Pure Drivel

NFL - Conference Championships

2012-01-20T13:39:00.000-08:00

Is this the season where we return to sanity?

The traditional rules to winning a Superbowl are the following:

1. Have a smart, accurate quarterback who performs under pressure. Quarterbacks who double as running backs need not apply.

2. Have a featured running back who rushed for over 1,000 yards but did not lead the league or even the conference in rushing. Teams that are mostly about the running game don't belong here.

3. Have a strong defense.

For decades, having all three of the above has been the formula. There have been a few exceptions, such as the 2000 Ravens, but year by year, this has been almost always the case.

However, each of the last two years has featured teams that don't quite fit this formula. Two years ago, the New Orleans Saints won with hardly any running game to speak of. They, in fact, barely beat the Indianapolis Colts, another team without a strong running game or even that good of a defense. Both these teams featured complex, dynamic passing games that seemed to overcome their other deficiencies. Then last year, it happened again with the Green Bay Packers. This leads to the question - has the formula been changed?

This year, the Packers went 15-1 with a weak running game and a suspect defense. They seemed to be on a collision course with the Saints, who had similar strengths and weaknesses. This weekend was supposed to be the big shootout between these two pass-happy teams. As we know now, it wasn't to be. In fact, the two teams in the NFC that won last week follow the traditional formula.

Now, of the four teams left, only the Patriots depend almost solely on their passing game with their weak running game and suspect defense. However, I'm not sure if the Ravens fit the formula either as we'll see if Joe Flacco is poised and accurate enough.

The way I see it, this is a very good thing. Just like the steroid-era of baseball showed, too much offense is not necessarily a good thing. In baseball, home runs were supposed to be special and exciting. When there's 10 home runs in a game, the luster wears off and it just becomes expected. In football, stuffed runs, quarterback sacks, and knocked-down passes are as exciting as touchdowns. A 10-3 game can be as entertaining as a 35-31 game.

Here I go:

Giants over 49ers
Ravens over Patriots

NFL

2012-01-13T16:33:00.000-08:00

Saints over 49ers
Patriots over Broncos
Ravens over Texans
Giants over Packers

The Candidates

2012-01-13T16:22:00.000-08:00

Alright, it's time to chime in on the 2012 Presidential candidates.

I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.

This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected.   The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.

Here is my take on the candidates:

Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.

Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?

Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.

Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.

Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.

Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military.  Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)

Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?

Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world?  The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.

If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.

2011 NFL Fearless Predictions

2011-09-08T12:13:00.000-07:00

First of all, here's a sneak peak at the final standings:

AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills

AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals

AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans

AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos

NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants

NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears

NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers

NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers

Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl

Other fearless predictions:

Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.

Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.

Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.

There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.

One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.

Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.

There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.

At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.

Show Me the Racism!

2011-09-07T12:02:00.000-07:00

“...as long as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!” -Rep. Maxine Waters

"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson

"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo

"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.

There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?

The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?

The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?

Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/).

1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.

2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.

3. Stronger Military Is Essential.

4. Special Interests Eliminated.

5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.

6. Government Must Be Downsized.

7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.

8. Deficit Spending Will End.

9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.

10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.

11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.

12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.

13. Intrusive Government Stopped.

14. English As Core Language Is Required.

15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.

Have You Met the Poor?

2011-08-02T13:01:00.000-07:00

There's a great scene in the movie Time Bandits where John Cleese, as Robin Hood asks "Have you met the poor?". He then points to a group of people behind a rope. The "poor" might as well have been Jews, Eskimos, or Lithuanians. They were portrayed satirically as a fixed group of people who are in some way different. However, what seems funny to me is becoming the state of mind of many people, namely Democrats.

Democrats like to talk about "the poor". They project how they know their pain and show pity to them for being in such a sorry situation. They see themselves as the party that cares about "the poor" as opposed to those evil Republicans who support the wealthy. So I have to ask the question; Does the Democrat Party really care about "the poor"?

The answer is "Yes, they do".

Of course they do. After all, the majority of poor people are Democrats.  "The poor" represent a win-win for Democrats. "The poor" are dependent on government for sustenance and this dependence creates more poor people - thus, more Democrats.

If you look at Democrat beliefs -- tax the job-providers to create more unemployment, create more public services, take away guns, government control what we are allowed to eat, how to get medical care, what we are allowed to drive, and how we get our news, they are out to create more poor people dependent on government to run their lives.

Democrats in general (along with some Republicans), give less of their income to charities, make it difficult for employers to hire people, and don't want to punish criminals if they are poor. In other words, they have no interest in giving opportunities to "the poor" to move out of poverty.  Their wet dream is to have a society of "the poor" that they can service and therefore control.

Have you met "the poor"? Watch out!  There are those that want you on the other side of that rope. They're the smiling faces that support "the poor".

Liberal Math

2011-06-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

(Revenue X Tax Rate Increase) = New Tax Revenue for State/Federal Government

Does the above equation make sense to you? To most Democrats (President Barack Obama and Governor Jerry Brown, for instance), it makes perfect sense. It states that if a corporation takes in a certain amount of revenue, increasing their tax rate will equate into increased government tax intake. This will fix deficits, allow more spending on education, fix infrastructure, and generally make everyone a whole lot happier.

Wrong!

If you ever took an algebra class, you learn that there are constants and there are variables. The mistakes the Democrats make is they assume corporate revenue is a constant. As any person who has run a business knows, it is a variable. Company revenue is a complex variable at that. It is dependent on many factors, one of them being the tax rate.

Why do so many people not understand that when tax rates increase, it forces companies to adjust other factors in their business to account for that? These factors can include laying off workers, lessening worker's hours or pay rates, increasing prices of their products and/or services creating a burden on the consumers, or just simply going out of business which would create more unemployment.

It creates a vicious cycle. Any increased revenue from the higher taxes would end up being needed to aid the new group of unemployed people at best, and it wouldn't be enough anyways. So politicians would want to raise taxes again to cover this additional expense. Sound familiar? This is exactly what is happening. Higher taxes is self-serving. In other words, raising taxes actually creates more reasons to raise taxes.

Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes. Result: The depression got worse.
John F. Kennedy lowered taxes. Result: The economy grew.
Richard Nixon raised taxes. Result: A major economic downturn from the mid-70's to the mid-80's.
Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. Result: The economy performed well from the mid-80's to the early 90's.
George HW Bush raised taxes. Result: The economy went down.
George W Bush lowered taxes. Result: The economy boomed.
Barack Obama is finding ways to raise taxes. Result: What do you think?

Losing My Soul: Joe vs. The Volcano Film Analysis

2011-04-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

(Here is my first attempt at a video film analysis. Joe vs. The Volcano has fascinated me for years. There's a lot more to it than what appears on the surface.) The video is in three parts. I've also included a written version of the analysis below.)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

When you consider the movie, Joe vs. the Volcano, you must remember that it was released in 1990. This was before Philadelphia or Forrest Gump. Tom Hanks, at this time, was mostly considered to be a physical comic actor. Audiences were used to seeing Hanks in rather buffoonish roles in movies like Bachelor Party, Volunteers, and Dragnet. Joe vs. the Volcano seems to be a rather silly title, so it was natural for audiences to expect to see a screwball comedy.

Audiences and critics didn’t seem to think too highly of the movie. It was generally panned and it did not stay in theaters for very long. It seemed to come across as a weak screwball comedy that had only occasional funny moments and nothing truly memorable.

Yet for some, the movie’s bizarreness seemed to linger in their minds and in subsequent viewings, most likely from their homes, many started to detect that there was something more to Joe vs. the Volcano than what they saw in their first viewing.

Let’s take a close look and explore some of the hidden themes.

The very first thing we see is a placard. The words “Once upon a time” are a clue that this is a fairy tale. The characters, places, and events are mostly made up. Fairy tales also often have elements of magic or the supernatural so this simple placard is a clue to what follows. Also notice the nursery rhyme music indicating something child-like.

Joe Banks, played by Tom Hanks is going to work. We are hearing a song with the words “I owe my soul to the company store” Joe, as well as a mass of people, apparently in a dazed state, are walking like zombies to a factory. This is an everyday ritual of getting up early and going to work that many of us can relate to.

The song “Sixteen Tons” reveals the slightly hidden story within the story. Joe vs. the Volcano is basically the classic story of making a deal with the Devil and losing your soul. There is also a theme of personal redemption.

Joe is among the myriad of people who have no meaning in their lives other than going to their job every morning. Their dazed state and dreary surroundings hint they are in some kind of limbo – between awake and asleep. They are barely aware of the awfulness of their situation and they seemed to have stopped caring long ago. These people are unaware that they have traded their souls for a dull, meaningless life.

The sign of the Devil is a crooked line and we see it as the logo of the company Joe works for. We soon see it again as the camera moves upwards revealing that the path the workers are taking is the same crooked line. This scene will be played out again. In fact, the whole movie is essentially a crooked and wide path to redemption that Joe takes. This contradicts the traditional dogma that redemption is found by walking a straight and narrow path.

Joe walks in to the advertising department. It features poor lighting, drab colors, a broken hat rack, and an annoying buzzing sound from the fluorescent lighting. The employees are in their own little worlds – oblivious to anything around them. This is particularly true with Mr. Waturi. Mr. Waturi is on the phone engaged in a pointless, seemingly endless argument. The prosthetic testicles on his desk reflect his lack of manhood. These people have horribly mundane jobs and lives. They dress in dark colored clothes and appear half-dead. They are soulless.

Only Joe seems a bit different. While he has the same deadpan look as everybody else, he seems a bit more active and aware of his surroundings. Once he gets to his desk, he pulls out a child’s reading lamp. The lamp is colorful and contrasts everything else in the office. This is an indication that though Joe is in limbo like everybody else, he doesn’t seem as far gone and the lamp symbolizes that he has hope. When he turns on the lamp, a tropical island with a volcano appears on it. This is also symbolic as this forebears Joe’s destiny with a volcano. While the red and orange image of the volcano contrasts the drabness of the office, it also indicates danger. Indeed, the volcano represents hell itself. The nursery-rhyme music; however reflect Joe’s child-like demeanor. It’s the same music we heard when the “Once upon a time…” text appeared earlier.

In case the hidden story is too hidden, Joe brings it out in an obvious way when he tells Deedee, played by Meg Ryan, “I’m losing my sole.” Deedee, whom we’ll see more of later, comes across as totally non-assuming, too accepting, and very dull.
Even worse though, is Joe’s boss, Mr. Waturi. He obviously lives to work. It is all he is about. To him, there is nothing beyond the office. He can’t comprehend why Joe doesn’t share the same dedication to his job. Mr. Waturi can’t stand Joe’s lamp and makes him put it away.

Joe seems to deal with his co-workers like a child dealing with his parents, perpetuating the notion that Joe is basically, a child. Mr. Waturi has no childishness left in him and resents it in Joe.

We see Joe in a Doctor’s waiting room. He is shielding his eyes as if he is hiding from something. He is hiding from the real world. Part of Joe wants to die and this has made him a hypochondriac. He is secretly hoping he will be afflicted with some deadly disease so that his horrible life will soon be over.

Note that the waiting room is plain and dull – as is the nurse. She is just like everybody else just living a lousy, meaningless life. Contrast this with the Doctor’s office. It features warm colors. The fire in the fireplace gives it life. Here, we discover that Joe used to be a fireman. He saved people from fire. In the soul-selling allegory, this makes Joe a fallen angel as he is no longer saving others from hell. He has allowed himself to become a victim instead.

Notice how the Doctor doesn’t seem to even know what a fireman is. He asks “What did you do in the fire department?” and “Was it dangerous?” Allegorically, the Doctor is not human. He is in league with the Devil. We’ll see that he is setting Joe up to sell his soul. The fire behind Joe and the redness in the room are evidence of this.

The Doctor informs Joe that he has a terminal condition called a “brain-cloud”. This is fitting since Joe’s mind is definitely in a fog, as it has been since he left the fire department Joe anxiously asks if it is incurable as if he wants the answer to be “yes”. Notice also how Joe shows no disappointment, despair, or any negative emotion over finding out he is going to die within six months.

Finding out he has only six months to live seems to flip a switch in Joe. He starts acting like the proverbial man who had a brush with death and now appreciates life so much more. This is of course, the opposite of this situation. Back at work, things are just the way he left them. Mr. Waturi is in another pointless conversation and everybody else is minding their own business. Joe stirs things up. He briefly interacts with Deedee and with Frank. He mocks Waturi with a prosthetic arm, again suggesting Waturi’s lack of humanity.

Joe’s closing the valve suggests he is regaining his bravery and is going to try new things. It scares the hell out of soulless Mr. Waturi. In a sudden inspiration, Joe quits his job. The three books – Robinson Crusoe, Romeo & Juliet, and The Odyssey foretell his upcoming adventures. He leaves the lamp with Deedee. He is passing the torch in hope that Deedee can find her childlike wonder in the lamp. In his speech to Mr. Waturi, Joe no longer behaves like a frightened child, but a giant compared to the others in the room. Joe suddenly realizes the ridiculousness of his whole situation

We now see Joe and Deedee on a date. Joe is doing all the talking. Note how he is focused on only himself and Deedee – as if they are the only two people who matter. Joe is full of energy but he lacks direction. Like the Doctor’s office, the restaurant is colorful and features a lot of red. This again, hints that the Devil is near and Joe is ripe for the taking.

Deedee, with her brown hair, acts as the goddess of the Earth. She is nature and Joe is reaching into the supernatural which is beyond her reasoning. Deedee is overwhelmed. She can’t understand Joe’s change. It enchants her but it also frightens her. It’s unclear here as to which side will win out.

As they leave the restaurant, we see that a volcano is visible on a poster titled “Fire in Paradise”. Joe seems to be in paradise, but it is a false one. Joe is celebrating his upcoming death when he should be celebrating his life. An erupting volcano on a welcoming tropical island reflects this paradox.

At his apartment, Joe tells Deedee his bad news. This is the final straw for Deedee. She is not ready to deal with something like this. She leaves Joe forever.

Samuel Graynamore enters Joe’s apartment the next morning and now we see a large scar on Joe’s wall. It’s the same crooked line that represents his former company and, as we know, the Devil. Mr. Graynamore is no one else but the Devil himself. Here, Joe is given the Faustian bargain – that is for Joe to get all his heart’s desires and pay the price later. Specifically, Joe is given carte blanche to spend huge sums of money, live like a king, be treated as a hero, and then finally jump into a volcano. Joe doesn’t even think about it very long before agreeing to the deal. This just shows how lost Joe really is.

Joe is ready to go on a Manhattan shopping spree and satisfy every materialistic lust he has. This fits exactly into the Devil’s plan as Joe will lose what’s left of his soul with his greed. However, help is on the way – in the form of the limousine driver Marshall. Marshall is basically Joe’s guardian angel and subtly tries to steer him right. Joe doesn’t know where to go or what to buy – again indicating how directionless he is.

But Marshall won’t directly tell him either. He wants Joe to make these decisions. Marshall says “clothes make the man” and later tells Joe he has no clothes hinting that Joe isn’t a man, but a child. As a guardian angel, Marshall is constantly giving Joe advice. Later, Marshall later tells Joe he is “coming into focus” once Joe has new clothes and a new haircut.

Joe encounters the luggage man. Here is a real lost soul. All he seems to think about or talk about is luggage. He reminds us of Joe’s former co-workers who live meaningless, petty lives. Notice however, the blue sky covering the door to the steamer trunk. This, the star on the floor, and the choir that chants are indications of heaven. The trunks represent a gift from heaven.

Marshall’s mentoring puts Joe on the correct path of life. When Joe tells Marshall “There are certain doors you got to go through alone.” Marshall smiles, as this confirms that Joe is finding direction and himself.

Upon reaching Los Angeles, Joe remarks “It looks fake. I like it.” Joe prefers living in a fairy tale world. Earlier, the hairdresser said he looks “like a prince in a fairy tale”.

Angelica, also played by Ryan, is very different than Deedee. She is weird and moody. She is also utterly self-absorbed and likes to talk about herself. When the subject is something other than about her, her favorite response is “I have no response to that.” Angelica, with her fiery-colored hair, clothes, and car, represents the goddess of the sun. Note how depressed she suddenly gets at night and she talks of killing herself.

Joe soon recognizes her as a fellow lost soul – more lost than he is. Joe asks her if, instead of killing herself, do what you’re afraid of doing, wouldn’t it be worth the risk? Joe had tried to help Deedee by giving her the child’s lamp. Now Joe is trying to put Angelica on the right path. Joe’s growth is evident here. He is selflessly trying to help a fellow human being. Note how, unlike with Deedee, he chooses not to bring Angelica to his hotel room. He also never tells Angelica about his situation.

Knowing what we know about the two previous Meg Ryan characters, it’s easy to deduce that Patricia is the Moon goddess. She remarks that the sunshine gets her down. It’s clear that she and Angelica the Sun, don’t get along.

Patricia is another lost soul. She is ashamed at herself for performing a service for her father in exchange for a boat. To her, it is a compromise of principle so she, like Joe, took the Faustian bargain. Joe begins to bond with Patricia, something he couldn’t do with Deedee or Angelica. They are all lost souls but Patricia seems a kindred spirit. Like Joe, she is aware of what she has done and is rediscovering herself.

The crew are enjoying themselves fishing the next day. However, the shark, like the “Fire in Paradise” poster, is an omen. It forebodes that not all is well and there is danger ahead.

Joe and Patricia bond further that night. Joe asks Patricia if she believes in God and Patricia answers “I believe in myself.” After all, she is a god in the underlying story. It’s interesting how Joe seems to see no difference between a tropical island he is going to and Staten Island where he is coming from. We already know Staten Island is full of lost souls and we’ll soon see the Waponi Wu is no different. Patricia remarks that her father told her that most of the world is asleep and the few who aren’t live in a state of constant, total amazement. We already know this to be true and who better to make this observation than the devil himself, who preys upon those who choose to sleep through life.

Joe looks back at his life and realizes how different both he and his life are now as to when he was working in the factory – more indications that Joe is growing as a person.

When Joe told Deedee about his predicament, she was overwhelmed and refused to deal with it. Joe had the good sense to not even bother to tell the self-absorbed Angelica. Joe does decide to explain it all to Patricia. Patricia is a bit shocked, but seems to accept it. This is more evidence of her similarities with Joe.

Note how there are candles and sunflowers behind Joe. The candles remind us of the candlelight dinner with Deedee while the sunflowers represent Angelica. Twice in the movie, Joe tells one of the women that he felt he had seen her before. Deedee, Angelica, and Patricia represent different parts of the same woman – which is why Meg Ryan plays all three parts. So Joe is basically addressing all three of them as the symbols in the background suggest.

Joe may have sold his soul, but he now seems to be re-claiming it. He has full self-awareness and a true love of life. He has also met the women he was meant to be with. For Joe to fully claim his soul back, he will have to be severely tested. A one-time firefighter, Joe bravely rescues Patricia when she is knocked overboard. Here we see the storm was brought on by the devil as we see the lightning bolt in the shape of the crooked path strike and destroy the boat.

Not all is hopeless, though. The trunks he had bought come to the surface. These trunks represent Joe’s guardian angel Marshall as Joe had purchased them with Marshall’s assistance. He is being looked after.

Joe sacrifices himself to try to save the now unconscious Patricia. He doesn’t drink any water. Joe spends days and nights in solitude with only the music from the radio and his ukulele to keep him company. Joe seems to maintain good spirits. Joe is going through the type of fast associated with Jesus. Fasts in religions have a cleansing effect and Joe is being rid of the pettiness he once had. If Joe survives the fast, he’ll emerge as something greater than a mere man.

