Average Joe Blogger

New Blog.

2010-07-02T16:47:00.003-06:00

I've got a new blog called The Story. It's a shared story I'm doing with one other writer (so far). Check it out, part one is up.

Happiness.

2010-06-21T20:32:00.003-06:00

I've found in life it ain't easy becoming happy. I have severe depression which makes it even harder for me to obtain happiness. I don't know why I have this depression but one thing I do know: For most of us, happiness is a choice. Even me.

Wait, don't I have severe depression? Yep. Then how am I, someone whose brain chemistry may be screwy, responsible for my own happiness? Simple. If indeed you do have clinical depression it is your responsibility to get help whether it is medication, counseling or whatever.

I'm responsible for my own happiness.

Baby steps.

2010-06-02T20:13:00.003-06:00

My baby boy--ten months old now--is walking. Not consistently and usually with some encouragement (i.e. standing him up and pointing him toward Mommy or Grandma) but it still counts. I write this down to remember his baby days because he won't be a baby much longer.

His countenance is still what it has been since he was a month old: He's a happy little guy with an easy smile. This combined with his long, dark eyelashes (a blessing from Mom) gives him a striking appearance that melts my heart every time I look at him. I'm blessed.

Sibling name generator.

2010-03-31T01:55:00.002-06:00

Continuing with my ongoing fascination with names, I found a website that specializes in potential sibling names, www.nymbler.com. Simple, really, you type in your current childrens' names and, shazam!, out pops a bunch of suggestions based upon your entries. So I tried it for my kids.

So I entered Robert, Mary, and Elliot. Bam! It popped out fifteen suggestions including Edward, Elizabeth, Ava, Charles, Raymond, Alexander, and Amelia among others. Okay, they are all traditional names (of course) and I must say I like most of the names suggested even though I'd never name one of my kids Ava or Raymond. If you are an Ava or Raymond, my apologies. Out of the fifteen suggestions, there were "only" three I would truly consider for future children: The aforementioned Edward, and Charlotte and Benjamin. Three solid suggestions. So it works. But what if you give your kids unusual or nontraditional names?

My brother has two boys, Cade and Jace, and a girl, Saffron (don't ask). Let's see what happens we we throw those names into the sibling name generator! Jett (boy)? Rance (boy)? Trey? Okaaaay (interesting to note Ava was suggested for both my entries and my brother's). Funny that Blake was suggested since my sis-in-law's bro is named Blake. I guess the sibling name generator works. Next time (if there is a next time) my bro and his wife are expecting a boy, I'll suggest Rance. Heh.

Shared story anyone?

2010-03-27T07:33:00.005-06:00

Anyone out there interested in writing a shared story? That is, a story which one of us will start (just a paragraph is necessary) and the next person takes up the next paragraph and so on. This is a fun exercise and it can be challenging.

I'll tell you guys straight up, I've done these shared stories in the past and it has always been a blast. The best thing about it is if you can only contribute a sentence or two once a week, that's fine. But if you like writing a couple paragraphs every day, that works in this format as well. When I've done this in the past, there were three or four folks (like me) who wrote a few paragraphs every day while there were three or four other writers who "only" contributed a few sentences or a paragraph once a week (and then there was that guy who only wrote on Sunday but, boy, his contribution was always HUGE . . .).

If anyone is interested, let me know. I say we need at least four people to contribute otherwise it really isn't worth doing. And there will be a few guidelines/suggestions drawn up if this goes through. And this shared story thingie will have it's own blog. C'mon, I know you want to!

Baby!

2010-02-03T02:47:00.004-07:00

Big Baby Boy--otherwise known as Elliot--is six months old.

He's a cute little guy. He's chubby (I call him Chubba Bubba), drools constantly, and smiles all the time. It's nice having a baby who is generally content and very happy. Everyone says he looks like me (no, no, he's not sporting a beard . . . yet) and I agree but he also looks like his older brother did when bro was a baby. He's healthy though he may have eyesight problems in the future since he's inherited a rare disorder from pops (me) that makes the world blurry. His variation of my disorder (a form of cornea dystrophy) may be new to science (great). Glasses (or contacts) are in his future but driving may not be.

I write this to remember what he's like as a baby. It ain't bragging; all babies are equally special. This is only a note to my future self because it's surprisingly easy to forget things about your children as they grow older.

New blog now up.

2009-10-20T18:30:00.001-06:00

My new blog is up and running. Check it out: The Big Blog of Lists.

If you have any comments about the content of my blog, please post 'em there.

New blog in the works.

