Who is the Best James Bond?

With Daniel Craig's run as James Bond having come to an end this is a good time to reflect on those who have played the top secret agent of MI6. Over the course of 54 years, there have been six men that have worn the tuxedo and have played the role of the James Bond, starting with Dr. No in 1962 and ending (so far) with Spectre last year.

Various rumors have placed Idris Elba as the next Bond, rewriting the Bond-verse to portray that the name James Bond, just like the 007 designation, are just titles. I don't necessarily like this. While I think Elba is a great actor and I would be fine with him occupying the role of 007, I don't think he should be James Bond. I'd rather he make the part his. Make it James Bonds' successor. I believe this would expand on the Bond-verse rather than restrict it to the adventures of just one man. Besides, Ian Fleming wrote an obituary for James Bond in You Only Live Twice which stated his father's name was Andrew Bond. This would make Bond a family name and not a title.

Others that have been considered for the James Bond role in the past include Dick Van Dyke (seriously), Michael Caine, Mel Gibson, Adam West, Henry Cavill, Burt Reynolds, Cary Grant, Clint Eastwood, and even Liam Neeson. I personally believe that Clive Owen would have been a good James Bond and he even played a Bond-like role in the Pink Panther movie starring Steve Martin.

In the meantime, I give me my list of the best Bond portrayals in order from best to worst...

1. Sean Connery: He starred in 6 Bond movies, but most people will swear he starred as Bond in more movies than that. This is perhaps Connery's most famous role of his legendary career. He also starred in two of the top Bond movies as well (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger). Close your eyes for a second and mentally think about whose voice you hear in your head. I'm betting it belongs to Connery. From Russia with Love is the best example of his work.

2. Pierce Bronsan: He played 007 four times in his life between 1995-2002. He was actually the role during the 1980's, but declined it to star in a similar role as a private investigator as the titled character in Remington Steele television show. His portrayal of Bond revived the series that was declining after Connery left the role. The World is Not Enough is his best example of his work.

3. Roger Moore: Moore has played the role of James Bond more on film than any other actor. He officially took over for Connery in 1973 and continued until 1985. His downside is that he occasionally looked more business like than secret agent like at times. Off camera, Moore felt so self conscious about how he looked while running that all scenes that featured Bond running utilized a stunt double. What was worse was that he also suffered from Hoplophobia--a fear of firearms. A View to Kill is the best example of his work.

4. Daniel Craig: Probably the most believable other than Connery physically as a secret agent, Craig was supposed to play a younger James Bond during his formative years as a new secret agent. Problem was that he was already 38 years old when he took up the mantel (Connery for example was 32 years old). He also didn't appear too similar to the other actors who played Bond. Craig on the flipside starred in the highest grossing Bond movies of all-time. Starring in 4 movies, Craig's best example of his work is in Casino Royale.

5. Timothy Dalton: The star of two Bond movies, Dalton portrayed a more emo-like Bond instead of the playboy type that Moore played. It was hard to like him as James Bond. Maybe it was a symptom of the time period, the movies were filmed in the late 80's. His best work would be Licence to Kill.

6. George Lazenby: Perhaps the forgotten James Bond actor. Ask your friends to name all the actors who have played 007. Unless they are a big Bond fan, I bet they forget about Lazenby who starred as Bond once. Following Connery, he already had a hard role following the best Bond, but Lazenby was also open about his hatred of playing the part. He quit after one movie and Connery retook the role again once more. You can check out Lazenby's only performance in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Millhouse MLB Season Predictions

Photo of Paul Goldschmidt taken by Daniel Millhouse

It's that time of year again. My fantasy baseball draft has passed and I can make my predictions for the season without someone trying to up-bid me during my auction draft. With baseball season so close, I give you my predictions for the 2016 Major League Baseball Season...

American League:
MVP: Manny Machado
Cy Young: Marcus Stroman
Rookie of the Year: AJ Reed
Manager of the Year: AJ Hinch
Fireman of the Year: Wade Davis
Comeback Player of the Year: Marcus Stroman
Breakout: Miguel Sano
Silver Sluggers: Catcher-Salvador Perez, 1B-Chris Davis, 2B-Jose Altuve, 3B-Manny Machado, SS-Carlos Correa, OF-Mookie Betts, Lorenzo Cain, Mike Trout, DH-Nelson Cruz

Notes: While I have listed Stroman as the winner for the Cy Young Award, I can easily see several other pitchers in the running including Garrett Richards who I believe will have a breakout year, Chris Sale, and Dallas Keuchel for a repeat. Also, I believe AJ Reed won't start the year at the Major League level, but Jon Singleton will prove unworthy and Reed won't be in the minors too long.

AL East: 1. Toronto Blue Jays, 2. Baltimore Orioles, 3. New York Yankees, 4. Boston Red Sox, 5. Tampa Bay DEVIL Rays
AL Central: 1. Detroit Tigers, 2. Kansas City Royals, 3. Chicago White Sox, 4. Cleveland Indians, 5. Minnesota Twins
AL West: 1. Houston Astros, 2. Seattle Mariners, 3. Texas Rangers, 4. ANAHEIM Angels, 5. Oakland A's

Notes: With their pitching staff back to healthy, I believe that the Blue Jays will take a step closer to their first World Series appearance since the days of Joe Carter. I also believe that while the Royals will have another good year, the Tigers will stay healthy enough finally to just pull out first place in the Central. The White Sox would be another possible contender, but I don't think they quite pull it out this year. The Astros will repeat in the West and the Mariners will finally show some of the potential some thought they would have last year.

