When Fox News first arrived on the scene, it was a breath of fresh air. In a news world filled with biases, blandness and outright support of a left-wing agenda, we finally had something “Fair and Balanced”. Fox News was not a conservative network; it presented views from all sides of the aisle, letting the viewer make his own opinion. That was all we ever wanted and we were happy. Now, however, as we have become a bit spoiled by having our new and improved news service I want something a little more: Responsibility.

Fox News may still present a neutral political point of view but it has descended into a sensationalism mindset that makes our other news choices pale in comparison. It seems the tactics of “Big Fox”, the network that brings us some of the most raunchy programing on TV, and News Crops' overseas ventures have begun to find their way into our beloved Fox News. The list has been eating away at me for a while and now I feel I must express my dissatisfaction with the product you are presenting.

The first thing that began getting on my nerves was actually one of the segments that originally brought me to Fox News, the morning show “Fox and Friends”. Aptly named, because they act like a bunch of friends getting together to shoot the bull. The news is just an afterthought. I cannot count how many times I have sat through a discussion of Brian Kilmeade's hair or Steve Doocy's kids. I have a limited amount of time in the morning, I wish to learn as much of the news as I can during that time. Watching Doocy and Kilmeade “re-enact” a phone call (this really happened) between two principals in a news story does not strike me as an efficient use of time.

The next item has slowly grated on my nerves as well. Fox News has purposely set out to hire anchorettes who's delivery of the news is over-the-top. These ladies are then trained in a manner designed to make even mundane news seem vital and thus hook the viewer. For reference see Laurie Dhue and Uma Pemmaraju. Breathy, wild eyed Mrs. Pemmaraju delivers the news with each breath sounding like she is in shock. It is almost comical. But it is hard to say this is on purpose, it could be her natural manner; I have never seen her do anything else. Laurie Dhue on the other hand we have seen in other settings on Fox News where she seems, for lack of a better word, normal. However, when she is delivering the news, moisture glistens off her collagen injected lips; the microphone captures every tiniest in- or exhale; she is caught leaning forward as if spilling state secrets and the camera focuses in on nothing but her face. She could be reading the scores of last night's little league game but it sounds like North Korea just set off another nuclear test.

The sensationalism does not end with the manor of the anchorettes, however, the producers get in on the show as well. They do so with that little banner at the bottom of the screen, whereupon they put up big red letters that read “Fox News Alert”. This is a very good attention getting device, and quite reasonable if used in a limited fashion. The aforementioned N. Korean nuclear test would do. A change in venue for Michael Jackson's court trial would not. You, Fox News, have been using this “News Alert” far too often. When I turn on a 24 hour news channel and I see “News Alert” I expect something big to be going on; Michael Jackson's trial does not count.

Speaking of the Michael Jackson trial, exactly how did you guys become so obsessed with our legal system? I understand that Jackson or O.J. or Anna Nichole or whomever may rate celebrity status and that their going to jail should make a news story. But that is a far cry from following every single detail of the trial (with Fox News Alerts, no less). Greta Van Susteren's show “On the Record” is even worse. On this show they haggle over the minutest detail. Then they try to guess what the next steps in each case will/should/might be. It sounds more like a sports show than something fit for a News Channel or a serious show devoted to our legal system. This is the legalese gossip hour.

I am not exactly sure how camera-lawyer Van Susteren parleyed her commentary on the O.J. trial into her own show on Fox News. I am also not exactly sure why Fox News decided to hire Geraldo Rivera. But in a short time span Fox News put two personalities, who's careers have been built on sensationalism, on the payroll. This does not speak well for the judgment of the upper echelons at Fox News.

The breaking point for me came on Friday the second of March. I get up early, so I try to catch the re-run of “Your World with Neil Cavuto” (defiantly the best show you have on Fox News) from the day before. This morning, however, the show was preempted for a “Fox News Alert” (replete with big red letters at the bottom of the screen). Now we have established that there is a right and a wrong way to use these Alerts, which one was this? I will report and let you decide. In place of my normal program, Fox News was in the Bahamas showing a pre-dawn image of the Baptist Church where gold-digging stripper Anna Nichole Smith would finally be laid to rest later that day. I will give you a moment to think on proper use of the “Fox News Alert”. Preempting Cavuto for the drugged out quasi-prostitute went way over the line, however. I immediately switched to Head Line News and have not been back.

So, in tota, what we have here is a war in Afganistan, a war in Iraq, a war in the Senate about those two wars, potential wars in North Korea, Iran and China. We have stock markets skyrocketing upward and plunging back down, housing market booms and busts. We have a presidential campaign ramping up and we have the likes of Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, John Gibson et al to tell us about it. But instead we are treated to Laurie Dhue breathlessly telling us about Britney Spears and Greta Van Susteren covering every little detail of the “Battle of the Johns” for Anna Nichole's baby.

