If you haven't seen the exchange involving the word "bitch" between John McCain and a Hillary hater or the remarks by CNN's Rick Sanchez, watch it here.
Crazy or Stupid?
I'm not a McCain fan but my initial reaction is that he handled it pretty well. Of course, CNN's Sanchez would like to think this finished the whole campaign but that's what I'd expect from CNN. That's not what I want to discuss, however.
Thinking about it some more brought me to an interesting hypothetical. What if the questioner was an African-American referring to Barack Obama asking:
"How do we beat the n*****?"
I wonder how it would have played had this been the case. I believe McCain would have reacted much more harshly and if he hadn't, then Sanchez would probably be right. McCain would be finished.
Notice how even I will print the "b" word and not the "n" word. The "n" word has certainly become quite the taboo in our society. It's interesting isn't it? How many women would think it's okay to use the "b" word and not the "n" word? Should we react upon hearing the words equally? If not, what makes one okay to use and not the other?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
Rudolph Giuliani: Sports Analyst
Let's do this again.
Al Michaels: So Mr Giuliani, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?
Rudolph Giuliani: Well Al, I remember when I was Mayor of New York, I cut down crime on the roads to the Meadowlands Stadium by 45%. I worked hard with our law enfo...
Al Michaels: (To himself) Here we go again
Al Michaels: Rudy, Rudy!, I'm here to talk about sports. I just want your prediction for the game.
Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, the game itself? It's going to be a struggle - kind of like the struggle during 9/11 when our firefighters had to battle the smoke, ash and falling debris to save thousands of lives. I expect the Colts and Patriots to be like my fire-fighting warriors as they battle each other.
Al Michaels: Care to actually make a prediction as to who will win?
Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, I'm rooting for Boston, er New England for sure.
New Yorkers: Boooooooh!
Al Michaels: So Mr Giuliani, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?
Rudolph Giuliani: Well Al, I remember when I was Mayor of New York, I cut down crime on the roads to the Meadowlands Stadium by 45%. I worked hard with our law enfo...
Al Michaels: (To himself) Here we go again
Al Michaels: Rudy, Rudy!, I'm here to talk about sports. I just want your prediction for the game.
Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, the game itself? It's going to be a struggle - kind of like the struggle during 9/11 when our firefighters had to battle the smoke, ash and falling debris to save thousands of lives. I expect the Colts and Patriots to be like my fire-fighting warriors as they battle each other.
Al Michaels: Care to actually make a prediction as to who will win?
Rudolph Giuliani: Oh, I'm rooting for Boston, er New England for sure.
New Yorkers: Boooooooh!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Hillary Clinton: Sports Analyst
Let's just imagine this for one minute.
Al Michaels: So Mrs. Clinton, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?
Hillary Clinton: First of all, having two teams undefeated this late in the season indicates a lack of parity in the league. This can clearly be blamed on the current administration for setting up policies where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When I am President, I am going to change that by increasing the ta...
Al Michaels: Eh, excuse me Hillary, I just want your prediction as to who's going to win the game.
Hillary Clinton: The Patriots are certainly a strong team. They are very democratic in the way they share the ball among so many players. The current administration doesn't play that way! The Patriots' style of play makes them unbeatable.
Al Michaels: So you pick the Patriots, then?
Hillary Clinton: Well, you also have the Colts, who have an African-American coach. Despite the current administration's running the country like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about, the coach has managed to overcome this and because of that, the Colts are unbeatable.
Al Michaels: Now wait a minute, you just said earlier that the Patriots are unbeatable. They both can't be.
Hillary Clinton: No Al, this is one of those situations where my opponents say "gotcha!". Don't misconstrue what I've said. Clearly this confusion can be blamed on the current administration!
Al Michaels: Let me ask this question, again... One more time. Who do you pick to win on Sunday, the Patriots or the Colts?
Hillary Clinton: I believe I've stated my position on this issue clearly.
