On Being Conservative

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.


3. 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

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

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

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.

Ride and Drive aka The Fusion Challenge

Last weekend, I was fortunate to have the opportunity of participating in an event from Car and Driver/Road and Track named "Ride and Drive". I was invited to this because I am a long-time subscriber to Car and Driver magazine. It was an opportunity to compare three mid-size family-oriented sedans - The Toyota Camry, The Honda Accord, and the Ford Fusion.

In case you don't know, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord have been the two best selling automobiles in the United States for the past 12 years. At any given time during this period, one of those two cars has been number one and the other number two. Before that, Ford owned that honor with the Taurus from the mid '80s to the mid '90s.

It's a cold Saturday morning in Fontana at the California Speedway on the parking lot. About 30 of us are sitting on cold metal chairs slurping down coffee as we wait for the late-comers to sign up and file in. Finally, a guy gives us some basic instructions and breaks us into groups. He reminds us that we need to drive safely, be objective, and be thorough in our evaluation of these cars. We all are given clipboards with evaluation sheets where we are to comment on what we liked and didn't like about different aspects of the 3 cars.

Here is my evaluation summary of the three cars in the order I drove them. All three were the top of the line versions with leather and navigation systems and V6 engines:

Toyota Camry: If I can sum this vehicle up in one word, that word is "pleasant". The seats were made of soft, very comfortable leather. The carpeting was plush. The knobs and dials were all large and in reach. The displays were clear. Everything I touched had a solid feel to it - switches clicked, seats smoothly adjusted, and knobs turned easily. In driving it through the pylon cone track that was set up, it was very quiet and the ride was smooth. However, when it came to hard cornering, the tires protested easily. The Camry was easy to control but it had a low threshold in tight turns. All three of us in my driving group agreed on this. The Camry is a great family car, but not a great driver's car.

Ford Fusion: This was almost the anti-Camry. In another age, this would have been considered a luxury sports sedan. In today's hotly competitive world, however, it comes up short next to the Camry. The interior was black, first of all, which is not my color of choice (The Camry and Accord were a more pleasing tan color inside). The seats were firm to the point of being hard. The carpet was cheap. The insides of the doors were primarily plastic. Overall, it just didn't feel as good as the Camry inside. The gauges were sportier, but not necessarily better. The radio had too many buttons, which were tiny. On the other hand, when I was behind the wheel, it was much more fun than the Camry. The Fusion gripped, the steering gave excellent feedback and the seats, although they were too hard, had side supports which really helped when screeching around the tight turns on the track. The Fusion felt like it had more power than the Camry, even though, in actuality, it had 40 less horsepower. The only negative in driving it was that the engine made a loud roar when accelerating hard. As a passenger, I would rather be in a Camry. As a driver on a straight interstate highway, I'd rather be in a Camry also. However, on a curvy mountain road, I'll take the Fusion.

Honda Accord: Funny how things go. This one, I would put right in between the other two. The Honda had a nice feel to it . It was the roomiest, especially in the back seat. It was the only car where my head didn't graze the ceiling. I found no fault with the Accord's interior but it didn't quite feel as luxurious as the Camry. It did have great steering, right up there with the Fusion. I found it's limits sooner, though so it did not quite have the handling dynamics of the Ford.

After all this was done. It was obvious to me that this whole event was really about the Ford Fusion. I spoke with one of the professional drivers who was with us on our test drives. She confirmed that this was a Ford sponsored event but we weren't supposed to know that going in. To tell the truth, I already knew it as I had seen the TV commercials where ordinary folks who had just participated in the event were giving glowing praise of the Ford Fusion. I had even been pre-interviewed by a man with a camera crew. Unfortunately, I gave my truthful opinions as I stated above so don't look for me to be on TV anytime soon.

I don't mind having gone to this event under a somewhat false pretense. I did have a little problem at the end of my time there. After submitting my clipboard containing my opinions, I was directed to a new covered area which turned out to nothing less than a Ford Fusion showroom. There were several Fusions on display and commercials running on monitors. A Ford spokesman then told us that Ford was out to show that an American car can compete and beat the Japanese imports.

That's the real kicker to me. I am well aware of the fact that the Fusion is made in Mexico, the Toyota Camry is made in Kentucky, and the Honda Accord is made in Ohio. I wrote about this last July in What is an American Car? Not only that, the Fusion is really a Mazda 6 underneath while the Camry and Accord were actually specifically designed by Americans for the American market. I pointed this out to the spokesperson. When I did, one of the drivers, who happened to be nearby and heard me, chuckled knowing that I was right. The spokesman pointed out that even though the Fusion is made in Mexico, the profits go to Dearborn Michigan (Ford's headquarters). I told him I would rather my car-buying dollars supported the people who built and worked in the plants. I am much more sympathetic to the welders, machinists, and assembly workers than to a few suits in some corporate office. Honda and Toyota invested in American workers while Ford is obviously getting out of the United States in terms of actual production of their product.

Interestingly enough, Ford has reported this week that they lost 12.7 billion dollars in 2006. The company is in real trouble and will diminish in the market significantly if it survives at all. This saddens me as my family has mostly been a "Ford family". My father said they were the best cars he ever owned and I've always loved Mustangs and Thunderbirds and I still do. However, if Ford is going to build Japanese-designed cars in Mexico and attempt to pass them off as American cars, I'll have little sympathy for them as the company fades into oblivion.

Conference Finals

I'll try to post some non-football articles soon, but in the meantime...

This week's picks are:

Saints over Bears
Patriots over Colts

My Saints pick is based on the notion that whenever I've been sure the Saints can't possibly go any further, they prove me wrong. Also, I believe they are a better overall team than the Bears. Cinderella has one more game.

As for the Patriots, well how can anyone bet against them? People have been sure they were a flash in the pan since 2001. Funny, people still believe it. Anybody who knows anything about football will tell you they aren't the best team. They aren't better than the Chargers and they aren't as good a team as the Colts. They will surprise everybody and win anyways.

Divisional

This weekend's fearless predictions are:

Baltimore over Indianopolis
Philadelphia over New Orleans
Chicago over Seattle
San Diego over New England

Philadelphia over New Orleans was tough, but I figure 1 road team will win and that's who I'm going with.

