/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Friday, March 31, 2006

Any idea what this is?

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/31/2006

I was checking the sources to my hits and found one that puzzled me. The referring link was: http://velma.prod.google.com/admin/newadmin/actions2/lookup_blog-action.pyra?blogID=15692144&URL=

It came up empty. Any ideas, anyone?

The User Information was:
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link http://velma.prod.google.com/admin/newadmin/actions2/lookup_blog-action.pyra?blogID=15692144&URL=
Host Name
IP Address 65.57.245.11
Country United States
Region California
City San Francisco
ISP Level 3 Communications Inc
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length 1 min 41 secs
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Immigration Reform and educators failures

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/31/2006

Congress passed Immigration Reform. From my reading of the bill (well, the summary of the bill) I am glad for its passage. The Senate version however is another story. Anyone voting for THAT version is bad. It has (though named otherwise) amnesty in it.

I would like to see family members NOT be given green cards that do not count against the immigrant caps.

The Minnesota House members who voted for the bill were Gutknecht, Kline, Ramstad, Kennedy and Peterson, all of whom get + 3. Voting against the bill were Sabo (did I mention Good Riddance?), McCollum and Oberstar, the latter 2 getting - 3.

Now understand that people who enter this country without going through the process are Illegal Immigrants. Don't like the term then don't come across illegally. They already are showing a disrespect for our laws and for that alone they should be kicked out of the country. Name another country on the face of this planet that allows anyone and everyone into the country to receive benefits as if they were a citizen. Name another country on the face of this planet that allows someone to forge documents to pretend they are eligible for those benefits and then the country finds ways to give amnesty.

So kids in schools across the country are upset at the immigration reform. And further proving the inability of the adults in the schools to maintain a standard a principle in Texas caves in to students instead of disciplining them for skipping school.
A high-school principal who raised the Mexican flag on a campus flagpole as a show of support for Hispanic students was disciplined yesterday as the school district grappled with massive student walkouts.

Robert Pambello, principal of John H. Reagan High School in Houston, received "appropriate disciplinary action," said Terry Abbott, a spokesman for the Houston Independent School District, adding that no details would be released because it was a personnel matter.

Mr. Abbott said the principal was attempting to avert a walkout sparked by the debate over immigration reform in Congress by agreeing to raise the distinctive red, green and white flag Wednesday in exchange for students' staying in class.

"He was working with students at the school to try to avoid a walkout situation by raising the Mexican flag underneath the American and Texas flags," Mr. Abbott said. "They didn't walk out, but it was the wrong thing to do."
If they miss school then suspend them. Do not allow the teachers to allow make-up work. How out of control have the adults allowed the kids to get? The problem is occurring in other states as well. This story is from Iowa.
More than 150 Marshalltown High School students skipped class today (Wednesday) to protest a measure that would make it a felony to illegally enter the United States.

The demonstrators, who reportedly displayed a pole with the Mexican flag flying over the U-S flag, encountered some angry residents as they spread their message across the city.

Marshalltown Police Chief Lon Walker says officers had to intervene after water bottles were thrown at the protesters and tempers started to rise.

The protesters, most of them Hispanics, left classes at Marshalltown High School and assembled at the Marshall County Courthouse. The students continued to the south side of town, where the confrontations occurred.

The rally comes as the Senate considers legislation that would also impose new penalties on employers who hire illegals and build more fences along the U-S-Mexico border.
Police intervened by nailing people who were throwing things? How about nailing the kids for truancy?

The fact that these kids are (1) so obviously undereducated on the topic where they fail to make the connection between ILLEGAL immigration and LEGAL immigration, (2) so poorly equipped with the ability to think for themselves on issues as they have been trained by teachers what to think, not how to think and (3) able to act without reprisals of any substance shows the disarray of the education system.

This article illustrates what happenes when you give strong penalties for this nonsense...
No walkouts were reported in the giant Los Angeles school district, the nation's second-largest.

"I have to go to school today because they called my home and said I had to go to school or I'm going to get a citation," said Rene Hernandez, 15, a student at Van Nuys High School who took part in earlier protests.

A few hundred students walked out of classes in San Diego, a far smaller number than in previous days. "We are not having students walking off campus in large droves," district spokeswoman Music McCall said.

