punch in the mouth. And, as always, it is the left trying to stop those with whom they disagree with. The right in America never tries to silence those they disagree with (I challenge you to give me an example). It simply does not happen. But the left, true to their totalitarian tendencies, attempts to shut-up and destroy those they disagree with all the time. The right doesn't set out to destroy the lives' of those they disagree with. You won't find any example of such a thing in America. But for the left, it's what they do.
Makes me wonder what the left is so afraid of. Disagreement, surely, but why?
Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has been under attack since his book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen" came out (ahem) in 2003. In his book, Dr. Bailey theorizes that some men who want to become women do so because of an erotic fascination with themselves as women. Even though the book was nominated for an award by the Lambda Literary Foundation, an organization that promotes gay, bisexual and transgender literature, many transgender women took offense to the book's premise. The militant transgender community believes that those who want to become women do so because they are trapped inside of a man's body; it's biology, not psychology, they claim.
Just a few days after the book came out, Lynn Corbay, a computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail comparing Dr. Bailey's book to Nazi propaganda. A transgender advocate and consultant from L.A., Andrea James, even went so far as to post pictures of Dr. Bailey's children on her website with explicit captions. Attacks on Dr. Bailey are numerous (I believe they are listed at Corbays site--she must be very proud).
I have no idea if Dr. Bailey is right. For all I know, the transgendered women who have taken offense to Dr. Bailey's theory are right. The point is academic freedom has taken another punch in the mouth. And, as always, it is the left trying to stop those with whom they disagree with. The right in America never tries to silence those they disagree with (I challenge you to give me an example). It simply does not happen. But the left, true to their totalitarian tendencies, attempts to shut-up and destroy those they disagree with all the time. The right doesn't set out to destroy the lives' of those they disagree with. You won't find any example of such a thing in America. But for the left, it's what they do.
Makes me wonder what the left is so afraid of. Disagreement, surely, but why?
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Nice Michael Medved Quote.
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison recently compared President Bush to Adolph Hitler, suggesting Bush “exploited” 9/11, like Hitler used the Reichstag fire, to seize absolute power. It’s true that both frightening episodes produced pro-government propaganda, but there are glaring differences. Anyone who defied Nazi propaganda ended up in concentration camp; anyone who denounced Bush propaganda got a big book contract, an exclusive interview on “Sixty Minutes” and general adulation from the media establishment. Of all the paranoid charges against the Bush administration, the silliest involves the suppression of dissent: from the time of the disputed election with Al Gore, millions of Americans loudly dissented from Presidential policies and none of them – not one – has faced dire consequences. Even at the time of the President’s greatest popularity, leftists energetically attacked him – protesting even against the invasion of Afghanistan. None of these critics suffered for their opinions and dissent remains lively, even ubiquitous, in today’s America. -- radio talk show host and author Micheal Medved
I am so tired of President Bush being compared to Adolph Hitler. It's sick. It shows you that most on the left are not serious thinkers. Grown-ups can disagree with the president's policies and not resort to silly, childish attacks. While there are those on the right who are just as childish, they are few and are shunned by mainstream conservatives. Mainstream liberals embrace the radical left. As proof, look at the Democratic candidates running for president. Most are fairly mainstream liberals but they pander to the far left and are attending, this very weekend, the Daily Kos Convention. The Daily Kos is a vile, despicable site that engages in all sorts of profane attacks on the current administration. Yet they are embraced by presidential candidates. There is no extreme right organization that the Republican candidates, as a whole, embrace (I won't speak for Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo because they are the token nuts on the Republican side of the presidential candidates, who knows whom they embrace?).
Few think on the left. They mostly emote.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
My famous movie kiss? What?
Your Famous Movie Kiss is from Spiderman |
 "I have always been standing in your doorway. Isn't it about time somebody saved your life?" |
Some of my favorite movies.
While I'm sure I'm leaving out a few, here are some of my all-time favorite movies:
Star Wars - I was five when Star Wars came out in 1977. Star Wars fired up my imagination like nothing before or nothing since. Han Solo and Chewbacca immediately became my favorite characters and light sabres are the coolest weapons ever!
Raiders of the Lost Ark - I'm not a fan of Steven Spielberg as a director (I'm sure he would make a good next door neighbor, though). But Spielberg got it right with Raiders when he created one of the coolest characters ever to grace the big screen: Indiana Jones!
The Sixth Sense - I'll never forget the emotions I felt when the movie reached it's twist ending. It still gives me chills. Repeat viewings take little away from the finale.
Field of Dreams - I've never been into baseball much but every American knows that baseball is weaved into the very fabric of our society and our history. The movie plays on this and ties it into the disconnect many post-fifties men feel they have with their fathers (much thanks to the Age of Stupidity ushered in by the nineteen-sixties and 'seventies). I don't get weepy often but the final scene in Field of Dreams makes my sob like a baby.
Big Trouble in Little China - I remember my dad taking me to this flick when it originally came out back in 'eighty-six. I loved it then, I love it now. It crosses so many genres (fantasy, martial arts, comedy, action, adventure) that it confused audiences when first released. Since, it has become a cult classic. Kurt Russell is at his best.
Unbreakable - One of the most suspenseful films I've ever seen. I love Unbreakable's take on superheroes. Two by director M. Night Shyamalan on my list so far.
Tears of the Sun - Bruce Willis (in his third appearance on my list) plays a Navy SEAL squad leader ordered to rescue a Doctors Without Borders physician during a fictional civil war in Nigeria. The movie forces the SEAL's to choose between duty and morality as they decide whether or not to save villagers from the slaughter of militant rebel Nigerians.
Serenity - Based on the short-lived Firefly TV series, Serenity is the best science fiction movie ever made. It was released in 2005, the same year as the stupidly simplistic and shallow Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Serenity made twenty-five million in the US. Sith made, what, a half billion? Something ain't right with the world.
Once Upon a Time in the West - A so-called Spaghetti Western directed by Sergio Leone, this epic movie tells the tale of a murderous outlaw (played by Henry Fonda of all people), a mystery man nicknamed Harmonica (Charles Bronson), and a recently widowed beauty caught up in a corrupt railroad owner's schemes. The climax of the movie, as Harmonica faces Fonda's character in a showdown, is absolutely superb. Pay special attention to the clever opening credits sequence.
Those are several of my favorite films. I'll add more at a later date.
Star Wars - I was five when Star Wars came out in 1977. Star Wars fired up my imagination like nothing before or nothing since. Han Solo and Chewbacca immediately became my favorite characters and light sabres are the coolest weapons ever!
Raiders of the Lost Ark - I'm not a fan of Steven Spielberg as a director (I'm sure he would make a good next door neighbor, though). But Spielberg got it right with Raiders when he created one of the coolest characters ever to grace the big screen: Indiana Jones!
The Sixth Sense - I'll never forget the emotions I felt when the movie reached it's twist ending. It still gives me chills. Repeat viewings take little away from the finale.
Field of Dreams - I've never been into baseball much but every American knows that baseball is weaved into the very fabric of our society and our history. The movie plays on this and ties it into the disconnect many post-fifties men feel they have with their fathers (much thanks to the Age of Stupidity ushered in by the nineteen-sixties and 'seventies). I don't get weepy often but the final scene in Field of Dreams makes my sob like a baby.
Big Trouble in Little China - I remember my dad taking me to this flick when it originally came out back in 'eighty-six. I loved it then, I love it now. It crosses so many genres (fantasy, martial arts, comedy, action, adventure) that it confused audiences when first released. Since, it has become a cult classic. Kurt Russell is at his best.
Unbreakable - One of the most suspenseful films I've ever seen. I love Unbreakable's take on superheroes. Two by director M. Night Shyamalan on my list so far.
Tears of the Sun - Bruce Willis (in his third appearance on my list) plays a Navy SEAL squad leader ordered to rescue a Doctors Without Borders physician during a fictional civil war in Nigeria. The movie forces the SEAL's to choose between duty and morality as they decide whether or not to save villagers from the slaughter of militant rebel Nigerians.
Serenity - Based on the short-lived Firefly TV series, Serenity is the best science fiction movie ever made. It was released in 2005, the same year as the stupidly simplistic and shallow Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Serenity made twenty-five million in the US. Sith made, what, a half billion? Something ain't right with the world.
