I saw a headline concerning an uproar over a controversial movie poster (pictured above). The movie poster for Les Infideles, shows a man standing between a woman’s legs, while her feet are near his head. Not only wasn’t I offended, but I couldn’t see why anyone would be bothered by it.

Stephane Martin of the ARPP, France’s advertising regulator, asked that the posters be removed because they,

“present a degrading image of women, because in both cases you do not see the woman’s face…. This is certainly presenting an image of women as objects, in this case sexual objects,”

Hold on. The problem isn’t that he is standing between her legs, or that it’s sexually charged? It’s because he can’t see her face? So, if she were on a bed with her dress around her waist, and her face were visible, it would be perfectly acceptable?

I really think France’s “advertising regulators,” need to develop some common sense…and a sense of humor.

Donald Trump with his wife, Melania Knauss Trump

Today, Donald Trump announced that he will be endorsing Mitt Romney for President. Some were surprised that Trump didn’t choose Gingrich, and right up until the announcement, there was suspense over what he would announce. For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would care who Trump endorsed.

Donald Trump is little more than a reality star. Does anyone care what the cast members of Survivor, Big Brother, or American Idol think about the election?

Sure, Trump mentioned the idea of running himself on numerous occasions, but decided against it. In my opinion, it was nothing more than a ploy to get his name in the news and boost ratings for The Apprentice. The new season of The Apprentice begins in two weeks, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this announcement were planned.

Here’s my guess: Donald Trump will find another “announcement” he has to make around the time of the season finale. If Romney falters, he might also bring up the idea of running again. Anything for ratings.

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

I’m not a Mitt Romney supporter, but I can’t believe anyone with common sense would be bothered by this comment. Sure, progressive Democrats are going to seize upon it, but the last time I checked, they lacked any semblance of common sense. Let’s take a look at what Romney was saying, shall we?

First, the wealthy don’t need any help. They have all the money they need. That’s simple enough. As for the poor, that’s going to take some explaining, especially for those who are accustomed to government sponsored hand-outs.

If you’re poor, you’re eligible for welfare payments, subsidized rent, childcare, heat, utilities, food stamps, free college, free healthcare, and lots of other breaks. These programs are all established at the state or federal level, and are (overly) generous. How many more handouts and programs should be created for those who have a track record of bad decisions? We have a safety net, and Romney said he would fix it if need be.

The middle class? That’s a different story. They’re usually too “wealthy” to qualify for help, and can be a layoff away from economic chaos. Again, this chaos could very well result from bad decisions, but the truth of the matter is that the middle class tend to work harder, and have a track record of better decisions. I don’t have hard numbers to back up those assertions, but I do feel comfortable making them.

With that said, I think we all know that Romney’s interest in the middle class is due solely to their large numbers. Mitt cares about whatever group has the most voters who will turn out at the polls on election day..

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Debate

Mitt Romney has won the Florida Primary by a wide margin over Newt Gingrich, but the race for the Republican nomination is far from over.

The media has been portraying each win or loss as a make or break moment, but the truth is that four states have voted, and 46 remain. Florida Senator Marco Rubio seems to think that the winner of Florida will win the nomination, but I’m not so sure. If Newt Gingrich can pick up some wins, along with some strong second place finishes in states which assign delegates proportionally, we might be looking at a nominating convention that is very much up in the air. Is it likely that Republicans are heading toward a brokered convention? No. Is it possible? You bet!

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum also appear to be in it for the long-haul. I don’t see either reaching the necessary 1,144 delegates to clinch the nomination, but I do see them winning some delegates in future primaries and caucuses. The more delegates they win, the smaller the chance of the front-runner (whoever that will be) getting a majority.

The only thing that is certain is that we’re in for an interesting election season.

As for Newt, a picture says a thousand words. This one speaks volumes.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen more and more candidates invoke the memory of President Ronald Reagan. I don’t blame them for admiring Reagan’s accomplishments, but I do often question their sincerity. Are these candidates simply sharing thoughts about their fondness for Reagan, or is it solely a transparent method of trying to ride the coattails of a man they may not really identify with?

This has been going on a while, but it has been Newt Gingrich’s frequent mentions of Reagan during debates that have annoyed me. To hear Gingrich tell it, he and Reagan were rather close, and shared credit for some of the accomplishments of the Reagan Presidency.

Upon hearing Gingrich’s boasts for the first time, I was taken by surprise. How would a fairly young Congressman with little seniority actually gain so much power in the Reagan Administration? Well, it turns out he didn’t.

Since Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina, members of the Reagan Administration have come forward to refute Gingrich’s wild claims. Others have pointed to times where Gingrich criticized Reagan on several occassions.

When it comes to flip-flopping and getting creative with the truth, Newt’s only competitor might be Mitt Romney.

The Republican Presidential candidates after a debate. Who will be the next media darling?

Once the field of Republican Presidential candidates began to settle, Mitt Romney was anointed as the front-runner and favorite. While he has consistently led the field with support of 20% to 25% in most polls, that means there are 75% to 80% who are supporting someone else. There’s a desire to find the anti-Romney, but so far, none has been able to pull away.