Tens of thousands of students took to streets around California and in other states Monday and Tuesday, but those numbers fell after police began breaking up marches and issuing costly truancy and loitering citations.
...and what happens when you do too little...
In California's Central Valley, 200 to 400 students left Bakersfield schools, but there were no arrests, police Detective Jack Smith said.

About 500 students at Van Nuys High School attended a lunchtime forum, where immigration lawyer Jessica Dominguez urged them to stay in class.

"What are we doing when we walk out of school? We are telling the senators that are against the good immigration bills ... that they are right," she said.
...
In Arizona, at least 800 students left class to gather outside a Tucson federal building, waving Mexican flags and signs and chanting, "We're not criminals."
Look at those numbers. Without punishment in the community (arrests on the most serious offenses possible) and in the school (suspension, inability to make up classwork, etc) the lack of control will continue.

And to the kids in Tucson, AZ...if you are here illegally you are criminals.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

The end of the world is near

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/31/2006

A Utah radio station (KOSY 106.5) is playing Christmas Music.

Their last 10 songs as of 8:52 AM are
It's the Most Wonderful Time--Amy Grant
Pine Cones & Hollie Berries--Osmonds
Sleigh Ride--Ronettes
Sleigh Ride--Leroy Anderson
Christmas Song--Nat King Cole
Jingle Bell Rock--Bobby Helms
Sleigh Ride--The Carpenters
Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas--Carpenters
Happy Christmas--John Lennon
Jingle Bells--Barry Manilow
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

How to tell if a movie will be bad

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/31/2006

I got these from the Glenn Beck Program and I agree with them. I challenge anyone to find a movie that proves tip #1 wrong!

1) If Earl Dittman is a quoted reviewer in the ads or on the movie packaging.
2) If there were no preview screenings for the movie.
3) If there are delays in the movie's release...Warning!
4) If Morgan Freeman is doing the narration then it is a good movie.
5) The time of the year of release can be an indicator. Between Memorial Day and Labor Day the closer a summer movie is to July 4th the better it could be. The closer it gets to Labor Day the worse it could be. Between Labor Day and Thanksgiving...BAD. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas could be good. Between Christmas and Memorial Day...horrid.
6) No stars in the movie combined with any of the above criteria means you should avoid the film at all costs.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Thursday, March 30, 2006

I finally get to see my Dodgers

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/30/2006

My favorite baseball team has always been the Dodgers. Before I moved to Minnesota I liked the Twins also (and the Blue Jays and the Pirates...so September/October 1991 was a GREAT year).

Finally, for the first time since interleague play started, I can watch my Dodgers right here! There have only been two other series that the Dodgers and Twins played each other. Once was a World Series before my time. The other was last year in Dodger Stadium. I saw all three games last year on TV.

I have just purchased tickets to see my Dodgers play the Twins on June 26, 27 and 28. Hooray.

Go Twins, but Goooooooo DODGERS!!
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Bachmann--her career at the cost of her party

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/30/2006

I have been critical of the slate-fixing (within the rules, but slimeballish nonetheless) by the Bachmann campaign. There is a long term consequence to her tactics.

First, what is she doing?

In a nutshell she mobilized many people to attend the caucuses with one intention: become delegates to become delegate to endorse Bachmann. The mobilization part is great. The problem is that these people are not party activists. They are robots being led to do one thing: endorse Bachmann.

On the surface that seems like an innocuous thing. But the cost will be the destruction of the BPOUs in the 6th district.

Bachmann's lemmings are succeeding in one thing...kicking out as many people as possible that to not support Bachmann. The people that are getting kicked out to the streets are the longtime grassroots people. The people who man the executive committees, the chairs, secretaries, treasurers and even state legislators. That leaves these single-minded drones in those positions. Since their sole purpose of being a delegate and being in the process is to endorse the least electable candidate, their objective will be completed by mid-summer. They will not be filling and or performing the roles they are supplanting. They will also have chased away a few of the activists from continuing their role (myself and a few others that I have talked to will be either inactive or leave the party as of the convention if Bachmann wins).

I know, I am assuming quite a negative aspect on these people. From what I have heard from many eye witness accounts the Bachmann sheep are rude, impolite, nasty, and disinterested except for voting for each other.

