Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Does President Bush really make more gaffes than other politicians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Very Best Movies based on Comic Books

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

Let the countdown begin!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, April 07, 2008

The Unofficial NBA Hall of Fame

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Tobacco and terrorism.

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

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

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

That's screwed up, folks.

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

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

Because, you say, RJ Reynolds has an agenda.

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

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

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

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

It's not guilt by association.

Damn, the American left is dishonest.

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

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

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

I doubt it.

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

Friday, March 28, 2008

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

Sunday, March 23, 2008

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!

Thursday, March 20, 2008

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.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

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.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

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!

Monday, March 03, 2008

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.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

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

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

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.

Monday, February 18, 2008

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?

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

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.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

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.

Monday, February 04, 2008

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:

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:

Logo
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:
Logo
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:
Logo
You want dated? Take a look at the Super Bowl V logo. It's so dated, it's very bad:
Logo
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:
Logo
Dated and the shadow in the shadow font look overly bulky. Thumbs down for Super Bowl VII's logo. It screams seventies:
Logo
The Super Bowl VIII logo is one of my favorites. It stands those time tests quite well:
Logo
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:
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:
Logo
Similar to the logo for Super Bowl VIII, it works because it's a solid design. Eleven is pretty:
Logo
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.