Okay, three weeks behind us, roughly 50 to go. So here it is:
January: With less than a dozen days left in January, the political mud will continue to fly. On the GOP side Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson will both kiss their campaigns goodbye. On the Dems side John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich should drop out, but Edwards will hang on to the bitter end, and I truly think that Denny K thinks that a cold snap must be due in Hades.
February: The Pats will knock off the Giants, Robert, you needn't worry about it. Your Pack shall be avenged. Elsewhere, people will continue to ignore the NHL, and also Dennis Kucinich. The local Georgia Primary will reveal Obama as the Dem winner and on the GOP ticket a very close race between McCain and Romney.
March: The Hollywood Writer's Strike will finally end when Geraldo Rivera draws an intricate map in the sand outside Warner Bros studios. The map, when read backwards, reveals that the strike's mastermind was none other than Oprah. After less than six months, Apple unveils the Iphone 2.0. This new version of the insanely overpriced Christmas favorite will actually be able to tell you what happens next.
April: Baseball returns with about as much fanfare as it left with. The Yankees roll out there $7.98 Billion payroll. George Steinbrenner announces that the team has actually bought Central Park and, starting in 2009 will play all home games there.
May: International Politics, which apparently took the first four months off, return with a vengeance when insurgents in Iraq suddenly leave. Of course, this is short lived, as they are actually only taking a break for a light lunch. Iran's president claims, again, that the United States is the great Satan, again, and that we all deserve to die, again. The UN laughs at him behind his back.
June: Dennis Kucinich once again remains largely ignored. The NY Times goes on and proclaims Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States. Barack Obama calls their story a "contrived fairy tale." Fairies everywhere look to file suit against the Illinois Senator. Oh, and Ottawa wins the Stanley Cup.
July: Global Warming activists grow concerned over snowfall in Argentina in July. In a rare, and possibly debilitating move, Al Gore explains to them the concept of seasons. Quebec once again looks at breaking away from Canada. The whole of Toronto frowns in disapproval.
August: The US political races turn ugly... well, uglier. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton get into an actual fistfight when their campaign erroneously arrive at the same place at the same time. Dennis Kucinich's campaign is a half hour late. Mitt Romney and John McCain both receive verbal warnings from Mike Huckabee.
September: George W. Bush announces that he has an announcement to make.
October: The World Series features the Boston Red Sox against the National League All-Star team, only because it's fair that way. George W. Bush's announcement is that he is sending forces into Iran, just to let Hillary clean it up.
November: In a stunning move, Barack Obama wins the Presidency. The lesser-educated Americans are actually able to get past the fact that his middle name is Husayn (or a variation thereof).
December: Christmas and New Years Eve means everyone will drink a lot and actually forget the entire year. Except Dennis Kucinich.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
A Quick Thought on Ron Paul
I like him. He makes more sense than any of the other candidates. I think he might even try to return some power to the states. He follows the Constitution, and he seemingly cares about his constituents.
So why do so many people dislike him?
I might be way off base here, but Ron Paul is viewed somewhat unfavorably by most because he doesn't sugarcoat his message with the nice little politically correct "what the government can do for you" lines. He comes out and says flatly that the government is not empowered by the Constitution, it is restrained by said document. The government is not meant to be the money tree that it has become.
Paul is also truly more conservative than any of the other Republican candidates. Yet John McCain and Mitt Romney are the ones held up as the sterling examples of the conservative ideal. McCain is, as I previously stated, untrustworthy in my opinion. Romney, much like Mike Huckabee, has based more of his campaign in religion than politics, which really does not sit well with me.
But Ron Paul is saying the right things at the right time. He, unlike other Republicans, has shown true disdain for the war. Paul balances his anti-Iraq War stance with other issues in the campaign, like immigration. The man is brilliant, and has truly won my support.
What saddens me is the level of depravity revealed by other Ron Paul supports. Watch the news and you'll see what I mean...
So why do so many people dislike him?
I might be way off base here, but Ron Paul is viewed somewhat unfavorably by most because he doesn't sugarcoat his message with the nice little politically correct "what the government can do for you" lines. He comes out and says flatly that the government is not empowered by the Constitution, it is restrained by said document. The government is not meant to be the money tree that it has become.
Paul is also truly more conservative than any of the other Republican candidates. Yet John McCain and Mitt Romney are the ones held up as the sterling examples of the conservative ideal. McCain is, as I previously stated, untrustworthy in my opinion. Romney, much like Mike Huckabee, has based more of his campaign in religion than politics, which really does not sit well with me.
But Ron Paul is saying the right things at the right time. He, unlike other Republicans, has shown true disdain for the war. Paul balances his anti-Iraq War stance with other issues in the campaign, like immigration. The man is brilliant, and has truly won my support.
