Tuesday, December 25, 2007


Nearly all Christians worldwide celebrate today, December 25th, as the day Jesus Christ was born. There has been no other person, whether one believes he existed or not, that has influenced the modern world as much as this theological figure. Our universal system of keeping track of time, the calendar, is based on his birth. Taken at face value, then, we can say that Jesus was born on December 25, in the year one. Not so fast! If you ask any Christian Theologian, you will discover that only a few of them believe that 12-25-0001 is the true date.

A quick search of the net will find many estimates. Some are exact, such as March 1, 7 BC or September 29, 0005. Some are approximations, such as any month from September to March and any year between 8 BC and 6 AD.

I was raised Roman Catholic, and one of the many things I found confusing when I read about the discussions of Jesus’ birth was exact dates! For someone so great, the Savior of the World, my young mind would expect the event should be written in stone, but no! Even the Catholic Scholars debated it!

To begin with, the confusion comes straight out of the Bible:

Matthew 2:1

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.

Historical record: King Herod died in 4 BC.

Luke 2:1-2

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Historical Record: Cyrenius (Quirinius) became governor of Syria in 6 AD.

The harmonic gospels conflict here. Either Luke or Matthew must be in error.
What to do if one takes the Bible literally?

As for the day, I find the debate fascinating. To begin with, many claim the December date is plain wrong, due to the fact that Palestine is too cold for the events that occurred at the time of the birth of Jesus, for the month of March more closely fits the bill. Other theologians answer, in fact, the first winter month is very possible. September is believed mainly by those who claim the child was conceived in December. For an event that is so significant, why is it so hard to pin down the exact date?

In Rome, 2000 years ago, December 25th was celebrated as the date of the winter solstice, and the holiday of Sol Invictus. The day before, the 24th, was the last day of the seven day celebration of Saturnalia. The ancient Romans appeared to know how to celebrate! Obviously, it was important to their culture. It is that culture where, I believe, we get the date of Christmas.

Christianity’s roots are located in Rome where it finally became organized and made official under Emperor Constantine I. The religion was off and running. In calculating a date for Christmas, it appears, than rather create a new holiday, the birth of Jesus was incorporated in the popular feasts of the day, Sol Invictus and Saturnalia. In addition, many Christians were already celebrating the birth of Christ on that day, anyway. This is where we get the current day of the 25th of December.

As in my previous post, I believe Christmas should be a universal holiday. Its spirit is in our ancient blood ever since we began praising the sun returning. December 25th in the natural and appropriate date for it.

Saturday, December 22, 2007


Once upon a time our primitive ancestors noticed the days growing shorter and shorter as the Earth inched closer to winter. Deep in their fears was the possibility that one day the sun would never rise again, and total darkness would fill their lives. Fortunately those fears would never be realized, as once the globe’s axis shifted naturally, the days began to lengthen again. The sun surely would return! Once people noticed, it was time for a celebration! It was time to give gifts and praise the sun god.

The foundation of Christmas is the natural holiday that has been celebrated almost since humans were able to comprehend our planet’s seasons. The Christians borrowed the traditions of the Ancient Roman feasts of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (held on December 25th ,) which were celebrations of the ‘conquered sun’ theme of longer days. The Jewish faithful even celebrated the sun’s birthday on their date of Chasleu 25th as part of their winter festivals.

Jewish Hanukkah and Islamic Ramadan reflect roots of warmth in the days of winter. The candles of the Menorah signify the lasting light, growing stronger as the eight days of the Jewish Holiday progressed. Ramadan, the month on the Islamic calendar where the winter solstice occurred, is an Arabic word for intense heat.

The Christmas season owes gratitude to many cultures. At the center was the Roman influence of Saturnalia, for which we get the date on the calendar, as well as the gift giving. Romans also made use of the tree, which was made a tradition by the Germans.
Greece in its Golden Age was the origin of the wonderful twelve day festivals and pantomimes. The Christian Nativity is derived from the ancient Egyptians. Babylonian and Persian astronomers made note of the three bright stars in the belt of Orion pointing toward the bright winter star of Sirius, and the legends of the Three Kings, as well as the Star of Bethlehem, may have been born. Northern Europeans contributed such things as mistletoe, holly, minced pies, boar heads and decorations.

