I do not often do entertainment write ups on my site, but this is a paramount event that I cannot let pass. This past weekend I got the chance to see J.J. Abrams re-envisioned take on one of the most popular movie and television franchises in entertainment history. I had severe reservations about beginning the Star Trek saga completely anew with a complete recast of the original beloved crew. How could you match the interactions between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley? This was like recasting your childhood friends and family with entirely new people. I was not sure how I would take this.

In short, I frakking loved it.

How could you be sure to capture the cavalier style and bravado vibe that William Shatner had given the earlier James Tiberius Kirk? Apparently, by picking Chris Pine to play him and letting this young rising star put his own spin on the character. There were moments you could see the older Kirk come out in this fresh new version of himself. They were small but critically important things: interactions with Bones, looks that he shot, the way he carried himself and at the end just the way he sat in that chair. You could tell he was Kirk, but he was not some cheap copy or imitation of Shatner’s Kirk. He was a new re-invented Kirk, played brilliantly by Pine. I think he did the role justice and cannot wait to see how he re-develops one of the most well know characters in movie history.

From his announcement for the role, I could not have imagined a better choice for Spock than Zachary Quinto. Just on looks alone, he was a striking choice and there was no question of his abilities as an actor from his role as Syler in the popular television series Heroes. However, the role of Spock is not an easy one to play. Most actors rely on emotions to convey a message. When you are playing a character whose sole goal is the restrictions of these emotions in favor of pure logic, that is simply not an option. Quinto nailed the stoic façade of Spock and blended the confusing emotional conflicts well. Once again, there were moments that Nimoy’s character could be seen, but just as with Pine’s representation of Kirk, there was a genuine newness to this Spock. It was not a repackaging of the previous version, but a new invention of the character that paid appropriate homage to its origins.

The other characters in the film were just as well cast. I think I will really like John Cho as the new HIkaru Sulu and will get used to the extremely thick accent of Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. I still wonder if that was completely real or if it was an embellishment by the actor. I can see some real comedic moments rise from that either way. It seemed to me that Simon Pegg’s Scotty did not have nearly enough time in the movie to get a good feel for him, but from what we did see he will be a slight departure from our original engineer, yet still remain the ‘miracle worker’ that we have come to expect. Then there was Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura. When I managed to actually draw my attention from here absolute striking beauty to the character she was playing, you could see a strong, intelligent and determined Uhura emerge as a nice compliment to the ground breaking role that Nichelle Nichols began in the original series. I think the old Uhura would be supremely pleased with this version of herself.

The final character that I have not yet addressed was the most impressive from my point of view. As a huge Lord of the Rings fan, the casting of Eomer, one of the horse lords of Rohan, as Bones was something I was very apprehensive about. However, from the moment that Karl Urban entered the screen as Dr. Leonard McCoy, he captured the essence of the character perfectly. As the character developed he added his own flare to it. This was my favorite character of the re-invented series.

Now that the hails for the characters are out of the way, there were a few problems I had with the movie. For starters and with my best attempt not to spoil the story for anyone else, there are several things that I did not like about the storyline. In one fell swoop, the plot changes over 130 years of Star Trek history, leaving the events that we have come to know and love either non-existent or highly implausible. The plot used a theme that is terribly familiar in the Star Trek universe. One that can cause major problems if left uncorrected. Historically, when such a thing has occurred, the event has been corrected and all harmony restored to the universe. This film broke from that tradition by leaving huge holes in future (or past) plot lines. It failed to reconstruct or prevent events that would severely have changed the outcome of the other ten Star Trek movies and four of the existing television series. For a genre so steeped in tradition, history and lore this can be a major problem.

J.J. Abrams delivered a beautifully done movie with amazing special effects, wonderful casting, great acting and an engaging storyline, but at what cost to the franchise that he based it on? One thing that should be understood by Hollywood by now is that while you need to take risk and challenge your audience, there are certain lines that you do not cross. Messing with the history of an almost half century old phenomenon such as Star Trek is one of them. A re-imagined storyline to a beloved franchise can work well if properly done, as can be seen in the phenomenal example of Battlestar Galactica, but there is only so much that a fan base can take. I will reserve complete judgment until see what they do with the next installment. After all, one movie ended with a beloved major character dead in the past, until they realized that fans simply would not accept the death of Spock. They managed to fix that, so let’s see what they can do.

Now that the President has just signed into law the most massive increase in the size, scope and spending of the Federal government and dealt a serious blow to capitalism, our government now prepares to move on to the next greatest threat to our national security: talk radio.

From all corners of the government you are now hearing calls for action heralding back to those days when the government controlled the content of the airwaves. Within just the past few weeks we have seen statement after statement urging the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine from liberal Congressmen and political pundits alike. So what is causing this sudden demand for the oppression of free speech? To understand this, we must first examine what the Fairness Doctrine is and why it was originally created.