This past summer, Michele Bachmann seemed to quickly gain headlines and support. Of course, this ended when Rick Perry entered the fray and instantly rocketed to the top of the field. Since then, Perry has shown that he’s ill-prepared for the national spotlight. After some strong debate performances, Herman Cain vaulted into the top-tier, but he’s seen his support erode a bit since sexual harassment accusations have come to light.

The current darling of the GOP contenders is Newt Gingrich. He’s not my first choice, but there’s no denying that he’s intelligent, has experience, and is a strong debater. The question for Gingrich is whether he can maintain the popularity surge. Unlike Perry or Bachmann, he actually has substance, but as his poll numbers have risen, so have the number of negative stories. The media seems to revel in building up a candidate’s poll numbers so they can knock them off the pedestal they created.

With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in less than two months, a small, transient up-tick in popularity could greatly alter the race. I don’t see Romney’s numbers changing appreciably, and it looks like Perry, Bachmann, and Cain have hit their peak. Besides Romney, the only candidate who has garnered steady double digit support is Ron Paul. If Gingrich were to falter, or the media succeeds in tearing him down, I’d look for Paul to have a surge in the early states. With a strong organization, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were successful in capitalizing on the potential surge.

Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, two of the greatest players of all-time, never reached 3,000 hits

I know people are tripping over themselves in an effort to heap accolades on the New York Yankees Derek Jeter after his 3,000th hit. The worst part was the tendency for the media to constantly point out that he’s the only Yankee to ever attain 3,000 hits. Let me just point out one thing: 3,000 hits or not, Jeter isn’t in the same class as Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, or Mickey Mantle.

After Jeter’s accomplishment, I checked out the list of career hit leaders. Here’s a list of the 28 men who reached 3,000 hits:

1. Pete Rose 4256
2. Ty Cobb 4189
3. Hank Aaron 3771
4. Stan Musial 3630
5. Tris Speaker 3514
6. Cap Anson 3435
7. Honus Wagner 3420
8. Carl Yastrzemski 3419
9. Paul Molitor 3319
10. Eddie Collins 3315
11. Willie Mays 3283
12. Eddie Murray 3255
13. Nap Lajoie 3242
14. Cal Ripken 3184
15. George Brett 3154
16. Paul Waner 3152
17. Robin Yount 3142
18. Tony Gwynn 3141
19. Dave Winfield 3110
20. Craig Biggio 3060
21. Rickey Henderson 3055
22. Rod Carew 3053
23. Lou Brock 3023
24. Rafael Palmeiro 3020
25. Wade Boggs 3010
26. Al Kaline 3007
27. Derek Jeter 3003
28. Roberto Clemente 3000

When you look at that list, are you surprised? There are some great players on that list, but there are some players that I wouldn’t consider among the greats. Excellent player, but not great players. In that list, I would include, George Brett, Robin Yount, Al Kaline, Craig Biggio, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, Paul Molitor, and Derek Jeter. For many, 3,000 hits was the result of longevity mixed in with some strong years, not greatness.

If you think I’m wrong, then consider that Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams are not on that list. Are the members of the 3,000 hit club somehow superior? I don’t think so, especially when you consider that some players missed substantial at-bats. For example, Babe Ruth was a pitcher who had limited at-bats early in his career, while Ted Williams missed a few years while serving our country as a fighter pilot.

Remember: Round numbers like 3,000 don’t always tell the whole story.

Tim Pawlenty can wave good-bye to the Presidency if he loses Iowa, which he probably will.

Tim Pawlenty finally showed some signs of life, when he criticized Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s record as “non-existent.” It’s nice that he’s showing some signs of life, but I have a feeling that his criticism might not resonate with voters.

Think about this: Voters elected Barack Obama as President after only a few years in the U.S. Senate. Although, he was also a state senator (wow!). On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Sarah Palin has a massive number of supporters, even though she had less than two years experience as Governor of Alaska. Of course, in Palin’s defense, she was the mayor of Wasilla, which is a Metropolitan powerhouse.

I know that liberals like to blame many of the world’s ills on racism and white citizens, but I’m still amazed at the stupidity of those who oppose MCRI. Basically, it says that race should not be a consideration in university admissions. Proponents feel that grades, test scores, interviews, awards, and extracurricular activities are important, and that the amount of melanin in someone’s skin shouldn’t matter. These individuals are supporting the color-blind society liberals pretend to support, but undermine at every point.

I’d make the argument that those who oppose MCRI are actually the racists. They’re giving an unfair advantage to certain students based solely on their race. If this were being done for the benefit of white students, they’d be the first to complain, yet they see no problem with extending it to other racial and ethnic groups. By the way, could someone tell liberals that many of these students don’t need the extra help, and that I’m sure many would oppose receiving preferential treatment.

Of course, they wouldn’t listen. This just fits right into their “us vs. them” mentality. Liberals talk a good game, but it’s becoming more and more obvious that they’re the ones obsessed with race and ethnicity.