Wild Card

My prediction on this weekends wild card games:

Kansas City over Indianopolis

Seattle over Dallas

New England over New York

Philadelphia over New York


It won't be a good day for New Yorkers tomorrow.

Sweet Redemption

Last year, the entire college football world knew that USC would crush Texas in the Rose Bowl for the national championship. I knew USC's defense last year was suspect and sure enough, Texas was able to exploit it and squeak out a win. This year, the entire college football world knew Michigan would crush USC. This was based upon:

• Michigan just barely lost to the #1 Ohio State Buckeyes.
• Michigan was pissed off for not being in the championship game and would take out their frustrations on USC.
• The Big-10 is one bad-ass conference
• USC was coming off a bad loss to UCLA which would be too hard to recover from.
• The Pac-10 hasn't been doing so well in bowl games
• USC was jinxed and can't win in the Rose Bowl

What everyone forgot about was the Trojans have the best coach in college football. Pete Carroll got his team to shake off the UCLA loss and focus on Michigan. Carroll also did a much better job at making adjustments at halftime where the Wolverines, it seemed, were content with a 3-3 score that would turn in their favor by physically wearing down the Trojans.

Good job Trojans and I can't wait until next season.

A Very Long Term Investment

I want to respond to Dov Menkes of Fullerton's letter to the Los Angeles Times on December 14.

Mr. Menkes complains that Bush's proposed missions to the Moon and Mars are "boondoggles". He thinks we can find a better way to spend $500 billion.

I have to say that I disagree. In my opinion and in the opinion of many of us who truly think of the future, the pursuit of space is the noblest, most worthwhile endeavor the human race can take. I know many will agree with Mr. Menkes and state that we should be spending our time and money on fighting diseases, feeding the poor and such. I'm not about to say those opinions are wrong but don't dismiss space exploration as anything less, a priority.

The paradox of human beings is we focus so much on improving the quality and length of our own lives and our children. Yet, as we do this, we have overpopulated our planet to the point where it gets so crowded and polluted that we jeopardize the quality and lengths of our lives that we think we are improving on. We may have already reached that point. It has been speculated that the next generation will have a lower life-span expectancy than the current one.

If you truly think ahead, think beyond your children or even your grandchildren. Instead, think about your children's children's children and where they will be. On a planet ravaged by war and environmental disasters, are they going to find it any easier to take the human race beyond our planet? Space is a tremendously long term investment. We won't really reap the rewards in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean we should make the investment, though.

NFL Power Rankings

It sure can be messy ranking these teams. One must look at their season as a whole and not just pay attention to who recently beat whom. After 13 weeks, here's how I see it.

1. Chargers (Only Shottenheimer can stop them)
2. Patriots (Not winning pretty, but winning)
3. Bears (Ditto)
4. Colts (Flaws are appearing in their armor)
5. Cowboys (Where did these guys come from?)
6. Seahawks (Starting to look like last year's team)
7. Ravens (I hope we don't see the Bears and Ravens in the Superbowl)
8. Bengals (They need to be more consistent)
9. Saints (They are still surprising everyone)
10. Broncos (Bad decision to put Cutler in now)
11. Jaguars (They need to stop losing to lower teams)
12. Falcons (Great one week, lousy the next)
13. Eagles (Don't quite have it together)
14. Chiefs (Ditto)
15. Steelers (Late run is probably too little, too late)
16. Jets (The AFC's surprise team)
17. Panthers (Good defense, bad offense)
18. Giants (Need to play better and stop blaming coach)
19. 49ers (Playing better, found defense and running game)
20. Bills (A tough team at home this time of year)
21. Vikings (Typical mediocre NFC team)
22. Titans (Vince Young is starting to find his place)
23. Rams (Another mediocre NFC team)
24. Packers (Favre can't save this team)
25. Dolphins (Harrington finally shows some talent)
26. Browns (Another typical Brown season)
27. Redskins (Remember when the NFC east was supposed to be all good?)
28. Texans (Beating the Raiders isn't a big deal)
29. Buccaneers (They need a passing game)
30. Cardinals (They have a passing game, now they need everything else)
31. Lions (This has become such an inept franchise)
32. Raiders (Not as bad as earlier in the season, but still bad)

Bond Films Part 5

This will be the last installment of the James Bond series (you can stop applauding now). The top five Bond films are:

5. You Only Live Twice: This will always be known as the Bond film where you finally get to see Bond's (Connery's anyway) arch enemy - Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Coldly played by Donald Pleasence, he is the model for Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies. In this one, Bond travels to Japan where S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (SPecial Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) is stealing American and Soviet rockets. The story moves along very well until the end where there is an overly long battle sequence that just gets tiring.

4. From Russia with Love: Where Dr. No introduced us to James Bond, From Russia with Love has all the features that make a great Bond film. Connery is excellent and has really become his character. This film features some great action sequences including the big boat chase at the end and the fight on the train. There are two good henchpeople in this film Lotte Lenya as Rosa Klebb and Robert Shaw as Donovan Grant. Rosa Klebb served as the model for Frau Farbissina in the Austin Powers movies.

3. Diamonds are Forever: This flick is often disregarded by Connery fans as being too glib. While it did work as a prelude to the less serious Bond films of Roger Moore, it is a great film, nonetheless. Charles Gray re-interprets the personality of Blofeld. He is charming and witty as opposed to the deadly serious type. Even better, though, are Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as the gay assassins Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. I love every scene these guys are in. Jill St. John is funny as the somewhat ditsy Tiffany Case. This film is unique in that Bond actually loses his temper and calls Tiffany a "stupid twit".

2. Goldfinger: This is a good cerebral Bond film. Bond is tracking Goldfinger and his assistant Oddjob (Gert Fröbe and Harold Sakata respectively) only to get too close. Who can forget the laser beam scenario, it's almost right out of Batman. What make it great though is Bond didn't have a "toolbelt" with a nifty ant-laser device. Bond didn't work the straps loose. Bond didn't fight his way out of it. Instead, he saves his manhood and himself (in that order) by subtle suggestion. Then the added challenge of dealing with the man-hating Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) makes this a true classic.