When broadcast communication was in its infancy, the government saw the medium as serving a vital role as a public service to communities by being a medium over which matters of public interest could be discussed. These matters could range from local all the way up to federal and international issues and would be an essential way for the public to gain knowledge of issues that had traditionally had very limited exposure. However, there was the concern that large corporations that possessed vast amounts of capital could potentially monopolize the airwaves by buying up the fairly limited amount of stations, thereby controlling the content and effectively public opinion along with it. Fearing that this would result in a disservice to the communities these stations served, the FCC enacted  rules to prevent the editorialized presentation of the issues. The early attempts to control the content of the airwaves were commonly referred to as the ‘Mayflower Doctrine’. This rather strict doctrine began by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in the late 1930s prevented any and all editorializing by broadcast stations. Yet, by the late 1940s this doctrine had begun to soften as it was dampening public interest in debating the issues. During the decade when the doctrine was in place, the FCC had begun allowing editorializing only so long as an opposing view was also expressed. This led the FCC to enact the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. This doctrine stated that the licensees of the stations were ‘ public trustees’ and had an obligation to cover controversial public issues in a fair and balanced manner by providing reasonable opportunities for opposing views. The commission later went on to include that not only did stations hold this obligation to the public, but that they must actively seek out issues of critical importance to the communities they served and provide ample coverage of those issues.

These protections made perfect sense in the early days of broadcasting, when there were fewer than three thousand radio stations (2,881) with eighty-five million listeners and under a hundred (98) television stations with only four million viewers nationwide. However, today where there are well over ten thousand terrestrial stations (13,837) and more than sixteen hundred (1,606) television stations, most of which are already broadcasting digitally, we have more choices for the 500 million radios and almost 200 million televisions than could have ever been imagined when this archaic legislation was enacted. This does not even take into account the multitude of choices provided by cable, satellite television, satellite radio or digital terrestrial signals. These technologies offer hundreds of choices for consumers far beyond the normal scope of broadcasting making the monopolization of the airwaves and absolute impossibility.

The arguments that supported the Fairness Doctrine sixty years ago utterly fail when faced with modern technology. One such argument was that due to the scarcity of the radio spectrum available to the public, the government must regulate the content to provide balance. While the radio spectrum has not changed much since the inception of the Fairness Doctrine, the way in which it is used most definitely has. This problem was alleviated to some degree with the introduction of FM broadcasting and is seeing its ultimate demise in the form of high definition radio and digital television signals. These new technologies allow for multiple channels and sub-channels to be broadcast in the same space that a single traditional analog signal occupied, providing even more space on the spectrum than ever before.

Another argument was that certain viewpoints are censored in the current market. This stems from the enormous success of conservative talk radio, specifically hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, but the argument itself is unbalanced at best. With the ample medium available on the market there are plenty of opportunities for liberal radio hosts to have shows and build their audiences into the millions such as these hosts and others have done, there just does not seem to be the market for such a thing to happen. National Public Radio is a prime example of a liberal leaning entity that has survived in this aggressive market where Air America is not. Air America, a very liberal oriented network, has attempted to gain a foot hold in the marketplace for years. However, year after year the most notable sound coming from the stations that hosted their personalities, other than the bile and hatred that so often was their format, was the giant sucking sound of money going down the drain. Air America was an unqualified failure because it could not generate a public following and make its sponsors money. They were not forced out of the market by conservative radio; they failed of their own means. That is the way the free market works, although I know most of those supporting this doctrine oppose that as well.

The last argument has always been about the public interest and the encouraging of debate. In this the Fairness Doctrine actually did more harm than good. When the FCC mandated that stations had to actively seek out public issues and provide opposing views for them, many stations went another direction entirely. To avoid the hassle of having to secure opposing positions for controversial issues, many stations decided it far easier to avoid them entirely. This caused a chilling effect on the public airwaves and found many venues turning solely to music programming or other programming that simply avoided critical issues so that no debate took place. There were no great talk show hosts of the 1950s, 60’s or 70’s. There were scarcely any public forums where listeners could call in an express their views over critical issues of the day. There was mostly only nice, safe music or informational programming. The Fairness Doctrine stifled free speech and open debate, the exact opposite of what the FCC originally intended.

Since the repeal of the doctrine, talk radio has exploded. There are AM, FM and satellite stations dedicated to this forum where anyone can call in and get involved in the debate by expressing their views. Now we see the calls for the re-enactment of a doctrine that has no merit in today’s market, actually suppresses the type of behavior it was supposed to protect and would be used to censor an entire market segment for political convenience.  However, we already have seen the signs that it will not stop there. These people have even begun talk to take this style of totalitarian control to the internet, thereby forcing blogs and editorial sites to provide opposing views and enacting government control upon more free speech. I find it odd how they do not assail unabashedly biased networks like MSNBC or CNN, whose hosts claim messianic man-crushes on political candidates and call a sitting President a terrorist and killer while lying through their teeth about the issues, but they attack only those mediums which oppose their political ideologies and challenge their will.

Only a totalitarian government fear the voices of its own people. Only these governments endeavor to suppress and control them.

Welcome to the USSA.

We all woke this morning to a far different presidential campaign than we did just a day before. Last night at the Republican National Convention we were treated to the speeches of Mike Huckabee and a powerful representation by Rudi Giuliani, but it paled in comparison to the main show.

