Brief biography of Charles Curtis

On his radio show Friday, Michael Medved mentioned in passing former Vice President Charles Curtis. Mister Curtis was the United States' thirty-first v.p. after being swept into office in a landslide as President Herbert Hoover's running mate.

Curtis was born in Kansas Territory in 1860 and he has a pretty typical resume for a vice president. An attorney by trade and a Republican by party affiliation, he was elected to six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from his district in Topeka, Kansas. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate where he first served as Senate Minority Whip (1915-1924) and later, when the Republicans held a majority, Senate Majority Leader (1925-1929). When Hoover became president in 1929, Curtis resigned from the senate and took the office of vice president. Charles Curtis left office in 1933 after the Hoover-Curtis ticket lost their bid for re-election.

Yep. Nothing unusual about his political career. In fact, his entire biography is pretty darn typical for a vice president of the U.S.A. Only thing is, Charles Curtis was an American Indian. At least on his mother's side (his ma was three-fourths American Indian). He was raised by his maternal grandparents on a Kaw Indian reservation in Kansas. And he eventually obtained the office of vice president.

Why more people aren't aware of Charles Curtis is something of a puzzle to me. I think it may be because he was a Republican and Hoover's vice president. That's a double whammy against Mr. Curtis in this age of leftist totalitarianism and political correctness that has invaded are public school system. Sad, really, because if one feels the need to acknowledge the accomplishments of minorities, Charles Curtis should not only be acknowledged but currently be in the forefront of current news as Barak Obama is about to take the oath of president. I'd bet my iPod (and I love my iPod) that there isn't more than one in ten mainstream media journalists or college graduates who knows who Charles Curtis is.

Stupid movie.

I just came home from work and my kids are watching Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Elizabeth's Chest or whatever the hell it's called and, I swear, it's just about the stupidest big-budget movie ever made. I want to scream as I write this. I've sworn an oath not to view the movie in it's entirety. I mean after the first one, why in hell would I want to (I suppose I'd view the movie to laugh at it with RiffTrax but that would be it)?

Anyway, this entry really doesn't have a point. It's just gonna be a long night and Johnny Depp is a frakkin' sellout!

A Veteran's Story

Veterans day was six days ago. I have a story about a veteran of World War II.

Robert LeRoy Bremser was born in Fredericktown, Missouri on January 22nd, 1922. The youngest of ten children, his father, William Edward, was a medical doctor and owned a farm in the Ozark mountains where Robert was raised. When the U.S. became involved in World War II in 1941, Doctor Bremser was put in charge of medical examinations for the area in preperation for the draft. Not wanting to be accused of favoritism, Dr. Bremser made sure all four of his sons passed their physicals. All four were then drafted. Robert was drafted by the U.S. Army, completed his training, and was assigned to a demolition unit.

Robert served several months in France disarming landmines and blowing up bridges. On November 11th (Veterans Day), 1943, Robert stepped on a landmine losing most of his lower left leg. There was heavy fighting in the area between U.S. and German forces and the ambulance carrying Robert was caught behind enemy lines. He and the other soldiers with him were captured by the Nazis.

The German troopers took Robert and his fellow soldiers into a town somewhere in the French countryside not very far from the front. A temporary headquarters and hospital had been set up. The Germans unloaded Robert and the other injured Americans from the ambulance and carried them into the makeshift hospital. Robert recalled how frightened he was as two Germans carried him up a flight of rickety old stairs and deposited him upstairs. A German medic did his best to take care of Robert's wound but he was only a medic and other than stop the bleeding, there wasn't much the medic could do.

As Robert lay their wondering what would become of this Missouri son, two Germans began looking over the POWs and recording their names and serial numbers from their dogtags. As they read Robert's 'tags, the two men became excited. They proceeded to carry Robert downstairs, out of the hospital and behind one of the nearby buildings. Robert didn't understand what was going on. And when one of the German soldiers left, Robert feared the worst. It was only later, after the second German returned with ice cream for the three of them to share, did Robert come to understand what was happening. The reason for the excitement was because one of the German soldiers shared his last name: Bremser! Where the ice cream came from is still a mystery.

A few days later, the U.S. captured the town in which Robert was being held. The Germans, preoccupied with their own lives, left the POWs behind. Robert's ordeal, at least as a POW, was over. But the pain that resulted from his injury would last the rest of his life.

When Robert's father, Doctor Bremser, heard that his beloved son had been seriously wounded and had suffered the loss of his leg, it aged him. Family members around Doctor Bremser at the time recall how the news wearied him beyond his years. Doctor Bremser never forgave himself for, as he saw it, sending his youngest child to war.

After returning to America, Robert was sent to a military hospital in Brigham City, Utah--of all places--to recover. There this 21 year old Catholic boy from Missouri met a 29 year old Mormon girl and volunteer nurse's assistant from Ogden, Utah. They soon married and soon after that, Robert converted to the LDS church. They eventually had two sons and a daughter, and later, eleven grandchildren of which I am one.

To every American veteran--which includes both my grandfathers, my father and two of my sisters--, thanks.

America has been largely racist free for a long time.

I am praying for Barak Obama. I am praying that he will be a good president. I'm a Republican but I don't want him to fail as president just because he's a Democrat and I didn't vote for him. If he falters as president, America falters.

President Obama will be treated more kindly by Republicans and conservatives than the Democrats and the left treated President Bush (the unfounded accusations thrown at President Bush make me ill). And please, left-wingers, you owe the nation an apology for all these years of accusing us of being a racist nation (I'm not holding my breath). You think this nation transformed overnight? Obama's election is proof this nation is not racist and hasn't been for decades.

This election will challenge the Republican party and conservatives as we look to who will lead us, as a party, in the future. Even more, this election will seriously challenge leftist thinking. White Americans have been told by liberal whites and blacks that we are a racist, xenophobic, bigotted nation. The election of Barack Obama disproves that.

Still, there will be those who accuse the Republican Party--the party of Lincoln--of being racist. Dude, the reason why we voted for John McCain and not Barack Obama is because Obama isn't a Republican! He doesn't share our values. We, and I can speak for all Republicans in this, don't care about the shade of your skin, but we do care about your values (this is not an attack on Obama's values, it's just that ours are different). A strong black Republican candidate for president would get as many Republican votes as John McCain did (actually, a strong black Republican candidate would get more Republican votes than John McCain).

Some on the left may declare America racist free after Obama's election. I, a man of the right, declared America largely racist free a long time ago.

Truth is not a value highly regarded by the left.

On his radio show Dennis Prager often talks about the values held by the right and the values held by the left. Dennis frequently notes that truth is not a value that the left holds near and dear. The leftist mantra "Bush lied, soldiers died" is the best example of this. President Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. But, as Dennis Prager points out, if a lie is repeated often enough, people believe it. And that is what happened with this whole Bush lied nonsense.

Look, I may be beating a dead elephant here but if Bush lied then so did the CIA. And the inteligence services of the UK and Australia, both of whom supported us in Iraq. The French and German intelligence services lied as well if you believe Bush lied and France and Germany did not support the invasion of Iraq. In order to believe Bush lied you must believe President Clinton lied when he said during his administration that he believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. It's a stretch, kids, that all these folks lied. The may have been wrong or relied upon faulty intelligence or whatever but they did not lie. A lie, for those of you who have attended university, must be a conscious effort to conceal the truth. President Bush must have known there were no WMD in order to lie. Otherwise, it is just a mistake. Like those who used to believe the sun revolved around the Earth, they really believed it. They weren't lying. They were mistaken.

