24

*Ka-dink Ka-dunk Ka-dink Ka-dunk*

Jack Bauer has returned and the series has never been better! Undercover in a terrorist cell, independent of any government agency, relying on Bill and Chloe to keep him safe and alive, Jack has teamed up with Tony Almieda to capture a devise that gives the user the ability to control - or shut down - any aspect of America's infrastructure: Air traffic control, the power grid, water supply, etc.

Of course, I can't feature something on my blog just to say how great it is. I have a question:

With all of the liberals in Hollywood, how did 24 get all conservatives on its writing staff? What do I mean?

There's a new President and she's disbanded CTU. Jack is facing an indictment from a Senate Judicial committee for his "techniques." The FBI is now in charge and they do everything by the book! How is this a conservative view? None of it is working!

Jack Bauer sits in front of the Senators and after you think, "Who would elect the Dad from That 70's Show to public office?" you wonder "What is Jack doing there? He's saved the country from countless terrorist attacks. He's almost single handedly responsible for saving millions of lives and he has to answer to you, oh distinguished Senator from Wisconsin? I don't think so!" It's fairly apparent that, if anyone is going to be the sacrificial lamb for all of CTU, it shouldn't be Jack Bauer.

The FBI has been a step an a half behind the threat to the nation and the only progress they've made is because an agent has been going "Jack Bauer" on some suspects. Meanwhile, the former CTU agents are not only in the cell, but have gained the trust of the local leader.

FBI Agent Renee Walker has rapidly moved from a by-the-book agent to someone who's actually getting things done. First, she tells Jack to do what needs to be done to get information, then she does it herself with a different suspect. She disobeys her commanding agent when he orders her back because she knows it wouldn't be productive to continuing to protect US citizens.

By the book, the Attorney General has sent an investigator to the FBI to speak with and arrest Agent Walker for what happened with the suspect she tortured. Wouldn't you know it, he's doing nothing but getting in the way. His insistence on carrying out his duty to the law is actually slowing down the FBI which is already falling behind.

Perhaps, in future episodes, the writers will give some victories to the law abiding authorities. For the time being, however, it appears that the current message of 24 is that we have to do whatever it takes to defend our people and our country. This is not a sentiment shared by those who oppose the tactics of the administration leaving the White House today. So, do we do anything to protect people? Or do we abide by the law at all costs, perhaps forfeiting innocent lives?

A Historic Inauguration

Tomorrow is the "Historic" inauguration of President Elect Barack Obama. I'm sure everyone is surprised to learn that I have some thoughts on the subject:

Obama currently has a 70% approval rating. While 25% disapprove. Um... of what? What has he done? Of what am I approving or disapproving? Am I approving just because he isn't Bush? Am I approving because of his skin color? How does a man have a 70% approval rating before he spends a day in office? At least 5% of the people have brains enough to say that they have no opinion of the nothing he has done to this point.

Wait, the humor continues: This same poll has 65% of the people "confident" that Obama will make a good president. 28% are "not confident." 7% have "no opinion." So, if we assume that all 65% of the "confident " people approve of him, that means that 5% of the approving public had to register a response other than "confident." If we also assume that the 25% and the 5% disapprove/no opinion held true to their logical answers we can conclude that 3% of the people who "Approve" of Obama are "Not confident" that he will be a good President! (And 2% who approved aren't sure). If we don't assume that the 25%/5% answered what one would expect, then the percentage of "approving" people who were other than "confident" is actually higher than 3%!

So, the inauguration will kick off tomorrow. Here are the people scheduled to attend/appear (in alphabetical order):
Jessica Alba
Marc Anthony
Halle Berry
Joe Biden
Mary J Blige
Bon Jovi
Bono
Garth Brooks
Mariah Carey
George Clinton
Elvis Costello
Sheryl Crow
Miley Cyrus
Eve
Fantasia
Renee Fleming
Jamie Fox
Aretha Franklin
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Nominee)
Macy Gray
Josh Groban
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Herbie Hancock
Tom Hanks
Ed Harris
Anne Hathaway
Heather Headley
Faith Hill
Eric Holder (Att Gen Nominee)
Ron Howard
Jay-Z
John Kerry
Alicia Keys
Chaka Khan
Beyonce Knowles
Queen Latifah
Bettye LaVette
Spike Lee
John Legend
Lil Jon
LL Cool J
Jennifer Lopez
Ludacris
Yo-Yo Ma
Maroon 5
John Mellencamp
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes
Monica
Jennifer Nettles
Barack Obama
Malia Obama
Michelle Obama
Sasha Obama
OutKast's Big Boi
Peter, Paul & Mary
Rihanna
Tim Robbins
Samantha Ronson
Peter Saarsgaard
Susan Sarandon
Shakira
Bruce Springsteen
Sting
Michael Stipe
T-Pain
James Taylor
The Temptations
U2
Usher
Rick Warren
Dionne Warwick
Denzel Washington
Will.i.am
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder

As the Queen of Hearts adeptly put it, "Who are we inaugurating? Tom Hanks?" Possibly. I mean, he'll be there. Going through that list I found 8 people that I would say belong at the inauguration and the celebrations that follow. Am I supposed to have more confidence in this man because of all of the celebrities that are going to be at his inauguration? Is this how President Elect Obama wants to begin a presidency that he won due to the economic crisis that occurred months before he was elected? By throwing the biggest glitziest political bash Washington has ever seen? I guess it's historic in a few ways: A new president is always a historic event. He is the first black president. It looks like the most celebrities gathered for a political event ever.