Now, granted, when I gave up and turned over to Head Line News, I had to endure being called a “neo-con” because I watch “24” - but I can handle that. Thanks to Fox News I have learned how to read the bias in a news story and pull the truth out of it. And I can assure you my news-per-minute ratio is a lot higher at Head Line News than listening to the dueling hair pieces on “Fox and Friends”. I will take a slanted news story over Fair and Balanced pap any day.

Well, the '08 Presidential race is spooling up, sad as that may be. Several of my less politically astute friends have asked who is going to be the next commander-in-chief. I have no clue who it will be, but I can, with little doubt, predict who it will not be: a Republican.

There is a big difference between those of the voting populace who are more liberal, tending to vote Democrat and those who are more conservative tending to vote Republican. Those who are in the broad liberal camp (we are speaking in generalities here) think of their identity in terms of the group. They identify themselves with the “black community”, the UAW, feminists, homosexuals or whatever, there are thousands of groups. These voters will then vote according to the group. Lockstep, they will stand with their group and their party for what is best for all.

This sentiment is not lost on the consecrative side (Christian, pro-life, etc...) but it is subordinate to the individual. Conservative/Republican voters think more in terms of the individual, both of themselves and the candidate. A single character flaw, can completely disqualify a candidate where the other side of the isle would let it slide “for the good of the whole”. Think on it; how many times have you heard (if you have been paying attention) “Rudy Giuliani may be the best qualified candidate in the land, fiscally consecrative, tough on defense and all that, but he's pro-abortion and I will not vote for him.”?

The argument could be made that the conservative base will not throw away the White House just to stand on principle; but recent history might wreck that logic. The general voter might not be able to rattle off a list like your favorite feathered policy-wonk here, but in the back of their mind floats the residual stench of: President Bush allowing Mr. Piggy (Ted Kennedy) to write the education bill, the education bill bloating the Federal government even farther, the Homeland security department bloating government, not one single veto on spending bills, President Bush signing the McCain-Feingold Finance Reform bill (which violates the 1^st amendment), the Republican Senate allowing our judges to rot in limbo, allowing John Bolton to not receive a true appointment as ambassador to the UN, the Kelo decision coming in the middle of an entirely Republican controlled Federal government and nothing being done except a symbolic vote, President Bush supporting RINO Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey, failure to fix Medicare, Bloating Medicare with prescription drug payments, doing next to nothing to stop the flood of criminal aliens across the Mexican border, failure to clean up the tax code, and a substantial increase in pork barrel spending. And that was just off the top of my head.

You see, the conservatives that pushed the Republicans into power in 1994 and elected Bush in 2000 are not just following the party, as a liberal might be. Conservatives stand on issues and principals. Over the last six years, the Republicans have shone us no principals and have stood on little issues. President Bush himself has done more to increase the party than to guide the direction of the nation from a philosophical stand point.

Hugh Hewitt made a slogan famous during the last election: “Win the War, Confirm the judges, Cut the Taxes, Control the Spending, Secure the border” Conservative desires are rather simple, yet our elected officials cannot seem to meet them. Unless a Republican candidate comes out sounding like the second coming of Ronald Reagan, the conservatives will not vote for him. They are tired of half-measures and almost victories.

Looking that the candidates themselves, as the list now stands, does not leave much in the way of hope. Newt Gingrich sounds exactly like what the conservatives are looking for. But all the annalists say he carries too much baggage to ever win. So far Newt appears to agree as he refuses to make overtures toward actually running. John McCain may be the media darling and hold the “Center”, whoever they are, but conservatives will not vote for him. If McCain is the GOP candidate, the state of Georgia is likely to go to the Libertarian party (not that that is a bad thing, more parties would be good in my book). Rudy Giuliani is poling at the top now, but it will be very hard for him to win without voters who put value on the abortion debate, a huge section of the conservative movement. Mit Romney has a chance, but most of the voting conservatives are Christians who will not vote for a Morman.

As it stands now, in this time of turmoil, danger and a politically divided country, our next president will be a Democrat.

God help us.

