Superhero Archetypes.

I've been reading superhero comic books most of my life (and no, I don't live with my parents). Recently, I've been dissecting the superhero archetypes and using various archetypes or combinations of archetypes to create my own unique heroes through my art. I think I've come up with my own way to categorize superheroes (by no means a unique way).

Comic book fans use different methods when they breakdown superheroes. Wikipedia, under their superheroes entry, has a pretty good summary of the types of superheroes. They break it down to thirteen types from armored hero (Iron Man) and brick (the Hulk) to slasher (Wolverine) and speedster (the Flash). This list, while informative, only covers powers at the basic level. This isn't the only way to categorize superheroes.

Another way to do it is by origin. While this method says little about powers and abilities, it does offer the would-be superhero creator basic superhero beginnings. Origin archetypes include alien (Superman), mutant (the X-Men), non-human (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) and training (Batman), among others. I have found there are about nine basic (superhero) origin archetypes found in comic books.

You can also divvy heroes up by personality (arrogant, comedic, disciplined, etc.). But I find all three methods insufficient. When I create superheroes (I'm an artist), I want bold, iconic archetypes. Brick and blaster, martial artist and mutant are not sufficient.

I want big, bold superheroes. So I look at the big, bold superhero archetypes.

Some types of heroes will be left off my list. I'm only focusing on the iconic (or somewhat iconic) superhero archetypes:

• The God - Thor, Hercules, Wonder Woman (in one of her incarnations) and the iconic-like New Gods. This is a bold superhero archetype and the God is usually a protector of humanity, not just a city or a nation or a group of outcasts. They are typically among the strongest superheroes so, at a basic level, they are bricks/tankers. But brick doesn't go nearly far enough to describe their wide range of powers. A sub-type of the God is the God-like archetype ala DC's Captain Marvel and (in most of her incarnations) Wonder Woman. While these heroes are not properly gods, their powers were given to them by the gods.
  
• The Alien - Like the God, the Alien archetype covers some of the most powerful heroes in comic books: Superman, the Silver Surfer, the Martian Manhunter. Typically, these heroes can go toe-to-toe with the Gods in a contest of sheer power. And in some ways, they even one-up the Gods in that many Aliens have even a wider range of powers. Aliens are often mysterious and aloof.
  
• The Super Soldier (aka the Patriot) - A hero that is created by the government and serves as that government's living national symbol. Captain America is the best example of this but others include the Canadian super team Alpha Flight and the UK's Captain Britain. Often, this archetype is clad head to toe in the colors and symbols of the nation he serves which gives the hero a striking appearance. The Super Soldier is often a leader. And while Super Soldiers exhibit a range powers from hero to hero, many are super-athletes who rely on their fighting skills,
  
• The Armored Hero - This powerful archetype is a hero (usually an engineer or scientist) clad in a hi-tech suit of armor. The Armored Hero usually displays a fairly wide range of powers (Iron Man is a superhumanly strong James Bond with every gadget OO7 has ever used at his disposal). Visually, most Armored Heroes remind us of another armor-clad icon, the Knight in Shining Armor from movies and novels.
  
• The Sorcerer - Though there are many common magician superheroes in comics who wield low power levels of magic, the Sorcerer is the master of the magical arts; the Gandalf or the Merlin of the spandex set. With arguably the most varied arsenal at his fingertips, the Sorcerer is one of the most powerful iconic superhero archetypes: Dr. Strange, Dr. Fate, Zatanna, the Scarlet Witch.
  
• The Street Crusader - This archetype includes heroes that are either (a) more concerned with mundane crime and criminals (street crime) than the big, cosmic crises and/or (b) heroes who either don't have powers and rely heavily on their training (Batman, Robin) and heroes who may have some powers but nothing on a grand scale (Daredevil, Spider-Man) and/or (c) heroes who are anti-heroes and work outside the law (i.e. those who use brutal methods to achieve their goals) . The Punisher is the best (worst?) example of this latter sub-type. The Martial Artist and the Scrapper are sub-types of the Street Crusader archetype.
• The Monster - This is usually (a) a hero who is noble at heart but has a hard time being accepted because of his monstrous appearance (the Thing, Nightcrawler, the Beast) or (b) a Dr. Jekyl/Mr.Hyde-type hero like the Hulk. Many Monsters are scientists like Sasquatch, the Beast, and the Hulk.
  
• The Weapon Master - Whether they use melee weapons like swords (the Black Knight, the Swordsman) or ranged weapons like bows and guns (Hawkeye, Red Arrow), the Weapons expert is one of the most recognizable heroic archetypes in comic books. Weapon Masters tend to be free-spirits and are often the "crap-stirrers" on their teams.
  
• The Mentalist - The Mentalist isn't just a hero with a psychic power or two, the Mentalist is usually a powerful telepath, telekinetic, or clairvoyant. Professor X, Jean Grey, the White Queen--were talking powerful. They tend to be analytical and many are mentors.
  
• The Atlantean - While this is a rare archetype, it an iconic one because of the mythology surrounding Atlantis. Aquaman and the Sub-Mariner are the archetypical Atlanteans. Atlanteans are arrogant.
  
• The Bodychanger - This is either a hero who can alter his body's molecular structure (Metamorpho), a hero with plasticity and/or elongation (Plastic Man, Mister Fantastic), sizechangers (the Atom, Giant-Man) or shapeshifters who can alter their appearance to mimic other people (Mystique).
• The Elemental - This is a hero who controls a type of energy, force or substance to an extremely high degree. Some can even become the "element" they control (the Human Torch, Living Lightning). Magneto (electromagnetism) and Graviton (gravity) control two of the fundamental forces of the universe.
• The Speedster - He run fast. Very fast. Flash and Quicksilver are Speedsters. Speedsters tend to be lighthearted and fun-loving or arrogant snots.
  

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

The Age of Moral Clarity in Britain is over.

The new prime minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, has instructed his cabinet not to use the term Muslim to describe Muslim terrorists.

Gordon Brown has quickly illustrated, after only a few days in office, just how great Tony Blair was as Prime Minister. Moral clarity matters. Britain, like most of Western European civilizations, will fall in my lifetime (i.e. change so drastically that they will not be recognizable). You cannot avoid making moral judgments and hope to survive as a society. Depressing.

