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

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)

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)

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

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

How White and Nerdy Are You?

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

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:

1. The Earth is getting warmer and warmer
   


2. This warming is primarily caused by human activity
   


3. 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)

"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

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:

• Han Solo
  
• Yoda
  
• Chewbacca
  
• Threepio
  
• Artoo
  
• Darth Vader
  
• Luke Skywalker
  
• Princess Leia
  

A Convenient Lie

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

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)

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

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.