Bachmann is undermining the grassroots of the GOP. Each claim in the future of being a "grassroots candidate" will warrant a deduction on the scoreboard. Bachmann's tactics to serve her own personal ambition will severely damage the GOP from July 2006 through March 2008 at the least (I think the damage will take many election cycles to overcome). The damage to the GOP in the 6th will be felt regardless of if Bachmann wins or loses the endorsement simply because her method is to remove the very party foundations that make the party run...simply because they do not pledge their support.

For that: - 5. Her ambition to be the GOP endorsed candidate for Congress is so strong that she is willing to destroy the very GOP she wants to be embraced by.

Now, for the analysis of why.

She knows that she cannot win on her own GOP credentials within the party activists and I believe is ignoring the fact that she cannot win in the general election at all.

The only way she can win the GOP endorsement is to remove the people who actually look at the candidates. She is NOT the fiscal candidate (though she brazenly lies about that). Krinkie is THE fiscal candidate. She is rivaled by Knoblach as the social conservative and thus will split that vote. She can win the bible-thumpers (the people who would support the Bible becoming the law of the land and believe in the separation clause EXCEPT when it comes to Christianity) but cannot win the majority of the religious people (people who believe in a higher being AND also understand the importance of the separation of church and state). All four candidates will split the religious people as that is the majority of the pre-Bachmann coup GOP delegates.

The antics of the past few weeks have angered much of the grassroots (with the exception of the ones who were already on the Bachmann wagon...to these people their ox is not being gored so they see nothing wrong).

As for the general election Bachmann will be facing stronger opposition money than the other three candidates would combined. (Eva, correct me if you think I am wrong here, please.) There are boat loads of pro-gay money from all over the country that will be dumped into any DFL candidate if Bachmann is the GOP candidate. While money does not guarantee a victory or defeat, it does guarantee lots of negative exposure for Bachmann.

Since the grassroots already are upset with Bachmann there will be a supression of GOP turnout. The "overwhelming support" that Bachmann soups up in the BPOU process will be only a drop in the bucket compared to the general election. There will be a substantially smaller base for her and that translates to a very poor "getting out of the message".

I believe strongly that coattails go up the ticket. This means that in what could be very close statewide elections for Senate and Governor there will be a longer road to travel. 6th District GOP turnout will be somewhat supressed because of what Bachmann is doing right now. Those people WOULD have voted for Pawlenty and Kennedy. Many of them may simply stay home.

Furthering this demise is the fact that negativity also typically supresses turnout...and with Bachmann as the GOP candidate there will be tons of that negativity.

Bachmann may be able to supplant opponents in the GOP ranks to gain a feather in her cap and an addition to her political career resume. She is in the process maiming the 6th GOP, the grassroots of the GOP, Mark Kennedy, Tim Pawlenty and the very thing she claims to believe in: the conservative cause.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Lourey engages in personal destruction

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/30/2006

(H/T: Anti-Strib)
When Coleen Rowley used the Nazi image (hidden with the facade that it was from a TV show--the intent was still diabolic) I said that tactic made Rowley "officially fit[] in with the rest of the looney wing of the Democrat party" because they constantly attempt to destroy people on a personal level by comparing them to Hitler, Nazism, etc. Some of the more brazen Lefties do it outright. Some (like Rowley) do it in subtle ways.

Enter Becky Lourey's effort at the same.

On the page is the following text:
First they came for Governor Ann Richards and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Texan.

Then they came for Senator John McCain and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Republican.

Then they came for Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and challenged his military honors, but I did not speak out -- because I was not a Georgian.
The intent is obvious as it is placed next to an image with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Lourey then continues on:
Then the "swift boaters" came after John Kerry, but because I wasn't on the campiagn, I sat back and waited for someone else to respond.

The list goes on, from Carol Moseley Brown [sic] to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The right wing extremists have become masters of the politics of personal destruction. I am deeply troubled by this kind of hateful politics.

Like many of you, far too often, I am frustrated by the lack of strong and principled response from Democrats. We have watched for too long as good public servants have been attacked without equally strong and coordinated responses coming from their friends and allies.
Now let me mention who Lourey is likening to the Nazis. The Republican Party of Minnesota.