Al Michaels: So Mrs. Clinton, you probably are aware that on this coming up Sunday, there will be a battle between two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Who do you like in that one?
Hillary Clinton: First of all, having two teams undefeated this late in the season indicates a lack of parity in the league. This can clearly be blamed on the current administration for setting up policies where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When I am President, I am going to change that by increasing the ta...
Al Michaels: Eh, excuse me Hillary, I just want your prediction as to who's going to win the game.
Hillary Clinton: The Patriots are certainly a strong team. They are very democratic in the way they share the ball among so many players. The current administration doesn't play that way! The Patriots' style of play makes them unbeatable.
Al Michaels: So you pick the Patriots, then?
Hillary Clinton: Well, you also have the Colts, who have an African-American coach. Despite the current administration's running the country like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about, the coach has managed to overcome this and because of that, the Colts are unbeatable.
Al Michaels: Now wait a minute, you just said earlier that the Patriots are unbeatable. They both can't be.
Hillary Clinton: No Al, this is one of those situations where my opponents say "gotcha!". Don't misconstrue what I've said. Clearly this confusion can be blamed on the current administration!
Al Michaels: Let me ask this question, again... One more time. Who do you pick to win on Sunday, the Patriots or the Colts?
Hillary Clinton: I believe I've stated my position on this issue clearly.
Boo!
Just thought I'd list some of my favorite horror movies. Don't know what prompted that. Most horror films are pure crap. That includes just about all the teen slasher movies. I'm not the type who actually gets scared watching a movie so this is not a list of the scariest films. It's a list of the rare films in this genre that I think are worthwhile to watch.
In no particular order:
Psycho: The definitive work on audience deception. Hitchcock masterfully leads us into a story about a woman trapped in her own web of deception, then without warning, kills her off and reveals a new story about a man in his own trap.
Alien: The ultimate creature movie. This film has such a creepy tone. It doesn't hurt that it takes place in a cramped ship in an alien part of outer space.
The Shining: In the Overlook hotel where the winding endless hallways mimic the surrounding mountains, a family dwells in utter isolation. Does the terror come from outside unnatural forces or does the locale bring out the inner demons of each individual? The Kubrick film is great. The TV movie that is based more on the Stephen King book is weak.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 & 1978), Body Snatchers (1993): A movie so good, they've re-made it three times. I haven't seen the one that came out this year (The Invasion), but the three predecessors are all very good in their own unique way. "They're coming, they're coming! You're next!"
A Nightmare on Elm Street: Let me explain this very carefully, only the first one is worth the trouble. The sequels are just along the same lines as the Halloweens and Friday the Thirteenth movies. The first one though, is very good as it puts a new twist on the teen slasher. This time, he comes in your dreams. How can you stop him? How can you make anyone believe you?
Count Dracula (1977 TV Movie): This version of the classic story actually follows the novel quite faithfully. It's far superior to the very tame Bela Lugosi flick and the over the top, ridiculous Francis Ford Coppolla version.
Frankenstein (1992 TNT Movie): This is reasonably faithful to the novel and it certainly captures its themes quite well. The more recent Kenneth Branaugh film isn't bad but it's over-acted.
SSSSS: This is a campy B movie all the way but it is very creepy. "Red touch yellow kills a fellow."
Beware, the Blob: Also, a very campy B movie. It is hilarious. The blob devours everything including hippies, priests, and policemen. This is Larry Hagman's one and only movie he directed.
The Howling: This came out almost exactly at the same time as An American Werewolf in London. The Howling is much better, in terror, effects, and campiness.
In no particular order:
Psycho: The definitive work on audience deception. Hitchcock masterfully leads us into a story about a woman trapped in her own web of deception, then without warning, kills her off and reveals a new story about a man in his own trap.
Alien: The ultimate creature movie. This film has such a creepy tone. It doesn't hurt that it takes place in a cramped ship in an alien part of outer space.