As mere inhabitants of this earth, at mercy to the laws of the universe, whatever your faith, it is hard for me to believe that Christmas is not a part of each and every human on earth. We should all indulge together in the celebration and joy that the sun is born again and there is always a brighter day ahead.

Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 19, 2007


As Time Magazine's reigning "Person of Year," I am reluctant to hand over that title to Vladimir Putin.

The editors of Time, which named "You" (me) as their person of the year for 2006, selected the Russian President over such power players as Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, China's Hu Jinato and General David Petraeus, who should have been selected.

The basis for choosing Putin is the economic stability he has provided Russia in his years as President. This is Putin's last year in his term, and Russia is now firmly on the world stage as an economic power. In a country where the average citizen is much more concerned with making a decent living, rather than politics, Putin has enjoyed tremendous popularity.

Vladimir Putin has his critics, and they are loud enough to tell me that Time Magazine has made a mistake. The Russian president has been accused of frequently using violence to quell protesters and sending them to asylums. Some journalists, before their time in jail, have labeled Putin a dictator. Time freely admits "he is not a good guy!"

As a cog of the massive left leaning media machine, Time makes a fundamental error in support for their choice when they tell us: "Stability comes before freedom." A conservative believes the opposite to be true. It is obvious that the magazine editor's would draw blood first before choosing a conservative.

If the millions of the "2007 Persons of the Year" were asked, I am confident someone else would have been selected. The choice should go to General Petraeus, who has turned the War in Iraq around. That has made many Americans feel better, and, when discussing stability, the world is a little more secure. In addition, the turn around of the war has had, and will continue to have, influence on our 2008 presidential election.

Saturday, December 15, 2007


I grew up in the 1960’s when The World Series was professional baseball’s only postseason event. How I respected the sport. There were no divisions and the designated hitter rule was just a thought.

Over the years, pro football became more popular, and I saw our national pastime begin to decline. Expansion diluted the talent, and there were a couple of players’ strikes. That dreaded DH rule took away some strategy from the game, and made the American League a hitter’s paradise and those sacred statistics that the true baseball fans worship were starting to skew out of order. On top of that, one of my heroes, Pete Rose gambled on his team. To be honest, I was only echoing public sediment as I, too, became enamored with the National Football League. Baseball became boring to me.

In 1998 baseball appeared to be making a comeback. Nearly everyone, including me, enjoyed the home run derby Sammie Sosa and Mark McGwire put on in front of the nation’s eyes. The casual fan, as I considered myself at that time, turned on their televisions and came to the ball parks. I was interested in baseball again!

I knew there were still problems no one wanted to talk about. Besides the owners fleecing local taxpayers for money to build their ballparks and line their pockets, an issue I was upset about, there was the issue of performance enhancing drugs.

It was so obvious to me, as it was to many. The record breaking marks of a bulky McGwire and a muscle bound Sosa were the result of steroids. It was the reason for a much stronger Barry Bonds blasting 73 homers in 2001. I still had hope that baseball was not completely ruined after the wonderful World Series where the underdog Diamondbacks used a near miracle ninth inning rally to beat the Yankees only six weeks after nine-eleven.

My hope dwindled. Baseball would never be like I remember forty years ago. The League’s drug problem continued. The thorn that stuck in my side was the lack of action by Commissioner Bud Selig. He looked the other way, as did the owners, comfortable in their stadium suites that you and I help finance. Baseball is ruined.

The Mitchell Report is nothing new. I knew steroids were rampant. It confirmed my suspicions that each of the thirty teams had player that was dirty. In fact, I suspect the use of performance enhancing drugs probably goes much deeper. The Mitchell Report only confirmed that baseball had already lost its credibility.

There are easy reasons why players turn to steroids. They can gain an advantage or they can continue to perform at a high level as they age, however, the most obvious is simply money. Roger Clemens, who was accused in the Mitchell report, earned $18 million in 2005 at the ripe age of 43. Just ten years earlier, thought to be in his prime, his salary was a mere $140,000. With the high salaries of MLB, it is easy to conclude that steroids are an incentive for some.