2009-10-15T15:54:00.002-06:00

How's it going everyone? I haven't blogged in awhile and for the three of you that actually read this blog it must be very painful to not hear from me in so long (hardy har har). Anyway, what I currently have in the works may excite some of you: I will be starting a new blog that only focuses on lists! Yay! You know, top 10 lists? Some lists will be purely entertaining while others will be informative and/or serious. It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I've got a lot of great ideas for lists and just need to write it down. More deatils (hopefully) soon.

The most dangerous book ever!

2009-08-02T01:06:00.002-06:00

So I was visiting one of my favorite websites the other day. I won't name the website because the guy who runs it posts a lot of smart and entertaining material there and I really don't feel like disparaging him by name. Anyway, as I was digging through the archives, I came across a list of what he thinks are the books that most messed up the world. I was cheering through most of the list as he named such despicable works as Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler, The Pivot of Civilization by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (author unknown) , and The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Engalls and Marx. Wow, I was thinking, this guy gets it.

And then I saw the book he thinks has messed up the world more than any other book (including the ones I mentioned).

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.

For those of you who aren't aware, Michael Behe is a scientist (a biochemist, I think) who believes in Intelligent Design. Broadly stated, intelligent design is the theory that one of the three pillars of Darwinian evolution, random mutation, cannot account for changes in macro-evolution (that is, one species changing to another) so an intelligent designer (God) must be involved in the process. The reason the author of the website lists this as the most dangerous book ever written is because (and I'm paraphrasing) it fuels attacks on science by religious fundamentalists who have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you serious? Darwin's Black Box fuels attacks on science!?! Dude, the belief that the world is only 6000 years (a belief Michael Behe does not share), while silly, is completely harmless and doesn't affect science one whit. Only a morally confused dimbulb would list Behe's book as the most dangerous book ever. Marx and Engalls gave us communism whose followers murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Hitler's Nazism resulted in the Holocaust and WWII and 50 million dead. Sanger's organization Planned Parenthood has had a hand in millions of abortions. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has fed Jew hatred for decades.

And Darwin's Black Box is more dangerous? I want to vomit.

I don't care if you don't buy into Intelligent design. I don't care if you believe in Darwinian Evolution. I don't care if you have the harmless belief that the world is only 6000 years old! It doesn't matter! Science isn't damaged and people won't be murdered in the millions because of it. Frankly, if you believe Darwin's Black Box is the most dangerous book ever written or, Hell, dangerous at all, you're a fool.

Buy some damn wisdom, please.

It's a boy!

2009-07-28T16:37:00.002-06:00

Yesterday (July 27th) at 3:46 AM my wife gave birth to our third child, Elliot. He weighed 8 pounds, 4 ounces and was 20 and 1/2 inches long. He's healthy, squeaky and grunty. He has semi-dark hair and is the first of our three kids that actually looks like me. He has blue eyes which is rather odd because my eyes are greenish-brownish (hazel) and my wife's eyes are brown. I know his eyes could change color but my mom has blue eyes so who knows. My oldest two kids, Bobby (seven) and Mary (four) are in love with their new sibling and want to hold him all day.

It feels so good to hold my new son. It's a special feeling that's hard to explain. I am very grateful that he is here and a part of our family.

Who is the best Pixar director?

2009-06-29T21:02:00.000-06:00

So I saw Up a couple weeks ago with my wife and kiddies. It was typically Pixar which, of course, means it was a very good movie. While not on the same level as Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, it was still quite enjoyable.

This got me thinking about the directors of the Pixar films and directors in general. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I hear about a new film and it sounds interesting I always look up the director. If the director has a good track record, it will be a movie that I might just see (assuming I like the director). If it's a piss-poor director or even one that's good but isn't my thing, I'll definitely pass on the flick. There are a handful of popular directors that I will absolutely not see anything from like Michael Bay (Transformers, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon) and Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Stargate, 10,000 BC). I see those guys attached to a movie, I know the movie ain't worth seeing. On the other hand, if Clint Eastwood is directing a film, there's a pretty good chance it will be darn good.

That brings us back around to Pixar. Who is the best Pixar director? There are a total of ten movies, most of which were co-directed by two or more directors. Let's break 'em down:

Toy Story - John Lasseter
A Bugs Life -John Lasseter & Andrew Stanton
Toy Story 2 - John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, & Ash Brannon.
Monsters, Inc. - Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, & David Silverman.
Finding Nemo - Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
The Incredibles - Brad Bird
Cars - John Lasseter & Joe Ranft
Ratatouille - Brad Bird & Joe Pinkava
WALL-E - Andrew Stanton
Up - Pete Docter & Bob Peterson

We can throw out guys who only co-directed one Pixar film simply because, well, they only co-directed one Pixar film. It isn't enough to rate 'em fairly. So Ash Brannon, David Silverman, Joe Ranft, Joe Pinkava, and Bob Petersen are out. That leaves us with five directors: John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Brad Bird, & Pete Docter.