I wonder if the folks over at the Noble Foundation know what they have done. For those of you not keeping up, the United States had a sweep going receiving prises in Medicine, Chemistry, Physics and Economics. We all knew that couldn't last so it was no surprise that the Literature prise went to a Turk. But the crème` de la crème, of course, is the original, the Peace Prize. And everybody knows an American can only get this prize (nowadays) if he's disagreeing with the United States. (Cough, Cough)

As with most everything bleeding-heart, leaf-kissing liberals do, this round of laureates is rife with potential political humor. The Medicine prize was for discovering a way to “control the flow of genetic information.” Because, we all know, Liberals cannot stand the free flow of information... The Physics prize was given for discovering proof of the “Big Bang”. So apparently they are still harking back to John Kerry's explosive start in his campaign; of course, the “Bang” was about all there was.

Enough with all that. What I'm confused about is if they know what they did in awarding this Peace Prize. Muhammad Yunus received the Prize for “efforts to create economic and social development from below.” Basicly what the guy did was thus: he gave small loans to poor people, mostly women, to help them begin businesses and pull themselves out of poverty. The big difference between his method and a bank's loan was Yunus did not require collateral – because the borrowers had none.

Now I will grant that Muhammad Yunus' motivation was to help the poor, a subject Liberals believe themselves to have a lock on. However, his method of solving their poverty problem was straight out of the Wealth of Nations; it was text-book capitalism. Yunus was moved by the poverty stricken neighborhoods he walked past going to his job teaching economics at the local university. Had a member of the Democrat party been in his shoes, they would have petitioned for a government grant to help out these people. Good communists would have demanded laws forcing the established banking institutions to approve loans for these people. Yunus, God bless 'em¹, reached into his own pocket and gave of his own money, in the form of a loan.

One good capitalist, conservative-compassionate turn deserves another, and it did not stop not there. The borrowers, mostly women, started businesses. These were no get-rich schemes; many people bought a cow and sold the milk. Some bought rice, hull on, and did the work to remove the hulls. The de-hulled rice was sold at a profit and the rice hulls were fed to chickens, the eggs of which were also sold at a profit.

Now, what would have happened if the only move made by our good humanitarian had been to procure a no-payback grant? Sure, some enterprising folks would have seized the opportunity to get out of the squalor of poverty and made a go of a new business. Most though, would have got themselves though that day, or the next week and then been right back in the same position. Yunus' loan gave them the little boost they needed to get off the ground and the incentive to stick with it. This when the banks would not give a loan without collateral.

The proof is in the pudding, and Yunus must have been doing something right. 30 years later his Grameen bank sports 2,200 branch offices in a cooperative style set-up. They are serving 6 million borrowers and this year they expect $800 million in loans. Most of those loans will be less than $100, most will be to women and most will be pulling someone out of poverty by their own hand.

So I ask again. Do the folks at the Nobel Foundation know what they've done?

1 Sorry Muhammad, but that was Jehovah

Nearing graduation, the Swan said she would like to work at a vet hospital for a few years under another doctor before moving to where we would finally “settle down.” If that were to be the case, the logical thing would be for her to get a job near where we live so I could keep my job. No sense in both of us looking for new employment right? Somewhere in the job hunting season we were at a Vet School function and a practice owner stuck a business card in the Swan's hand saying “I am looking to hire someone, keep me in mind.” A little bit later, a classmate informed her that he was recommending her to his boss because this classmate was going into the service after graduation. Turns out it was the same guy.

It also turned out that he happened to mix small animal and large animal, just like Swan wanted to do. It also turned out that he performed orthopedic surgeries; most do not but Swan wanted to do so. It also turned out that his practice was just about halfway between my job and the church we were attending. Can't get much better than that for God dropping a job in your lap can you?

After Swan signed on to take this job (you didn't think she'd turn all that down did you?) we began the house hunting process. Our condo is a bit small, now, after three years of marriage. And it's a bit of a drive for her, making emergency work impossible. Because my job allowed me to roam about the area, I scouted out several potential subdivisions and new construction and the like. We scheduled a Saturday to go and look. But before we left, we prayed. “God, if it is your plan for us to move, then you have a house picked out for us, show it to us.” He did. As we drove about we saw signs for some new houses. I had driven right past this community. Folks, there are flags out on the road; yet I had missed it. I had been blinded to it, until we prayed. We found the community and fell in love with it and a house in it.

Good deal. My life is covered with examples of God taking care of things. There are far too many items to recount here, but the pattern has been concrete enough that I did not have the least worry or fear of us selling our condo and buying the house. This would the the “presuming” part of the story. The condo was listed in March. It is September and we are still here. In between those two months is graduation, summer, dozens of open houses, looks nibbles, maybes, school starting back and the close of the selling season in a college town. It is enough to frustrate and enough to test faith.