The rising giant Moon serves as a signal that Patricia, who represents the Moon, is coming back. Keep in mind that the other nights shown were Moonless so a sudden full Moon is a magical event. It also symbolizes that Joe’s personal growth is complete. Where earlier, it was uncertain of whether or not he believed in God, he now thanks God for his life. Joe is now the man he was meant to be, not the cowering child he was at the beginning of the movie, but a selfless, heroic, leader.

The Waponis are lost souls. They traded their souls for orange soda. They traded their God-fearing culture into one of western decadence. No one of the tribe is willing to sacrifice himself or herself for the good of the tribe. Enter Joe, the savior and that is how he is treated. As Jesus was welcomed into the temple in a celebration of palms, Joe is given similar treatment. Note the Jewish song being sung here.

At the feast, we see a Waponi wearing a very strange, yet familiar mask. It's familiar because it is a mock up of the factory Joe used to work in. Notice also, that a Waponi appears to have a pyramid painted on one hand and an eye on another - a masonic symbol. These images reinforce the idea that Waponi Wu is really no different than Staten Island, or Manhattan Island. They're all full of lost souls.

Once again, we see the crooked path symbol, this time, as an actual crooked path up the way to hell. Joe is perfectly willing to sacrifice himself for these soulless people. He accepts it as his duty and is willing to forsake his newly found love to do what he feels is right. Patricia, in finding Joe, has found herself as well and realizes her place is with him no matter what. So she and Joe leap into the volcano to destroy themselves by descending into hell to save the Waponis.

But… an unexpected thing happens. Hell rejects the two who have proven themselves so worthy and instead, consumes the Waponis. This contradicts the Christian story as the soulless are not saved.

Joe and Patricia are once again saved by the trunks and are now Gods themselves and will live “away from the things of Man and happily ever after”.

Or will they? Going back on board the Tweedle Dee – Patricia’s boat, Patricia told Joe about how sleeping on a boat affects your dreams What if the whole part of the movie that followed was just a dream through Wonderland?

It's All Global Warming

2011-01-24T09:03:00.000-08:00

From ABC News on Jan 21, 2011:

(Linsey Davis)
"If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow."

(Diane Sawyer)
"...millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? "

Wait a minute!!! Al Gore and others specifically told us that global warming will cause warmer winters and less precipitation. I read a lot about global warming and its effects and if I put all the claims stated by "scientists" from various media, I can draw the following conclusions:

Warmer than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
Colder than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
Temperatures that are approximately average for a given area for a given time is proof of global warming.
Dry conditions and droughts will be common due to global warming.
Heavy precipitation is due to global warming.
Places reporting average amounts of precipitation indicate global warming.
Ice melting in the Arctic is due to global warming.
Ice sheets increasing in size in the Antarctic is proof of global warming.
The imminent rise of ocean levels will be an indication of global warming.
The ACTUAL non-significant rise of ocean levels is due to global warming.
An expected increase in the number of hurricanes and typhoons and the expected increase in their intensity will be proof of global warming.
The reality of six consecutive years of a normal or less than normal frequency of hurricanes and typhoons is also a strong indication of global warming.
Recent earthquakes in Haiti and Pakistan are due to global warming.

The real question is: Why are so many trying to convince us that disaster is imminent and no matter what the data is, it gets twisted into the same conclusion?

This is something I am exploring this year. Think about an answer to the question above. It's not really that hard to find the basic answer.

Merry Christmas to All!!!

2010-12-12T20:16:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas to All!!!

May we all enjoy the Christmas season and remember the reason for the season.

The Month before Christmas
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say

Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!

not Happy Holiday !

Please, all join together and wish everyone you meet

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Christ is The Reason for the Christ-mas Season!

(Thanks to my Uncle for sending me this.)

New Rules of Feminism - Addendum

2010-06-11T15:28:00.000-07:00

In case you missed the original change in rules, look here:

New Rules of Feminism

Now, "rich businesswomen" (as the L.A. Times refers to them) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have won Republican primaries and are taking on incumbent Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, respectively) in my State of California.

The L.A. Times already revealed how it wants us to perceive these women. Of course, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer aren't exactly poor. Boxer started out as a stock broker and married a very successful lawyer and lived in the very rich Marin County, Ca until 1994. Yet I have never seen her referred to as "rich".

Meg Whitman arguably has a more impressive background. She worked her way up the corporate ladder before marrying a successful neurosurgeon. She comes across as much more of a self-made woman than Boxer. She's rich because of her own doings.

But of course, media pundits refuse to see her as a feminist because of that (R) next to her name.

Tina Brown Slams Female GOP Primary Winners

Carli Fiorina has a similar story. Starting out as a secretary, she worked her way up to becoming CEO of Hewlett Packard. This was at a time when a female CEO of a hot tech company was unheard of. If only she had been a Democrat, she would probably stand above Hillary Clinton as the benchmark feminist that all our daughters should aspire to be.

Of course, had she been a Democrat, that would mean that she didn't have the internal convictions to have been a successful CEO in the first place so it was a moot point.

A Night at the Hollywood Bowl

2010-05-16T15:44:00.000-07:00

The Show

Last night, Michelle and I went to the Hollywood Bowl and saw Carole King and James Taylor perform, both individually and as a duet. These are two of Michelle's favorite artists. I always liked James Taylor, although I was never what you would call a fan. I had barely heard of Carole King before I met Michelle but I found out she had performed written, and co-written quite a few songs I knew and liked. I had no idea she had co-written "The Loco-motion" or "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" until last night.

Getting to the Bowl almost requires taking a Park & Ride as the parking at the Bowl is really bad in terms of space and accessibility. It gets rather cool there this time of year and the seats are wooden park benches - towards the back of the arena anyways. Despite all that, it was very enjoyable. James Taylor has not lost anything in his voice at age 62. His voice sounded like we were in the studio with him in 1970. King was also impressive and the chemistry between them was great.

I tend to prefer rock and roll with more substance than these two offer. I like layered instruments, tempo changes, and lyrics with obscure or double-meanings. Taylor and King make very personal music with simple melodies. Their lyrics are straightforward. You know what they are conveying. However, these two artists do their thing so well that I found myself enjoying the show quite a bit. Michelle was enthralled. When it was over, we both agreed it was a great show.

One Observation

I realize as I write this that this is going to come across as completely inappropriate to some people. I had a good view of a horde of people just arriving and getting to their seats just before the concert began. The thing that struck me was... ready... They were almost all white! As I then looked across the mass of people, I realized that at least 98% of the audience was white. I spotted a couple of black people amongst the thousands. I saw no sign of a Latino or Asian whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this? Of course not!

I imagine that some black performers are going to attract mostly black audiences, the same with Latinos. It's apparent that some performers have broad, cross-racial appeal such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson. While others don't.

What's my point? It is that if this were any kind of political event, it would have been blasted by the mainstream media. I'm sure someone at MSNBC would have called this some kind of "Klan" or "Nazi" event. In the case here, it was a collection of people who shared a similar taste in music and that's okay. In the case of a Tea Party event, it is a collection of people who are concerned about tax dollars being wasted on corporate bailouts, possibly jeopardizing the future prosperity of the United States. Apparently to the mainstream media, this is not okay. By the way, I certainly hope the black people at the concert weren't "uncomfortable" as I am sure, they were as welcomed as anybody else.

Has it ever occurred to anybody in the media that the reason so many people attending the Tea Parties are white because black people don't want to protest a black President? I'm sure many blacks are concerned with the same things the Tea Party is about as their children are in jeopardy too. The media seems to want to believe that only white people are concerned with skin color. I don't believe that's the case.

The Game We Wanted

2010-02-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

Seemingly, every NFL season has a prominent NFC team and a prominent AFC team that appear destined to face each other in the Superbowl. Just about every NFL season has one or both teams taking an unexpected early exit in the playoffs.

Not this season. This time, we get the Saints and Colts that were dominant and even undefeated late in the year. This time, we get to see Peyton Manning vs. Drew Brees, Reggie Wayne vs. Marques Colston, Joseph Addai vs. Pierre Thomas, Dwight Freeney vs. Darren Sharper.

The sentimental choice of course, is the Saints. With them carrying the hopes of a whole recovering city on their back, and with them never having gone to the big game before, it's hard not to be happy for the team and New Orleans. They have the means to pull off the dream too. Drew Brees is a smart and accurate passer. He has plenty of weapons to throw to. Reggie Bush is a threat to score every time he touches the ball (admittedly, he is also prone to fumbling the ball too.) Their defense is quite underrated. They pummeled Brett Favre in the NFC Championship game and they are quite adept at creating key turnovers.

Then you have the Colts. They've been here before, they're experienced, tough, and explosive in their own right. This is a team determined to build a legacy as a winner. Had it not been for the incredible run by the New England Patriots in recent years, it would most likely be the Colts with the multiple Superbowl rings. Peyton Manning, time and time again, has shown an incredible ability to read defenses and find their weaknesses. He is one of those players who makes his whole team better. He is the face of the franchise and is the driving force behind the determination and dedication to their success. Their defense is quick and fierce and underrated like the Saints.

This has been the Colts' season. They are one step away from capping it off and being perceived as one of the greatest NFL teams of all time.

The only problem is, the Saints will win.

Memoirs of a "Racist"

2009-09-25T12:53:00.000-07:00

The Past

Over a year ago, Barack Hussein Obama rode into the Presidential Election campaign and quickly became the Democrat front runner. His confident and powerful voice promising hope and change wooed citizens across the country. The mainstream media swooned over him. Some journalists lost all pretensions of objectivity and almost reported Obama's victories in the primaries with glee.

It all seemed a bit odd to me. When listening to Obama promising to end the war in Iraq, shelf the Bush tax cuts, raise minimum wage, establish universal health care, and deal with countries like Iran and North Korea with a diplomacy-first attitude, I wondered what was so different about him than the other Democrat candidates. Hillary Clinton seemed to have the same agenda and John Edwards was running on a virtually identical platform.

What's more, it was soon revealed that Obama was toting baggage. He had stated that the Constitution was a "flawed" document that was about what the government cannot do. He was friends to Bill Ayers, a radical whose method of protesting government was to bomb buildings. Obama also was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It was revealed that Wright had a very anti-American attitude and blamed the U.S. Government for the 9/11 attacks. Yet Barack Obama referred to Rev. Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and Wright even performed the Obama's wedding ceremony and baptized Barack and Michelle Obama's two daughters.

With Clinton and Edwards having similar agendas but not having anywhere near the potential problems Obama had, one would think that one of them would have been selected as the Democrat candidate of 2008. It didn't happen. Why?

By the way, Barack Obama is half black. That wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? After all, it is the Democrats who are always claiming to be so tolerant and blind to racism so obviously that wasn't the reason.

Yet Bill Clinton seemed to think otherwise as he accused the Obama campaign of playing the "race card". The one-time media darling got basically shunned by the media for making such an accusation. In fact, the mainstream media didn't report on Ayers or Wright. They didn't seem to think it was newsworthy.

If you heard anything about Ayers or Wright, it was most likely from talk radio or Fox news. The Obama supporters decided that Obama was beyond reproach. Anybody who questioned his candidacy or his policies did so without any merit. If the criticism against Obama was without merit, then what motivated those to critique Obama? There could only be one answer: Racism!

Obviously, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the host of others who daily expressed concern over an Obama Presidency were nothing but racists. They couldn't see the magic in Obama that ordinary people see because they were blinded by racism.

9 Months Later

Obama has shown he meant what he said by a "flawed" Constitution. He bailed out and seized control of failed banks and auto companies - spending billions of taxpayer's money in the process. Call me crazy but federal government control of companies is outright Socialism if I recall. According to the left, I'm not crazy. I'm racist.

Obama is always talking about re-distribution of wealth. Hard-earned money by those who studied, got an education, and worked hard should distribute their wealth to those who didn't but feel they are entitled to the same benefits anyways. I don't think it's fair at all so that makes me a racist.

Similarly, Obama wants Universal Health care. A notion that sounds lovely on paper but has been shown repeatedly to be a failed system. The United States has the best health care system in the world and the statistics support that. Yes, it could be even better but I have every reason to believe that Obama's policies will worsen it and cost us more. I'm told that that sort of thinking is that of a racist.

When traveling abroad, Obama is always apologizing for past actions of the United States. Hey wait a minute! Doesn't that justify and promote more terrorist attacks? Isn't Obama proud of the nation that allowed him to come from humble beginnings and become its leader? Isn't Obama a living testimony to the power of Democracy and our tolerant culture? Apparently not. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for having so many racists like me in the country.

Obama actually told the Arab world "...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." Later in the same speech, he called the United States a "Muslim nation". Did he state this for appeasement or was it just an oversight? If it was an oversight, why was it on his teleprompter? For those of us who question Obama's motives concerning the Middle East, we are wrong and should stop judging Obama by the color of his skin.

Obama has waffled on talks with North Korea and Iran. He has stated that these fledgling nuclear powers can be talked with without pre-conditions. Then he's stated otherwise. Do I feel comfortable with a President who is so unsure of how to handle nations like these? No, I don't but that's just the racism talking.

ACORN, the group that supported Obama and registered over a million voters for him has been caught for many illegitimate registrations. Furthermore, recently it was discovered that ACORN is willing to support prostitution of underage girls from El Salvador. Obama claims no knowledge of the goings on at ACORN yet has funded them over $50 million in taxpayer-funded bailout money. The mainstream media does not seem to want to report on this. Something seems fishy here but that must be the racist in me.

What about Iraq? Obama promised an end but that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon. Where are all the protests against that war that we used to see during the Bush Presidency? Did racists like me quell them?

Obama keeps appointing Czars. One of them is out to suppress Fox News hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, not to mention Rush Limbaugh and others. Media control by the federal government? I find it scary and tyrannical. Apparently racists like them and myself should have no voice.

The bailouts and health care reform will lead to unprecedented deficit spending - something Obama condemned in his campaign. Yet, the only way to deal with it at all would be to raise taxes everywhere - something else Obama said he wouldn't do. Remember what happened to George HW Bush when this happened? But then again, he was a racist like all us conservatives.

Obviously, I have issues with our President. I am being told repeatedly from members of the Democrat Party, the media, and even a fellow blogger that my issues aren't real and that racism is the root of it all. How insulting! Strange how it seems that it is the left that is hung up on Obama's skin color while I feel like I and others who don't trust him are judging him by the content of his character. Strange indeed.

Godlessness and Science

2009-06-28T14:38:00.000-07:00

I finally got around to reading Ann Coulter's Godless:The Church of Liberalism. This is a book that I really wanted to like. I usually agree with Ms. Coulter's points of view even though I don't always agree with how she presents them. My biggest beef is she has the bad habit of grouping the entire opposition to her point of view and making broad and grand statements about them. Coulter's works are littered with phrases starting with "Liberals think..." as if she wants us to believe not only that she knows what everybody thinks, but why they think this way. In taking such a stand, she sets herself up for scrutiny.

On the other hand, her sharp wit, while irksome to many, is one reason I like reading her. Some of these topics can get a little dry but Coulter always manages to keep it interesting. It is also very apparent that she researches her material. Just about everything she points out can is referenced in her notes. Evidence of her accuracy can be found in the fact that virtually all criticism of Ms. Coulter seems to be in the form of personal attacks.

Now to the book. Chapter one explains the title of the book and why she calls liberals "Godless". She goes on to call liberalism itself, a religion, complete with its own dogma, priests, accounts of creation and human destiny. Chapters two through six explore common points of argument between the right and left - topics like crime, education, and abortion. Here, Coulter really shines. She does a great job of pointing out why the views of the left on these issues are just ridiculous. For the most part, she didn't really go into linking liberal beliefs to religion. In other words, she didn't really stick to her primary topic, but nevertheless, the arguments were spot on.

All this was just a warm up session, though. The rest of the book is where it seems to me that the real drive behind the book is. One of the common arguments of the left is that the right doesn't believe in science. Coulter is determined to turn that argument around. Today, most of this argument concerns global warming, er climate change. In Godless, Coulter doesn't get into this. Instead, she goes into the long debated argument regarding evolution versus creationism.

This was the part I really looked forward to. Coulter, one by one, defeats just about every argument of Darwin. She does this with facts about research others have done. Personally, I knew about some of the problems with Darwinism but the body of evidence Coulter presents is compelling.

I don't dispute any of her arguments. What I do dispute is her conclusion. Darwinism may not be true but that doesn't mean that science or evolution cannot account for the reason we are here. She doesn't actually say it, but I get the feeling that Coulter feels that since there are so many holes in Darwinism, that must mean that science has failed in explaining creation and therefore, we must just accept that "God did it." Coulter falls into her own trap where it's obvious that she doesn't understand science either.

Just as those who accuse creationists of being anti-science or say things like "evolution is a fact", it is equally incorrect to say that science doesn't work because of a theory being disproved. That's the whole point of science. Science isn't truth. Science isn't fact. Science is a path to discovery that is based more on failure than it is on success. Darwin's assertions may be largely disproved, but in the very least, they put us on a path. Because of this path, we know a hell of a lot more than we used to and more importantly, we understand more about what we do not know. Science will come up with better theories based upon knowledge of the failed ones.

Let's imagine a conversation in the middle ages where a budding scientist meets Anneth of Coulter. Anneth believes in the traditional "God painted the sky blue." dogma.

Scientist: Have you heard the latest scientific theory about why the sky is blue? We now believe that there is a giant sapphire in the sky. Our instrumental readings indicate that the sky color is consistent with that of a sapphire.

A of C: There are many holes in that theory. Haven't you heard that some scientists have discovered gravity and that means it would be impossible for a sapphire of the mass required to fill the sky with a blue color to exist?

Scientist: So you are saying that I need to account for gravity and come up with a better theory?

A of C: No, obviously science can't explain why the sky is blue because God did it.

Again, Godless is a worthwhile read. I just don't agree with its conclusions.

Economic Recovery

2009-06-14T17:35:00.000-07:00

I found an interesting tale on the Internet. It had a European flavor so I changed a few details and embellished the story a bit.

There is a small town in Ohio where the recession has hit particularly hard. The local factory had closed. Few are working and everybody is in debt.

An out-of-towner driving through the town sees Harriet's Antique shop and stops. He sees a 1950's era Wurlitzer jukebox and asks Harriet how much it costs. Harriet says it's in perfectly working condition and the price is $20,000. The man winces a bit but really wants it. He sighs and agrees and writes a $20,000 check.

Harriet cashes the check and pays her landlord, Hank $10,000 in back rent she owed. She also pays 5 other people she owed money to a total of $5000. Then Hank pays the local restaurateur, Ellen the entire $10,000 and squares away his debt.

Ellen, with much of the town out of debt, does very good business that week at her restaurant. She does so well that she is able to pay Harriet, the $20,000 she owed in antiques decorations for her restaurant.

At the end of that week, the out-of-towner returns to the antique shop and says his wife won't let him keep the Wurlitzer. Harriet returns the $20,000.

There was no profit or income.

But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.

The Death of Journalism

2009-05-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.mediamalpracticemovie.com/

When I read about John Zieglers Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin was Targeted, I knew I had to get this DVD. The news coverage of the 2008 election was very disturbing to me. I was curious if Ziegler's film would reflect my own personal observations. It did.