How do we rate them? Well, let's break down the Pixar movies.

To me, there are three levels of Pixar flicks: Great, almost great, and darn good.

The great: Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc, The Incredibles. While very few of you would argue with my choices of Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and The Incredibles, I know there are many of you who don't feel Monsters, Inc. is one of the great Pixar flicks. You'd probably put Finding Nemo or Up (or both) in it's place. Fair enough. But it isn't your list. It's mine!

The almost great - Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Up. Like I said, Nemo and Up would be in the great category for many, if not most, of you out there. And you'd boot Ratatouille down to the darn good category. But, hey, my list.

The darn good - A Bugs Life, Cars, WALL-E. Other than throwing Ratatouille in this category, I don't think too many of you disagree with what I have here.

Brad Bird has The Incredibles and Ratatouille to his credit. Not bad. That's one great one (in my opinion, the greatest Pixar movie is The Incredibles) and one almost great one in Ratatouille (a film I quite enjoyed).
Andrew Stanton has A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, and WALL-E to his credit. He's a good director but, looking at my list, that's two darn good Pixar films and one near great one. Brad Bird is number one so far.
Lee Unkrich co-directed Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo. Two great ones and one almost great one. Okay, as a Pixar director, Unkrich now overtakes Bird. But just barely.
Pete Docter co-directed Monsters, Inc. and Up. Unkrich is still in the lead, Bird is second but barely ahead of Docter.
John Lasseter directed or co-directed Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, and Cars. Two great ones and two darn good ones. I still think Unkrich wins with Bird and Lasseter tied for second.

Now I know Unkrich "only" has co-directing credits on all three of his Pixar movies while Bird and Lasseter have sole directing credits for The Incredibles (Bird) and Toy Story (Lasseter). I suppose I could come up with a points-based system that would give those who have directed more consideration over those who have co-directed but, hey, isn't that a bit much? Do I need to go into it that deep? Maybe. If I just look at who directed and co-directed what, I gotta go with Bird and Lasseter over Unkrich. So maybe it's a three way tie, really. Do we need some sort of tiebreaker? Yeah. We do. It's called Toy Story 3 to be released in 2010 and it's directed by Lee Unkrich.

How do you rank the Pixar movies? Who is your favorite Pixar director?

4 movies that I used to think were cool but now realize are retarded.

2009-05-15T22:37:00.001-06:00

4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the humor flowed naturally out of the action. It was organic like when Indy shoots the guy with the big sword; it was natural, not forced. In Temple of Doom, it seems like all the elaborate action sequences are done so Indy can make a crack or two. And who the hell builds a roller-coaster in the middle of a mountain? Over yawning lava pits? Oh yeah, we had to have that mine-cart racing sequence to set-up Indy's funny crack about water. And he gets too much of it! Hilarious. I suppose one can still enjoy the movie if you see it as a parody of the previous film. Just view it like Spielberg's career since Raiders: it's not to be taken seriously.

3. Born on the Fourth of July - There's a lot of stupid things I believed when I was younger; that Vietnam was an unnecessary war and Tom Cruise could act were two of them. As many of you are aware, this Oliver Stone movie follows Ron Kovic's journey to Vietnam as a Marine, his subsequent injury that paralyzed him from the waste down, return home, fun with Mexican whores, and eventual anti-war crusade. As I've studied history, I've became aware of a few things about Vietnam: we were fighting the most evil ideology in the history of the world in communism and Ron Kovic (as portrayed by Oliver Stone) is a friggin' retard! The war was a noble one, mishandled by politicians, yes, but still noble. The defeat of America in Vietnam not only hurt us globally for decades to come but it cost the lives of literally millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians many of whom were tortured to death. Maoist communism is particulary vile and anyone who was against our efforts in Southeast Asia is either stupid or ignorant. Probably both. When I was stupid and ignorant, I loved this movie. And then I grew up.

2. Independence Day - I can't believe I used to love this film. I mean, for crap's sake, it's directed by Hollywood hack Roland Emmerich (who would later give us crapfests like The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 B.C.). I like a good alien invasion story and I guess my hopes for the film along with the special effects blinded me to how bad this film really is. Repeated viewings only magnify the film's flaws. It's another big summer blockbuster that dazzles us with big explosions and alien motherships but gives us nothing in the way of character development.

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Most Star Trek movies are retarded: that's just a matter of course. But The Voyage Home reaches new depths of retardation by playing the weenie greenie, tree-hugging, self-righteous, holier-than-thou card (it is Star Trek after all). It's bad enough the crew have to save whales but, they tell us in the movie, those humpbacks are upset at humans for all those years of poor treatment. And while I agree that humpbacks have every right to be upset at humans, there isn't a whale in the oceans that thinks about this. Just like Klingons, whales are animals. Whales are only concerned with eating, reproducing, and trying not to be eaten. They don't swim around pondering existence (or anything else for that matter). I mean, I used to love the movie for it's humor. Now, with it's heavy-handed messaging, it's about as funny as Al Gore. Plus there's too much Chekov. Always too much Chekov. And yes, he is retarded.