I am not often very impressed with politicians. Speeches are written by others and can be delivered with effect by a skilled orator, so they are not the final measurement that a candidate should be judged by. However, there are those that can take such a speech and craft it into a masterpiece that reaches out and connects with their audience in such a way to spurn a true emotional connection. We have seen this ability in the messianic visage of the Democrat’s presidential candidate. Even when the speech lacks a single substantive message, Barack Obama has the ability to spin the words into a moving oratory. He has now met his match in Sarah Palin.

With much anticipation and great expectations, Sarah Palin took the stage. She started simply by accepting the nomination and singing the praises of John McCain. Next she introduced her family and gave a little insight into the challenges that they have faced. She promised those families who had loved ones with disabilities that they would find an advocate in the White House in her. She then showed her love for and pride in her husband and thanked her parents for their role in making her who she is.

Then the gloves came off. She injected plenty of charisma and humor into the speech, but struck solid, stinging blows to the opposing ticket. The crowd erupted when she mentioned being a hockey mom. At the end of the applause, she commented. “You know what the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is? Lipstick.” The women in the place went nuts with the comment. She went on to describe her career as a small town mayor, playing up the importance of small town America and the quality of her people.

Next came the first strike: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.” Ouch. The follow up? “I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.” The crowd went nuts with that last statement, standing to their feet and cheering her on as she continued, “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

After the convention settled down a bit she took aim at the media, “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

“But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she defiantly stated, to thunderous applause and cheers.

Next she moved on to talk about eliminating wasteful spending and using the veto power to protect the American people by eliminating pork barrel projects. She highlighted how she had done away with executive extravagances in Alaska that she felt the people should not have to pay for. “That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.”

Moving on to energy, she highlighted the need for independence from foreign sources and gave pointed examples of why. She commented that while drilling will not solve all our problems it is no excuse for doing nothing. Then came the section that most liberal commentators in the media must have missed. All last night, continuing into today, many in the media have claimed that Palin’s speech held no substance and did not address any issues on job creation or energy at all. To that I offer, in her own words, “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.”

“We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Shifting back to the attack on Obama, like a prize fighter, she hit again and again in quick succession:

“We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.”

She followed with sharp contrasts between McCain and Obama, “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. “

“And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”
Finally, she took one more parting shot at the Democrat establishment and it was dead on accurate: “Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.”

“He said, quote, ‘I can’t stand John McCain.’ Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve
chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can’t stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. “

She ended her speech by highlighting his journey from a 6 x 4 POW cell in Hanio to the presidency and calling on a story told by a fellow POW demonstrating McCain’s courage and dedication. While the crowd were cheering Tom Moe, McCain’s fellow POW, she gracefully blew the man a kiss from the podium proving herself to be a true class act.

If this woman played professional baseball, the commission would be investigating her today for steroid use, as she stepped up to the plate, her first time out, took a hard pitch and nailed a homerun clearly out of the park. Not just out of the park, but cleanly and clearly from Alaska straight to Washington, D.C.

I am tremendously impressed with this woman. She showed class, fearlessness, determination and confidence. She possessed charm and humor. She even seemed to have a defiance about her without approaching arrogance. This is the future of our movement, our party and our nation.

Not to mention, that for a 44 year old mother of five and soon to be grandmother, the woman is smokin’ hot.

I had the distinct pleasure of watching the Dallas Cowboys trounce the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday Night Football this evening. However, I was seriously annoyed throughout the broadcast as I was bombarded by hypocrisy and general environmental bullshit.

NBC has launched a new environmental initiative called Green is Universal. While I strongly support the ideas of recycling and conservation, these were not the points that NBC chose to promote. What set me off on a bad note was the hypocritical approach the network took with this broadcast. At the beginning of the game, just before we went live, the NBC studio hosts informed us that to kick off the Green is Universal drive, they would broadcast this game without the studio lights on. Huh? Next thing you know, the commentators are sitting there in the dark with the overhead illumination turned off. Wow guys, that is impressive. Let me see if I get this straight.

You are going to show how important this Green initiative is by turning off one or two sets of lights in while broadcasting a brightly lit football game that tens of thousands of people drove or flew to see, where massive amounts of energy are consumed at the stadium by fans, teams and networks. You are going to transmit this game via satellite and terrestrial broadcast station using millions of watts of power to people watching it on millions of high definition sets in full surround sound. These people, whether in the stands or at home, will be grilling or cooking, consuming a multitude of consumer goods and expelling vast amounts of carbon-dioxide and more than likely methane into the atmosphere at accelerated rates due to the excitement and screaming of the fans. And you jackasses are going to turn off one set of lights for symbolism as if that makes any difference what so ever? What the frak?

UPDATE: 10/05/07 Thanks to Jonatha over at Crush Liberalism for posting this link he found on Hot Air. It includes a wonderful YouTube video that allows you to see the hypocrisy first hand. This segment also covers someting I missed in my post last night about how NBC has sent its talking heads to all ends of the earth to broadcast from remote locations and discuss global warming. This cost how much fuel and energy to accomplish? Matt Lauer also comments that NBC will be interviewing the best minds in the field on climate change, such as Al Gore. You know, Al Gore, the one that invented the internet, threw a tantrum when he lost the election and basically globe trots in his private jet touting his fabricated expertise in this area while boasting one of the larges ‘carbon footprints’ out there. This asshat is telling you to conserve, while he sits in his 28 room mansion and uses more energy in a single month that you could in a whole year. Nice.