It is sad to note that roughly half of the US want to use Western Europe as a model in governing, in health care and in religion (or lack thereof). This is why I'm a Republican. Democrats used to have moral clarity--FDR, Truman, and Kennedy called evil what it was and would never have stood for the moral relativism of our time--but the Party of Truman and John Kennedy is dead. The modern Repulican party, for all it's weaknesses (which are many) has, at the very least, moral clarity and is willing to call evil what it is.

Metal albums that influenced me.

The following are the albums that changed my life (that part of my life involved in music). These albums had a huge impact on me and how I listened to music--at least hard rock and metal. They blew me away; not necessarily because they are great--which they all are--but because they opened my ears and pushed my musical mind farther than it had been pushed before.

• Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime: In 1988, I had no idea rock music was used to tell stories (I was sixteen so give me a break). Operation: Mindcrime rocked my world with it's story of political corruption, love, religious conspiracy, and murder. Mindcrime truly changed the way I viewed rock music and what I would look for in music down the line.
• Savatage - Edge of Thorns: If Queensryche's Mindcrime gave me a glimpse of what progressive epic metal had to offer, Savatage brought it into full view. While Thorns was not a rock opera, it did have an operatic feel to it. It felt epic and the songs were structured differently than I was used to.
• Savatage - The Wake of Magellan: Even though the previously mentioned albums had opened my eyes to what rock music had to offer, I still wasn't a brave soul when it came to really trying new things in rock; I had gotten my feet wet but had yet to fully immerse myself. The Wake of Magellan changed all that. For whatever reasons, Magellan was the immersion. Now I was into progressive metal fully.
• Dream Theater - Awake: I took another step into the world of progressive rock and metal with Awake. And although I would never become a huge fan of Dream Theater, this album beacme hugely influential on my listening choices and is still one of my favorite albums.
• Ayreon - The Final Experiment: This choice to purchase this album was directly influenced by my Savatage and Dream Theater listening experiences. A rock opera, The Final Experiment was one of those albums that completely wowed me . Ayreon showed me that epic metal could be quite diverse.
• Eternity X - The Edge: Ever been stunned by beautiful songs? I've never heard an album that has had more of an emotional impact on me than this one. If you haven't heard The Edge, you need to. The songs are absolutely beautiful. While it is progressive metal, that label is not sufficient: Beyond progressive is a better description.
• Sonata Arctica - Ecliptica: European power metal had never done much for me. I always wanted to like it because I felt the combination of beautiful melodies and speedy guitars were, in theory, a great combination. But until I heard Ecliptica for the first time, the right balance of speed and beauty had never been struck (at least in modern European power metal; proto-Euro power metal bands like Iron Maiden had been doing it right for a long time). Sonata Arctica struck gold. They have it perfect.

These are just a few of the metal/hard rock albums that a huge influence on me. I could add more and probably will.

President out-judges the judges.

As I was driving home from work tonight I heard the news that President Bush had decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence. As you may know, Scooter Libby was sentenced to thirty months in prison for lying about something that he didn't do (and, in fact, had he told the truth in the first place, he would have never been in trouble). This proves one thing: Anyone--anyone--can commit perjury because we all have memories that are fallible. The fact that the prosecutor knew who leaked Valerie "Media Whore" Plame's name before he went after Libby (it was Richard Armitage of the State Department who leaked Plame's name) and that it wasn't a crime to leak her name in the first place (she wasn't undercover when her name was leaked, therefore no crime), any fair-minded person should be able to tell that this whole prosecution of Scooter Libby was malicious and unjust. But don't tell that to the idiot that hosts KSL 1160's evening radio program. He stated--just moments ago--that a panel of judges had reviewed the Libby case and found the sentence fair so it is arrogant of the president--because he is only one man--to override a panel of judges. Especially considering that President Bush won't pardon the two border agents whose only crime was "hunting Mexicans" (the broadcaster's words albeit paraphrased).

First, there is no reason to revere judges as having some higher moral authority. The fact that someone is a judge has nothing--nothing--to do with whether a person is anymore fair-minded or, more importantly, just than the next person. The fact that a panel of judges said this was a fair ruling proves it (that they would use the term fair is telling; judges should not be in the business of fairness, only justice). President Bush used his obviously superior judgment (in this case) to right a wrong.

Second, it is not okay to start handing out licenses to hunt--that is, shoot--Mexicans to our border patrol agents. The two border patrol agents who shot the Mexican drugdealer got what they deserved. They shot a man in the back--in the back--and then tried to cover it up. Was there sentence harsh? Yep. But that's because the two agents were too stupid to plea. Had they agreed to a plea bargain, their sentences would have been much shorter. The administration was right to send the message that we don't shoot people who commit misdemeanors like illegally crossing the border. Other nations do that. The Mexicans do that on their southern border. We are better than that.

President Bush did the right thing--the just thing--in commuting Libby's sentence. And while I would not be opposed to commuting--that is, shortening--the two border patrol agents' sentences, I am opposed to a full pardon. That would be wrong.

Immigration Bill Shot Down; President smeared by the Right.

The immigration bill was shot down yesterday. I supported the bill even though much of it was questionable. Something needs to be done and though the bill was imperfect, it had some good things in there. Now, nothing will be done for the rest of President's Bush's term in office (the senate will not introduce immigration legislation in 2008 because it is an election year). So the demagogues on the right got there way. They demonized the president, lied about the bill (it wasn't amnesty) and today they're very happy with themselves. But because the bill was defeated, the hysterical on the right have given illegals de facto amnesty. Thanks.

It is times like this when President Bush is seemingly on the wrong side of an issue and conservatives are dragging him through the mud that I remember a quote by Fred Barnes:

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

And his biggest legacy: He appointed Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. As conservatives, we shouldn't let one issue--in this case immigration--make us bitter and make us enemies of President Bush. He's done a lot of good. Versus perfection, he hasn't done well. Versus what a Democrat in the Oval Office would've done these last six years, he has been a smashing success. Perspective, folks. Don't forget all the good President Bush has done. I admire and love the man . . . you know, in a brotherly way.

Moral idiots.