As for the future, baseball will survive. It always has and always will. That, plus the many loyal and devoted fans who love the inner workings of this complicated game, is the strength of the sport. I can only pray that Commissioner Selig will do something about the issue of drugs in Major League Baseball. If past actions and gut feelings count for something, he will not. And that is a shame.

Saturday, December 1, 2007


Happy World AIDS Day! December 1 marks another time for reflection of the deadly disease, and I am happy to report that there is good news! AIDS has actually been on the decline in the United States, according to the Center for Disease Control. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nations released a statement telling us that the size and scope of the worldwide AIDS Epidemic has been overestimated. Today, someone with the HIV virus can now be treated, thanks to the advances of modern medicine. Good news indeed! But you may not hear about any of this on World AIDS day!

AIDS is probably the most misunderstood disease on earth. When the United Nation revealed they have been exaggerating the number of people infected by AIDS for years, it only echoed the point that I have always believed: Almost everything about AIDS have been grossly misreported. The disease has been lied about, propagandized and exaggerated.

In the mid-eighties, I can remember the fears many of my friends had of the coming AIDS Pandemic. Ringing in my ears were the words of the so called wise crying: “It would spread like wildfire and ravage the heterosexual community” I was not overly concerned, since I was not a practicing participant in the two major AIDS risk groups. For I am not a homosexual, and I am not a drug user. Oh, but that did not matter! The experts scolded: “If you practice any sex at all, you better be frightened...millions shall perish!” As the years passed, I continued to hear their warnings. But I knew better. It would never arrive, it didn’t, and I knew it wouldn’t. In reality, those warnings were myths brought on by misunderstandings by the politically correct promoting their agenda of misinformation to confuse us all.

It became clear to me that the major reason why AIDS did not spread into the heterosexual community is simply because most of the public was, and still is, unaware of the basic fact that it is very hard for a heterosexual to be infected with the HIV virus. HIV is bloodborne, that is, it must be transmitted blood to blood. The transmission is rare, unless one engages in behaviors, such as anal sex, where the cell construction of both the rectum and anal wall are virtually non-resistant to tearing by the activity. With vaginal sex, both the rectum and vagina are well designed to resist tearing.

Basic biology lessons, which should be taught on days such as ‘World AIDS Day,’ have been replaced by the fear of labeling AIDS as a ‘Gay Disease.” Most important, however, is the greed for more research money to fight the disease. It is all about the money! Make no mistake about it, AIDS is an industry. It spews out its propaganda about ‘millions infected’ and ‘exploding epidemic’ while it rakes in the bucks. A reality check is needed on World AIDS Day. A quick glance of the actual numbers exposes some of the lies.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 530,756 Americans died of AIDS from 1981 to 2005. In the last year reported, 16,316 perished of the disease, which is less than 0.7 percent of all deaths for 2005. Putting that number in even more perspective, the statistics show about a thousand more are murdered, twice as many commit suicide, and cancer kills more than thirty times as many Americans. Not even close to the feared ‘millions’ number. The figures also reveal that a little more than half a million citizens are currently living with AIDS.

The disease’s death rate has remained fairly constant at about 16,000 annually over the past 15 years. With the nation’s population growing yearly, basic math tells us that the AIDS death rate is decreasing. The easy, elusive, but never reported conclusion: There is no AIDS Epidemic! Never was and never will be!

With the admission by the United Nations that their worldwide AIDS deaths were wrong, certainly the situation in Africa may have been overstated as well. Rest assured it is! Although AIDS has claimed millions on the Africa, the fears of the PC alarmists of the disease turning the continent into a desert have not materialized. Birth rates are increasing in countries such as Uganda, where the disease was supposed to wipe out the country’s population.

Thanks to the UN’s World Health Organization, the myth of heterosexual AIDS continued with their ridiculous claim of over 99 percent of African HIV cases came as a result of sexual transmission. Nothing can be further from the truth! If one looks at the American model of nearly non-existent heterosexual infections, you can easily conclude that this is not the cause.