Good arguments against same-sex marriage.

2009-04-30T18:38:00.004-06:00

The main reasons to oppose same-sex marriage (incorrectly referred to as gay marriage by just about everyone) are:

1. Same-sex marriage will do irreparable damage to male/female distinctions. The great thing about marriage is that it combines a man with a woman. Women and men are very different and, since most marriages result in children, a child should have the best chance possible to have both a mother and a father. A mom and a dad each give something to children that two men or two women can't. But if the distinctions between male and female are torn down, then legally opposite sex couples cannot be favored by adoption agencies. Children who are put up for adoption should have the right to go, if at all possible, to opposite sex couples. The argument that denying same-sex couples from marriage is the same as denying inter-racial couples from marrying is silly. There is no difference between a black human being and a white human being; male/female differences, however, are huge.

2. No civilization in history, secular or religious, has ever recognized same-sex marriage. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the secular men of the Enlightenment, none of them have ever recognized same-sex marriage. And a "handful" of lefties think they are more wise than every civilization that has come before? That's hubris, folks. Conversely, every major religion in history have recognized inter-racial marriage. When many parts of the US banned inter-racial marriage, they were at odds with Christianity, Judaism and every other religion on Earth.

3. What do you think will happen in sex education classes if same-sex marriage is allowed? By law you will have to not only explain what a man and woman do sexually, but you will now have to explain, in graphic detail, what men and men do sexually and what women and women do sexually. Kids are confused enough about sexuality. This would only make it worse.

4. Religious freedom will be in jeopardy. Sooner or later, if same-sex marriage is allowed, someone will sue a religious institution because it discriminates against same-sex marriage. Heaven knows how such court cases would be decided. So much for the so-called wall of separation if this happens.

The media and leftist groups tell us homosexuals can't marry unless we redefine marriage. It isn't true. Homosexuals have never been prevented from marrying in this country. Any homosexual man can marry a woman (provided she's willing) and any homosexual woman can marry a man. When you go and get a marriage license, they don't ask your sexual orientation.

Tortured values.

2009-04-29T18:14:00.003-06:00

As the left continues to rape the word torture, i.e. remove from the word it's meaning (like they did/are doing to the words Nazi, marriage, and rape), I just have one question: If you guys on the left are against torture, why didn't you support the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein? The former dictator of Iraq tortured his own people by the thousands in brutal ways most of you can't imagine and you don't care; our CIA waterboards three scumbags and it's the worst thing ever.

I just don't understand it. I guess when you look at the world from the point of view of George W. Bush haters, truth, consistency and intellectual honesty are pretty far down on your listed values.

Name for new White boy.

2009-04-08T17:21:00.001-06:00

Well folks, my wife and I have decided upon a name for our son (second son, third child) three months before she's even due: Elliott. Elliott was my wife's maternal grandfather; technically he was her step-grandfather. My wife never new her biological grandfather because he was killed in an accident years before her birth. So Elliott Randall was the grandpa she knew. He passed away in 2002 only one day after the birth of my first child, Bobby.

Elliott is a diminutive (short-form or nickname) of Elias which in turn is a cognate (a cognate of a word is a word in another language which comes from the same root) of Elijah. In Hebrew, Elijah means "my god is Yahweh". Everything you wanted to know about the name Elliott, right?

What about middle names, you ask?

You read that right: names. My wife and I have a thing about giving our sons two middle names: we like it! So I mentioned my wife's grandfather, the grandpa she never knew, earlier in this blog entry, remember? Well, his name was Edward. Now if you folks have been paying attention, my wife and I briefly considered Edward as a first name for this new baby due July. It didn't win but second place ain't bad! Elliott Edward--sounds good, we're almost done! My wife's paternal grandfather's name was--are you ready?--Emery. I know what you're thinking: "You crack-smokin' hooligan! Three 'e's? And short 'e's at that? You sonuvagun!" So the kid's name--and it's a mouthful--will be Elliott Edward Emery White. Heh.

Elliott, as stated above, means "my god is Yahweh". Edward means "rich guard", Emery, which is derived from the name Emmerich, means "work power", and White means, uh, "white". If you have a punchline for this, please share.

So anyway, there it it is. A name for number three!

A few of my favorite things.

2009-04-07T18:04:00.002-06:00

Favorite sports team - San Francisco 49ers.

Favorite athlete - Steve Young.

Favorite movie - Big Trouble in Little China.

Favorite actor - Robert Duvall.