I'll be waiting to see what political policies Mr. Obama puts forth before passing judgement, (and, I'll be honest, it sounds like he's trending more centrist than his Senate record would have us expect. I'm cautiously optimistic.) But with these massive spectacles, he sure doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot...

All Things Football

So the table is set. For the second time in three years the Super Bowl that I rated as least interesting or compelling is the one we've been saddled with.

Two Complaints: First When will a helmet to helmet hit be a penalty when it's on a player other than a Quarterback? Is the health of the other 21 players on the field not as important? Second When will they stop calling holding on the defensive player who tackles the running back who was just part of a play action fake? Guess what: that means it worked! If they are going to fake the ball to him, and he's going to run like he has it, the defense has to be allowed to tackle him.

Final reason for this post: Recently I saw that my side bar was longer than my posts. I decided that the records set (and nearly set) by the 2007 New England Patriots were great, but they didn't need to be on the side bar anymore. Therefore, in order to preserve (and because I spent a lot of time compiling them) I'm going to list them here and simply have a link to this post on the side bar.

NFL Records set by the
2007 New England Patriots

Team Records
• Consecutive Wins, Many Seasons
  Record: 21 06-08 Patriots
  Previous: 18 03-04 Patriots



• Touchdowns, Single Season
  Record: 75 2007 Patriots
  Previous: 70 '84 Dolphins



• TD's scored by different players
  Record: 21 '00 Broncos & '87 Rams
  Current: 21 2007 Patriots
  Final result: Tied



• Margin of Victory, Single Season
  Record: +315 net points 2007 Patriots
  Previous: +292 '42 Bears
  This is a crazy record as it has stood for
  65 years and was set during an 11 game season!



• PATs made, Single Season
  Record: 75 Gostkowski
  Previous: 66 Uwe von Schamann



• Scoring, Single Season
  Record: 589 2007 Patriots
  Previous: 556 98 Vikings



• Wins, Single Season
  Record: 16 2007 Patriots
  Previous: 14 Multiple Teams



• Consecutive Wins, Single Season
  Record: 16 2007 Patriots
  Previous: 14 72 Mia, 04 Pitt


Individual Records

• TD Passes, Single Season
  Record: 50 Brady
  Previous: 49 Manning



• Passing yards, Single Season
  Record: 5084 Marino
  Final: 4806 Brady
  Needed: 278 yds
  Did the inclimate weather during the Jets game cost Brady this record?



• Passer Rating, Single Season
  Record: 121.1 Manning
  Final: 117.2 Brady



• TD Receptions, Single Season
  Record: 23 Moss
  Previous: 22 Rice
  Let's not forget that Rice's record was set during a strike shortened season. He caught 22 Touchdowns in just 12 games! He was on pace for nearly 30 TD receptions!

So there are the records for one of the most amazing offensive teams in NFL history. Some may ask why did they do this? To prove that "Spygate" meant nothing. The New England Patriots would have been under more scrutiny weeks 2-17 and then in the playoffs than any other team in the history of the game and they still systematically dismantled some of the best defenses in the game.

Let's just hope when Brady comes back (if Brady comes back) that he's still Tom Brady.

It's About Time

Congratulations

Jim Rice, Hall of famer.

All Four Super Bowl Previews III

It's a JMO tradition to post on the four possible Super Bowls now that we know who will be playing in the Championship games. So I don't waste the time of the people not reading this here they are:

I'm going to list them as least compelling to most:

Arizona vs Pittsburgh
I don't see any reason to hope for this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh's defense was #1 in the NFL in many categories this year. Now, Arizona's offense have become more potent in the last few weeks but they are no match for the modern Steel Curtain. If San Diego couldn't get past them, the Cardinal's certainly won't. That and there's no other story. Kurt Warner vs Big Ben? Arizona's first trip to the big game vs a franchise with lots of history? Pittsburgh would be the first to 6 Super Bowls. I think this matchup would give the Steeler's their second Super Bowl victory in 3 seasons and maybe their first legitimate one. winner: Steelers (Loser: NFL Fans)

Philadelphia vs Baltimore
Another snoozer. Less so than AZ vs PIT just because the Eagles offense is slightly better than AZ and the Raven's D is slightly worse than PIT. But, again, there's no compelling story here. Rookie QB vs QB likely leaving? East Coast Battle? Redemption for McNabb vs a team that's not as good as the last team he lost to in the Big Game? I think the pressure gets to McNabb again and Ravens walk away with their first Super Bowl win since they trounced the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV. Winner: Ravens (Loser: McNabb)

Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Now we're getting interesting. "The Clash of the Keystone state!" "The Fray for P.A." "Pennsylvania Pummelling!" I think the most entertaining part about this game would be in the stands. Both fan bases are known for being obnoxious, berating, and combative. There might be harder hits in the stands than on the field. Maybe they should have the Eagles fans on one side and the Steelers fans on the other like at high school basketball games. Winner: Pittsburgh (Loser: Stadium Security)

Arizona vs Baltimore
I've listed this one last because I think this would be the best game. Two first time trips: The Cardinals and Flaco. The matchup for the Arizona offense and the Baltimore Defense is very exciting and the reverse is almost as even. Kurt Warner and his near explosive offense vs Ray Lewis and his near impenetrable defense. Veteran QB vs Rookie QB. Personally, I'd like to see Warner go out on top with a victory here. This game is tough to call. Can Flaco win the game his first time there? Can the Cardinals stop him and overcome the Ravens vaunted D? Winner: Ravens (Loser: the Manning family)

So, I'd like to see Arizona vs Baltimore with AZ winning it all. I expect to see Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia.