I don't know why I read journals and blogs by authors whose work I admire. But I do. I guess I'm hoping that maybe one of these days I'll actually read something valuable and insightful with regards to current world problems or controversies. But, as good (or as great) as some of these contemporary authors may be, when it comes to political insight, they are morons. I don't like name-calling as it is something I consider a last resort of the intolerant, but if the shoe fits, right? Besides, it is their ideas--not them personally--that are moronic.


A good case is a certain lite fantasy author (I will not use his name in the interest of fairness) who in his journal entries rails against folks like Gerald Ford and Jerry Falwell but claims he does so (I'm paraphrasing) "not to demonize them but to protect people from bastards like them in the future." But he's not demonizing by calling them bastards? That's a personal attack that has no basis. A bastard is a term currently used for someone who is a jerk. Whatever one thinks of Jerry Falwell and President Ford, they were kind, decent guys in person. The author ascribes to the idea that people like Falwell are too judgemental yet Jerry Falwell never went after anyone with simplistic, hate-filled, shallow attacks like the author does.

The author worships Karl Marx and has the hubris to claim that President Ford and Jerry Falwell killed millions with their policies and practices, a statement which is so demonstrably untrue one wonders which reality the author hails from. In what kind of perverse mind are Marx's ideas not damaging to humanity (literally ten of millions of people were slaughtered in the name of socialism and it's sister, communism) yet President Ford's inconsequential presidency and Jerry Falwell's aid to literally millions of poor and suffering people throughout the world hurtful?

The author is a moral fool. He may be a nice guy personally (evidence from science fiction and fantasy conventions show this to be probably true) but when it comes to the macro issues, he is a moral idiot. He must have attended university to be this dumb.

The point of this blog entry is that I should stop reading blogs and public journals by writers whose work I love. It's simply depressing to know that people can be brilliant writers yet be moral morons at the same time.

Quote of the Day: Walter Williams.

"Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people." -- Walter Williams, economist and political commentator.

Quote of the Day: Walter Williams.

"During the first Reagan administration, I participated in a number of press conferences on either a book or article I'd written or as a panelist in a discussion of White House public policy. On occasion, when the question-and-answer session began, I'd tell the press, "You can treat me like a white person. Ask hard, penetrating questions." The remark often brought uncomfortable laughter, but I was dead serious. If there is one general characteristic of white liberals, it's their condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks." -- Walter Williams, economist and political commentator.

What are your pop-culture iconoclasms?

Ken Jennings--the guy who won seventy-four (?) times in a row on Jeopardy--has a blog worth your time (it's linked just to your right). A few months back, Jennings asked the question "What are your pop-culture iconoclasms?" In Jeninngs words, an iconoclast is any non-conformist who flaunts or disagrees with accepted norms and traditions (broadening the older definition of someone who destroys religious icons). Jennings cites several examples of pop-culture iconoclasms:

• Someone who thinks Tim Dalton is the best Bond.
• Someone who loves Jar-Jar Binks.
• Someone who thinks Godfather III is the best Godfather.

Some of my pop-culture and historical iconoclasms include:

• The first three seasons of M*A*S*H were the best seasons . . .
• . . . and Col. Blake is a better CO than Col. Potter.
• Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland are two of the best six presidents in U.S. history.
• Van Halen III, with the exception of their first album, is Van Halen's best album.
• Metallica's best album is . . . And Justice for All (okay, I may not be that iconoclastic on this one).
• I don't think Paris Hilton is pretty. Pretty weird looking, perhaps, but not pretty.
• Keanu Reeves is a brilliant actor.
• Meryl Streep is a bad actress.

I will list more of my iconoclasms when I think of them. But for now, what are some of your iconoclasms?

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!

More Survivor plus some Star Trek..

Last night as I drove home from work I listened to a local radio talk show. The hosts were discussing the upcoming season of Survivor in which four racially segregated tribes will square off against one another. The host--in a moment of sheer stupidity--said "it was just about the most despicable thing he's ever heard of".

Moron. Idiot. It a @#$%! TV show, for heavens sake. This is the kind of over-the-top nonsense the media--and in this case--television viewers are engaging in with what should be a non-issue. I might add there is some inconsistency here from folks critical of CBS for this move. Ever watch a television comedy over, say, the last thirty years? Ever notice how many of those half-hour sitcoms are mixed racially?

Not so many, huh?

So I ask what the Hell is the big deal and why is this any different?

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

When I was fifteen, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I became a huge fan of the entire Trek universe from the classic series to The Next Generation and even on up through Voyager and Enterprise. I rarely missed an episode, I worshipped Spock and even recorded over four hundred--four hundred!--episodes of Star Trek.

I was obsessed with it.

I was an idiot. Star Trek is truly an awful concept set up in an awful universe with awful characters and horrendous storylines. With the exception of three or four seasons of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek is completely unwatchable to me now. How could I have been so foolish as to get sucked in to the idiocy that is Trek? Why couldn't I see the destrutive moral relativism and backward socialist values shown on The Next Generation back then? How could I have stomached the anti-capitalism (re: anti-freedom) screed so prevalent on Deep Space Nine? What about the silly techno-babble and pseudo-science? I'm actually nauseated by the fact that I used to love Trek.

Do you know what showed me the light? It wasn't my conversion to conservatism that saved me (I was still in denial even then), it was real science fiction that saved me. It was shows like Lost and Babylon 5 and Firefly and, especially, the new Battlestar Galactica that showed me the light. After watching the first few episodes of Galactica, I suddenly realized how infantile, how juvenile Star Trek really was. I mean, Galactica is real. Not true, mind you, because its obviously a science fiction show. But real in the sense that this is how real people act. This is how real people handle impossible circumstances. This is what people would really be like in the future. Same thing goes for Firefly and Babylon 5. It's no coincidence that Ronald D. Moore, Galactica's producer, created the only watchable trek series in Deep Space Nine. Now free of the ridiculous restraints of the Star Trek universe, Moore has made what is possibly the best science fiction television series ever. His ideas are challenging. He takes on modern issues in a real way, not a superficial, cowardly way like Trek almost always has done.

