These people can't let go, and frankly whenever I see one of those ridiculous black flags I assume the person who raised it is completely irrational if not insane. The last soldiers to go MIA or to be captured would have been in 1973. That's thirty-five years ago. Considering the brutality of their treatment, and how many POWs died in captivity, how can anyone imagine for one second that a soldier "held in captivity" for that long would have survived? And therein lies the rub.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that some POWs were kept after 1973. If they are alive it would only be because they had decided to stay in Vietnam and make whatever life they could for themselves, the "Stockholm Syndrome" writ large. But I think even this is extremely unlikely if not impossible. When Vietnam War veterans started making pilgrimages to that country in the mid-90s, reuniting with old comrades, embracing old enemy soldiers, at least ONE of these hypotheticla surviving former POWs would have made themselves known, if not all of them. Not one did, except the guy who was tried for desertion after, ironically, being arrested by the Vietnamese themselves and handed over to the U.S. authorities.

These people who raise the black flag and whear the bracelets, they are grasping at phantoms of men long dead. It is tragic, really, but they're antipathy towards McCain is dangerously close to delusional farce. And I'm hereby calling them on it.

...Zach Braff's remake of "Dawn of the Dead" was INFINITELY more frightening than the original, which upon repeated viewings comes across as more comic than anything else. I left the theatre after watching the remake filled with the exact emotion one should feel after a truly great horror film: Despair.

The person who is most qualified, who most wants to help this nation and its people, is NOT going to get nominated let alone elected. Why? Well you see the system under which we live has developed two excellent (for it) distractions: Race and Gender. John Edwards is a white male, and in this year that is a very convenient fact. Because he also happens to be the best candidate. But there's a problem. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both two things at once: They are the worst candidate s for this country at this time, but they are the best for liberal guilt and asperations.

At least that wretched performance will forever end the nonsensical debate about whether Tom Brady is a greater quarterback than Joe Montana was in his prime.

Yeah, and every day when I wake up I say good morning to Jennifer Connelly.

One of the giggle-inducing ironies is that the '84 'Niners beat guess who in the '85 Super Bowl? That's right, the Miami Dolphins, featuring the red hot hand of a very young Dan Marino, who was ten times the QB Griese could ever dream of being. The result? The 49ers rolled up 537 yards of total offense, including 211 rushing. Keena Turner was like a mad-man, stomping through the Dolphins's offensive line (he would have torn Joe Klecko in half). They handily defeated the Dolphins 38 - 16. It never got close.

Pure statistical analysis of this sort is silly. Pound-for-pound the '84/'85 'Niners were twice as good as the '71/'72 Dolphins.

And the modern Patriots? Well, comparing them to ANY of the championship 'Niner teams is just pathetic nonsense. Brady is nowhere near the field leader and passer that Montana was (and lets not forget Montana's speed, running for first-downs and touchdowns himself), irrespective of what the numbers say. And Randy Moss is not only no Jerry Rice, he's no Dwight Clark either. After watching him yesterday, I'm wondering if he's even in Freddie Solomon's league.

The only competition the 'Niners of the 80s have is the Steelers of the 70s and the Packers of the 60s...maybe. People forget that the "West Coast Offense", which everyone now uses, was invented by Bill Walsh for the 49ers. Hell, if the DeBartolo family and Carmen Policy were still running things the 'Niners would STILL be dominant.

But hey, that's just my two-cents worth.

He was on "Forum", talking with Michael Krasny about his new book Loving the Speech You Hate (at least I think that's the title). He stated quite firmly - not merely with "a jaundiced eye" - that the concept of "hate speech" was antithetical to the 1st Amendment. The representative of La Raza lost all credibility when she kept trying to bring up the imaginary distinction between free speech and "hate speech." But then, in the context of this discussion, she never had any credibility to begin with. If Dobbs were railing against a wave of illegal immigrants from Norway or Sweden she'd have nothing to say and she damn well knows it, and so does Dobbs.

As for the issue of illegal immigration, I am sick and tired of the "they're here" argument. Yes, it would be logistically impossible (and a disaster for civil liberties) to deport them all at once. But the question I want to ask "supporters" of illegal immigrants is this: What about next time? In 1986 3 million were given amnesty. The result? 20 years later the number of amnesty-seekers had more than quadrupled to 13 million. What will the number be the next time? 52 million?? When and where does it stop?!

The only solution is a phased removal of these people over a set period of time sufficient to ameliorate the impact on both them and the American economy. Only illegal immigrants with children they can verify were born here should be offered the option of amnesty. The rest of them have to go, and the border with Mexico needs to be sealed. Then, and only then, when our laws are obeyed and some equilibrium is restored, should we turn our attention to rendering aid and assistance to the Mexican economy.