1. The Living Daylights: This one contains great villains, a great story, and several of the best action sequences of all the Bond films. The opening scene on the Rock of Gibraltar is great. The car chase is superb. The fight on the cargo plane is spectacular. I really like the plot twist in the middle of the film when we find out who the bad guy really is. During all this, Timothy Dalton is the definitive Bond. He is suave and charming one minute, edgy and a lethal weapon the next. The chemistry between he and Maryam d'Abo as Kara Milovy is unique in a Bond film. This one has it all. It is the perfect Bond film.


While I'm at it, here is my list of favorite Bond theme songs:

1. Goldfinger - Shirley Bassey
2. Thunderball - Tom Jones
3. You Only Live Twice - Nancy Sinatra
4. Live and Let Die - Paul McCartney & Wings
5. For Your Eyes Only - Sheena Easton
6. All Time High (Octopussy) - Rita Coolidge
7. The World is not Enough - Garbage
8. The Man with the Golden Gun - Lulu
9. A View to a Kill - Duran Duran
10. Nobody Does it Better (The Spy Who Loved Me) - Carly Simon

Worst theme songs

1. We have All the Time in the World (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) - Louis Armstrong
2. Moonraker - Shirley Bassey
3. Goldeneye - Tina Turner
4. Tomorrow Never Dies - Sheryl Crow

Best "Bond Women"

1. Pam Bouvier - Carey Lowell in License to Kill
2. Tiffany Case - Jill St. John in Diamonds are Forever
3. Pussy Galore - Honor Blackman in Goldfinger
4. Melina Havelock - Carole Bouquet in For Your Eyes Only
5. Kara Milovy - Maryam d'Abo in The Living Daylights
Honorable mention - Octopussy - Maud Adams in Octopussy

Worst "Bond Women"

1. Mary Goodnight - Britt Ekland in Man with the Golden Gun
2. Anya Anasova - Barbara Bach in The Spy Who Loved Me
3. Holly Goodhead - Lois Chiles in Moonraker
4. Stacey Sutton - Tanya Roberts in A View to a Kill
5. Solitaire - Jane Seymour in Live and Let Die
Dishonorable mention - Jinx - Halle Berry in Die Another Day

Best Villains

1. Auric Goldfinger - Gert Fröbe in Goldfinger
2. Francisco Scaramanga - Christopher Lee in The Man with the Golden Gun
3. Ernst Stavro Blofeld - Charles Gray in Diamonds are Forever
4. Georgi Koskov - Jeroen Krabbé in The Living Daylights
5. Franz Sanchez - Robert Davi in License to Kill

Worst Villains

1. Hugo Drax - Michael Lonsdale in Moonraker
2. Karl Stromberg - Curd Jürgens in The Spy Who Loved Me
3. Elliot Carver - Jonathan Pryce in Tomorrow Never Dies
4. General Ourumov - Gottfried John in GoldenEye
5. Ernst Stavro Blofeld - Telly Savalas in On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Best Henchman/woman

1. Mr Wint and Mr. Kidd - Bruce Glover and Putter Smith in Diamonds are Forever
2. Oddjob - Harold Sakata in Goldfinger
3. Donovan Grant - Robert Shaw in From Russia with Love
4. Fatima Blush - Barbara Carrera in Never Say Never Again
5. Mayday - Grace Jones in A View to a Kill
6. Fiona Volpe - Luciana Paluzzi in Thunderball

Worst Henchman/woman

1. Jaws - Richard Kiel in Moonraker
2. Jaws - Richard Kiel in The Spy Who Loved Me
3. Xenia Onatopp - Famke Janssen in Goldeneye

Bond Films Part 4

We've arrived at the top 10. The following films are essentially, very good Bond films.

10. Octopussy: Roger Moore's best performance as Bond. He actually shows anger and frustration when there is a nuclear bomb about to go off and nobody believes him. (Apparently it takes something that extreme to take the smirk off his face.) Louis Jourdan plays a sly villain and Steven Berkoff is also good as the mad Soviet general. (He always seems to play the bad guy. i.e. Victor Maitland in Beverly Hills Cop.) There is a good action scene involving a train. Unfortunately, there's a dumb action scene involving a "tiger hunt" where Bond is the tiger.

9. The Man with the Golden Gun: This is my favorite of the Moore Bond films. It's almost Star Wars-like as Christopher Lee plays a man very much like Bond, but uses his talents as a gun for hire instead of for Queen and Country. In other words, he went to the "dark side". I like the wordplay between the two men and how Bond outwits him cleverly in the end. This film also features a second showing of Clifton James as JW Pepper in a pretty good chase scene. Unfortunately, this film contains Britt Ekland as Miss Goodnight, the dumbest "Bond girl" of them all.

8. The World Is Not Enough: This is, by far, the best Bond film featuring Pierce Brosnan. This one actually has a strong, coherent plot. It deals with the modern day issue of terrorism. Everybody is good in this one. The betrayal aspect of this film is especially well done.

7. License to Kill: This is perhaps, the most realistic Bond film. Until the end, it is very believable. It's about a drug cartel from a pseudo-fictional country (It's pretty obvious that Isthmus City is really Panama.) Dalton is exceptionally strong as a man determined to avenge the mutilation of his CIA friend Felix Leiter. Equally strong is Robert Davi as the drug lord and Carey Lowell's role as Pam Bouvier. She is the best "Bond girl" ever and as I mentioned in my earlier post My Name is Bond, James Bond, Bond appears to truly love her.

6. Never Say Never Again: In 1983, Sean Connery reminded theater audiences everywhere of how good a James Bond he is. While not a Broccoli/Saltzman project, Never Say Never Again marks a glorious reprise of Connery as Bond. Basically, it's a remake of Thunderball but it is far superior. One great thing about it is Connery does not try to hide his age. His character fully realizes he's not so young anymore. Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. are back and steal nuclear missiles and hold them for ransom. A typical early Bond plot, I know, but the actors make this one great. It includes Barbara Carrera as a delightfully wicked Fatima Blush. Her final scene is truly memorable.

Bond Films Part 3

Now that I've gotten past the Thanksgiving holiday, I'll continue.