But the Bush administyration lost the communications war on this one. Bush lied is now so widely believed on the left, it is nearly impossible to even talk about. Truth is not a value of the left. Feelings and emotions are. Reactive, knee-jerk politics are, but not truth.

Chicken. Little.

I'm tired of Obama's rhetoric. Over the weekend, he claimed that John McCain and Sarah Palin don't want to debate the issues. Is that why you, Senator Obama, turned down a series of townhall debates with John McCain? Who is afraid of debating issues? Or speaking off teleprompter for that matter, Senator Obama?

Both campaigns spin. That's the nature of politics. But Obama, if he is serious about debate, would've agreed to townhall debates which are far more loose and less-scripted than your run-of-the-mill sound-bite contests that pass for debates these days. But he knows he isn't good off teleprompter (barely coherent in fact) so he makes up stuff about his opponent. Honestly, those on the left don't care if Obama makes stuff up. They just want a Democrat in the White House and they'll vote for the One no matter what. Hopefully, unaffiliated voters do care 'cause that's who decides elections.

The closer we get to Barak Obama, the smaller he appears. The incredible shrinking candidate.

Some things I've learned.

Some important things I've learned in the last decade. Many of which I learned listening to the Dennis Prager Show:

Humanity stinks; individual humans can be wonderful. Humanity doesn't have a good track record. That's why I always laugh when the left says we (the USA) should care what the rest of the world thinks. First you do what's right, regardless of world opinion. This is big difference between left and right. The left believe that humanity is primarily good ("Everyone is good inside.") and the right believe that, while not necessarily evil, then at least neutral.

The world doesn't hate America, the left in the world hates America. The huge majority of media in the world are left. They hate America so they think the world hates America, too. It isn't true. If President Bush is so despised by Europe, for example, why have pro-American leaders in a multitude of countries (like Germany, France, and Italy) been elected? In India, the second largest nation in the world, President Bush is viewed as a hero.

The best and brightest Americans are serving in the Armed Forces. The left would have us believe that the military is mostly made up of the poor and disadvantaged and desperate when in fact the middle-class is over-represented in the military. The left would also have us believe that the best and brightest Americans are at university. The best test takers go to university, but the best go to the United States military.

Actions are more important than feelings. Don't be stupid, folks, the only person who cares about your emotions and moods is you. The rest of us are primarily concerned with how you act. Don't allow your feelings to shape your actions. That's how you hurt others and make bad decisions.

President George W. Bush has done more for women rights than the feminist movement and the UN combined. Women rights groups and the United Nations stand idly by and watch nation after nation in the Middle East and elsewhere enslave and degrade women. Meanwhile, President Bush overthrows dictatorial regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq liberating twenty-five million women in the progess.

On the left, positions and policies are primarily felt. On the right positions and policies are primarily thought out. That's why it is more difficult to be on the right; Being on the right actually requires you to think. It's easy to be on the left because all you are required to do is emote. That's why kids--teens and college-age youngsters--are more likely to support Democrats. You know the saying: If you're young and not a Democrat, you don't have a heart. If you're older and not a Republican, you don't have a brain.

Thoughts?

It's funny to mock people with disabilities.

The Obama campaign hit a new low last week running an ad that mocks John McCain because the senator from Arizona does not use e-mail.

According to a story from the Boston Globe in 2000, John McCain does not use e-mail or use the internet because the injuries he sustained during his five and a half years in a POW camp make it difficult to use a keyboard. Hot Air has more. Oh, McCain can't comb his hair and tie his shoes without help, either. I suppose that's funny, too.

For those Obama defenders out there who will claim that the Obama campaign didn't know McCain has a disability, it doesn't hold up. You'd have to believe Obama and his campaign are stupid and ill-informed to say that. They aren't stupid. Just dirty.

I guess Barack Obama can now claim two qualifications for president: Community organizer and e-mailer.

As recent polls show McCain moving ahead in the poular vote and electoral college, I guess we can expect the Obama campaign to hit more lows in the last fifty-odd days of the campaign.

Palin is more qualified than Obama.

The left is going nuts because of McCain's Palin pick. But their line of attack is not well thought out (big surprise). They are attacking Governor Palin for not having enough experience! You know that Barack Obama guy has several years of valuable experience in the Illinois state legislature and almost four years of experience in the US senate. Palin just doesn't stack up.

Wait a sec. Sarah Palin is a governor, an executive. She actually makes decisions. Even more importantly, Governor Palin has a long list of achievements. The narrative of the McCain campaign has been experience vs. inexperience. But I believe the narrative is flawed. Achievement, not experience, should be the narrative.

Barack Obama has no achievements as a legislator. Not in Illinois, not in the US senate. Even his election to the US senate is not an achievement considering the circumstances (Republican Representative Jack Ryan drops out of race because of Chicago Tribune publishing his divorce papers and is replaced by the worst candidate the Republicans could find, Alan Keyes). And outside of politics, other than his two books, Barak Obama has zero noteworthy accomplishments.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has a long list of achievements which are summed up quite well here.

If the Obama campaign wants to keep pushing this inexperience line, it will only hurt them in November. I find Palin's resume to be far, far more impressive than Obama's. Her work with Canada puts her far ahead of Obama in foreign policy matters.

Even if you don't buy the achievement/experience line I'm feeding you, it should be noted that Sarah Palin is "only" running for VP. Obama, the underachiever, is running for president.

It's on! McCain-Palin vs Obama-Biden!

I thought John McCain would play it safe with his VP pick by picking Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Pawlenty would have been a fine choice. But John McCain, the Maverick, made the unconventional pick of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Wow!

It's a gutsy choice. And a smart one. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air sums it up pretty well:

Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.

And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.

Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.

For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.

Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.

It's time to face facts, Democrats, you guys are going to lose yet another presidential election. That'll be eight out of the last eleven. Bye-bye.

Coolest characters in sci-fi/fantasy history (TV & movies only)

No James Kirk? No Neo? No Aragorn or Gandalf?
Damn straight, skippy. As cool as those guys may be, they can't touch the coolest sci-fi/fantasy characters of all-time:

5. Jack Burton (Big Trouble in Little China)
Famous line: "It's all in the reflexes."
Best line: "Okay. You people sit tight, hold the fort and keep the home fires burning. And if we're not back by dawn, call the president."
Best movie: Uh, Big Trouble in Little China. Still waiting for a sequel. More Trouble in Little China?



4. Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly TV series, Serenity movie)
Famous line: "I aim to misbehave."
Best line: (Over the ship's intercom) "This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then explode."
Best episode/movie: Serenity. The movie is where he's at his best.

Where's my big damn clip?

3. Han Solo (duh)
Famous line: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
Best line: “Had a slight weapons malfunction, but everything's perfectly alright now. We're fine, we're all fine, here, now, thank you. How are you?”
Best movie: It's kind of a tie. He's cool and sassy in Star Wars but in Empire, the sarcasm and wit are taken up a notch. In Jedi he's kinda lame.