The ‘dirty’ little secret of African HIV infection is hidden from us by the AIDS industry. It is primarily a result of a poverty stricken population which deals with contaminated medical procedures. This would explain the high infection rate of African children. One lesser, but important fact is the degree of local tribes engaging in homosexual sex. Over the years, the AIDS PC Crowd has lied to us by saying that type of activity is not found in Africa. It certainly is! Anthropologists will tell you that bisexuality is very common among the males in many of the African tribes.

On this World AIDS Day, please spend a few hours and see for yourself the data about AIDS/HIV by visiting the CDC website. Read some of the research Journalist Michael Fumento and Doctor James Chin have written about the subject, as I have. It was the basis for this article. With that, I think you may arrive at some of the same conclusions I have made: 1) AIDS is a politically correct disease. 2) Its research is guided by the quest for funds through propaganda, rather that factual information. 3) AIDS/HIV is nowhere near an epidemic. And, finally, thank goodness: 4) The disease is on the decline.

Sunday, November 25, 2007


Let us not all get caught up in the epic battle of the undefeated NFL quarterbacks, New England’s Tom Brady vs. Indianapolis’ Peyton Manning that took place on the first Sunday of November. Let us not all be overwhelmed by Brent Favre’s re-writing of all the NFL passing records. And let us all not bask in Joe Montana’s Super Bowl Victories, John Elway’s final game as a champion, Dan Marino’s legend and Johnny Untias’ golden arm. There is one quarterback who stands above all of these, simply because he knew what the object of the game was: To win! No other passer won more titles than Otto Everett Graham.

Otto Graham’s record as a quarterback is remarkable. In his ten seasons with Cleveland he guided the Browns to four AAFC titles and three NFL championships. In fact, in every year Graham played, the Cleveland Browns played for the title. His 7-3 record as a starting quarterback in Championship Games is unmatched, and is the one convincing argument for Otto Graham to stand alone as the greatest NFL Quarterback.

Many of us have heard of Otto Graham, but very few of us know him. His resume before his NFL career is as impressive as any who has played the game. The former Northwestern Tailback finished third in the Heisman Trophy balloting in 1943. After he spent his WWII obligation in the Navy, he played professional basketball for the Rochester Royals and won the National Basketball League Title in 1946.

Paul Brown signed Graham in 1946 as his quarterback to begin play in the new pro league the All-America Football Conference. The AAFC would only last four years before merging with the NFL in 1950. With Graham as the signal caller, Cleveland captured the championship in all four of those years, winning the MVP in every season but one.

Otto Graham and the Cleveland Browns won the title their first year in the National Football League. Down by one point with less than two minutes to play in the 1950 Championship Game, Graham marched the Browns sixty yards to a winning field goal and a 30-28 victory over the Los Angeles Rams. Cleveland would lose the next three championship games before wining in 1954 and in 1955, the last two years of Graham’s career. Three NFL MVP’s belong to Graham in his six years in the league.

The unprecedented popularity that the National Football League attainted in the sixties has glorified the successful quarterbacks who have performed on the gridiron ever since.

Although we still remember the greats of the past, we easily forget their exceptional performances and their impact on their day. With all the ways we rate quarterbacks in the modern era of pro football, such as QB rating, yards, touchdown passes, longevity, victories and Super Bowls, we forget that in the good old days all the great ones did was ‘just win baby!’ Statistics were only for the losers.

No other Quarterback reached the pinnacle as many times as Otto Graham did. In his eleven year professional sports career, counting his one year in the National Basketball League, Graham played for the title in every year, winning eight times. A winning record that can not be, and probably will never be matched!


The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a politically correct elite institution that should be exposed for the joke that it truly is.

It all began in 1983 when Rolling Stone Magazine co-founder Jann Wenner started the Rock and Roll Hall Foundation, with a few other journalists from his publication. The search for a location for their museum ended up in Cleveland, after considering other cities such as Memphis, Detroit or New York City. It has been claimed by some that the Ohio city offered the best deal. Off the bat, did they go after the money? One could argue that the choice ignored the historical significance of the geography of rock and roll.

