Robert Novak and his ailment... or how much the farthest left thinking people will go.

While I am not a huge fan of Mr. Novak, it hurts to know when anyone gets cancer. It's worse when the cancer is in an area as major as the brain, as it is in Robert Novak. Some people know him as one of the bigger voices for the conservatives on Fox News.
The worst part of this is how the far left has reacted. I can't think of the words to describe how they have... well... behaved? Reported? Objectively reviewed the facts? None of those are right. You'll see.

1. The Washington Post - They use the opportunity to use more than half of the article on Mr. Novak's announcement of a tumor to retell every "bad" event that has occured in his long standing occupation as a reporter/commentator.
*Lowest of lows - "He left the network three years ago after uttering a curse word and walking off the set. He is now an analyst for Fox News."
I like how they tie him to Fox after mentioning the outburst (which was justified). Really classy news coverage. Not biased at all.

2. New York Times - I will give them credit. They only used 2 or three paragraphs to recount possible bad things Novak has done. A decent report. Not explosive off the computer screen. Considering how much trouble he has given to liberals, I would guess the actual paper article will be run way to the rear of the front page. Much like hero stories from the Iraq War.
*Lowest of lows - The Times still managed (as the Post) to fit in Novak's liberal moniker as the, "Prince of Darkness".
Not unclassy, but still. How many times did the Times mention Senator Kennedy's problems (when he was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor)...? Maybe, how he drove a car off one certain bridge? Maybe mention said car had a woman he probably impregnated inside, and Ted didn't report the crash until much later? Not ever, as a whole story, I would guess.

3.The LA Times - Possibly the most biased reporting on the planet beyond Jihad Daily and the Beijing Tribune. They reported a total 8 lines on the actual reported cancer and spent another 28 lines on the entire Valerie Plame scandal. For those who might have forgotten, this was when Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA operative, and several of the White House staff sacrificed themselves to the media to prevent a fire storm. Basically it was a minor story blown out of proportion, and some people are still trying to live off of it.
*Lowest of lows - "Novak is perhaps best-known for exposing Valerie Plame, whose position as a CIA operative was leaked to several reporters by Bush administration officials seeking to discredit her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador and a vocal critic of the Iraq war."
Hmmmm.... I sense some resentment and anger in this comment. Perhaps, this newspaper needs a company-wide (notice the useless dashed word) anger management class. It seems to me the war in Iraq is going well. Beyond the more than a dozen guys I know who served (several terms) in Iraq who said they felt it was worth while, I don't see much to report. Maybe, all nay sayers were fools? Perchance, the LA Times, who was one of the first to leak the "leak", has had a hard time? Go back to reporting gang arrests and celeb scandals, LA Times. Your objective view is clearly bent.

4. Random blogs - These are where the total nut jobs live. Yes I know. This is a blog. However, my message is of truth. I don't print opinion or unproven fact... at least not of my own in the case of opinion. I only want to show how the world actually is. Therefore I will post my top five comments. These are comments placed on actual blogs throughout the internet. Maybe people will see how stupid they can sound when they don't have to face public humiliation. That's all blogs are by the way.
Lowercase 1.
"I'm so sick Of how people demonize and hate others until they get a brain tumor or something, and then all of a sudden we’re supposed to come together in the spirit of humanity and all that bullshit.
I, for one, stand by my many utterances that I hope this man gets cancer and dies. Why shouldn’t we? Just because he’s facing his own morality we’re supposed to have compassion for him?
Nuts to that, I hope he lingers and goes slow and hard."
- FreeCrime on the blog View From the Ridge

* This nutjob is a regular blogger on Daily Kos.
*Here's a great quote from this toolbag. "Unlike many Americans, I vote in my own self-interest. At 24, though, I am less concerned with my economic well-being than with my level of sexual satisfaction. And to this I vote accordingly."