Favorite director - Clint Eastwood.

Favorite American - John Adams.

Favorite living American - George W. Bush.

Favorite American president - (tie) George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge.

Favorite Metallica song - "Whiskey in the Jar".

Favorite AC/DC song - "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution".

Favorite symphony - (tie) Dvorak's 9th symphony (aka "Music from the New World") and Beethoven's 9th symphony.

Favorite classical music composer - Beethoven.

Favorite television drama, all-time - The Shield.

Favorite television drama, current - Dexter.

Favorite Saturday Night Live cast member - Phil Hartman, rest in peace.

Favorite comic book - The Avengers, the classic comic book that ended a few years back.

Favorite comic book character - Captain America, the classic hero who was killed a few years back.

Favorite comic book artist - Georg Perez. He's still with us.

These are a few of my favorite things.

Respecting the president.

2009-03-27T16:55:00.001-06:00

I try not to badmouth the president regardless of who he is. If I have disagreements with the commander-in-chief, I try to be as respectful as possible while being truthful at the same time. I don't act toward President Obama like the left did toward President Bush (which was disgraceful). So when my son and I talk about the current president, I am always respectful even though President Obama has been a disaster thus far (I don't want him to be a disaster but his policies are hurting my country).

We talked about President Obama last night. I was watching the news and the president came on and I said to my son, Bobby, "That's the president of the United States."
"I know." My son replied matter-of-factly.
"Do you remember his name?" I asked.
My son thought for a minute and said, "No. But he's the first black president."
"Yep. His name is Barack Obama." I replied.
"Oh, yeah!" Bobby exclaimed.
I went on, "You know I voted for the other guy, John McCain. But even though my guy lost, Barack Obama is still my president. I just don't think he's doing a very good job right now. I want himn to be a good president but right now he isn't a good president."
My son looked at me and said, "Why?"
I took a deep breath and said, "Well, the country is hurting right now because we, as a country don't have a lot of money."
My son, who is seven, surprised me with his reply, "Yeah, I know, people spend too much money."
"Yep," I said, "People spent too much money and got into trouble and now President Obama wants the government to spend even more money because he thinks it will help ."
"Well that doesn't make any sense." Bobby replied.
My son is right, of course, it doesn't make any sense at all.

When I discuss President Obama (as in the example above), I do so respectfully even though I think he lacks depth and his policies are hurting my country. We should all be respectful toward the president even if he isn't "our guy".

Here a gaffe, there a gaffe.

2009-03-26T21:10:00.000-06:00

You know how President Bush was mocked by the mainstream media and late night comedians mercilessly because he would fumble a line during a speech or mispronounce a word here or there? If you believed Chris Mathews and Jon Stewart, President Bush did this all the time and it was a sign that he was stupid.

Never mind that President Bush's slips were infrequent. Never mind that he made no more verbal mistakes than any other public figure. Never mind that his mistakes were played over and over and over again by a media anxious to make President Bush look like an idiot. Never mind all that because the former president has nothing on President Obama when it comes to gaffes.

Just go to YouTube and type in "obama gaffes" and you'll be deluged with videos of the current president and his endless gaffes. They mostly come in three flavors:

1. Innocent errors - Innocent mistakes are ones anyone can make. Like referring to Rapid City as Grand Rapids as he did when he was campaigning last year. No biggie, right? Right. Except if it were President Bush that said it, the media would have played it over and over again and mocked Bush for being out of touch or something.

2. Factual errors - President Obama makes a lot of these. Claiming President Kennedy's meeting with Soviet leader Khruschev averted disaster during the Cuban Missile crisis (when in fact Kennedy's meeting led to the crisis) is just one of many There is no excuse for historical ignorance from a president of the US. President Bush did not make mistakes like this. President Bush was far, far more historically literate than President Obama is.

3. WTF?!? errors - These are ones that simply leave me--and should leave you--dumbfounded. Powerline commented on a recent gaffe that, frankly, left me stunned. This one is simply bizarre and, if the media reported on it, would make President Obama look like a moron.

And what the hell is the deal with the teleprompter? Barack Obama takes it with him everywhere. If President Bush used a teleprompter half as much as President Obama does, he would have been ridiculed endlessly.

Good gravy, folks!

My point here is not to mock President Obama for his gaffes (though his historical ignorance is troubling). Rather, I am trying to illustrate how biased the media is: They hated President Bush so they would grab onto the smallest thing to make him loo bad; they love President Obama and will purposely avoid making him look bad. George W. Bush is a smart guy. So is President Obama. They, like everyone who gives a lot of public speeches, will make mistakes. It doesn't mean they're stupid or incompetent (President Obama may be incompetent but it has nothing to do with verbal gaffes), it simply means they are human.