Once the museum was completed in 1995, the nonprofit organization, which can charge as much as $25,000 a table for an artist to attend the induction ceremony, set out a mission to educate visitors, fans and scholars from around the world about the history and continuing significance of rock and roll music' (straight from RRHOF website.) This philosophy is guided primarily from the point of view of the editors of Rolling Stone Magazine. The gross misconception of all of this is that this mission is objective. Clearly, it is not. It might as well be called Rolling Stone Magazine's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Unlike other Hall of Fames, as the ones in the sports world, where merit can be measured by statistics, getting into the RRHOF is very subjective and unfair. With the nominating process controlled by just a few people, if an artist is not liked by these elite snobs their chances of getting in are nonexistent. The Monkees dominated the pop charts with seven number one records from 1966 to 1967, and out sold the Beatles in that period. Cable music channel MTV should be grateful to the Monkees for the pioneering work they did with the music video form. Sorry to tell you Monkee fans, you can forget your entry into the hall, it will never happen. Co-founder Jann Wenner never liked your band.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame allows fans to petition to get the artist nominated. Every year the legions of Kiss fans send in tons of signatures. Journalist Dave Marsh is believed to have a major influence in the nominating process. He has said that Kiss is a substandard band. Sorry Kiss fans, you will never get in. Marsh does not like progressive rock much either, so the fans of long standing bands such as Genesis, Moody Blues and Rush will never see their bands inducted in Cleveland.

It is easy to see that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominating committee plays favorites. The support the artists they like and pan the ones they dislike, with no regard to the fans. A few years ago they were accused of switching votes when the Dave Clark Five received more votes than Grandmaster Flash. Mr. Wenner, who was narcissisticly inducted himself in 2005 with a lifetime achievement award, switched his vote in order to get a rap act in. Surely this balancing of the musical genres happens every year.

In 1967 Rolling Stone Magazine began to cover music. I viewed the rag as a chronicle of the late sixties, and one of the symbols of the counterculture. Now, with its dominion over the RRHOF, it has turned into the elite entity that it used to rebel against. Every year, more fans who follow music are realizing that the Rolling Stone Magazine's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke.


"Going Bald" may have been one of the best things I have ever done!

Saturday, November 24, 2007


November 22, 2007 marks the 44th anniversary of President John Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas. There maybe no single event in American History that has fueled as much controversy and misinformation as the death of our 32nd president.

The findings of the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and fired the shots that killed the President. Unfortunately, common knowledge seems to incorrectly conclude that is not the case. Within a few hours after Kennedy’s death, conspiracy theories began to emerge. It was only natural. In the midst of the Cold War, anti-communist sediment focused on plots from the Soviet Union, Cuba or red enemies within the country. The Hollywood-like rub-out of the major suspect, Oswald shot by Jack Ruby two days later, added fuel to the conspiracy fire. It was not until after the results of the Warren Commission were published when the basic conspiracy theories began to materialize and take hold. What did not help in the public eye was the haste to get the report done before the 1964 Presidential Election. As a result, the Commission did not cross all of their “T’s” or dot all of their “I’s.” The final report left many unanswered questions, such as the issue of determining the exact second of when Oswald’s first shot was fired. It was fertile ground for the conspiracy madness to begin.

At the heart of the basic JFK conspiracy is the refusal for many in the public to conclude that a down-and-out individual would have the ability to end the life of the world’s most powerful man. Our natural reaction concludes that some mightier entity must be responsible for the crime. With all of these perceptions, the meek Oswald, and the idol Kennedy, conspiracies are easily hatched, and can be constructed as complicated as much as a president is powerful. In this process, most of the facts are twisted, ignored and buried.

Poor Lee Harvey Oswald, he is someone who most believe incapable of masterminding the assassination. It is hard to give him credit. Despite what the hundreds of JFK conspiracy books say, he was an expert marksman in the Marines, more than capable of completing the task. What nearly all the scheming accounts ignore is that the Dallas shooting was Oswald’s second attempt to end the life of someone. Army General Edwin Walker, a high profile Dallas anti-communist, a person who Oswald labeled as an enemy to his communistic beliefs, barely escaped a bullet in his house from the same rifle that killed JFK in April of 1963. Given his history, Lee Harvey Oswald had both the skill and the desire to pull off the president’s assassination.