Lowercase 2.
The guy on Rumor Mill News Reading Room who goes by the name of Rayelan. What a psycho. He uses the Novak cancer story to rant into how former President Bush plotted to kill President Regan. The line isn't really clear, and this guy makes no sense so I won't even give him the dignity of a quote. Okay... maybe just one... just to show how insane this guy is (and who buys into liberal conspiracy theories... cough cough... Oliver Stone).
"Wikipedia has a partial list of people... Some I feel could have been assassinated using cancer.
Eva Peron was one of the first that I know of to be assassinated using cancer. Robin Bush, sister of G.W. Bush, was another early one. Why kill a child? To let the child's father know how powerful you really are!! (GHWB begged for Robin's life every day she lived. GHWB was told that this was a lesson to him and if he ever tried to leave the club again, all his family would be killed.)"

Uhhh... okay. Planet Earth calling crazy LSD overdosed dirty hippie. Even the most drugged out celebrity wouldn't buy this crap (cough cough... Sean Penn). Please, someone assassinate this fruitcake with one of those ice bullets they used to kill JFK. That or the same UFO that took Elvis and Jim Morrison needs to go ahead and beam this guy up.

Lowercase 3.

Here's one from prodigalsonnybono on Nuclear Rays From My Halogen Haze (cearly, by the title of the blog you can prepare for the worse).
"But no one can say Novak is a classy guy. He’s shameless and he’s murderous, or at least manslaughter-ous. He put a CIA operative’s life in danger and committed treason by outing Valerie Plame in his column. And just last week, he hit a homeless man with his Corvette and kept on driving! This diagnosis of cancer almost makes me believe in karma."

Whew. Now there's some classy down to earth writing. "I'll use semi-big words and say things derogatory towards someone who is afflicted with a bad disease. Then I'll follow Sharon Stone, since it worked so well for her, and invoke karma." What a loser.

My conclusion is this. News sources and bloggers are never objective. There's always a motive. The worst are bloggers... me included. Bloggers don't have to worry about our names getting out, having to face the people we talk about, or just living in the real world (especially if your blog name is Rayelan). By the way, Ray. Remember to check your lights for government bugs and don't forget to put on your aluminum hat before going to bed.

PS My name is Dan Ballenger and I live in Raleigh NC. See? I'm willing to face up to my comments.

Getting to finally see a legend of rock... or "Owwwwww! My freakin ears!"

I finally was able to see one of the definative "rock gods" of my generation last night. This was Chris Cornell. The abilities, by means of voice alone, are amazing. As i live in Raleigh, I have never had the oportunity to see this founder of modern "alternative" rock. Temple of the Dog was too underground to showup here, Soundgarden was broken up before they could come, and Audioslave never came anywhere near here (mainly because the Rage members hate this area... don't ask why). Still, I have seen Jane's Addiction, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Weezer, U2, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, and Candle Box. None of them have been able to keep their sound the way Chris has. He's 10 years older than me and can hit all the right tones for a concert. I hope he shows up a million times more to Raleigh.
The other band appearing was Linkin Park. All I can say is "Dear Lord!" They put on the best most spectacular show I have ever seen. They were definitely upstaged by they near perfectness of Cornell, but their show was just a spectacle. The concert could be best described as a UFO landing in the middle of the stage and a band performing along with the light show. It has to be experienced. There were few, if any, areas of the stage that were not utilized.
Overall, the part of Projekt Revolution I was present for was as close to a perfect show as I'll probably get. I am not one who goes to a lot of shows. I like the up close shows of the Avett Brothers and such. However, I absolutely love a concert that is just a hard rocking spectacle. That is what I received at this concert. The only thing I could have wanted more is to have pit and back stage passes. I love rock and the excentric stuff it includes. What else needs to be said?

Yes I'm a comic book nerd... or the best movie ever.

Yeah, I'm a comic book nerd. I grew up on them. Any guy who says they didn't is either a liar or a moron. For little boys, comic books are something that gives them an escape. Only dirty hippie mothers made their kids read "real books" all the time.