Once Upon a Time in the West - A so-called Spaghetti Western directed by Sergio Leone, this epic movie tells the tale of a murderous outlaw (played by Henry Fonda of all people), a mystery man nicknamed Harmonica (Charles Bronson), and a recently widowed beauty caught up in a corrupt railroad owner's schemes. The climax of the movie, as Harmonica faces Fonda's character in a showdown, is absolutely superb. Pay special attention to the clever opening credits sequence.
Those are several of my favorite films. I'll add more at a later date.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Boys charged with felonies for butt-slapping.
Two thirteen year-old boys in Oregon were put in jail for slapping girls' butts in the school hallway. The butt-slapping was common by both boys and girls as a way of greeting. The boys were interrogated by an assistant principal and the school's police officer. They were then placed in handcuffs, arrested, strip-searched, and put in jail for five days. If convicted, they could spend ten years in jail and become registered sex offenders. However, the charges, which were originally felonies, were reduced to misdemeanors. But the boys could still spend time in jail and still be registered as sex offenders. Jail-time is unlikely even if the boys are convicted but as part of a likely probation agreement, the boys would not be allowed around younger children unsupervised including younger siblings.
This is sickening. District Attorney Bradley Berry, who is prosecuting the two boys, is either evil or an idiot (I'll give him the benefit of doubt and say he's an idiot). But this is what liberalism and feminism has wrought. The feminization of our schools (and of society, for that matter) has put boys and masculinity on the defensive. Men are told time and time again that they must suppress their nature. And, of course, men should suppress the part of their nature that is sexually predatory and violent. But women are never told that they, too, must suppress the parts of their nature that is overly sensitive and too compassionate. The schools in this country have been taken over by radical feminism; grade school and college. As a result, are schools have become feelings based and not reason based. Reason tells us that what those two boys were doing, though inappropriate, was not a sex crime or even sexual harassment (whatever that means these days). But put emotions in the mix and reason goes out the window, i.e. I feel what the boys did was a crime, therefore it is a crime.
My heart weeps for the two innocent boys and their families. Hopefully, this Bradley Berry creep will have to face the scrutiny of his superiors and be removed as prosecutor of the district he serves. Meanwhile, there is no justice.
Here is a link to a video interview of the two boys. Beware, it'll break your heart.
This is sickening. District Attorney Bradley Berry, who is prosecuting the two boys, is either evil or an idiot (I'll give him the benefit of doubt and say he's an idiot). But this is what liberalism and feminism has wrought. The feminization of our schools (and of society, for that matter) has put boys and masculinity on the defensive. Men are told time and time again that they must suppress their nature. And, of course, men should suppress the part of their nature that is sexually predatory and violent. But women are never told that they, too, must suppress the parts of their nature that is overly sensitive and too compassionate. The schools in this country have been taken over by radical feminism; grade school and college. As a result, are schools have become feelings based and not reason based. Reason tells us that what those two boys were doing, though inappropriate, was not a sex crime or even sexual harassment (whatever that means these days). But put emotions in the mix and reason goes out the window, i.e. I feel what the boys did was a crime, therefore it is a crime.
My heart weeps for the two innocent boys and their families. Hopefully, this Bradley Berry creep will have to face the scrutiny of his superiors and be removed as prosecutor of the district he serves. Meanwhile, there is no justice.
Here is a link to a video interview of the two boys. Beware, it'll break your heart.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The Quotable Calvin Coolidge.
As many of you know, I think Calvin Coolidge is one of America's greatest presidents. Some quotes from him follow:
Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.
It is only when men begin to worship that they begin to grow.
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. It may not be difficult to store up in the mind a vast quantity of face within a comparatively short time, but the ability to form judgments requires the severe discipline of hard work and the tempering heat of experience and maturity.
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Good stuff. I encourage everyone who reads this blog to read about John Calvin Coolidge, 30th president of the United States. Radio talk show host Dennis Prager often says "Seldom are the famous great and the great famous." There are many US presidents who are more famous than Calvin Coolidge, who most Americans probably couldn't identify, but very few greater.
Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.
It is only when men begin to worship that they begin to grow.
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. It may not be difficult to store up in the mind a vast quantity of face within a comparatively short time, but the ability to form judgments requires the severe discipline of hard work and the tempering heat of experience and maturity.
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Good stuff. I encourage everyone who reads this blog to read about John Calvin Coolidge, 30th president of the United States. Radio talk show host Dennis Prager often says "Seldom are the famous great and the great famous." There are many US presidents who are more famous than Calvin Coolidge, who most Americans probably couldn't identify, but very few greater.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Influencing the Outcome.
It occurs to me that television reporters (not commentators whom are supposed to give their opinion) are supposed to be neutral much like a referee. But as I listen to Keith Olbermann tell vicious lie after vicious lie on his MSDNC show Countdown with Keith Olbermann, I realize Olbermann and the vast majority of journalists in the mainstream media are like NFL referees who show up at a Oakland Raiders/Denver Broncos game in vehicles with bumperstickers that say "Go Broncos" and wearing orange and navy blue caps with "Denver" spelled out across the front. If you were a Raiders fan and you saw that occur, would you think the Raiders would be fairly treated during the game?
I don't think so.
Even though the previous paragraph accurately describes the mainstream media, it doesn't really bother me that the New York Times and MSDNC shows such as Hardball and Countdown lean left, it's that they don't admit it. They are not honest with their audience and push their propaganda on some who may accept their spin at face value.
But even commentators aren't supposed to lie.
That's why Keith Olbermann is so dangerous (at least he would be dangerous if people actually watched his show). Not only does he claim that his show is straight news, he is not just a commentator disguised as a newsman. He's a liar. Their are websites who use Olbermann's own words (taken in context which is something those on the left never do with comments made by those on the right) and compare his story with what really happened. Olbermann is a liar. Every day their are many lies told on his little show and they are presented as hard news. He's called on it but he never issues a retraction or correction. This is the height of arrogance. Even honest, fair news outlets make mistakes and print corrections from time to time. But not Olbermann. Not only does he claim his tiny show presents the news in a unbiased manner but he claims he makes no mistakes as well.
Wow.
So most of the referees in the game are wearing one team's colors and then, confronted with the truth, deny it while still wearing their team's logo.
I don't think so.
Even though the previous paragraph accurately describes the mainstream media, it doesn't really bother me that the New York Times and MSDNC shows such as Hardball and Countdown lean left, it's that they don't admit it. They are not honest with their audience and push their propaganda on some who may accept their spin at face value.
But even commentators aren't supposed to lie.
That's why Keith Olbermann is so dangerous (at least he would be dangerous if people actually watched his show). Not only does he claim that his show is straight news, he is not just a commentator disguised as a newsman. He's a liar. Their are websites who use Olbermann's own words (taken in context which is something those on the left never do with comments made by those on the right) and compare his story with what really happened. Olbermann is a liar. Every day their are many lies told on his little show and they are presented as hard news. He's called on it but he never issues a retraction or correction. This is the height of arrogance. Even honest, fair news outlets make mistakes and print corrections from time to time. But not Olbermann. Not only does he claim his tiny show presents the news in a unbiased manner but he claims he makes no mistakes as well.
Wow.
So most of the referees in the game are wearing one team's colors and then, confronted with the truth, deny it while still wearing their team's logo.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Totalitarian Tendencies of the Left.
The left in America has totalitarian tendencies. I'm not talking about your average liberal, I'm talking the left which make up most of our mainstream media journalists. What is even more astonishing is that those very same leftist journalists claim to be fair and straight with the audience. A good example of a leftist who claims to be a straight newscaster is Keith Olbermann.
Keith Olbermann presents his MSDNC (er, MSNBC) show as a newscast but it isn't. He often demonizes Bill O'Reilly for allegedly lying to his audience but, at the very least, O'Reilly has never claimed that the O'Reilly Factor is a newscast (O'Reilly doesn't lie, either, but facts never get in the way of Olbermann). O'Reilly has repeatedly stated--from day one--that the Factor is a news analysis show, i.e. the television equivalent of the editorial page in your local paper. As for Olbermann's attacks on O'Reilly, they are virtually all ad hominem attacks and are demonstrably untrue.