The Shining: In the Overlook hotel where the winding endless hallways mimic the surrounding mountains, a family dwells in utter isolation. Does the terror come from outside unnatural forces or does the locale bring out the inner demons of each individual? The Kubrick film is great. The TV movie that is based more on the Stephen King book is weak.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 & 1978), Body Snatchers (1993): A movie so good, they've re-made it three times. I haven't seen the one that came out this year (The Invasion), but the three predecessors are all very good in their own unique way. "They're coming, they're coming! You're next!"
A Nightmare on Elm Street: Let me explain this very carefully, only the first one is worth the trouble. The sequels are just along the same lines as the Halloweens and Friday the Thirteenth movies. The first one though, is very good as it puts a new twist on the teen slasher. This time, he comes in your dreams. How can you stop him? How can you make anyone believe you?
Count Dracula (1977 TV Movie): This version of the classic story actually follows the novel quite faithfully. It's far superior to the very tame Bela Lugosi flick and the over the top, ridiculous Francis Ford Coppolla version.
Frankenstein (1992 TNT Movie): This is reasonably faithful to the novel and it certainly captures its themes quite well. The more recent Kenneth Branaugh film isn't bad but it's over-acted.
SSSSS: This is a campy B movie all the way but it is very creepy. "Red touch yellow kills a fellow."
Beware, the Blob: Also, a very campy B movie. It is hilarious. The blob devours everything including hippies, priests, and policemen. This is Larry Hagman's one and only movie he directed.
The Howling: This came out almost exactly at the same time as An American Werewolf in London. The Howling is much better, in terror, effects, and campiness.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Bush Hates Healthy Children! Read All About it!
House Sustains President’s Veto on Child Health
The headline of the New York Times article above is unbelievably slanted. Nevermind that federal government has no business in the health care business and the veto merely put some limits on the whole bad idea.
How about a headline slanted the other way.
The headline of the New York Times article above is unbelievably slanted. Nevermind that federal government has no business in the health care business and the veto merely put some limits on the whole bad idea.
How about a headline slanted the other way.
House Sustains Bush's Defense of the Constitution
Sunday, October 14, 2007
He Assaulted Truth. Now He Gets Awarded for Peace?
When Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace prize, the Nobel Peace committee lost all credibility for me. Now they award Al Gore the same award for his opinionated and biased attempt at explaining global warming. Well, at least they're consistent. Gore fudged data, made all sorts of inaccurate statements, and drew conclusions based on very little evidence. Yet, somehow, he gets an Academy award and a Nobel Peace Prize for his attack on the truth.
In a world gone mad, there is a little sanity. In Great Britain, it was ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, if it is to be shown in schools, must be accompanied by a disclaimer.
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
Of course, I already did my own research on this earlier this year.
A Convenient Lie Part 1
I assert that Al Gore created his film for political reasons. I outline his primary arguments.
"The Debate is Over" (A Convenient Lie Part 2)
I point out that there is a huge amount of qualified people who dispute Gore's claims. The debate is hardly over.
The Case for Global Warming (A Convenient Lie Part 3)
I summarize Gore's arguments.
Why It's Wrong (A Convenient Lie Part 4)
There are many holes in Gore's arguments. I go over just a few.
The Truth (A Convenient Lie Part 5)
Global warming is caused by (gasp) the Sun!
Politics vs Science (A Convenient Lie Part 6 - FINAL)
Politicians seem to care more about this issue than scientists. They wouldn't have anything to gain from this fear-mongering, would they?
In a world gone mad, there is a little sanity. In Great Britain, it was ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, if it is to be shown in schools, must be accompanied by a disclaimer.
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
Of course, I already did my own research on this earlier this year.
A Convenient Lie Part 1
I assert that Al Gore created his film for political reasons. I outline his primary arguments.
"The Debate is Over" (A Convenient Lie Part 2)
I point out that there is a huge amount of qualified people who dispute Gore's claims. The debate is hardly over.