2. Indiana Jones
Famous line: "Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?"
Best line: It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage."
Best movie: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Oh s**t, no clip!

1. William Adama (Battlestar Galactica, new series)
Famous line: "Launch all fighters."
Best line: “When you stand on this deck, you be ready to fight, or you dishonor the reason why we're here. Now remember this: When you fight a man, he's not your friend. Same goes when you lead men. I forgot that once. I let you get too close. All of you. I dropped my guard. I gave some of you breaks, let some of you go, before the fight was really over. I let this crew and this family disband. And we paid the price in lives. That can't happen again.”
Best episode: "33"

No clip for you!

Which D&D character am I?

I'm happy with the results:

I Am A: Lawful Good Human Cleric (5th Level)


Ability Scores:

Strength-15

Dexterity-12

Constitution-15

Intelligence-15

Wisdom-17

Charisma-11


Alignment:
Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment because it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.


Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.


Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.


Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Barack Obama: The Most Unqualified Major Party Nominee Ever?

Yes.

But we are told to vote for him because of judgment, not experience. Yet on the most important issue of the last four years, the surge in Iraq, he was wrong. He still wants a timetable for troop withdrawal even after--finally--acknowledging the success of the surge. When asked challenging questions by Katie Couric of CBS and, later, by Terry Moran of ABC's Nightline, Obama stuttered and sputtered and was very inarticulate in his explanation (when not reading from a teleprompter Obama can barely spit out a coherent sentence on policy issues). After multiple times listening to him explain his position, I still can't figure out what the Hell he's talking about. The man is not qualified to run the corner drugstore much less the presidency.

John McCain, in contradistinction, advocated the surge years before it was implemented. John McCain was right on the most important issue facing the U.S.'s war on Islamonazism. McCain has excellent judgment.

So who do you think is more qualified to be president. Is this a question? There really is no question, is there?

Don't lie to me!

According to this little quiz, I can spot a liar pretty well:

You Can Definitely Spot a Liar

Maybe you have good instincts. Or maybe you just have a lot of experience with liars. Either way, it's pretty hard for someone to pull a fast one on you. You're like a human lie detector.

Can You Spot a Liar?

What kind of nerd am I?

Well, according to a test I just took, this kind of nerd:




While it sounds like the creator(s) of this test don't no the difference between a nerd and a geek (what the hell?), it's the first time in my life I've been described as uber or cool or king. I'll take it.

But really kids, one does need to know the difference between nerds and geeks.

Iron shapes iron.

There is a Hebrew proverb which states "Iron shapes iron, friend shapes friend."

So, yes, it matters with whom one chooses to associate with especially as friends. It matters, Senator Obama, stop trying to pretend it doesn't.

Left-wing radical bigot Reverend Jeremiah Wright, unapologetic terrorist Bill Aires, convicted developer Tony Rezko. It matters.

If you had fifty friends you could point too and say "Look, these friends of mine are alkl good folks" fine. But so far the three individuals I named are virtually the only friends we know about.

Iron shapes iron.

The end of Saddam's nuclear program.

According to the AP, which isn't exactly friendly to the Bush administration, the last remnants of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program has been removed from Iraq.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Did you get that? Five-hundred fifty tons of so-called yellowcake. This, of course, is not receiving any coverage by the the vast majority of media outlets. Surprise. Try and point your liberal friends to this article and gage their reaction. Nothing will change. Even in the face of facts, they'll still maintain the stupid mantra of Bush lied about WMD. I've said it before and I'll say it again, truth is not a quality the left values.

I don't know who said it first but liberals, Democrats, and the left don't hate Bush because of the war, they hate the war because of Bush. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had gotten us into the Iraq war, they would not lose an ounce of support from Democrats. But Bush lied, soldiers died.

It's values that count, not theology.

Republicans criticize Senator Obama for not being open about his Muslim background (yes, Barack Obama has a Muslim background) while Democrats claim that questioning Obama is dirty because Obama has no Muslim background.

While there is some legitimacy to ask why Obama will not be open about his Muslim past, it's a bit silly for Democrats to deny that Obama doesn't have one.

To be clear, Barack Obama is a Christian who, when he was a child, was considered by some to be a Muslim because his father was somewhat Muslim (Obama's father was not a practicing Muslim for most of his adult life).

My position? It doesn't matter if Barack Obama is a Muslim (he's not) or a Christian (which he is) or Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish or whatever. I, frankly, don't care what religion a candidate belongs to. What matters to me is which candidate I share values with, not theology. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and there are some active LDS folks I don't share many values with like, say, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Harry Reid and I may share theology but we certainly don't share many values and I would never vote for him in any capacity. John McCain, on the other hand, attends a Baptist church. We don't share the same theology. But we do have the same values. That's why I'm voting for McCain this November. Obama? We don't share any values so he will not get my vote.

My point? If a Muslim ran for president and did share my values, I'd vote for him. There are literally millions of Muslims who do share my values. I don't see a problem.

It is a bit funny that Democrats are trying to deny and distance themselves from Obama's Muslim background. Mainstream conservatives don't hold it against Senator Obama, why do the libs and lefties think average Democrats and unaffiliated voters will? Aren't we told by the left that it doesn't matter if someone is a Muslim? Aren't we beat over the head with ethnic diversity and multi-culturalism? Then why are Democrats making a big deal about Obama's Muslim background? Why isn't Obama more open about it? Isn't it an asset or, at the least, a non-issue?

Silly, little Democrats.

The end of talk radio?

One thing that has a good chance of happening under a President Obama is the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was in place in US radio up until 1981 (I think) and it said that every single radio station that had political opinion had to make sure an equal amount of opposing opinion was represented.

This could end political opinion talk radio aka conservative talk radio. Radio stations may simply opt out of talk radio because twelve hours of lefty talk ain't gonna sell advertising space. Radio stations will take on different formats so they can make money. As Air America proved, liberal talk radio doesn't sell.

The scary thing is that a President Obama does not need congress enacting the Fairness Doctrine to kill conservative talk radio. There is a little known clause in the communication act that allows the FCC panel to force liberals on radio station advisor boards in the name of community representation. This doesn't guarantee the death of talk radio, but it makes more likely. And while the FCC has to have two Democrats and two Republicans on it's panel, the fifth member is a presidential appointee. An Obama appointee.

Don't think it could happen? You may be right, but just the other day House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she wants Congress to look into the Fairness Doctrine again.

The Democratic congress is trying to kill conservative talk radio. Yet us religious conservatives are accused of being frascists and trying to force our way of life on everyone else all the while clamoring for a smaller government. Smaller government means a less powerful government, folks. How can we be for forcing anything on those we disagree with if we want smaller government? The fascistic tendencies are on the left.

Bounce.

Senator Obama is experiencing a bounce in most national polls (Rasmussen has Obama leading McCain 50 tp 43 percent). The bounce comes on the heels of Obama officially clinching the Democrat nomination last week.

Don't fear, my weak-kneed Republican friends, I assure you this bounce is temporary.

This sort of thing happens every election cycle. This won't be Obama's last bounce, either, as he will likely receive a similar bump after the Democrat National Convention in August. John McCain, too, will receive a bounce in the polls after the Republican National Convention convenes in September. Bounces will likely occur for both candidates after running mates are chosen.