We placed a contract on the house, contingent on our selling the condo. That had been extended twice and now the last extension's end was approaching. All evidence showed that we were about to lose this house we had both fallen so much in love with. Stress came to a head one Sunday a few weeks back. The next Monday afternoon I had a long drive with work, so I just turned the radio off and prayed. It was probably an hour, I don't know. then I called the man I teach Sunday School with and said “I hope you are alone, because I just have to unload.” As we talked, my friend shared a nugget of wisdom. They had given us twice extensions on the contract on the house, in all fairness they should not give us another. If the builder would give us another one, that would be a sign from God that we were still supposed to have that house. Within an hour, the Swan called me. She had just received word from the builder that they were offering us another extension without us even asking for it.

Again I think, “OK, now is when God's going to sell the condo.” Besides, it was completely out of the selling season for this area, it would be a “God thing” to sell it now. It still did not sell. Then this past weekend the sermon was on trusting God. Well, actually I think it was on something else, but all I could hear was the preacher repeating the word “trust.” All afternoon I pondered the option of going ahead and putting a contract on the house without selling the condo. This had not been an option for us for financial reasons; could it become one for faith reasons?

To be honest I was scared to death to even be thinking about doing this. I was afraid to even mention it to the Swan. When she some time for us to talk, I broached the subject. Her response was not quite what I expected. She lit up. Then she tells me that on Friday she had been gripped with the same notion. Not wanting to go far off the path, the Swan prayed that if that were the direction God would have us go, he would put it on my heart to say something about buying the house before selling the condo. Of course, I just had.

After more prayer we made the decision and both of us now feel a peace that we have not had for at least a month now. I have no idea what lay in store for us making this decision. Reflecting back on how I believed I knew what God was going to do, I think me not knowing is the point. Regardless, we are putting the situation in his hands, stepping out on faith. Tomorrow, we are going to meet with the agent and set a closing date.

Did you know today was VJ Day? Seeing as how Rhode Island is the only state in the Union that still celebrates VJ day, you might have missed that. I find it a bit ironic that on the day we (are supposed to) commemorate the surrender of Japan in WWII we hear the news being spread that Israel has agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah.

Pop quiz for all you government school graduates: What were the terms of surrender for Japan at the end of World War II? That's right, unconditional. Just so there's not ambiguity here, unconditional meant that they did what ever the bloody hell we told 'em to. Unconditional meant they were absolutely, with no reserves, defeated. Unconditional surrender for them, meant unmitigated victory for us.

So where do we stand with Japan now? Well, we are in danger of losing a technology war with them. Their auto industry is about to demand Potsdam like conditions from ours. All-in-all however, we have a great relationship with Japan. They are one of our greatest trade partners, both in terms of economics and technology. They have no military (see: unconditional surrender above) but they support our military actions against the terrorists with funding. Complete victory brought about complete surrender which brought about complete change in the nation.

The Israeli-Hezbollah/Iran/Hammas/Syria war will not be over until someone wins it. Which makes it just like every other war in history. Victory only comes in one flavor: complete. Incomplete victories, such as this yet-again ceasefire, are not victories at all. They are merely a delaying of the inevitable. They are holding patterns. In Arabic, the language the Hezbollah speak, the word for ceasefire is the same word used to mean “reload”.

Israel had a chance here. The U.S. was telling them to go get the bad guys. Many other nations were also telling them to do so. Those demanding Israel to stop were not doing so in as loud a voice as they usually do. Maybe it was because this was a post 9/11 world. Maybe it was because the U.S. was actually encouraging Israel for a change. Maybe it was because the other Arabic states are afraid of Iran (of which Hezbollah is just an arm). Whatever the reason, Israel had a chance to finish this once and for all. They didn't take it.

Mark this down. You can tell your neighbor's the Rooster told you this (I would say grandkids but it ain't gonna take that long). This war will be resumed. It is not over.

I propose that Israel firebomb Damascus and Tehran. For you UAT grads, those are the capitals of Syria and Iran respectively. A firebomb is one that sets the whole countryside on fire, its purpose being to inflict as many causalities as possible (as opposed to taking out a specific building). We used these bombs a extensively in WWII.

Note: The image at the right has been stolen from IMAO. This blog was founded on an essay calling for the United States to Nuke the Moon, based on similar reasoning to the position laid out below. You might want to give that a read.

Consider when Chechen rebels took hostages in a theater in Russia. President Vladimir Putin ordered a chemical gas attack and all inside were killed. The rebels, who are Muslim extremists and just a different brand of al'Qaeda, got the message. Russia has been pretty much left alone by the West-hating Islmofascists. The same with Red China, the terrorists have left them alone. Granted, since al'Qaeda is arguably more communist than Muslim, it could be a kinship, but these guys seem to hate everybody. They don't mess with Russia and China, because they are afraid of what will happen to them.