The Case for Global Warming (A Convenient Lie Part 3)
I summarize Gore's arguments.
Why It's Wrong (A Convenient Lie Part 4)
There are many holes in Gore's arguments. I go over just a few.
The Truth (A Convenient Lie Part 5)
Global warming is caused by (gasp) the Sun!
Politics vs Science (A Convenient Lie Part 6 - FINAL)
Politicians seem to care more about this issue than scientists. They wouldn't have anything to gain from this fear-mongering, would they?
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
October's Best
Now that I've mostly gotten over my depression of the Dodgers' absolute collapse in September, I'll give my fearless picks for October.
Divisional Series
Rockies over Phillies
Diamondbacks over Cubs
Yankees over Indians
Red Sox over Angels
League Championship Series
Rockies over Diamondbacks
Red Sox over Yankees
World Series
Red Sox over Rockies
Divisional Series
Rockies over Phillies
Diamondbacks over Cubs
Yankees over Indians
Red Sox over Angels
League Championship Series
Rockies over Diamondbacks
Red Sox over Yankees
World Series
Red Sox over Rockies
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Position Available #2
Badly Wanted: A head coach with guts and a success-driven attitude for a badly under-performing football team in St. Louis. This football team has some of the most talented players in the NFL. They feature one of the most cool-headed, accurate and toughest quarterbacks, a young, emerging running back who is also an excellent receiver and blocker. An array of wide-receivers and tight ends with speed and great hands would be at your disposal.
Unfortunately, this team is so poorly coached that they appear utterly inept. This position is available immediately. Hurry and apply before it's too late. Bill Cowher and Marty Shottenheimer would make primary choices but anyone who is fiery, and can plan solid game strategies and not be prone to making sorry-ass excuses would be considered.
Unfortunately, this team is so poorly coached that they appear utterly inept. This position is available immediately. Hurry and apply before it's too late. Bill Cowher and Marty Shottenheimer would make primary choices but anyone who is fiery, and can plan solid game strategies and not be prone to making sorry-ass excuses would be considered.
Position Available #1
The Los Angeles Dodgers, a major league baseball team serving the Los Angeles community has an urgent need for a manager. They need a highly motivated, success-driven leader. Applicants must be willing to tirelessly train and drive personnel to perform at a high level. Applicants must be able to incorporate a work ethic stressing fundamentals, conditioning and toughness. Applicants will need to have a heavy hand when needed to motivate a team that comprises many young players. Applicants must inspire attitude in team that anything short of making the postseason will be regarded as a complete failure to fulfill objectives.
The Los Angeles Dodgers organization is a proud major league baseball franchise with a rich tradition of success. The position offered here has major benefits including working with some of the finest young talent in the league.
"Player's managers" need not apply. Send your resumes to Sick_and_tired_of_feeble_management@dodgers.com.
The Los Angeles Dodgers organization is a proud major league baseball franchise with a rich tradition of success. The position offered here has major benefits including working with some of the finest young talent in the league.
"Player's managers" need not apply. Send your resumes to Sick_and_tired_of_feeble_management@dodgers.com.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Now That's God
I've been away helping my Mom move from Las Vegas to La Verne. I received the following link from my Uncle and Aunt. It's a really special tale.
Now That's God
Now That's God
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Somehow, I Should Have Known
I just read the somewhat amusing speech by Osama bin Laden. He gives much praise to Allah, of course. He praises his soldiers of Islam for their hard work in the battle against the Imperial United States.
In between all this, he takes the time to condemn a few other things:
I wonder what political party bin Laden supports? Next month, I suppose he will lay out his platform for national health care.
In between all this, he takes the time to condemn a few other things:
- He blasts the United States involvement in an "unjust" war in Iraq.
- He says the United States is in the war based on "blatant lies" by the federal government.
- He essentially says that democracy doesn't work because it breeds greedy corporations.
- He says the United States is destroying the planet by not ratifying the Kyoto accord.