You want controversial issues handled intelligently? Galactica tackles abortion and comes to the conclusion--surprising for television--that because of humanity's dire circumstances, abortion makes little sense and is thusly outlawed. They're saying, yeah, when things are going great and our society is in no danger of becoming extinct, we can afford liberal silliness. But when the crap hits the can and you're out of toilet paper, only good ol' pragmatic classic conservatism will save the day. Meanwhile Trek's take is stunningly stupid. The crew of the Enterprise finds out that a bunch of colonists have secretly and without permission cloned them (the crew) and what do they do? They simply and stupidly murder the fully grown clones!

That's just one example.

So, to sum up this, uh, rant: Galactica good. Star Trek bad.

Go blacks!

Survivor segregated.

So the new season of CBS's Survivor will have four tribes segregated by race (black, white, Asian and Hispanic). This has caused quite a stir in the internet community.

I'm a Survivor fan, I admit it. I guess you could call it a guilty pleasure of sorts. I've followed the show from the beginning. (Important note: I'm not a reality show fan and I still maintain my boycott of reality shows. Survivor is most certainly not a reality show. It is simply a game show that lasts thirty-nine days).

I'm fine with tribes segregated by race. They always start the season with two to four tribes which are, obviously, segregated. They've segregated tribes by sex, by popularity, by age, by age and sex so why not race? Race relations will hardly be influenced by a popular game show. So those of you who are upset, settle. It's TV and TV is not the real world--err, no pun intended.

Lighten up. Watch and enjoy. Go blacks!

Great article on "world opinion".

Dennis Prager has written an extemely important and timely article which you can read by going to townhall.com.
Prager has a knack for clarifying the differences between the right and the left. In his recent article, he nails why America (and Israel) should not pay attention to "world opinion.

Hurricanes and dikes.

My work computer--which I share with five other employees--has its homepage set to msn.com. One of the flashing haedlines reads: "Grim warning from hurricane chief; megadisaster worse than Katrina will hit U.S. someday".

Why is this a headline? Why is this news? Do the media widely believe that Katrina was the hurricane to end all hurricanes? I guess when you believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind (yes, I said mankind!), you'll believe anything.

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

Some conservatives are acting stupid. Many are disillusioned by the Republican party and are threatening to not vote come November. Apparently, they want to send the GOP a message by putting, by default, Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House and Ted Kennedy in as Senate Majority Leader.

How stupid can you get? How childish. "I can't get my way! The Republicans in congress won't give me what I want! Wahhhh!" This foolishness seems to be fairly widespread. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't expect miracles out of our GOP representatives in congress. This is what I expect (and I'm paraphrasing Dennis Prager): I expect the GOP in congress to be a dike (not that kind of dike). I don't expect a dike to give me tax breaks or make me laugh or be my best friend. I simply expect a dike to hold back the sea. I expect a dike to stop the waters from over-running my home, my family, my country. I expect the Republicans in congress to keep the Democrats out of power. Because as much as people cry about the GOP, if the Democrats get into power, the dike will burst and your home, your family, your country will be overrun.

Vote Republican, keep the ocean at bay.

Say what?

As I do nearly every morning, I was listening to sports talk radio. One of the local morning sports shows features a guy by the name of David James (he also happens to be a sports anchor on the local CBS affiliate KUTV). David James is a funny guy and his impersonations and observations can be quite humorous. However, a serious NBA analyst James is not. Not only was he beating up on the Utah Jazz for having a very successful season in spite of two serious injuries to two of there three top players, James ran down the list of who he thinks are NBA title contenders now that the season is all but over and, frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Spurs (check), Pistons (check), Nets (huh?) (James went on to trash the Heat, of all teams, as a pretender).

A few things are just so wrong with his "analysis". Maybe I missed it, but where on New Jersey's roster is there a hall-of-fame caliber big man? Maybe James hasn't been paying attention to the last sixty (sixty!) years of NBA history but a hall-of-fame caliber big man is the one position a team must have in order to win an NBA championship. Michael Jordan and the Bulls being the only dynasty that is the exception. The last seven NBA champions should have been the first tip to those who ignored the first fifty or so years of NBA history: The Spurs had Tim Duncan and David Robinson in '99 and Duncan in '03 and '05; the Lakers had Shaq is '00, '01 and '02; the Pistons had Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace in 2004. It's simple. Unless you have Jordan on your roster, it is virtually impossible to win an NBA championship without a hall-of-fame big man--usually a center--on your roster. Even though Jason Kidd is still the best point guard in the league and even though New Jersey finished the season very strong, the Nets are most certainly not a title contender.

As already noted, James went on to trash the Heat in his half-assed analysis. How absurd! The Heat came within one two-minute stretch in the fourth quarter of game seven of the Eastern Conference finals last year to advancing to the NBA finals. And that was before the Heat made several smart off-season personnel moves to add depth and offensive punch to the team. Shaq plays for the Heat and that should be enough to grant the Heat automatic title contender status. But according to James, a team that almost beat the Pistons--the defending champs last season--and then went on to improve the via trades and free agency (while the Detroit Pistons did not) is not a contender. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think James thought this one out well.

David James's idiotic analysis aside, there are only three contenders for the NBA title this year: the San Antonio Spurs, the Detroit Pistons and, yes, the Miami Heat. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the history of the NBA.

Demagoguery from the Right on Illegal Immigrantion.

The rhetoric on illegal immigration has reached a fever pitch. Some of the demagoguery from the right is over-the-top. It's hysteria. Because of the hysteria from some on the right, there are some radio hosts I will not listen to anymore especially those whom were also hysterical over the Dubai ports deal and the Harriet Miers nomination. There are some conservative columnists and talk show hosts who have only been hysterical on one of the three. Fine. I can give them a pass. But to those who have been hysterical on all three, I say good-bye. Your emotional ranting and fear-mongering have driven this right-wing Christian conservative Republican away.