It takes balls for a guy who claims to be a newscaster to ask for the president's resignation or impeachment. Olbermann does this daily and still has the hubris to call his show straight news. Yet it is Fox News that receives so much negative attention from the press. Now admittedly, no one watches Olbermann's silly little show so perhaps this is why it garners so little attention from the media. Still I find it absolutely hilarious that Olbermann is so worried about the O'Reilly Factor when, in fact, the evening newscasts of the big three networks are watched by far more viewers than the O'Reilly Factor (even Katie Couric has triple the viewership on an average night).
It is some sort of pathology that propels the Fox News bashers (including Olbermann) to be so obsessed by the only news network/newscast that may lean right Even if Fox News does lean right, what the heck is the big deal? CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, all the major newspapers, and NPR lean left (at the very least). So Fox News (and commercial talk radio) lean right. Why is this so threatening to the left?
The answer is simple. The left doesn't want other opinions heard. The left simply wants to silence those they disagree with. For forty years the left has controlled college campuses (campi?) across the nation. College campuses have speech codes which proponents claim are used to go after hate speech but, in fact, are a tool to silence conservative voices. After all, any speech the left doesn't like is hate speech.
It's funny that the left claims President Bush is using stuff like the Patriot Act to silence those the administration disagrees with. Never mind that no one--no one--has had their speech rights--or any other rights--violated by this administration. Yet it is the left that endorses, enforces and approves speech codes at our universities. It is the left that is trying to reinstate the Fascist (er, Fairness) Doctrine. It is the left that uses terms like homophobe, racist and sexist to try and silence opponents. Show me where anyone on the right has tried to institute anything remotely akin to speech codes and fascist doctrines.
Contrary to the left, the right love open debate. I listen to conservative talk radio. While different hosts have different formats, those that do have guests on (which is a majority of nationally syndicated conservative talk shows) have guests they disagree with every day. Michael Medved goes out of his way to have guests with opposing views (those with whom Michael agrees with makeup a distinct minority of his guests). Dennis Prager has an extremely wide range of guests, many of whom are left of center. Even the shrill Laura Ingraham (I dislike her program immensely) has guests on who are at the other end of the political spectrum.
I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly's program (I used to be but he makes far to many emotionally appealing arguments when reason would better serve those same arguments) nor am I fan of most conservative talk radio hosts (too many are demagogues like Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and, especially, that fraud Michael Savage). But, please, let us have commercial talk radio and Fox News. You guys on the left have everything else.
Keith Olbermann presents his MSDNC (er, MSNBC) show as a newscast but it isn't. He often demonizes Bill O'Reilly for allegedly lying to his audience but, at the very least, O'Reilly has never claimed that the O'Reilly Factor is a newscast (O'Reilly doesn't lie, either, but facts never get in the way of Olbermann). O'Reilly has repeatedly stated--from day one--that the Factor is a news analysis show, i.e. the television equivalent of the editorial page in your local paper. As for Olbermann's attacks on O'Reilly, they are virtually all ad hominem attacks and are demonstrably untrue.
It takes balls for a guy who claims to be a newscaster to ask for the president's resignation or impeachment. Olbermann does this daily and still has the hubris to call his show straight news. Yet it is Fox News that receives so much negative attention from the press. Now admittedly, no one watches Olbermann's silly little show so perhaps this is why it garners so little attention from the media. Still I find it absolutely hilarious that Olbermann is so worried about the O'Reilly Factor when, in fact, the evening newscasts of the big three networks are watched by far more viewers than the O'Reilly Factor (even Katie Couric has triple the viewership on an average night).
It is some sort of pathology that propels the Fox News bashers (including Olbermann) to be so obsessed by the only news network/newscast that may lean right Even if Fox News does lean right, what the heck is the big deal? CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, all the major newspapers, and NPR lean left (at the very least). So Fox News (and commercial talk radio) lean right. Why is this so threatening to the left?
The answer is simple. The left doesn't want other opinions heard. The left simply wants to silence those they disagree with. For forty years the left has controlled college campuses (campi?) across the nation. College campuses have speech codes which proponents claim are used to go after hate speech but, in fact, are a tool to silence conservative voices. After all, any speech the left doesn't like is hate speech.
It's funny that the left claims President Bush is using stuff like the Patriot Act to silence those the administration disagrees with. Never mind that no one--no one--has had their speech rights--or any other rights--violated by this administration. Yet it is the left that endorses, enforces and approves speech codes at our universities. It is the left that is trying to reinstate the Fascist (er, Fairness) Doctrine. It is the left that uses terms like homophobe, racist and sexist to try and silence opponents. Show me where anyone on the right has tried to institute anything remotely akin to speech codes and fascist doctrines.
Contrary to the left, the right love open debate. I listen to conservative talk radio. While different hosts have different formats, those that do have guests on (which is a majority of nationally syndicated conservative talk shows) have guests they disagree with every day. Michael Medved goes out of his way to have guests with opposing views (those with whom Michael agrees with makeup a distinct minority of his guests). Dennis Prager has an extremely wide range of guests, many of whom are left of center. Even the shrill Laura Ingraham (I dislike her program immensely) has guests on who are at the other end of the political spectrum.
I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly's program (I used to be but he makes far to many emotionally appealing arguments when reason would better serve those same arguments) nor am I fan of most conservative talk radio hosts (too many are demagogues like Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and, especially, that fraud Michael Savage). But, please, let us have commercial talk radio and Fox News. You guys on the left have everything else.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
More of those micro-heroes!
This is my ongoing posting of micro-heroes I've made. The following micro-heroes are all original works by your truly. They are members of the United Superheroes of America's Mountain West branch which protects the people of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Enjoy!
ATOMIC-HAWK of NEW MEXICO Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch
Atomic-Hawk grew up on an Indian reservation with dreams of becoming a superhero like her comic book idols. But she never thought those dreams would become reality. But then she was exposed to the mysterious Radiation X, gaining nuclear-based powers--and bird-like wings to boot! With the ability to fly at extremely high speeds and the power to control and generate nuclear energy, she is one of the most powerful members of the USA.
Notes: New Mexico has a large Native American population and was the site of the first atomic bomb test. That was inspiration enough.
The micro from which she was created is a micro I made of a Dawnstar (Legion of Super-Heroes)/Falcon (Avengers) DC/Marvel amalgam I did awhile back. I made only a few minor changes.
STRONGBOW of ARIZONA Deputy Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch
Though part Native American, it is his grandfather, the British hero Longbow Jack, that taught Strongbow how to be a hero. A skilled archer, Strongbow does not have any powers but instead relies on his athletic abilities to beat up the bad guys. He is aided by infrared imaging in his helmet.
Notes: Arizona has a large population of Native Americans. But I didn't want to make that Strongbow's sole identity. So I made Strongbow a legacy hero with an unlikely connection to a WWII British hero.
MOUNTAIN MAN of IDAHO Senior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
A mysterious loner, Mountain Man was accepted as a member of the USA under strange circumstances. No one knows his true identity (or even if he has one) or where he came from (though he does call the mountains of Idaho home).
Mountain Man is a nine-foot tall stone golem. He weighs at least one ton and is definitely the strongest member of the USA--Mr. President included! He is virtually indestructible and immune to mental attacks. His speed and quickness are rather ordinary and he does seem susceptible to magic-based attacks.
Notes: Obviously this character is influenced by trappers, scouts and mountain men of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
BISON of WYOMING Senior member, USA Mountain West Branch
Bison was born with powers but they didn't fullymanifest until he was fourteen. He has the ability to generate a force field around himself that is virtually indestructible. A common use of his power is to bowl opponents over simply by running into them using his massive size. The force field does the rest. It should be noted that Bison does not have superhuman strength though he can sometimes manipulate his force field enough to lift objects by touching objects and extending the force field around them. This requires a lot of concentration so he doesn't do it often. Another aspect of his power is that the force field (which extends no more than a centimeter away from his body) is always on. He has to think to turn it off. His horns are artificial and can be detached from his skull.
Notes: Part of Wyoming is in the great plains where the American bison (some call it the American buffalo which is incorrect) used to roam in the millions.
BEELINE of UTAH Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Exposed to Radiation X while being the subject of an expererimental bee anti-venom, Beeline gained the proportionate strength of a bee. And while he doesn't produce any honey and can't gather pollen worth a darn, he is strong, quick and very agile. His scientist friend designed a pair of wristbands that can emit an electrical charge that can knock a normal man unconscious--his bee-sting. Beeline's costume is also outfitted with "beewings" that allow him to glide several hundred yards.