NOTE: In this video you can clearly see all the advertisments for sponsors still brightly lit around the studio.

Now let’s move on to the commercials. Were they of good ways to recycle your consumer goods? Nope. Where they commercials for companies offering tank-less water heaters or affordable solar products to integrate into your home? Nope. Were they of multiple unproven and potentially environmentally destructive alternative vehicles? You betcha! Commercial after commercial promoted hybrid vehicles which have been shown to cause massive amounts of environmental damage during their manufacturing.

We also saw some wonderful cars featuring Ethanol, one of the most inefficient fuel alternatives we have experimented with. They failed to mention that the production of Ethanol consumes more energy that the Ethanol can return and that mixing it into existing fuel sources lowers the average miles per gallon of most vehicles by 15-20%.

Next up was the hydrogen fuel cell cars, a wonderful innovation and an extremely attractive option if only hydrogen occurred naturally on this planet. Since it does not, the production of hydrogen as fuel requires the use of more energy by a long shot than the hydrogen is able to produce in return. While the fuel itself is clean burning, it is usually extracted from hydrocarbons, a nasty process itself, or from water, a process that consumes MASSIVE amounts of energy.

Let us not forget the electric cars. As one woman said on a commercial, “I want a car that I can plug in.” Really? And power with what? Not only are electric vehicles currently some of the MOST environmentally damaging to produce due to the exotic materials required to make them light and efficient and the MASSIVE amount of pollution created in the manufacturing of the batteries they use, but they have to get that energy from somewhere. Currently most electrical power in this nation is still provided by burning fossil fuels. Since we have not been allowed to construct a nuclear power plant in almost 40 years, we are still burning coal and oil to produce most of the power we consume.

About the only alternative energy vehicles that make sense, are viable options and do not cause additional environmental damage during their production are the bio-diesels. Since these run mostly on chemicals that would otherwise be disposed of in probably not the most environmentally friendly ways and can be converted to from a standard diesel engine with little or no effort, these show some promise. Guess what though… They were barely mentioned.

All the focus was on the most inefficient and environmentally destructive of the options that are out there: hybrid, electric and hydrogen.

I think environmental consciousness is a perfectly noble goal. After all I work for an environmental laboratory and we are constantly looking for ways to assist our consumers in meeting and exceeding environmental regulation meant to conserve and protect our planet. I do however think it paramount that some responsibility is taken in delivering this message. Why not focus on the things that actually can help improve our situation?

It is fine to suggest that we conserve water by taking shorter showers and watering at proper times. Let’s teach people how to recycle and encourage communities to make it easier and affordable to do so. Show people that by switching to fluorescent lighting they can reduce energy consumption and save money as well (my entire home runs on these). Educate people on the benefits of carpooling and proper maintenance of your vehicles including tune-ups, filters, clean injectors and proper tire pressue.

Please, do not fill our heads full of this pseudo-scientific bullshit about how hybrid cars are the answer or how hydrogen fuel cells will save the planet. We are fifty years away from using hydrogen as an affordable efficient fuel source at least, barring some miraculous technological breakthrough. Do not sit there broadcasting a sporting event that consumed hundreds of times more energy than my family will in an entire year and pretend you are making things better by shutting down the stage lighting. Jesus Christ, are there really people out there dumb enough to fall for parlor trick crap like that?

Well, I guess you cannot expect much from a network that allows Keith Olberman to choose the worst person in the NFL each week, or in anything for that matter.

A cool wind began blowing in North Texas late Monday afternoon. The first cold front of the season finally arrived to slightly lower temperature of the ninety-three degree autumn evening. What else it was harkening to lay a few hours ahead during the first appearance of the Dallas Cowboys on Monday Night Football this season.

A game that will be remembered for good or bad began with a scoreless Buffalo drive ending in an exceptionally placed punt. The Dallas Cowboys took the field at their own 2 yard line. Three plays later, Tony Romo looked for Jason Witten crossing the middle of the field. What he found instead was Bills safety George Wilson who intercepted Romo’s first pass of the game for a 25 yard run into the end zone. Shaking of the bad pass, Tony Romo walked himself to the sideline still smiling as ever before.

After the kick-off, the Cowboy returned to the field determined to avenge the easy seven that Buffalo had put on the board. As if the film had been rewound, three plays later finds Romo looking for Witten to cross into the middle of the field. This time #82 is there, but just one step behind the crossing route of Bills linebacker Angelo Crowell who snagged the ball on the Dallas 49 and returned it back 5 yards.

The second quarter finally brought about retribution for the two interceptions as Romo hit Witten on a 22 yard pass 4 yards deep in the end zone. The Cowboys appeared to have shown up to play some football.

One the next series, Buffalo chewed up eight minutes on the clock only to come away with a field goal and leaving Dallas with the opportunity to go into the half with a lead. Fate would not have it this way though as Romo’s first pass of the series was batted into the air by Chris Kelsay, who subsequently was able to catch the ball in for another Bufallo touchdown. This was the first time in the year that I have watched Tony Romo play for Dallas that he displayed his desperation by the use of foul language on the field. The single syllable word usually referred to by the letter with which it begins, was unmistakable when he shouted it after the play. A few minutes later, the camera cut to an image of the exasperated Romo sitting solemnly by himself on the sidelines. The look of despair was as unmistakable as the colorful language a moment before.