Bill Bennett, you've done a lot of good things. But I'm done listening to you're dumb remarks about Harriet Miers (according to Mr. Bill, she isn't smart enough to be a SCOTUS justice). Mr. Bill also lied about what the Dubai ports deal was all about (he kept saying the UAE was "taking over our ports" when in reality the company from Dubai was taking over a few terminals in our ports). And now he wants all illegal immigrants to be deported. All twelve million. Mr. Bill says the current senate legislation is amnesty. He's dead wrong. It's not amnesty to pay a fine for a misdemeanor. Yes, it's a misdemeanor for someone to illegally enter the country. People who committ misdemeanors are not normally considered criminals. But Mr. Bill and his ilk want them treated as such. Forget that it is literally impossible to deport all illegal immigrants. Forget that even if you could do so, you'd be breaking up families (children of illegal immigrants born in the country are U.S. citizens). Forget that most Americans who committ misdemeanors have to pay a fine, but that's not good enough for Bill Bennett. I'm done with Bennett. I'm done with the shrill conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. I'm done with Joseph Farah of worldnetdaily.com (this guy is a real whacko). I'm done with anyone--anyone--who demonizes illegals and wants to criminalize (as opposed to "misdemeaorize") millions of people who love and appreciate America more than most Americans do.

It is far better to create a path to legalization for most illegals. Let them pay a fine and start the process of legalization. It is not amnesty to force illegals to pay a two-thousand dollar fine and start a citizenship process which will take six years. Paying the fine for illegally crossing the border is called taking responsibility for your actions. I thought conservatives were for that sort of thing.

Now go away. I'm tired.

Super Bomb.

Super Bowl XL is over. And while I'm happy for Bill Cowher and the Pittsburgh Steelers (is there a more classy organization in the NFL?), the game sucked. Both teams were sloppy; Roethlisburger--normally a mistake-free QB--had a horrible game and the Seahawks couldn't make a field goal or manage the clock well.

Perhaps the last eight Super Bowls leading up to XL spoiled me. I mean, we've had some of the greatest games in Super Bowl history over the last eight years: Elway's helicopter dive to beat the Pack in SB XXXII; Dyson's goal-line reach that fell short against the Rams in XXXIV; the Patriots three-point victories in XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. Things have been good recently. There is certainly no other eight years period in SB history as good as these last several years have been. But the Steelers and Seahawks dissappointed. The referees let us down. Even the Rolling Stones sucked.

I'll feel better next year when the Seahawks meet the Broncos in XLI in Miami.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject."

Great quote but why does Ann cite Readers' Digest as a liberal publication? They've always seemed pretty conservative to me.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"The myth — oft-repeated by Jim Carville and others — that America was beloved by the world until the Iraq war or George Bush is hogwash. Anti-Americanism — in France, in Greece, throughout the third world — has been raging for a long time and actually increased with the defeat of Communism and on Bill Clinton's watch. That's not to say it was Clinton's fault in any significant way. It was merely a fact of life. Iraq is an excuse for America-bashing among nations that clearly couldn't be counted on no matter who was in the Oval Office."

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"Guns are our friends because in a world without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are. Any male -- the most sickly 98-pound-weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked: Wouldn't I prefer a world without guns? No. I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance." -- "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

George W. Bush is a conservative.

There are many of my fellow Republicans and conservatives who don't consider George W. Bush a conservative (i.e. he isn't their kind of conservative because, in the wake of the Miers nomination, he didn't nominate their kind of conservatve justice). The notion is absurd but is common nonetheless. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard puts such nonsense in it's place in a recent editorial:

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

Right on Fred!

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

I dug up this hilarious quote from Ann Coulter awhile back. Coulter wrote this during the 2004 election campaign:

"Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own."

Heh.

President Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.

The only qualification a Supreme Court nominee need have is that he/she will be a strict constructionist or an originalist.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me that Ms. Meiers has never been a judge or that the bulk of her legal career has been spent in private practice (that's a plus, in my opinion). She is obviously a good lawyer. After all, one does not become the head of the Texas State Bar Association by being a mediocre attourney.

And keep in mind that as the president's counsel, she was part of the vetting process that led to Pricilla Owen, John Roberts and Janice Rogers Brown receiving federal judicial appointments.

The president should be lauded for selecting someone close to him--someone he trusts--for the Supreme Court. He is well aware of his father's legacy of Justice Souter. The president and his father talk about it and George H.W. Bush describes Souter as one of his biggest mistakes as president. Presidenr George W. Bush will not make the same mistake. To make sure he doesn't make that sort of mistake, he is nominating someone he trusts. The president knows Harriet Miers and he knows she will be a justice that moves the court to the right. President Bush is not taking chances. He's nominating someone who shares his judicial philosophy.

I support President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers.

Idiot of Last Week.

In a speech to college Democrats on Friday, Howard Dean said the following:

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only.

The president and his right-wing court?!?

First of all, none of the nine justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by President George W. Bush.

Second, It was the four liberals along with moderate Anthony Kennedy on the SCOTUS who rules it was okay for local government to take away private property. The three conservative justices--Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia--along with moderate O'Connor ruled against such unconstitutional measures.

Third, only a moron would conclude that four liberal justices + two moderates + three conservatives = a right-wing court.

Either Dean is completely ignorant or he thinks college students are.

John Stockton: Great point guard but not the best.

Well the "Stockton is the best point guard ever" knuckleheads are out in force.

While Stockton is definitely one of the fifteen or twenty best players in NBA history, it is absurd to say he's the best point guard. That title belongs to Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson (if you decide to count Oscar as a point guard). Those who say, "He's the all-time leader in assists and steals so that makes him the best" are intellectually dishonest. You are purposely selecting statistics to bolster your argument. If you cared about the facts, you'd also mention that Stockton is the second all-time leader in turnovers! You'd also note that Magic has a higher assists-per-game average. Magic didn't play anywhere near as long a Stockton so the assist totals aren't close.

But knuckleheads are on both sides.

Those of you who bash Stockton because he never won a championship don't get it. Athletes who play team sports should not be judged by how many championships they've won (or didn't win as the case may be). That's unfair and it doesn't say anything about individual greatness. Basketball is a team game and it takes a team to win it all. There are many factors as to why some great players never won it all: Lack of great players around them, level of competition, unsupportive ownership/management, injuries, etc. Not all of those applied to Stockton, of course, but you get my point. Team championships do not automatically equal individual greatness.