Consider the current war going on in the Middle East. Israel is not at war with Lebanon, it is at war in Lebanon. Israel is actually fighting Iranians and Iranian weapons, Syrians and Syrian weapons. Consider also, the Vietnam and Korean wars where our true enemy was Russia and China, yet we allowed other countries to play as proxies. That same scenario is playing out now, North Korea is a proxy for China. Lebanon is a proxy for Iran. In the elder two wars, by not actively engaging the true enemy we simply prolonged the conflict (ie it is still going on) and condemned large sections of the globe to live under communist oppression.

Now consider the Bush Doctrine which says that any nation that harbors terrorists, aids terrorists, funds terrorists and doesn't toe a line we draw in trying to kill terrorists, that nation will be considered to be the same as the terrorists.

Now consider the populations of both Iran and Syria. While the majority are not actively trying to kill off Israel, they are supportive of the effort. They are also enablers of their governments efforts to fund Hezbollah and Hamas.

Follow the chain. The terrorists will only stop trying to kill Israel when they run out of bombs, missiles and kids to strap dynamite to. They will run out of these ingredients when the sponsor states stop sending them in. The sponsor states (Syria, Iran, the House of Saud, Egypt…) will only stop when their populace forces them to. They can force them by making these states physically enable to fund terrorism (they run out of money), or by getting pissed off enough to have an uprising. We can only “convince” the populace to take such control of their countries by, well, putting the fear of the Lord in them.

Hence, we¹ should firebomb Damascus and Tehran. The people of Israel are being shelled everyday; I say it is time some of the people paying for the bombs feel them as well. I would also claim that each side deserves the term “innocent” equally.

Doubters would say that Israel taking such an offensive action would send the entire Middle East into an all out war. How, exactly, would that be any different than what we have now, except everybody admitting to the the reality? Israel is fighting everybody, it is just not being done in the open. I prefer calling a spade a spade.

Other critics would say that we would be deliberately targeting civilians and therefore dropping to the level of the terrorists. Targeting civilians has been the premier military tactic since just after the Garden. This notion of trying to protect everybody not in uniform, as if by not getting on the field the spectators were not part of the game, is a recent invention. The difference between us and the terrorists lies in that the terrorists do no identify themselves and hide amongst the civilians. We wear uniforms, have flags on the side of our planes and make sure everybody knows who we are, where we're going (with the tanks I mean) and why we're doing it.

By the way, I would probably give the civilians of these two cities a week's notice to see if they might have enough foresight to reverse their nation's course before the bombing began. Surely they would have reason to believe Israel if they said they were going to start bombing next Saturday.

Addendum: I can already see Buzz replying that the people of Tehran and Damascus do not have enough power to change the minds of their leaders. I think they do, but you may be right that they do not have the power in a short period of time like that. However, in about a week after my plan kicks in, they'll all be dead and I'll feel better anyway.

1When I say we, I mean the U.S. and Israel. The Arabic world views us as conjoined twins ergo the terrorists see us as conjoined evil twins. Israel's war is our war.

With all the debate over Embryonic Stem Cell research, Adult stem cells seem to get lost in the noise. Let's see if we can't settle the dust a bit.

Imagine a drawing of a family tree, one drawn to look like an actual tree. You start with a single trunk at the bottom, and it forks off to each side for the first generation of children. Then each of those branches forks and so on. The same thing happens in our bodies with our cells. When the egg and sperm combine, a single cell is created. If you will remember high school biology, when a cell divides the two new daughter cells are identical. This is true of the final cells produced, the ones you can see and touch right now, but this first cell, and the next few generations are special. After a few generations they begin to change; as they divide they become different cells.

It is the beginning of the tree effect. Every cell in our bodies has an entire compliment of our DNA. As these first cells begin to divide, they begin turning on some of the genes in the DNA and turning others off. After enough generations you are left with a cell that can only divide to create another just like it. In other words you are left with what we think of as “normal” from our biology classes. But these first transitional cells, the ones called stem cells, hold remarkable potential for in the medical field.

So what is the difference between an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell? Really it is just their position on the tree. There are four stages of stem cells, each becoming more specific. The first two stages are only found (at least in abundance) while a person is an embryo. Hence these are called embryonic stem cells. The “adult” stem cells are the other two stages, but the name is only to distinguish them; “adult” stem cells can be gathered from an infant. In fact they are regularly collected from blood in the umbilical cord.

There are pros and cons to each of these. Because the earlier stages (the embryonic stem cells) are less specialized, it has been thought they would be more useful. Also you do not have to hunt around for them as much, the entire embryo is made of them. However, to gather embryonic stem cells, you must destroy the embryo. This obviously raises ethical questions.

