More of those micro-heroes!

This is my ongoing posting of micro-heroes I've made. The following micro-heroes are all original works by your truly. They are members of the United Superheroes of America's Mountain West branch which protects the people of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Enjoy!

ATOMIC-HAWK of NEW MEXICO Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch


Atomic-Hawk grew up on an Indian reservation with dreams of becoming a superhero like her comic book idols. But she never thought those dreams would become reality. But then she was exposed to the mysterious Radiation X, gaining nuclear-based powers--and bird-like wings to boot! With the ability to fly at extremely high speeds and the power to control and generate nuclear energy, she is one of the most powerful members of the USA.

Notes: New Mexico has a large Native American population and was the site of the first atomic bomb test. That was inspiration enough.

The micro from which she was created is a micro I made of a Dawnstar (Legion of Super-Heroes)/Falcon (Avengers) DC/Marvel amalgam I did awhile back. I made only a few minor changes.


STRONGBOW of ARIZONA Deputy Field Leader, USA Mountain West Branch


Though part Native American, it is his grandfather, the British hero Longbow Jack, that taught Strongbow how to be a hero. A skilled archer, Strongbow does not have any powers but instead relies on his athletic abilities to beat up the bad guys. He is aided by infrared imaging in his helmet.

Notes: Arizona has a large population of Native Americans. But I didn't want to make that Strongbow's sole identity. So I made Strongbow a legacy hero with an unlikely connection to a WWII British hero.


MOUNTAIN MAN of IDAHO Senior Member, USA Mountain West Branch


A mysterious loner, Mountain Man was accepted as a member of the USA under strange circumstances. No one knows his true identity (or even if he has one) or where he came from (though he does call the mountains of Idaho home).

Mountain Man is a nine-foot tall stone golem. He weighs at least one ton and is definitely the strongest member of the USA--Mr. President included! He is virtually indestructible and immune to mental attacks. His speed and quickness are rather ordinary and he does seem susceptible to magic-based attacks.

Notes: Obviously this character is influenced by trappers, scouts and mountain men of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.


BISON of WYOMING Senior member, USA Mountain West Branch


Bison was born with powers but they didn't fullymanifest until he was fourteen. He has the ability to generate a force field around himself that is virtually indestructible. A common use of his power is to bowl opponents over simply by running into them using his massive size. The force field does the rest. It should be noted that Bison does not have superhuman strength though he can sometimes manipulate his force field enough to lift objects by touching objects and extending the force field around them. This requires a lot of concentration so he doesn't do it often. Another aspect of his power is that the force field (which extends no more than a centimeter away from his body) is always on. He has to think to turn it off. His horns are artificial and can be detached from his skull.

Notes: Part of Wyoming is in the great plains where the American bison (some call it the American buffalo which is incorrect) used to roam in the millions.


BEELINE of UTAH Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch


Exposed to Radiation X while being the subject of an expererimental bee anti-venom, Beeline gained the proportionate strength of a bee. And while he doesn't produce any honey and can't gather pollen worth a darn, he is strong, quick and very agile. His scientist friend designed a pair of wristbands that can emit an electrical charge that can knock a normal man unconscious--his bee-sting. Beeline's costume is also outfitted with "beewings" that allow him to glide several hundred yards.

Notes: Utah is known as the Beehive State and has the motto "Industry". Beeline is one darn industrious bee (man)!


BIG SKYE of MONTANA Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch


Skye Madison was born with the ability to fly. As a teenager, she tried her hand at super-heroics. After initial success, she got in over her head when she tried to take on the criminal super-powered gang Power Danger Trio X. One of the members of the trio, a mutant who can project extremely toxic levels of radiation, blasted Skye, seriously injuring her. Left for dead, Skye was aided by bystanders and taken to a nearby hospital. But she wasn't going to survive. . . until some mysterious person injected her with Radiation X!

Skye quickly recovered and found that she was superhumanly strong, had gained nearly one-hundred pounds of muscle, had added an additional foot to her height, and was now impervious to physical harm. These new abilities, along with her ability to fly, made her tougher and more formidable than before. No longer a naive teenager, Skye donned a new costume and a new name and brought Power Danger Trio X to justice. Big Skye was born!

Notes: Montana is known as Big Sky conutry with big mountains and wide-open plains (on it's eastern side). I couldn't resist naming a superheroine Big Skye.


GOLDRUSH of COLORADO Junior Member, USA Mountain West Branch


Goldrush is a speedster. She was born with the ability to move at extremely high speeds. Her metabolism is very high and she must consume a lot of food every day in order to function.

Notes: Like California and South Dakota, Colorado had a famous gold rush, too. The character was easy to come up with.

USA MOUNTAIN WEST TEAMSHOT!


More micros coming soon!

Last five songs.

The last five songs I just listened to on my iPod (shuffle setting of course!):

• "Sing" - The Carpenters

• "The Class of '57" - The Statler Brothers

• "Dreams" - Van Halen

• "What I'd Say" - Earl Thomas Conley

• "Industrial Disease" - Dire Straits

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

Even more micro-heroes.

This is the leader of the United Superheroes of America, Mr. President. He represents Washington DC. Because the United Superheroes is such a large team (fifty-one members), it is divided into eight subteams each representing a different part of the country (USA Southwest, USA Northeast, etc.).


Mr. President of Washington DC

My bio for Mr. President reads:

Mr. President is the leader of the United Superheroes of America in it's entirity. He formed the team, he funds the team and he leads the team. While not an active field member, he co-ordinates all USA activity from a secret location in Washington DC. While the eight branches of the USA usually operate independently of eachother, Mr. President can bring various branches of the USA together if the threat is serious enough. Mr. President is an enigmatic figure whose earliest known activity was shortly before World War II. He has defended the US ever since.

