This picture looks like it was taken from a Saturday Night Live skit...but of course it was not. These men run our country. Are you comfortable with that? They don't look like the finest minds in our country. They look more like a collection of dim-wits trying to get as close together as possible to ensure that they are within the viewfinder of the camera. (Is that the Dunkin Doughnuts guy talking into the microphone?)

The 10 rock bands you are most likely to hear while walking through a trailer park

1) Ozzy Osborne (or some variation thereof)

2) Metallica

3) Ratt

4) Guns and Roses

5) AC/DC

6) The Rolling Stones

7) Aerosmith

8) Motley Crue

9) Tool

10) Lynyrd Skynyrd

The 11 worst bands that somehow managed to become popular

1) Rolling Stones (I don't understand the fascination: untalented, repetitious, and worthless in so many ways.)

2) Aerosmith (No creativity. Take the allusions to sex out of their songs and there's nothing left.)

3) Foreigner (One hit wonders who somehow managed more than one hit.)

4) Def Leppard (The Foreigner of hair bands.)

5) Guns and Roses (Anyone who's ever seen a live G&R performance understands that they have/had absolutely no talent.)

6) REM ("Shiney Happy People?" Come on.)

7) Pearl Jam (One decent song. Since then, nothing but politics.)

8) Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band (I heard that he puts on a good live show. The problem is that he only plays his music during those shows.)

9) The Moody Blues (People actually listen to this stuff?)

10) Oasis (Beatles wanna-be's. Popular for only a short time--could be lumped into a "one-hit-wonder" category.)

11) AC/DC (What's to like?)

Top 10 little-known songs by well-known bands

The local classic rock station here in Philly "gets the led out" every day at 7pm. (As most classic rock fans know, just about every classic rock station in the country does the same.) I'm a big Zeppelin fan, but I get tired of the same ol' overplayed Zeppelin songs. How many times can one hear "Over the Hills and Far Away" and still enjoy it? The same can be said for other bands. "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Money" were nice the first 500 times, but they began to lose their effect on me by listen number 501. With this in mind, the following are some of the best little-known songs by well-known bands. These songs are obviously not unknown, but you'll wait a long time before you ever hear them on the radio.

1) Led Zeppelin "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" (honorable mentions "Friends," "You Shook Me" and "No Quarter")

2) Pink Floyd "Astronomy Domine," the Ummagumma version with Gilmour on guitar in place of Barrett (honorable mentions "Dogs," "The Nile Song" and "Echoes")

3) Queen "It's Late" (honorable mention "The Prophet's Song")

4) The Police "So Lonely" (honorable mention "Canary in a Coalmine")

5) Jimi Hendrix "Machine Gun" (I can't think of an honorable mention, unless you consider "Voodoo Child" little-known.)

6) The Who "Squeeze Box" (I know some radio stations play this somewhat regularly, i.e. 102.9 in Philly, but most never play it.)

7) The Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun" (hands down, the best Beatles song ever)

8)Styx "Suite Madame Blue" (honorable mention "Babe") No. Really. "Suite Madame Blue" is actually a good Styx song; one that could not have been sung by Barry Manilow.

9) Rush "Xanadu" (honorable mention "Red Barchetta")

10) Genesis "The Musical Box" (honorable mention "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe"). Most people think of Phil Collins' crap when they think of Genesis. Those people might be pleasantly surprised that Genesis was a completely different animal prior to 1975.

The politics of abortion (my first real post)

I have been inspired to post my first official blog. The inspiration: the intersection of abortion and politics.

I just read a blog written by a friend from my law school days. He noted in his blog that he intends to vote for Obama in the coming election. This baffled me, as I know he opposes abortion. I've come across this paradox before, and I still do not understand why it exists. What makes a pro-life supporter vote for a pro-choice candidate? I can think of only two justifications, neither of which make much sense at the end of the day. The two justifications are: (1) abortion is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance (with other issues taking precedence over abortion) and/or (2) a President's views on abortion do not significantly affect the laws regulating abortion. (If anyone can think of another reason, please comment.)

As to abortion being simply one issue to weigh in the balance of many issues, I fail to see the logic. If you are truly against abortion, it is more than just one of the many issues to weigh in the balance when deciding for whom to vote. Instead, it is the preeminent issue of our day, just as slavery was the preeminent issue in the early days of our country. When Lincoln was running for president, pro-slavery advocates reasoned that slaves were property; therefore, they were not entitled to the protections afforded to persons under the Constitution. In hindsight, that reasoning is ridiculous and abusive. Similarly, pro-choice advocates today reason that unborn children are not yet persons entitled to Constitutional protections. In the words of Justice Blackmun in the Roe v. Wade opinion, "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." This modern reasoning is just as ridiculous and abusive as the pro-slavery reasoning used 150 years ago. In some ways it is even more abusive, as slaves at least had some value as "property." Unborn children in America have no value, so their lives can be aborted. With this in mind, a modern pro-life voter's assertion that abortion is just one of many issues is analogous to a early 1800's anti-slavery voter's assertion that slavery is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance. Such an assertion is foolish at best.

An argument that the President will have little impact on the laws regulating abortion is similarly unimpressive. All one has to do is look at our current Supreme Court. On the pro-life side are Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and (sometimes) Kennedy. On the pro-choice side are Justices Ginsburg, Bryer, and Souter. Roberts and Alito were Bush (the younger) appointments. Scalia and Kennedy were Reagan appointments. Thomas and Souter were Bush (the elder) appointments. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointments. Stevens was a Ford appointment. With the exception of Souter and Stevens (and occasional departures by Kennedy), these appointments all follow the expected abortion line. And I am sure that this line would be even more pronounced if Circuit Court judges were included. In other words, modern precedent indicates that a President significantly impacts the status of abortion in America through his judicial appointments. Thus, how can a pro-life voter support a pro-choice candidate? Am I missing something here?