So don't worry, the only polls that count are the ones taken right before the election. Pay close attention to Rasmussen and Election Projection (Google it) because they are by far the most accurate when it comes to presidential races.

John McCain will win the White House.

Just saw a segment on Fox News with former President Clinton adviser Dick Morris as a guest. He said in a year when the Democrats will win the White House they nominate a guy (Obama) who can't win and the Republicans, who shouldn't be able to win the presidency, nominate a guy who can't lose in McCain.

I believe this is the first time I've said this on my blog but I'm convinced Senator Obama can't win. If you look at the electoral map and states that are, right now, swing states, it is damn hard to imagine those states breaking for Obama. I'm sorry, but even though Election Projection (the most accurate site for election predictions) currently shows Obama winning the election 293 to 245 in electoral votes, I cannot see Obama winning most of the states he now has a small lead in while on the other hand I do see McCain keeping states he has slight leads in. Come on, folks, do you really believe that when November comes around that Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will all remain Obama states? And, conversely, do you really think Nevada, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia, or Louisiana will switch to Obama?

Of the seven states that Obama has a weak to moderate edge in, Pennsylvania could go either way (but for the purpose of this analysis, we'll give it to Obama) and Michigan will go to Obama. The rest will break for McCain. Of the nine states in which McCain has a weak to moderate edge, I frankly don't see Obama winning any of them.

That gives McCain exactly 300 electoral votes to Obama's 238.

John McCain will be the next president. When swing state voters show up at the polls in November, most who were considering voting for Obama will balk at the idea of electing America's first left-wing president and instead will opt for John McCain.

By the by, don't believe this nonsense about how Republicans will be slaughtered in the House and Senate. The GOP may lose as many as five seats in the Senate but that's far from a filibuster-proof majority. In the House, the GOP may lose as many as a dozen. Not good but hardly the slaughter some hysterics are forecasting.

If you think I'm smoking crack, tell me why.

Does President Bush really make more gaffes than other politicians?

No, he doesn't. But that's what the media wants us to believe. Even I bought into it for a time.

Anyone who speaks for a living--and President Bush, like all politicians, speaks for a living--will accumulate quite a resume of gaffes as the years go by. It angers me that the press has focused so much on the mistakes the president has made. This is part of the media's overall attempt to make President Bush look like a moron.

Well, if making gaffes during speeches makes one a moron, then Senator Obama is the biggest moron in U.S. history:

• When marking the anniversary of the March 1965 "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Alabama, Senator Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together "because of what happened in Selma." Only problem is Obama was born in 1961. Big deal? Probably not. After all, my parents met in Ogden, Utah in 1967 and I was born in '72. But, as my friends can tell you, I often state that my parents met in 1977. So exactly what is the big deal?
• Showing off his extensive knowledge of Middle-Eastern and southwest Asian languages, Barack Obama recently claimed that it was hard to get translators in Afghanistan because they were all in Iraq. The folks in Iraq speak different languages than the folks in Afghanistan do. A cunning linguist Senator Obama is not.
• Last May during a speech Barack Obama claimed that the Kansas tornadoes had killed 10,000 people, "an entire town destroyed." The real number? Twelve. I suppose it's possible that Barack Obama assumes that Kansas is populated by gun-toting, religion-clinging small towns of a dozen hillbillies and that he meant to say "ten" instead of "ten thousand". It's possible.
• Last month he said, "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” I give him a break on this one 'cause he was tired from campaigning and clearly meant to say 47 states and, as everyone knows, the Red Belt--Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska--which haven't voted for a Democrat candidate for prez in a general election since FDR, hardly count as states to just about everyone on the left.
• Earlier this month Senator Obama while speaking in Sioux Falls, South Dakota said, “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.” This was an easy mistake to make. Those Great Plains states all look the same especially when you're in a private jet.

This is just an extremely small sampling of Obama's many gaffes. I could list literally dozens of more.

Ya know, I was originally going to defend Barack Obama in this blog entry and condemn the media for unfair treatment of President Bush. But now when I look at the gaffes Senator Obama has committed and compare them to the president's gaffes, I realize I can't really defend Obama with a straight face. And the media is looking a whole lot worse.

By the by, I've coined a new term describing the three most conservative states is the U.S.--Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska which are adjacent to one another--as the Red Belt. I would appreciate it if you who read this blog would start to use that term in general conversation. This can easily be done when talking about almost any subject since red is a color and belts are used by just about everyone.

The Very Best Movies based on Comic Books

Only movies that are based on specific comic books are included here. There will be no Unbreakable or Mystery Men on the list.

Let the countdown begin!

10. Men in Black (1997) - Funny aliens. Smith and Jones funny, too..

9. Batman Returns (1992) - Admittedly, this film has some problems. But, hey, Michelle Pfeiffer is in a black, leather catsuit. A black, leather catsuit! But even that wouldn't have mattered if the movie was a bore. But Michael Keaton, Chris Walken, and Danny DeVito all turn in good performances.

8. Hellboy (2004) - Never read the comic. But the movie is waaaay cool.

7. Batman Begins (2005) - The origin of Batman. Now with ninjas!

6. X-Men 2 (2003) - Not quite as good as the first X-Men but pretty darn good nonetheless.

5. Batman (1989) - Say what? Mister Mom is Batman? It worked.

4. Spider-Man (2002) - The Marvel Comics icon shines on the big silver. Maguire was great as Parker, I don't care what some people say. Dafoe was great as the Goblin (too bad we couldn't see his facial expressions with the stupid Goblin mask on). Everything fit.

3. X-Men (2000) - Every character is nailed perfectly (except Storm who is just a tad off). All the characters--both the X-Men and the Brotherhood--are cast correctly. The story is solid captures the feeling of the comic book accurately.

2. Superman (1978) - Not much I can add to the accolades this film has received. The only Superman film that gets Superman right (Superman 2 definitely not withstanding).

1. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - The first film was great and I didn't think it could be beaten. But it was. Stronger characterization, better villain (Dafoe was good as Goblin but the choice by director Sam Raimi to have the Goblin wear a mask that did not allow facial expressions was not a good choice), and increased intensity. This film is as good as comic book based films get.

There you go. No Superman 2 on the list you say? That's right, folks, and here's why: Superman slept with Lois Lane in 2! Stupid, stupid, stupid. Thanks, (directors) Dicks Donner and Lester, thanks for sullying an American icon. Why not beat up mom, crap on the flag, and piss on apple pie while you're at it?

The Unofficial NBA Hall of Fame

Unlike Major League Baseball and the National Football League, the National Basketball Association does not have a hall of fame. Rather, the NBA is included with college, women, and international basketball in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in downtown Springfield, Massachusetts.

That's nice. But it's time for an NBA Hall of Fame. And since I'm not a basketball superstar or zillionaire or some sort of American celebrity with any kind of pull in or on the NBA, if I do decide to create a website (likely a blog) that functions as an NBA Hall of Fame, it will be the Unofficial National Basketball Association Hall of Fame.

First, I'm president of the Unofficial NBA HoF inductee committee (I may be the only guy in my circle of friends and family interested in this so I may be the committee as well). Since I only have my brother and a buddy at work who are qualified to be on the committee, this could be a very small committee.