I don't pay that close attention so maybe I missed it. Can someone please direct me to the articles where the Republican Party Minnesota went after Braun (who was legitimately criticized in her campaigns for financial issues and campaign spending that was shady at best). I missed the RPM going after Sue Richards. And going after McCain on his positions is ABSOLUTELY fair...unlike what Lourey is doing. (Yeah, have you caught that yet...Lourey is doing what she is accusing others of doing: personal attacks. Hypocrite. - 3)

Going after Bill Clinton (whose license to practice law was revoked because of his ethical challenges simply relating to the legal profession) and Hilary (Whitewater development, commodities exchange profits) is also based on issues of integrity and character.

Lourey instead makes a (unsubstantiated) link between Nazis and the GOP. There is no evidence to back up her claim. Becky, please show me the concentration camps. Are you being thrown into a shower for being subversive to the government? Shut the hell up then with the comparisons.

I do not tolerate very lightly comparisons to Nazis, Hitler, etc. for several reasons.

First, the target is 99% of the time not even close to the level of considering such considerations. As evil as Hilary is she is not close to warranting comparisons to Hilter (even if the Vince Foster and Ron Brown deaths were not suicide/accident she is not the level of Hitler).

Second, if the strongest a person can articulate their disagreement with another person is to call them, compare them or hint that they are like a Nazi they lack the intellect to even have a discussion with. As a candidate they simply prove their unworthiness of holding public office since they are absolutely unable to articulate real ideas.

Third, constantly comparing those with whom you disagree to Nazis cheapens what evil the Nazis and their leaders actually were. I promise that if this line of rhetoric continues coupled with the substandard education that the youngest generation is receiving there will be no real understanding of what actually happened in the world in the 1930s-1940s. The magnitude of the horrors will be lost, cast away as simply another bad leader. Even Sadaam Hussein pales in comparison to Hilter but the kids of today (and each generation after them) will not understand that. They will, as long as Democrats keep using this Nazi-rhetoric, believe that Sadaam and Hitler were on the same level.

The damage to the country and the future is too large to allow these things to continue. The destruction of constructive discussion of differences is hastened by Lourey's actions - 5. (I may revisited this penalty on the scoreboard for both Lourey and Rowley...these may need to be larger penalties.)

Finally, the point of Lourey's message was a facade. The true intent was the Nazi reference to smear Republicans in general. I will address her point anyway.
This past week we have witnessed a horrid display of the politics of personal destruction. The Minnesota Republican party leadership and their radical fringe supporters have coordinated a smear campaign against Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson to advance their radical right wing agenda. These relentless and vicious attacks have become a frequent tactic of far-right Republican groups.
Becky, if you really cannot understand what the complaint was, well, I can understand. I personally think the whole thing was blown out of proportion. (Unless what he said was TRUE in which case this should have been blown out of the water even more.) But the contention was about his character and truthfulness. To some Republicans these issues matter (to others truthfulness and integrity and equality matters only when it benefits their campaign and is a non-issue when it becomes a hindrance to the candidate). The issue that the GOP had with Johnson was about him using his position to lie with the purpose of rallying support. Surprise. He's a typical politician. But it is not a "smear campaign" by any stretch. The very fact that you are unable to understand the difference between a "smear" and fact is probelmatic for a gubernatorial candidate (- 2).

(I think that is a deduction of 10 points bringing her new total to -55.)
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Final Four

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/29/2006

The Final Four is here. It is actually at this point each year that I unplug from the tournament. This year will be a little different. I want to watch the Final Four but will not have TV. I am not the only person shocked with the makeup of the Final Four. How many of you even picked George Mason to make it out of the Sweet 16? Of the four teams in the Final Four I picked only one of them to make it to the Elite Eight.

The Final Four are:
LSU (4) VS UCLA (2)

George Mason (11) VS Florida (3)

I am likely wasting my time with this but my picks are UCLA over Florida in the Finals...but I am rooting for George Mason to win it all.