As a result of comic book reading I discovered a few things. One was that comic book women are fake. The second was that DC and Marvel were two different things. It's not just a comic when speaking of DC vs. Marvel. We're talking "human vs. hero". I love both styles, but the recent movie benge has turned me off. The recent explosion of Marvel movies is drenched in the smell of money. I think the DC characters make a much better movie.

Marvel made it's name in making characters human. They faced all the problems life could hand them. Spiderman = A nerd who becomes a loser hero. Iron Man = Alcoholic who becomes a loser hero. However, DC characters entered the fantastic. Superman = Man from another world fights intergalactic foes. Batman = Rich boy who learned Kung Fu and beats up insane villans. Eventually the DC characters lead to darker roles. It's weird because you think the lighthearted "we know your pain" roles of Marvel would be better. However, I think the darker DC roles fit closer to home. Batman makes us glad we don't live in his world. Superman makes us think, "What if?" While a kid in teen angst might envision himself as Spiderman, everyone wants to be Superman.

PS. I hope there's a true Avengers movie in the works... and a Justice League movie.

Me and her... or Is there any wonder I'm not married.

This past weekend I went on a date. Granted it was at a free concert downtown, but it was supposed to be a date. We sat far enough back that the band playing wouldn't overcome our ability to cary on a conversation. However, a conversation never occured. It was me trying to fit in a word while she chatted on her cell phone. Eventually I just rocked out to Alter Bridge and I don't intend on calling said female ever again.

I only wonder when women became so stuck on themselves that cellphone conversations were exceptable on a date. It's not the first time this has happened. I'm not a bad date either, so that's not the excuse. I blame it on women being encouraged to see men as an accesory, rather than a blessing. It's like reverse sexism. Men are treated as objects and women are praised for acting so. Look at popular media and prove me wrong.

I've been with women who've treated me from a key to another guy, a bookmark, an ATM, and several other analogies. It's demoralizing. People wonder why I'm afraid to ask a lady out. Basically, I have been trained to know what is going to happen. It's one thing to expect to not get a second date. It's another when you are bombarded with examples of how men are horrible and deserved to be used, getting used, and being ignored.

If women want a key to understanding guys, it's not that complicated:
1. We want to be listened to, and feel we are a part the conversation.
2. We like to have our egos stroked. Compliment us every chance you get.
3. Don't ignore us, because every guy likes to know you're thinking about us.
4. Just because we don't notice everything or drop money on everything doesn't make us less romantic.
5. We are going to notice the hot woman in the short skirt. Get over it.
6. You look hot. We might not say it. We wouldn't go out with you if we didn't think so.
7. We don't care about what happened in highschool.
8. There's three topics guys will pay attention to. One is sports. Two is music. The third only relates to your lesbian experience in college.
9. We will kill your ex-boyfriend.
10. We will kill the guy making eyes at you.

Number 11 should be that you can call us. The whole asking a girl out was passe once you quit thinking you were inferior.

See? Not so hard. Guys are primitive. We are simple and don't overthink things. That's what women like. If we were girly and emotional, women would hate men like they hate other women. Don't confront me on that. I work with nothing but women. I know the rules. I've heard the stories. Don't make me qoute when my co-workers' cycles are. That's disturbing enough.

The Sky Is Falling... or The environmentalists better back off before I bust a CFC cap in them.

I got a call today by my mom about a hurricane that is floating in the Atlantic. It's name is Bertha. No doubt the "weather geeks" want a chance to add the moniker "Big Bertha". Somehow the appearance of this hurricane... during hurricane season... has prompted threats about global warming.

Let me state a few obvious truths:
1. It is July and it is supposed to be in the 90's. I live in the South.
2. It is hurricane season, which implies that hurricanes are probable
3. The media wants another Katrina (which is still a pitiful subject) so bad they follow every hurricane and act as if it were the bringer of the end of the world.