15. Live and Let Die: The debut of Roger Moore (and a downturn for the series overall, in my opinion) is a story about the drug trade from Jamaica to the U.S. Like the previous film Diamonds are Forever, much of Live and Let Die takes place in the United States. The highlight of the film is the bayou boat chase. Unfortunately, it goes on too long but it features some good comic relief from Sheriff "JW Pepper" (Clifton James). The downside of this film is Jane Seymour's stiff performance as "Solitaire". Also, they re-made the train-fight sequence that was so good in From Russia with Love. This time, Bond's nemesis is the man with a steel-claw for a hand - a pretty weak predecessor to an even worse henchman - Jaws.

14. For Your Eyes Only: This Cold War - themed film has a pretty good ski chase and a distinctive mountain climbing scene. Carole Bouquet has to be one of the most beautiful "Bond women" ever. She does a nice job in an understated performance, contrary to the horribly annoying Lynn-Holly Johnson character. Julian Glover is a great villain and Topol is equally good as Bond's cohort.

13. Thunderball: The weakest of the Connery films. The best character is Luciana Paluzzi as the femme-fatale Fiona Volpe. Otherwise, this is rather boring with a lot of underwater shots and a weak cast. This film was remade as Never Say Never Again, which was much better.

12. Dr. No: The debut film is also the most dated. It starts off slow and gets more interesting as it progresses. Probably the most memorable scene in the film is the entrance of Ursula Andress. This film does not have a lot of gadgets or gimmicks. Connery has a physical presence. He fights with his fists. He shoots his Walther PPK (which is presented to Bond as "standard issue" by M).

11. On Her Majesty's Secret Service: This one is more or less known as the "James Bond weds Emma Peel" movie. Bond finally falls in love in this one and even gets married to the sassy Tracey Di Vicenzo played by Diana Rigg. It has a ridiculous comic book plot and Telly Savalas plays a mild-tempered Blofeld trying to destroy everybody on Earth with a virus. It's still fun though and George Lazenby's single performance as Bond is surprisingly good.

Bond Films Part 2

Here are some more James Bond films that aren't the best.

18. Die Another Day: Except for a pretty good fencing sequence, this one is pretty forgettable. I personally don't like the idea that Bond was captured and held prisoner for a long time. It doesn't fit the whole "invincible Bond" concept that is the very essence of a Bond film. Halle Berry tries unsuccessfully to be Ursula Andress. The plot is confusing and I have the sense that the writers were stumped in coming up with a good story.

17. Tomorrow Never Dies: I really don't mean to pick on the Pierce Brosnan films but this is another turkey. It has the usual problems that I mention in #18 and 19. That is the plot is unclear. This one just throws action at you. It has an overly long chase sequence that gets ridiculous (even for a Bond film). This film really hyped Teri Hatcher as a Bond girl. She has a short role and is killed off so what was the point of that?

Bad to Awful
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fair to Good

16. A View to a Kill: Roger Moore's swan song as Bond. This film actually isn't bad. I consider it the weakest of the good Bond movies. Christopher Walken was a very good villain in this one. Grace Jones is an interesting henchwoman. Essentially, this is a remake of Goldfinger with silicon instead of gold. If you look carefully, you will see a lot of similarities between the two. The weak point of the film of course, is Moore. He is old and bored in this film. Equally bad is Tanya Roberts as a geologist.

Bond Films Part 1

Now that I've rated the actors, I'm going to start rating the films. I'll start with the worst and move up to the best.

21. Moonraker: This is a remake of an already bad film - The Spy Who Loved Me except that its about a madman intent on destroying the world and living in outer space instead of under the sea. (See #20) These two films represent the worst of Bond films. Producer Broccoli decided to go with Moonraker in 1979 due to the sudden popularity of space films - namely Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. 1979 was also the year of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Alien, and The Black Hole. Unfortunately, Moonraker's special effects were not up to the standards of these other pictures. Indeed, some of the space shots looked almost as bad as the B movies of the 1950's and '60's. More than that though, Bond never drives a car, Bond never even fires his Walther PPK. Instead, you get Star Wars-like laser blasts. Apparently, in 1979, we had laser gun technology which disappeared soon thereafter. Returning Jaws as the henchman was a bad idea. He was a stupid character in the previous film (Again, see #20). The "Bond girl" in this one is Dr. Goodhead (please!) played by Lois Chiles. She is so wooden as a superintelligent female astronaut that she rivals the ineptitude of Roger Moore.


20. The Spy Who Loved Me: This is another very cartoonish Bond film. Barbara Bach as Russian agent XXX (Yeah, I get it. The extra 'X' means she's superwoman.) is an absolute joke. The dialogue exchanges between her and Moore are absolutely laughable. I'm talking about having no chemistry and just going through the motions. This film introduces the most ridiculous of all Bond's nemesis', that being Jaws as he hulks around "chasing" Bond like Frankenstein's monster. Jaws can't even seem to be able to run so how he keeps catching up to and cornering Bond is beyond me. The plot is an evil scientist tries to create a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, while he and his "super race" can live safely under the sea.

19. GoldenEye: This debut of Pierce Brosnan is just plain boring. It has a convoluted plot. This is the first Bond film to come out after the Cold War. It appears the writer's weren't sure how to handle this. It relies on a gimmicky henchwoman, Xenia Onatopp to make it interesting. Unfortunately, she doesn't.

My Name is Bond, James Bond

I'm a big James Bond fan and since there is a new film out, I'm going to dedicates some time to these films.

Up until the recent film Casino Royale, there had been 5 actors to play James Bond. Just for the record, I am aware that David Niven played Bond in the 1967 spoof Casino Royale, but I don't really consider that a true James Bond movie. I am going to start off by rating the actors from worst to first:

5. Roger Moore: He was just horrid. Some of the films he was in were pretty good, but that was never due to Moore. While Bond is supposed to be fearless, Moore came off as being completely oblivious to any danger he was in. He always just seemed to have this empty, smirking, expression on his face. He was always stiff, but in latter films, especially A View to a Kill, he was downright robotic as he was just too old in 1985. He was never convincing as James Bond and he played the part too long.

4. Pierce Brosnan: While, certainly a more well-rounded actor than Moore, Brosnan just seemed too obvious a man to play Bond. He had the accent, he looked good in a tuxedo, but he lacked the physical presence that the better Bond actors had. He appeared smaller and nimbler and had a more martial arts style when he had to get physical against the bad guys. He just never came across as tough.