By the way, this is the first time since 1980 that there are no #1 seeds in the Final Four. George Mason had never won an NCAA tournament game; they are the lowest seed (since the 1986 64-team expansion) to reach the Final Four since No. 11 LSU in 1986. All the more reason to hope for them. Look at the road they travelled in this tournament: No. 6 MSU, No. 2 UNC, No. 7 Wichita State, and No. 1 UConn. Gooooo Patriots.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Bachmann's mentality--just another politician

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/28/2006

It seems that another BPOU has fallen victim to Bachmann's ethical challenges.

I will next point out I have been consistently against using the grey area of "unethical yet legal" in campaigns.

What is a shame is the number of Republicans who are blinded by the need to win. More accurately is the number of Republicans who are blinded by the need for THEIR candidate to win. When it is their candidate then "it is the system we have".

I find the practice of fixing the endorsement a sign of weakness. Bachmann knows that she is the weaker of the candidates and cannot risk allowing the endorsement in the hands of a group of individually thinking people. Instead she has to find people who cannot think independently, cannot stand up in the convention when running for delegate and speak their mind ("vote for me because I'm a Bachmann robot supporter"), who have to be told exactly who to vote for because they lack the cognitive ability to decide for themselves.

What is more sickening is that people cannot see through the fact that the game is rigged and standing ovations at the end of Bachmann's empty rhetoric is a part of the scam.

What Bachmann is doing is ANTI-grassroots. To believe Bachmann's lie that she is the "grassroots candidate" is to believe anything you hear. Furthermore the fact that she has adopted an "anything to win" mentality proves to me why she should NOT go to Washington. I would even go so far as to say that she should not be in St Paul but that is not within my control.

Warning to the Bachmann campaign...you better NOT try this crap at my BPOU. I have no problem rolling up the sleeves and playing nasty right back. What you are doing is 100% about winning, not at all about doing what is right. I also have no problem doing the same at the 6th CD convention.

What is the most disappointing is the Bachmann slate members who are "Republicans". Republicans have been preaching since Clinton's days that character matters. This tactic from Bachmann may be legal, it may be within the rules and it may prove organizational skills. It also proves a lack of character. Bachmann is interested in one thing: Winning. That means that everything else (principles, morals, ethics, platform, etc) take a second seat at best. With all due respect (what little is due) that is the type of person that ruins this country, politics and everything that the Founders wanted.

I am disappointed in the party's members for not recognizing this for what it is. The moral character of the party is disintegrating before my eyes this year.

********** UPDATE **********
Within the four candidates I am looking at their positions as well as the intangibles. Being just another slimeball politician who exudes the win-with-any-means or ends-justify-the-means mentality is something I do not support. I have decided to make this problem (fixing the endorsement process) a deduction. The manner it is being done is offensive and will have serious repercussions for the party in the future. Therefore I have adjusted Bachmann's score by - 2 bringing her new total to -17.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Casper Weinberger

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/28/2006

From The Age:
CASPAR Weinberger, the hawkish US defence secretary who was the architect of unprecedented peacetime spending on military hardware — including the Reagan administration's Star Wars program — has died of pneumonia. He was 88.

Weinberger, who also served the Nixon administration, gained renown as the defence supremo who raised US defence spending by 50 per cent annually in real terms, at a weekly cost to the American taxpayer of $US6 billion.

He met virtually every demand put forward by the armed services — there were 90 more ships for the navy, two divisions for the army, costing $US10 billion a year to maintain, and 94 B-1B bombers, worth $US200 million each, for the air force. And then there was Star Wars, the wildly expensive strategic defence initiative, which has still not been made workable after an investment of $US50 billion.

Nevertheless, it is widely credited with hastening the downfall of the Soviet Union, which could no longer keep pace in the arms race that fuelled the Cold War.

Halfway through Weinberger's tenure, auditors uncovered fraud in 10 per cent of defence contracts. Manufacturers bumped up their charges in this period of defence largesse so that the Pentagon could be charged $US2000 for a small standard nut and $US33 for a canteen sandwich. In addition, by 1985 the country's largest defence contractor, General Dynamics, had paid no federal taxes for 13 years.

Weinberger's abrasive personality left him convinced that his policy was the only valid option. His memoirs contained waspish attacks on officials such as budget director David Stockman for disloyalty; on secretary of state Alexander Haig for ignorance of the US constitution; and on national security adviser Robert McFarlane as "a man of evident limitations which he could not hide". His running feud with Haig's successor at the state department, George Shultz, repeatedly paralysed US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Weinberger's public career ended in near ignominy when he became the most senior member of the Reagan cabinet to be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Iran-Contra scandal.