Now for my Katrina comment. Katrina did more direct damage to outlying areas of New Orleans than the actual city itself. The problem with New Orleans was it was a death trap and had been for centuries. No sensible person would have stayed there when a hurricane was comming. The kicker is everyone expected the government to fix everything. That's what charity is for. The government's only duty is to make sure the country runs. It's not a difficult concept. The engineering, management, inhabitants, and mayor of New Orleans were all morons. I'm sorry if that pisses off a few people but it's the truth. I volunteered to help with reconstruction of New Orleans because it was a horrible fate for any community. But no one should expect absolute repayment for a loss.

A reasonable example would be this:
You live in an area that is labled a fire hazard. No fire has occured in 100 years, but everyone says it is due. All of a sudden a fire ignites due to lightening and it spreads to the point your entire town is burned down. People refused to leave the town and died in the fire... even though it was seen from miles away. During the fire homes were looted and police were killed. The scene was total chaos. The local government sends support to help quell the fires but little can be done. After the fire has died out the federal agencies arrive to provide support. Yet social activists say the government acted too late and everyone effected is owed money and support. Not only that, but the activists say the area mainly consisted of minorities and there was a vast conspiracy to not act.

This sounds like a sham if there ever was one. No government wishes it's own citizens to suffer. The key is to the reading of the Constitution. This argument has existed since the birth of the nation. Is the security of the United States citizens dependent on the state government or the federal? It's not that deep of a concept, considering the fact we've mastered flight into space. Yet people have manipulated this idea for more than a century to make political gains.

Now the new scheme is global warming. While I don't deny the world is warming (nor do I agree with the theory), I don't think it is a viable political device. I know it's the only thing Al Gore can make money on these days. However, Al Gore has proven what a dunce he can be. My belief in global warming is like so many environmentalists' beliefs in God. It's a sad fact, but very true. Be angry if you want, but prove me wrong.

Homeruns are the biz... or Its all in the heart.

I watched the homerun contest on ESPN. I have several thoughts that you won't read on the typical news page. The first relates to how horrible Chris Berman is as an annoucer for baseball. Every time he is in charge of the game the coversation somehow gets lost way beyond what's happening on the field. The sad part is the conversation never returns to what's going on on the field. I know Chris "Boomer" Berman is loved by the whole sports media type, but he sucks. He's horrible in baseball, terrible in football, and if I ever watched pro basketball and he announced it I'm sure he'd be bad at that.

I believe too much emphasis is placed on homeruns in Major League Baseball. It is my belief that baseball is about the way the game is played, and not the number of balls knocked out of the park. Beyond seeing Erin Andrews a few extra times in a week, the Home Run competition means little else.

My third thought is about how the "nation has just learned" about Josh Hamilton's struggles. I have known about his problems since they first happened. Granted, I also know nearly everyone involved in his recovery. However, it's almost as if ESPN wants to cash in on his problems. I suffer from at least one of the same problems as Josh. Everyone suffers from some problem that Josh has had. I know it's nothing you want pointed out as you try to remake a name for yourself. I also know the people behind him won't back out on him. Sometimes I wish I had the same support. But Josh Hamilton is not just there to cram home runs down the media's throat. How many times can you count that he witnessed to the crowd at Yankee's stadium? And how many cheers did he get? It's powerul stuff that Josh deals. As someone who knows a little of his trials, and can't fathom the level he is on, I definitely respect him. I also despise ESPN for playing it up for the wrong reasons.

Josh Hamilton is the Natural... or I want to see you do that.

What kid wouldn't dream it. You're the last at bat in the final inning. Your team is down by one against one of the best teams in the league. You see one man on base and you're facing one of the best closers in the MLB this year. You clinch your bat as the pitch comes. There's only a second to react and you swing. WHACK! The ball sails out of the field and you trot around the bases. "The crowd goes wild!"