After an unsuccessful Buffalo drive, Dallas once again takes the field only to leave it shortly after Romo throws his fourth interception to Bills cornerback Jabari Greer. This set Buffalo up for a field goal just before the half that Dallas was able to answer with one of their own to close the first half.

A refreshed and rejuvenated Cowboys offense started the second half with a scoring drive closing the Buffalo lead to within four. Seconds later that lead evaporated as Rian Lindell returned Nick Folk’s kick off for 103 yards once again extending the Bills lead over the Cowboys.

With life still left in the Cowboys, the teams traded field position over the next few series with Dallas finally getting close enough to allow Folk to drive home one more field goal in the first few seconds of the fourth period.

Looking more composed, the Dallas defense held the Bills fast and forced a punt on the next series to bring the bettered Tony Romo back to the field. After two successful passes the offensive protection broke down on a shotgun play that left Romo scrambling for what yardage he could get. Closing on the first down marker, he was pulled down from behind when Aaron Schobel, a defensive end for the Bills, punched the football free from Romo’s grasp allowing Kyle Williams to recover for Buffalo.

All seemed lost at this point for Dallas but fate has a sense of humor of its own. On what appeared to be a scoring drive for Buffalo, the almost flawless performance of Trent Edwards was pierced by Terrance Newman as he intercepted a pass on the Dallas 5 yard line. A 70 yard return, ending in a gut wrenching fumble that Dallas was able to recover, put Dallas within striking distance on the Buffalo 17.

Once again, and for the fifth time that evening, hopes where shattered when the defense got the best of Tony Romo. The intended pass to Jason Witten was snagged out of the air by Bills linebacker John Digiorgio. The stunned Romo slowly exited the field while being consoled by Terrell Owens who had dropped enough passes during the game to feel Romo’s pain and earn the moniker ‘Frying Pan Hands’ on the next morning’s talk shows.

In a last valiant last ditch effort, the Dallas defense holds the Bills to a three and out performance on the next drive. With 3:45 still on the clock, the deflated, but not yet defeated, Tony Romo lead his offense back on to the field. Despite the obvious attempts by the officiating crew to ensure that the game was ended, the Cowboy offense fought back. Call after call went against Dallas. Romo hit Witten, Barber, Crayton and Owens to drive the ball steadily down the field. Owens could not win for loosing during the drive. During one catch at the Buffalo 30 yard line, Owens leapt into the air for a great pick, came straight down on his right foot and then was nailed by the Bills safety knocking him out of bounds. The pass was ruled incomplete despite complete control of the ball and Owens having been forced out of bounds during the catch. Finally, with 24 seconds left in the game, Romo threw a frozen rope to Patrick Crayton in the endzone, bringing Dallas to within two. Romo hit Owens in the back left corner of the end zone for the two point conversion, but Jabari Greer got his hands inside Owen’s arms and broke his grip in the ball. Even though Greer never looked back at the pass and was entangled with Owens before the ball arrived, no pass interference was called.

Only 20 seconds remained in the two point game when Folk kicked a beautiful on-side kick that was recovered by Tony Curtis, setting up one more chance for Dallas to come back. With 18 second remaining, Romo hit Owens at the Buffalo 25 yard line. Having no time outs, the Cowboys immediately go to the line and spike the ball with a mere second remaining in play. Even though another play had already occurred, the booth challenged the Owens catch and overturned the ruling on the field setting Dallas back at the Buffalo 47 with a mere 13 seconds left. Two short passes to the flats later, one to Barber and another to Crayton both who were able to get out of bounds, and a spike by Romo put Dallas on the Bufallo 35 yard line with 2 seconds remaining in play.

Could they actually pull this off? The second Nick Folk’s foot made contact with the football, we were on our feet. With the precision of a sniper, Folk split the uprights from 53 yards out, but wait… Something was wrong. The referees were not raising their arms even though the kick had clearly sailed dead through the center. To everyone’s surprise, especially that of Folk, a timeout had been called a fraction of a second before the snap had been made. In and egregiously petty, but perfectly legal attempt to ice the kicker, Bills’ head coach Dick Jauron had waited until precisely before the snap to call the timeout. It was a big gamble that mattered not, had Folk missed the first attempt, Jauron would have given him a free pass at a second try. However, he did not miss the first attempt, nor did he miss the second. The cool and collected Folk once again drove home the 53 yard field goal and this time he made the Bills like it.

In an embarrassing display of how not to win a football game, the Cowboys managed to rally at the last minute and do just that. I was particularly impressed with the parting comments of Tony Romo. Everything was about his team and how they had saved him from the doghouse and the worst he had ever played by never giving up and showing the true resilience that the Cowboys possess.

The Cowboys are now the NFC leaders and remain undefeated at 5-0-0. They face the ACF
leading New England Patriots next week who are also 5-0-0. I will say this. I hope last night was a wake up call for the ‘Boys. I can guarantee one thing; if you allow six turnovers against the Patriots, you will not be kicking a field goal to win the game. They will eat your lunch. Next Sunday night should be an impressive display from the currently two best teams in the NFL. Even if it means I have to sit through more drivel from Keith Olbermann. My Cowboys are worth it.