Notes: Utah is known as the Beehive State and has the motto "Industry". Beeline is one darn industrious bee (man)!
BIG SKYE of MONTANA Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Skye Madison was born with the ability to fly. As a teenager, she tried her hand at super-heroics. After initial success, she got in over her head when she tried to take on the criminal super-powered gang Power Danger Trio X. One of the members of the trio, a mutant who can project extremely toxic levels of radiation, blasted Skye, seriously injuring her. Left for dead, Skye was aided by bystanders and taken to a nearby hospital. But she wasn't going to survive. . . until some mysterious person injected her with Radiation X!
Skye quickly recovered and found that she was superhumanly strong, had gained nearly one-hundred pounds of muscle, had added an additional foot to her height, and was now impervious to physical harm. These new abilities, along with her ability to fly, made her tougher and more formidable than before. No longer a naive teenager, Skye donned a new costume and a new name and brought Power Danger Trio X to justice. Big Skye was born!
Notes: Montana is known as Big Sky conutry with big mountains and wide-open plains (on it's eastern side). I couldn't resist naming a superheroine Big Skye.
GOLDRUSH of COLORADO Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Goldrush is a speedster. She was born with the ability to move at extremely high speeds. Her metabolism is very high and she must consume a lot of food every day in order to function.
Notes: Like California and South Dakota, Colorado had a famous gold rush, too. The character was easy to come up with.
USA MOUNTAIN WEST TEAMSHOT!
More micros coming soon!
ATOMIC-HAWK of NEW MEXICO Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch
Atomic-Hawk grew up on an Indian reservation with dreams of becoming a superhero like her comic book idols. But she never thought those dreams would become reality. But then she was exposed to the mysterious Radiation X, gaining nuclear-based powers--and bird-like wings to boot! With the ability to fly at extremely high speeds and the power to control and generate nuclear energy, she is one of the most powerful members of the USA.
Notes: New Mexico has a large Native American population and was the site of the first atomic bomb test. That was inspiration enough.
The micro from which she was created is a micro I made of a Dawnstar (Legion of Super-Heroes)/Falcon (Avengers) DC/Marvel amalgam I did awhile back. I made only a few minor changes.
STRONGBOW of ARIZONA Deputy Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch
Though part Native American, it is his grandfather, the British hero Longbow Jack, that taught Strongbow how to be a hero. A skilled archer, Strongbow does not have any powers but instead relies on his athletic abilities to beat up the bad guys. He is aided by infrared imaging in his helmet.
Notes: Arizona has a large population of Native Americans. But I didn't want to make that Strongbow's sole identity. So I made Strongbow a legacy hero with an unlikely connection to a WWII British hero.
MOUNTAIN MAN of IDAHO Senior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
A mysterious loner, Mountain Man was accepted as a member of the USA under strange circumstances. No one knows his true identity (or even if he has one) or where he came from (though he does call the mountains of Idaho home).
Mountain Man is a nine-foot tall stone golem. He weighs at least one ton and is definitely the strongest member of the USA--Mr. President included! He is virtually indestructible and immune to mental attacks. His speed and quickness are rather ordinary and he does seem susceptible to magic-based attacks.
Notes: Obviously this character is influenced by trappers, scouts and mountain men of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
BISON of WYOMING Senior member, USA Mountain West Branch
Bison was born with powers but they didn't fullymanifest until he was fourteen. He has the ability to generate a force field around himself that is virtually indestructible. A common use of his power is to bowl opponents over simply by running into them using his massive size. The force field does the rest. It should be noted that Bison does not have superhuman strength though he can sometimes manipulate his force field enough to lift objects by touching objects and extending the force field around them. This requires a lot of concentration so he doesn't do it often. Another aspect of his power is that the force field (which extends no more than a centimeter away from his body) is always on. He has to think to turn it off. His horns are artificial and can be detached from his skull.
Notes: Part of Wyoming is in the great plains where the American bison (some call it the American buffalo which is incorrect) used to roam in the millions.
BEELINE of UTAH Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Exposed to Radiation X while being the subject of an expererimental bee anti-venom, Beeline gained the proportionate strength of a bee. And while he doesn't produce any honey and can't gather pollen worth a darn, he is strong, quick and very agile. His scientist friend designed a pair of wristbands that can emit an electrical charge that can knock a normal man unconscious--his bee-sting. Beeline's costume is also outfitted with "beewings" that allow him to glide several hundred yards.
Notes: Utah is known as the Beehive State and has the motto "Industry". Beeline is one darn industrious bee (man)!
BIG SKYE of MONTANA Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Skye Madison was born with the ability to fly. As a teenager, she tried her hand at super-heroics. After initial success, she got in over her head when she tried to take on the criminal super-powered gang Power Danger Trio X. One of the members of the trio, a mutant who can project extremely toxic levels of radiation, blasted Skye, seriously injuring her. Left for dead, Skye was aided by bystanders and taken to a nearby hospital. But she wasn't going to survive. . . until some mysterious person injected her with Radiation X!
Skye quickly recovered and found that she was superhumanly strong, had gained nearly one-hundred pounds of muscle, had added an additional foot to her height, and was now impervious to physical harm. These new abilities, along with her ability to fly, made her tougher and more formidable than before. No longer a naive teenager, Skye donned a new costume and a new name and brought Power Danger Trio X to justice. Big Skye was born!
Notes: Montana is known as Big Sky conutry with big mountains and wide-open plains (on it's eastern side). I couldn't resist naming a superheroine Big Skye.
GOLDRUSH of COLORADO Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch
Goldrush is a speedster. She was born with the ability to move at extremely high speeds. Her metabolism is very high and she must consume a lot of food every day in order to function.
Notes: Like California and South Dakota, Colorado had a famous gold rush, too. The character was easy to come up with.
USA MOUNTAIN WEST TEAMSHOT!
More micros coming soon!
Last five songs.
The last five songs I just listened to on my iPod (shuffle setting of course!):
- "Sing" - The Carpenters
- "The Class of '57" - The Statler Brothers
- "Dreams" - Van Halen
- "What I'd Say" - Earl Thomas Conley
- "Industrial Disease" - Dire Straits
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Even more micro-heroes.
This is the leader of the United Superheroes of America, Mr. President. He represents Washington DC. Because the United Superheroes is such a large team (fifty-one members), it is divided into eight subteams each representing a different part of the country (USA Southwest, USA Northeast, etc.).
Mr. President of Washington DC
My bio for Mr. President reads:
Mr. President is the leader of the United Superheroes of America in it's entirity. He formed the team, he funds the team and he leads the team. While not an active field member, he co-ordinates all USA activity from a secret location in Washington DC. While the eight branches of the USA usually operate independently of eachother, Mr. President can bring various branches of the USA together if the threat is serious enough. Mr. President is an enigmatic figure whose earliest known activity was shortly before World War II. He has defended the US ever since.
Though his powers have yet to be thoroughly defined, he can fly and he seems to possess superhuman strength and resistance to injury. Also, he can emit some sort of destructive energy from his hands. Once, Mr. President claimed to have the "vision of Washington, the resolve of Lincoln and the good business sense of Coolidge". He has uttered similar lines comparing himself to other presidents at other times. Some have suggested his powers are mystical in nature.
In previous posts, I introduced you to three other heroes I have made using the micro-heroes format. Here they are again with bios:
Johnny America of Kansas
He is the fifth incarnation of Johnny America. He is the great-grandson of the first Johnny America, the grand-nephew of the third, and he was trained by the fourth. From the geographic heart of America, Kansas, Johnny America leads the Central North branch of the USA. Johnny America has unmatched fighting skills and superhuman reflexes and strength.
Notes: Johnny America is obviously influenced by Captain America. But with a classic DC legacy twist. Plus, Kansas is the heart of America (geographically) so it seemed fitting to have a character called Johnny America hail from there.
Darkrider of South Dakota
Darkrider is a mystical being made up of mystical energies. In the late nineteenth century, he was a lawman who was murdered in Deadwood, South Dakota. Now he seeks vengeance for those who have been wronged. He's not much of a team player, but his team-mates can't get rid of him. His powers include intangibility and projection of a mysterious mystical fire from his left hand. His revolvers work but fire mystical bullets. He sometimes rides a black stallion he can summon from the Other Side. Darkrider is a member of USA Central North.