Let me summarize the argument. In late 2007 and even early into 2008, it looked like the two major candidates were going to be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN were all nervous over this as most of the people at these networks desperately wanted the next President of the United States to be a Democrat. They were so uneasy about Clinton's chances that they derailed her candidacy and put the spotlight on a young, articulate, African-American who was in better position to get the young vote, the moderate vote, and the liberal vote. It would potentially hurt the female vote but the news media felt the trade-off still favored the Democrats. Meanwhile, these same networks did everything they could to convince America that Giuliani was unelectable and John McCain, as a moderate, would have a better chance. They knew that the soft-spoken McCain would look timid, old, and weak next to Obama. The scheme worked as suddenly, McCain and Obama started winning primaries.

Remember the stink Bill Clinton made about how the media was treating Hillary? Remember how the once-adored Clinton was berated for his accusations? That was just the beginning.

Everything was going as planned for the Obama campaign and the news media. The polls in mid-summer 2008 clearly favored Obama. Then suddenly and unexpectedly, McCain dropped a bombshell in August 2008. This bombshell was the choice of an outspoken, much truer conservative Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. Palin frightened the bejesus out of the news media as conservatives and many ex-Hillary supporters rallied behind her. Suddenly the McCain campaign was a real threat to the Obama campaign and the hopes and dreams of the news media. What did the news media do? They launched a barrage of attacks on Sarah Palin. They attacked her family. They picked on where she shopped. They accused her child of not being her child They got Saturday Night Live to spoof her incessantly. They got Katie Couric to interview her and Couric relentlessly attempted to "gotcha" Palin. When all was said and done, enough damage had been done to the McCain/Palin ticket to get Obama elected. It was an amazing display of contrast how Obama's running mate - Joe Biden, got virtually unnoticed during the entire campaign. Also, since the news media was doing Obama's dirty work by smearing McCain and Palin, Obama looked like a saint. His campaign never had to say anything bad about the opposition. Meanwhile, whenever McCain or Palin attempted to show a negative aspect about Obama, (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, willing to negotiate with Iran, etc.) the news media spun it as a negative campaign by desperate candidates.

John Ziegler's Media Malpractice reviews the 2008 campaign. It shows examples of everything shown above. Ziegler presents news clips, screenshots from blogs, and newspaper headlines that provide damning evidence that the news media was behind the Obama campaign all the way. In this regard, the presentation succeeds and should anger anybody who believes in fair journalism.

While I thought it was all worthwhile, I couldn't help but want more behind the scenes material. I would have liked Ziegler to have directly challenged the media organizations concerning the 2008 campaign. I would have liked some statistics to support and further drive home the whole point being made. In these areas, the presentation falls short. Nevertheless, the material shown here is disturbing to say the least and anyone who honestly believes the news media was fair should watch this DVD.

Hate Speech

2009-04-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." -Carrie Prejean (Miss California)

“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!” - Perez Hilton (Miss USA judge and blogger)

I don't usually comment on the media hits of the week but I do want to point out one observation.

The mainstream media in general, is treating one of the above comments as hate speech. In our politically correct, appease everybody society, it's obvious which one it is.

Congratulations! We all just bought a new car

2009-03-31T09:36:00.000-07:00

When it was time to purchase a new car, are you one of those who drove past the Chevy dealership on your way to look at a Honda? Did you read Consumer Reports and decide that you couldn't trust the reliability of a Dodge? Did you purchase a Toyota Yaris because the "Big 3" didn't offer anything competitive? Did you decide on a Nissan 370Z because it appears and feels more modern than a Ford Mustang or Dodge Challenger?

Well guess what? Even though you stuck your nose up in the air as you passed by the Saturn dealership, they still got your money. These companies may have not made the cars, SUV's, and trucks you wanted, but you and your children just bought their product anyways thanks to our Federal Government that is so generous with our money.

Not only that, our government is now running General Motors and Chrysler. They dangle billions of dollars in front of their chairmen and quickly pull it back and say "Uh, Uh, Uh, you don't get this unless you do what we tell you to do. Let's start by...oh...how about firing your CEO...That's a good company. Oh, and you too Chrysler. Get together with Fiat and we may just keep you solvent."

Who out there really thinks the Federal Government can run the auto industry successfully? Unfortunately, this is only the beginning.

For those of you who agree with this;

Wake up! We are slowly but surely becoming a Socialist Police State where the Federal Government controls everything!

They're doing this by making us fearful and villifying corporate executives. Corporate executives can be bad but they can be ousted due to poor performance. Once the government comes in, there is almost no way of getting them out.

This Is The New America

2009-01-22T13:17:00.000-08:00

Those folks who cheered and celebrated a "new America" at the inauguration of Barack Obama may want to consider how this "new America" is going to look. Aren't these the "green" people? The one's who complain about businesses dumping trash into the air, water, and ground? I guess none of the people who attended the inauguration were boy or girl scouts where you are supposed to leave a place in better condition than the way you found it.

Maybe cleaning up this mess is where those new "green jobs" Barack Obama promised are going to come from.

George W. Bush: My Perspective

2009-01-19T13:09:00.000-08:00

So the eight year Presidency of George W Bush ends. Bush's tenure was unlike any other in many ways. I am quite sure that there had never been a President so openly hated by the mainstream media and others. The others include most of Hollywood and a multitude of pseudo-intellectuals who would daily post blogs and comments on the web spewing utter hatred at the 43'rd President and his Vice President.

With all this hatred on the web and all the news people from CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN openly criticizing seemingly every single policy Bush invoked, it had become the norm for many Americans to just assume that Bush was a terrible President. It's practically become the background noise of America.

Why all this venom? I'm not completely sure but I have some thoughts about that. The mainstream media adored Bill Clinton. Clinton had agendas that agreed with Hollywood and the media - namely ideas awash in pure liberalism that empowered Hollywood. These same people were sure that Al Gore would continue what Clinton had started. The problem was, Gore didn't win. Instead, we got this Republican and his semi-conservative ideals. Hollywood and the media went on the warpath immediately to ensure a Democratic victory in 2004. When that didn't work, they re-doubled their efforts in his second term.

These attacks included:

Vilifying the tax cuts: Bush inherited a recession and immediately put forth the John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan idea of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy. Media pundits and Hollywood figures bashed this idea by constantly chanting "tax cuts for the rich - Bush only cares about the rich!" Much to the gall of his critics, Bush's tax cuts worked brilliantly and the economy flourished for years. Yet Bush never got any credit whatsoever for the incredibly strong economy America and the world experienced from 2003 to 2007. Remember all the credit Clinton got during the dot com boom? Yeah, like that had anything to do with Clinton.

Faulting Bush for 9/11: Ever since America supported Israel, much of the middle east has hated America. Generations of poor Arabs were taught that the reason they were poor was due to Israel and the United States. The hatred grew and spread and no President ever really did anything about it. Remember the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 and how Jimmy Carter sat on his ass and did practically nothing? Reagan didn't do much either even though embassies were bombed during his Presidency. George HW Bush at least took on Iraq for invading Kuwait but left Saddam in power. Clinton did very little despite his claims after 9/11. So when the **** hit the fan on 9/11/2001, that is when the anti-American hatred in the Middle East finally hurt Americans on our own soil, the only culprit the media could find was one George W. Bush. Bush reacted with the Patriot Act to help prevent this from happening again. All he got in response was how it violated our rights.

Iraq: The intensity of criticism and hatred of George W Bush over his decision to invade Iraq is a national disgrace. The mainstream media conveniently forgot that virtually every politician in Washington, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Al Gore, upon hearing the evidence from the CIA Director George Tenet, was convinced that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical, and possibly biological and even nuclear weapons. This was in 1998 and nobody did anything about it! Remember the ridiculous UN inspections? Remember how they were not allowed access to certain "restricted areas" (there were not supposed to be any "restricted areas" in Iraq according the the treaty Saddam Hussein signed)? Remember how Saddam Hussein dictated to the UN inspectors as to where and when they could do those inspections? At the time, this was outrageously scary yet no one seems to remember this. All I hear and read now is how the UN found no weapons of mass destruction and how Bush lied us into the war. The invasion led to the capture of Saddam Hussein - the killer of thousands (some reports suggest millions) of his own people. The media downplayed this and almost acted disappointed that the invasion had this positive result.

The Surge: The Iraq invasion didn't go smoothly. There is no question that Bush and his administration underestimated the level of insurgency the troops would encounter. In my opinion, the method and hubris of the invasion was an area where Bush was rightly criticized, especially when the premature "Mission Accomplished" sign was put up. Bush, in realizing this mistake, took the advice of his generals and campaigned for a "surge" - a dramatic increase in troops to finish the job. Not surprising, he was criticized and ridiculed. Of course, it worked. Where's the credit?

Waterboarding: Bush has been criticized heavily for allowing waterboarding. Is it torture? I can't say but I wonder if prisoners who suffered unbelievable pain, lost body parts, caught diseases, and starved half to death in other countries would regard this relatively mild procedure that does no permanent damage as torture.

Osama bin Laden: The funder of the 9/11 attacks has been hiding in caves and living meagerly in fear of being caught and/or killed for over seven years. We've had troops in Afghanistan hunting him and the rest of the Taliban. The media mostly ignores this and asks why Bush never went after bin Laden.

Corporate Bailouts: I'm with the critics on this one. Bush panicked and gave unbelievable sums of our money to the irresponsible clowns who mishandled it. In other words, Bush acted like a liberal would have.

What if Bush hadn't done these things?

What if the recession of 2000/2001 lingered due to no breaks for businesses? Don't forget the tax refunds we all got. Do you think Bush would have been congratulated for this?

What if Bush had closed the airports and called the national guard in early September 2001 due to warnings that Al Qaeda was planning an attack? What if he did this and 9/11 didn't happen? He probably would have been impeached for violating our rights. What if there was no Patriot Act and Al Qaeda struck on U.S. soil again?

What if we ignored Iraq? Saddam Hussein would have at least continued to shoot at our planes and kill more people. What else might have he done? After all, he did hire nuclear scientists and had communications with North Korea.

You've probably heard this before but what if we had not waterboarded the operative into revealing the Al Qaeda plot of bombing transAtlantic planes? What if had happened and the mainstream media found out we had a prisoner that knew all about it?

Don't you think the highlight of Bush's Presidency would have been the capture of Osama bin Laden? Do you really think he ignored him?

Farewell George Bush, you were a far from perfect President but you dealt with many difficult situations. You never whined or backed down. I hope that as time passes, you will be remembered for much of the good you did during a very difficult Presidency.

Out on a Limb

2009-01-17T17:06:00.000-08:00

My daring NFL predictions for the rest of the season.

Cardinals over Eagles
Steelers over Ravens

Superbowl Pick:

Steelers over Cardinals

Format Change

2009-01-05T11:43:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

I decided this year to treat this blog a little differently. I've been having the problem with this blog where I feel obligated to post for the reason that it had been too long since my last post. Subsequently, I've hurried together some posts that I never really felt fully satisfied with.

My attitude concerning this blog will be different this year. I want to concentrate on creating more robust posts that fully and truly convey whatever point I want to make. This is going to mean fewer postings but the postings I do produce should be a bit meatier than before - at least I hope so. I will probably occasionally sprinkle in a few quickies like sports predictions and such also.

So be patient, I'm not going anywhere. Thank you for your attention.

Robert

Afternoons Will Never be the Same

2008-12-15T09:00:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, December 11, 2008, Larry Elder announced his departure from TalkRadio 790 KABC.

For 15 years, Larry Elder has stood out as the conscience of America (for those who would listen, anyways). I've listened to him for years on KABC and found his calm demeanor and no-nonsense approach to political and economic issues refreshing. While I didn't always agree with him, he always made sense and I could always see his point of view - even if I occasionally disagreed with it.

There are many out there who won't be sorry to see him go. These individuals are those Larry termed "victicrats" - people who feel sorry for themselves and feel they got a raw deal in life and its out of their control. Larry preaches that the road to success or failure begins and ends with the self. Do you see the world as a place of opportunity where high moral values and hard work get rewarded? Do you see the world as a dark place riddled with hatred where only certain select fortunate people get the advantages? One of these points of view will lead to success, the other to failure.

If you've never seen it, take a look at Larry Elder's Personal Pledge.

Also, take a look at his weekly articles at TownHall.com

Larry, I will miss your daily broadcast. I don't know why you had to leave so suddenly but I wish you all the best in whatever endeavors you pursue.

The One Way Street

2008-12-01T16:28:00.000-08:00

USA Today published the following article today:

President-elect Obama's actions perk up stock market

Today, the Dow lost 7% of its value by plunging 679.95.

I'm sure, President Bush will get the blame for that.

Your Bond-quote quotient is exceptional!

2008-11-07T10:29:00.000-08:00

Your Bond-quote quotient is exceptional!

James Bond 007 One-liner Quiz

Guess Who?

2008-11-03T08:44:00.000-08:00

Read the following statement and try to guess which organization wrote it. The link to the answer is at the bottom.

[Our organization] views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.
The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

[We] endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism. The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies. Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money.

We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.
...
We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress. The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future. We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills. This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status. This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights.

The Answer

Spread the Wealth Part 2

2008-10-31T10:17:00.000-07:00

The gist of the story below is not mine. I have embellished it a great deal, though.

There are five guys who went to high school together and remained friends long after. Arnold became a very successful businessman and makes a very good living. Benny owns his own small business and works very hard to keep it and manages to make a decent living. Charlie is an employee of Arnold and makes a nice living as a manager in Arnold's company. David has struggled and is also an employee of Arnold albeit a low end one. Edward has been in and out of work since high school.

Now in their thirties, the five of them get together once a month at Clinton's restaurant. Through an agreement with the owner Clinton, the bill comes to $100 which Arnold, being the most well off, pays $60 of it. Benny and Charlie each pay $20 and David and Edward pay nothing. This arrangement goes on for some time and everybody is used to it.

Eventually, the restaurant is taken over by new management. Bush, the new owner decides he can increase business to the restaurant by lowering prices. This includes making a new arrangement with the five men who come every month. The total food bill at Bush's restaurant is reduced to $80. Bush decides that since the bulk of the bill had been paid by Arnold, he should get the biggest break. So the new arrangement is Arnold pays $50, Benny and Charlie each pay $15, while David and Edward still pay $0.

Arnold is delighted with the price cut. Benny is also very appreciative. Charlie is unsure how he feels. Yes, he is paying $5 less but is somewhat jealous of Arnold paying $10 less. "Why does the rich guy get the biggest break?" he wonders. David and Edward are frustrated as to why they didn't benefit from the price cut at all. For the first time, there is an uneasiness in the group as three of them felt they got the short end of things. Benny tries to explain that it's only fair that the people paying the bulk of the bill deserve to benefit the most. Charlie, David, and Edward refuse to see it that way. They feel the new arrangement is unfair. Meanwhile, Bush's lower prices attracts a lot of new business and the restaurant booms profits for years.

All good things must end and it is discovered that some staff at the restaurant made poor investment choices with the restaurant's profits. Instead of the restaurant being a model of financial stability, it is a wreck and Bush and his executives struggle to keep the restaurant in business. What's more, this occurred just as Bush was ready to hand over the restaurant to a new owner.

There are two prospective new owners. One of them is McCain. McCain has similar philosophies as Bush. He tells the five men he will maintain the current pricing and the breakdown. He also knows he will have to keep a better eye on what the staff is doing than his predecessor if the restaurant is to stay in business.

The second prospective owner is Obama. Obama has his own ideas on how the restaurant should be run. He is going to "change" things. He talks to the five men and tells them that he will return back to the $100 total price of the Clinton era, but, he will offer the majority of them a better break. Arnold will pay $90, but Benny and Charlie will now only pay $10 each. This allows David and Edward to actually receive $5 each.

David and Edward are thrilled about Obama and passionately hope he becomes the new owner. Charlie likes Obama too as he relishes paying less and feels good about the thought of how David and Edward would benefit from this. "So what if Arnold has to pay more, he can afford it. It's only fair that he share his wealth."

Arnold and Benny, both with business experience shake their heads at what Obama is attempting. Arnold can't believe he will be required to pay such a huge percentage of the bill and be outright paying David and Edward as well. Benny, being the smart small business owner recognizes that even though he is paying less, Obama's vision won't work. Bush already demonstrated that the restaurant does better with lower prices so why does Obama want to go back to the Clinton price? Also, Benny realizes that Obama's plan will hurt Arnold and if Arnold is hurt, he will be subsequently hurt also as he will get less business from Arnold and people employed by Arnold, like Charlie.

In the end, Obama becomes the new owner - much to the delight of Charlie, Edward, and David. Unfortunately, Arnold leaves the group leaving the $100 bill to be paid by the four of them. Benny, Charlie, Edward, and David can't pay. The harmony the five men once had is shattered and the restaurant is eventually shut down.

Spread the Wealth Part I

2008-10-27T10:32:00.000-07:00

For those of you who think the Obama "spread the wealth" policy is a good thing should seriously sit down and think this through. I've found a couple of analogous stories that illustrate the problem. The sad thing is that all one really has to do is look at the failed Soviet Union and that should put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, too many people aren't aware of that history.

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA. The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing". The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"."

Echoes of 1985

2008-10-14T09:01:00.000-07:00

Concerning the NLCS game between the Dodgers and Phillies last night, I have to gather that Joe Torre didn't know that you don't put a fireball right-handed pitcher up against a left-handed power hitter when a playoff game is on the line. Jonathan Broxton, like Tom Niedenfuer 23 years ago, was the poor choice and Matt Stairs was fortunate to play the role of Jack Clark.

I wonder if Torre mouthed "maybe we should walk Stairs" right before the big hit.

Round 3 (Enter Stupidity)

2008-10-08T09:08:00.000-07:00

The October 7 Presidential debate featured some really stupid remarks by both gentlemen.

John McCain

And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values. You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments.
As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy.

First of all - Welcome to the Democratic Party Senator McCain. You know, the party that makes all sorts of pledges of ideas that sound good to some people but are really bad ideas? How is "renegotiating at the new value of those homes" going to "do something about home values" other than lower them? Or is that what you meant? Then why did you say "stabilize home values"?

This is exactly what I'd expect from a Democrat. You're promising lower payments and stable home values. Add to that a big government expenditure. It doesn't add up and I am speaking as one who owes more on his house than what its worth. Yeah, part of my brain likes what you said but I'm no hypocrite.

Barack Obama

So here's what I would do. If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.
...
If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there's a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem.

So what's to prevent an employer from offering the worst health care out there to basically force all employees to go for option B and then not have to worry about dealing with employee health care? After all, the employer is offering health care so he or she can't be fined, right? Raise your hand if you'd like Senator-level health care. Mine's up. I guess we'll have to stick the doctor bills to GE, Microsoft, and of course, Exxon/Mobil.

Barack Obama

And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.

In case you didn't know Senator, fewer and fewer cars are being built in America and one of the reasons why is that American car companies are taxed much higher than those in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and China. And you want to raise them higher, right? This is spoken like a true Democrat. Say what we want to hear even though your policies contradict the result you promise.

McCain was less than brilliant in this debate but he won it, nevertheless.

Round 2

2008-10-03T09:28:00.000-07:00

If you missed the October 2'nd Vice Presidential debate. Here it is in a nutshell.

Moderator: Senator Biden, how do you see the bailout situation?

Biden: We need more oversight and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: I just want to talk about the economy in general. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator Biden, what do you think about being Vice President?

Biden: McCain said the economy is strong. Then he changed his mind. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: Stop playing politics. That's not what McCain meant. McCain is good.

Moderator: Governor Palin, whose fault is the subprime meltdown?