It has become more and more obvious over the past few months that NBC has abandoned its journalistic objectivity, if it ever possessed such a quality, and has become a lap dog of the far left. If it was not for a few compelling prime time shows and the prestigious position of presenting some of the more potentially interesting games this football season with their Sunday Night Football, then tuning to any NBC affiliate would be a colossal waste of time.

However, NBC has even managed to diminish the honor of broadcasting some of the NFL’s better showdowns this year accompanied by the commentary of Al Michaels and John Madden. I could over look them opening with the pompous country star Faith Hill, whom has lost all semblance of class and poise after multiple displays of arrogance, petty jealously and envy. This would be unfortunate, but not intolerable, even though there are multiple superior choices in the Country and Western industry than the spoiled brat that opens the broadcasts. What turns my stomach happens during the half-time intermission.

I appreciate the commentary of Jarome Bettis, Chris Collinsworth and Bob Costas. The last two have been staples of the NFL almost as long as the Madden/Michaels team has. Jarome Bettis brings a fresh and sometimes insightful look to the half-time report from the perspective of a player just out of the active rosters in the league. However, the shame comes from a segment called “The Worst Person in the NFL” which NBC has ironically chosen “The Worst Person in the MSM” to host, Keith Olbermann.

If this man was not already the joke of the mainstream media from hosting his own show who’s ratings are the lowest in that times slot, he would quickly become one after his appearances on the Sunday Night Football half-time report. His style of missing the point, spewing false hoods and half truths and plainly ignoring the facts has earned his MS-NBC show, Countdown, multiple levels of scorn and ridicule. On the show’s website you will fin a list of “The Worst People in the World” which contains Olbermann’s perverted view on the most horrible people the world has to offer. What names populate this list? Has it been Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Has it contained those in charge of the violence and death in Dafur or Burhma? No, typically it contains conservative politicians, rival news personalities or that evil Republican National Convention. Who is on this week’s list? Let’s see…

Oct. 5:        Glenn Beck
Oct. 4:        Republican National Committee
Oct. 3:        Jonah Goldberg
Oct. 2:        Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition
Oct. 1:        Michael Medved
Sept. 28:    David Horowitz
Sept. 27:    Dana Perino

That’s right ladies and gentlemen, this man is a psychopathic, left-wing hack. Just look at the names on that list whom he considers to be the worst that humanity has to offer. Nice. I bet bin Laden and Ahmadinejad mad his Christmas list, though.

Last night Olbermann picked the Houston Texans’ Defensive Tackle, Travis Johnson, for the worst player of the week after he went off on an unconscious Trent Green after a Texan’s fumble recover earlier in the day. While I agree that Johnson’s activity both on an off the field was extremely unprofessional and uncalled for, he had ample reason to be miffed. During a defensive fumble recovery where someone is running the ball back against the offense, quarterbacks find themselves in an unusual position. Typically, quarterbacks are taught to protect themselves by sliding and covering themselves up when they are about to be hit. What they are not taught how to do is block a three hundred pound or more lineman. Trent Green made a serious mistake when he went to block Travis Johnson. Green went to a knee before the block and lowered his head and shoulders into the path of Johnson. Now, whether this was done as an intentional cut block to the knees or was the result of a quarterback’s inexperience at blocking in general is really academic. The block was illegal and very dangerous to both players involved. The block caused Johnson to summersault into the air flying him over Green and landing him on his head. His knee caught Trent Green squarely in the helmet, twisting his neck sideways and knocking him unconscious. Johnson was pissed, and rightly so. After the play was over, Johnson immediately turned on Green and yelled at him for the block, probably not realizing that even if the lights were still on, there was nobody home. He apparently went to far because the referee threw a flag and nailed him for a fifteen yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The block that Green threw was very dangerous to both players and could have easily ended the career or even the life of both players. Greens punishment for his actions was getting knocked unconscious and carried off the field. Johnson’s punishment for his mouth was a fifteen yard penalty that resulted in a Miami scoring drive which threatened the Texans’ eventual 22-19 win. Neither player was right, but I do not see how you could call Johnson “The Worst Person in the NFL.” He was pissed bout someone chop blocking him in the knees which had the potential to end his career in that one single block. He overreacted, yelled at an unconscious quarterback and continued to run his mouth off the field, but when you look at the examples of horrible people in the NFL, Johnson does not top the list.

Why not pick the most dishonest, untrustworthy and worthless person associated with the NFL as the worst. The answer to that is simple. It would be boring to hear Keith Olbermann show up during the half-time report every Sunday and simply say, “Uh, once again, The Worst Person in the NFL is… Me, Keith Olbermann. I suck and am an irresponsible hack. Night folks.”

Attention NBC, get this jack ass off of what would be a decent challenge to ESPN’s Monday Night Football event. Reach deep down inside what remains of the soul of a once great broadcasting company and grab that tiny sliver of journalistic integrity that must still be there and get rid of this waste of air that is Keith Olbermann. Oh, and find a better opening act while you are at it.