Josie Steel of Pennsylvania
A former steel mill worker from Pittsburgh, Josie Steel gained superhuman powers after a sledgehammer she was using somehow became enchanted during a lightning storm. The hammer somehow granted her permanent superhuman abilities including super strength, endurance and durability. She is a member of the USA Mid-Atlantic branch.
Notes: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is known for it's steel industry. I could have gone many directions with a Pennsylvania-based superhero but I wanted a blue collar steel woman!
If you want more micros, ask!
Mr. President of Washington DC
My bio for Mr. President reads:
Mr. President is the leader of the United Superheroes of America in it's entirity. He formed the team, he funds the team and he leads the team. While not an active field member, he co-ordinates all USA activity from a secret location in Washington DC. While the eight branches of the USA usually operate independently of eachother, Mr. President can bring various branches of the USA together if the threat is serious enough. Mr. President is an enigmatic figure whose earliest known activity was shortly before World War II. He has defended the US ever since.
Though his powers have yet to be thoroughly defined, he can fly and he seems to possess superhuman strength and resistance to injury. Also, he can emit some sort of destructive energy from his hands. Once, Mr. President claimed to have the "vision of Washington, the resolve of Lincoln and the good business sense of Coolidge". He has uttered similar lines comparing himself to other presidents at other times. Some have suggested his powers are mystical in nature.
In previous posts, I introduced you to three other heroes I have made using the micro-heroes format. Here they are again with bios:
Johnny America of Kansas
He is the fifth incarnation of Johnny America. He is the great-grandson of the first Johnny America, the grand-nephew of the third, and he was trained by the fourth. From the geographic heart of America, Kansas, Johnny America leads the Central North branch of the USA. Johnny America has unmatched fighting skills and superhuman reflexes and strength.
Notes: Johnny America is obviously influenced by Captain America. But with a classic DC legacy twist. Plus, Kansas is the heart of America (geographically) so it seemed fitting to have a character called Johnny America hail from there.
Darkrider of South Dakota
Darkrider is a mystical being made up of mystical energies. In the late nineteenth century, he was a lawman who was murdered in Deadwood, South Dakota. Now he seeks vengeance for those who have been wronged. He's not much of a team player, but his team-mates can't get rid of him. His powers include intangibility and projection of a mysterious mystical fire from his left hand. His revolvers work but fire mystical bullets. He sometimes rides a black stallion he can summon from the Other Side. Darkrider is a member of USA Central North.
Josie Steel of Pennsylvania
A former steel mill worker from Pittsburgh, Josie Steel gained superhuman powers after a sledgehammer she was using somehow became enchanted during a lightning storm. The hammer somehow granted her permanent superhuman abilities including super strength, endurance and durability. She is a member of the USA Mid-Atlantic branch.
Notes: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is known for it's steel industry. I could have gone many directions with a Pennsylvania-based superhero but I wanted a blue collar steel woman!
If you want more micros, ask!
Key differences between conservatives and liberals.
Back when President George Bush had the opportunity to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals both got to spout off about the qualities they felt were important in a Supreme Court justice. By their own words, conservatives and liberals revealed themselves. I do believe the words you use say a lot about who you are and, in this case, your party and your party's ideals.
Conservatives consistently said the wanted a justice whose primary interest was justice. Time and again conservatives said that justices should be merely umpires enforcing the rules set down by the law.
Liberals, even more consistently, cited fairness as the most important value a justice should hold. Fairness and justice are opposites. Fairness is based on conscience and is used to enforce equality, another important value of liberals (liberals use the term social justice often but social justice means fairness and equality). Justice is based on the truth and is used to insure liberty. The problem with fairness? It is completely subjective. Justice, on the other hand, is completely objective; the law is truth and justices should simply make sure the laws are applied justly.
Liberal judges will frequently disregard the law to give advantages to the underprivileged and to harm those who have advantages. Seeing that a poor man man suffer because of a ruling, a judge may simply alter the law to apply his notion of fairness, thus attempting to make things equal. The justice system is damaged as a result.
Justice and fairness can, and often do, coincide. But just as often, they have nothing to do with one another. Understanding the key differences between liberals and conservatives will help you decide whom to vote for in 2008. Ask yourself which qualities are more important to you: liberty and justice or fairness and equality? And then vote accordingly.
Conservatives consistently said the wanted a justice whose primary interest was justice. Time and again conservatives said that justices should be merely umpires enforcing the rules set down by the law.
Liberals, even more consistently, cited fairness as the most important value a justice should hold. Fairness and justice are opposites. Fairness is based on conscience and is used to enforce equality, another important value of liberals (liberals use the term social justice often but social justice means fairness and equality). Justice is based on the truth and is used to insure liberty. The problem with fairness? It is completely subjective. Justice, on the other hand, is completely objective; the law is truth and justices should simply make sure the laws are applied justly.
Liberal judges will frequently disregard the law to give advantages to the underprivileged and to harm those who have advantages. Seeing that a poor man man suffer because of a ruling, a judge may simply alter the law to apply his notion of fairness, thus attempting to make things equal. The justice system is damaged as a result.
Justice and fairness can, and often do, coincide. But just as often, they have nothing to do with one another. Understanding the key differences between liberals and conservatives will help you decide whom to vote for in 2008. Ask yourself which qualities are more important to you: liberty and justice or fairness and equality? And then vote accordingly.
Last Five songs.
The last five songs that I listened to on my iPod (greatest invention ever), shuffle setting. This will give you an idea of the stuff I listen to (I know you can't wait):
- "Shoot to Thrill" - AC/DC
- "The Cage" - Sonata Arctica (European power metal)
- "Calling Elvis" - Dire Straits
- "Heavy Metal Symphony" - Erik Norlander (symphonic hard rock)
- "Unchain the Night" - Dokken ('80s hair metal)
Monday, July 09, 2007
More micro-heroes.
I have created dozens upon dozens of micro-heroes and all are heroes of my own creation. Here are a couple more:
Darkrider and Josie Steel
Both are members of the United Superheroes of America. Darkrider is from South Dakota, Josie Steel is from Pennsylvania. And if I have to explain why both represent their respective states so well, you need to watch Deadwood and visit Pittsburgh.
Josie Steel is a basic brick, I suppose. Darkrider is a mystery. Demon? Man? Mutant who likes dressing up in leather? No one knows.
More micros to come.
Darkrider and Josie Steel
Both are members of the United Superheroes of America. Darkrider is from South Dakota, Josie Steel is from Pennsylvania. And if I have to explain why both represent their respective states so well, you need to watch Deadwood and visit Pittsburgh.
Josie Steel is a basic brick, I suppose. Darkrider is a mystery. Demon? Man? Mutant who likes dressing up in leather? No one knows.
More micros to come.
Microheroes Assemble!
I have a hobby. I make micro-heroes. What's a micro-hero you ask? Well, this is a micro-hero:
Johnny America
His name is Johnny America and he is Kansas's own homegrown superhero (at least in the superhero universe I created; The Neoverse). I created him. He's a member of a superteam I made up called USA: The United Superheroes of America. Each hero on the USA is from a different state, fifty-one members all together (including the DC hero).
Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on micro-heroes here. There's links to micro-heroes sites that you may find interesting.
Johnny America
His name is Johnny America and he is Kansas's own homegrown superhero (at least in the superhero universe I created; The Neoverse). I created him. He's a member of a superteam I made up called USA: The United Superheroes of America. Each hero on the USA is from a different state, fifty-one members all together (including the DC hero).
Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on micro-heroes here. There's links to micro-heroes sites that you may find interesting.
Please don't make me mad. You wouldn't like me when I'm mad.
I took the "which superhero are you test" and I'm pissed at the results! I'm filled with such anger! Grrr!!
Your results:
You are Hulk
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test
Your results:
You are Hulk
| You are a wanderer with amazing strength.  |
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test
Sunday, July 08, 2007
This is only a test.
How Democrat am I?
How Republican am I?