We'll set up some sort of nomination process where only committee members can nominate potential HoF inductees. Any nomination would have to be backed by at least two committee members to get to the next level. All the nominees that get past the first two phases would then be voted upon by the committee members. Only those nominees that receive unanimous consent would then be inducted into the NBA HoF.

I would hope that the initial Hall of Fame class would include James Naismith (the guy who created basketball), Red Auerbach (the first great NBA coach), George Mikan (the first dominant player), Wilt Chamberlain (the greatest scorer and rebounder), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (the MVP king), Magic Johnson and Larry Bird (the two players who popularized the NBA), and, of course, Michael Jordan (the association's greatest player).

This is all very preliminary and may never come to fruition, but it would be a kick if I (and some buddies) could get this thing off the ground.

Tobacco and terrorism.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (among other Islamic nations) donate millions of dollars to American universities every year (Harvard just received twenty-million dollars from a Saudi prince). These donations are often used to create Middle-Eastern Studies departments. We all know that any department with studies on the end of is a bulls**t program filled with leftist nonsense, i.e. women studies, African-American studies, etc. These Middle-Eastern studies departments become nothing more than vehicles for Islamist propaganda and the professors who run these departments are very often apologists for radical Islam.

That's fine. I don't want to stop universities from receiving donations from whomever they want. And if professors want to extol the virtues of Islam--radical or otherwise--fine.

However, many of the same universities that receive donations from Arab states with ties to terror will not accept donations from tobacco companies on moral grounds,

That's screwed up, folks.

Accepting money from Islamist states while not accepting money from tobacco companies based on moral grounds only illustrates how backwards the view of right and wrong are at the university.

I find nothing wrong with accepting money from so-called Big Tobacco even if this money goes into research on lung cancer or the effects of second-hand smoke. Why is it if the American Lung Association produces a study on tobacco it's deemed legit but if RJ Reynolds does the same, the study is tainted?

Because, you say, RJ Reynolds has an agenda.

The American Lung Association doesn't have an agenda? Are you high? Their agenda consists of bilking literally billions of dollars through legal terrorism (lawsuits)out of tobacco companies.

It seems to me studies produced by the American Lung Association should be at least as suspect as those produced by tobacco companies.

I don't smoke, I never have. It's a filthy habit, I don't like it. But the hysteria over smoking (especially second-hand smoke) is silly. What we need is some hysteria--just a little--over real threats like state-sponsored terrorism. Let's stop worrying about tobacco donations to colleges and start worrying about the Islamist propaganda being pushed by leftist universities.

It's not guilt by association.

Damn, the American left is dishonest.

Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright is not being codemned because it is guilt by association. It goes beyond association. Barack Obama chose to join an Afro-centric church. He choses to cast Reverend Wright in the role of his mentor. Senator Obama choses to subject his two young daughters--ages six and nine--to the rantings and ravings of a terrorist supporting, hate-monger like Jeremiah Wright.

Senator Obama should damn well explain this relationship that he chose to develop and deepen over the decades. It is not guilt by association which implies some sort of casual relationship, poker-on-weekends relationship. This thing Senator Obama has with Reverend Wright is not casual in the least.

So stop it. Stop calling this guilt by association. Would you, the reader, stay in a church whose pastor said god damn America and published terrorist manifestos in it's newsletter? Would you subject your children to such hate?

I doubt it.

Barack Obama is not guilty because of his associations, he's guilty of choosing a bad guy to be his mentor.

Just think about it, will you?

How will Barack Obama unite America?

How will a man who attends a racist, afro-centric church unite the races?

How will a man who is the most reliable liberal vote in the Senate unite the country?

Think about it.

The politics of Democratic destruction.

It's nice to see the Democrats destroying each other. After all the years (decades, really) of the slander and lies aimed at Republicans and the destruction of more than a few conservatives because of these attacks, it's fun to see the tactics Democrats rely on so heavily are now used to hurt each other.

Democrats' chickens are coming home to roost.

A liberal or two may read this and think I'm being unfair toward the Democratic Party. I challenge anyone who reads this to come up with something comparable to what the Dems did to Judge Robert Bork in 1987 or Justice Clarence Thomas in the early '90s (just two of many, many examples). Mainstream Republicans have never done anything close to that sort of smear to any Democrat.

I hope to see the Dems confused and infighting up to and through the Democratic National Convention and, dare I say, even after the convention and right up 'til November.

If the Democratic Party was a serious party I would not wish this kind of chaos on them. After all, a healthy American political system is best when both parties have something important and constructive to offer America. But the Democratic Party hasn't been serious in over thirty years. It is depressing. The Party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy is dead.

Could we be seeing the break-up of the Democratic Party? Sort of. While there may be a split this election year, we aren't going to see the end of the Democrats after one-hundred eighty-something years. No silly, dopey third party is going to replace or even challenge Democrats for the liberals and leftists of this country. There may be an attempt at such a third party but it would be a profoundly stupid thing to do and would give the Republicans a sure victory in '08.

No, we won't see the Democratic Party killed. But it will be badly beaten, hospitalized, and may have to use a wheelchair for a few years.

Poll of the Day: Who will be the next president?

Keep in mind I'm not asking which of the three candidates you want to win. I'm asking which one you think will win.

Who do you think will be the next president?
	Hillary Clinton
	John McCain
	Barack Obama
pollcode.com free polls

Wanna bet?

A couple of weeks Michael Medved had another one of those leftist nuts on (as a guest) who wanted to impeach President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This guy was from New England somewhere--I think Vermont--and wanted his city council to make the local police serve an arrest warrant to the president if the president should ever wander into their jurisdiction (fat chance). Michael Medved asked his guest if a showdown between the Secret Service and local police would be a good thing and the guest replied that it would not be a problem because the Secret Service would yield to local law enforcement and the city's jurisdiction. There would be no confrontation, this guest concluded, as the Secret Service would just hand over President Bush without any sort of showdown or whatever. I remember thinking, "Wanna bet?"

Try and serve an arrest warrant to the president you moron and see what happens. The Secret Service will not just stand there scratching their heads and mumbling "We can't do anything about this."

Wanna bet?

Haiku of the day.

A man cannot tame
A wild horse's spirit
So he shoots him dead

That cracks me up every time I think of it!

A former co-worker wrote the bloody thing several years ago (I guess I kind of co-wrote it though I only altered one word) and I laugh when it comes to mind. I'm not sure what the meaning of the thing is but it is damn funny.

Have a nice day!

It gets worse for Senator Obama

Barack Obama has had a bad couple of weeks. It was bad enough for Senator Obama that he defended (eloquently but ultimately poorly) his racist pastor and two decade membership in an African nationalist church, but now there is news that Obama's church supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Yes, I wrote supports. I'm not exaggerating or using over-the-top political rhetoric. Read on.

The United Trinity Church of Christ reprinted in it's newsletter--a newsletter which is received by most members of the church presumably including Senator Obama--the Hamas manifesto. In this manifesto, Hamas defends terrorism as legitimate resistance, refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and calls for the murder of Jews.

And if that's not enough, in the same reprinted manifesto Hamas also compares their charter to America's Declaration of Independence.