Adult stem cells avoid the ethical questions because no lasting harm is done in harvesting them. Also, since it is usually the case that the stem cells are collected from the patient they will be used on, there are no associated problems with immune system rejection. However, adult stem cells have the problem of needing to be filtered and purified once they are collected. Also, since they are more specialized, you have to collect adult stem cells from the area of the body you are wanting to treat.

Adult stem cells are regularly showing more potential, however. Researching this topic leads to paper after paper where someone has found a way to make an adult stem cell change farther than previously thought possible. There are many scientists now working on stem cell research that believe we will eventually be able to make adult stem cells differentiate into any cell in the body. So far our successes with embryonic stem cells have been very limited; it has been difficult to make those first differentiations take place.

As for real world results, adults stem cells take the cake. So far not one single cure or treatment has been accomplished with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have been used for years to treat a variety of ailments, some of which are: Gunther's disease, Hunter syndrome, Hurler syndrome, Acute lymphocytic leukemia, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis and spinal cord injuries.

The debate, as always when concerning the government, is money. Currently federal tax dollars can only be spent on embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created when the current rules were put in place. The push is to open up more dollars to create new stem cell lines. My question is why? The bio-tech companies are putting their money into adult stem cells. The proven successes have been in adult stem cells. By all reckoning, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get embryonic stem cell research off the ground. Creating more embryonic stem cells means destroying thousands (millions from some estimates) of more embryos. It is a great deal of money into something that has not shown near as much promise as adult stem cells, and is laden with ethical delimnas.

Personally I want my money in on the side that is going to produce the most results for the least expenditure. But this is the government; that might be asking too much.

Movie Review

X-Men III: The Last Stand, and Superman Returns

X-Men: The Last Stand (IMDB)(Official)

Superman Returns (IMDB)(Official)

Warning spoilers: I will try to keep Superman under wraps as much as I can, but I am assuming that if you are going to see X-Men you already have.

Overall I would give Superman Returns about one-and-a-half primary feathers up. X-Men III however, (and remember this is coming from a great fan of X-Men comics, cartoons and movies) gets a decisive two primary feathers down.

According to Andrew Coffin (who's World Magazine review of the two movies got me started down this path of thought) the director for the first two X-Men movies was tapped to direct Superman. The original director for Superman was traded over to man the helm for X-Men III. DC comics won that round.

It would be easy to denigrate X-Men III for leaving the well developed plots of the first two movies for a loose collection of summer blockbuster style, special effects fight scenes. It certainly did that; but my antipathy for the movie comes from a more personal and technical level. Specifically the treatment of the value of life and the development of an all powerful character.

The later first. If you are any fan or reader of fantasy or science fiction, you should know of the dangers of creating an all powerful character. Someone making major motion pictures should defiantly know this. Raymond E Fiest's novels are gripping at their inception because Pug is just a skinny novice facing insurmountable odds. Many books later, when he can basically do anything he wishes, the books become dreadfully boring. I'm told the same happens if you read far into the Star Wars novels, when Luke becomes powerful enough to land a capitol ship on a planet or move a planet out of orbit. An all powerful character can work in a story, but only if the point is to show that all powerful characters are not supposed to be here. Terry Pratchett did this with “Sorcerer” and it worked beautifully. (Besides, Pratchett is a much better writer than whoever did X-Men III)

In The Last Stand the folks behind the X-Men trilogy take Jean Grey and make her into the Phoenix. Never mind that they did this in a completely different manner than it was done in the comics, what was accomplished was a character that could literally do anything she wished. Mostly she just stands around, but in a few places she just destroys everything in sight. It was boring. The special effects probably took a lot of time and ten years ago would have been awe inspiring in-and-of themselves, but not this time. Besides, special effects are supposed to support the story, not the other way around.

My primary disappointment with X-Men III was the attitude the makers seemed to take with life itself. In the comic books and the cartoons hardly anyone ever died. The main characters surely never did. In The Last Stand they kill everybody. Literally. After two movies (and countless hours of after-class cartoon watching) one gets rather attached to the characters. So when one beloved character, Jean Grey, evaporates another beloved character, professor Xavier, it kinda hits you in the stomach. And I do mean evaporate. You are not even given the solace of watching Wolverine cry over Prof. X's body. He's just gone. Later we find out that Jean Grey (in all-powerful-character-mode of the Phoenix) did the same with her husband cyclops.