What are your picks (hopeful and expected)?

Review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008/PG/Documentary

Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.

The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.

Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?

**Spoiler Alert**
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.

The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:

Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. [Emphasis added] Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. You see, Intelligent Design is not a problem, even for the most ardent anti-Intelligent Design biologist Richard Dawkins. It's only a problem when God is thrown into the mix. (Oh, and Mr. Dawkins apparently isn't up on his theology. If there is a God, it didn't "jumped into existence spontaneously." The theology he's refuting states that God always was. God has no beginning.) Of course, with the Seed theory, no one stops to ask how life began for the advanced civilization that designed and seeded life here. In fact, the Seed theory doesn't actually answer the question of how did life begin, it just moves the location of the event to another planet. Why is Intelligent Design ok if it's been done by aliens but not God? Morals, ethics, and responsibility. Without a God, we do not have to answer for how we live our lives.

The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.

4 out of 5 stars

Liberal Media

It came to no surprise to those of us who monitor such things that the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President in this last election. But is that enough for us to label this well respected news organization "liberal?" I had some conservative friends support Senator Obama and I wouldn't consider them liberal for that action. Misguided maybe, but not liberal.

Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.

Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.

Here are some of the things that this website shows us:

Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.

Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.

It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.

Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:

Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.

Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.

Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.

Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.

When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.

When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.

What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.

Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.

Holiday Compromise

Every year I have something to say about either the "Holiday Tree" controversy or the "Nativity in a Public Place" issue. This year is no different, but rather than my usual response: "Why is it ok for you to force your views on me by demanding that I can't have a tree with lights unless I call it a "Holiday Tree" but I can't force my views on you by making you refer to it as a "Christmas Tree?" This year I actually have a solution:

You are free to call it a holiday tree. You are free to be offended if your town puts a nativity in the public square. You are free to require people to wish you "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Here is the compromise that I require of you:

You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."

So, the choice is yours: Sit behind your desk in an empty office the week before New Years or take your kids around looking at Christmas lights, save money while buying things during Christmas (and after Christmas) sales, and give the Baby Jesus a high five in his manger for being born so we can have an excuse to see people we don't often see, get an extra day off of work, and spend enough money to keep our economy in the black.

A very Merry Christmas to everyone!

2008 NFL Playoff Predictions

With the NFL playoffs set, I couldn't resist my annual playoff prediction post. I know you've all been checking wondering when I was going to get it on the site, so, without further ado, here's JMO:Just the Facts 2008 NFL playoff predictions:

NFC
The New York Giants and the Carolina Panthers have the bye (So much for my prediction that the 2007 Super Bowl Champions wouldn't make the playoffs...)

Wild Card Round
Falcons vs Cardinals
The battle of the birds. Youth triumphs over experience in this contest as rookie Matt Ryan elevates the Falcons over Kurt Warner and the Cards.

Eagles vs Vikings
Did all of the birds make it this year? (Nope, the Seahawks are sitting at home right now.) The Eagles left it all on the field last week with their drubbing of Dallas. They are unable to overcome Adrian Peterson and the Vikings.

Divisional Round
Falcons vs Giants
The Giants D-line proves too much for young Matt Ryan. Giants win easily.

Vikings vs Panthers
Though they run well, the Panther struggle to stop the Vikings ground game and lose a close game.

Championship
Vikings vs Giants
They say defense wins championships. They are right. With Peterson unable to run against the Giants, they are forced to try to win through the air. They are unsuccessful. The Giants return to the big game.

AFC
The Tennessee Titans and the Pittsburgh Steelers have the bye. (Steelers need it with the injury to Big Ben. He may not play at all in the playoffs)

Wild Card Round
Ravens vs Dolphins
More birds. The Dolphins storybook season following last season's nightmare ends here. The Ravens D is too much for Pennington.

Colts vs Chargers
(This is a good time to mention that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. More on this sad state of affairs below.) Indy won the game in the regular season and they will do it again.

Divisional Round
Ravens vs Titans
The Titans have had a little magic up their sleeve all year. Some how they find a way to win late in the game.

Colts vs Steelers
Leftwich plays admirably and adequately. But adequate is not enough when Peyton is on the other side of the ball. Despite a great season, the Steelers lose their first playoff game of the post season.

Championship
Cots vs Titans
Nothing like peaking at the right time. Last year the Giants showed us how well that works, this year it's the Colts. Though they fight valiantly, the Titans fall to the Colts in overtime.

Super Bowl
Colts vs Giants
The matchup the networks wanted. The "Manning Bowl" will go down in history as the first time two brother's faced each other at quarterback in the big game. It will have another distinction of the most non-called false start penalties ever. (It is illegal for the QB to go under center and come out without the ball. The Mannings do this 20-30 times a game.) It will also be one of the most lopsided wins in recent memory, bringing to mind the Cowboys/Bills Super Bowls of the 90's as the elder Manning picks apart the Giants secondary and the younger Manning picks the turf out of his helmet. Colts win in a landslide 47-10.