Though his powers have yet to be thoroughly defined, he can fly and he seems to possess superhuman strength and resistance to injury. Also, he can emit some sort of destructive energy from his hands. Once, Mr. President claimed to have the "vision of Washington, the resolve of Lincoln and the good business sense of Coolidge". He has uttered similar lines comparing himself to other presidents at other times. Some have suggested his powers are mystical in nature.

In previous posts, I introduced you to three other heroes I have made using the micro-heroes format. Here they are again with bios:


Johnny America of Kansas

He is the fifth incarnation of Johnny America. He is the great-grandson of the first Johnny America, the grand-nephew of the third, and he was trained by the fourth. From the geographic heart of America, Kansas, Johnny America leads the Central North branch of the USA. Johnny America has unmatched fighting skills and superhuman reflexes and strength.

Notes: Johnny America is obviously influenced by Captain America. But with a classic DC legacy twist. Plus, Kansas is the heart of America (geographically) so it seemed fitting to have a character called Johnny America hail from there.


Darkrider of South Dakota

Darkrider is a mystical being made up of mystical energies. In the late nineteenth century, he was a lawman who was murdered in Deadwood, South Dakota. Now he seeks vengeance for those who have been wronged. He's not much of a team player, but his team-mates can't get rid of him. His powers include intangibility and projection of a mysterious mystical fire from his left hand. His revolvers work but fire mystical bullets. He sometimes rides a black stallion he can summon from the Other Side. Darkrider is a member of USA Central North.


Josie Steel of Pennsylvania

A former steel mill worker from Pittsburgh, Josie Steel gained superhuman powers after a sledgehammer she was using somehow became enchanted during a lightning storm. The hammer somehow granted her permanent superhuman abilities including super strength, endurance and durability. She is a member of the USA Mid-Atlantic branch.

Notes: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is known for it's steel industry. I could have gone many directions with a Pennsylvania-based superhero but I wanted a blue collar steel woman!


If you want more micros, ask!

Key differences between conservatives and liberals.

Back when President George Bush had the opportunity to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals both got to spout off about the qualities they felt were important in a Supreme Court justice. By their own words, conservatives and liberals revealed themselves. I do believe the words you use say a lot about who you are and, in this case, your party and your party's ideals.

Conservatives consistently said the wanted a justice whose primary interest was justice. Time and again conservatives said that justices should be merely umpires enforcing the rules set down by the law.

Liberals, even more consistently, cited fairness as the most important value a justice should hold. Fairness and justice are opposites. Fairness is based on conscience and is used to enforce equality, another important value of liberals (liberals use the term social justice often but social justice means fairness and equality). Justice is based on the truth and is used to insure liberty. The problem with fairness? It is completely subjective. Justice, on the other hand, is completely objective; the law is truth and justices should simply make sure the laws are applied justly.

Liberal judges will frequently disregard the law to give advantages to the underprivileged and to harm those who have advantages. Seeing that a poor man man suffer because of a ruling, a judge may simply alter the law to apply his notion of fairness, thus attempting to make things equal. The justice system is damaged as a result.

Justice and fairness can, and often do, coincide. But just as often, they have nothing to do with one another. Understanding the key differences between liberals and conservatives will help you decide whom to vote for in 2008. Ask yourself which qualities are more important to you: liberty and justice or fairness and equality? And then vote accordingly.

Last Five songs.

The last five songs that I listened to on my iPod (greatest invention ever), shuffle setting. This will give you an idea of the stuff I listen to (I know you can't wait):

• "Shoot to Thrill" - AC/DC

• "The Cage" - Sonata Arctica (European power metal)

• "Calling Elvis" - Dire Straits

• "Heavy Metal Symphony" - Erik Norlander (symphonic hard rock)

• "Unchain the Night" - Dokken ('80s hair metal)

More micro-heroes.

I have created dozens upon dozens of micro-heroes and all are heroes of my own creation. Here are a couple more:


Darkrider and Josie Steel

Both are members of the United Superheroes of America. Darkrider is from South Dakota, Josie Steel is from Pennsylvania. And if I have to explain why both represent their respective states so well, you need to watch Deadwood and visit Pittsburgh.

Josie Steel is a basic brick, I suppose. Darkrider is a mystery. Demon? Man? Mutant who likes dressing up in leather? No one knows.

More micros to come.

Microheroes Assemble!

I have a hobby. I make micro-heroes. What's a micro-hero you ask? Well, this is a micro-hero:


Johnny America

His name is Johnny America and he is Kansas's own homegrown superhero (at least in the superhero universe I created; The Neoverse). I created him. He's a member of a superteam I made up called USA: The United Superheroes of America. Each hero on the USA is from a different state, fifty-one members all together (including the DC hero).

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on micro-heroes here. There's links to micro-heroes sites that you may find interesting.

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

I took the "which superhero are you test" and I'm pissed at the results! I'm filled with such anger! Grrr!!

Your results:
You are Hulk

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

You are a wanderer with amazing strength.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test

This is only a test.

How Democrat am I?

You Are 4% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

How Democrat Are You?

How Republican am I?

You Are 80% Republican

You have a good deal of elephant running through your blood, and you're proud to be conservative. You don't fit every Republican stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Republican party.

How Republican Are You?

That fits, I guess. But the questions were a bit odd. On economic matters, I'm libertarian (that's libertarian with a small "l"--anyone who votes third party is not a serious thinker and is taking themselves out of the political process and insulting the men and women who fought and died for our freedoms). Oh well, see for yourself.

Superhero Archetypes.

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!