Palin: We need to stop greed on Wall St. McCain will do this because McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama knew this would happen. McCain didn't. We need healthcare. Oh, and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, would you care to comment about health care too even though it wasn't asked?

Palin: No, I want to talk about taxes. Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is bad.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama is not bad. Obama is good. McCain wants to raise taxes. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: I'm a straight talker and McCain is good.

Moderator: Since you two want to talk taxes. Say more.

Biden: It's just simple fairness. Rich people should pay more taxes because like John McCain, rich people are bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Bad people like Obama want unfair re-distribution of wealth.

Moderator: Governor, do you support McCain's absurd health plan?

Palin: Yes, McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I'd rather talk about the good people in Scranton Pennsylvania. John McCain wants them to pay Exxon/Mobil's taxes. McCain is bad. ... Oh and about health care, John McCain wants to tax health care. He really is bad.

Moderator: I'm going to ask you a tough question Senator. What promises can't you keep?

Biden: None. It's all good because Exxon/Mobil will pay for it all. They, like McCain, are bad people.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: How is Obama going to keep the promise he made to one group and the contradicting promise he made to another? See, I don't have to answer the questions either.

Moderator: There's no promise you can't keep?

Palin: Well if you insist. I don't have to worry about keeping promises since I have made none.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Let me take 10 more minutes to repeat everything I have already said about taxes. Obama will lower them and give us free healthcare and clean alternative energy. McCain will raise taxes and we will all choke on oil exhausts.

Oh, and I support windfall profits taxes. They have been proven to be horrible for the economy and is really the stupidest idea ever, so I hope Governor Palin will convince McCain to support them too.

Moderator: Governor, what about legislation regulating the mortgage industry?

Palin: McCain said two years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would be in trouble. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator, didn't you disagree with Obama on this?

Biden: Yes, and Obama predicted the mortgage crisis two years ago. McCain was unaware. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, is that so?

Palin: Let's talk about energy and not boring old mortgages. It's a subject I really know. I am good. Energy independence is good.

Moderator: Okay, screw that last question. Let's just skip it and move on to climate change. Governor, what do you think?

Palin: Yeah, we feel it in Alaska more than anywhere else. We can help this by being energy independent. Did I mention that I like talking about this subject?

Moderator: Senator Biden, as a leading climate scientist, what has your exhaustive research on climate change led you to conclude?

Biden: All scientific evidence leads me to believe that climate change is McCain's and Palin's fault because they want to "drill, drill, drill".

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: We have oil, gas and coal. We believe in using it. Obama and Biden want to keep it in the ground.

Moderator: Governor do you support clean coal?

Palin: Yes

Biden: Me to, but McCain is bad.

Moderator: Senator, do you support rights for same sex couples?

Biden: Yes

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Yes, but not gay marriage.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I agree, no gay marriage.

Moderator: This is no fun. Let's move to foreign policy. Governor, you said you believe in an exit strategy in Iraq, is that true?

Palin: The surge is good. Petraus is good. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama said we will be out in 16 months. McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Our troops have come too far to throw up a white flag now. If McCain is so bad, why did you support him initially and call Obama "not ready to be Commander-in-Chief" Senator?

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: McCain voted against funding for troops. McCain is bad.

I'll end it here and just say that Palin looked particularly strong early and really challenged Biden well on the economic and energy questions. Biden looked more comfortable in the foreign policy arena. He obviously wanted to do what Obama chose not to do and that is to continually attack McCain on every single issue. It was too incessant if you ask me.

My other comment is that the Moderator revealed that she was pro-Obama when she asked Palin if she supported McCain's healthcare plan. She never bothered to ask anyone about Obama's. The climate change question had a similar tone. It also appeared that Biden knew what questions were coming and Palin did not. Maybe he is just gifted at this but Biden had every answer prepared and sounded like a speech giver. Palin 'ummed' a few times and appeared to think about how to answer. She may have diverted some answers but she came across as much more genuine.

Not all that interesting of a debate. I'll call it a tie.

No Predictions

2008-10-01T09:53:00.000-07:00

Unlike previous years, I will not post my baseball predictions for the 2008 postseason. Here is why.

1. I was almost spot on last year and I want to continue to bask in that (no, not really).

2. (The real reason) This is the best I have felt about the Dodgers in years so I can't be anything but biased. Dodgers all the way and will crush the Angels in the Series.

Go Blue!

Round 1

2008-09-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

Just a few comments about yesterday's Presidential debate.

Why did McCain resort to calling Obama naive and dangerous? Just state your cause McCain. Let us make those determinations for ourselves.

McCain will never win the battle of stage presence. Obama projects his voice like an old-time orator with his eyes outward and his voice strong and steady. McCain always comes across as a bit shifty-eyed and uncomfortable.

Democrats like to argue that Obama comes across as "more Presidential" and I can't argue with that.

However, when it come to content...

It appeared that Obama resorted to simply agree with John McCain several times. Nothing really wrong with that but it also seemed that this tactic just confirmed McCain's superior experience.

Obama, like most Democrats, relies on the ignorance of his audience. He is always stating what he thinks people want to hear.

Listen to his message.

He stated that Al Queda operates in 60 countries now and we need to devote our attention away from Iraq and focus on these other areas.
He is going to drastically increase funding for the development of alternative energy.
He is going to promote American good-will around the globe (with the possible exception of a certain 60 countries).
He'll get us all free health-care.

The punchline is - he is going to accomplish the above and still lower the taxes of 95% of us. I have a bridge for sale to anyone who is buying this load.

Still, by a small margin. Obama edges McCain in debate number 1.

New Blog

2008-09-07T14:10:00.000-07:00

In my continued devotion to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have created a blog for it that includes all my articles from http://www.2001aspaceodyssey.org/. It's posted in my links section.

2001: The Blog

I've been focusing more attention there than here. 2001 averages 50 hits a day. Pure Drivel averages 1.

Pure Drivel - Year 4

2008-09-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow begins my 4th year with this blog. Honestly, I don't think I would have thought 3 years ago that I would still be doing this. Nevertheless, I trudge on and have no intentions of stopping now. I always have lots of ideas in my head but I've always had trouble putting my ideas into coherent sentences. My post list is littered with entries that I started, never finished, and just left unposted. They will remain unposted.

My blog statistics indicate a shift in 2008. My blog received a lot of attention earlier this year because of my experience in the Ride and Drive event. I guess a lot of people were curious about what people thought of comparisons between Ford, Honda, and Toyota sedans. That entry was in early 2007 but it was early 2008 when a lot of people Googled and found it. My What is an American Car? article got a lot of attention from web searchers even though that was written in 2006.

I'll probably spend most of the next two months expressing my opinions concerning the election. I may have a thing or two to say about baseball, energy, the economy, or the auto industry. What comes after that may be related to who gets elected.

New Rules on Feminism

2008-09-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

Palin: Wrong Woman Wrong Message

Gloria Steinem, the founder of the modern feminist movement has a few things to say about Vice-President nominee Sarah Palin.

" even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president"

"Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters"

In Ms Steinem's editorial, from an after-convention discussion of reporters on CNN, and from Al Sharpton, I learned a few new rules on feminism I wasn't aware of:

A woman who runs for President or Vice President must be viewed as heroic, ground-breaking, and tough to break into the males only club. As long as she is a Democrat.

If a Republican woman runs for Vice President, she must be endlessly scrutinized. Surely she must be involved in some scandal. Other women should question her poor choice of being a Republican. A Republican woman's place is in the home so she can take care of the kids.

Men and women, who have no foreign policy experience can run for President and be considered bold, fresh, and ready to "change" the status quo and our perceptions on foreign relations. As long as they are Democrats.

A Republican woman with no foreign policy experience can't seriously run for Vice President because she obviously is strictly being used to attract the female voters. She, in fact, should be condemned.

A female politician making a speech and talking tough about standing up to fight for what she believes in is lauded for having strength of character as long as she is a Democrat.

A female Republican politician making a speech and talking tough about standing up to fight for what she believes in is accused of secretly being a man.

It is completely understood that all politicians have their speeches written for them by a professional speech writer. Exception: Republican women must write their own speeches. Otherwise, they are just a mouthpiece for a man.

I guess I'm anti-feminist after all.

Eriks Simple World

2008-08-17T12:00:00.000-07:00

Big Difference

Alright Erik, you asked for it. You called me out in your blog so I will return the favor.

In the simple world of Erik:

All Conservatives are racists.

All Republicans are psychopaths.

If you are against Martin Luther King Day being a national holiday, you are a racist.

Republicans are responsible for killing the planet and if you don't think so, you are stupid and don't believe in science.

Any reference to an article or a link that has something to do with Erik's point of view establishes Erik's argument as "fact" and "proof" that he is right.

Any article that Erik does not agree with is published by a right-wing nut member of a biased conservative media.

All Conservatives and Republicans are in lock step with each other so that the actions or statements by one apply to all.

In his black and white, simple views of the world, he attacks my character and wonders why I don't post comments on his blog as often as I used to. Unlike Erik, I see the world as complex. Every issue has many variables and I simply won't break them down to an A vs B point of view. When I do respond to his point A comment, he shoves me over to the full point B because he can't handle the idea that an issue may have more than two sides. If I don't agree with him, I'm a "Bush worshipper" or something like that.

Let's look at some examples:

McCain Security Ousts Reporter

This was a slam-dunk for Erik. Since an ousted reporter happened to be black, that was the reason he was kicked out. Plain and simple since it perfectly fits in with Erik's view that all conservatives are openly racist. McCain must be really stupid too, to commit such an obvious racist act.

O'Reilly to San Francisco

Erik says that a man who killed the Arkansas head of the Democratic Party did so because people like Bill O'Reilly said it's okay. We conservatives all think alike. I wonder who I should kill today? Ann Coulter said I can.

On a similar note, here's another gem from Erik:

"This sick individual who shot and killed two people and wounded others in Tennessee is pathetic but he is in the same mindset as a lot of conservatives"

Yes Erik, there is a big difference between us and it has nothing to do with our politics. I'm not questioning your intelligence but I do accuse you of being mentally lazy. Issues and problems should not be broken down as simply as you want them to.

McCain's Courage

2008-08-14T13:13:00.000-07:00

I just found a reason to like John McCain.

Barack Obama continues his strategy of saying the things his particular audience wants to hear. John McCain went to Michigan and told the people he's not going to bailout the auto makers. McCain dismissed calls to help Detroit make the cars they should have been making in the first place, or should be able to make now on their own damn dime given all the profits they banked during the SUV and pickup boom.
McCain, in doing this, pretty much blew off his chance of winning Michigan. At least he was courageous enough to make a stand. Good for you McCain!

John McCain: No Federal Loan Guarantees for Detroit

Bailouts are not the Answer

2008-07-31T22:07:00.000-07:00

In the late 1970's, Chrysler Corporation was in trouble. They failed to adapt to higher gas prices and newer anti-pollution standards. Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca went to Washington and managed to convince Congress that they could turn things around if the Government would give them a low interest loan. It took some time but Iacocca made good on his promise. Chrysler developed a new kind of vehicle called a minivan and the rest is history, Chrysler was the leading minivan company for nearly two decades. This and an overall improvement in their entire product line allowed Chrysler to pay back the loan - something most people (myself included) doubted they would be able to do. Chrysler, during the 1990's, had a bright future by being smart and creative.

These are not those times.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are all in serious trouble. They are losing billions of dollars each quarter. As in the 1970's, they didn't have the foresight concerning their slant towards large vehicles - large cars in the '70's and trucks and SUV's now, would come to an end. GMC Yukons, Chevy Silverados, Ford Expeditions, and Dodge Rams and the like were big moneymakers for these companies. So much that even Nissan, Honda, and Toyota began building behemoth vehicles to grab a share of the pot of gold. They are suffering for this action too, now. Not as much though since these companies have their Prius', Civics, Sentras, and such to fall back on.

What do the so-called domestic companies have?

Chevrolet has never had a highly rated small car. Chevettes, Cavaliers, Aveos, and Cobalts are typically at the bottom of most lists. They weren't any better in mid-size either until the current Malibu came out. Dodge had a decent small car in the Neon. They had good compact cars in the Stratus and Cirrus in the mid 1990's. However, Chrysler, under the control of Daimler at the time, utterly failed to update these vehicles and they eventually diminished. Only Ford isn't completely hopeless. They have had a competitive fuel-efficient vehicle in the Focus. The Fusion and Escape Hybrid indicate that they have a clue, but it hasn't been enough.

"The big 2.8" (Daimler still owns 20% of Chrysler) are losing billions of dollars and want the federal government to get them back on their feet. Translation; They want us taxpayers to fork over the bill for their inadequacies meaning we're supposed to pay the price for not buying Fords, Buicks, and Dodges. They argue, of course, that if they go under, thousands of jobs will be lost, not just by their own employees, but in all the dealerships, mechanics, and smaller companies that contribute to the makeup of their vehicles.

It's time to cut the cord and force these companies to fend for themselves, despite the consequences. If they work smartly, these companies have a good chance to survive and grab back what they had lost. Otherwise, they will fail because they deserve it. I believe Charles Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" applies here. If the government bails them out, why should these companies change their ways when they know they have the taxpayers as a safety net?

Unfortunately, both Presidential candidates are trying to get votes from Michigan by promising aid to the auto companies. They are both wrong and this is really very un-American. America is the land of opportunity, remember? That means one company's failures are another company's opportunities. Maybe it's time for some other company that's is driven and is better able to plan to fill the void. If the 2.8 fail, that's a lot of talented people out of work. Opportunity knocks.

I feel the same way about the bailouts for Fannie May and Freddy Mac. Let these companies die if they made such bad mistakes.

That also applies to people who made bad choices concerning their mortgages. Let them foreclose. Let the housing market stabilize because of free-market balance, not because of artificial, tax-payer paid bailouts.

This is all about responsibility. If we don't exercise it, future generations will pay.

So, Why All The Misery?

2008-07-20T12:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, so gasoline is pushing $5 a gallon. Prices seem to be leveling off for now but there's no indication that they'll go down any time soon. Let's look at how this is affecting us.

We are driving less.
We consolidate our shopping - no more going to the supermarket to get a loaf of bread. Also, more of us use carpools, take buses, ride on rails, or even simply decide we had no reason to drive in the first place.

We are dumping our over sized vehicles
Suddenly, small, fuel efficient vehicles are in vogue again. Monster pickup trucks, candied-up SUV's, and V8 sports sedans have suddenly lost their allure. For those who want or need a pickup truck or SUV, these are good times too since dealerships are overstocked and are offering tremendous deals (I've seen 1/3 off of sticker on some).

We are polluting the air less
All these smaller vehicles and less driving add up to less air pollution. For those who consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant, we're even spewing less of that.

We are looking at alternative fuels
Natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen, and pure electrically powered vehicles are being developed. Everything is still in a pre-larval stage but we have reached that point where the "gas is cheap" argument has finally gone away.

So I ask the question. Isn't this what we wanted? Isn't this all good? Shouldn't we be dancing in the streets since we are finally getting what we've been demanding for 40 years?

So, why all the misery?

Our Ever Expanding Government

2008-06-19T15:16:00.000-07:00

So let me get this straight regarding the recent Supreme Court Ruling.

Person A is a citizen of Pakafgahnistovania. He is hard working, law-abiding, and pays his taxes.

Person B is also a citizen of Pakafgahnistovania. He is a slimeball malcontent. He decides that the fault for his discontentment lies in the policies of the United States. Person B goes out to attempt to kill Americans to satisfy his twisted need for his version of justice.

The U.S. Constitution protects and gives rights and privileges to Person B. Person A is at the mercy of his home country.

Concerning Fuel Prices and Recessions

2008-06-16T09:12:00.000-07:00

Michelle and I took a short but beautiful vacation last month. We drove up the state to Yosemite and Healdsburg in Sonoma County. In between waterfall gazing and wine tasting, we were in the car. The trip put over 1,200 miles on my car which means, we consumed approximately 55 gallons of gasoline. At a then average of $4.10 per gallon, the trip cost us approximately $225 in fuel alone.

Now I'm telling this because as we all know, the recent sharp increases in the price of gasoline affect us all. Nobody is happy about it. The economic impact it has on us is real and we are reminded of it every time we go by a gas station. We cringe as we sneak a peak at how high the price has gone up since we last looked. We look down at the fuel gauge and hope that the needle is still on the F half.

Then we hear about house foreclosures, food shortages, and massive layoffs in the auto industry. Indeed, the economic news has been virtually 100% negative in the past few months. It's no surprise then, that polls show that most Americans believe we are in a recession.

But here's the rub; A recession is explicitly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Well, as it turns out, the GDP (that's gross domestic product) of 4'th quarter 2007 and 1'st quarter 2008 were positive, that's right, positive. Yes, they were the lowest in six years but when you think about recession, you have to realize it's about negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. We don't have negative growth for even one!

Why is the news so negative?

Well, it just happens to be an election year. Our friends of the main stream media are up to their usual tricks. They repeatedly pound in our heads that the economy is sagging. On top of that, they tell us that the Presidential election is focused on the economy. No wonder since that's all that seems to be reported now a days.

When was the last recession?

Look it up and you'll find the last recession (or two consecutive quarters of negative GDP) was in 2000 to mid-2001 during the Clinton administration and the beginning of the Bush administration. Remember all the negative news about the economy then? No, I don't either.

Now It's Tainted

2008-05-29T15:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the NBA officially stated the obvious. That is that Fischer fouled Barry at the very end of game 4 and Barry deserved the chance to tie the game with two free throws. Thanks refs for tainting the whole Laker drive to a championship! If the Lakers win the series, I could never look a Spur fan in the eyes and say "we beat you".

Now I know what it would have been like to have been a Patriot fan in early 2002.

A Small World for Small Minds

2008-05-21T10:41:00.000-07:00

At both Disneyland and Disney World, the timeless attaction It's a Small World will be updated. The boats are going to be changed to be more comfortable. That's good. The attactions will be re-painted as the vivid colors of the ride have faded somewhat. That's good. General repairs will be done as machinery that moves various parts of the ride has worn down or stopped working. That's good. Various parts of the attractions will now be themed to fit with recent Disney movies.

What?

For those of us who have visited Disney parks many times, It's a Small World has always been the charming, somewhat hokey, but classic ride that carried a simple, yet beautiful message of world-wide harmony. It featured all the children of the world in their national costumes and decorum singing together. This ride has been adored for decades by generations, young and old.

Why Change it?

Is putting an animitronic Alladdin in the Arabian section, or Mulan in China, going to attact more riders? No, but Disney thinks it might sell more dolls (action figures for the boys) and DVD's. I could go on about what I think about the lack of integrity this whole idea represents, but I, instead, will provide a link to what professional animators say about this compromise of vision.

The World of Animation Speaks

Think about it

2008-05-01T04:53:00.000-07:00

I was sent this email recently.

Where will we all be working in the next ten years? How about 20 years?
John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 am. While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG).

He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE), and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA).

After cooking his breakfast with his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA), he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA), he got into his car (MADE IN GERMANY), filled it with gas (from Saudi Arabia) and continued his search for a good paying job.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day - checking his computer (MADE IN TAIWAN), John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL), poured himself a beer (MADE IN HOLLAND) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA).

And then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA!

To any of you who are going out to protest your employer today for treating you unfairly or because you don't believe in Corporate America, remember that once upon a time, the U.S. had steel workers, welders, automobile assemblers, clothing manufacturers.