3. George Lazenby: He was in only one film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but it was a good performance. Lazenby played a very human Bond who didn't get much of a chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, Bond audiences weren't very responsive as OHMSS didn't do so well at the box office. This prompted producers Broccoli and Saltzman to dismiss Lazenby and pay Sean Connery a huge salary to do another Bond film, Diamonds are Forever.

2. Sean Connery: Yes, I know. Many Bond fans would consider it blasphemy to not hail Connery as the James Bond. Don't get me wrong, Connery was great. He found a way to be suave and tough at the same time. His very dry humor worked perfectly. He treated women in the same manner he treated the bad guys, that is with utter dispassion. Connery's Bond was with many, many women, but he could never love them. He used them for pleasure or as a means to get at the bad guy. Such chauvinism would never work today but Connery made it an art form.

1. Timothy Dalton: Always professional, grim, and tough, Dalton is the best actor to ever play Bond. Dalton's Bond was completely believable. It is easy to imagine that if there ever really was a James Bond, he would have been like Timothy Dalton. He could be as physically brutal as Connery was, yet he had more depth. He came across as both physically and mentally tough. There was a precision in every movement and every phrase he uttered. In fact, he was almost too good an actor to play Bond. Both films he was in (The Living Daylights and License to Kill) had him falling in love with the lead female character. The problem is that Dalton made the love seem so genuine that it felt wrong to see him in another film with a different woman. Of course, never having the same woman twice is an essential Bond quality. Still, Dalton is number 1 in my book.

Cardinals Apologize for Winning World Series

To get away from politics for a minute, this is pretty funny.

Cardinals Apologize for Winning World Series

The Democrat's Plan

"That's easy Bill, it can be summed up in three words, we can do better."

Howard Dean when asked by Bill Schaeffer on what the Democrats can offer?

Is this what Bush meant by fuzzy math? This is pretty much all I can expect from Democrats. They criticize and criticize. They attack, and yes, they lie and constantly attempt to mislead the public into believing that Republicans are so evil. You'd think that since Republicans are so wrong in everything, and I mean everything, that they would have some great ideas on how to do things. Do they? If they do, it must be a closely guarded secret because they sure aren't letting us in on their great plans.

Think of it this way. If Democrats have such good ideas and care so much for the country, shouldn't they offer constructive criticism to the Republicans? Shouldn't they say something like, "Hey Republicans! Instead of doing A, you should do B and here is why." Wouldn't they look good doing this? Wouldn't this garner a lot more support than their current plan of bitch, bitch, bitch, and whine, whine, whine?

It's pretty obvious that Democrats don't have a clue. Saying things will be "done better" is not a plan or a strategy. It is a result. Results are easy to say. "Today is going to be a great day" is also a stated result. But how does one make it a "great day"?

On Political Parties

I've made it no secret that I'm a political conservative. I'm what many would call a "Reagan Republican". In 1999, I decided my beliefs were not really in line with the Republican party anymore. I believe the party changed its platform significantly and I had probably changed as well. Members of the Republican party seemed too quick to quote the Bible, too thick-headed about "Creationism", and too willing to submit to the idea of the government's social responsibilities.

I'm not alone. As Larry Elder says in his book The Ten Things You Can't Say in America, that there is maybe a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Some Republicans who are true conservatives have gone to the Libertarian party. The Libertarian party is intriguing to me. They are very tough on limiting the power of government, like true conservatives. However, I have difficulties in subscribing to the Libertarian solution to the drug problem, which is, essentially, to legalize them.

So I decided to be Independent until I find a party that I feel I can get on board with. In past elections, I have tried to be agnostic and vote for the person or issue I believed in, regardless of party. This election, however, I just refuse to vote for anything the Democrats want. I'm going to link to another video. It is really excellent.

Vote Republican

More on Democrats

Keeping the previous post in mind, let's see how the Democrats dealt with North Korea during the Clinton administration.

Democrats and North Korea

While intended to be humorous, there is a kernel of truth in this video. In fact, this is an ad that the Republican party was going to show, but decided it was too politically incorrect. This video points out why the Democratic party appears so generally weak when it comes to national security.

Let's Talk Politics

Today, I'm going to get a bit political. To get things started, I'm posting a link to a video clip from the 1940 film "The Ghost Breakers" starring Bob Hope. It features one of the best quotes in cinematic history.

What is a Zombie?

The Letter

Dear ----------,

You are receiving this letter because you have recently registered to vote. If you are a U.S. Citizen, I urge you to participate in the democratic process of voting.

Be advised that if your residence in the United States is illegal or if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration and possible deportation for voting without the right to do so.

In the same way, be advised that the U.S. government is installing a new computerized system to verify names of all the newly registered voters who participate in the elections in October and November. Organizations against immigration will be able to request information from this new computerized system.

Not like in Mexico, here there is no benefit to voting. In the United States there is no registration card to vote. Therefore, it is useless and dangerous to vote in any election if you are not a citizen of the United States.

Do not pay attention to a politician who may try to tell you otherwise. They only care about their own interests. They just want to win elections and it doesn't matter to them what happens to you.

Sincerely,

Sergio Ramirez

The above is a letter written to approximately 14,000 Democrats in Orange County, California. It is an obvious attempt to discourage those whose legal status in the United States is questionable from voting in the upcoming midterm election. It was written by an aide to Tan Nguyen to support Mr. Nguyen's campaign for a seat in Congress. The incumbent, Loretta Sanchez was accused in the previous election for registering illegal immigrants to vote for her. Indeed, there was strong evidence that this was the case.

I've looked carefully at the above letter, which has caused Democrats to cry for Nguyen to withdraw from the election for illegally threatening voters. My finding is that most of it is perfectly legitimate. I don't condone this letter and think its a low tactic but in light of the Democrats going out on the streets of inner cities and deliberately targeting and registering illegal immigrants to vote, it seems to me, a fairly mild retaliation.

Be advised that if your residence in the United States is illegal or if you are an immigrant...

This is the only part of the letter that is wrong since it includes the word "immigrant" without a preceding "illegal". This makes the entire letter illegitimate.

Consider this, though. I wonder if this letter will actually discourage someone from voting. I can only imagine two types of people who would be affected by this letter.