Yes, Barack Obama is human.

The worst president ever?

2009-01-27T21:03:00.003-07:00

Michael brought this up a few days ago over at his blog, All Now Mysterious . . . (link over at the right side) and historical accuracy and honesty requires me to add my buck fifty.

Those who say President George W. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history are historically illiterate buffoons. I won't list the alarmingly high list of mediocre presidents of the nineteenth century (especially pre-Civil War). I need only list the terrible presidents of my own short lifetime to make my point that not only is President Bush not the worst in history but he's actually been a good president.

I was born during the Nixon administration. Bush worse than Nixon? Watergate, price controls, and Vietnam anyone? I happen to think Vietnam was a just war but Nixon pulled our troops out of the region and mass slaughter--including one-third of all Cambodians--was the result. Communism is evil, folks, and Vietnam was a just cause.

Gerald Ford, a good man, was a terrible president. He was a completely ineffective commander-in-chief. It wasn't really his fault (Congressional Republicans didn't see him as legitimate because he wasn't elected; congressional Democrats wouldn't work with him because he was a Republican) but he had no noteworthy accomplishments as president.

Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the worst president in history. He wouldn't back the pro-American Shaw in Iran and that nation fell to Islamic extremists. He created two incompetent federal bureaucracies in both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. His policy failures are hurting us today. And then as an ex-president . . . the guy is a worthless human being.

George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton weren't bad presidents but they both left a lot of foreign policy messes that George Walker Bush had to clean up. Iraq and Islamic terror chief among them.

Bush's eight years in office are notable because of a soaring economy during the vast majority of his presidency, his response to September 11th, and his subsequent liberation of fifty million people in two nations. Folks, Lincoln brought freedom to a few million slaves. President Bush brought freedom to fifty million slaves. Or do you really think Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were kinder masters than Southern slave-owners?

Look, not only is President Bush not the worst president in history or in my lifetime, he's one of our better presidents. The second-best in my lifetime after Reagan.

When those of you who don't like Bush say he's the worst ever, it doesn't say anything about the former president, it says something about you. It makes you look like fools.

Obama administration not off to a good start.

2009-01-24T07:18:00.003-07:00

I want President Obama to be a good president because if he fails to be a good president America fails.

Of course, how I define good president and you define good president could be very different. Point is, President Obama is not off to a good start. Signing executive orders to close Gitmo (or look at closing Gitmo) and lifting a ban on funding international pro-abortion family planning groups I can stomach because, after all, President Obama is a liberal. But a couple of other things this week made me raise an eyebrow of concern.

Thursday night President Obama met with the White House press corps. But Mr. Obama soon got testy when a reporter asked him a question. Didn't the president promise us this administration would be the most open and honest one ever?

On Friday, President Obama told GOP congressmen that they should not be listening to Rush Limbaugh. Nevermind the arrogance of such a staement, it just isn't a smart move to admit to your political opponents you fear Limbaugh.

I know it's early and these may just be the miss-steps of a green president but it is entirely consistent with similar gaffes and bouts of hubris that were common during Mr. Obama's campaign.

Is it important? While I hesitate to attack President Obama, he is one of the most arrogant politicians I've ever seen. The office of president can humble a man or destroy him. You need look no further than Nixon and Clinton to see how arrogance can destroy a presidency (or nearly so in Clinton's case).

Five really bad Star Wars characters.

2009-01-24T06:39:00.003-07:00

Jabba the Hutt - A fat muppet just doesn't scare me. Maybe it should.

Ewoks - Episode VI: Attack of the Teddy Bears.

Padme/Queen Amidala - From queen to crybaby in three episodes.

Boba Fett - The most feared bounty hunter in the galaxy . . . beaten by a blind man with a stick. But, hey, he looks cool.

Max Rebo - A rejected muppet from Sesame Street. Seriously, the character is so obviously a muppet (and a bad one at that) they could have used Grover or Miss Piggy and it would've looked more real.

I'm grateful for President Bush.

2009-01-20T18:20:00.002-07:00

Ingratitude is the ugliest human trait. You won't see it here.

Thank-you, President Bush. Thanks for keeping us safe for over seven years. No one believed after September 11th we would go seven years without an attack. But we didn't get attacked. You, President Bush, get the credit.

Thanks for giving us fifty-two weeks of uninterrupted economic growth after 9/11. Contrary to claims by the left, things were good for the majority of Americans during your presidency.

Thanks for being classy. Heaven knows your political opponents weren't classy. But you're better and you showed it.

Thanks for winning the war in Iraq (yes, we've won). You liberated 25 million people from one of the worst tyrants in history.

Thanks for being a good president.

Names for number three.