Finally. Football season has finally arrived and what a way to start the new season.

The season for the Dallas Cowboys ended last year with the final image of the despondent Tony Romo sitting on the field clutching his facemask with both hands after the botched field goal attempt that signaled the end of his baptism by fire. How quickly everyone forgot the stellar performances Romo had managed during his first few games as a Dallas Quarterback. They seemed to ignore the fact that he had won better than half of the games he had started in last year. Forgotten were the stellar yardages, the scrambles out of the pocket, the narrowly evaded sacks. No, all that was remembered was the run to the end zone and that fated hit that stopped him inches short in the last few seconds of the Cowboys season. All that was remembered was a young quarterback, who had started the season as a reserve for the seasoned veteran, sitting on the field hand gripping his helmet in disbelief and disappointment.

Take two, and welcome to the NFL Tony Romo, we’re glad to have you. As the Giants returned to Texas Stadium for the Cowboys’ season opener, we were forced to endure commentators running that last second play over and over again and giving their opinion of the young quarterback who cost Dallas a playoff run last year. We were forced to see the above image over and over again. Then we were treated to the new Tony Romo. While the Giants leapt out ahead with a quick first possession score with a botched extra point attempt, Dallas kept a steady pace and continued to put points on the board. After holding New York to a field goal, the Cowboys would answer with a touchdown drive and by half-time had spread the lead to sixteen points. Even without one of Dallas’ serious offensive weapons, Terry Glenn, Number Nine found himself no shortage of targets. He hit Witten over the center multiple times and picked Owens and Crayton up down the sides. Owens managed to drop into the blue stripe for two touchdowns and Hurd snagged a 51-yard touchdown himself. Romo only connected fifteen of his twenty-four attempts, but what connections they were, massing up 345 yards, three touchdown passes and one rushing touchdown to clearly vindicate himself against the Giants. There was a look of confidence on the young quarterback’s face, even after throwing his first interception of the season that lead to a Giant’s touchdown and helped to dwindle the Cowboys lead to only three points in the fourth quarter. After the Giant’s scoring drive, Romo returned to the field to find Sam Hurd open for his only reception of the game. The 51-yard touchdown pass sealed the game for the Cowboys and helped to silence the skeptics.

In the final analysis, it seems that Dallas may have found the energy they have been longing for since the young days of Troy Aikmen. Romo seemed aware, capable, confident and energized. Now if he can keep this up he may be able to lead the Cowboys back to the ring. We shall see.

On a side note, during one of the after play reviews where Eli Manning had once again found Plexico Burress in the Dallas end zone, John Madden was attempting to explain the play and use the ever famous Telestrator to do so. As we watched, we began to get concerned with what Madden was actually drawing… Here are the images:

This first one was disturbing enough, but when he completed his analysis of the play we were wondering exactly where his mind was.:

I will allow you to ‘draw’ your own conclusions, but we thought Madden’s illustrations summed up our feelings about the Giant’s scoring play very nicely.

(Images courtesty of NBC and MSNBC.)

Let me just preface this article by saying that after reading this you will understand how much of a geek I truly am. Most of you already know that I am an IT Director, avid gamer and technology buff, so this disclosure should not surprise many of you.

This past weekend I watched most of the second season of the SciFi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica on DVD. As I was watching I noticed a few of the episodes shadowed current events in the real world and one in particular struck me as hitting close to the mark on the war on terror as I have seen. I have before examined aspects of another SciFi favorite of mine that tends to draw from real world events some of its episodic content. In both Battlestar Galactica and Stargate series, both SG-1 and Atlantis, we are faced with unimaginable enemies and placed in a war that is a desperate struggle for our very survival against insurmountable odds and an enemy who seems to be unstoppable. This harkens back to the images of the Rebellion struggling against the evil Galactic Empire in the epic tale George Lucas spun for us those many years ago. In all of these conflicts, one thing is constant. There is an unyielding evil that must be defeated at all cost and which the prospect of negotiation and peaceful coexistence with is nonexistent.

Whether it is the last remaining Colonial Fleet fleeing the relentless pursuit of the Cylons, or SG-1 fighting the brutal oppression and enslavement by the Goa’uld or the Ori, this theme of an ultimate enemy resounds throughout most of the series. In Atlantis we find new enemies whose sinister goals include the harvesting of humans as a food source and in Star Wars we saw a racist, intolerant Empire willing to destroy entire planets to force the subjugation of the galaxy. All of these conflicts have a commonality among them. These evils that are fought against are so corrupt and vile that even the thought of negotiation, surrender or capitulation to them is abhorred.

The episode of Galactica that triggered this line of thought, dealt with a so called peace movement within the fleet demanding that the military begin negotiations with the Cylons for peaceful relationships. They claimed that it was humanity’s fault for the holocaust delivered upon the Colonies at the hands of the Cylons for the way we had treated them in the past. These Cylon sympathizers sabotaged weapons and detonated explosive charges to deliver their messages of ‘peace’, all the while ignoring the fact that Cylons were the aggressors and the humans were only trying to escape their utter annihilation. These delusional misfits way of excusing the genocidal evil and blaming the lawful government and the military for their hardships, rang true to a lot of what we see today.