What saddens me is the level of depravity revealed by other Ron Paul supports. Watch the news and you'll see what I mean...
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Eeney Meeney Miney Moe
The 2008 General Election is still over ten months away, but the candidates have been clamoring for attention since last July. While both major parties are currently entertaining about eight candidates each, there are only a few front-runners. The Democratic front-runners are John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. On the right side of the aisle (directionally, not necessarily right in the moral sense) you have John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul. See, we’ve already narrowed the entire field by fifty percent.
You already know that I consider myself fairly Libertarian. I want the federal government reduced in scope and more power returned to the states. This is not too much to ask. After all, the original system was set up so that the government answered to the people, not the people answering to the government. Now, though, the federal government is so bloated and over-stretched that a collapse is not out of the questions.
Let’s take a look at the candidates for President, you know, the ones who think they can stop the bleeding. We’ll start the search by looking at each candidate individually, and just exactly how much I could consider voting for them:
John McCain. I have no moral quarrel (hey, good rhyme) about saying that I do not trust McCain. Something about the man just does not set right. I don’t know if it’s the horrid McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform act, or if it is the fact that the man looks more like a grocery store manager than a Senator. I have loads of respect for McCain, but I’d never vote for him. Likelihood of me voting for him: 2%.
John Edwards. The ambulance chaser himself, then again, what politician isn’t an ambulance chaser in some way. Edwards lost out on the vice presidency in the last election because his running mate was essentially a dressed up lapdog. Edwards tries to endear himself to the common voter by getting $2000 hair cuts and flying in private jets.
Again, not someone I could vote for. Likelihood of me voting for him: 0%.
Rudy Giuliani. As Robert said the other after watching the Republican candidate debate, about half way through any event he attends, Giuliani pulls out his 9/11 drum and begins beating it. We get it, Rudy. Find a new message. Likelihood of me voting for him: 5%.
Barack Obama. He’s got charisma, and youth, which equal big points with voters. Plus, he may actually change things. Still, he talks a lot about programs that would bring the country under a more socialist umbrella. But, he is the only Democrat that I’d vote for. Likelihood of me voting for him: 10%.
Hillary Clinton. I will march in the streets to keep her from reaching the White House. Nothing could be worse for the country than for this hardened Socialist to gain more political power. Hillary would socialize medicine, then expand the federal government almost to the point that individual freedoms ceased to exist. That’s bad, people. Likelihood of me voting for her: 0%
Ron Paul. Robert was telling me about watching this debate where all the mild-mannered Republican candidates were sitting around, mildly jabbing at each other, and right in the middle was Ron Paul in full tin-foil hat mode, yelling, “Oh my God! Run for your lives! The world is ending! Vote for me!” The problem is, I heard Paul speaking after the New Hampshire primary and he made a lot of sense. Phrases like “the Constitution was written for the sole purpose of restraining the federal government,” “the federal government should never impose on a state’s right to self-govern,” and a stern castigation of the Patriot Act really caught my attention. I could actually see punching a ballot for Ron Paul. Likelihood of me voting for him: 35%.
Mike Huckabee. There are moments where I support Huckabee, and moments where he frightens me. The ardent left (moveon.org, etc.) have fought vehemently against Huckabee because he is a Baptist minister, and they fear that his first step in the Presidency would be to evangelize the nation. Firstly, evangelizing the entire nation wouldn’t exactly be easy. Secondly, it is a sordid state of affairs when a man is more feared for what he does on Sunday than what he does on the other six days of the week.
Likelihood of me voting for him: 25%
Mitt Romney. The Mormon. Much has been made of his religious beliefs. Maybe I’m being hyper-critical since I do fall more into the conservative category, but it seems like more is made of a conservative’s religion than of a liberals. The last time a fuss was raised over a Democrat’s religion (other than Joe Lieberman) was JFK in 1960. Like all politicians, Romney has some good ideas and some really bad ideas. Likelihood of me voting for him: 5%.
So, mathematically, I’m still 18% undecided on where my vote will land. Not bad, considering I’ve got the primary season to get through still. The search will continue…
You already know that I consider myself fairly Libertarian. I want the federal government reduced in scope and more power returned to the states. This is not too much to ask. After all, the original system was set up so that the government answered to the people, not the people answering to the government. Now, though, the federal government is so bloated and over-stretched that a collapse is not out of the questions.