2009-01-09T23:32:00.002-07:00

My wife is pregnant with our third child. I have a son, Bobby, who turns seven this weekend and a daughter, Mary, who just turned four. The sequel to Bob and Mary will be released sometime in July.

With every new kid comes a name and my wife and I get to decide what that name will be. My wife and I prefer names that are both traditional and family. My son is named after my maternal grandfather, Robert, while my daughter is named after my wife's maternal grandmother, Mary. Maybe not original but in this day and age, it seems it is becoming rare to honor family members by naming new additions after them. Heck, I'm named after my own great-grandfather so it's a family tradition. Only problem is that my wife and I are running short on good, solid grandparent and great-grandparent names for our future kids (that is our children's grandparents and great-grandparents).

As I stated earlier, Robert is the name I gave my son after one of my grandfathers. Problem is, if we have another son, my paternal grandpa's name is out of the running. Two reasons: One, I wasn't close to him (he was a good man but because of my parent's divorce, I didn't get very close to my dad's side of the family) and two, I'm not naming a son Elwood.

Other names borne by our parents and grandparents are out because of other reasons. My dad's name, Craig, is out because, well, Craig just doesn't sound right for a baby. And I'm not really that close with my dad. My father-in-law's name is LeRoy. Look, my father-in-law is a great man but his name is still LeRoy. Some other male names on both my side and my wife's side have their own problems as well. Female names on both sides are out. Two are too old-fashioned and two are weird. Damn weird.

Thing is, you're probably saying to yourselves, just pick a name you like. If it has to be a traditional name, fine, just find a good one that you guys both like. Look, fella, I don't tell you how to name your kids, you don't tell me how to name mine. It is very important to both me and my wife that all our children carry first names that honor either their grandparents or great-grandparents. It's necessary for us.

I've actually gone back to to my great-grandparents and looked at names. I found one that my wife and I both like for a girl: Clara. And one of my wife's grandfather's (she has three because one died and her grandmother remarried) is actually okay: Edward (Teddy for short?). I don't know, but right now, that's all we've got.

Hey, do you like comic books?

2009-01-02T19:14:00.000-07:00

If you like comic books and you're not reading Robert Kirkman, what the hell's wrong with you?

Seriously, folks, Kirkman, who currently writes Invincible, The Walking Dead, and The Astounding Wolfman is just about the best writer around right now. He always manages to hit just the right balance of action, humor, and drama.

Invincible, which is now in the 60s as far as issue numbers go, is the story of a teenage hero who has girl troubles and a messed up personal life. Isn't that Spider-Man, you say? Yes, if Peter Parker's parents were still alive and his dad was Superman.

The Walking Dead is set after a zombie apocalypse. I'm not a zombie fan but the book is excellent. Look, all the zombie films I've seen (except for 28 Days Later) are silly and stupid (sorry George Romero) but Kirkman's book does something different with the big disaster that a lot of so-called disaster movies--including zombie flicks--tend to miss: What happens after the disaster? What happens to the world, to the survivors after the credits roll? That's what makes The Walking Dead so interesting. The survivors have to deal with a new world and it's how they handle eachother (and the zombies) that make the book so darn interesting.

I haven't picked up Wolfman yet but I will. Robert Kirkman is the best there is right now. Pick up Invincible or The Walking Dead in trade paperback format. If you don't like it, don't blame me. It's likely you have some sort of mental defect. Seriously.

Brief biography of Charles Curtis

2008-12-01T04:29:00.005-07:00

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.

2008-11-21T22:49:00.003-07:00

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

2008-11-16T06:06:00.005-07:00

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.

2008-11-06T21:22:00.002-07:00

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.

2008-10-10T20:52:00.005-06:00

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.

2008-09-15T02:57:00.004-06:00

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.

2008-09-14T20:32:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-09-14T19:43:00.000-06:00

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.

2008-09-02T07:05:00.004-06:00

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!

2008-08-29T21:49:00.005-06:00

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)

2008-08-13T18:11:00.001-06:00

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?

2008-07-31T15:23:00.001-06:00

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?

2008-07-28T11:08:00.002-06:00

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!

2008-07-26T18:32:00.002-06:00

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?

2008-07-22T19:23:00.000-06:00

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.

2008-07-15T06:40:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-07-06T19:01:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-07-03T17:50:00.001-06:00

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?

2008-06-27T21:51:00.000-06:00

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.

2008-06-09T17:06:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-06-04T19:54:00.000-06:00

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?

2008-05-27T17:05:00.001-06:00

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

2008-04-10T19:33:00.002-06:00

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

2008-04-07T19:37:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-04-03T18:07:00.000-06:00

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.

2008-04-02T18:23:00.000-06:00

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?

2008-03-28T20:13:00.004-06:00

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.

2008-03-28T19:48:00.002-06:00

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?

2008-03-28T15:12:00.003-06:00

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.

