Very Hottest Photos

Even a headshot will not stop this guy from playing in the NFL:

Don’t discount the possibility of Brett Favre, who turns 42 in October, returning next season, but not with the Vikings. Maybe Carolina."

It is not like the Carolina Panthers could become an even bigger humiliation on the field, anyway. off the field, too. is there another team in the NFL with as many murders, spousal abusers, and drug users among their ranks as Carolina? I think not. What is one creaky old fart in that motley crew?

(Via: Troglopundit)

I have complained about the post-Vancouver episodes shift away from dark horror and weird science towards a lighter, more relationship oriented tone. Overall, that has been prominent in the sixth season, but the back half has made an effort to slide in some classic themes. “Trevor” is a case in point. The episode is an obvious effort to create a memorable villain in the mode of Robert “Pusher” Modell. Pinker rawls does not quite measure up to Modell, but I will give the writers a ’B” for effort. Emotional impact trumps science, but it is not done well enough to elevate “Trevor” to the top tier of The X-Files.

Pinker Rawls is a prone to violence prisoner in Mississippi serving time for stealing $90,000. He assaults another inmate while they are preparing the prison grounds for an oncoming tornado. He gets put in the hot box for the duration of the storm. He gets struck by lighting, which grants him the power to walk through solid objects. The hot box is blown away by the tornado, and Rawls is assumed dead. No one can explain how the warden who put him in the hot box wound up subsequently split in half.

Mulder and Scully investigate, and quickly decide pinker is still alive, but now has the ability to pass through objects, though he changes their composition by doing so. The agents assume, by following a trail of horribly mangled bodies, Rawls is looking for his ex-girlfriend under the assumption she has the stolen money. In fact, she gave birth to his son shortly after he went to prison, but did not tell him. She gave the kid to her sister so she could start a new life. Rawls goes looking for his kid.

Fortunately, the agents find him first. Surmising rawls cannot pass through glass since his abilities are based on electricity, Scully hides with Trevor in a phone booth. Desperate, no? they are saved by Trevor’s mother, who runs Rawls over with her car. He passes through the car, but not the windshield. In other words, he gets chopped in half.

The major flaw of “Trevor” is poor writing. The script wants us to sympathize with the characters, but throws too much at us. Rawls is a psychopath we could not care less about at any point, even in the brief moment he attempts an emotional connection with his son. We have a tough time caring about trevor, too. He is not introduced until the final act, and is therefore on screen for less than seven minutes. It is bad form to introduce a major character out of the blue so late in the story. His mother is the worst. She abandons her son entirely, takes rawls’ stolen money to build a new life, and then loses her new husband in a flash when he discovers what she really is. Exactly who is it we are supposed to feel for here? They are all hard luck cases to the point of absurdity.

“Trevor” has some logical problems, too. Rawls visits his ex-girlfriend’s sister at a time when we still think he is looking for the money. At no point in the confrontation is any indication given he is looking for anything but the money. He is there late at night, however. Why would a seven year old boy not be home at that time? The revelation should have come then. On a scientific note, there is inconsistency on exactly how Rawls’ abilities work. Supposedly, his clothes cannot go through solid objects with him, but at one point, scalding soup thrown at him passes through his shirt. He also chases Scully and Trevor in his boxers. I guess that is a disturbing enough image as it is without him being nude as he should be.

“Trevor” has flaws, but it is still an entertaining episode. I probably appreciate it because it reminds me of older episodes. The script does not resonate with all the emotion obviously intended. There are some serious logical problems, too. But if you can mindlessly be entertained, it is a decent view.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.

The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.

There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.

Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?

The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.

Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.

The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.