Monday, February 05, 2007
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?
Friday, February 02, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, January 19, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, January 12, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
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.
Monday, December 18, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
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)
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)
Friday, December 01, 2006
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.
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
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, November 27, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, November 20, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Cardinals Apologize for Winning World Series
To get away from politics for a minute, this is pretty funny.
Cardinals Apologize for Winning World Series
Cardinals Apologize for Winning World Series
Monday, November 06, 2006
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
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
Sunday, November 05, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)