- He blames America's evil on capitalism.
I wonder what political party bin Laden supports? Next month, I suppose he will lay out his platform for national health care.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Okay, Here We Go
My absolutely fearless predictions for the 2007-2008 NFL season. You can take this to the bank.
...No, really.
...I'm serious, these predictions are dead on.
...Okay, so I wasn't so great last year, but this year will be different.
...I got a really good feeling this time.
...Fine, so don't believe me, you'll be sorry.
AFC East
This is my biggest surprise. After years of domination, the Patriot bubble will burst. They are due for a disappointing season and this will be it. They won't be bad but they won't be good enough to make the postseason. This division will be a fight between the Bills and Jets with the Bills winning the division and the Jets in the wild card. Just remember, you read it here first.
AFC North
The Bengals will run away with this with a solid season. The Ravens will be competitive but will fall short. This will be a disappointing season for the Steelers and the Browns will be, well... the Browns.
AFC South
My pick for this division will be ....(drumroll please)... The Colts! Okay, no surprise there. Some of the problems they had last year will turn up again but no one else in this division is going to compete with them.
AFC West
This is going to be a close one between the Chargers and Broncos. The Chargers will prevail. The Raiders will improve to respectibility and the Chiefs are in for a sorry season.
NFC East
Like their AFC counterparts, two teams will slug it out until the end. Eagles get the division, Cowboys get the wild-card. The Redskins and Giants will not be in the race in the second half. For once, this division will not be the 3 or 4 team race it usually is.
NFC North
The Bears! Was that so hard? No, they're the only good team in this otherwise, sorry division.
NFC South
The Saints will pick up where they left off last year and dominate this division. Carolina will stick near them for a while but will have to settle for a wild card. The Falcons and Buccaneers are going no where.
NFC West
This is now the NFL's most competitive division. The Seahawks are a little older but still a good team. The other three all improved. This division will be a mess. All four teams will look good at different times of the season. The division lead will change frequently throughout the season. The team that will end up on top when the dust has settled will be the Rams.
Postseason
AFC Division Winners = Bills, Bengals, Colts, Chargers
AFC Wild Card = Jets, Broncos
AFC Champion = Chargers
NFC Division Winners = Eagles, Bears, Saints, Rams
NFC Wild Card = Cowboys, Panthers
NFC Champion = Rams
NFL Champion = Chargers
Now you know. Do we need to actually go through the formality of playing the games?
HELL YES!
...No, really.
...I'm serious, these predictions are dead on.
...Okay, so I wasn't so great last year, but this year will be different.
...I got a really good feeling this time.
...Fine, so don't believe me, you'll be sorry.
AFC East
This is my biggest surprise. After years of domination, the Patriot bubble will burst. They are due for a disappointing season and this will be it. They won't be bad but they won't be good enough to make the postseason. This division will be a fight between the Bills and Jets with the Bills winning the division and the Jets in the wild card. Just remember, you read it here first.
AFC North
The Bengals will run away with this with a solid season. The Ravens will be competitive but will fall short. This will be a disappointing season for the Steelers and the Browns will be, well... the Browns.
AFC South
My pick for this division will be ....(drumroll please)... The Colts! Okay, no surprise there. Some of the problems they had last year will turn up again but no one else in this division is going to compete with them.
AFC West
This is going to be a close one between the Chargers and Broncos. The Chargers will prevail. The Raiders will improve to respectibility and the Chiefs are in for a sorry season.
NFC East
Like their AFC counterparts, two teams will slug it out until the end. Eagles get the division, Cowboys get the wild-card. The Redskins and Giants will not be in the race in the second half. For once, this division will not be the 3 or 4 team race it usually is.
NFC North
The Bears! Was that so hard? No, they're the only good team in this otherwise, sorry division.
NFC South
The Saints will pick up where they left off last year and dominate this division. Carolina will stick near them for a while but will have to settle for a wild card. The Falcons and Buccaneers are going no where.