The charges arose from his testimony to a congressional investigation that he had known nothing about the illegal sale of arms both to Iran and to anti-government guerillas in Nicaragua. (Had he admitted such knowledge he would have had to testify that Reagan possessed it, too.) In December 1992, despite congressional opposition, President George Bush granted Weinberger an executive pardon days before the case came to trial.

Weinberger was born in San Francisco. His father, Herman, was a lawyer and his mother, Cerise, was from an English background. Under his father's influence, he had been steeped in politics from childhood, and by adolescence his instincts were firmly conservative. He thought the election of Franklin Roosevelt a terrible mistake and at university became notorious for his right-wing editorials as editor of the Harvard Crimson.

A brilliant academic, he was offered a scholarship to Cambridge but followed his father into law and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1941.

By now a convinced Anglophile, he tried to enlist in the Canadian air force but was rejected because of his poor eyesight. He volunteered for the US Army and, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, was sent to New Guinea with the 41st Infantry Division and finished up on General Douglas MacArthur's intelligence staff.

After a brief spell practising law, he was elected to the California state legislature in 1952 as a liberal Republican. He became chairman of the California Republicans in 1962, but blotted his copybook with conservative members by supporting Nelson Rockefeller as the 1964 presidential nominee instead of Barry Goldwater.

Two years later, Weinberger initially backed Reagan's opponent in the California gubernatorial primary, but when Reagan secured the nomination, he joined his campaign team. Weinberger was ignored in the initial appointments but, after a year of financial chaos, Reagan was urged to appoint him as director of finance. At first he raised state taxes, then lowered them, and then raised them to a point where personal taxation had doubled.

California wound up with a vast revenue surplus, which, though it eventually generated a taxpayers' revolt, sufficiently impressed President Richard Nixon to make Weinberger head of the federal trade commission in 1970. Within six months, he had shed two-thirds of the senior staff and created a highly activist bureau of consumer affairs. Among its early campaigns, the bureau mounted a fierce attack on the car industry's quality control and called for greater regulation on vehicle design, which did not win him many friends among conservative Republicans.

He did better when Nixon made him budget director in 1972. His assault on social spending earned him the soubriquet "Cap the Knife" and he was soon in deep conflict with Congress. When the legislature refused to reduce appropriations for social programs, Weinberger simply impounded the money.

He continued this policy as secretary for health, education and welfare. In 1973, he seized more than $US1 billion of federal health funds, until he was ordered by a federal court to release the money.

Because of his wife Jane's ill-health, he resigned from the Nixon administration in 1975 and returned to California. The Bechtel Corporation created the job of special counsel for him and eventually made him a vice-president at the then huge salary of $500,000 a year.

By the time Reagan made him defence secretary, he was a multimillionaire.

After leaving the federal government in November 1987, he became publisher and chairman of Forbes Magazine and joined a Washington law practice. In 1988, he was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Thatcher government for the support he had given British forces during the Falklands war.

He is survived by Jane, and his son and daughter.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

V for Vendetta

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/21/2006

(Review by Marty Andrade)

I thought after attending the stinkfest "Date Movie" and the painful "Ultraviolet" in consecutive weeks I would finally enjoy a movie in V for Vendetta. How cruel the gods of entertainment truly are. If I were to watch this film again, I would sneak a sleeping pill about a half an hour beforehand, enjoy the first explosion in the opening scene, sleep through the middle then have someone wake me up for the final explosion. Explosion, nap, explosion; maybe then I wouldn't have objected so much to having put forth money to see this film. That wasn't a spoiler either, as we know from the trailers what the ending of the film shall be.

Natalie Portman plays Evey Hammond, a Londoner who works for the state sanctioned television network. It's a London with obvious Orwellian rules regarding behavior, and Evey is caught after curfew by some non-uniformed enforcement officers who are preparing to rape her. V, played by Hugo Weaving, intervenes and incapacitates the men before they can harm Evey. He's wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes (Clive Ashborn), an anti-Protestant terrorist from seventeenth century who tried to kill off the protestant government of England by blowing up the Parliamentary building in London.