Now, back to the fact that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. This is just because the Chargers won their sorry excuse for a division and the Colts squeaked in as a wild card team. This is also happening in the NFC where the 9-7 Cardinals are hosting the 11-5 Falcons. Consider this: There are four teams in the playoffs that have a worse record than the 11-5 Patriots. Yet New England is not in the post season. This has happened too often the past few years. The NFL needs to move to a seeded post season where division is irrelevant. The NHL and NBA are very successful with this model. The time has come.

Watch for my next picks in a few weeks when I preview the four possible Super Bowls based on the teams that make it to the Championship Round in each division. (Of course, I may feel compelled to predict the next round of games. We'll have to see how I did with this round.)

Newsweak

The following is a letter I sent to Newsweek:

Dear Editor of Newsweek,

You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.

I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.

Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.

While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.

However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.

Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?

Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.

Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.

Behold the Lamb of God

This weekend I had the privilege of escorting the most beautiful woman in the world to a very special event. 11 years ago, I was astonished when the Queen of Hearts agreed to go with me to a Caedmon's Call concert in Boston. The opening acts were two people that we hadn't heard before: Bebo Norman and Andrew Peterson. They have since become my favorite artists.

In 2004 Andrew Peterson, with the help of some of the most talented musicians on the planet, put together the single greatest "Christmas" album ever made: Behold the Lamb of God. To celebrate our sixth wedding anniversary, the QofH and I attended the Behold the Lamb of God tour in Connecticut. (The Queen of Hearts has also commented on this on her blog).

There is so much that I want to say about this that I don't even know where to start. I'll just go with stream of conscience:

The concert was fantastic. ~Beyond fantastic~ Andrew Peterson, Bebo Norman, Jill Phillips, Andrew Osenga, Ben Shive, and Andrew Gullahorn all played some of their own music in the beginning. After a brief intermission (and the obligatory Compassion International infomercial) they all returned and played, without stop, through every song on the album. The music on the CD is moving, the music live is incredible. (Did I mention we were in about the sixth row?) We even had the chance to momentarily speak with Mr. Peterson.

There was the possibility that I was going to have to attend this concert with someone else as our little Wild Card might not have cooperated enough for the QofH to feel comfortable leaving her to accompany me. I'm so very glad that wasn't the case.

I have tried my hand at many things. I even think I'm not to shabby at some of them (Athletics, film, public speaking...) There are things that I'm not very good at. (Basketball, watercolors, cleaning...) Of the things that I'm not good at, there is nothing that I want to excel at more than music. I listen to these artists. I bask in their songwriting genius and I wish that I could have a part in that. I wanted to be up on that stage surrounded by these titans of talent. Is it because of how their music speaks to my life? Is it because they are witty and poignant in conveying a message in their songs? Is it because they seem to enjoy a camaraderie that I have not know for some time? I do not know the answer to these questions.

Andrew Peterson spoke briefly of Frederick Law Olmsted. He is known as the "father of landscape architecture." He designed Central Park. He knew that what he was designing would not attain its full design until years after he died. He painted with trees and flowers and bushes. Andrew said that was what he wanted his music to be like: He wanted it to be relevant today and even more so thirty years from now. That comment gave me pause to think: Compare what typical "Christian" music sings about to the topics typical "secular" music includes. On average (and I am not creating any kind of rule here, but on average) secular music contains things that are fleeting and temporary while Christian music has more lasting themes. What if "secular" music started singing about community responsibility more so than just "stop snitchin'?" What if they started singing about loyalty in marriage rather than "don't worry 'bout the ring you wear 'cause as long as no one knows then nobody can care?"

This made me stop an consider: What is the most fleeting, most temporary subject that I focus on? Sports. Nothing is more out-of-date than a two week old Sports Illustrated. What happens when a team wins it all? We immediately start looking to next year. When JMO:Just the facts puts out a power ranking, how long is it good for? Until the next game is played.

So: What has this concert done for me? It gave me an amazing evening out with the love of my life. It's given me a greater appreciation for the music of Andrew Peterson and friends. It made me wish I had the time, energy, and talent to be a singer/songwriter. It reminded me what's important in this life. And hopefully it will cause me to focus more on the Word than the World Series.

It was a great concert!

Red State/Blue State Myth

I'd just like to take a moment to point out the myth of the Red State and the Blue state. Presented below are the electoral maps by county rather than by state for the last three elections. (Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat)

Here is 2008:

The Democrats won this election by about 6%. Ok, I can see that. The heavy population centers are all blue. Here is the 2008 electoral map by state:


Now, some of the things this juxtaposition shows are no brainers: New England is in the back pocket of the Democrats just as the South is owned by the GOP. However, some of what we see should cause some concern... Look at Oregon. That red state went blue. As did Nevada! And the blue state South Carolina went red! Maybe this was an anomaly. Let's look at 2004:

By county:

By state:
Take a look at California, Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon! Somehow those states went blue. And New Mexico somehow went red. Take a look at the 2008 Nevada and the 2004 Nevada. That little county in the northwest corner switched the state from red to blue!