But the producers were just getting warmed up. Wolverine dispatched a few bad guys in the second movie, but it was implied. We see him step through a doorway, claws out and later a flashlight roll out. In The Last Stand he charges into the evil mutant camp and displays his animal side to the extreme loss of about a dozen characters, as we watch. But then when the last stand actually happens, Jean Gray is back. In some extremely bad directing, the battle plays out like a video game, one wave after another of evil mutants attacks – each with more powerful mutants until finally Jean Grey comes into the fray herself. And she kills everybody. Literally. An entire regiment of U.S. Marines (a couple of hundred men) is evaporated (with a special effect that is getting really old by now). Another regiment of what looked like S.W.A.T. but might have been more Marines was also evaporated.

The grand finale was Jean allowing Wolverine to kill her because she cannot control herself. It is touching because of Wolverine's love for Jean. It is disgusting because they have degenerated a set of complicated, complex characters into a bunch of super-powered killing machines – exactly what the mutants of Xavier's school were supposed to be fighting against the whole time.

Contrast all this to Superman Returns. The super-power charged hero here spends his time saving lives. Yeah, its cheesy. It was the first time too, and you liked it then. But it makes a point: life has value.

Superman Returns explores several themes that make it interesting. They focus heavily on the idea that Superman was sent by a loving father to be a force of good and a savior for this world. Sound familiar? I doubt anybody was trying to make an overt Christian movie, they were simply looking for something that would add deeper meaning to the movie and would resonate with the audience. But I for one am glad to see something based on Christianity instead of Eastern Mysticism for a change.

Humanity's need for a savior is fleshed out by Lois Lane. While Superman has been gone she has tried to cope by writing a Pulitzer prize winning article on “Why the World Does Not Need Superman”. When her old beau returns, the defenses she has built around her heart falter. Of course, she is shown with a live-in finance, but that just serves to show how broken she was without her true love/savior around. And shows her need for that savior.

Another theme explored is the legacy fathers pass on to their sons and the importance of a father in a child's life. This was shown in the other films, but it is taken to a new level in this one. I'll leave that for you to see.

The film does leave you hanging on two accounts. Superman and Lois do not get together. Before this was always left as if it was a future possibility, but in this one it seems as if Superman resigns himself to a loss to the other guy, and it just feels weird. The second is right at the end. Lois is sitting in front of her computer trying to write a new article titled “Why the World Needs Superman”. She cannot come up with anything and eventually goes outside to smoke. I do not know if the directors wanted to show her in turmoil or if they wanted the viewer to fill in the blank but I wish they would have given the answer, the only answer to why a world needs a savior: because there is evil in it.

Technical

I'm gonna stuff some technical stuff down here outta the way.

We went to see Superman Returns on the IMAX where they are showing some of the scenes in the new, spiffy and much heralded, 3D technology. It ain't worth it. A feature film on the IMAX's big ol' screen was sweet, but the 3D stuff didn't look any better than what Disney's been putting out for 10 years now. Despite Popular Science's glowing review, there was bleed over from the two images. Also, most of the scenes still look like a bunch of flat cut outs stacked behind each other like a kindergarten play. If they are going to make whole movies out of this technology, the action/adventure crowd is going to have to rethink the way they make movies. Anything with fast movement was completely indiscernible. And if you wear eyeglasses – nothing's changed, they still treat us like the ugly stepchild.

A few things I noticed:

• If Superman was flying above the speed of sound a few feet above the water (when he returns to Metropolis from Lex's new landmass) there should have been a wake and a rooster-tail. I notice those kind of things.

• In comic-land “Metropolis” was always just some mythical city somewhere in the U.S. I found it interesting that (despite avoiding ever showing the skyline) A) Metropolis's circle was shown on a radar screen right on top of Manhattan island and B) that Metropolis has a big rectangular park right in the middle of it.

• Does his charge he gets form the sun relieve Superman of the need for sleep? Because, he never did.

• Superman's suit and cape looked a lot more like something built by alien technology this time. Looked pretty sweet to be honest.

• With a multi-hundred-million dollar budget, could they not get some red hair dye that looked natural for Famke Janssen to play Jean Grey?

• Gene Hackman leaves big shoes to fill. He might even leave threatening notes for anybody that tries and does so poorly. Kevin Spacey has no fear, he pulled of Lex Luthor to a tee. Kudos.

President Bush fielded questions from the press on his recent trip to Europe. This included one sniveling little anti-American tirade from the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain. The reporter cited a poll across Europe showing that most Europeans disagree with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The poll also showed that Europeans are more afraid of the U.S. than Iran.