One idiotic myth perpetuated by Jazz fans--most of whom are complete morons in my experience--is that Stockton is the best pure point guard in NBA history. What nonsense. The "pure" tag is used to bring Magic and Oscar down while raising Stockton up. It's stupid. Stockton cannot compete for best point guard ever if all things are equal so Magic and the Big O must be brought down by applying the pure label. Look, Stockton fanatics, it's no insult that Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. Move along home, morons.

Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. And that's okay.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?"

Ever get the feeling that the left doesn't like President Bush not because of his decisions but because, well, he's President Bush--a Republican!

Ann Coulter Qoute of the Day.

"In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade versus seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!"

Yeah, Christians are the dangerous ones--give me a f--king break. We don't murder children by the millions!

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative syndicated columnist. And he's very quotable. So I will occassionally dig up Jonah Goldberg quotes for the pleasure of the three people who read this blog. Enjoy!

"Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas."

Ann Coulter is viciously funny.

This was part of an exchange on Hannity & Colmes last night. The guests in this segment were Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter. I found the exchange incredibly humorous:

COLMES: Michael, I want to ask you something you just said about Dick Durbin which was really unfair. You're accusing democrats of being against him (John Roberts) because of their religion, that is outrageous that you would even suggest that. Dick Durbin is a Catholic, Patrick Leahy is a Catholic, and he never said there was a litmus test. He in fact asked the same question John Cornyn asked, whether he could separate his personal believes in what the constitution says, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

REAGAN: Alan...

COLMES: That suggests that democrats are just people because of their faith.

REAGAN: Alan, I wrote an op-ed piece, interesting, over a week ago and it'scoming to play out pretty well, that the Democrats will accept him if he becomes a bad Catholic. See, now...

COLMES: Now, that's ridiculous.

REAGAN: A bad Catholic. But they will not take a good Catholic. I'm sorry, but that's a fact...

COLMES: A good Catholic, according to whom? Do you determine what a good Catholic is?

REAGAN: A good Catholic, according to the Catholic Church, how about that? Ask Schulman, you're neighbor.

COLMES: Well, I'm not one to tell people whether they're good or bad at practicing their faith, maybe you think you can determine that.

Ann, I...

REAGAN: No, but there's a standard and the Catholic — it's interesting, there's only one Catholic Church, it pretty well stands, you know, stands pretty solid where it feels on abortion and what have you, and so if you're a Catholic who becomes pro-choice, then the Democrats will, in fact, accept you, which means they will accept a bad Catholic.

COLMES: What if you're a Catholic — what if you're pro-death penalty and you're a Catholic where the church says that they happen to be against the death penalty? Can you be a good Catholic and for the death penalty?

COULTER: And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good.

COLMES: Pardon me, Ann.

COULTER: I said if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick, you're really in.

COLMES: That's a low blow. That really is a low blow. You should be above that.

REAGAN: Oh, you're really in. You can stay in forever.

COULTER: What do you mean a "low blow?"

COLMES: You really ought to be above that?

COULTER: Why? Did or did he, Senator Kennedy, or did he not kill a girl at Chappaquiddick? What, we can't mention it?

HANNITY: All right, thanks Ann, appreciate it. And Michael, thank you.

Funny stuff. Ann's "And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good." line had me laughing hard. The nice thing about Ann Coulter is that she's there to remind us all that Democrats are FLAMIN' HYPOCRITES!!! Aw, Ann. I love you.

Further proof that college is a fantasy land isolated from reality.

I stumbled across an article written by one Matt K. Murphy in response to a supposedly fair anti-Bush study by a Robert S. McElvaine, a historian. Murphy evicerates McElvaine and his leftist professor pals.

The Opinions of Brilliant Idiots -- Matt K. Murphy

And here is a link to McElvaine's original "study" that drew Murphy's ire:

Historians vs. George W. Bush -- Robert S. McElvaine

It's a good read and Murphy reveals how absurd and out-of-touch many in academia are.

Calvin Coolidge: Underrated President.

I've been doing a lot of research on Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president of the United States, and I've come to greatly admire the man and I now think he is one of the best presidents in American history--I'm talking top ten.

But everytime--everytime--a presidential poll is run, historians rank Coolidge near the bottom (generally bottom four). Is it a liberal thing? Not really. Modern conservatives rate Coolidge rather low, too. I think most have just accepted what everyone else has been saying about Coolidge and have failed to research the man for themselves.

So I will attempt to educate all three of you who read this blog with the following article which explains better than I why Coolidge was a great president:

A NEW LOOK AT CALVIN COOLIDGE
Remarks by Peter Hannaford

Coolidge should be an icon to libertarians and conservatives.

More links to pro-Coolidge articles to follow...

Steve Young is probably the best QB in NFL history.

The question is not what Young could do but rather what Young couldn't do.

Well, folks, what couldn't he do?

Steve Young is the most perfect quarterback the NFL has ever seen. He's the only QB in history who was consistently accurate from five yards to fifty. No one ran better. No QB in NFL history ran for more touchdowns (43). His 2.17 touchdown to interception ratio is the best in NFL history. When Montana came up, the Niners were the only team running the West Coast offense; teams were not adept at defending it yet. But by the time Young was starting, every team in the league was geared to stop the West Coast offense. Yet Young has the highest pass completion percentage in NFL history.

Some will point out that Young only won one Super Bowl as a starter which hardly compares to guys like Bradshaw and Montana (who won four apiece). That is NOT a legitimate point. It is grossly unfair to heap the failures and success of a team onto one player. Simply put, championships should not be a consideration when ranking great players in team sports. It's absurd.

Steve Young is the greatest quarterback I've ever seen. I didn't see Bradshaw and Tarkenton and Unitas in their heyday but in the twenty years I've followed the NFL, Young is clearly the best QB I've seen. Elway, Favre, Marino, Manning and, yes, Montana not withstanding.

President Bush picks a white guy to replace O'Connor--thank goodness!

Now hear me out.

I have no problem with women; I have no problem with women judges; I don't even have a problem with women supreme court justices (at least in theory--O'Connor and Ginsburg haven't been good justices). What I do have a problem with is any seat on the Supreme Court becoming the "female seat" or the "minority seat" or whatever. President Bush was under enoromous pressure to replace O'Connor with another woman (or a Hispanic). Even the First Lady suggested that Bush should fill O'Connor's vacancy with a woman. And while their were plenty of qualified female candidates--we're told that Judge Edith Clement was the runner-up to Judge Roberts--I'm glad Bush picked the person he thought would make the best justice. And in doing so, the president struck a deathblow to the nonsense of having seats on the supreme court reserved for specific types of people based soley on an accident of birth.