Soon enough, Evey Hammond is knee deep with V and is forced into hiding after helping V take over a television network. I guess there's some plot in the movie, since we need to understand how we get from the beginning explosion to the ending explosion. Fascists are involved, evil pharmaceutical corporations are involved, hypocritical priests and I think they even kill off a Rush Limbaugh type character in the mix. The message the film sends about the evils of conservatism (of which I personally am one) is heavy throughout the film. It's an unfair caricature for sure.

The obvious political message of the movie could be forgiven if it were simply a better film. Natalie Portman's performance is unbearable. It's hard to believe you're in London when the main protagonist can't maintain a British accent. Portman feels almost lifeless in her role. I guess that can be understood when you realize the other protagonist is a guy trying to act through a mask. Hugo Weaving does his best, however it only takes a while to be completed frustrated by the mask. Not only do we never see any facial expression, Weaving's voice is muffled and difficult to listen to behind the mask. Eventually it's simply easier to give up trying to pay attention to the dialogue.

Not that the dialogue is bad. There are some wonderful soliloquies and exchanges in the film. Some. V is put forth as an extremely witty and verbose former actor who delivers theatric performances as he's starting the revolution. Those exchanges disappear about 20 minutes into the film.

There are some action sequences to the movie. V carries around long daggers with which he fights. The expectation of these sequences is very high considering the magnificent history the Wachowski brothers (Andy and Larry) have had in special effects and cinematography with their Matrix trilogy. However, all the action sequences (excepting the explosions at the beginning and ending of the film) come off flat and uninteresting. The special effects are lackluster. Huge disappointment.

V for Vendetta is an over hyped movie with occasional brilliance in dialogue combined with lazy special effects, tired action sequences, fatigued performances, plot holes, slow pace and weak script. Take a pass and save yourself the time and money.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Phantom Gerry. I find the readers there a little less than open-minded about their movie. But, hey, that's what fandom is all about.
***** 4 refutations and clarifications *****

Monday, March 20, 2006

Apology to Isaac Hayes

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/20/2006

(H/T: Northern Alliance Wannabe)
The plot of the South Park/Chef controversy thickens. According to FoxNews' Roger Friedman:
Isaac Hayes did not quit "South Park." My sources say that someone quit it for him.

I can tell you that Hayes is in no position to have quit anything. Contrary to news reports, the great writer, singer and musician suffered a stroke on Jan. 17. At the time it was said that he was hospitalized and suffering from exhaustion.

It’s also absolutely ridiculous to think that Hayes, who loved playing Chef on "South Park," would suddenly turn against the show because they were poking fun at Scientology.

Last November, when the “Trapped in a Closet” episode of the comedy aired, I saw Hayes and spent time with him in Memphis for the annual Blues Ball.

If he hated the show so much, I doubt he would have performed his trademark hit song from the show, “Chocolate Salty Balls.” He tossed the song into the middle of one of his less salacious hits and got the whole audience in the Memphis Pyramid to sing along.
So, if Hayes did not quit then who did it for him?
Friends in Memphis tell me that Hayes did not issue any statements on his own about South Park. They are mystified.

“Isaac’s been concentrating on his recuperation for the last two and a half, three months,” a close friend told me.

Hayes did not suffer paralysis, but the mild stroke may have affected his speech and his memory. He’s been having home therapy since it happened.

That certainly begs the question of who issued the statement that Hayes was quitting "South Park" now because it mocked Scientology four months ago. If it wasn’t Hayes, then who would have done such a thing?
Interesting.

I apologize to Isaac Hayes for the previous post. Isaac, want to believe you did not quit South Park.

It seems there was even an interview done BEFORE Hayes' stroke where they talked about the Scientology episode.
As recently as early January, before his stroke, Hayes defended the "South Park" creators in an interview with “The AV Club,” the serious side of the satirical newspaper, The Onion.

AV Club: They did just do an episode that made fun of your religion, Scientology. Did that bother you?

Hayes: Well, I talked to Matt [Stone] and Trey [Parker] about that. They didn't let me know until it was done. I said, 'Guys, you have it all wrong. We're not like that. I know that's your thing, but get your information correct, because somebody might believe that [expletive], you know?' But I understand what they're doing. I told them to take a couple of Scientology courses and understand what we do. [Laughs.]