Let’s take a look at the candidates for President, you know, the ones who think they can stop the bleeding. We’ll start the search by looking at each candidate individually, and just exactly how much I could consider voting for them:
John McCain. I have no moral quarrel (hey, good rhyme) about saying that I do not trust McCain. Something about the man just does not set right. I don’t know if it’s the horrid McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform act, or if it is the fact that the man looks more like a grocery store manager than a Senator. I have loads of respect for McCain, but I’d never vote for him. Likelihood of me voting for him: 2%.
John Edwards. The ambulance chaser himself, then again, what politician isn’t an ambulance chaser in some way. Edwards lost out on the vice presidency in the last election because his running mate was essentially a dressed up lapdog. Edwards tries to endear himself to the common voter by getting $2000 hair cuts and flying in private jets.
Again, not someone I could vote for. Likelihood of me voting for him: 0%.
Rudy Giuliani. As Robert said the other after watching the Republican candidate debate, about half way through any event he attends, Giuliani pulls out his 9/11 drum and begins beating it. We get it, Rudy. Find a new message. Likelihood of me voting for him: 5%.
Barack Obama. He’s got charisma, and youth, which equal big points with voters. Plus, he may actually change things. Still, he talks a lot about programs that would bring the country under a more socialist umbrella. But, he is the only Democrat that I’d vote for. Likelihood of me voting for him: 10%.
Hillary Clinton. I will march in the streets to keep her from reaching the White House. Nothing could be worse for the country than for this hardened Socialist to gain more political power. Hillary would socialize medicine, then expand the federal government almost to the point that individual freedoms ceased to exist. That’s bad, people. Likelihood of me voting for her: 0%
Ron Paul. Robert was telling me about watching this debate where all the mild-mannered Republican candidates were sitting around, mildly jabbing at each other, and right in the middle was Ron Paul in full tin-foil hat mode, yelling, “Oh my God! Run for your lives! The world is ending! Vote for me!” The problem is, I heard Paul speaking after the New Hampshire primary and he made a lot of sense. Phrases like “the Constitution was written for the sole purpose of restraining the federal government,” “the federal government should never impose on a state’s right to self-govern,” and a stern castigation of the Patriot Act really caught my attention. I could actually see punching a ballot for Ron Paul. Likelihood of me voting for him: 35%.
Mike Huckabee. There are moments where I support Huckabee, and moments where he frightens me. The ardent left (moveon.org, etc.) have fought vehemently against Huckabee because he is a Baptist minister, and they fear that his first step in the Presidency would be to evangelize the nation. Firstly, evangelizing the entire nation wouldn’t exactly be easy. Secondly, it is a sordid state of affairs when a man is more feared for what he does on Sunday than what he does on the other six days of the week.
Likelihood of me voting for him: 25%
Mitt Romney. The Mormon. Much has been made of his religious beliefs. Maybe I’m being hyper-critical since I do fall more into the conservative category, but it seems like more is made of a conservative’s religion than of a liberals. The last time a fuss was raised over a Democrat’s religion (other than Joe Lieberman) was JFK in 1960. Like all politicians, Romney has some good ideas and some really bad ideas. Likelihood of me voting for him: 5%.
So, mathematically, I’m still 18% undecided on where my vote will land. Not bad, considering I’ve got the primary season to get through still. The search will continue…
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Changes is in the Air...
...But not the kind you think…
The Right Wing is not giving up its dedication to sports or politics, but we will try to focus on other things this year, which makes this post seem all the more ridiculous.
New Years Day is a haven for college football fans. The best games are usually reserved for the first day of January, or shortly thereafter. 1-1-2008 did not disappoint. Michigan took Florida to the limit before disposing of the Gators in Lloyd Carr’s last ride with the Wolverines. Texas Tech’s high powered offense was forced into a last second field goal to beat Virginia. Mizzou took out their frustrations on an unwary Arkansas team, beating the Razorbacks by 31 (a number that, give or take one or two points would be popular). Tennessee and Wisconsin battled in a tight game, the Vols emerging as the winner 20-17.
This brings us to the two BCS games played on the first day of the New Year. The Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl that respectively matched USC vs. Illinois and Georgia vs. Hawai’i. The case can now officially be made that two of these four teams deserved better fates than what they got.
Let’s first examine the Rose Bowl. USC knew they would play in Pasadena, but their opponent was, for a time, a mystery. Ohio State, who would’ve played the Trojans, was out because of a berth in the National Championship game. So the Rose Bowl got first selection of the at large teams, because of the rotation schedule. Immediately rumors began to swirl that the Rose was going to break tradition and select Georgia, creating perhaps the most intriguing bowl match up of the season. The Rose instead opted for its cob-webbed tradition and selected Illinois.