1. An illegal immigrant or non-citizen, who shouldn't be voting anyways.
2. A legal immigrant and citizen, who apparently isn't aware of his/her rights as a citizen. Well, if you're not aware of your rights, you shouldn't be voting.

Kerry Belongs in Iraq

"You know, education. If you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

- John Kerry in speech at Pasadena City College in support of candidate Phil Angelides.

Former and perhaps future presidential candidate John Kerry said the above words. He also claims it was a "botched joke" intended at George W. Bush. Nevertheless, this statement has caused quite a stir. John McCain and others have demanded an apology from Kerry. Instead, Kerry went on a Republican-attacking tirade.

Okay, Kerry, I'm willing to accept that you didn't mean the words above. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. However, whether you meant it or not, you did make this statement. Why won't you just simply apologize and move on?

When Cheney accidentally shot his hunting partner, did he say "I'm not going to apologize for shooting him when he, who got shot should be doing the apologizing."?

Kerry has lost what little respect I had for him. How he can not hold himself accountable for his own words is just unbelievable to me. He followed Bill Clinton's lead from last months infamous Fox News interview. Like Clinton, Kerry goes on an angry rant that was completely uncalled for. I guess Bill Clinton is still leading the Democratic party.

The Way it Ought to be Done

An incredibly stupid company (my opinion, anyway) decides to market an energy drink and call it "Cocaine: The Legal Alternative". The drink began appearing in stores over the past month or so and due to its name, caused quite a stir.

Personally, I find the brand name offensive. I would never buy such a drink and if it were manufactured by a company that made products I use, I would switch companies due to my strong dislike of companies that would stick such a label on their product in an obvious attempt to gain notoriety, and supposedly sales from that notoriety. I'm obviously not alone on this as apparently the company (Redux Beverages of Las Vegas, Nv) received letters and phone calls from people who found the name offensive.

What's more is that retail outlets got flak for selling the product. So much in fact, that 7/11 decided to pull the product from its shelves.

(From MSNBC)
"Our merchandising team believes the product's name promotes an image which we didn't want to be associated with," said Margaret Chabris, a spokeswoman for 7-Eleven.

What I like about this whole matter is that it fits a particular belief I have. That is: Yes, we have free speech, but free speech runs hand in hand with responsibility. In this case, Redux had the right to name its product as such, but it was an irresponsible decision to give it that particular name. I am hopeful that the company ends up losing money for this decision and finds it to have been a mistake.

NFL Power Rankings - Updated

Now that we are about 1/3 of the way through the season, here's my up to date rankings:

1. Bears - No team dominates every single game but other than Monday night, they have been impressive.

2. Colts - They've struggled quite a bit, but are always on top at the end.

3. Seahawks - No Superbowl hangover for them.

4. Chargers - Perhaps the most talented team in the NFL. Too bad they have such an average head coach.

5. Giants - They have a very difficult schedule. I still consider them an elite team.

6. Broncos
7. Patriots
8. Panthers
9. Saints - The surprise team of the year.
10. Bengals
11. Falcons
12. Eagles
13. Ravens
14. Jaguars
15. Steelers - They look like the team with the Superbowl hangover.
16. Rams
17. Cowboys
18. Vikings
19. Chiefs
20. Jets
21. Cardinals - Almost a good team. Watch out for them.
22. Buccaneers - One of the two disappointments this year.
23. Packers - Let Aaron Rogers have shot at it. Favre is done.
24. Redskins
25. Bills
26. Lions - Another team that has to get past it's losing ways. They are dangerous.
27. Titans
28. Texans - Think the Houston fans are unhappy about the decision not to pick Bush?
29. Dolphins - The other team that has really disappointed.
30. Browns - In their usual spot.
31. 49ers - Occasionally show improvement but aren't consistant.
32. Raiders - I can't say I'm disappointed that the two worst teams are from the bay area.

I'll post these every few weeks. My initial Superbowl prediction of Steelers vs. Giants is pretty shaky, but there is a lot of season left.

An Officer and a Guardian

A young and cocky military signee is going through training that is brutal. A seasoned instructor who is putting the young men and women through the hellish training is mostly concerned with their character. The young protagonist finds a local young woman, has casual sex with her, and tries not to get emotionally entangled because he knows it will all end when the training is over. The young protagonist also has a history that he has to overcome in order to pass the training. The young protagonist makes a mistake and is singled out to endure extra hardships to improve his character. These extra hardships, which include having a garden hose spraying water continually in his face while exerting physical activity, strengthen his resolve to become a better human being. Towards the end of the training, the protagonist abandons his young lady. Finally, at the end, our protagonist, who has successfully passed the training and established himself as a leader, decides he loves the young lady and shows up at her place of work to tell/show her.

Yeah, An Officer and a Gentleman was a great, landmark film but that's not the movie I saw yesterday. Michelle and I went to see The Guardian with Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner. It didn't take either of us very long to realize this was basically, a remake of a film made 24 years earlier. There are some details that are different, of course. It's about becoming a Coast Guard rescue swimmer, as opposed to a Navy pilot for one. It was so similar to "Officer", though, that I was half expecting Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warren to chime "Love Lifts Us Up" at the ending scene.

The Guardian didn't just mimic An Officer and a Gentleman, it also borrowed scenes from Top Gun and Heartbreak Ridge. For the former, there is a bar scene where two military guys make a bet as to whether one of them will "get the girl". For the latter, there is another bar that is owned by an older, salty woman who is friendly with the older, salty man. She understands him and boasts about his heroics to the young trainee.

One of the reasons I don't see as many new movies as I used to is that there are so many remakes. (The Omen, The Poseidon Adventure, for example.) The Guardian is a remake in disguise. Overall, it was actually pretty good if you can get past all the repeated scenes.

The Many Paths to 9/11

Michelle and I finally got around to watching The Path to 911 last week over the course of a three days. It is a five hour docudrama without commercial interruption and I didn't want to stay up late watching it so I recorded it so we could watch it at our convenience.

I found the film to be very well done. The cast, pacing, cinematography, and storyline were superior. I kept reminding myself that this is more drama than documentary. ABC reminded the audience several times that some characters were combined, some scenes were fictionalized, and that this film should not be taken as a factual documentary.