Wanna bet?

2008-03-23T07:53:00.002-06:00

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.

2008-03-23T00:47:00.002-06:00

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

2008-03-20T14:34:00.000-06:00

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

2008-03-19T07:23:00.000-06:00

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

2008-03-05T19:41:00.003-07:00

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.

2008-03-03T19:01:00.001-07:00

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!

2008-03-02T14:49:00.002-07:00

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

My reimagining of Star Trek.

2008-02-19T16:45:00.002-07:00

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.

2008-02-18T14:49:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-02-12T07:43:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-02-05T21:01:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-02-04T16:38:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-02-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-01-23T16:16:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-01-15T20:41:00.000-07:00

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.

Omaha shooter shoots some people.

2007-12-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

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.

My big problem with Mike Huckabee.

2007-12-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Favorite Characters from Fantasy Novels.

2007-11-19T19:45:00.000-07:00

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!

I'm a passionate centrist--no, really!

2007-11-06T06:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Director Throwdown II

2007-11-02T01:09:00.000-06:00

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!

My wife is looking hot!

2007-10-19T18:13:00.000-06:00

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!

Rant on Star Trek.

2007-10-17T19:33:00.000-06:00

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.

Rudy Giuliani's abortion stances.

2007-10-10T16:46:00.000-06:00

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.

I'm supporting Rudy Giuliani for President.

2007-10-05T01:08:00.000-06:00

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:

"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 suggest you vote for the candidate who is personally pro-life and will appoint more Thomases and Scalias to the nations highest court resulting in the eventual overturn of Roe vs. Wade. There will likely be at least two high court vacancies in the next presidential term. Do you want another Souter and Ginsburg on the court? 'Cause you darn well know that Hillary will appoint those type of justices.

I support Rudy Giuliani for president.

More of my favorite films.

2007-09-17T12:22:00.000-06:00

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.

Director Throwdown: Andrew Adamson vs Brad Bird

2007-09-02T08:02:00.000-06:00

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?

Hypocrisy and the media.

2007-08-31T07:22:00.000-06:00

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 . . .

The Left Destroys.

2007-08-22T18:53:00.000-06:00

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?

Nice Michael Medved Quote.

2007-08-04T15:37:00.000-06:00

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.

My famous movie kiss? What?

2007-07-25T16:46:00.000-06:00

Your Famous Movie Kiss is from Spiderman

"I have always been standing in your doorway. Isn't it about time somebody saved your life?"

What Famous Movie Kiss Are You?

Some of my favorite movies.

2007-07-25T01:31:00.000-06:00

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.

Boys charged with felonies for butt-slapping.

2007-07-24T07:43:00.000-06:00

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.

The Quotable Calvin Coolidge.

2007-07-22T09:01:00.000-06:00

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.

Influencing the Outcome.

2007-07-21T17:42:00.000-06:00

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.

The Totalitarian Tendencies of the Left.

2007-07-19T08:33:00.000-06:00

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.

More of those micro-heroes!

2007-07-12T08:36:00.000-06:00

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!

Last five songs.

2007-07-12T06:18:00.001-06:00

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

The list is only for your enjoyment. Please, no betting.

Even more micro-heroes.

2007-07-11T20:48:00.000-06:00

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!

Key differences between conservatives and liberals.

2007-07-11T17:19:00.000-06:00

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.

Last Five songs.

2007-07-11T06:21:00.000-06:00

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)

More micro-heroes.

2007-07-09T17:59:00.000-06:00

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.

Microheroes Assemble!

2007-07-09T07:34:00.000-06:00

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.

Please don't make me mad. You wouldn't like me when I'm mad.

2007-07-09T06:25:00.000-06:00

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

Hulk		65%
Spider-Man		60%
Robin		60%
Green Lantern		60%
Catwoman		50%
Superman		45%
Iron Man		30%
Batman		30%
Supergirl		20%
The Flash		20%
Wonder Woman		15

You are a wanderer with
amazing strength.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test

This is only a test.

2007-07-08T13:27:00.000-06:00

How Democrat am I?

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 Democrat Are You?

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.

How Republican Are You?

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.

2007-07-08T13:02:00.000-06:00

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:

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.

This is somewhat of a fluid list subject to additions and redefinitions. Mystery Man could have been in there (maybe a subtype of Street Crusader ala Moon Knight and Batman?). Maybe Weapon Master is more properly a subtype of Street Crusader. Suggestions are appreciated.

The Age of Moral Clarity in Britain is over.

2007-07-05T19:00:00.000-06:00

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.

Metal albums that influenced me.

2007-07-05T18:46:00.000-06:00

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.

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

Who do you think will be the next president?
	Hillary Clinton
	John McCain
	Barack Obama

pollcode.com free polls