NFC West
This is now the NFL's most competitive division. The Seahawks are a little older but still a good team. The other three all improved. This division will be a mess. All four teams will look good at different times of the season. The division lead will change frequently throughout the season. The team that will end up on top when the dust has settled will be the Rams.
Postseason
AFC Division Winners = Bills, Bengals, Colts, Chargers
AFC Wild Card = Jets, Broncos
AFC Champion = Chargers
NFC Division Winners = Eagles, Bears, Saints, Rams
NFC Wild Card = Cowboys, Panthers
NFC Champion = Rams
NFL Champion = Chargers
Now you know. Do we need to actually go through the formality of playing the games?
HELL YES!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Property
There's been an interesting discussion on the last two Larry Elder radio shows. It concerns what should happen to Michael Vick, who now has pleaded guilty in charges of gambling and being involved in illegal dog-fighting.
Mr. Elder asserts that although he finds Vick's actions "disgusting" and "reprehensible", he doesn't feel that what he did should be considered illegal. He points out that if one were to take an axe and chop up one's own television set, it would be a stupid act but wouldn't be illegal as the TV was the property of that individual.
This riled up a few of his listeners. Last Friday, one guy called and said that his dogs are not property, but members of his family. Larry asked him if somebody came in to his house and killed his dog, would he treat that the same way as if it were his wife or his child? The man responded "yes", which I could tell just floored Larry. Yesterday, Larry reported that he had been inundated with emails from listeners who felt the same way as the Friday caller did. Larry tried to explain that we eat cows and chickens so what makes dogs and cats so special? Larry mentioned that he owns a cat but does not see the cat as an equal to other members of his family.
I can only add that I was as close to my dog as I had ever been to any other human being so I can relate to these callers. I know that not everybody feels this way (certainly not Michael Vick) and some people truly view their pets as "property".
Mr. Elder asserts that although he finds Vick's actions "disgusting" and "reprehensible", he doesn't feel that what he did should be considered illegal. He points out that if one were to take an axe and chop up one's own television set, it would be a stupid act but wouldn't be illegal as the TV was the property of that individual.
This riled up a few of his listeners. Last Friday, one guy called and said that his dogs are not property, but members of his family. Larry asked him if somebody came in to his house and killed his dog, would he treat that the same way as if it were his wife or his child? The man responded "yes", which I could tell just floored Larry. Yesterday, Larry reported that he had been inundated with emails from listeners who felt the same way as the Friday caller did. Larry tried to explain that we eat cows and chickens so what makes dogs and cats so special? Larry mentioned that he owns a cat but does not see the cat as an equal to other members of his family.
I can only add that I was as close to my dog as I had ever been to any other human being so I can relate to these callers. I know that not everybody feels this way (certainly not Michael Vick) and some people truly view their pets as "property".
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Worse than Hillary?
First we get Hillary Clinton attempting to pander to a predominantly black audience with her "I don't feel no ways tired" quotation. Never mind that it appeared more of an insult than anything else.
"Everybody here has looked after me for years, If it wasn't for these folks, I wouldn't be nowhere. ... This is my crew." - Presidential Candidate Barack Obama at Bud Billiken Parade Aug 11, 2007
This gem was said to a primarily black audience that included children. This from the same man who had stressed the importance of education. His own website states "Because education begins at home, parents must set high standards and inspirational examples for their children. "
Is this what he means by high standards?
"Everybody here has looked after me for years, If it wasn't for these folks, I wouldn't be nowhere. ... This is my crew." - Presidential Candidate Barack Obama at Bud Billiken Parade Aug 11, 2007
This gem was said to a primarily black audience that included children. This from the same man who had stressed the importance of education. His own website states "Because education begins at home, parents must set high standards and inspirational examples for their children. "
Is this what he means by high standards?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Utterly Ridiculous
Stop the Hatin', Hank
Dr. Todd Boyd, a professor at the University of Southern California calls Henry Aaron a "hater". Henry "Hank" Aaron has been a class act at least since he started playing Major League Baseball in 1954. In 1974, when he was being lambasted for breaking Babe Ruth's all-time home run record, he never said a word about the hate that was bestowed upon him.