Look at the clothes in your closet. Did you think about who put them together? Did you think about the Americans you put out of work when you bought the cheaper toaster? As for that Toyota in your garage, do you ever think about all the unemployed auto workers in Detroit?

Obviously, you didn't. So why are you protesting now that your own job is in danger?

I am reminded of a poem.

First they came for the Communists
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Bush Gets it. Do You?

2008-04-29T13:37:00.000-07:00

Movie Quotes Part 1

2008-04-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

(Answers are now provided)

Some quotes from some favorite movies of mine. Do you know them? Most of the ones here are pretty easy especially if you know the movies I like. (No cheating allowed. i.e. don't go to http://www.imdb.com/)

1. "I have vision while the rest of the world wears bifocals." Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

2. "I am in a world of shit." Full Metal Jacket

3. "Not an easy thing to meet your maker." Blade Runner

4. "Call the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon. Find out who won that game!" The Pink Panther Strikes Again

5. "[Tequila], it's like beer." Three Amigos

6. "Even in the future, nothing works." Spaceballs

7. "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." 2001: A Space Odyssey

8. "I refuse to kill another human being in cold blood. However, in deference to your cultural traditions, I would be willing to have sex with him." Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death

9. "I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here." The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

10. "Marines! We are leaving!" Aliens

Three Responses

2008-04-13T14:53:00.000-07:00

From the Los Angeles Times April 9, 2008

"When you have finite resources, you've got to define your goal rightly and modestly." - Barack Obama

"The U.S. must reject, as we did in 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment we are succeeding." - John McCain

"It's time to begin in orderly process of withdrawing our troops and rebuilding our military and focusing on other problems." - Hillary Clinton

The three quotes above are from our three main Presidential candidates' responses to the report by General David Petraeus concerning the Iraq situation.

I see two responses that are carefully worded. I see two responses that indicate the tone of fear and surrender. There are two candidates willing to leave a nation to the wolves (Iran) in order to serve their own self-interests. These two responses are representative of candidates who will say what they believe is what the majority of people want to hear.

The other response outlines a more difficult path, one that sticks to the principles of our nation even if it goes against the grain. This is leadership.

A Man With Vision

2008-03-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers, he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching in the display unit's short term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.

...yet in a few milliseconds he could see the headlines of any newspaper he pleased. (That very word "newspaper," of course, was an anachronistic hangover into the age of electronics.) The text was updated automatically on every hour; even if one read only the English versions, one could spend an entire lifetime doing nothing but absorbing the ever-changing flow of information from the news satellites.
excerpt from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Arthur Charles Clarke died last week. It was only December when I acknowledged his 90th birthday. As I blog on my personal computer, I realize that activities like this were envisioned 40 years ago. Note the quote above, it reads like someone using his iPhone and accessing cnn.com or something similar.

If there was ever a person I wanted to meet, it was Arthur Clarke. Of course if I had ever met him, I'm sure I would have been a bumbling fool without any idea of what to say to him so maybe, it's best that I didn't. Years ago, in reading his autobiographical book, The View from Serendip, I felt I had met a kindred spirit. He said things and did things that I imagined I wanted to do and say.

He was certainly the right man for his time. He grew up at the dawn of the modern technological age. Airplanes and automobiles were just entering the scene. Computers and spaceflight were in the minds of dreamers. Imagine how different the world was between 1917 and now. Never before in human history did an entire generation witness such change.

A Pioneer
Clarke served in the second world war. Apparently the RAF recognized Clarke's extraordinary intellect and he was assigned to help develop a budding technology called radar and use it to aid aircraft in landing in poor conditions. Clarke became one of the first air traffic controllers. His novel Glide Path is about this work.

After World War II, Clarke turned his interest back to an earlier love; outer space. In 1945, he published a small paper on how a satellite placed at an altitude of approximately 22,000 miles would remain stationary with respect to the Earth below. Arranging a ring of such satellites would allow instantaneous global communication by sending a signal to one satellite and having it relay around the globe to its desired destination. 17 years later, this speculation became reality with the U.S. launch of Telstar.

Most of Clarke's speculations and extrapolations would come from his short stories and novels. In addition to the Internet-like technology I mention above, his works speculate such ideas as:

Atomic Engines - spaceships powered by controlled nuclear explosions (2001: A Space Odyssey)
Mass Drivers - using the inherent energy in matter/plasma to propel spaceships (2010: Odyssey Two)
Space Elevators - An efficient means of getting payloads into space (The Fountains of Paradise)

I should note that none of Clarke's short stories or novels, with the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey, used the convenient science fiction ploy of "hyperspace". Clarke strongly believed in stories that were based on science and true speculative science, not fantastical science that breaks laws of the universe.

An Explorer
While Clarke never made it into outer space, he was able to do the next best thing. He became an avid scuba diver in the 1950's. He and his then partner Mike Wilson (no relation) explored the Great Barrier Reef off of Australia as well as other places, primarily in the Indian Ocean. It was here where Clarke came upon the island of Ceylon (formerly Serendip and now Sri Lanka). Clarke lived the rest of his life on that island just south of India. It provided him with a great base in which to conduct his scuba diving expeditions. Clarke wrote some works concerning scuba diving (The Deep Range for one), but still concentrated the bulk of his writing on space.

A Screenwriter
Producer/Director/Screenwriter Stanley Kubrick decided to create a film concerning outer space. Someone told him to look up Arthur Clarke to which Kubrick only knew of as a "hermit who lives in India". Kubrick met Clarke while Clarke was visiting his homeland of England. They apparently took a quick liking to each other. For most of the year 1964, Clarke and Kubrick shuttered themselves in the Chelsea Hotel in New York to work on Journey Beyond the Stars. When they departed, a large part of the screenplay and novel for 2001: A Space Odyssey had been written. Kubrick would go on to tweak the screenplay further while Clarke added some polish to the novel so each got credit for one specific work.

In watching 2001 and reading the novel, it is fairly obvious where Kubrick went with it. The film's prominent mysticism is not in the novel. Yet the film obviously has Clarke's influence. Clarke, even then, was well known for his scientifically-grounded fiction. 2001 is to this day, is the most scientifically accurate space film ever made.

A Philosophizing Atheist
Clarke was always, paradoxically, the atheist who often wrote about God. He discarded any and all religious beliefs at an early age and strongly believed that science was ultimately the answer to everything. God, religion, and religious themes permeate his entire opus, however. My favorite short story of his is The Star. It's about a Jesuit priest who is losing his faith due to the discovery that an entire intelligent race had been wiped out by a supernova. The priest is on the edge of despair when he suddenly realizes that this killer supernova had served as the star of Bethlehem. I often think about this story, its incredibly irony, and what I'd think if this really had happened this way.

Childhood's End is my favorite novel. It is about a supreme entity, The Overmind, and the cast out creatures complete with horns and barbed tails who visit Earth to bring about the end of the human race. These creatures, known as The Overlords even inform the human race that they are not destined and not permitted to explore the universe. It is literally a story that portrays the opposite of Clarke's philosophy. Those who think that obviously didn't read the fine print. At the front of the novel, there is a disclaimer saying "The opinions expressed in this book are not those of the author."

An Aged Cynic
I remember interviews of Clarke where he believed he would walk on the Moon within his lifetime and possibly even go to Mars. In reflecting on those thoughts later, he lamented that humans were too fond of warfare and their own self-interests. It is really sad that on his 90th birthday this past December, his dreams were a bit more mundane. He wished for evidence of extraterrestrial life, for an end to the use of oil as fuel, and peace in perpetually war-torn Sri Lanka. At least he was fairly upbeat as it were. I remember recent interviews he gave where he came off as bitter and frustrated with humanity.

Clarke certainly got frustrated with the world's religions. It showed in all his recent writings, including his many collaborative efforts. Note that Clarke in his later years, suffered from Post-Polio Syndrome and couldn't move about very well. He wasn't able to do much writing himself so all his recent works were in collaboration with other authors. Clarke became convinced that religion is the cause of much, if not most of the evil in humanity. Personally, I disagree with him here as I think that religion is just used as a shield to justify an evil that is already in the heart of the evildoers, but I digress. Clarke went as far to say that he didn't want any iota of religion at his funeral.

For a man who was right on so many things, I hope he was wrong about there not being an afterlife. I'd hate to think he was really gone.

I'll re-post the link to his 90th birthday speech here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXQ7rNgWwg

The Worst in Methodologies

2008-03-11T16:18:00.000-07:00

11 Worst Cars - Consumer Reports

This is a little strange but somebody at CNN decided to research the 11 lowest scoring cars at Consumer Reports and write them up as the "11 Worst Cars".

Anybody who has read auto evaluations from Consumer Reports should know that they have a narrow view of what a car ought to be. Consumer Reports loves mid-sized sedans that have proven themselves reliable, affordable, and get good fuel mileage. If you have a family of 4 or 5 and drive them around on family picnics in addition to driving to work, then, by all means, take Consumer Reports to heart. Obviously, many do.

Consumer Reports, for the most part, hates sports cars, SUV's, and trucks. They like luxury sedans but often wonder why anybody should buy one when a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord can do the job. Speaking of the Camry and Accord, Consumer Reports for years has considered them the benchmarks, not just against other mid-size family vehicles, but everything else as well.

Knowing this, it's clear as to why the following vehicles fared as the worst.

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited: Never mind that this is a revered vehicle amongst off-road enthusiasts. Never mind that it goes places that others cannot. In fact, the article states "Consumer Reports performs off-road testing at its Connecticut proving grounds, but off-road ability doesn't factor into the final scores." Keep this in mind.

Hummer H3: Another off-road vehicle that, like the Jeep, is unique. Like the Jeep, it's not for cruising across the country on the Interstate. It's a special-purpose vehicle and certainly won't be mistaken for an Accord or Camry.

Jeep Liberty Sport: Now I'm biased here because I own a Liberty Limited (an upscale version of the Sport). Liberty's can out-tow any other small to mid-size SUV. That's valuable to some folk. Obviously not Consumer Reports, though. I wonder how well an Accord climbs over boulders.

Chevrolet Aveo5: The article doesn't bother to point out what's so bad about this car. I can only assume that it's not worth considering because its so much smaller than a Camry. It certainly costs less and gets better fuel mileage so what's the problem?

Dodge Nitro: It's actually hard to argue against this one but I have to laugh where it states the Nitro has no high points. In R/T form, it's quite powerful. Can't they at least point out its one of the fastest SUV's out there?

Toyota FJ Cruiser: Back to the off-road crowd. See Jeep and Hummer.

Toyota Yaris: Obviously, like the Aveo5, it's too small.

Suzuki Forenza: A valid entry here. It's a family sedan that doesn't come close to the Accord or Camry.

Jeep Patriot: Obviously Consumer Reports hates Jeeps. If the Patriot is so bad, why isn't the Dodge Caliber on the list? The Caliber is basically the same vehicle but it's not meant to go off-road. Apparently since Camrys and Accords don't go off-road, nothing should.

Chevrolet Trailblazer: Another valid entry here just because its on an aging platform.

Mercury Grand Marquis: This is a beloved, although aged platform. They are relatively cheap, powerful, comfortable, and are easy to find parts for and can run almost forever. All Consumer Reports likes is the large trunk.

With my disdain for Consumer Reports, I'm not really faulting them here. As I mentioned above, they have their particular criteria for judging the value of an automobile and anything that falls short of that criteria, regardless of what other strong points it has will fall short in their eyes.

I fault CNN for taking a quick and easy route of just taking results from another source and creating a headline stating their own conclusion based on those results. Shame on you CNN.

The Obama Email

2008-02-27T12:39:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I received the following email from a colleague.

I think this is something we all should read!!!

Look this up on Snopes if you doubt it.

Who is Barack Obama? Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself. probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

While this makes interesting reading. I can't endorse such a tactic to sway my vote. First of all, the statements about Obama disrespecting the flag are suspect. Yes, I've seen the photos out there but I am not so quick to jump to a conclusion.

What I really object to, though, is the dangerous notion that one can make determinations about someone because of the beliefs or actions of a family member. In other words, if a certain individual is a terrible person, therefore his son or daughter must be a terrible person as well. It is wrong to judge Obama by the actions of his parents just as it would be wrong to judge anybody by anything other than an individual's own actions and words.

I am not going to vote for Obama but that is because I don't agree with his politics, not because I disapprove of his parents.

Blu-Ray Wins

2008-02-22T10:14:00.000-08:00

Toshiba quits HD-DVD business

Like many, I have yet to invest a single penny into anything regarding high definition television. The biggest reason of course is due to financial limitations. Another reason, though, was that no distributable media format had established itself. That obstacle appears to have been hurdled.

I posted an article, The DVD Situation over two years ago mentioning the format battle primarily between Toshiba and Sony with their respective HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD formats. HD-DVD had the initial support but over the past year, it seems that Blu-Ray was taken over. That now appears confirmed. Too bad for those who invested in HD-DVD players and disks. You should have known you were taking a risk (just like those who invested in BetaMax 25 years ago.) Of course, your equipment still works and I'm sure HD-DVD disks will still be produced for a while. It does appear that Blu-Ray has the brighter and longer future, though. This will dismay some as there are those of you out there who don't like certain business practices of Sony. One of these business practices was incorporating rootkits - a form of spyware into its media.

With all this said, we have to also realize that things will never be as stable as they once were. Our standard-definition TV's are based on a standard developed in the 1940's. Yet, high definition television standards that were set less than 10 years ago are already being set up to be replaced. In the past, people often held on to their TV's for many years, decades even. Not any more. The industry apparently wants everybody to buy a new TV every 8 years or so. Think about it. To stay reasonably up to date, we need to purchase new computers every 3 years so this is nothing new.

What's more is that people (myself included) still have piles of VHS tapes that we never bothered to convert to or replace with DVD. Now the original (1996) DVD standard is dying, our tapes are going to be two generations of formats behind.

Just like in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones laments that a new music format will force him to buy the White Album again, I wonder how many times I am going to feel the need to re-buy 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Blade Runner, etc.

The Fate of the Union

2008-02-08T09:42:00.000-08:00

(Yeah, I've been coasting a bit. I'll have some articles of my own soon now that football season is over and I'm no longer sick.)

I found this little goodie and thought I'd share it. It's author is unknown.

If Bush resigned today, this is what his speech would be.....

Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer. I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out. Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beach front property than your economic security. We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell? And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe. You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops. Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol. I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads. So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008. So that's it. God bless what's left of America .Some of you know what I mean.The rest of you, kiss off.

Patriots 49 Giants 17

2008-02-02T10:05:00.000-08:00

That's my pick and I'm sticking to it. Every Supebowl, it's the same thing. The sports media tries hard the entire week to convince us that the underdog has a chance.

They are usually wrong.

Of course, I've been mostly wrong this whole season. I would love to be wrong again.

Another Silly "Who Am I?"

2008-01-18T15:48:00.000-08:00

I find these more fun than informative. What is informative about these is the human need to be defined.

I Am A: Lawful Neutral Human /Ranger (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:

Strength-14

Dexterity-15

Constitution-15

Intelligence-13

Wisdom-14

Charisma-11

Alignment:
Lawful Neutral A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs him. Order and organization are paramount to him. He may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or he may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. However, lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Monks are versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. Good-aligned monks serve as protectors of the people, while evil monks make ideal spies and assassins. Though they don't cast spells, monks channel a subtle energy, called ki. This energy allows them to perform amazing feats, such as healing themselves, catching arrows in flight, and dodging blows with lightning speed. Their mundane and ki-based abilities grow with experience, granting them more power over themselves and their environment. Monks suffer unique penalties to their abilities if they wear armor, as doing so violates their rigid oath. A monk wearing armor loses their Wisdom and level based armor class bonuses, their movement speed, and their additional unarmed attacks per round.

Secondary Class:
Rangers are skilled stalkers and hunters who make their home in the woods. Their martial skill is nearly the equal of the fighter, but they lack the latter's dedication to the craft of fighting. Instead, the ranger focuses his skills and training on a specific enemy a type of creature he bears a vengeful grudge against and hunts above all others. Rangers often accept the role of protector, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods. His skills allow him to move quietly and stick to the shadows, especially in natural settings, and he also has special knowledge of certain types of creatures. Finally, an experienced ranger has such a tie to nature that he can actually draw on natural power to cast divine spells, much as a druid does, and like a druid he is often accompanied by animal companions. A ranger's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:

Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)

Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)

Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)

Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (28)

True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)

Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)

Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)

Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXX (8)

Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Law & Chaos:

Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)

Neutral - XXXXXX (6)

Chaos --- XXXXXXXX (8)

Good & Evil:

Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)

Evil ---- XX (2)

Race:

Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)

Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Elf ------ XXXXXXXX (8)

Gnome ---- XXXXXXXX (8)

Halfling - XXXXXX (6)

Half-Elf - XXXXXXXX (8)

Half-Orc - XXXXXXXX (8)

Class:

Barbarian - (-21)

Bard ------ (-25)

Cleric ---- (0)

Druid ----- (0)

Fighter --- XX (2)

Monk ------ XXXX (4)

Paladin --- (-21)

Ranger ---- XXXX (4)

Rogue ----- (-6)

Sorcerer -- XX (2)

Wizard ---- (-2)

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus

SuperBowl Cancelled

2008-01-14T08:50:00.000-08:00

I have to agree with the L.A. Times TJ Simers on this one:

The Chargers Just Ruined a Great Game

Thanks to the San Diego Chargers, the Superbowl that would have been played next week in Foxborough, Ma between the two best teams in the NFL - The Indianapolis Colts and the New England Patriots won't occur. I guess it shows you have to actually play the games instead of figuring it out on paper.

The Patriots must be happy because the one team that had a decent chance of killing their perfect season is gone.

Meanwhile, in the NFL's version of Division 2 - also known as the NFC, Packers' fans around the country should write [G]iant thank you notes to the New York Giants. New York's upset in Dallas yesterday all but put the Packers in the Superbowl (although, as mentioned above, they will have to go through the actual process of playing the game).

Stop Them (Please)

2008-01-12T17:16:00.000-08:00

I don't care who it is, but somebody please beat the New England Patriots before they go 19-0 and I will never stop hearing Bostonians (and band wagoners) boast about their ultimate season.

I never had anything against the Patriots before this year. They are the team of the decade and I've had great respect for Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. I've lost much of that respect this season.

No, it's not because of the whole "cheating" thing. I'm sure just about every team does some form of play stealing that the Patriots got caught doing. I am talking about the pouring it on and the stat-padding.

They've been on TV quite a bit this year, obviously. Why do they never take Brady or any of their starters out in the last 5 minutes of the game when it's 42 - 10 or something like that? Why do they go for it on 4th down in these situations? Bellichick is showing he has no respect for the rest of the NFL. This team has no class. They don't deserve the acclaim.

I think Jacksonville has a small chance (really, I do). However, assuming New England wins today, I am looking for Indianapolis to end it next week.

Thoughts on 2008

2008-01-02T05:35:00.000-08:00

What to blog about in 2008?

Actually, I think I am mostly going to stay away from the election nonsense - at least directly. I have no idea of whom I want to win the next election. Just please let it not be Clinton or Obama.

I want to talk some more about the whole climate change subject. I will continue to assert that humans have very little to do with the Arctic ice melting and such until I read something really compelling and not fudged up, cherry-picked nonsense from ex-hippies and politicians. There's a lot more to this than whether or not it exists or is caused by humans. I intend to explore the benefits of global warming, (yes, there are benefits.) I also want to address the whole "sky is falling" mentality that is eroding our collective consciousnesses.