We know that if President Bush has the oppurtunity to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Stevens or any other Supreme Court justice, sex, race and ethnicity won't be a consideration (conservative values will be but then that's the right of the president).

Say what you want about the president, but he does not pick people to fill jobs in government positions based on race or sex. He picks those he thinks will do the best job.

Because I like lists: The Top 10 Presidents of the United States.

1. George Washington - He set the precedent for all future presidents. It could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversy). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."

2. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way in regard to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.

3. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

4. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exaggerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.

5. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaped his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.

6. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.

8. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.

9. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owes him a debt.

10. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."

Maybe I'll post a "worst ten presidents" list later this week--Carter, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, Jackson, Nixon, Ford, Buchanan, and Wilson will all be on it

More thoughts on Judge John Roberts.

As I've looked at other conservative blogs and websites, I've been dumbstruck by just how many conservatives are doubtful about John Roberts's conservative credentials.

They keep comparing Roberts to Souter.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Roberts is another Souter (who was George H.W. Bush's greatest mistake as president).

Roberts does have a conservative record. He is pro-business and, while he isn't the pure constitutional traditionalist many conservatives wanted, Roberts believes the Supreme Court should not legislate.

Comparisons to Souter are invalid. Souter did have a record, in spite of what some conservatives claim. The first Bush administration did not do their homework. If they had, they would have realized that Souter was a conservative in only the strictest definition of the word. He was a pragmatic conservative in the classic political sense. That means Souter felt that dramatic changes to the law was not good for society. He was truly conservative in that he did not like change which is why I believe he ended up becoming part of the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had over the last forty years become increasingly more liberal (liberal in the modern sense) and Souter went with the flow--which is conservative in definition, if not philosophy.

There is no shred of evidence that Roberts has a judicial philosophy similiar to Souter's. If any current Supreme Court justices should be compared to Roberts, it is Rehnquist. Rehnquist is a mainstream conservative who has consistently been a good conservative justice. Roberts appears to be in the same mold.

I continue to praise President Bush's decision to nominate Judge Roberts. If nothing else, Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor. And if President Bush fills every Supreme Court vacancy with someone more conservative than his or her predecessor, I'll be happy.

President Bush chooses John Roberts to replace O'Conner. Yeah!

I admit, I was worried that President Bush would choose a "consensus" candidate to fill Justice O'Conner's shoes. While I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, replacing a moderate with a moderate would have alienated much of Bush's conservative base and would have been a letdown (if Ginsburg or Stevens retires, Gonzalez would be a fine replacement). But President Bush did the right thing and now we have the conservative Judge John Roberts awaiting confirmation by the senate.

But will Roberts be confirmed?

Already, the pro-abortion whacko left is attacking Roberts as "extreme" and "anti-choice". It will likely be a fight to get Roberts approved by the senate. But with this nomination, President Bush has proven that he is willing to get down and dirty to see that judges who care about the constitution and the history of the United States make it to the Supreme Court.

Despite heavy opposition, Roberts has a couple things going for him:

1. Unlike Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens, Roberts has actually read the U.S. constitution.

2. Roberts is affable and even some hardline liberals have lauded his honor and integrity over the years (this won't make much of a difference to many on the left as the smear campaign is already underway).

Roberts has written in the past that he feels the Roe v. Wade decision was wrongly decided. While some may consider that extreme, Roberts knows that the founders did not intend for abortion on demand to be a constitutional right. Why? Because the constitution doesn't say anywhere that abortion is a right! Kinda obvious, huh?

Anyway, kudos to President Bush. He did the right thing.

But will the senate follow suit?

More dumb comments from the left.

I read the following on a blog called Rhetorical Imprints:

Out of roughly 1 billion Muslims, how many are involved in legitimate terrorist activities? 10,000? I'm not a terrorist expert or anything, but even that number seems a little high. If that number is roughly correct, that means that only .00001 percent of all Muslims have any connection to terrorism.

It is the height of arrogance to think only 10,000 Muslims are involved in terrorist activities--there are more than 10,000 Muslim terrorists in Sudan alone! While the number of actual terroists may be relatively low in the Muslim world, what about those Muslims who support terror? I daresay--and this is a conservative estimate--those Muslims who applaud terrorist activities against Israel, the U.S. and non-Muslim nations and people in general number in the millions. There is plenty of evidence for this number. Consider the hatred Muslims in Sudan show Sudanese Christians. Government sanctioned Islamist gangs rape and murder thousands of Sudanese Christian women and children every year. Consider the Palestinians. A huge portion of Muslim Palestinians (one-fourth of Palestinians are Christian and over the years not one single Palestinian Christian has ever participated in a suicide bombing) would (and do) kill there Jewish neighbors in the name of Islam. Even in "moderate" Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there exists extremist Islamist movements whose membership numbers in the thousands. And, yes, they support terror. As the saying goes in nearly every nation in the Middle-East "We will kill the Jews on Saturday and then the Christians on Sunday". The author clearly and without serious thought pulled the number 10,000 out of his ass. There is no basis for the number being anywhere near that low. One need only look around the world to see that.

One could argue that nearly all adult Muslims support terrorist activity. Most not directly, of course. But as long as the vast majority of Muslims continue to look the other way and won't speak out against their Islamist brethren, they (the so-called moderates) are allowing the extremists to lead the so-called religion of peace. Their silence encourages the extremists.

All numbers aside, why don't we hear the same exhortations after an abortion clinic bombing by a radical Christian pro-lifer? Can you imagine someone asking, "How do we determine which Christian is a decent person and which is a terrorist?"

The above is a silly statement. How many Christian pro-lifers have killed abortion doctors? Only twenty-five verifiable instances of serious violence against abortion doctors has been documented in the U.S. and Canada in the last thirty years. And not all of those twenty-five cases were committed by Christians nor were all twenty-five cases murder (or attempted murder).

