Just think about it, will you?

How will Barack Obama unite America?

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

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

Think about it.

The politics of Democratic destruction.

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

Democrats' chickens are coming home to roost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wanna bet?

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

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

Wanna bet?

Haiku of the day.

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

That cracks me up every time I think of it!

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

Have a nice day!

It gets worse for Senator Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollow Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wesley Crusher vs Anakin Skywalker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hah!

Obama's record.

Know who you are voting for.

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

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

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

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

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

Take the Indiana Jones poll!

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

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

My reimagining of Star Trek.

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

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

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

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

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

Uhura would be played by an actress this time around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidents Day is a meaningless holiday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess we're supposed to on Presidents Day.

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

Jimmy freakin' Carter. What the hell?

Why you must vote for John McCain in November.

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

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

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

Do you suffer from MDS?

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

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

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

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

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

Make that a large grain of salt.

Logo for Super Bowl XLIII revealed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eleven Super Bowls down, thirty-two to go.

Giant upset.

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

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

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

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

RINO hunt not good for GOP.

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

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

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

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

John McCain's mixed conservatism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omaha shooter shoots some people.

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.

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.