Ethanol is a good topic to discuss in 2008. It's ludicrous to think that it will take place of oil. At least, with the technology we have today. We may be substituting "Big Oil" with "Big Corn" but we will be paying more and polluting no less.

If not ethanol, then what?

Are hybrid cars all that?

The biggest problem in the world is people.

Guns, do they really kill people?

Health care. Raise your hand if you think the federal government could possibly provide it efficiently and with quality. Before you raise your hand, think about all the other wonderful government programs that are run well and within a reasonable budget.

Radical Islam. Is 2008 going to be the year they hurt us again or will they keep infiltrating and hold on for a bigger strike?

I'm wondering if Joe Torre will make any bit of difference to the Dodgers. Are we just in for another slightly above/below .500 year again?

With Georgia Frontiere not expected to live out the year, will Chip Rosenbloom move the Rams back to Los Angeles?

Last Thoughts on 2007

2007-12-31T14:23:00.000-08:00

For us Wilson's, 2007 was a tumultuous year. My mother suffered a heart attack on Valentine's day and had to go through open-heart surgery. One month later, my father passed away. It seemed like I spent the rest of the year in picking up the pieces.

In between all of this, I had some of the heaviest workloads I had seen in a while. I racked up a lot of overtime, which is good, especially when it's over. Then at the end of the year, business really slowed and I started to stress a little over that. Fortunately, it seemed to have been a temporary lull. While I haven't been putting in long hours, the work has been steady.

Well, most things are in order again. We found all of my Dad's important stuff and my Mom now is living comfortably 20 min. from my home. Goodbye monthly trips to Las Vegas! I won't miss them. I'm wondering what is coming next. One thing I know is that if one ever thinks he or she has a handle on things, it won't last. Something always changes. It's how we adjust that makes all the difference.

Happy Birthday Sir Arthur C. Clarke

2007-12-16T19:33:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXQ7rNgWwg

Arthur C. Clarke is one a a very select few whom I would call a "hero" of mine. He celebrated his 90'th birthday today (really yesterday to me since he lives on the other side of the planet in Sri Lanka).

Clarke is primarily known as a science fiction writer, but he has been much more than that. He is one of the few sci-fi writers who really knew his subject matter really well. His stories are loaded with authenticity. There is really nothing he ever speculated about in his writings that could ever be considered impossible or even improbable. While many or really most writers conveniently ignore gravity, the speed of light, and other inconveniences of the universe so they can put their Earthbound stories in space, Clarke respects the laws of the universe and his novels and short stories reflect this respect.

Clarke will always be remembered for other things.

One-Time Head of the British Interplanetary Society: In the 1930's, Clarke and others, would gather in pubs and talk about real spaceflight. No Buck Rogers, but real rockets and what it would take to get to outer space from scientific and engineering viewpoints. Many of their ideas became reality 30 years later.
Clarke's Belt - Geo synchronized satellites that allow global communications including the Internet. Clarke drew this up in 1945 - 12 years before Sputnik. Clarke is considered the "Father of Global Communications"
Clarke's Three Laws - Gems that are the basis for all good science fiction.
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Oscar Nomination for 2001: A Space Odyssey (With Stanley Kubrick)
Predicting the Internet in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey
Calling the Space Shuttle Program "A Disaster waiting to happen" in mid-1985, half a year before the Challenger disaster. Clarke never was a fan of a space shuttle designed beautifully by NASA and destroyed by Congress.

There are Clarke speculations that have yet to come to pass, but I hope they will. These include the Space Elevator from his novel The Fountains of Paradise and energy derived from ordinary air.

Happy Birthday Dr. Clarke. I share in your hope for s space-faring human race.

Streeter and Dorrell

2007-12-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

" Over several seasons, Dorrell has won about six out of 10 games. So did his predecessors. He's doing what football coaches do at UCLA.

I've long been skeptical about the heated, heavy anger directed at Karl Dorrell. I've wondered: Where does it come from? " - Kurt Streeter, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 30, 2007

There is a very good chance that today will feature Karl Dorrell's last game as UCLA's football coach. This man was probably hired because of his skin color and will most likely, be fired because he is a mediocre coach. Kurt Streeter, in the quote above, doesn't seem to realize that Dorrell's white predecessors who performed similarly, also were fired.

Go Trojans!

What's in a Name?

2007-11-18T21:41:00.000-08:00

If you haven't seen the exchange involving the word "bitch" between John McCain and a Hillary hater or the remarks by CNN's Rick Sanchez, watch it here.

Crazy or Stupid?

I'm not a McCain fan but my initial reaction is that he handled it pretty well. Of course, CNN's Sanchez would like to think this finished the whole campaign but that's what I'd expect from CNN. That's not what I want to discuss, however.

Thinking about it some more brought me to an interesting hypothetical. What if the questioner was an African-American referring to Barack Obama asking:

"How do we beat the n*****?"

I wonder how it would have played had this been the case. I believe McCain would have reacted much more harshly and if he hadn't, then Sanchez would probably be right. McCain would be finished.

Notice how even I will print the "b" word and not the "n" word. The "n" word has certainly become quite the taboo in our society. It's interesting isn't it? How many women would think it's okay to use the "b" word and not the "n" word? Should we react upon hearing the words equally? If not, what makes one okay to use and not the other?

Rudolph Giuliani: Sports Analyst

2007-11-02T16:20:00.000-07:00

Let's do this again.

Al Michaels: So Mr Giuliani, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?

Rudolph Giuliani: Well Al, I remember when I was Mayor of New York, I cut down crime on the roads to the Meadowlands Stadium by 45%. I worked hard with our law enfo...

Al Michaels: (To himself) Here we go again

Al Michaels: Rudy, Rudy!, I'm here to talk about sports. I just want your prediction for the game.

Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, the game itself? It's going to be a struggle - kind of like the struggle during 9/11 when our firefighters had to battle the smoke, ash and falling debris to save thousands of lives. I expect the Colts and Patriots to be like my fire-fighting warriors as they battle each other.

Al Michaels: Care to actually make a prediction as to who will win?

Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, I'm rooting for Boston, er New England for sure.

New Yorkers: Boooooooh!

Hillary Clinton: Sports Analyst

2007-11-01T16:59:00.000-07:00

Let's just imagine this for one minute.

Al Michaels: So Mrs. Clinton, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?

Hillary Clinton: First of all, having two teams undefeated this late in the season indicates a lack of parity in the league. This can clearly be blamed on the current administration for setting up policies where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When I am President, I am going to change that by increasing the ta...

Al Michaels: Eh, excuse me Hillary, I just want your prediction as to who's going to win the game.

Hillary Clinton: The Patriots are certainly a strong team. They are very democratic in the way they share the ball among so many players. The current administration doesn't play that way! The Patriots' style of play makes them unbeatable.

Al Michaels: So you pick the Patriots, then?

Hillary Clinton: Well, you also have the Colts, who have an African-American coach. Despite the current administration's running the country like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about, the coach has managed to overcome this and because of that, the Colts are unbeatable.

Al Michaels: Now wait a minute, you just said earlier that the Patriots are unbeatable. They both can't be.

Hillary Clinton: No Al, this is one of those situations where my opponents say "gotcha!". Don't misconstrue what I've said. Clearly this confusion can be blamed on the current administration!

Al Michaels: Let me ask this question, again... One more time. Who do you pick to win on Sunday, the Patriots or the Colts?

Hillary Clinton: I believe I've stated my position on this issue clearly.

Boo!

2007-11-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

Just thought I'd list some of my favorite horror movies. Don't know what prompted that. Most horror films are pure crap. That includes just about all the teen slasher movies. I'm not the type who actually gets scared watching a movie so this is not a list of the scariest films. It's a list of the rare films in this genre that I think are worthwhile to watch.

In no particular order:

Psycho: The definitive work on audience deception. Hitchcock masterfully leads us into a story about a woman trapped in her own web of deception, then without warning, kills her off and reveals a new story about a man in his own trap.

Alien: The ultimate creature movie. This film has such a creepy tone. It doesn't hurt that it takes place in a cramped ship in an alien part of outer space.

The Shining: In the Overlook hotel where the winding endless hallways mimic the surrounding mountains, a family dwells in utter isolation. Does the terror come from outside unnatural forces or does the locale bring out the inner demons of each individual? The Kubrick film is great. The TV movie that is based more on the Stephen King book is weak.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 & 1978), Body Snatchers (1993): A movie so good, they've re-made it three times. I haven't seen the one that came out this year (The Invasion), but the three predecessors are all very good in their own unique way. "They're coming, they're coming! You're next!"

A Nightmare on Elm Street: Let me explain this very carefully, only the first one is worth the trouble. The sequels are just along the same lines as the Halloweens and Friday the Thirteenth movies. The first one though, is very good as it puts a new twist on the teen slasher. This time, he comes in your dreams. How can you stop him? How can you make anyone believe you?

Count Dracula (1977 TV Movie): This version of the classic story actually follows the novel quite faithfully. It's far superior to the very tame Bela Lugosi flick and the over the top, ridiculous Francis Ford Coppolla version.

Frankenstein (1992 TNT Movie): This is reasonably faithful to the novel and it certainly captures its themes quite well. The more recent Kenneth Branaugh film isn't bad but it's over-acted.

SSSSS: This is a campy B movie all the way but it is very creepy. "Red touch yellow kills a fellow."

Beware, the Blob: Also, a very campy B movie. It is hilarious. The blob devours everything including hippies, priests, and policemen. This is Larry Hagman's one and only movie he directed.

The Howling: This came out almost exactly at the same time as An American Werewolf in London. The Howling is much better, in terror, effects, and campiness.

Bush Hates Healthy Children! Read All About it!

2007-10-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

House Sustains President’s Veto on Child Health

The headline of the New York Times article above is unbelievably slanted. Nevermind that federal government has no business in the health care business and the veto merely put some limits on the whole bad idea.

How about a headline slanted the other way.

House Sustains Bush's Defense of the Constitution

He Assaulted Truth. Now He Gets Awarded for Peace?

2007-10-14T06:24:00.000-07:00

When Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace prize, the Nobel Peace committee lost all credibility for me. Now they award Al Gore the same award for his opinionated and biased attempt at explaining global warming. Well, at least they're consistent. Gore fudged data, made all sorts of inaccurate statements, and drew conclusions based on very little evidence. Yet, somehow, he gets an Academy award and a Nobel Peace Prize for his attack on the truth.

In a world gone mad, there is a little sanity. In Great Britain, it was ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, if it is to be shown in schools, must be accompanied by a disclaimer.

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

Of course, I already did my own research on this earlier this year.

A Convenient Lie Part 1
I assert that Al Gore created his film for political reasons. I outline his primary arguments.

"The Debate is Over" (A Convenient Lie Part 2)
I point out that there is a huge amount of qualified people who dispute Gore's claims. The debate is hardly over.

The Case for Global Warming (A Convenient Lie Part 3)
I summarize Gore's arguments.

Why It's Wrong (A Convenient Lie Part 4)
There are many holes in Gore's arguments. I go over just a few.

The Truth (A Convenient Lie Part 5)
Global warming is caused by (gasp) the Sun!

Politics vs Science (A Convenient Lie Part 6 - FINAL)
Politicians seem to care more about this issue than scientists. They wouldn't have anything to gain from this fear-mongering, would they?

October's Best

2007-10-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

Now that I've mostly gotten over my depression of the Dodgers' absolute collapse in September, I'll give my fearless picks for October.

Divisional Series
Rockies over Phillies
Diamondbacks over Cubs
Yankees over Indians
Red Sox over Angels

League Championship Series
Rockies over Diamondbacks
Red Sox over Yankees

World Series
Red Sox over Rockies

Position Available #2

2007-09-25T09:48:00.000-07:00

Badly Wanted: A head coach with guts and a success-driven attitude for a badly under-performing football team in St. Louis. This football team has some of the most talented players in the NFL. They feature one of the most cool-headed, accurate and toughest quarterbacks, a young, emerging running back who is also an excellent receiver and blocker. An array of wide-receivers and tight ends with speed and great hands would be at your disposal.

Unfortunately, this team is so poorly coached that they appear utterly inept. This position is available immediately. Hurry and apply before it's too late. Bill Cowher and Marty Shottenheimer would make primary choices but anyone who is fiery, and can plan solid game strategies and not be prone to making sorry-ass excuses would be considered.

Position Available #1

2007-09-25T09:32:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Dodgers, a major league baseball team serving the Los Angeles community has an urgent need for a manager. They need a highly motivated, success-driven leader. Applicants must be willing to tirelessly train and drive personnel to perform at a high level. Applicants must be able to incorporate a work ethic stressing fundamentals, conditioning and toughness. Applicants will need to have a heavy hand when needed to motivate a team that comprises many young players. Applicants must inspire attitude in team that anything short of making the postseason will be regarded as a complete failure to fulfill objectives.

The Los Angeles Dodgers organization is a proud major league baseball franchise with a rich tradition of success. The position offered here has major benefits including working with some of the finest young talent in the league.

"Player's managers" need not apply. Send your resumes to Sick_and_tired_of_feeble_management@dodgers.com.

Now That's God

2007-09-24T19:20:00.000-07:00

I've been away helping my Mom move from Las Vegas to La Verne. I received the following link from my Uncle and Aunt. It's a really special tale.

Now That's God

Somehow, I Should Have Known

2007-09-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

I just read the somewhat amusing speech by Osama bin Laden. He gives much praise to Allah, of course. He praises his soldiers of Islam for their hard work in the battle against the Imperial United States.

In between all this, he takes the time to condemn a few other things:

He blasts the United States involvement in an "unjust" war in Iraq.
He says the United States is in the war based on "blatant lies" by the federal government.
He essentially says that democracy doesn't work because it breeds greedy corporations.
He says the United States is destroying the planet by not ratifying the Kyoto accord.
He blames America's evil on capitalism.

If it wasn't for the continual references to Allah and Islam, I can't help but think that this speech could easily have been made by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards.

I wonder what political party bin Laden supports? Next month, I suppose he will lay out his platform for national health care.

Okay, Here We Go

2007-09-05T20:52:00.000-07:00

My absolutely fearless predictions for the 2007-2008 NFL season. You can take this to the bank.

...No, really.

...I'm serious, these predictions are dead on.

...Okay, so I wasn't so great last year, but this year will be different.

...I got a really good feeling this time.

...Fine, so don't believe me, you'll be sorry.

AFC East

This is my biggest surprise. After years of domination, the Patriot bubble will burst. They are due for a disappointing season and this will be it. They won't be bad but they won't be good enough to make the postseason. This division will be a fight between the Bills and Jets with the Bills winning the division and the Jets in the wild card. Just remember, you read it here first.

AFC North

The Bengals will run away with this with a solid season. The Ravens will be competitive but will fall short. This will be a disappointing season for the Steelers and the Browns will be, well... the Browns.

AFC South

My pick for this division will be ....(drumroll please)... The Colts! Okay, no surprise there. Some of the problems they had last year will turn up again but no one else in this division is going to compete with them.

AFC West

This is going to be a close one between the Chargers and Broncos. The Chargers will prevail. The Raiders will improve to respectibility and the Chiefs are in for a sorry season.

NFC East

Like their AFC counterparts, two teams will slug it out until the end. Eagles get the division, Cowboys get the wild-card. The Redskins and Giants will not be in the race in the second half. For once, this division will not be the 3 or 4 team race it usually is.

NFC North

The Bears! Was that so hard? No, they're the only good team in this otherwise, sorry division.

NFC South

The Saints will pick up where they left off last year and dominate this division. Carolina will stick near them for a while but will have to settle for a wild card. The Falcons and Buccaneers are going no where.

NFC West

This is now the NFL's most competitive division. The Seahawks are a little older but still a good team. The other three all improved. This division will be a mess. All four teams will look good at different times of the season. The division lead will change frequently throughout the season. The team that will end up on top when the dust has settled will be the Rams.

Postseason

AFC Division Winners = Bills, Bengals, Colts, Chargers
AFC Wild Card = Jets, Broncos
AFC Champion = Chargers

NFC Division Winners = Eagles, Bears, Saints, Rams
NFC Wild Card = Cowboys, Panthers
NFC Champion = Rams

NFL Champion = Chargers

Now you know. Do we need to actually go through the formality of playing the games?

HELL YES!

Property

2007-08-21T10:43:00.000-07:00

There's been an interesting discussion on the last two Larry Elder radio shows. It concerns what should happen to Michael Vick, who now has pleaded guilty in charges of gambling and being involved in illegal dog-fighting.

Mr. Elder asserts that although he finds Vick's actions "disgusting" and "reprehensible", he doesn't feel that what he did should be considered illegal. He points out that if one were to take an axe and chop up one's own television set, it would be a stupid act but wouldn't be illegal as the TV was the property of that individual.

This riled up a few of his listeners. Last Friday, one guy called and said that his dogs are not property, but members of his family. Larry asked him if somebody came in to his house and killed his dog, would he treat that the same way as if it were his wife or his child? The man responded "yes", which I could tell just floored Larry. Yesterday, Larry reported that he had been inundated with emails from listeners who felt the same way as the Friday caller did. Larry tried to explain that we eat cows and chickens so what makes dogs and cats so special? Larry mentioned that he owns a cat but does not see the cat as an equal to other members of his family.

I can only add that I was as close to my dog as I had ever been to any other human being so I can relate to these callers. I know that not everybody feels this way (certainly not Michael Vick) and some people truly view their pets as "property".

Worse than Hillary?

2007-08-14T11:08:00.000-07:00

First we get Hillary Clinton attempting to pander to a predominantly black audience with her "I don't feel no ways tired" quotation. Never mind that it appeared more of an insult than anything else.

"Everybody here has looked after me for years, If it wasn't for these folks, I wouldn't be nowhere. ... This is my crew." - Presidential Candidate Barack Obama at Bud Billiken Parade Aug 11, 2007

This gem was said to a primarily black audience that included children. This from the same man who had stressed the importance of education. His own website states "Because education begins at home, parents must set high standards and inspirational examples for their children. "

Is this what he means by high standards?

Utterly Ridiculous

2007-08-06T19:18:00.000-07:00

Stop the Hatin', Hank

Dr. Todd Boyd, a professor at the University of Southern California calls Henry Aaron a "hater". Henry "Hank" Aaron has been a class act at least since he started playing Major League Baseball in 1954. In 1974, when he was being lambasted for breaking Babe Ruth's all-time home run record, he never said a word about the hate that was bestowed upon him.

Comparing Ruth and Aaron indicates two different players. Ruth compiled his 714 total home runs in bunches. For a 15 year period, he was a holy terror as he hit 666 home runs over that time. Aaron wasn't quite as dangerous per year or at bat as he took 18 years to hit 673 home runs during his prime. Considering he played 8 more games per year, it took Aaron considerably more at bats to accomplish what Ruth did. What gets lost in that it also means Aaron helped his team with his power over a longer period of time.

Dr. Boyd is clueless. He gets into racism. HELLO! Aaron and Bonds are the same race so why would anyone not want Bonds to break Aaron's record due to race? With the language this professor uses (Ebonics?) in the article, he is just pandering. Why ESPN used this article is beyond me.

What floored me even more was what I heard on KABC radio today. Some idiot called in and said that white people still think that Babe Ruth has the home run record. No one I know, of any skin color thinks that. That includes my wife who knows next to nothing about baseball records.

No, I think most people like myself who hate the fact that Bonds is breaking Aaron's record hate it because Bonds is a steroid-using asshole. I hope Alex Rodriguez breaks Bonds record soon.