Throughout all of these struggles, there remains one constant. The evil that is faced cannot be tolerated, negotiated with, understood or reasoned with. It must be destroyed. This also parallels in many ways the current conflict that we face. The enemies aligned against us today do not wish to talk about the situation. The do not wish to peacefully coexists with us. They cannot be ignored, for we have paid dearly the price for doing so already. There is no negotiation or trust possible. Their stated goals are similar to what we see in many of the great evils I have mentioned above. They intend to dominate this world with their beliefs, subjugating or destroying any who stand in their way.

So why, other than because it is fantasy, can we cheer when the Death Stars are destroyed killing tens of thousands of Imperial soldiers, but wring our hands when a mosque is bombed to take out a terrorist staging area? Why can we so easily hate the Gou’uld and the Wraith for preying on and enslaving the innocent, yet claim that there is some form of justification in the murderous acts of a suicide bomber? Why is it that we can recognize true evil and swear it must be stopped when presented to us in a hour long time slot during prime time, but fail to recognize it when we see the dead bodies of car bomb?

We have lost our way in this nation, so much that the we can more easily identify our enemy in fantasy over the ones in real life. All the calls for peace and demands to surrender would have made for a poor show with no depth. In the real world that sort of thinking would lead to the loss of countless lives and liberties.

Time to take some pages from the SciFi Channel on how to deal with the ultimate evils.

Oh how sweet the news today. ABC has confirmed that Rosie O’Donnell has been dismissed from ‘The View’ three weeks earlier than her much anticipated departure. This event was undoubtedly spurned by the verbal conflict that she engaged in with Elizabeth Hasselbeck a few days ago.

This is the end of an embarrassing grab for ratings from Disney/ABC. The last year on ‘The View’ has marked some of the highest ratings for the daytime show, but these came at a sever price. By allow the insane ramblings of the far left anti-American, conspiracy theorist to remain on the program, ABC ensured the show would remain high in the charts. However, to achieve this they allowed a bigoted, hateful personality to espouse her inflammatory personal opinions without consequence even when they turned to indicting our leaders as terrorist, promoting wild unfounded theories that our government brought down the World Trade Centers and attacking entire religions because of her personal beliefs. O’Donnell has personally attacked our leaders, her co-hosts and others without ever being called to account or forced to back up her outlandish claims. One of them finally had enough.

After O’Donnell made the statement that falsely claiming that our troops were responsible for the death of 650,000 Iraqi citizens and asking who the real terrorist were, she was accused by many of calling our troops terrorists. Even though such an unfounded statement alluding to our troops being responsible for the death of so many is irresponsible and dishonest and clearly shows her opinion of our military, she attempted to defend her statement by asking co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck to defend here. O’Donnell asked is Hasselbeck thought she really believed that our troops were terrorist, Hasselbeck refused to defend O’Donnell’s position. This led to a verbal confrontation with the between the radical liberal and the Christian conservative in which O’Donnell called Hasselbeck a coward for not defending her. Hasselbeck fought back like a caged animal, which is what she should have been doing over the last year. I guess after a year of being beaten down time and time again by the absolutely intolerant liberal co-host, Hasselbeck had finally had enough.

Being completely out of the loop in the duel, both of the other host of ‘The View’ tried to have the producers cut to commercial and stifle the situation. O’Donnell and Hasselbeck simply ignored the protest and continued the verbal boxing match without pause.

After the show ended, the controversy did not. In an announcement today, ABC confirmed that it has escorted Rosie’s personal writer, Janette Barber, out of the facilities for defacing photographs of Elizabeth Hasselbeck by drawing mustaches on them. ABC would only comment further by saying, “Photographs at The View’s offices were defaced today. Rosie O’Donnell was not in the building. ABC Legal and Human Resources are investigating the matter.” How adult and responsible of her. Once again you see what typical liberal behavior is like, not tolerant or understanding, but hateful and vengeful.

This week has been a bad for liberals all around. We have seen the truth about many of them. ABC has seen the light and decided to fire the blabbering behemoth. The Democrats have caved on the issue of funding our troops and have been forced to give them the money they need to survived and fight. We have also see the true stripes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by their vote against the troop funding bill. That is right. After promising that no matter what, they would support their troops, we see once again that they flat out lied. They did not support our troops the voted against funding them. Are these the hypocritical, spineless traitors we want running our country? I think not.

There apparently is some minor degree of journalistic integrity left at ABC. This morning broke the news that Rosie O’Donnell will be leaving “The View” in June due to failed contract negotiations.

Rosie is claiming that ABC wanted her for three years but she was only willing to sign for one. Ahem. Riiiiight! I think it more likely that her insane leftwing agenda, intolerant attitude towards any opposing opinions and the mistreatment of guest and co-host alike, finally made her position on the show untenable. After all, most people can only stomach so much fiction. The conspiracies about 9/11, the accusing our President of being a terrorist and a murderer, the defending of our mortal enemies and the latest cry that the fact that five of the current Supreme Court Justices are Catholic somehow mysteriously violates “Separation of Church and State,” finally made ABC realize that this woman was nuts.

Oh, well. Maybe Cindy Sheehan is available for the show. After all, her fifteen minutes of fame have about dwindled anyway.