Now, here's the most interesting one:

2000 by county:

2000 by state:

Remember, the blue candidate actually received more votes than the red candidate! So, what can we learn from this? Cities decide elections

Let's take a detailed look:
Pennsylvania: on all three maps, PA goes blue. Where are the blue specks? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Illinois: Also a blue state. Where is the blue located? Chicago and outside of Saint Louis, MO.
California: Sacramento, San Fransisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego,
Ohio: The two times Ohio managed to go red, the Dems failed to get Cincinnati
As Detroit goes, so goes Michigan. As Green Bay and Madison goes, so goes Wisconsin.

I've done some pain staking research. I looked up the population of all of the cities in the United States that have over 100,000 people. Then I catalogued the population of each state. I added the total population of "City-Dwellers" and compared that to the total population of each state. Any one care to guess what I discovered?

In Red States: The majority of the time, less than 25% of the states population lived in a 100,000 person city. In some cases, they didn't even have a city totaling 100,000 people.

In Blue States: The majority of the blue states had over 40% of their population living in 100,000 person cities.

As you know, JMO doesn't like to point out problems without offering solutions. In today's electoral process, rural and suburban voters are left out in the cold. I propose an electoral college for each state. Every county gets a certain number of state electoral votes based on the population of that county then they are tallied to determine which candidate carries that state. The numbers would be the same as each State House of Representatives. I believe this will balance out the desires of the more rural citizens with those that live in the big cities. I will endeavor to do more research regarding this solution.

In the meantime, here are the Electoral College maps broken down by county one after another for easy comparison:

Review: Goodnight and Good Luck

2005/PG/Drama

Set during the 1950's McCarthy Red Hunt, Goodnight and Good Luck chronicles the heroic actions of Edward R Murrow and his team at "See it Now" as they battle TV Executives and the posibility of being black listed or even imprisoned to combat Senator McCarthy and his actions.

What impressed me most about this film was the sheer amount of original footage they were able to use. It was as if Senator McCarthy were a paid actor in this movie. Also, much of the movie was Mr Murrow delivering portions of the show "See it Now," adding more original content to this compelling picture.

While there were a few lines thrown into this movie that appeared to be aimed at the Bush Administrations Gitmo Detention Center, overall, this was a remarkably un-political political film. The makers admitted that they recognize that some of the things that were said could be misconstrued to be purposeful attacks on the current administration, but they simply wanted to tell the story of Murrow vs McCarthy and the courage that it took at the time.

Much like Shattered Glass, though the film was set mostly in a TV studio it was still compelling and captivating. I was disappointed when it was over because I wanted to see more of the tension, more of the planning, more of the history of the exchange between Murrow and McCarthy. Most of the acting was stellar, including the possible weak link of Actor/Director Clooney which was good. He wisely selected a smaller role than other Actor/Directors have in the past (*cough* Gibson *cough* Cosner *cough* Eastwood *cough*). I appreciated that it was shot in black and white and only one of the subplots seemed unnecessary.

If you liked Thirteen Days or even if you didn't, chances are good you won't feel like the 93 minutes you gave to Goodnight and Good Luck was a waste of time.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

NFL Power Ranking, Week 11

As the season heats up and the playoff picture becomes a little clearer, Just My Opinion: Just the Facts returns with a current NFL power ranking:

10) Arizona (7-3):

The phoenix is on fire thru the air, so is Warner. Wins over Dallas and Buffalo get you on the list.

9) Indianapolis (6-4):

Losing to teams you should beat (Chicago, Green Bay), and beating teams you should lose to (Pittsburgh, New England) is not the way to get to the playoffs. But it does get you on the power rankings.

8) NY Jets (7-3):

Classic Favre is tossing the INTs at a higher rate than in the frozen tundra. But he doesn't have the Defense to allow it. Reign that in and you might see the post season.

7) Dallas (6-4):

Tough stretch without Romo at the helm. Wins against Philadelphia, Green Bay and Washington get you on the list. Losses to Arizona and St. Louis means you're mired in the bottom five.

6) Tampa Bay (7-3):

The silent striker. No one is talking about you. But big wins over Carolina and Green Bay put you on the map.

5) New England (6-4):

Bradyless second place? Something must be going right in Foxboro. Compare what Cassel's done to the Romoless 'Boys. The division is still within reach.

4) NY Giants (9-1):

Perhaps the most inflated record in the league, but 9 and 1 none the less. Only impressive win was against a healthy Philadelphia. Tough stretch coming up after Arizona: Washington, Philadelphia, Dallas, Carolina. Your post season will be decided there.

3) Carolina (8-2):

Like The Bucs, you are quietly beating key teams. With a relatively easy schedule headed into the playoffs 12-4 isn't out of the question.

2) Tennessee (10-0):

Inflated record like the Giants, except that you are winning big against the bad teams. Your first challenge of the year doesn't come until week 16 against Pittsburgh. Then you face of against your nemesis Colts for the last game of the season.

1) Pittsburgh (7-3):

First in overall defense. First in defense against the run. First in defense against the pass. 2nd in points allowed. You'll play the role of spoiler when you face Tennessee.

Apu. It's been a loooong time since you've commented! Tell me what you think! Everyone else is also free to share their opinion!

Change?

"A vote for Obama is a vote for change" was the mantra of the President Elect's campaign. Then, after winning the election, our masterful rhetorician made some comments that made us believe that he might appoint people from different political parties, not just Democrats. I was encouraged. Perhaps real change would come to Washington.