It's the fantasy every boy has had growing up. Josh Hamilton is living it. The story behind one of the best hitters this year is different. He's had to overcome amazing odds to get the chance at an MVP title. If everything stays on pace, he may get there. Sadly the steroids scandal in baseball has several people asking questions about Josh Hamilton's amazing comeback and performance. I feel, if anyone in the MLB isn't taking steroids it has to be Hamilton. This has nothing to do with hometown pride, or with the fact I know him (in passing and through friends), or the fact he's a good guy all around. It's the fact every second of his life is being examined by the league. He can't go to the bathroom without giving a sample. He has a personal 24 hour guard/mentor to help him stay clean of all he was victim to before he became famous. The opportunity isn't there for him to cheat, unless he has found a way around constant surveillance. I believe he is the real deal. He has transformed into what is great about baseball. Please don't prove me wrong.

What's hotter, Harry Potter?... or I think I work with 10 year olds.

Here's a fact. I have read all of the Harry Potter books, and I enjoyed them as a slight escape. I felt like I was in elementary school again and it was acceptable. Face it, what boy wouldn't want to fight dragons, kill evil villains, and be the coolest bad boy on campus?
That is the catch though. The Harry Potter series is written for kids in the 5th grade. Ironically, so are most major newspapers. The joining factor is that there are people who go around bragging about reading both, looking for praise. I'm not talking about kids, nor teenagers. I am talking about fully grown adult humans. People who have not touched a book in ten years, even if they were in college during that time. This is not a good thing. It might be, if these people used this to get back into reading in general (much as the series has interested kids to read other books). However, these adults think reading the Harry Potter series is enough and that they deserve serious recognition. People may ask what I am reading, and I may say it's Clive Cussler, Dan Brown, or it might be a history book. If I ask one of these Harry Potheads, the general reply is, "I don't usually read, but it's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It's my third time!!!! Isn't that great?!?!" Seriously? I mean I read Jurassic Park three times before the movie came out (the movie was horrible in comparison). However, if someone asked me what I was reading I didn't make a big deal about it, like I had accomplished anything. The book was good. I moved on to other books. It's what intelligent people do.
Granted not all intelligent people read all the time. Heck, I hate reading sometimes. But you aren't supposed to read books intended for children and then expect to get praise and respect for it. You can read them for escape and enjoyment. Good. It's a mindless activity. That's why I read the series. But it's not serious adult reading, you aren't gaining knowledge, and doing so shouldn't be treated with such adulation.

By the way, Emma Watson is going to be a fox when she turns 18.

Wikipedia IS for dummies... or why the next generation is going to be a bunch of brainless morons.

Today's story involves an abominable horror that is wasting precious space on the internet. It lurks through the web that covers this world, gorging itself on baseless rumors and idiotic theories. Formerly intelligent people are no match for this being. It presents itself as legitimate, unless you pay attention to its source of power. Many a soul has been lost to this entity... as well as a passing grade in a college sociology term paper.
This despicable disease of a web page is known as Wikipedia. It is home to the moron, the weak minded, the lazy, the crazy whack-jobs, the people who believe we faked the moon landing and Elvis lives in a trailer in New Jersey,the just plain dumb,... and a few unsuspecting yet curious web explorers.

Our story begins several months ago. One of my friends stated that golf is a sexist sport. I am a weak golfer, but I enjoy playing. I often see women playing golf and know very well that this statement is flawed. However, curiosity got the best of me, and I asked my friend why she had made that statement. She explained (not to me, but a girl standing next to her) that golf is an acronym, meaning "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". I could fly off the handle right now, as I'm sure anyone of sound mind would. However, I have to reach the point of this story. I held off the pithy comments rushing to my brain, and asked my friend where she heard this "crap". She said, "Wikipedia said it's true," as if that was the end of the discussion. I tried to argue but my friend and the girl next to me exchanged glances and went on about other things.
"Oh that's just women trying to get under your skin," you say? I say, "No!" It's stupidity among the general population. Stupidity for believing in everything found on the web. In general, web media is the biggest hodge-podge of mindless freaks created. These freaks have somehow managed to find time from their blogs (and yes I know this is a blog) to meet up in an unregulated "encyclopedia of knowledge" known as Wikipedia. And only brainless idiots use this as a source of reliable information. Basically, I could go onto Wikipedia, insert any comment (maybe that in 1999 Jessica Simpson contracted herpes), and fake a source for my factoid. Presto! I just made a truth exist to millions of morons willing to read Wikipedia.