That fits, I guess. But the questions were a bit odd. On economic matters, I'm libertarian (that's libertarian with a small "l"--anyone who votes third party is not a serious thinker and is taking themselves out of the political process and insulting the men and women who fought and died for our freedoms). Oh well, see for yourself.
| You Are 4% Democrat |
 If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that! |
How Republican am I?
| You Are 80% Republican |
 You have a good deal of elephant running through your blood, and you're proud to be conservative. You don't fit every Republican stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Republican party. |
That fits, I guess. But the questions were a bit odd. On economic matters, I'm libertarian (that's libertarian with a small "l"--anyone who votes third party is not a serious thinker and is taking themselves out of the political process and insulting the men and women who fought and died for our freedoms). Oh well, see for yourself.
Superhero Archetypes.
I've been reading superhero comic books most of my life (and no, I don't live with my parents). Recently, I've been dissecting the superhero archetypes and using various archetypes or combinations of archetypes to create my own unique heroes through my art. I think I've come up with my own way to categorize superheroes (by no means a unique way).
Comic book fans use different methods when they breakdown superheroes. Wikipedia, under their superheroes entry, has a pretty good summary of the types of superheroes. They break it down to thirteen types from armored hero (Iron Man) and brick (the Hulk) to slasher (Wolverine) and speedster (the Flash). This list, while informative, only covers powers at the basic level. This isn't the only way to categorize superheroes.
Another way to do it is by origin. While this method says little about powers and abilities, it does offer the would-be superhero creator basic superhero beginnings. Origin archetypes include alien (Superman), mutant (the X-Men), non-human (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) and training (Batman), among others. I have found there are about nine basic (superhero) origin archetypes found in comic books.
You can also divvy heroes up by personality (arrogant, comedic, disciplined, etc.). But I find all three methods insufficient. When I create superheroes (I'm an artist), I want bold, iconic archetypes. Brick and blaster, martial artist and mutant are not sufficient.
I want big, bold superheroes. So I look at the big, bold superhero archetypes.
Some types of heroes will be left off my list. I'm only focusing on the iconic (or somewhat iconic) superhero archetypes:
Comic book fans use different methods when they breakdown superheroes. Wikipedia, under their superheroes entry, has a pretty good summary of the types of superheroes. They break it down to thirteen types from armored hero (Iron Man) and brick (the Hulk) to slasher (Wolverine) and speedster (the Flash). This list, while informative, only covers powers at the basic level. This isn't the only way to categorize superheroes.
Another way to do it is by origin. While this method says little about powers and abilities, it does offer the would-be superhero creator basic superhero beginnings. Origin archetypes include alien (Superman), mutant (the X-Men), non-human (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) and training (Batman), among others. I have found there are about nine basic (superhero) origin archetypes found in comic books.
You can also divvy heroes up by personality (arrogant, comedic, disciplined, etc.). But I find all three methods insufficient. When I create superheroes (I'm an artist), I want bold, iconic archetypes. Brick and blaster, martial artist and mutant are not sufficient.
I want big, bold superheroes. So I look at the big, bold superhero archetypes.
Some types of heroes will be left off my list. I'm only focusing on the iconic (or somewhat iconic) superhero archetypes:
- The God - Thor, Hercules, Wonder Woman (in one of her incarnations) and the iconic-like New Gods. This is a bold superhero archetype and the God is usually a protector of humanity, not just a city or a nation or a group of outcasts. They are typically among the strongest superheroes so, at a basic level, they are bricks/tankers. But brick doesn't go nearly far enough to describe their wide range of powers. A sub-type of the God is the God-like archetype ala DC's Captain Marvel and (in most of her incarnations) Wonder Woman. While these heroes are not properly gods, their powers were given to them by the gods.
- The Alien - Like the God, the Alien archetype covers some of the most powerful heroes in comic books: Superman, the Silver Surfer, the Martian Manhunter. Typically, these heroes can go toe-to-toe with the Gods in a contest of sheer power. And in some ways, they even one-up the Gods in that many Aliens have even a wider range of powers. Aliens are often mysterious and aloof.
- The Super Soldier (aka the Patriot) - A hero that is created by the government and serves as that government's living national symbol. Captain America is the best example of this but others include the Canadian super team Alpha Flight and the UK's Captain Britain. Often, this archetype is clad head to toe in the colors and symbols of the nation he serves which gives the hero a striking appearance. The Super Soldier is often a leader. And while Super Soldiers exhibit a range powers from hero to hero, many are super-athletes who rely on their fighting skills,
- The Armored Hero - This powerful archetype is a hero (usually an engineer or scientist) clad in a hi-tech suit of armor. The Armored Hero usually displays a fairly wide range of powers (Iron Man is a superhumanly strong James Bond with every gadget OO7 has ever used at his disposal). Visually, most Armored Heroes remind us of another armor-clad icon, the Knight in Shining Armor from movies and novels.
- The Sorcerer - Though there are many common magician superheroes in comics who wield low power levels of magic, the Sorcerer is the master of the magical arts; the Gandalf or the Merlin of the spandex set. With arguably the most varied arsenal at his fingertips, the Sorcerer is one of the most powerful iconic superhero archetypes: Dr. Strange, Dr. Fate, Zatanna, the Scarlet Witch.
- The Street Crusader - This archetype includes heroes that are either (a) more concerned with mundane crime and criminals (street crime) than the big, cosmic crises and/or (b) heroes who either don't have powers and rely heavily on their training (Batman, Robin) and heroes who may have some powers but nothing on a grand scale (Daredevil, Spider-Man) and/or (c) heroes who are anti-heroes and work outside the law (i.e. those who use brutal methods to achieve their goals) . The Punisher is the best (worst?) example of this latter sub-type. The Martial Artist and the Scrapper are sub-types of the Street Crusader archetype.
- The Monster - This is usually (a) a hero who is noble at heart but has a hard time being accepted because of his monstrous appearance (the Thing, Nightcrawler, the Beast) or (b) a Dr. Jekyl/Mr.Hyde-type hero like the Hulk. Many Monsters are scientists like Sasquatch, the Beast, and the Hulk.
- The Weapon Master - Whether they use melee weapons like swords (the Black Knight, the Swordsman) or ranged weapons like bows and guns (Hawkeye, Red Arrow), the Weapons expert is one of the most recognizable heroic archetypes in comic books. Weapon Masters tend to be free-spirits and are often the "crap-stirrers" on their teams.
- The Mentalist - The Mentalist isn't just a hero with a psychic power or two, the Mentalist is usually a powerful telepath, telekinetic, or clairvoyant. Professor X, Jean Grey, the White Queen--were talking powerful. They tend to be analytical and many are mentors.
- The Atlantean - While this is a rare archetype, it an iconic one because of the mythology surrounding Atlantis. Aquaman and the Sub-Mariner are the archetypical Atlanteans. Atlanteans are arrogant.
- The Bodychanger - This is either a hero who can alter his body's molecular structure (Metamorpho), a hero with plasticity and/or elongation (Plastic Man, Mister Fantastic), sizechangers (the Atom, Giant-Man) or shapeshifters who can alter their appearance to mimic other people (Mystique).
- The Elemental - This is a hero who controls a type of energy, force or substance to an extremely high degree. Some can even become the "element" they control (the Human Torch, Living Lightning). Magneto (electromagnetism) and Graviton (gravity) control two of the fundamental forces of the universe.
- The Speedster - He run fast. Very fast. Flash and Quicksilver are Speedsters. Speedsters tend to be lighthearted and fun-loving or arrogant snots.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
The Age of Moral Clarity in Britain is over.
The new prime minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, has instructed his cabinet not to use the term Muslim to describe Muslim terrorists.
Gordon Brown has quickly illustrated, after only a few days in office, just how great Tony Blair was as Prime Minister. Moral clarity matters. Britain, like most of Western European civilizations, will fall in my lifetime (i.e. change so drastically that they will not be recognizable). You cannot avoid making moral judgments and hope to survive as a society. Depressing.
It is sad to note that roughly half of the US want to use Western Europe as a model in governing, in health care and in religion (or lack thereof). This is why I'm a Republican. Democrats used to have moral clarity--FDR, Truman, and Kennedy called evil what it was and would never have stood for the moral relativism of our time--but the Party of Truman and John Kennedy is dead. The modern Repulican party, for all it's weaknesses (which are many) has, at the very least, moral clarity and is willing to call evil what it is.
Gordon Brown has quickly illustrated, after only a few days in office, just how great Tony Blair was as Prime Minister. Moral clarity matters. Britain, like most of Western European civilizations, will fall in my lifetime (i.e. change so drastically that they will not be recognizable). You cannot avoid making moral judgments and hope to survive as a society. Depressing.