One by one his selections have hit the newspapers and the airwaves. John Podesta, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Ron Klain, perhaps even Hillary Rodham Clinton herself. What do these people all have in common? They all served on the Clinton administration (Hillary unofficially, but basically). So, it turns out that "A vote for Obama was a vote for the Clinton administration."

Hmm. If I wanted the Clinton administration, I think I would have voted for her.

And where are the "other-minded" people? Where is the balance to his cabinet? Where is the change!?

So we have to ask ourselves: When Obama campaigned on "change," what type of change did he mean?

A) Something we've never seen before in the oval office. (I'd argue this is what most people believed.)
B) Something opposite of what we have right now. (As most people believed A, this would have to be a part of that by definition.)
C) Something that we've done before but is different from what we have now. (This appears to be the tact he's taking.)
D) "I'll just say whatever it takes to get elected." (I'm not actually going this far, yet. But time will shed more light on this option.)

A friend of mine was raised in a culture that believes, "It doesn't matter what I say, what matters is what I do." This friend said that he believes Obama was raised in a similar culture. He bases this on certain speech patterns, key words, and actions that he's seen in the President Elect that hearken to the culture that my friend is so intimately familiar with. I hope my friend is wrong.

On a post on Dr. James' blog is September, I posted the following comment:

I looked very hard at the other side. I wanted to like Obama... And up until his convention I was seriously considering him as a potential candidate. I hadn't counted him out simply because there was a D by his name.

Then he gave his speech.

First, let me say that I watched about 90% of the DNC. I wasn't really surprised by what I heard. "No intelligent person would vote for McCain." "It borders on treason to do so.." yada yada yada. I expected Barack to rise above that. I anticipated a unifying speech. I expected something fresh.

What I got was politics as usual. It was his convention speech that convinced me that I was going to vote against Obama. I heard no real change. I heard just change in party. If Washington is broken, as he claims, then going in and doing the exact same thing the other party is doing with a different agenda isn't going to fix anything.

I was heartfully disappointed by his speech.

... [Obama] has completely disappointed me. I firmly believe his is my brother in Christ. I respect him for that. I believe he has the best of intentions. I'm not sure if [the following is due to] his campaign people or if he's just so entrenched in politics, but I do not see him rising above the sludge of misleading statements, out-right lies, and negativity of standard politics.

I had high hopes. Perhaps my hopes were too high. But I feel like his campaign during the primaries gave me that hope.

My turning point is when he said in his convention speech, "When they run out of new ideas, they revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from" Something he had just spent the last 20 minutes doing.

When I didn't see the promised change in his political strategy, I hoped that he was simply doing what was necessary to get elected and that the change would come once he was in office ~ A Machiavellian "ends justify the means."

I'm still not seeing the change. I'm seeing the same old politics as usual ~ Where power is more important than the people.

AL MVP

They finally got it right!



Dustin Pedroia wins AL MVP!

I was worried that K Rod would sweep this honor out from under last year's AL Rookie of the Year due to his record setting performance for the Angels.

Thankfully, the voters realized that a gold glove and silver slugger winning day in, day out patient contact hitting second baseman with power is more valuable than a man who comes in for an inning every third game. K Rod finished sixth overall.

Justin Morneau finished second and Dustin's teammate Kevin Youkilis finished third.

For times the voters got it wrong see: 2005, 2006, & 2007

Still Political...

Even though the election is over, there are still many political things happening in this world and I'm here to comment on a few of them.

Economy: I am amazed at how quickly this economic crisis has exploded in regards to the scope of those it is affecting! During late September and all of October, even into early November, this was a "National Crisis." Our country was mired in an economic crisis with now end in sight. Then, suddenly on November 5th, the crisis changed. News stations across the nation started referring to it as a "Global Crisis." Really, there are only two options as to what's happened. Either our economy so rapidly attacked the economies of Asia and Europe that news stations suddenly needed to change the graphic and wording regarding the crisis ... or ... they found that it's really difficult to blame a president (and, by association, a party) for a "Global Economic Crisis." However, a "National Crisis" simply lends itself to being the fault of the executive office. Of course, once the need for the term "National Crisis" is over, they were free to utilize the sensationalized term "Global Crisis." What liberal media?

President: Some of the countries that have been effected by the crisis have met in an attempt to determine what steps they can take to shorten or overcome this economic climate. President Bush attended this meeting. The story should end there, right? But there were people that protested saying that President Elect Obama should have attended. Now, I know people really want their free healthcare to start soon, and they want their tax breaks that Obama voted against when he was a Senator that he's going to institute once he's president. And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but... Obama is not president yet and therefore he should not be attending international meetings as though he were. Sorry.

Bail out: The senate is debating sending a portion of the $700,000,000,000 bail out to Detroit for the auto makers how have been hit by this recession. On the one hand I wanna know why we're only bailing out certain industries. Mortgages? Banks? Auto makers? The Airlines after 9/11? Why not retail Jacuzzi sellers? They must be struggling. Casinos? I'm sure their business is down. The Detroit Lions? They could sure use it. On the other hand, (and this is the more troubling aspect) if the government decides to extend the money to the auto makers a stipulation is that the government would then have an ownership stake in those companies. Pardon me?! What would the government be doing with an ownership stake in GMC, Ford, and the others? Let's see, what does the government owning big business sound like... Oh yes, I remember now: Socialism. Nothing like having the Dems in power without any checks or balances!

Just a few things that have been bugging me.