I'm not an expert on 9/11 and I'm not going to try to point out what was done with historical accuracy and what wasn't. I have been curious about all the hype and criticism this movie has received. Most of the criticism has come from left-wingers, including Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. They complained that the film emphasized that the attacks were primarily their fault.

I listened to an interview with one of the film's producers, who incidentally and interestingly, is of Iranian descent. He responded to the criticism from the left by saying that he was not politically affiliated with any party and they took particular care to make an accurate account of the actions or inactions made by specific individuals, no matter what political side they were on.

As for my take on this. I believe Clinton and others, who have bashed this movie are way off base here. I've read and heard some ridiculous comments that this film virtually pins all the blame on the Clinton administration. No way! There is very little about Clinton's involvement or lack of involvement. It does get into some of his staff members dropping the ball. From everything I've heard and read outside of this docudrama, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger did forewarn the Pakistani government that they were going to send missiles at Al Queda many hours beforehand. Maybe it didn't happen exactly the way it was portrayed in the movie but it apparently did happen. The film showed ineptitude by government agencies as well where the CIA and FBI wouldn't share information.

And yes, the film does point out how the Bush administration chose to ignore the information and warnings given by the previous administration. Similar, actually, to how the Clinton administration chose to ignore Iraq, but that's another discussion. Bush was shown in the classroom reading to children when informed of the attacks. It also indicated that Bush didn't take it too seriously right away.

I just don't see why people, (many of whom I would guess never bothered to watch the movie) are bashing this movie so. Sometimes I really wonder if we're forgetting whose to blame for 9/11. No, it's not Clinton, it's not Bush, it's Al Queda. That's who our anger should be directed at.

Baseball in October

For the first time in years, I am actually optimistic about the Dodger's chances this postseason.

My predictions:

Dodgers over Mets
Padres over Cardinals
A's over Twins
Yankees over Tigers

World Series prediction: It will be 1988 all over again - Dodgers over A's.

I realize as I write this that some games have already been played. I can honestly say that these were my predictions two days ago.

I'm Still Here

I'm still here. I've actually got several half-written blog entries in progress. They will start to appear soon. Thanks for your patience.

1 Year of Drivel

Today, Sept 8, 2006 marks the 1 year anniversary of Pure Drivel. I'd like to do a little reflection of how it went.

September 2005 marked the introduction of Pure Drivel. In my first post, I state my intentions.

"This is not to say that this will be a total politically-oriented site. I'm not really that into politics. I usually try not to think about how people I select in November are abusing my rights and my hard-earned money. So I'll write about sports, science, technology, or whatever I happen to feel like mentioning on a particular day."

I think I have stayed true to this purpose in not making this blog too focused on any particular topic.

However, I did emphasize some of my political views last September with Presidential Power, A New Kind of Liberal, and Where Do We Go From Here? I am a political conservative and I show some of that here. The latter was first of a two-parter where I state my strong belief in having a space program.

October 2005 had more variety. I wrap up the space program entry with The Solution and I expose another blogger's utter lack of logic in Facts. After one year, I have more reservations than ever about calling something a "fact". It's a dangerous word to use and one can only be proved wrong in using it. I got into baseball and hockey this month as well.

November 2005 is where I got into the liberal media. This is a common complaint amongst us conservatives where mainstream media takes liberal views and paints them as "normal" while conservatives are always "extremists" or "out of touch". Instead of pointing out what is considered traditional media such as TV news or newspapers, I point out how the liberal media has insidiously infected the movies we watch.

December 2005 was a month I had looked forward to for some time. I had my first vacation in years and I really enjoyed going back east and visiting relatives I had not seen in 33 years. I managed to sneak in two blogs. One, The Arctic Issue Continues concerns the now old argument of whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Unfortunately, this debate has not settled and I still feel we would be better off investigating in wind and solar research, as opposed to perpetuating our dependence on oil. Speaking of long debates, The DVD Situation is about a battle between two hi-definition DVD standards that is still unresolved. HD-DVD looked like it was in the lead about a year ago but suddenly, the slightly more technically advanced Blue-Ray has made strides and titles are starting to trickle in. I, personally don't know anybody who is using either technology at this point, though. It's still too early to tell.

January 2006 featured a favorite topic of mine, cars. I go to the L.A. Auto Show almost every year. This year, I noted how much horsepower that even, the most modest of cars has today in Cars, Cars, Everywhere but Not a Road to Drive. I had already decided that 2006 was going to be the year I bought a new car so the Auto Show had more than normal appeal to me. On a similar note, I got into how we got into the urban sprawl, driving mess that is the Los Angeles area, where I live. The Freeway Factor was where I graphically point out how the best intentions to make commuting fast and easy actually lead to the opposite effect.

February 2006 featured my bad prediction of the Superbowl outcome. I also wrote a piece on an argument I had had with my father-in-law during my Christmas vacation. In End of Faith, I was dismayed at how my father-in-law had lost his faith and was now blaming religion for all the problems in the world. My father-in-law is a devoted liberal and I now find it funny and ironic how he'd be a perfect poster boy for Ann Coulter's Godless book.

I also changed the appearance of the blog to the form that it is currently in today.

March 2006 started out with my "AutoQuest" series where I had the misadventures of buying a new car. All I can say about that is watch out for those scheming auto salespeople. They have no scruples. Later on in the month, I dive into the controversy that is illegal immigration with the somewhat satirical Welcome! In the past, people jumping the border looking for a better life in America never really bothered me. It always seemed unfair to me to think that I deserve to live in this country more than someone else. That's not fair, is it? However, in light of terrorism and our need to try to keep our nation safe, I am now forced to agree that something needs to be done concerning the ease of coming into America from Mexico or Canada.

April 2006 did not feature a lot from me. I probably did not have much to say that month. I did get into baseball's free agency issue where I lament that I hardly seem to know who is playing for the Dodgers anymore. I also bid Luc Robitaille farewell.

May 2006 was a more interesting month. I start off with The Threat where I express my concerns over Iran. Boy was I dead on right with that one! Iran is a scary nation right now. Kudos was my thank you to my fellow employees for showing up to work on a day that people of their nationality were encouraging them to take off and protest the very people who were providing them jobs. I can't help but notice that this past labor day was supposed to feature large rallies around the United States to protest our anti-illegal alien policies. Apparently very few showed up at these rallys. These protesters don't seem to have a problem leaving work or school to protest, but they must have a problem using a day off for such activities.