The Value of Patience

2007-07-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

With the Major League Baseball trade deadline approaching, I am hoping that my team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, don't - if you'll excuse the pun, bet the farm on some overpaid player another team wants to dump. As far as I'm concerned, Chad Billingsly, Joe Beimel, Jonathan Broxton, James Loney, Matt Kemp, Tony Abreu, Russell Martin, and Andre Ethier should be untouchable. Chances are one or two of these guys is going to be big stars, some are going to be solid players, and one or two may fizzle out into busts. The thing is that no one really knows who's going to end up being what.

This year is probably not our year. Let's give these guys more games to work together and hopefully make the playoffs. Then look out next year.

Politics vs Science (A Convenient Lie Part 6 - FINAL)

2007-07-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

Science

It takes very little in overall temperature change to melt glaciers and show the environmental impact that global warming alarmists love to show. An overall increase in solar radiation over the past 2 centuries certainly accounts for the 1 degree rise in temperature we've experienced. 250 years ago, we had a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age". 1,000 years ago, we had the "Medieval Warm Period", a very warm period where there is evidence that the northern polar ice caps were melted. Why do you think Greenland is called "Greenland"? The Vikings named it that a millennium ago because it was an expanse of green, grassy prairie in their time.

We spew all sorts of gunk into the air. The hazardous effects of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) are well documented. Air pollutants cause health problems such as asthma and lung cancer. Air pollution leads to acid rain which means these pollutants are getting into the ground and causing even more problems. We are poisoning fish (and ultimately, ourselves) by dumping lead and mercury into the rivers and oceans. These problems are man-made and they are real.

I'm mentioning all of this because there are definite problems we must address for our own future's sake. The problem for anti-industrial politicians (primarily Democrats) is that these are old problems that most people know about. The alarms of air pollution, water and food contamination, acid rain, and the like have been loudly sounding off since the 1960's. To most people today, it's just white noise. Also, these problems have been going on during Presidencies of both Republicans and Democrats so it's hard to blame one party.

We should be addressing real issues, not chasing shadows. Also, note that people talking about global warming as real are politicians, not scientists - political organizations, not scientific ones. The Sierra Club sure believes in it. Check out Scientific American. The most respected public scientific journal/magazine is very neutral about the whole thing.

Politics

Democrats are doing their best to pin global warming on Republicans. Even though this pseudo-junk-science phenomenon, which, even by their own admission has been going on for decades, they are trying like crazy to blame it all on one George W. Bush. Their argument for this? - Because George W. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.

The Treaty of Anti-American Industry - aka Kyoto Treaty was essentially designed to benefit every nation on Earth except the United States. European nations, on the whole, don't have much heavy industry. Their small roads, high fuel prices have by economics, forced Europeans to get by with small, highly fuel efficient cars. They get much of their steel and other processed materials from South America, Africa, and parts of Asia that are not part of the Kyoto accord. So to them, the treaty was a slam dunk. They got to look good to their citizenry and wouldn't be very affected economically. American industry, on the other hand, would have been slapped with tons of new regulations and restrictions. Enough where what remaining industrial jobs would go to China.

China Overtakes U.S. as World's Biggest CO2 Emitter

Do you think China, perhaps, has an interest in the U.S. shutting down more industries?

Another Angle
The theory of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming is highly suspect. The whole global warming theory - man-made or not is not even universally accepted as the southern hemisphere of the Earth has actually been cooling. (The alarmists conveniently don't mention this.)

But, even if it was true! Even if the alarmists are right, they are still not telling us everything. Increased CO2 in the air has benefits. In case you didn't know, plants breathe Carbon Dioxide. Increased levels of CO2 means flora, on the whole, thrive. Plankton, the lowest link in the food chain, multiply. This is good news. Global cooling would be a much bigger problem. Witness the little ice age 250 years ago when much of Europe was starving due to low crop yields and a scarcity of fish.

Either way, human beings adapt. Let's get back to real problems like terrorism and real (non CO2) pollution.

The Truth (A Convenient Lie Part 5)

2007-07-22T11:47:00.000-07:00

If I had just crawled out of a cave and I was told that temperatures were rising, I'm pretty sure the first thing I would think of is the Sun. Call me crazy, call me hopelessly naive, but I tend to look for straightforward, even obvious answers to problems. Neither the IPCC nor Al Gore seem to want to do this, however. Instead, they came up with a contrived, complicated reason. Now of course, Climate Science is complicated, Gore used this to put on his smoke and mirrors act. To do this, he hardly mentions the Sun at all. The only time he really does is when he talks about how greenhouse gases trap it. The IPCC and Gore treat sunlight as some sort of universal constant.

The Sun has Weather too

Sunshine is not a constant. It varies year to year. One of the ways we track it is by sunspot activity. Essentially, the more sunspots, the more magnetically active the Sun is. The more magnetically active the Sun, the more energy it spews. We've been tracking sunspots since the 1600's - Galileo was the first to discover them in 1610. NASA has been collecting data on them.
I think the chart above speaks for itself.

Still don't believe?

Mars has shrinking ice caps. We've known about them since 1671 (Huygens). Between then and now, there has never been a time where they are so small. In fact, at the rate they are shrinking, they might be completely gone in a few decades - much the same way the northern ice cap on Earth may disappear soon.

Are the Martians burning fossil fuels?

Why It's Wrong (A Convenient Lie Part 4)

2007-07-15T14:00:00.000-07:00

At the risk of being repetitive, let me summarize the entire global warming argument.

-There has been an increase in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere over the past 150 years.

-Global temperatures have risen over the same period of time.

-From the two facts listed above, we can conclude that global warming is caused by human beings spewing CO2 since the Industrial Revolution has occurred over approximately the same period of time.

That's it. Everything else you see, hear, and read about (glaciers melting, polar bears dying, etc) is used to support the above assertions.

The Carbon Dioxide - Temperature Correlation

Let's look at the CO2 graph. This graph is based on the IPCC argument that CO2 levels are rising and are at record levels.

Notice anything unusual about this graph? One is the gap from 1900 to 1986. Why is there no data for these years?

Also, the data up until 1950 came from ice core samples taken in the Arctic. From 1986 on, the data comes from direct readings from the 13,000 ft Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. That in itself is pretty interesting isn't it? To anyone who's not so eager to just swallow this graph up and accept it as "truth", it leads to the question; Why did they use two different types of data for two different time periods?

Let's look at another graph.

This is a graph showing CO2 levels up until 1960. The difference between this and the previous one is that this data comes from direct sampling from the Pacific. Notice how the CO2 levels are actually much higher in the 1800's. Also notice how some samples are at around 500 parts per million (ppm). In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore specifically states that CO2 levels have never reached above 300 ppm until now.

For a full explanation of these graphs, look at this article.

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

Now let's take a look at the whole Carbon Dioxide - Global Temperature correlation. Here is a frame taken directly from An Inconvenient Truth:

This is from the part of the film where Gore is comparing global levels of CO2 (red) to global temperatures (white). Gore expects you to see this and immediately see the correlation that in general, when CO2 levels are high, so is the temperature. Now keep in mind that this shot is taken right from the movie. I'm going to show you something I'm sure Gore did not intend for you to see.

I drew in some vertical lines. You may have to click on the image to see my point here. Notice how as the lines show, temperatures change first, CO2 levels change later. In line #1, the white line is bottomed out. Notice the CO2 level has not bottomed out at this point. It's following the same general pattern as the temperature but seems to lag behind it. Line #2 is an example where the temperature has peaked, yet the CO2 is still rising. What does this graph show? It shows that temperature increases and decreases affect CO2 levels, not the other way around. In other words, raise the temperature and eventually, the CO2 level will rise. Al Gore and the IPCC want you to believe that changing the CO2 levels change the temperature. Gore's own graph contradicts this claim. I'll concede that not every single peak and valley indicate this, but look at the chart, most of them do.

Above is more of the same. This time, we're at the end of the chart (where Gore goes up in a crane to demonstrate the "off the chart" CO2 levels we're going to reach in 50 years or less). Even here, where the temperature and CO2 levels are rising as Gore strongly emphasizes, my point shows again. Look at line 6 where we have the current temperature/CO2 rise, the temperature began rising before the CO2 levels.

Al Gore is lying.

Finally, a Weekend

2007-07-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know it's been way too long. I've just not had the energy. I've had a huge project at work which is still going on, but it's no longer putting me in the frantic pace I've been at for the past few weeks. Couple that with helping my Mom in preparing to move back to California and I've just not had the will to blog.

I want to wrap up my Convenient Lie series (I've got 3 more chapters coming) and move on to some other stuff.

I Guess I'm Not Weird Al

2007-06-19T17:17:00.000-07:00

How White and Nerdy Are You?

The Case for Global Warming (A Convenient Lie Part 3)

2007-06-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

Let's take a look at the heart of the matter. I'll leave Gore alone for now and look at what the overall message is. Global warming alarmists make three basic assertions:

The Earth is getting warmer and warmer

This warming is primarily caused by human activity

The results of global warming are potentially disastrous if we don't change the way we do things now.

Notice how this is slightly different than the politically motivated 4 points that Gore makes (See A Convenient Lie Part 1). Politics aside, these are the arguments that the scientists who believe in global warming are making.

Of course, arguments 2 and 3 are meaningless unless you can demonstrate merit in argument number 1.

Above is the now famous "hockey stick" graph that indicates the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature levels. The basic idea is: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (a gas that traps heat). Human-caused pollutants since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have been adding to the CO2 levels of the atmosphere. As a result of more of this heat-trapping gas, the Earth's climate has been getting warmer.

Evidence

Most major cities have been keeping daily temperature since the 1880's, some have records as far back as the 1860's. It is generally agreed that the United States and Europe have seen an increase in average temperature over this time by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. This can be significant enough to melt ice in northern regions or at high elevations up to a month early. Indeed, it is now believed that the glaciers in the lower 48 states (Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and California all have glaciers) will be completely gone before the end of the 21'st century, possibly by 2050.

In addition, the increase in large hurricanes has been attributed to the global warming effect. As ice melts into the oceans, the salinity goes down and cools the water. This cooler, less salty, ocean water will evaporate quicker and cause larger storms.

Disaster

The aforementioned increase in large storms is one of many potential disasters increased global warming will cause. Additionally, we will have to concern ourselves with:

More disease as bacteria and insects that bear dangerous contagions tend to thrive in warmer weather.
Increased ocean levels that can potentially flood coastal cities.
Droughts will occur in certain areas, flooding in others as storms will tend to be fewer, but larger.
More wildfires due to dry lightning and drought.
Children and the elderly will have problems dealing with the hotter weather.

I want to note that I have read many articles on this subject. Some from other bloggers, others from scientific organizations. Here are some.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00007F57-9CE1-1213-9BEF83414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2

http://www.realclimate.org

"The Debate is Over" (A Convenient Lie Part 2)

2007-06-03T18:22:00.000-07:00

"the debate in the scientific community is over." -Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth

The above statement is convenient, isn't it. Gore has plenty of people believing that most, if not all of the scientists in the world are all in agreement on global warming. I say convenient because that way, anybody who argues his points can easily get labelled as misinformed or being anti-science. That the debate is over is one of the most ridiculous things Gore says.

1n 1997, Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences convinced thousands of fellow scientists to sign the Oregon Petition, an act to urge the United States to not join the Kyoto accord. It's been alleged that some of the 19,700 signatures were fudged and duplicated. Point is that not all of them were.

More recently, many verified climatologists, who had at one time believed in global warming, have reconsidered their positions. They really took issue with a recent UN report that wasn't very scientifically-based. Look at the article Once Believers, Now Skeptics.

A November 2006 survey of environmental scientists indicated more evidence that the debate is not over. The poll resulted in the following:

34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.

41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."

71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming.

47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.

Whether you are looking for arguments agreeing or disagreeing with global warming, one can find a multitude of articles on the Internet. Most of them are from non-scientists like me (although I bet I know more about this than most bloggers). Just keep that in mind. That is why I am reluctant to give my own opinions. I will wait until I feel I've read more.

One thing is sure though, this issue is far from the scientific consensus that Gore mentions - making his statement a convenient lie.

I am a Droid

2007-05-27T12:29:00.003-07:00

Your Score: Artoo
You scored 62% airiness, 26% squishiness, and 36% edginess!

According to our patented Jawamatic^TM technology, you are most like Artoo-Detoo (R2-D2) in personality.

Artoo, being an astromech droid, favours technical challenges. He's quick-witted and, when called upon, can come up with creative solutions to difficult, complex problems. Artoo is logical, flexible, and ideas-driven.

Artoo is, in a word, eccentric.

(The polar opposite of Artoo-Detoo is See-Threepio.)

The eight profiles are as follows:

A Convenient Lie

2007-05-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

Al Gore lost the 2000 election. It was a blow to his ego, a blow to the mentality that as a vice president to a popular president, he was a natural fit to be the next president. I'm stating all this to remind us that this man has been basically, a career politician for his adult life.

Al Gore seems angry. After the election, he needed a way to avenge the people who kept him out of office, if only for his own personal vindication. He did what he felt was the surest way. He took a very speculative and debatable scientific theory, stated it as fact, and blamed it on the Bush administration.

Global warming has turned into a very effective campaign as it undermines Bush and the Republican party in several ways:

While Bush and Republicans talk about Al Queda, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran as being the primary threats to the United States, global warming dilutes and downplays the significance of the "war on terror" in favor of what is basically, a war against American industry.
It perpetuates the concept that the Republican party is all about oil and industry, at the expense of public welfare.
It perpetuates the concept that Republicans are anti-science.

I do not remember Gore ever speaking of global warming in his campaign speeches. Most, if not all of this concern seems to have come after the 2000 election. In the film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore tells us that this has been a long time concern of his. I guess he was too busy inventing the Internet to tell us all about the global warming crisis in the days before he was vice president.

I've watched the film An Inconvenient Truth - twice, in fact. Gore throws a lot of evidence about global warming at us. Evidence is one thing but as any real scientist will tell you, it takes more than evidence to draw conclusions. Funny how Gore claims so much scientific knowhow, yet doesn't grasp this principle. For example, look at the "big bang theory" of the creation of the universe. There is tons of evidence that support it, very little that disputes it, and it is generally accepted by most astronomers and astrophysicists. Yet it is still considered "theory" as it has not been proven. In his film, Gore draws conclusions. This makes the whole movie false. Gore concludes that:

There is no debate amongst the top climate scientists in the world. Global warming is happening.
Global warming is happening due to the industrial world spewing loads of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere.
The effects of global warming will be totally catastrophic.
Global warming catastrophes can be averted if we start taking measures now.

My next posts are going to look into these "conclusions". The first one is the easiest one to debunk. No way are scientists all in agreement on the reality of global warming. My next post later this week will be about an increasing number of the world's climate scientists that do not agree with Gore's conclusions.

A New #1

2007-04-27T10:47:00.000-07:00

For the first time in 76 years, General Motors (GM) did not lead the world in auto and truck sales for a quarter. The honor went to Toyota. This is significant. There has never been a company in the world like GM. Even as recently as 10 years ago, this seemed almost inconceivable. GM was that big. GM had that much clout.

There's a myriad of reasons for this. As in anything in life, staying at the top is about the hardest thing there is to do. This behemoth company had decaying factories, couldn't keep up with the fast pace of technology, was too slow to adjust to current trends, used typical American short-term planning, had no global strategy, and couldn't keep up with quality standards of it's foreign competition. It's amazing that GM was perched where they were for as long as they were.

It was also recently revealed that due to being tied to the UAW, GM is paying pensions to hundreds of thousands of ex-employees. Approximately $3000 of every GM car sold goes just into paying these pensions. Chrysler and Ford are in similar boats but the rest of the auto world is not. Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, and BMW are building cars and trucks in the Southern United States to avoid the unions. The big three aren't able to do this.

Don't shed tears for GM, though. They should have seen this coming years ago. Instead, they maintained a state of corporate denial until a few years ago. Believe it or not, GM seems to be coming back. Many of their latest offerings have been top or near the top rated by the auto magazines. Cadillac, suddenly has become one of the most desirable brands around. It's hip and trendy to own a Cadillac again after years of being perceived as stodgy boats for people over 70. The Corvette is now considered to be a world-class performance car, as good, if not better than many Porsches. Saturn is grabbing attention with its very good Aura. GM may be on the way to being a top brand again. It's hard to be that optimistic about Ford and Chrysler. Ford has had a decent showing this year sales-wise, but they have a long way to go to be profitable again. Chrysler, with no help from it's parent company Daimler, is only worth around $5 billion. 10 years ago, it was worth $39 billion.

As for Toyota, it's not as rosy as it would seem. Quality problems, particularly in the transmissions, have been reported lately. Most of these problems have been in the latest version of the Camry sedan, which is their bread and butter.

Link Restored (With a catch)

2007-04-22T18:46:00.000-07:00

I have thought over this quite a bit and I have chosen to re-create the link to Erik's blog. I do this to serve our friendship because despite the issue that lingers, I know his heart is in the right place.

I am insisting on placing a disclaimer in-between though, unless the overdue apology comes.

On Being Conservative

2007-04-21T14:37:00.000-07:00

I consider myself as politically conservative. I occasionally sit and think about what that means to me. I know it's not about siding with any specific political party. It's about how I see myself and others in the struggle that is life. I wanted to post an entry about what I feel makes one conservative. As it turns out, George Esseff beat me to it by posting his views in The Washington Post. Not only did he beat me to it, I must say that this piece is particularly well-written and accurate. This could easily be used as a means to gauge just how conservative one is. I am posting the entire article below. The red comments are mine.

Let's Set the Record Straight

In this writer’s opinion, if the Left in America could re-write our language, the way they continually try to re-write their political and philosophical failings, the term “conservative” would emerge as a four letter word! Liberals have repeatedly tried to label Conservatives as heartless, narrow-minded, money hording, tax evading, bigoted exploiters of the poor and the environment … a misrepresentation which, it appears, the Media willingly perpetuates. Well, this is one Conservative who’s not afraid to stand up and … set the record straight! (Read on, you may be more of a Conservative than you think!)

Who we are … are people who believe that the true measure of an individual is determined by his or her values ... not their color, ethnicity and/or political affiliations;

Who we are … are fathers, husbands, mothers, sons and daughters who understand that America is at war with an enemy that will employ any and all opportunities … and exploit any perceived weaknesses … political and psychological … to kill Americans, whenever and wherever they find them… and destroy those very principles, freedoms and ideals which protect us … and upon which this great nation was founded; These enemies seek sympathy from us, and then exploit that sympathy. Just ask Israel.

Who we are … are citizens, tired and disgusted with the political left’s, “Blame America First” crowd, who eagerly rush to judgment (and the nearest camera) to blame this country and her people for all the world’s ills, from … Global Warming to International Terrorism;

Who we are … are Americans who are grateful for a President who understands that National Security must come before Political Correctness; Personally, I am not all that grateful as I don't feel Bush adheres to this policy very well. As for the left's "Blame America First" assessment, Mr. Esseff is right on.

Who we are … are parents who recognize that our children are America’s most precious asset. That’s why we are so vocal against the Media’s obsession with Hollywood’s perversities … and the morally corrupt, socially inept “Pop Culture Icons” it incessantly creates for our youth. Why is it okay for children (or anybody else) to call women "bitches" and "hoes" or call police officers "pigs" and "murderers" as long as it is done to rap music?