It is sad to note that roughly half of the US want to use Western Europe as a model in governing, in health care and in religion (or lack thereof). This is why I'm a Republican. Democrats used to have moral clarity--FDR, Truman, and Kennedy called evil what it was and would never have stood for the moral relativism of our time--but the Party of Truman and John Kennedy is dead. The modern Repulican party, for all it's weaknesses (which are many) has, at the very least, moral clarity and is willing to call evil what it is.
Metal albums that influenced me.
The following are the albums that changed my life (that part of my life involved in music). These albums had a huge impact on me and how I listened to music--at least hard rock and metal. They blew me away; not necessarily because they are great--which they all are--but because they opened my ears and pushed my musical mind farther than it had been pushed before.
- Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime: In 1988, I had no idea rock music was used to tell stories (I was sixteen so give me a break). Operation: Mindcrime rocked my world with it's story of political corruption, love, religious conspiracy, and murder. Mindcrime truly changed the way I viewed rock music and what I would look for in music down the line.
- Savatage - Edge of Thorns: If Queensryche's Mindcrime gave me a glimpse of what progressive epic metal had to offer, Savatage brought it into full view. While Thorns was not a rock opera, it did have an operatic feel to it. It felt epic and the songs were structured differently than I was used to.
- Savatage - The Wake of Magellan: Even though the previously mentioned albums had opened my eyes to what rock music had to offer, I still wasn't a brave soul when it came to really trying new things in rock; I had gotten my feet wet but had yet to fully immerse myself. The Wake of Magellan changed all that. For whatever reasons, Magellan was the immersion. Now I was into progressive metal fully.
- Dream Theater - Awake: I took another step into the world of progressive rock and metal with Awake. And although I would never become a huge fan of Dream Theater, this album beacme hugely influential on my listening choices and is still one of my favorite albums.
- Ayreon - The Final Experiment: This choice to purchase this album was directly influenced by my Savatage and Dream Theater listening experiences. A rock opera, The Final Experiment was one of those albums that completely wowed me . Ayreon showed me that epic metal could be quite diverse.
- Eternity X - The Edge: Ever been stunned by beautiful songs? I've never heard an album that has had more of an emotional impact on me than this one. If you haven't heard The Edge, you need to. The songs are absolutely beautiful. While it is progressive metal, that label is not sufficient: Beyond progressive is a better description.
- Sonata Arctica - Ecliptica: European power metal had never done much for me. I always wanted to like it because I felt the combination of beautiful melodies and speedy guitars were, in theory, a great combination. But until I heard Ecliptica for the first time, the right balance of speed and beauty had never been struck (at least in modern European power metal; proto-Euro power metal bands like Iron Maiden had been doing it right for a long time). Sonata Arctica struck gold. They have it perfect.
These are just a few of the metal/hard rock albums that a huge influence on me. I could add more and probably will.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
President out-judges the judges.
As I was driving home from work tonight I heard the news that President Bush had decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence. As you may know, Scooter Libby was sentenced to thirty months in prison for lying about something that he didn't do (and, in fact, had he told the truth in the first place, he would have never been in trouble). This proves one thing: Anyone--anyone--can commit perjury because we all have memories that are fallible. The fact that the prosecutor knew who leaked Valerie "Media Whore" Plame's name before he went after Libby (it was Richard Armitage of the State Department who leaked Plame's name) and that it wasn't a crime to leak her name in the first place (she wasn't undercover when her name was leaked, therefore no crime), any fair-minded person should be able to tell that this whole prosecution of Scooter Libby was malicious and unjust. But don't tell that to the idiot that hosts KSL 1160's evening radio program. He stated--just moments ago--that a panel of judges had reviewed the Libby case and found the sentence fair so it is arrogant of the president--because he is only one man--to override a panel of judges. Especially considering that President Bush won't pardon the two border agents whose only crime was "hunting Mexicans" (the broadcaster's words albeit paraphrased).
First, there is no reason to revere judges as having some higher moral authority. The fact that someone is a judge has nothing--nothing--to do with whether a person is anymore fair-minded or, more importantly, just than the next person. The fact that a panel of judges said this was a fair ruling proves it (that they would use the term fair is telling; judges should not be in the business of fairness, only justice). President Bush used his obviously superior judgment (in this case) to right a wrong.
Second, it is not okay to start handing out licenses to hunt--that is, shoot--Mexicans to our border patrol agents. The two border patrol agents who shot the Mexican drugdealer got what they deserved. They shot a man in the back--in the back--and then tried to cover it up. Was there sentence harsh? Yep. But that's because the two agents were too stupid to plea. Had they agreed to a plea bargain, their sentences would have been much shorter. The administration was right to send the message that we don't shoot people who commit misdemeanors like illegally crossing the border. Other nations do that. The Mexicans do that on their southern border. We are better than that.
President Bush did the right thing--the just thing--in commuting Libby's sentence. And while I would not be opposed to commuting--that is, shortening--the two border patrol agents' sentences, I am opposed to a full pardon. That would be wrong.
First, there is no reason to revere judges as having some higher moral authority. The fact that someone is a judge has nothing--nothing--to do with whether a person is anymore fair-minded or, more importantly, just than the next person. The fact that a panel of judges said this was a fair ruling proves it (that they would use the term fair is telling; judges should not be in the business of fairness, only justice). President Bush used his obviously superior judgment (in this case) to right a wrong.
Second, it is not okay to start handing out licenses to hunt--that is, shoot--Mexicans to our border patrol agents. The two border patrol agents who shot the Mexican drugdealer got what they deserved. They shot a man in the back--in the back--and then tried to cover it up. Was there sentence harsh? Yep. But that's because the two agents were too stupid to plea. Had they agreed to a plea bargain, their sentences would have been much shorter. The administration was right to send the message that we don't shoot people who commit misdemeanors like illegally crossing the border. Other nations do that. The Mexicans do that on their southern border. We are better than that.
President Bush did the right thing--the just thing--in commuting Libby's sentence. And while I would not be opposed to commuting--that is, shortening--the two border patrol agents' sentences, I am opposed to a full pardon. That would be wrong.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Immigration Bill Shot Down; President smeared by the Right.
The immigration bill was shot down yesterday. I supported the bill even though much of it was questionable. Something needs to be done and though the bill was imperfect, it had some good things in there. Now, nothing will be done for the rest of President's Bush's term in office (the senate will not introduce immigration legislation in 2008 because it is an election year). So the demagogues on the right got there way. They demonized the president, lied about the bill (it wasn't amnesty) and today they're very happy with themselves. But because the bill was defeated, the hysterical on the right have given illegals de facto amnesty. Thanks.
It is times like this when President Bush is seemingly on the wrong side of an issue and conservatives are dragging him through the mud that I remember a quote by Fred Barnes:
And his biggest legacy: He appointed Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. As conservatives, we shouldn't let one issue--in this case immigration--make us bitter and make us enemies of President Bush. He's done a lot of good. Versus perfection, he hasn't done well. Versus what a Democrat in the Oval Office would've done these last six years, he has been a smashing success. Perspective, folks. Don't forget all the good President Bush has done. I admire and love the man . . . you know, in a brotherly way.
It is times like this when President Bush is seemingly on the wrong side of an issue and conservatives are dragging him through the mud that I remember a quote by Fred Barnes:
Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.
And his biggest legacy: He appointed Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. As conservatives, we shouldn't let one issue--in this case immigration--make us bitter and make us enemies of President Bush. He's done a lot of good. Versus perfection, he hasn't done well. Versus what a Democrat in the Oval Office would've done these last six years, he has been a smashing success. Perspective, folks. Don't forget all the good President Bush has done. I admire and love the man . . . you know, in a brotherly way.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Moral idiots.
I don't know why I read journals and blogs by authors whose work I admire. But I do. I guess I'm hoping that maybe one of these days I'll actually read something valuable and insightful with regards to current world problems or controversies. But, as good (or as great) as some of these contemporary authors may be, when it comes to political insight, they are morons. I don't like name-calling as it is something I consider a last resort of the intolerant, but if the shoe fits, right? Besides, it is their ideas--not them personally--that are moronic.