Why should all members of a faith be expected to denounce, and even apologize for, the actions of a fringe element? Again, do we hold all Christians responible for the actions of Eric Rudolph or David Koresh? I'm absolutely perplexed by this kind of behavior.

Now that is a ridiculous statement. First of all, members of a specific religion should protect their religion from those who would destroy it from within--i.e. radical elements of their faith. Those who stand by and allow evil to flourish are committing evil themselves. In that way, moderate Muslims are committing a sort of evil.

Second, when one little incident involving a Christisn who allegedly does something bad is the name of Christianity happens, Christians are expected to denounce him. And they do.

Third, Eric Rudolph--the only example nuts like the author can come up with--isn't Christian! He's a pagan who has denounced Christianity. None of his terroist activites were committed in Christianity's name. You got me on Koresh, though. Congratulations.

Anyone want to make a prediction regarding the first reported incident against a mosque or an innocent group of Muslims? And so the cylce of senseless violence continues.

Have you read the reports on violence against Muslims in the U.S.? It's almost nil. One or two alleged incidents happen and the media headlines read "Muslims under assault!" or "Rash of violence against Muslims continues!" Absurd.

However, since Sept. 11th, 2001, the acts of violence Muslims have committed against Jews in the U.S. has skyrocketed. Ah, the religion of peace.

The Democratic Party: The Party of Corruption.

This is a history lesson, folks. It's a brief history of the Democratic Party. The real history of the Democratic Party.

Martin Van Buren founded the Democratic Party in the middle 1820s. Though many of the those early Democrats were disgruntled former Jeffersonian Republicans, Van Buren's claim that the Democratic Party's foundation was based upon Jeffersonian principles was a falsehood. Jeffersonian Republicans believed in a small centralized government. Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, clearly did not. That old scoundrel Jackson--the worst president in U.S. history--expanded the powers of the presidency and ignored congress and the courts whenever it suited him. Jackson's presidency laid the groundwork by which nearly every Democratic president has followed. Corruption, lust for power and contempt for the constitution have marked almost every Democratic administration since.

Corruption and lust for power are part of the Democratic Party--it's been institutionalized and you cannot seperate the Democratic Party from it. All you have to do is take a look at the most recent Democratic administration. President Clinton and his cronies got away with more corruption--thanks in part to a left-leaning media who looked the other way--than President Nixon ever dreamed of. Nixon's downfall was trying to cover-up the watergate break-in. Compared to the stuff--stuff we know for a fact--that the Clintons got away with, the Watergate break-in--which was done to expose members of the Democratic National Convention who were running a prostitution ring--seems almost unimportant by comparison. Think: Hillary Clinton's office covered up the death of Vince Foster (I'm not saying Foster was murdered), Bill Clinton lied under oath and was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar, Al Gore held fundraisers in houses of worship (which is illegal) and the Clinton administration received campaign donations from foreign sources. These are all facts. And that's just the Clinton administration. Need I point out the ineptitude of Carter? The corruption in FDR's administration (we know now that communists held high positions in FDR's administration--and FDR knew it)? The power-hungry and disasterous economic policies of the LBJ and Wilson presidencies?

The Democratic Party is synomonous with corruption.

When I look back at Democratic presidents, I can only find two I would call great: Cleveland and Truman. Not Wilson who was a white supremacist and who's policies badly damaged the economy. Not FDR who's policies prolonged the Depression (keep in mind that he kept Hoover's economic policies in place his first six years in office). Just Cleveland and Truman.

That isn't much to hang your hat on if you're a card-carrying Democrat now is it?

Dennis Prager exposes one of the left's biggest lies.

Check out Dennis Prager's recent column where he decontructs the one of the left's biggest lies: The left doesn't support the troops and should admit it.

Christianity is better than Islam--by far.

In spite of the constant attacks on Cristianity by the left, Christianity is the only thing standing in the way of radical Islamists's quest for world domination (for those of you who don't know, Islam is the religion of beheadings). It was that way several hundred years ago during the Crusades--there are morons who blame Christianity for the Crusades forgetting that the Crusades were simply a response by European Christians to Muslim aggression--and it's that way now.

Visit leftist blogs, though, and you'd think Christianity is as dangerous as Islam (if not more so). But that is a fantasy conjured up by the left. No evidence supports their ridiculous notion. There exists plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

Even if we somehow come to the whacky conclusion that Christianity was the aggressor during the Crusades, what happened hundreds of years ago is hardly relevant today. Christianity has apologized for any abuses that happened during the Crusades. What is relevant is how Islam and Christianity treat human beings today.

In many Islamic countries if you're homosexual, you're condemned to die. In America (and it's American Christians who are the ones who receive most of the anti-Christian hatred) if you're homosexual, you are allowed to do just about anything you want--even if it literally kills people.

In Islamic nations if you're Christian, you will likely be persecuted and perhaps even killed because of your beliefs. In America, if you are Muslim (or any other religion), you're allowed to worship just about anyway you like.

In Islam, if you write a book saying bad things about Islam, you might have a warrant for your death issued. In Christianity if you write a book saying bad things about Christianity, you might be chastised by Christians but never threatened and certainly never killed.

Oh, and if you piss off Christians, you don't have to worry about passenger jets being rammed into buildings. Piss off Muslims and you'd better keep an eye out for low-flying aircraft.

A lot of people will say that those Muslims who commit abuses aren't following Islam and/or practicing an extreme version of Islam. First, go read the Koran. Muslims are intructed--commanded even--to commit horrible abuses (please don't bring up Bible passages that allegedly state similar things because you have no idea what you're talking about). But that aside, it does not matter what the Koran states. It's what the practitioners of Islam do that matters. And while most Muslims are rather ordinary folks, a huge portion of Islam is extreme and wants to destroy and enslave everyone who isn't Muslim.

My condemnation of Islam goes far and wide and includes not just the extremists but the so-called moderates as well. Moderate Muslims have said little condemning there extremist brethren and deserve to be chastised for their silence.

Simply put, Christianity is better than Islam. If we converted all Muslims to Christianity, the world would be at peace.

Idiot of the Day.

In yesterday's evening broadcast of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams had this to say about the Iranian president-elect and allegations that he (the new Iranian president) may be a terrorist, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Congratulations, Brian, you're the Idiot of the Day.