This comes on the heels of recent national polls (including surveys by the very accurate pollsters Rasmussen and Zogby) that show Senator Obama's numbers dropping. Senator McCain, on the other hand, is now between six and eight points ahead of Senator Obama and eight to twelve points ahead of Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matches.

This news is especially shocking to some when you consider that we just hit the fifth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. Many on the left had hoped that the anniversary would be a reminder to Americans of a failed occupation (according to the left) of Iraq.

But when you remind Americans we're at war, that only strengthens Republican support since most Americans seem to think a Democratic president would not make a very good commander-in-chief.

It's early and it is an eternity before the election is November. A lot can happen. But right now, things look pretty good.

Hollow Man

Barack Obama gave a speech yesterday in which he allegedly confronts his former pastor's racism. As Michael Medved points out in this column, Senator Obama gives a slick but dishonest speech which never really addresses the issue of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's radical racial comments.

It's too bad, really. It's a big missed opportunity.

When Barack Obama first burst onto the national stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, I was rather taken with the guy. He sounded good, he sounded like a serious Democrat. I had hoped, in spite of differences I have with the Democratic Party, that this guy would be a different kind of Democrat. Liberal, yes, but also thoughtful, someone who is a true progressive and just didn't toe the party line. I wasn't naive enough to think I could ever vote for the guy but I thought he would somehow raise the level of Democratic rhetoric to something less vitriolic and perhaps make the Democratic Party a serious party once again.

Reality trumps hope. After he took his senate seat in 2005, he became the most reliable liberal vote in the senate. And now, his promises of racial unity aside, we find out he has been embracing this radical Afro-centric church and pastor for two decades. While I don't believe Senator Obama is a racist, I do think he has an identity problem and the fact that he choose to view himself as black and associate himself with a radical race-based church, in spite of being raised by whites in a white community, shows he is conflicted.

Dennis Prager has an excellent column on just who Obama is.

For a guy that wants to transcend race, he isn't doing a very good job. I'm disappointed, really. Very disappointed. Barack Obama is just another empty suit. A hollow man.

Wesley Crusher vs Anakin Skywalker

Let's imagine that somehow Wesley Crusher and Annakin Skywalker were to rip the cinematic space-time continuum. We can infer that Anakin Sywalker, after whining about it, would be attempting to exploit the rift in time (this is the bad Ani). Wesley Crusher, as a Traveller, would be trying to fix this hole in reality. So the showdown is set: Wesley Crsusher vs Annakin Skywalker.

After Anakin ceased whining, he would try to beat Wesley with the force either by strangling the annoying Starfleet brat or by "forcing" some heavy object toward Wesley in an attempt to crush him. Wesley, assuming he has access to a phaser would simply disentegrate the object. If Annakin tried to strangle him, Wes would simply teleport (with his traveller abilities) to another time or reality where Anakin could no longer have a hold on him.

Wesley would then teleport back to Ani's location and, like the good Starfleet officer he is, would continue to try and heal the wound in space-time. After Anakin's required tantrum, the Jedi would pull out his 'sabre and attempt to cut Wes's head off. Wesley, already having seen the alternative timelines possible, would have already rigged his communicator to project a force field. Ani's 'sabre would simply bounce off harmlessly. But Jedi can see the future, too, can't they? Well, Annakin Skywalker has never shown much aptitude in that area.

Annakin would then attempt to use the old Jedi mind trick. That would be most ineffective against Wes because Wes is not feeble-minded.

Frustrated, Anakin would then try and attack Wesley with a starfighter. Anakin is a good pilot. After all, he was flyting pod-racers since he was five.

Wesley has been flying Galaxy-class starships since he was twelve.

Wesley would simply teleport a Runabout near him and engage Anakin in a dogfight. Because Starfleet space vehicles have shields and Galactic Empire ships do not, clearly the advantage is Wesley's. Ani's blasters would simply bounce harmlessly off the Runabout's shields. As we know, lasers are completely ineffective against Starfleet shielding. Add in the fact that Starfleet vessels are about ten-hundred times more maneuverable than anything we've ever seen in Star Wars, well, Anakin gets blowed up.

Wesley fixes the rift and goes home. Anakin is picked up by the Emperor's shuttle, scolded, and given more implants and a new 'sabre.

Lest you think I like Star Trek more than Star Wars, read some of my previous posts. But, honestly, do you really think Anakin, whose best efforts were against Sand People, eight-year olds, and old Jedi who have there backs turned, can really hold a candle to a guy who has helped beat the Borg?

Hah!

Obama's record.

Know who you are voting for.

While there are some things to admire about Barak Obama (like his strong marriage and family life), I don't think people realize that Barcak Obama is not a liberal but is a leftist.

This is not an attack on Senator Obama. What I am attempting to do is clarify what the man is politically.

According to the American Conservative Union, Senator Obama has a lifetime rating of 8.0. The ACU tracks every member of congress and whether they vote conservative or liberal. An eight means that Mr. Obama votes conservative eight percent of the time. Do you really want a presiodent who votes left ninety-two percent of the time? For comparison, Senator Clinton has a rating of 9.0 while Senator McCian has a lifetime rating of 82.3 percent. Barack Obama has also received a perfect 100 percent rating from the far-left National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). John McCain received a big fat zero from NARAL by way of comparison.

Barack Obama talks about uniting the country. But this is dishonest rhetoric. While I belive he is sincere with wanting to unite all of America, how does he propose to do this? Lose the war in Iraq? That won't unite America. Raise taxes? Expand the size and influence of government? He wants to do all of those things but none of those will unite the country. What he really means to say is that he wants America united behind what he believes which means he wants half the country to abandon their values. Any politician who talks this way (and Republicans do it too) is dishonest.

In the next few months, as the media examines Obama's record more, we will see just how far left Obama is. Then we, the American people, will decide if that's what we really want.

Take the Indiana Jones poll!

In anticipation of the new Indiana Jones movie that's coming out this May, vote for your favorite Indy movie.

Which Indiana Jones movie do you like most?
	Raiders of the Lost Ark
	Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
	Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
pollcode.com free polls

My reimagining of Star Trek.

I just read that the new Star Trek movie has been pushed back to a spring 2009 release date from it's original release of winter '08. Star Trek is pretty much dead to me but because there have been rumours that the eleventh (!) Trek could be some sort of reimagining ala the new Battlestar Galactica, I want to tell you how I would reimagine the original Star Trek series if I was in charge.

First, the ship would still be called the U.S.S. Enterprise. And chicks would still wear mini-skirts. But instead of the crew being one-third female, I would make it fifty-fifty male/female.

I would get rid of the Starfleet moniker and call it United Earth Space Probe Agency instead. That's what Starfleet was originally called in early episodes of the classic series. I'd dump the stupid United Federation of Planets because it is analogous, more or less, to the United Nations. Instead, I'd call it the Commonwealth of Independent Planets (a nod to the UK and the current Commonwealth of Independent Nations).

Kirk would stay pretty much the same. He would still be a guy, a maverick, a cad. Nathan Fillion from Firefly and Serenity would be a good choice to portray Kirk. Doc McCoy would be a few years younger than his classic series counterpart and he would be of mixed race/ethnicity (preferably black/Vietnamese with some French). I'd change Spock significantly, though. Spock would now be a know-it-all chick and there would be sexual tension among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock as well. Spock would be half-human, half-Vulcanian but with a decent haircut.