A good case is a certain lite fantasy author (I will not use his name in the interest of fairness) who in his journal entries rails against folks like Gerald Ford and Jerry Falwell but claims he does so (I'm paraphrasing) "not to demonize them but to protect people from bastards like them in the future." But he's not demonizing by calling them bastards? That's a personal attack that has no basis. A bastard is a term currently used for someone who is a jerk. Whatever one thinks of Jerry Falwell and President Ford, they were kind, decent guys in person. The author ascribes to the idea that people like Falwell are too judgemental yet Jerry Falwell never went after anyone with simplistic, hate-filled, shallow attacks like the author does.
The author worships Karl Marx and has the hubris to claim that President Ford and Jerry Falwell killed millions with their policies and practices, a statement which is so demonstrably untrue one wonders which reality the author hails from. In what kind of perverse mind are Marx's ideas not damaging to humanity (literally ten of millions of people were slaughtered in the name of socialism and it's sister, communism) yet President Ford's inconsequential presidency and Jerry Falwell's aid to literally millions of poor and suffering people throughout the world hurtful?
The author is a moral fool. He may be a nice guy personally (evidence from science fiction and fantasy conventions show this to be probably true) but when it comes to the macro issues, he is a moral idiot. He must have attended university to be this dumb.
The point of this blog entry is that I should stop reading blogs and public journals by writers whose work I love. It's simply depressing to know that people can be brilliant writers yet be moral morons at the same time.
A good case is a certain lite fantasy author (I will not use his name in the interest of fairness) who in his journal entries rails against folks like Gerald Ford and Jerry Falwell but claims he does so (I'm paraphrasing) "not to demonize them but to protect people from bastards like them in the future." But he's not demonizing by calling them bastards? That's a personal attack that has no basis. A bastard is a term currently used for someone who is a jerk. Whatever one thinks of Jerry Falwell and President Ford, they were kind, decent guys in person. The author ascribes to the idea that people like Falwell are too judgemental yet Jerry Falwell never went after anyone with simplistic, hate-filled, shallow attacks like the author does.
The author worships Karl Marx and has the hubris to claim that President Ford and Jerry Falwell killed millions with their policies and practices, a statement which is so demonstrably untrue one wonders which reality the author hails from. In what kind of perverse mind are Marx's ideas not damaging to humanity (literally ten of millions of people were slaughtered in the name of socialism and it's sister, communism) yet President Ford's inconsequential presidency and Jerry Falwell's aid to literally millions of poor and suffering people throughout the world hurtful?
The author is a moral fool. He may be a nice guy personally (evidence from science fiction and fantasy conventions show this to be probably true) but when it comes to the macro issues, he is a moral idiot. He must have attended university to be this dumb.
The point of this blog entry is that I should stop reading blogs and public journals by writers whose work I love. It's simply depressing to know that people can be brilliant writers yet be moral morons at the same time.
Quote of the Day: Walter Williams.
"Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people." -- Walter Williams, economist and political commentator.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Quote of the Day: Walter Williams.
"During the first Reagan administration, I participated in a number of press conferences on either a book or article I'd written or as a panelist in a discussion of White House public policy. On occasion, when the question-and-answer session began, I'd tell the press, "You can treat me like a white person. Ask hard, penetrating questions." The remark often brought uncomfortable laughter, but I was dead serious. If there is one general characteristic of white liberals, it's their condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks." -- Walter Williams, economist and political commentator.
Friday, May 18, 2007
What are your pop-culture iconoclasms?
Ken Jennings--the guy who won seventy-four (?) times in a row on Jeopardy--has a blog worth your time (it's linked just to your right). A few months back, Jennings asked the question "What are your pop-culture iconoclasms?" In Jeninngs words, an iconoclast is any non-conformist who flaunts or disagrees with accepted norms and traditions (broadening the older definition of someone who destroys religious icons). Jennings cites several examples of pop-culture iconoclasms:
- Someone who thinks Tim Dalton is the best Bond.
- Someone who loves Jar-Jar Binks.
- Someone who thinks Godfather III is the best Godfather.
Some of my pop-culture and historical iconoclasms include:
- The first three seasons of M*A*S*H were the best seasons . . .
- . . . and Col. Blake is a better CO than Col. Potter.
- Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland are two of the best six presidents in U.S. history.
- Van Halen III, with the exception of their first album, is Van Halen's best album.
- Metallica's best album is . . . And Justice for All (okay, I may not be that iconoclastic on this one).
- I don't think Paris Hilton is pretty. Pretty weird looking, perhaps, but not pretty.
- Keanu Reeves is a brilliant actor.
- Meryl Streep is a bad actress.
I will list more of my iconoclasms when I think of them. But for now, what are some of your iconoclasms?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
List of things: Random questions:
Four random questions I have right now:
- Why, if the left in America are so concerned about are troops, do they undermine their moral at every chance they get? If someone claims they support you and then tries to undermine, say, your employer everyday, they don't really support you, do they?
- If universities are supposed to be an open forum for ideas, why do most college campuses (campi?) have speech codes? The more liberal the university, the more limits are placed on speech.
- Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?
- Why would anyone name their child Skyler? Boy or girl, the name sucks.
That's all for now. If you have any answers to these questions, please, by all means, post a reply. Thanks!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
More foolishness among NBA analysts.
I was going to comment on this earlier--like when the current NBA season began at the end of October--but, obviously, decided not to. However, I was listening to Sporting News Radio this morning and the two commentators (Matt Spiegel and Patrick Cortez) where yapping about how the Phoenix Suns are the best team in the NBA and how only they and Dallas are the clear favorites in the West. This reminded me of various predictions made by NBA analysts at the beginning of the season on who they thought would win the conference championships and the NBA title. It seems Phoenix was the popular pick by the analysts to win it all.
They call themselves analysts? Analysts are supposed to analyze data! There was no analysis here, just picking favorites ("I like the way Phoenix plays.").
The Suns do not play defense. They rank in the bottom half of the NBA in defense. Over the last thirty years, only one team that ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense won the NBA title. Add to that the fact that unless you have Michael Jordan on your team it is unlikely you can win an NBA title without a hall-of-fame caliber big man. Oh, there have been a few exceptions. But going all the way back to the days of Mikan, exceptions are few. Great big men don't always win championships, but NBA champions almost always have a great big man (or two). Check it out in the west: It will be Dallas (good defense, though Nowitski isn't the standard hall-of fame caliber big man I'm talking about), San Antonio (Duncan is what I'm talking about) or Houston (Yao Ming and squad have a better shot than Phoenix no matter where they end up seeded). A little knowledge of basketball, NBA history and championships goes a long way. People thought Jordan (and to a lesser extent, Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons of '89 and '90) were ushering in a new age of the NBA where the great big man was no longer needed to win championships. Those years proved to be exceptions. Since Jordan's retirement, Duncan and Shaq have led seven of the eight eventual NBA champions to titles. And the other team had Big Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace! It is all about the big guy.
Phoenix is not a contender. San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in the West; Miami, Detroit, Chicago or Clevelend in the East. Take it to the bank: Phoenix won't be playing in June.
They call themselves analysts? Analysts are supposed to analyze data! There was no analysis here, just picking favorites ("I like the way Phoenix plays.").
The Suns do not play defense. They rank in the bottom half of the NBA in defense. Over the last thirty years, only one team that ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense won the NBA title. Add to that the fact that unless you have Michael Jordan on your team it is unlikely you can win an NBA title without a hall-of-fame caliber big man. Oh, there have been a few exceptions. But going all the way back to the days of Mikan, exceptions are few. Great big men don't always win championships, but NBA champions almost always have a great big man (or two). Check it out in the west: It will be Dallas (good defense, though Nowitski isn't the standard hall-of fame caliber big man I'm talking about), San Antonio (Duncan is what I'm talking about) or Houston (Yao Ming and squad have a better shot than Phoenix no matter where they end up seeded). A little knowledge of basketball, NBA history and championships goes a long way. People thought Jordan (and to a lesser extent, Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons of '89 and '90) were ushering in a new age of the NBA where the great big man was no longer needed to win championships. Those years proved to be exceptions. Since Jordan's retirement, Duncan and Shaq have led seven of the eight eventual NBA champions to titles. And the other team had Big Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace! It is all about the big guy.
Phoenix is not a contender. San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in the West; Miami, Detroit, Chicago or Clevelend in the East. Take it to the bank: Phoenix won't be playing in June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)