The truth is, Hayes has a sly sense of humor and loves everything about "South Park." It’s provided him a much-needed income stream since losing the royalties to the many hits he’s written, such as “Shaft” and “Soul Man,” in the mid-1970s.

Even though he’s one of America’s most prolific hit writers, Hayes has been denied access to profits from his own material for almost 30 years.

But it’s hard to know anything since Hayes, like Katie Holmes, is constantly monitored by a Scientologist representative most of the time. Luckily, at the Blues Ball he was on his own, partying just with family and friends. He was very excited about having gotten married and about the impending birth of a new child.
Maybe Tom Cruise tried to cleanse Hayes and help his Thetan count.

In the meantime the Tom Cruise aspect of the controversy develops a little more.
Tom Cruise may have gotten Comedy Central to pull its repeat of "South Park"'s Scientology spoof last week, but the result is that episode is all over the Web. You can see it for free at youtube.com.

Not only that, the Comedy Central Web site has four clips from the 21-minute show. And it also says that “Trapped in the Closet” will air this Wednesday at 10 p.m.

So whether or not Cruise actually did use influence at Viacom/Paramount to get the show pulled from last week’s schedule, here it is, bigger and better than ever. Of course, no one would have cared one way or another if “Trapped” simply had aired on schedule.
It is nice to see that Comedy Central found their pair of onions again.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Quick update on the Bachmann hijinks

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/20/2006

Earlier I posted about the way Bachmann rigged the delegate convention this past Saturday.

The purpose behind the fixing of the SD52 delegate elections is now understood. In a memo sent out to her mailing list she states:
I wanted you to be the first to know the good news. As you know, Saturday was the unofficial beginning of the senate district conventions that will last through April. My campaign worked tirelessly to prepare for these conventions and our efforts are already starting to bear tremendous results.

According to the final tally, we achieved an overwhelming victory Saturday at the Senate District 52 Convention. 33 of the 36 elected delegates support our campaign . This is a huge success for all of us and I am proud of you, our supporters, for working so hard to make this victory a reality. With strong determination and enthusiasm, we will continue to work together toward more victories in the coming weeks, which will bring about a victory at the sixth district convention in early May.
After stuffing the ballots it is easy to see why "33 of 36 delegate support [her] campaign". This is to create the false impression that her support is a tidal wave. This is a more deceptive tactic than the push poll results and reporting from January.

Again, this type of character is not someone that we should even consider anymore as a representative of Republicans who fight for truth.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Sports Archive Upgrade

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/20/2006

Some people might not find this to be an upgrade...but one or two people might.

As some of you may know there are pages in the archives for each of the following sports organizations:
Major League Baseball
National Basketball Association
National Football League
NCAA
NCAA Football
NCAA Basketball
Olympics

Each of those have pages for the teams within those organizations (except for the Olympics and NCAA which have instead pages for each conference with a list of the schools and their logos within those conferences). Those team pages all have newsfeeds so you can keep up to date on your favorite teams.

NOW there are three more leagues with all of the pages contained within the archives.
Arena Football League
Major League Soccer
Women's National Basketball Association

Check 'em out...and keep track of your favorite teams. Whether it you like the Lynx, Real Salt Lake, Avengers, Yankees, Celtics, Steelers, Red Wings or any other professional team you can be on top of everything that is happening with them.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Sweet 16

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/20/2006

Here we are...the Sweet 16 of March Madness 2006.

Atlanta Regional
Duke (1) vs LSU (4)

Texas (2) vs West Virginia (6)

Oakland Regional
Memphis (1) vs Bradley (13)

UCLA (2) vs Gonzaga (3)

Washington DC Regional
U Conn (1) vs Washington (5)

Wichita St (7) vs George Mason (11)

Minneapolis
Villanova (1) vs Boston College (4)

Florida (3) vs Georgetown (7)


My computer and online access will be out by tomorrow night until next Monday. We are moving so I will not be around a computer at all. So my predictions are coming early. The bold face teams above are who I think will win. Who I am rooting for is completely different. I almost always root for the lower seeded team. This year I am rooting for all 8 underdogs. You can post your predictions and hopes in the comments.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****