Kids Say the Darnedest Things

I so very much enjoy having conversations with our little two and a half year old Full House. The things he comes up with:

I'm often amazed at the sheer vocabulary of words our little man has:

When asking for blueberries
Full House: I want big, huge, MONSTER blueberries!

Driving home
Full House: Look, daddy! Our intersection!

Climbing on his crib
Full House: I'm an acrobat

It is probably no surprise based on who this little man's dad is that he likes sports. He's still learning the details though. He likes to play with his tee-ball which he calls "hit the ball bat." Several times after fantastic hits he's been known to yell:
Full House: Yay! Go Red Sox! Touchdown!

When he gets angry, he tends to want to bite things, particularly that thing which is frustrating him. Nine times out of ten, that's mommy or daddy:
Mommy: Are you biting mommy?!
Full House: No, I'm CHEWING mommy!

And little ones take things so literally. One day, after he tumbled off the couch and bumped his little head on our hard wood floor:
Mommy: (Seeking the injured body part) Oh, little man! What did you hit?
Full House: The floor!
Mommy: (trying desperately not to laugh) and what hurt?
Full House: The wood!

Often, you can get a good sense of how others see you by what your kids say. One day, Full House wanted to listen to his music in daddy's car. Daddy tried to explain why that wouldn't work:
Daddy: Your music is on a CD, mommy's car has a CD player. Daddy's car has a cassette player.
Full House: Oh... I see. (He really says this.) Mommy's car has a CD player.
Daddy: That's right, and Daddy's car has a...?
Full House: (He thinks for a minute) Daddy's car has a BASEBALL player!

I can't even begin to put into words how thankful I am that the Queen of Hearts is my wife and the mother of my children. She is immeasurably amazing. For as wonderful I think my son is, the credit belongs to her. We just celebrated six years together, I hope for sixty more. And I hope that I never make her feel taken for granted. She is my life. And that's a fact, not just my opinion.

President-Elect Obama

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. This is an historical moment for our country. I'd like to congratulate you on your tireless, no doubt stressful, campaign. You overcame not only the obvious barrier of being the first African-American to have a real chance at the White House, but other less mentioned barriers: two very popular politicians in Hillary and John. You had further to climb and more circumstances trying to hold you back and yet you were victorious. You should be very proud.

You addressed a group of voters during your acceptance speech: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn..." Well, that's me. "- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices." Sorry Senator Obama but that remains to be seen. I'm going to be honest with you Mr. President-Elect. I wanted to vote for you as you emerged the winner the Democratic primary contest. I wanted to back someone who was promising to, as you put it last night, "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." But you then participated in that very act during your national campaign. Was this a case of "the ends justify the means?" You are now echoing the very words spoken at the RNC by the man you just defeated for the highest office in the land. He said, "Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it." I truly hope that you live up to this hype that you failed to live up to during your campaign. Perhaps, now that you have attained your goal, you can be the statesman, not the politician, that I had originally hoped for. My challenge for you: Win my vote in 2012.

You are a very inspiring speaker. While this definitely helped you win this election, I fear that it could unseat you as well. In all of your charismatic oration, you've convinced people that you can somehow bring about a type of utopia. Free healthcare, peace in Iraq, a better life for the middle class. I urge you, please examine past economic policies before instituting your own. The middle class will not likely support you again should they receive more in their paychecks from the government, but less from their employers only to see more go toward everything they have to purchase.

Having said all of that, you are my President and I will support you, critique you, and pray for you. I will openly support your policies that I agree with, and I will condemn those that I don't. Should the scale ever tip too far to the latter, my support for you may falter, perhaps even fail. But make no mistake. All that you've done before is past. I will view it as the means to this end and let you start anew.

~One whose support you have, but whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.



Ok, before I could write the above letter, I had to get out of my system a letter of a different ilk. Here's what I had to write first:

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. You've managed to deceive more than 50% of the people that chose to vote that you were the right man for the job. Truth be told, with the way you ran your campaign, the Democrats could have nominated a lemming and it would have won over the Republican nominee. It was obvious from the get-go that "we can't afford four more years" would be the Left's mantra. And while the GOP managed to nominate the most non-Bush of the bunch, you still managed to pin the Bush III moniker on him. Well done.

You've got a long road ahead of you. I hope you are already planning your rebuttals to the "read my lips" moments that you can expect in 2012. Tax breaks for everyone making under $150K, free healthcare, more jobs, higher wages, out of Iraq, renewable energy, abortions for all, A BCS Playoff, a rebound in the economy (Even as I type the DOW falls), assistance for "main street," and unconditional talks with Iran, North Korea, and Syria, just to name a few. Your tax plan should accomplish the first one, but that means it will make the third and fourth improbable (if not impossible). Those not occurring will likely mean that the ninth will be quite sometime in coming. Which, of course, means that you won't have the money necessary to do numbers two, six, and ten. Even now, you can't carry out the eleventh because when they heard that you would sit without precondition, the leaders of those countries set some preconditions of their own. Now they have the power in the relationship. That leaves the fifth, seventh, and eighth. You don't actually have the power to do the eighth, though it would be nice. The fifth is a non issue because we've already agreed with their government that we'll be out by 2012. Which leaves the seventh. Yup, there's no doubt we'll get that one.

You made a call for unity. I find that ironic. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the party not in power to find a way to unify with the party in power. I'm just wondering why you expect Republicans to unify with you when you, as a Senator, made no effort to unify with them.