After reading about Kennedy’s visit and seeing the route published in the local paper, noticing that the motorcade would pass by the Texas School Book Depository, Lee Harvey Oswald decided to kill Kennedy. At least, that is what I believe most likely happened. There was no grand scheme, or encompassing plan. It was just him, planning the crime the day before, and carrying in the bundled package to work on the morning of the twenty second.

The blindness of the true conspiracy believers is remarkable. When asked about his package, Oswald replied: “They are curtain rods.” Without common sense, they actually took him for his word, as they did when he spoke: “I’m just a patsy,” at a press conference at the police station. What else would a true criminal say? Overlooked in their attempts to select the data for their predetermined conclusion are the names of Alex J. Hidell and O. L. Lee. Both aliases used by Lee Harvey Oswald in the past. They want me to believe this man?

So many facts have been distorted from the events of that fateful Friday afternoon. Most notable is “The Single/Magic Bullet Theory.” This is a point many have studied, and expert analysis has concluded that one bullet did indeed pass through JFK and the Texas Governor, based on their positions at the time of the shooting. Conspiracy advocates have boldly rewritten the placements of Kennedy and Governor Connally in the limousine as evidence against the theory. This ‘magic bullet’ ended up on Connally’s left thigh, and has been claimed by the schemers as ‘pristine.’ In fact, it only looks that way when one looks at it normally. What they won’t tell you is when it is seen from the bottom, or top, it is noticeably flattened.

When all the facts add up, I believe it is easy to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I have no doubt. Someone, somewhere, somehow would have spilled the beans by now if a conspiracy existed. Over the years, many have claimed a vast government cover-up. Are you kidding! Again, someone would have said something by now, besides can the government keep a secret as well as they seem to run most things?

If you must talk of conspiracies, let us talk about the one where all those women that visited JFK’s bed were hidden from us. Let us talk about the conspiracy that prevented pictures of the president, who suffered from Addison’s Disease, in crutches and wheelchairs from the eyes of the public. Those are truer to the idea of a conspiracy than the JFK assassination ever was.


The question appears easy: Can Hillary win a red state and take the 2008 Presidential Election? As it stands now, assuming that the 2004 Presidential Electoral Map remains the same, Mrs.Clinton has all 19 blue states (plus DC) John Kerry won. Geographically, that is Hawaii, the Pacific Coast, the four states that border Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, plus all the states north of, and including, Maryland. The rest is republican red state America.

In order to win, the Senator from New York would only need to find 18 more electoral votes. That could be done in one swing with Ohio or Florida changing from blue to red.

Ohio seems the likely battleground, where George Bush won the state by only 2.11 percent. New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada also went republican by the slimmest of margins. Those states combined would add another 17 votes to the Democratic total.

A Hillary Clinton victory seems doable…or does it?

All of this assumes that Mrs. Clinton can hold all of her blue states. The GOP nominee is likely to be Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney, so she is in some trouble. These two republicans would put into play nearly all the New England States, which, normally, are considered safe havens for the Democrats. New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, which Kerry won by small margins, may be lost. Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, certainly could change his state’s color to red, and Former New York City Mayor Guiliani would put his home state up for grabs. A Democrat cannot win the presidency without a blue New York, a fact that Clinton and her party may face in 2008. The democratic nominee would have to make up those losses elsewhere, and must keep the dangerous Great Lake states, like Wisconsin, which barely went to Kerry (0.38%), and Michigan (Kerry's margin of victory was less than four percent) from going red.

In my view, the 2008 red and blue map just does not add up for Hillary Clinton. With the possible exceptions of New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa and Florida, she will find it difficult to win a state from the Rocky Mountains, across the plains, to the south. That gives the Republicans an enormous head start. Depending on her opposition, her potential losses in New England and the Great Lakes appear to outweigh her expected gains. With all of these numbers, it appears likely Hillary Clinton will lose.

Obviously, the election is months away and anything can happen. But make no mistake overconfident Republicans, the New York Senator certainly can win next November, because the best thing going for her is the mainstream media in her corner rooting: "Go Hillary!"