List of things: Random questions:

Four random questions I have right now:

• Why, if the left in America are so concerned about are troops, do they undermine their moral at every chance they get? If someone claims they support you and then tries to undermine, say, your employer everyday, they don't really support you, do they?
• If universities are supposed to be an open forum for ideas, why do most college campuses (campi?) have speech codes? The more liberal the university, the more limits are placed on speech.
• Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?
• Why would anyone name their child Skyler? Boy or girl, the name sucks.

That's all for now. If you have any answers to these questions, please, by all means, post a reply. Thanks!

More foolishness among NBA analysts.

I was going to comment on this earlier--like when the current NBA season began at the end of October--but, obviously, decided not to. However, I was listening to Sporting News Radio this morning and the two commentators (Matt Spiegel and Patrick Cortez) where yapping about how the Phoenix Suns are the best team in the NBA and how only they and Dallas are the clear favorites in the West. This reminded me of various predictions made by NBA analysts at the beginning of the season on who they thought would win the conference championships and the NBA title. It seems Phoenix was the popular pick by the analysts to win it all.

They call themselves analysts? Analysts are supposed to analyze data! There was no analysis here, just picking favorites ("I like the way Phoenix plays.").

The Suns do not play defense. They rank in the bottom half of the NBA in defense. Over the last thirty years, only one team that ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense won the NBA title. Add to that the fact that unless you have Michael Jordan on your team it is unlikely you can win an NBA title without a hall-of-fame caliber big man. Oh, there have been a few exceptions. But going all the way back to the days of Mikan, exceptions are few. Great big men don't always win championships, but NBA champions almost always have a great big man (or two). Check it out in the west: It will be Dallas (good defense, though Nowitski isn't the standard hall-of fame caliber big man I'm talking about), San Antonio (Duncan is what I'm talking about) or Houston (Yao Ming and squad have a better shot than Phoenix no matter where they end up seeded). A little knowledge of basketball, NBA history and championships goes a long way. People thought Jordan (and to a lesser extent, Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons of '89 and '90) were ushering in a new age of the NBA where the great big man was no longer needed to win championships. Those years proved to be exceptions. Since Jordan's retirement, Duncan and Shaq have led seven of the eight eventual NBA champions to titles. And the other team had Big Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace! It is all about the big guy.

Phoenix is not a contender. San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in the West; Miami, Detroit, Chicago or Clevelend in the East. Take it to the bank: Phoenix won't be playing in June.

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

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

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

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

So sometimes doing nothing is a good thing.

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

Naming conventions.

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

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

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

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

The Winds of Winter by Joseph White

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

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

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

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

Blogs and Demagogues and Football.

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

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

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

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

I'll try to blog more often. Seriously.

Gotta be more careful (diet news).

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

Gotta be more careful.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

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

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

Dangerous Diet Territory.

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

Idiot of the Day: Rosie O'Donnell

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

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

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

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

Diet update.

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

Day four and five of the diet: Success!

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

Diet update; Salt Lake City mayor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all.

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

Day one of my diet plus Super Bowl prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots on parade

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

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

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

Full disclosure: I read comic books.

Global warming versus Islamonazism.

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

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

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

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

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

And 9/11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day

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

Quote of the day.

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

Even more Survivor!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go blacks!