I got into the liberal media again with my It's About Time post. I sarcastically point out how some in the mainstream media are finally bothering to point out the U.S. has seen unprecedented economic growth in virtually all phases. The economy is usually at the forefront of news but amidst the stories of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, 911, and Brittany Spears, this little tidbit of news was seemingly forgotten. Of course, this wouldn't have anything to do with the media not wanting to cause Americans to think that maybe Bush's tax cuts weren't such a bad idea after all.

Da Vinci points to another film with a liberal agenda.

June 2006 did not see too many posts by me. I had a busy time at work. I posted my review of Cars, a film that I felt didn't have a liberal bias, by the way. June 2006 was when I posted my most notorious entry The Godless Religion. I call it notorious because of the response I got from it and not just from the usual suspect. It was another post about the liberal media. This time they targeted someone who could really fight back, that being Ann Coulter. While I can't quite agree with Coulter's style or the assertions she makes, I do admire how she faces her enemies and holds nothing back.

July 2006 featured a return to two favorite subjects of mine, cars and energy. In The 2.78% Solution, I point out the misleading promises of switching from gasoline to ethanol to power our vehicles. In What is an American Car?, I list what cars are actually made in America for those who think this is of importance.

Then the whole falling out with Erik occurred. I won't re-open that wound.

August 2006 started off with a topical discussion of the Mel Gibson drunk-driving occurrence. In Drunk Driving is Okay - Just Don't be an Anti-Semite, I point out how the media picks on Mel Gibson's anti-semitism, yet almost ignores his drunk driving, which, in my opinion, was much more potentially harmful.

I then revisit issues in baseball with This is Why They Fail. I predicted the Izturis for Maddux trade by the Dodgers would hurt the team in the long run. The Dodgers have done quite well since I posted that and actually might make the postseason. I personally don't attribute that to acquiring Maddux but I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me on that.

I do have a hidden counter going that doesn't click when I visit so it's pretty accurate (Thanks to Statcounter.com). As of right now, I've had 913 non-me hits. July was by far, the biggest month with 181 hits. That was, not so coincidentally, the month of the Ann Coulter post and the crap about Erik.

It's now September of 2006 and I'll trudge onward. I've learned a lot in the past year and fully intend on spewing out my pure drivel. For anyone who reads me, I thank you for putting up with me.

Power Rankings - 2006

I always enjoy Fox Sports' and ESPN's NFL power rankings. It's so hard to predict how a new season will end, but I'll try anyways. I'm throwing in my own personal power rankings.

1. Steelers
2. Giants
3. Seahawks
4. Patriots
5. Colts
6. Panthers
7. Bengals
8. Cowboys
9. Broncos
10. Eagles
11. Dolphins
12. Bears
13. Jaguars
14. Buccaneers
15. Cardinals
16. Redskins
17. Rams
18. Chargers
19. Falcons
20. Ravens
21. Vikings
22. Lions
23. Chiefs
24. Titans
25. Bills
26. Texans
27. Jets
28. Raiders
29. Saints
30. Browns
31. 49'ers
32. Packers

My pick for the Superbowl is Steelers over Giants. Anybody else want to throw in their predictions?

Minimizing Choices

When dealing with complex issues, paradoxes become commonplace. In 1931, the federal government of the United States decided that minority construction companies were taking jobs away from white construction companies. The reason was that the minorities were willing to perform the work for less pay. The government's solution was to create legislation called the Davis-Bacon Act. It's purpose was to require the government to allow construction bids to contractors who pay "union wages". This allowed the white-run companies to reclaim many of the jobs they were losing. It didn't end there. The Davis-Bacon Act was successful at pricing minorities out of jobs, but it applied only to government contracts. Companies not under government contracts wanted in on this idea as well. They got there way and the minimum wage laws were enacted.

So, here's our paradox. We are always hearing arguments favoring hiking up minimum wage, whether it's on a national or state basis. The arguments always take the stand that raising minimum wage will aid low-end workers and minorities. Politicians, who want to be seen as the type who "looks out for the little guy" use minimum wage to perpetuate that persona. Yet, minimum wage was never there to help these low-end workers. Not only that, study after study has shown the following. This is from the Joint Economic Committee:

The minimum wage reduces employment.
Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.
Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.
Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks.
Bauer (1959).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.
Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.
Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.
Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.
Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover.
Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.
Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.
Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.
Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally.
Kaun (1965).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).

The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings.
Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).

The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits.
McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980).

The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.
Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas.
Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.
Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).

The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.
Stigler (1946).

The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty.
Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).

The minimum wage helps upper income families.
Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981).

The minimum wage helps unions.
Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).

The minimum wage lowers the capital stock.
McCulloch (1981).

The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure.
Adams (1987), Brozen (1966), Gramlich (1976), Grossman (1983).

The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates.
Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.
Beranek (1982).

Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.
Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).

The minimum wage has had a massive impact on unemployment in Puerto Rico.
Freeman and Freeman (1991), Rottenberg (1981b).

The minimum wage has reduced employment in foreign countries.
Canada: Forrest (1982); Chile: Corbo (1981); Costa Rica: Gregory (1981); France: Rosa (1981).

Even the New York Times published an article in 1987 called “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00” Whenever minimum wage rises, employers are forced to evaluate the situation and make some hard decisions about cutting hours, cutting benefits, or just cutting out the workers altogether. In many low-wage situations, there are automation alternatives (i.e. computers or robotics) that are available. There is a threshold to the employer as to when it's time to replace humans with machines and that threshold is often dependent on the minimum wage.

Most politicians are aware of many of these studies, yet they continue to jabber on about how necessary the minimum wage is. Why would they do this? They are pandering to an American public they feel is too dumb to figure this stuff out. Paradoxes can be difficult to explain so they don't want to bother because they can appease more people quickly by just raising the minimum wage. This is similar to the way politicians deride "taxes for the rich". These taxes have helped our economy immensely but left-wing politicians refuse to accept that. It's another paradox that's easy to believe in the wrong choice.

Think of it this way. If you are making minimum wage, then your employer is only paying you what he is forced by the government to pay you. Therefore, you are overpaid.