You get that? After we saved their behinds in WWI and II, after the 9/11 attacks, after the Madrid bombings, after the London attacks, after Saddam killed millions of his own people and was giving money to terrorists, they still fear us. With Iran and North Korea trying to build nuclear bombs, with the Taliban still trying to take over Afghanistan and Al' Quada still trying to take over Iraq and the neo-Philistines still bombing Isreal, the Euro-wennies still fear America more than Iran.

The Rooster's response to all of this: Damn straight. Don't you forget it.

Just remember, Europe, all those bad guys I mentioned are more afraid of us than they are of you too. The reason Iran ain't launching missiles at Israel is they are afraid of us. The reason N. Korea didn't launch that missile over Japanese air space was they were afraid of us. The reason Al' Quada is pissed off and fighting so hard is they are afraid of us.

You guys in Europe, we either saved yer ass or kicked yer ass. Don't think that we won't / can't / ain't gonna do it again. We're the only nation to ever use a nuke. We're the only nation with the resources to span the globe in war. We have the biggest, bestest, brightest military on the planet.

There is a line drawn very clearly in the sand. On one side is Iran, N. Korea, the neo-Philistines, Al'Quada, the Taliban, and Barbara Streisand. On the other side of the line is the United States of America, Australia, the U.K., Poland, a fleet of nuclear powered super-carriers, a few dozen B-52s and the Marine Corp.

Choose.

It has come to our attention that several features we are using on this website -including the "tool tips" featured in this posting, do not work in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. That is becuase IE is at least 2 years behind the internet curve. Suffer through things not looking right, or upgrade==>

We've all known the Turkeys of this world are a bunch of hypocrites, but sometimes it amazes me just how blatantly they show this off. The Cannabis Court has ruled that enemy combatants, terrorists, and other non-citizens have a right to access the civil court system of the United States. Lawyers, writs of habis corpus, right to cross examine – all of these rights we Americans hold (and usually take for granted) are now the the disposal of the Islamic terrorists trying to kill us. Those fighting without uniform, killing innocent lives wherever they can, hold equal legal standing with U.S. citizens.

And the TurkeysThis is our euphemism for left leaning loonies. Think: "You Turkey!" are ecstatic (that means overjoyed, for you UAT graduates). The Democrats, the People for the American Way, the ACLU and dozens of other anti-America, pro-terrorists groups are simply elated with the decision. Democrat Minority Leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi (CA) said, “Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American Ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.” Question, Mrs. America: who's law?

These Turkeys, however, that are applauding the Cannabis Court'sThe "High" Court is apparently just that, high on something. These octogenarians don't strike me as the cocaine or crystal-meth type, but I can see them smoking the reefer. bringing these backward thugs into the 21^st century are the very ones that rejected that argument when it was given as a reason to go to war in the first place. The search for Weapons of Mass Destruction is all that ever gets attention, but President Bush laid out several reasons for going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases one of the reasons was to bring freedom to the nation. Each was living under the rule of brutal elitists. Mr. Bush claimed that freedom was a universal longing and right. He even referenced that fairy tale figure for the Left: the Creator.

At that time, however, we were told that the people of the middle east were not ready for democracy. It was said that they could not handle self rule. We were told that even if they could, it was not our place to bring it to them; they should rise up on their own. Yet now that, by fiat, the judicial tyrants have declared we give these very same people (except these being the criminal element of those people) due process under OUR law and access to OUR court system and the benefits of OUR democracy – the hypocritical Turkeys are pleased as can be.

Notice that they are only happy when they are bringing the advanced down to the level of the in-advanced. That charge has been leveled at socialists before.

We pointed out in this space before that there is something special and unique about being a citizen of the United States (see: Real "Backbone of the Nation" 21 June). Not to say that it is better (although I will) it is just different that being an Australasian or a Brittan. Being a citizen of the U.S. brings certain responsibilities and it brings certain privileges. Those privileges, voting, access to the courts, constitutional rights, however, should be reserved for citizens.

This is nothing new. Remember when the Romans beat up Paul? He told them they had violated his rights. Why? Because he was a Roman citizen. The title held privileges. Not holding the title did not hold those same protections. There's another story (and I apologize for the vagueness of it) about a British man that was captured in some backwater country in Asia. The English crown loaded up ships and mounted an invasion that, in that time, rivaled out entry into Iraq. When the offending King was surrounded and turning over his captive he asked “Who is this man that I took that you spent so much effort to save him?” Answer: He was a citizen of the English crown.

But Mr. Rooster, that's a very “us versus them” attitude you are taking! Have you tried immigrating to Mexico lately? Have you tried walking around in Saudi Arabia in blue jeans with an iPod playing 3^rd Day? THEY already have this attitude, and until we start developing the WE part, we're just going to keep sliding backwards down this slope.