Under my reimagining plan, Scotty would now sport a beard. And be part aboriginal Australian. He'd still have that cool fake Scottish accent, though.

Uhura would be played by an actress this time around.

Chekov and Sulu would now be Muppets voiced by Frank Oz and the guy from Black Eyed Peas. Sort of a Burt and Ernie in space. This change shouldn't be controversial since Chekov and Sulu are completely useless, throwaway characters. I mean, c'mon, anything would be better than Walter Koenig and George Takei.

Yeoman Rand will be a Transformer under my plan. Sort of C-3PO meets Bumblebee (from the Transformers) with sex appeal. She's be a CGI character voiced by Michelle Obama and she'll be able to transform into a cool dune buggy like the ones in Star Trek Nemesis.

Nurse Chapel will be the ship's psychologist under my scheme. And she'll be a brunnette. With a German accent. And high heels. And too much lipstick.

The uniforms would stay pretty much the same. I'd only swap out the mustard uniforms for lime green ones as was originally intended way back when.

The bad guys would no longer be analogs of the Soviets and the Chinese. The bad guys will now be analogs of radical Islam and the U.S. Democratic Party, appropriately called the Arabons and the Pelosians. The Arobons would look sorta like Klingons but their foreheads would be covered by turbins. Pelosians would look like they had too much plastic surgery which isn't all the different from what Romulans looked like in classic Trek.

My reimagining would be a sure hit as this new series would confront such controversial subjects as Muppets' rights, radical Arabonism, Pelosian totalitarianism, and robot-on-robot love. The new series would feature a wide range of guest stars including Rush Limbaugh, Weird Al Yankovic, Mick Jagger, Traci Lords, and Boner from Growing Pains.

Like the new Battlestar Galactica which is like a hundred times better than the original Battlestar series (they actually hired actors and writers with brains for the new Battlestar series), I think my reimagining would be roughly seven-hundred times better than the "classic" Trek series.

Presidents Day is a meaningless holiday.

To make room room for Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday as a national holiday, Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday were destroyed as holidays and in their place arose the stupid, meaningless holiday we call Presidents Day.

Who are we celebrating? Zachary Taylor? Martin Van Buren? Richard Nixon? Jimmy freakin' Carter?

The answer is yes to all four. Presidents Day is a celebration of all presidents never minding that many are not deserving.

Do we celebrate William Henry Harrison who accomplished nothing in his thirty days in office?

What about James Buchanan who did nothing to avert the Civil War (maybe the war could not have been avoided but Buchanan didn't even try to stop it).

Should we honor white supremacist Woodrow Wilson? Yassar Arafat's buddy Jimmy Carter? Corrupt Richard Nixon?

I guess we're supposed to on Presidents Day.

Meanwhile, the two greatest Americans--George Washington and Abraham Lincoln--continue to fade from public memory.

Jimmy freakin' Carter. What the hell?

Why you must vote for John McCain in November.

For those conservatives threatening to sit out the election in November because John McCain will be the Republican Party's nominee for president, consider the following:

• Six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over age sixty-eight when the next president takes office in January '09. There is a world of difference between the type of justices McCain would appoint versus justices Obama or Clinton would appoint. We really don't need any more wannabe legislators on the nation's highest court.
• A Democratic president, working with what will surely continue to be a Democratic congress, will raise taxes. Raising taxes is always a bad idea but with the economy slowing, tax increases will make things much worse. John McCain will not raise taxes. In twenty-five years in congress he has never voted for a tax increase.
• Obama or Clinton would likely mismanage the war against Islamofascism. Sadly, neither Democratic candidate will even admit we are in a war against worldwide radical Islam. Do you really expect a Democratic president to defend the nation properly when they cannot even admit we are at war? As for Iraq, despite the rhetoric of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a complete pullout from Iraq is improbable. However, dramatic decreases in troop levels is almost a certainty under a Democratic administration. We simply cannot afford to look weak in the eyes of radical Islam which is what will happen if we decrease troop levels. Increased violence will almost certainly follow such a policy. McCain will, of course, do what is necessary and ultimately right for the United States with regards to the war and Iraq.

I plead with all conservatives (and moderates and independents and Democrats) to please take such things into account when voting this November. McCain isn't great on some issues but on the biggest issues of our time, he's strong. Stronger than Obama and Clinton to be sure.

Do you suffer from MDS?

There is an insidious disease that is sweeping the nation. It infects the brain quickly causing the mind to come to conclusions based on emotion, not reason. In some cases the reason center of the brain is paralyzed and the part of the brain that controls emotion becomes imbalanced as it attempts to compensate for the disease.

It's called MDS: McCain Derangement Syndrome. Symptons include unsubstantiated claims that Senator John McCain is not conservative or he (McCain) is a secret liberal or even that John McCain is no different than Hillary Clinton. The sufferers often express their desire to drive the moderates out of the Republican Party in the name of purity. It is even rumored that some sufferers of MDS are gathering sticks and tree limbs to build a fire. But the latter claim has not been substatiated--yet.

McCain Derangement Syndrome can strike anyone. But it has especially wrecked havoc upon conservative talk show hosts and political pundits.

The insidiousness of this disease is clear. It's not surprising that right-wing demagogues like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham would be some of the first victims. However, it also strikes seemingly otherwise logical, reasonable pundits like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh and columnists Thomas Sowell and George Will who often go into detail about how Mccain is not a real conservative. The details they bring up are often things McCain did or said years ago and, much of the time, these quotes and alleged examples of un-conservative behaviour are taken out of context. What is even more puzzling is the narrow-minded selectivity demonstated by many DMS sufferers as they ignore statements made by the candidate they support (usually Mitt Romney) that are completely inconsistent with their vision of pure conservatism. Double-standards oddly don't bother MDS victims. MDS sufferers often invoke the name of Ronald Reagan as the standard of true conservatism even though Reagan himself would not pass these tests of conservative purity put forth by MDS victims!

What do we do about it? Perhaps read and listen to clear-thinking pundits like Michael Reagan and Michael Medved. Better yet, take demagogues like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, et al. with a grain of salt.

Make that a large grain of salt.

Logo for Super Bowl XLIII revealed.

The logo for the NFL's forty-third Super Bowl was revealed today. Super Bowl XLIII will be held in Tampa, Florida February 1st 2009.

I like the logo. It's clean, simple, and I like the colors. The red star represents the AFC while the blue star represents the NFC. As you probably know, the winner of the AFC (American Football Conference) plays the winner of the NFC (National Football Conference) in the Super Bowl. As a pro-football historian, I can tell you that not all Super Bowl logos have been that pleasing to the eye.