Who we are … are political voices, many of whom are former Liberals, who now recognize our actions must be based on realities … unlike today’s Liberals who seem content to act on “feelings” and speak only in platitudes;

Who we are … are the sons and daughters of immigrants, many of whom came to America themselves to escape tyranny and discrimination in their own homeland … but they came here legally! As Conservatives, we demand our lawmakers take any and all steps necessary to immediately enforce our laws, secure our borders and protect our nation; Again, the Bush administration has failed here. The first act of anti-terrorism after 9/11 should have been to shore up the borders. Also, our forefathers and mothers entered this country to work and create a better future for their children, not to take advantage of free money and health care and spit on the very nation that provides this for them.

Who we are … are voters who demand that far-reaching governmental policies must be based on fact … not feelings … and debated on the merits of science and pragmatism … not political correctness … nor expediency; ...nor made up science or re-focusing the issue on the wrong thing.

Who we are … are people of faith who believe in the sanctity of life, the blessedness of marriage and the preservation of the family. We also hold that abortion is immoral … and partial birth abortion is nothing short of legislative genocide;

Who we are … are constituents disgusted by the posturing of liberal politicians who seek only to exploit the horrors of war through the debating of defeatist Resolutions. Resolutions proposed by Liberals for no purpose other than to embellish themselves with the far left, while embarrassing the country and our military … without any care nor regard as to how their actions may demoralize our troops … and encourage our enemies! Talk about demoralizing...how about Nancy Pelosi entering the Lion's den in the cowardly, submissive fashion she did?-Utterly disgusting and embarrassing.

Who we are … are concerned individuals who recognize that the Left’s mantra “I support the troops but not the war” is an oxymoron perpetuated by those whose only intent is to weaken the war effort and demoralize our fighting forces. It’s impossible to separate “the warrior from the war” and if you don’t understand that fact, then re-think your position, because the fastest and most effective method of defeating an army is to destroy its morale by questioning its mission … just ask our enemies!! This is especially true when you realize our military is completely voluntary. Telling them what they are doing is wrong is not supporting them. It is utter disrespect for choices they have made.

Who we are … are Americans who sadly recognize with War comes casualties. But we also recognize day, after day, after day, that to only report the deaths of America’s bravest … while completely ignoring the successes, achievements and objectives for which they died … is a disgrace of such proportion that it makes us wonder …. On whose side is the Media? On the side that gets them the most attention and ratings. US soldiers getting killed sells newspapers and puts people in front of the TV. Not only that, the media knows such coverage will anger people and get them out to protest, more ratings to them. Showing people in true support of the troops and the mission isn't nearly as newsworthy. With today's media, we probably would have lost World War II had they shown the carnage. People would have been convinced we don't belong in "Europe's war".

Who we are … are people proud that under the Bush Administration, despite numerous attempts, not one single terrorist attack has occurred on our soil in over 5 ½ years; our economy has climbed to an all time high; taxes and inflation are at twenty year lows; Federal tax revenues are the highest in our nation’s history and the deficit is down by almost 50% (as predicted by the President). Yet, despite all this, the liberal leadership in Congress is threatening to “take America in a new direction”! Additionally, home ownership is at an all time high. The percentage of minority-owned businesses is at an all-time high. Unemployment is at extremely low levels. All this is going on despite the media's seemingly constant warnings that "the housing market bubble is about to burst", "a recession looms", "jobs are being exported to China and India", and of course..."George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Who we are … are freedom loving individuals who are opposed to activist Judges who seem determined to impose upon us their failed, liberal policies through judicial edicts … rather than our legislative processes;

Who we are … are compassionate people who have always practiced what Arthur Brooks’ book “WHO REALLY CARES”, recently confirmed. Namely, when it comes to helping the poor … across the board … Conservatives, from the working poor to the wealthy … consistently give more of their money … and their time … than liberals do! Not surprising, these studies confirm what many of us have known for decades … namely, that liberals are quick to give away other people’s money but reluctant to part with any of their own! Liberals don't want to help those less fortunate, they want more legislation set for the "rich" to do it for them and then want to bash them for not doing enough.

Who we are … are historians who recognize that the Liberals’ plans for “appeasement” and “cut and run” are not new ones! Britain and France did it in 1914 and their “success” resulted in World War I; Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did it in 1939 and his “plan” ignited World War II. Because of today’s high tech weaponry, our world is a far more dangerous place; consequently, victory is our only option! What many don't seem to understand is we are at war, not just against Iraq, but against the entire anti-western philosophy that is radical Islam. This war is being fought throughout the world and within our own country. When Muslim taxi drivers refuse Jews for fares - When Muslims demand that supermarkets stop selling pork products because it is against their religion - These are acts against the American way of life and it is only the beginning. Muslims are burning thousands of automobiles and other property every year in Europe. Unfortunately, that's probably going to start happening here. The front for this war is in Iraq and Afghanistan, it needs to stay there.

Who we are … are people to whom every life is precious, but we also recognize that freedom is fragile. In a world where the Media’s “perception” becomes the public’s “reality”, it’s easy to forget that in America’s last great struggle, 407,300 of our fighting forces gave their lives … so we could have ours. Our losses averaged 298 a day … for each and every day of World War II. In comparison, our Iraqi losses have averaged fewer than 3 a day… and as tragic as that is… it’s up to each and every one of us to make sure none of them shall have died in vain.

Who we are … are a population grateful to this nation’s men and women (and the families they left behind) who sacrifice their blood, sweat and tears to defend America … her people … and her way of life. To you, we say “thank you” ... and to God, we pray for your blessings … protection … and safe return.

Who we are … are people firmly committed to Jefferson’s belief … “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press…” (Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786). But when the press abused the public’s trust, he also wrote, “A truth now and then, projecting into an ocean of newspaper lies, serves like headlands to correct our course” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1815).

I have paid for this ad with my own money, in hopes that this too will serve as a “truth” to those needing a course correction.

George J. Esseff, Sr GEsseff@LetsSetTheRecordStraight.org

His website.

The Father I Remember

2007-04-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

Every time I see your face, it reminds me of the places we used to go.
But all I got is a photograph and I realize you're not coming back anymore.
-Ringo Starr and George Harrison

It's ironic, maybe even a little bit tragic, that most of my fondest memories of my father are when I was very young. At that age, I was my Dad's pride and joy. I remember him carrying me upside down over his shoulders, calling me his "sack of potatoes". I remember him taking me to all sorts of places, my favorite being Santa's Village, a now closed amusement park in the San Bernardino mountains. I remember him taking a lot of interest in me, what I thought, and what I did.

I was recently listening to a Frank Sinatra CD I had given him years ago and I remembered something I hadn't thought about in many, many years;

I was 4 years old and in nursery school. I remember some kid calling another kid "stupid". That night, I mentioned it to my dad. He told me that calling someone "stupid" was a terrible thing to do and he never wanted to hear me ever do that. So, as a young impressionable kid, I had my first "forbidden" word. Of course, it didn't take me long to use it against my mother, which of course, resulted in a not too pleasant punishment. Some time shortly after that, I was with my Dad in the car. He had the radio set to his favorite radio station - KGIL 1260 AM. I heard a song I had never heard before, it was Frank Sinatra and he was singing a song that had the word "stupid" in it. I misheard the lyrics and thought the song went like this:

...And then I go and spoil it all by saying that you're stupid when I love you.

I thought this song was hysterically funny. My dad was amused that I found this song so amusing. For a while, whenever that song came on, my dad would point it out and say something like "they're playing your song". Finally, he bought the album. I remember him showing it to me in the store pointing out that Something Stupid was there.

As I grew older, it got harder and harder to amuse or please my father. He grew cynical and very critical of everything I did or said. We grew farther and farther apart and the older I got, the more I felt I had disappointed him. As an adult, I rarely spoke to him knowing that anything I said could spark his fury.

As he aged into his late 70's and early 80's, he got sick and became feeble. In the past few years, he wasn't the man I had known all my life. In many ways, I lost my father before March 15th this year. I refuse to remember him as the helpless old man he had become. Instead, I'll remember him as the stern, unyielding, son of a bitch that I both hated and loved.

And Dad, as you left this world and went on to the next, I hope that even though we rarely said anything pleasant to each other, that you felt you raised a son who is at least, somewhat worthy of your expectations.

I'll Be Away

2007-03-15T15:21:00.000-07:00

My father passed away this morning. His health had been declining fast in the past year, as many of my friends know. I'm stil coming to terms with this as I am feeling a lot of emotions, right now.

When I'm in a better state of mind, I'll post again.

Some People Need a Translator

2007-03-06T15:54:00.000-08:00

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

-Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington

A lot of people are upset at Coulter's above remark. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the way people are grossly misinterpreting her remark. The misinterpretation is, that Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot". It's amazing that so many people didn't get the joke - Democrats and Republicans alike.

For those of you under the misconception that Coulter thinks John Edwards is gay or bisexual, you need a translator. You need someone who knows how to translate political satire into common, straightforward speech. I guess I'll be that person today.

Plain and simply, Ann Coulter did not call John Edwards gay or question his sexuality in any way. She was referring to Isaiah Washington, the star of TV's Grey's Anatomy. He did actually call someone a "faggot". He was subsequently condemned by his Hollywood peers and forced to make a public apology. He was also coerced into seeking counselling for his words.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791621/

Now see if you can follow this (I know it's hard for some of you): Ann Coulter was referencing Isaiah Washington's words as an example of why she did not want to say what she truly felt about John Edwards. I'm sure Coulter knew that Edwards is married, has children, and is not accustomed to having people question his sexual preferences. In other words, she mockingly pretended to want to say bad things, in her own words, about Edwards, but didn't because she didn't want to receive the same scorn as Washington. Had she spoken her mind, would she have made gay references? It's very doubtful when I'm sure, she would have so many more factually-based choice things to say.

So go ahead and object to her remark for making questionable references. Just don't misinterpret her message.

One Last Word on Racism

2007-02-28T21:06:00.000-08:00

Let me start by repeating my third definitions of racism:

Racism is where one treats an individual or group as "special" and deserving of special treatment that they would not otherwise receive. This special treatment is bestowed purely because of the color of their skin or of their different country of origin.

Let me add one more quote:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Dr. Martin Luther King

Please remember this when I make my next statements concerning what I believe is the most blatant and harmful example of racism in America. It is the quota system. This asinine idea was given the name "affirmative action". The idea of forcing educational institutions and employers to be mindful of the color of their applicants clearly violates my own definition as well, as those immortal words of Dr. King. In fact, both Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy expressed that quota systems would do more harm than good to the civil rights movement.

This is not reverse racism, it is in fact, treating minorities like second-class citizens who are otherwise, incapable of finding the jobs or getting accepted on their own. It is not only insulting to truly capable individuals, it attaches a stigma of self-doubt. Some may and do wonder if they were truly deserving of the fruits of their accomplishments. What's more, individuals are getting into positions they wouldn't have gotten to without the quota system. Statistics indicate that a much higher rate of college dropouts are minorities who got into the college due to the quota system and not by being exemplary students.

It is ironic that it was Richard Nixon, in trying to boost the Republican party's appeal to minorities, who incorporated the quota system as law. Yet, whenever the subject of removing the system comes up, it is the Democrats who can be counted on to vehemently defend the system.

If you want examples of individual liberals making remarks that can be thought of as racist, you can look up Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Louis Farrakan. Nothing these individuals, or anybody else, for that matter can be anywhere near as damaging as the every day double standard that goes on.

Quarterback Matt Leinart has a baby out of wedlock. Even though this was announced after he had left the school, USC was inundated with calls from alumni and others who wanted to express their disapointment. A few months earlier, basketball player LeBron James was announced to have a baby out of wedlock. Guess how many people called the Cleveland Cavaliers? I'll bet it was less than 1. Why? Because people judge these two athletes subconsciously by the color of their skin. Blacks, being inferior, can slide past these rule of morality but a fine upstanding white man cannot.
David Howard, an assistant to Washington D.C.'s black mayor, Anthony Williams, used the word "niggardly" in a private staff meeting. This raised national attention. Why? The word sounds racist even though it has no such implications, whatsoever in it's definition. Howard was forced to apologize and resign for using the word. Why does nobody get upset when a black man uses the word "caucus"?
From the LA Weekly: "Last Halloween in the Bixby Knolls neighborhood of Long Beach, where neighbors put on a lavish fright fest each year, three young women left a haunted house and found themselves caught in a street brawl with a crowd of teenagers. By melee’s end, one woman’s face was fractured in 12 spots, her teeth were broken and she’d suffered partial loss of sight in one eye. Two of the women suffered brain concussions and assorted broken bones after being kicked, punched and even struck by a skateboard wielded as a weapon. " The attackers were black teenagers. In the trial, the judge ruled against DNA evidence and slapped the attackers with house arrest. Even with this slap on the wrist, the black community went up in arms and many were calling the ruling "unjust". I wonder what the extent of the damage due to the inevitable riots would have been had the skin colors been reversed and the same result had happened. How much of Jesse Jackson's face would we be seeing right now?
Do I even have to bring up OJ?

A New Definition

2007-02-26T13:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070222b.html

Since the Academy of Motion Pictures has changed the definition of what "documentary" means, I think we need to re-visit some older films. Since films that are mostly fictitious now qualify as a "documentary", there are many past films that I feel should get retroactive Oscars for being excellent documentary films.

The Godfather: This is an excellent "documentary" on immigration to America, particularly from the Italian point of view.

Jaws: Who can forget this fascinating "documentary" on marine biology?

Star Wars: This is a very in-depth look at the American Space Program. Many NASA scientists give their points of view. I particularly appreciate the disagreement among scientists as to the nature of the force. This "documentary" gives you a lot to ponder.

Sideways: Alexander Payne's fascinating "documentary" that explores Southern California's coastal wine region and delves into how wine characteristics reflect on those who drink them.

Cinderella: This "documentary" examines the conflict between the ruling class, the middle class, and the lower class. It's particularly effective at the end where it shows it is truly possible for someone in the lowest class (a slave) can actually rise up to the ruling class with a little luck.

Black History Month

2007-02-22T13:01:00.000-08:00

I hope you are all enjoying February or "Black History Month" like I am. It's the one month of the year where I get to change my entire perspective of history. It's almost miraculous isn't it? I mean, on how for this one month, I am aware of black slavery that took place 160 years ago. This month, I am aware of all the uses of the peanut. Jim Crow laws also populate my thinking of history, not to mention, individuals like Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Yes, this short month really opens my eyes. You see, this is because, as I have been told, that the other 11 months of the year are "White History Months". Therefore, the rest of the year is where we only think and talk about George Washington, Christopher Columbus, et. al. From March to January, black slavery never existed and every individual of any historical importance was white.

Sounds okay, to me as a white person although, I do ponder about Latinos, Asians, and American Indians and why they apparently are not a part of history. Some radically-thinking people believe that history is history, and not specific to any one particular race. I wonder if there is any truth in this.

Regarding Racism

2007-02-12T10:58:00.000-08:00

Since Erik has asked me to find examples of racism and since this is February, which has been designated "black history month", I'll devote some articles to racism. This is a touchy subject for many, myself included. Racism, in my opinion, is a very overused word. One can't seem to publicly state anything regarding skin color without stirring up controversy and having the ugly "r" word brought up.

We all have our opinions on this matter. I am going to give you my definition of racism. Feel free to comment, criticize, and give your own definition.

My definition of racism is in three parts:

Racism is where one believes that another person or group of people are inferior due to the color of their skin or their different country of origin.

Racism is where one believes that another person or group of people are not deserving of rights or materials due to the color of their skin or their different country of origin.

I don't think too many people would take issue with my above statements. It's my third form of racism that I suspect many might disagree with.

Racism is where one treats an individual or group as "special" and deserving of special treatment that they would not otherwise receive. This special treatment is bestowed purely because of the color of their skin or of their different country of origin.

When one witnesses one or more of the above actions, one might be inclined to privately or publicly call the individual a "racist". I disagree with this assumption. Only the person who exhibited the behavior really knows in his or her heart, whether or not it's really due to racism.

A good example is the case of Michael Richards. Recently, at a comedy club, some individuals, who happened to be black, heckled him, apparently very strongly. Richards rebuked with a stream of foul language and racial epithets (including the 'n' word). Richards was obviously really pissed off. He knew nothing about his verbal attackers, personally, but the one thing he could see was the color of their skin. He wanted to get back at these hecklers. Now the questions are: Did Michael Richards spew out hateful stuff because he knew saying things like the 'n' word would offend his attackers or was there a deeper purpose? Did Michael Richards, in fact, hate them specifically because they were black? The answer to these questions is Only Michael Richards knows. The rest of us can endlessly speculate, debate, and accuse but that won't answer the question.

Postscript: Two Coaches

2007-02-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

I don't want to press this issue too much more but I want to follow up on my Two Coaches post. After the game, I switched to ESPN for the analysis. After a brief synopsis of the game, the analysts very quickly got to talking about having a black coach win a Superbowl. They spent a good 10 minutes talking about it - more time, I may add than the time they devoted to anything else. Can we get over this now and move on?

Superbowl

2007-02-02T23:06:00.000-08:00

I think I've heard and watched about 10 different analysts explain how the Bears can beat the odds and beat the Colts in the Superbowl, this Sunday.

The Colts have the better quarterback, the better offensive line, and the better receivers. The Colts have the better defensive line and they are probably about equal at the linebacker position. The Colts have the most consistent place kicker in the game. The game will not be played in sub-freezing temperatures.

Anything can happen but I have to go with the favorite here. I predict it to be a close, tough defensive battle in the first half, but the Colts offense will prevail in the second half and win easily. Final score: Colts 34 Bears 13.

Of course, I've been mostly wrong this entire postseason.

Two Coaches

2007-02-01T21:50:00.000-08:00

Additional Note: I was going to post this article anyways, but now it will also serve as a partial response to Erik's challenge to find examples of racism from liberals. (See Erik's comments in Ride and Drive aka The Fusion Challenge). I know Erik is expecting me to find individuals who say terrible racist remarks. I'll post some of that in a later post. It is my assertion that racism abounds in the media in much more subtle ways. This is an example:

Sunday, February 4 is a big day. It is, after all, Superbowl Sunday, arguably the most important Sunday to Americans with Easter coming in at a distant second. The weeks preceding a Super Bowl are always filled with inside stories and such. Sports magazines and Sports sections in newspapers will inevitably give us stories concerning past Superbowls, team histories, more information about the host city, player stories about what it took for them to get to this point, and other human interest stories. One of the leading stories this year, is of the two coaches - Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts.

One of the interesting stories about Dungy is that he proved to the football world that he is not afflicted by Shottenheimer Syndrome (or maybe Knox Syndrome. You pick.). This syndrome, in case you don't know, is when an NFL coach completely loses his ability to effectively coach in the month of January. Dungy certainly seemed to have it. Year after year with the Buccaneers and then, Colts would inexplicably fail after successful regular seasons.

Lovie Smith, only in his third year as a head coach, was selected as a defensive coach by Dungy for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Smith made a big impact as the Rams defensive coordinator and helped them get to the 2002 Superbowl. When he took over a fledgling Bears team, they improved immediately.

These, and other stories have come come out. I am a bit dismayed, however, at why such a big deal has to be made that both of these successful coaches are black. This isn't the 1940's. It's not the '60s. When do we just congratulate these coaches and not pay so much attention to the color of their skin? The media didn't point out that two of the first head coaches to be fired after the regular season ended just happened to be black. Blacks are and have been successful in virtually every aspect of business. We've been at the point where they, as much as anybody else, are judged on their abilities. Those who succeed are rewarded.