Comparing Ruth and Aaron indicates two different players. Ruth compiled his 714 total home runs in bunches. For a 15 year period, he was a holy terror as he hit 666 home runs over that time. Aaron wasn't quite as dangerous per year or at bat as he took 18 years to hit 673 home runs during his prime. Considering he played 8 more games per year, it took Aaron considerably more at bats to accomplish what Ruth did. What gets lost in that it also means Aaron helped his team with his power over a longer period of time.
Dr. Boyd is clueless. He gets into racism. HELLO! Aaron and Bonds are the same race so why would anyone not want Bonds to break Aaron's record due to race? With the language this professor uses (Ebonics?) in the article, he is just pandering. Why ESPN used this article is beyond me.
What floored me even more was what I heard on KABC radio today. Some idiot called in and said that white people still think that Babe Ruth has the home run record. No one I know, of any skin color thinks that. That includes my wife who knows next to nothing about baseball records.
No, I think most people like myself who hate the fact that Bonds is breaking Aaron's record hate it because Bonds is a steroid-using asshole. I hope Alex Rodriguez breaks Bonds record soon.
Dr. Todd Boyd, a professor at the University of Southern California calls Henry Aaron a "hater". Henry "Hank" Aaron has been a class act at least since he started playing Major League Baseball in 1954. In 1974, when he was being lambasted for breaking Babe Ruth's all-time home run record, he never said a word about the hate that was bestowed upon him.
Comparing Ruth and Aaron indicates two different players. Ruth compiled his 714 total home runs in bunches. For a 15 year period, he was a holy terror as he hit 666 home runs over that time. Aaron wasn't quite as dangerous per year or at bat as he took 18 years to hit 673 home runs during his prime. Considering he played 8 more games per year, it took Aaron considerably more at bats to accomplish what Ruth did. What gets lost in that it also means Aaron helped his team with his power over a longer period of time.
Dr. Boyd is clueless. He gets into racism. HELLO! Aaron and Bonds are the same race so why would anyone not want Bonds to break Aaron's record due to race? With the language this professor uses (Ebonics?) in the article, he is just pandering. Why ESPN used this article is beyond me.
What floored me even more was what I heard on KABC radio today. Some idiot called in and said that white people still think that Babe Ruth has the home run record. No one I know, of any skin color thinks that. That includes my wife who knows next to nothing about baseball records.
No, I think most people like myself who hate the fact that Bonds is breaking Aaron's record hate it because Bonds is a steroid-using asshole. I hope Alex Rodriguez breaks Bonds record soon.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Value of Patience
With the Major League Baseball trade deadline approaching, I am hoping that my team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, don't - if you'll excuse the pun, bet the farm on some overpaid player another team wants to dump. As far as I'm concerned, Chad Billingsly, Joe Beimel, Jonathan Broxton, James Loney, Matt Kemp, Tony Abreu, Russell Martin, and Andre Ethier should be untouchable. Chances are one or two of these guys is going to be big stars, some are going to be solid players, and one or two may fizzle out into busts. The thing is that no one really knows who's going to end up being what.
This year is probably not our year. Let's give these guys more games to work together and hopefully make the playoffs. Then look out next year.
This year is probably not our year. Let's give these guys more games to work together and hopefully make the playoffs. Then look out next year.
Politics vs Science (A Convenient Lie Part 6 - FINAL)
ScienceIt 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.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.
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.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
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?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Why It's Wrong (A Convenient Lie Part 4)
At the risk of being repetitive, let me summarize the entire global warming argument.
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.
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.
- -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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
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 want to wrap up my Convenient Lie series (I've got 3 more chapters coming) and move on to some other stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)