The game was a laugher. Illinois was overmatched at every turn. USC gave the Fighting Illini a steady dose of smash mouth football, eventually beating Illinois 49-17. For the record, the Right Wing prediction staff claimed that USC would win 45-17. Scary, huh?
The Sugar Bowl became a more intimidating match up as football fans in the southeast learned more and more about that Hawai’i could do. They averaged 46.2 points per game. Colt Brennan owned every passing record this side of eternity. They were the only undefeated team standing at season’s end.
All of which meant absolutely nothing to the Dawgs. Georgia was feeling slighted. They were being punished for not playing in a conference championship game while, they thought, Ohio State was being rewarded for the same thing. So you’ll forgive them if Georgia came in with a big chip on their shoulder.
The start couldn’t have been better for UGA. Hawai’i was penalized twice before the first snap of the game. If Illinois was overmatched, Hawai’i was playing out of its league. By halftime Georgia was up 24-3 and not looking back. The balanced offense gave Hawai’i’s Defense fits, and the Georgia D made Brennan and the Warrior offense look like a Pop Warner team. 8 sacks and 4 interceptions later the bleeding was stopped. Georgia pulled off a stunning victory, taking down Hawai’i by the score of 41-10.
So let the argument and debate begin…
Was Georgia snubbed by the BCS because they didn’t play in their conference title game? It would appear that way. Nebraska made it to the National Title game once without playing for their conference title. Oklahoma made it to the Title game a few years back… after losing their conference title game 36-0 to Kansas State. The point is, from a Georgia perspective, it looks like a rule that doesn’t exist suddenly kept Georgia from playing for the National Title.
Also, there is math to be done. Missouri and West Virginia were ranked 1 and 2 going in to the last week of the season. Ohio State was three and Georgia was four. Georgia was already ranked ahead of Tennessee and LSU, even though the voters knew that UGA could not win the SEC. Then the unthinkable happened. Numbers 1 and 2 both lost. Logic would dictate that when 1 and 2 lose, 3 and 4 move up. But, under the BCS mathematics, when 1 and 2 lose, 3 may move up to 1, but 4 must drop to 5. I’m sure that, in somebody’s mind, this all makes sense. The Right Wing doesn’t get it.
Then came the January 2nd BCS bowl game between Oklahoma and West Virginia. WVU had just lost their coach to Michigan. The Sooners were poised to roll in this game. But, Bob Stoops (Head Coach – OU) has earned the nickname SpongeBob BowlFlop from a certain ESPN analyst. Oklahoma lost 48-28.
January 3rd brought about the Orange Bowl, pitting Kansas against Virginia Tech. VaTech looked promising over the last couple of weeks of the season, but a stingy Kansas defense held the Hokies to 21 points. The Jayhawks won 24-21.
The BCS National Championship game featured Ohio State and LSU. The Buckeyes came out of the gate strong, but LSU kept a steady course of SEC football all the way to a 14 point victory, 38-24.
The tricky point, as was pointed out by another ESPN analyst, is as follows: the BCS doesn’t tell you who the national champion is, it tells you who the BCS wants you to think the national champion is. Certain college football writers have stated that a true national title game would actually require seeding ad that, if there were any justice in the world, the four teams seeded for such a mini-tournament would be Ohio State, USC, Georgia, and LSU. Others argue for Missouri.
The point is there is NO consensus national champion this year. Everyone can make a case, and they all have valid arguments.
The Right Wing is not giving up its dedication to sports or politics, but we will try to focus on other things this year, which makes this post seem all the more ridiculous.
New Years Day is a haven for college football fans. The best games are usually reserved for the first day of January, or shortly thereafter. 1-1-2008 did not disappoint. Michigan took Florida to the limit before disposing of the Gators in Lloyd Carr’s last ride with the Wolverines. Texas Tech’s high powered offense was forced into a last second field goal to beat Virginia. Mizzou took out their frustrations on an unwary Arkansas team, beating the Razorbacks by 31 (a number that, give or take one or two points would be popular). Tennessee and Wisconsin battled in a tight game, the Vols emerging as the winner 20-17.
This brings us to the two BCS games played on the first day of the New Year. The Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl that respectively matched USC vs. Illinois and Georgia vs. Hawai’i. The case can now officially be made that two of these four teams deserved better fates than what they got.
Let’s first examine the Rose Bowl. USC knew they would play in Pasadena, but their opponent was, for a time, a mystery. Ohio State, who would’ve played the Trojans, was out because of a berth in the National Championship game. So the Rose Bowl got first selection of the at large teams, because of the rotation schedule. Immediately rumors began to swirl that the Rose was going to break tradition and select Georgia, creating perhaps the most intriguing bowl match up of the season. The Rose instead opted for its cob-webbed tradition and selected Illinois.