The first Super Bowl wasn't even called the Super Bowl at the time. It was not-so-simply called the First World Championship Game NFL vs AFL (Green Bay defeated Kansas City 35-10). Not a bad design but it would have looked a lot better if the AFL and NFL script was colored in. You can barely see NFL and AFL in the logo. Still, it holds up fairly well though it will not win any awards for best Super Bowl logo:

Super Bowl II was a nice improvement. It's simple, timeless, and more colorful. You could use the same script style today and no one would think it was outdated. I like simple and bold and the logo for Super Bowl II is one of my favorites:

While the logo to Super Bowl III is big and bold and tells you right away that it represents something grand, it does look dated. It isn't a bad design by any means but it isn't one of the best:

The logo for Super Bowl IV is too simple; it's boring. Shadow script is fine but put some color in it! It's isn't bad as in a Attack of the Clones kind of bad, it's just so ordinary, in a Phantom Menace way, that it isn't memorable in at all:

You want dated? Take a look at the Super Bowl V logo. It's so dated, it's very bad:

I'm a sucker for that Old West saloon-style font (hey, I'm a 'Niners fan and that's the font they used to use). Any way, I like the logo for the sixth Super Bowl. Simple but effective:

Dated and the shadow in the shadow font look overly bulky. Thumbs down for Super Bowl VII's logo. It screams seventies:

The Super Bowl VIII logo is one of my favorites. It stands those time tests quite well:

Super Bowl or Silly Bowl? I can't decide! What the hell is wrong with that X? It looks terrible! One of the worst Super Bowl logos. Hell, maybe ol' number nine is the worst SB logo:

Plain? Check. Unicolor? Check. Better than the previous Super Bowl logo? Check! No, the logo for SB X isn't bad at all. A little plain but that's better than too cute:

Similar to the logo for Super Bowl VIII, it works because it's a solid design. Eleven is pretty:

Now that I've bored the six of you to tears with my analysis of, all things, Super Bowl logos, tell me what you think. Agree? Respond. Think I'm nuts? Leave a comment. Maybe you even like the logo to Super Bowl IX? Tell me why.

Eleven Super Bowls down, thirty-two to go.

Giant upset.

Congratulations to the New York Giants for pulling off one of the biggest upsets in NFL history in Super Bowl XLII.

Going into the game the New England Patriots had won three of the last six Super Bowls and if the Patriots had won yesterday, they would not only have won their fourth NFL title in seven seasons but they would have finished the season a perfect 19-0 and cemented their position as one of the great dynasties in pro-football history.

Unlike many football fans, I don't hate the Pats. However, when the 'Niners or the Raiders aren't playing in a Super Bowl, I tend to root for the underdog. And the Giants were fourteen point dogs. Not only did New York win but they gave us one of the best, closest Super Bowls ever. Considering the lopsided nature of most Super Bowls, this says quite a bit.

So congratulations to the New York Giants. Well played and well deserved!

RINO hunt not good for GOP.

Conservative talk show host Michael Medved had a pretty good insight today on his radio program. Currently there is a witch-hunt by many prominent conservative talk show hosts as they try to expose the "fake conservatives" or RINOs (Republican In Name Only) in the Republican Party and among the four serious Republicans running for the Republican nomination for president. Medved points out that this witch-hunt for RINOs is foolish and is bad for the Republican Party. He also stated that Ronald Reagan would not support this RINO hunt and he's right. Reagan won elections by welcoming with open arms anyone into the GOP. President Reagan famously stated (and I'm paraphrasing) someone who agrees with me seventy percent of the time is not my enemy. Yet Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt (who should know better) and their like are tearing into McCain and Huckabee pretty viciously on a daily basis. Most of the anti-McCain/anti-Huckabee folks keep using the term RINO when referring to the two men. In fact many of the radio hosts are acting like spoiled children and if it isn't their candidate who doesn't get nominated, they claim they'll sit out the election. That's pretty darn selfish. They are willing to allow this nation to be hurt by electing Clinton or Obama by default.

As Michael Medved points out, the true RINOs are not the candidates who aren't conservative on every single issue, but in fact the true RINOs are the radio hosts who are threatening to sit out the election because their guy didn't get the nomination. By not supporting the GOP candidate in November, the talk show hosts are truly the ones who are Republicans in name only.

Republicans can only win elections by appealing to independent voters and moderate Republicans. This crusade to drive out the so-called RINOs in the GOP will only hurt the party and the conservative movement and drive the independents and moderates away from the GOP. Ronald Reagan would not approve.

Neither Senator McCain nor Governor Huckabee is my first choice for the Republican nominee. But if one of them should win the nomination, I'll support him wholeheartedly.

John McCain's mixed conservatism.

I have serious misgivings about John McCain as president. On one hand, he would likely defeat any democratic challenger (Obama or Clinton) in November. But while no one in the Republican race for the nomination is stronger on military and foreign policy matters, McCain is liberal on many domestic matters (though I should note his liberalism has been exaggerated by the Rush Limbaughs and Laura Irgrahams of the world). I have serious doubts should there be supreme court openings during a McCain presidency that we'd get the stellar justices President Bush gave us in Roberts and Alito. I see McCain more as a President Bush Senior when it comes to appointments to the Supreme Court. While Bush Senior gave us the excellent and brilliant Clarence Thomas, he also gave us leftist David Souter. If it is only the left end of the Supreme Court that will see vacancies in a McCain presidency, I can live with appointments of both liberals and conservatives. However, there is, of course, no guarantee it will only be liberal members of the Court retiring soon.

One of the more disturbing leftist positions McCain has taken includes human-caused-global-warming-will-lead-to-catastrophe. McCain apparently buys into the climate change hysteria that is characteristic of the left. I don't like this aspect of John McCain's positions because as president he could team with a Democratic congress and pass silly legislation that could damage the economy and hurt America.

McCain's campaign finance reform bill that was signed into law a few years ago is a dangerous piece of legislation that limits freedom of speech. This was another lefty position McCain was behind.

However, McCain is decidedly conservative on some major domestic and fiscal issues.

Many conservatives have given McCain grief because the Arizona senator voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. But there is more to the story than what the McCain detractors are willing to state. Senator McCain voted against those tax cuts not because he doesn't believe in tax cuts but because the legislation did not include spending cuts. McCain is a hawk on government overspending and has fought his entire career over reducing spending. In that context, his votes against the Bush tax cuts don't seem so outrageous especially considering that McCain, who has been in congress for a quarter of a century, has never voted for a tax increase. Plus McCain has stated that as president, he would fight to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. One of the issues that killed Republicans in the congressional elections in '06 was overspending. This is one area John McCain cannot be caught on and if nominated for president, this would prove to be a plus in November.

Another charge levelled towards McCain by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity is that McCain supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. The so-called amnesty bill pushed by President Bush, McCain, and Senators Ted Kennedy and Jon Kyl infuriated most right wing talk show hosts. But the claim the bill was amnesty and did not call for real border security (a fence) are lies. The bill was not amnesty (paying fines for committing a misdemeanor--crossing the border illegally--is amnesty?) and did call for a border fence. Thanks to the rhetoric of many on the right, we have alienated a large number of Hispanics from voting for the Republican party. John McCain, though, is unlikely to be punished by Hispanics because of the Republicans' sins on this issue.

I have mixed feelings on John McCain a a potential president. Though much of the rhetoric from right-wing talk show hosts have been little more than smears and spin, John McCain still makes many conservatives uncomfortable. But I won't act like a spoiled child if McCain does get nominated ("It's not fair! I wanted Giuliani--or Thompson or Romney or Huckabee!"), I'll still vote for him.