In conclusion, part of me looks forward to see if you will really do what you promised: bring actual change to Washington. Or if you will simply continue the partisanship and make it left leaning. Another part of me can't wait to watch your economic plans prove, yet again, that Ronald Reagan was an economic genius and that, like most things in life, to effect the long term you might have to do something that looks like it is sacrificing the short term but if you focus on the short term you are guaranteed to sacrifice the long term. If you take that path, your long term will be short, and will still be looking for the first two term African-American President.

~One whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.


now go read the first letter again.

Voting Booth, Volume XIV

As the election is today, I have a few, short thoughts that I need to get out before we vote. I will arrange them in an order that I feel is descending from most important to least:

If you read nothing else, read this! The election was days away. The economy was in shambles. The working classes were afraid of losing their jobs, they faced pay cuts, strike rumors swirled in the wind. The upper class was afraid that they were going to lose everything they'd worked so hard to save and create.

The election was a close one. The Democrat won the popular vote. It looked as though the Republican had won the Electoral College. But the outcome was unclear. After months of lawsuits, in late December, the Republican was awarded the White House.

Does it sound like I'm describing the 2000 election? I'm not...

During the uncertainty, the blue collar people began major sweeping strikes. Industry shut down. Riots broke out in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Fransisco, and St Louis.

The new President had to make a decision: The upper class was calling for him to send in the national guard to subdue the rioters and break up the strikes. However, the army was spread so thin fighting a far off enemy, there may not have been enough soldiers to do the job. His second option: he could do nothing. Stand by, allow local authorities to take the necessary action against the rioters. Let capitalism decide how the strikes ended.

Had he chose the former, it would have simply aggravated the situation. Wisely, the Republican President chose the latter. He did nothing. He did not send in the National Guard, he did not aid the strikers or the companies, he did not pump money into the economy. He did one thing: He sent troops to keep the peace. He never sent troops to end the riots, only as peacekeepers once the riot was concluded. The economy rebounded.

Economists speculate that had he acted on behalf of either party in the strikes, it would have simply prolonged the situation. They believe that had the President intervened, the economy would have struggled for at least two decades. Instead, it rebounded before the decade ended.

Am I prophesying about the 2008 election? No. All of this happened in 1876-1877. The President? Rutherford B. Hayes.

History repeats itself because we are no longer students of history.

Stock Market: The Media has been declaring this the worst economic downturn since the great depression. We are to believe that the country has never faced this magnitude of crisis since we needed to elect a Democrat to three terms to get us out of it. Guess what... It just isn't true. Many of you know I work for a large financial company. Today, our CEO sent an internal message to the employees to assure them of the companies financial security. He said, rather offhandedly, that October was the 8th worst month for the stock market since 1930. The 8th! Not the first, not even in the top 5. EIGHTH! There have been nearly 80 years since 1930. That's almost one worse month per decade! But, remember, as the economy fell, so did voters to Obama. But the media isn't biased. I'm surprised they didn't try to call this the Greater Depression or Great Depression II: This time it's personal!

Expectations: Obama is already laying the ground work to lower expectations of what he will and will not be able to do as President. Even he recognizes that he can't do what he's promising! A woman at an Obama rally said, "I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he’s gonna help me." Ridiculous. You read it here first. Should Obama win and unless something miraculous occurs, he will be a one term President.

Associations: Obama has repeatedly attempted to disassociate himself with four different people/organizations. ACORN, to which he gave $800,000.00. The felon "Tony” Rezko. Bill Ayers, from whose house he announced his candidacy for Senate. Due to this connection, Obama could not work for the FBI, CIA or NSA. But he can be President. He's distancing himself from the former CEO of Fannie Mae from whom he "didn't take financial advice." Rev Wright, whose church Obama attended for twenty years. To his own admission, he was there approximately twice a month. 2 times per month times 12 months per year is 24 times per year times twenty years is 480 sermons. But he didn't know Rev Wright was controversial. Either he's lying, or he thought the comment "The U.S of K.K.K.A" wasn't controversial. Obama even said, "I will not repudiate the man [Rev Wright]." Another example of his brilliant rhetoric: "Repudiate:" To reject the validity or authority of; To reject as unfounded, untrue, or unjust. Obama chooses a word most people don't actually know to tell the truth in a very veiled way that sounds honest and respectful.

Prediction: Since 1936, With one exception in history, how the Washington Redskins go the weekend before the election, so goes the incumbent party. When the Redskins lose, there is a change in party in the White House. When they win, the incumbent party keeps the Executive Office. (The exception? Their 2004 loss to Green Bay, yet George W Bush remained in office.) As I type this, Washington leads Pittsburgh 6-0. Not a good result for McCain. Pittsburgh rallied to win 23-6.

A few notable quotables:
"for the first time in my, really, adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country" Michelle Obama

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world will test Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. We are going to have a crisis, an international crisis to test the mettle of this guy." Joe Biden

So, in conclusion, what does this country really need? A politically inexperienced lawyer who studied under a racist hate monger and partnered with known terrorists while exercising his blind ambition for higher and higher offices. One whose economic plans have been proven by previous administrations not to stimulate the economy, but stifle it, the exact opposite of what history had taught regarding his opponent's policies. Yeah, that's what we need.

Don't forget! Neverfindout.org

Now go vote!