I majored in history from a major university. As part of my major, I had to learn to discern illegitimate sources from those that could be trusted. Had I used Wikipedia as a source... well, let's just say I'd be cleaning toilets on the janitorial staff of that same college.
I will use the aforementioned story to show that Wikipedia spreads lies. The claim is that golf... which consists of all lowercase letters... stands for "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". This assumes that golf is an acronym. Considering the term golf has existed since (at least) the 16th century this is highly unlikely. Acronyms only reached a wave of high use in the early 20th century. If the people of the 16th century had not wanted women to play, why hide it in an acronym? They could just say, "Nope, all you lady folks gotta stay out. We don't like you playing in the fields with sticks and balls. That's men stuff." Seriously, It's the early Renaissance. Women are respected but there's no such thing as equal rights. Why hide the meaning of golf in an acronym (if golf is really sexist). My theory is the lie was posted during the whole "no women at The Masters" ordeal. Some unshaven she-male, angry at the fact her state government wouldn't pay to give her a penis, decided to change the purity of golf and posted this made up urban legend. Since anyone can post on Wikipedia, it makes sense. By the way, the respected origin of the term golf comes from the middle ages. Medieval Dutch called it something close to "kolf" which the Scots translated approximately into "gouf". This is fact delved from the USGA Library and the British Golf Museum.
Hmmmmm. Who do I believe? A recognized and respected organization and a real physical museum that actually studies things. A web page that allows anyone on the planet to post fake sources claiming anything they want to say. You tell me and I'll let you know if you are as dumb as you look.

The previous example should have alerted you to the perilous rope from which Wikipedia hangs. Granted, there are some truths on there. However that does not make it reliable. There will be plenty of kids growing up using this defunct web page as a truthful source. Heaven forbid, they might even be saying that Jimmy Carter was the savior of the United States and Thomas Jefferson spent all his time fathering slaves (don't even get me started on the crap about the "Jeffersons"). If Wikipedia-mania isn't halted, we will all be slaves to a young generation of dolts that believe everything posted on the net. Drop the net source and pick up a real encyclopedia.

Is it the Stache... or How the 4 letter sports channel is killing sports

Is it me or has ESPN and every channel bypassed the whole steroids scandal by focusing on Jason Giambi's sweet porn star mustache? I have a pretty cheesey mustache. I started mine about 3 months befor Giambi. I didn't take steroids and then petition the NY fans to put me in the homerun competition. I believe, if it were Chipper Jones who grew the mustache and made such a cry to fans, ESPN would hound him as being some kind of publicity hound from a podunk city in the south. Remember, ESPN also publicizes a loser Yanks team playing an overrated Bo-Sox team, a hot dog eating contest, and would probably push the "National Blowing Up Balloons Competition" in Rhode Island... if such a competion existed so close to New York. ESPN consists of mostly overrated announcers and promoters pushing lazy sports journalism. They don't seek out Bud Selig. They don't confront the drug culture in sports (unless it happens to hit the Northeast). And their constant employment of Steven A. Smith shows their lack of intellect.

The Start or This is How We Do It

This page is not made by some random whack job venting about vast conspiracies. It's me venting about real actual things. Maybe vent is a harsh term. I wish to convey a sense of how I view events, and provide my opinion on as many topics as my mind can comprehend. That sounds like I actually went to school, didn't it? Anyway, enjoy my views and don't judge me too harshly. If in doubt, I'm probably making a joke.