The game was a laugher. Illinois was overmatched at every turn. USC gave the Fighting Illini a steady dose of smash mouth football, eventually beating Illinois 49-17. For the record, the Right Wing prediction staff claimed that USC would win 45-17. Scary, huh?
The Sugar Bowl became a more intimidating match up as football fans in the southeast learned more and more about that Hawai’i could do. They averaged 46.2 points per game. Colt Brennan owned every passing record this side of eternity. They were the only undefeated team standing at season’s end.
All of which meant absolutely nothing to the Dawgs. Georgia was feeling slighted. They were being punished for not playing in a conference championship game while, they thought, Ohio State was being rewarded for the same thing. So you’ll forgive them if Georgia came in with a big chip on their shoulder.
The start couldn’t have been better for UGA. Hawai’i was penalized twice before the first snap of the game. If Illinois was overmatched, Hawai’i was playing out of its league. By halftime Georgia was up 24-3 and not looking back. The balanced offense gave Hawai’i’s Defense fits, and the Georgia D made Brennan and the Warrior offense look like a Pop Warner team. 8 sacks and 4 interceptions later the bleeding was stopped. Georgia pulled off a stunning victory, taking down Hawai’i by the score of 41-10.
So let the argument and debate begin…
Was Georgia snubbed by the BCS because they didn’t play in their conference title game? It would appear that way. Nebraska made it to the National Title game once without playing for their conference title. Oklahoma made it to the Title game a few years back… after losing their conference title game 36-0 to Kansas State. The point is, from a Georgia perspective, it looks like a rule that doesn’t exist suddenly kept Georgia from playing for the National Title.
Also, there is math to be done. Missouri and West Virginia were ranked 1 and 2 going in to the last week of the season. Ohio State was three and Georgia was four. Georgia was already ranked ahead of Tennessee and LSU, even though the voters knew that UGA could not win the SEC. Then the unthinkable happened. Numbers 1 and 2 both lost. Logic would dictate that when 1 and 2 lose, 3 and 4 move up. But, under the BCS mathematics, when 1 and 2 lose, 3 may move up to 1, but 4 must drop to 5. I’m sure that, in somebody’s mind, this all makes sense. The Right Wing doesn’t get it.
Then came the January 2nd BCS bowl game between Oklahoma and West Virginia. WVU had just lost their coach to Michigan. The Sooners were poised to roll in this game. But, Bob Stoops (Head Coach – OU) has earned the nickname SpongeBob BowlFlop from a certain ESPN analyst. Oklahoma lost 48-28.
January 3rd brought about the Orange Bowl, pitting Kansas against Virginia Tech. VaTech looked promising over the last couple of weeks of the season, but a stingy Kansas defense held the Hokies to 21 points. The Jayhawks won 24-21.
The BCS National Championship game featured Ohio State and LSU. The Buckeyes came out of the gate strong, but LSU kept a steady course of SEC football all the way to a 14 point victory, 38-24.
The tricky point, as was pointed out by another ESPN analyst, is as follows: the BCS doesn’t tell you who the national champion is, it tells you who the BCS wants you to think the national champion is. Certain college football writers have stated that a true national title game would actually require seeding ad that, if there were any justice in the world, the four teams seeded for such a mini-tournament would be Ohio State, USC, Georgia, and LSU. Others argue for Missouri.
The point is there is NO consensus national champion this year. Everyone can make a case, and they all have valid arguments.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Last First Day
This just in... I'm graduating after this semester. That's right, today is my last first day, as has been pointed out by many people. I really don't know what I'm going to do with myself after college.
I started out with a desire to do computer animation, something I had been working on for years in high school. Then I arrived at Gainesville College and was told that I would require multiple courses of Algebra and Calculus. Note, please, that these classes never entered into the equation in high school.
I became a Journalism major, focusing more and more on my writing. When I transferred to NGCSU, I learned the depth of inane stupidity of the journalism department. I switched to English Writing and have stayed there since.
Now I'm four months away from being handed a nicely rolled-up piece of paper and getting a handshake that says I'm ready to enter the real world.
What to do, what to do?
I started out with a desire to do computer animation, something I had been working on for years in high school. Then I arrived at Gainesville College and was told that I would require multiple courses of Algebra and Calculus. Note, please, that these classes never entered into the equation in high school.
I became a Journalism major, focusing more and more on my writing. When I transferred to NGCSU, I learned the depth of inane stupidity of the journalism department. I switched to English Writing and have stayed there since.
Now I'm four months away from being handed a nicely rolled-up piece of paper and getting a handshake that says I'm ready to enter the real world.
What to do, what to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)