National League:
MVP: Paul Goldschmidt
Cy Young: Johnny Cueto
Rookie of the Year: Trevor Story
Manager of the Year: Dusty Baker
Fireman of the Year: AJ Ramos
Comeback Player of the Year: Jose Fernandez
Breakout Player of the Year: Aaron Nola
Silver Sluggers: Catcher-Buster Posey, 1B-Paul Goldschmidt, 2B-Dee Gordon, 3B-Nolan Arenado, SS-Brandon Crawford, OF-Bryce Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, Andrew McCutcheon, Pitcher-Madison Bumgarner

Notes: I believe that now that he is in a pitcher's park and has a stellar defense behind him, Cueto will finally step up beyond the role of all-star pitcher and into the role of Cy Young Award winner just past Clayton Kershaw. While I imagine 99% of people are predicting that Corey Seager will be the rookie of the year and I agree he will probably have a good year as well, I believe Story will take advantage of taking the shortstop spot from Jose Reyes. Story won't let go and will benefit from playing in Colorado. Domingo Santana will also be another player to watch for Rookie of the Year, especially if he earns the leadoff spot for the Brewers. I believe that Jose Fernandez will be the best comeback story, but Anthony Rendon and Adam Wainwright won't be far behind. Lastly, Aaron Nola will show that he deserves to be called an ace despite being on a horrible team. He won't rack up the wins, but he will have a low ERA and WHIP along with some quality starts.

NL East: 1. New York Mets, 2. Washington Nationals, 3. Miami Marlins, 4. Atlanta Braves, 5. Philadelphia Phillies
NL Central: 1. Chicago Cubs, 2. Pittsburgh Pirates, 3. St. Louis Cardinals, 4. Milwaukee Brewers, 5. Cincinnati Reds
NL West: 1. San Francisco Giants, 3. Arizona Diamondbacks, 3. Los Angeles Dodgers, 4. San Diego Padres, 5. Colorado Rockies

Notes: The focus has been on some of the signings and trades Arizona made this offseason. While good, this is an even year which seems to be lucky for the Giants. The Diamondbacks have a better rotation that is built for the postseason though. The Cubs also come into this season with a lot of hype, but is also helps that they have two horrible teams within their own division (Reds, Brewers). The Mets will also benefit from having two horrible teams in their division, but at least the Braves have potential with all the minor league stars they traded for the past couple of years. We could potentially see the Braves step up next year like the Astros did in 2015.

Playoffs:
AL: Wildcards-Baltimore Orioles and Kansas City Royals; AL Championship-Toronto Blue Jays vs. Houston Astros; AL Champion-Houston Astros
NL: Wildcards-Arizona Diamondbacks and the Pittsburgh Pirates; NL Championship-San Francisco Giants vs. New York Mets; NL Champions-San Francisco Giants
World Series: Houston Astros over San Francisco in 7 games

Us vs. Us: Elite Pit Poor Against Each Other

Pictured: Donald Trump who argues minimum wage is too high

Wages in America have fallen far behind the rate of inflation and the cost of living. The last time minimum wage was raised was in 2009 when the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) raised it to $7.25 an hour. Some states and other localities such as cities have raised their minimum wage levels higher than this, but not to level it once was.

Many argue against it including Donald Trump who said on MSNBC's Morning Joe, "But I think having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country." He argued that most people wouldn't have to worry about it if they just did a good job working hard.

Others argue against Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' proposal to eventually raise it to $15 over multiple years. In these arguments, they use fast food workers as the example of a minimum wage worker. Out of the 3.3 million workers making the federal minimum wage or lower in America (tipped employees, student-employees, and more make under the federal level), 1.5 million are in the food industry according the Bureau of Labor. This doesn't take account for those that are making minimum wage in areas that are above the federal level, but pay a higher minimum wage due to cost of living in those particular regions (e.g. California is $10 an hour). Approximately 35 percent of food industry workers in total in American make minimum wage or less.

The strawman argument made is that if minimum wage is raised to $15, the majority of those that will benefit will be teenage kids working for an employer such as McDonalds. The average minimum wage employee is 35 years old according to John Schmitt, the senior economist with the Center of Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. Just over 88 percent are over 20 years old and over 50 percent are over 30 years old. Fifty-four percent of minimum wage employees work full-time and another 32 percent work half-time (up to 34 hours a week). This also doesn't take account of those making just over minimum wage, but under the $15 an hour. This includes retail store managers such as Gamestop who pay head store managers $12 an hour to run businesses that make $2 million a year and carry a low payroll percentage already. They too would benefit from the raise.

Those that utilize the strawman argument online often make comparisons with teenage fast food workers to professions such as EMT's and military people who make under $15 an hour as well. This is a false argument though. To start, EMT's and other medical professionals making under $15 would benefit from a minimum that is raised to $15. Second, there is no scenario saying that fast food workers deserve it more or that they would receive the pay raise, but not those in the life saving professions. Thirdly, they too have been the victims over the years of not receiving raises that correlate with the cost of living.

Instead of people pitting fast food employees against these noble professions, why are they not banding together to fight those who have benefitted from their hard work? The average CEO makes 350 times more than their average employee, let alone one that makes minimum wage for that company. The average CEO in America makes $12.3 million a year which is almost $5 million a year ahead of the second highest paying country in the world to CEO's, Switzerland. Walmart's CEO, Doug McMillon makes $25.6 million a year not counting his company paid cars, paid air travel, and other benefits. This is 1,133 times higher than the average full-time Walmart employee who makes $22,591, or about $10.86 an hour.

This has ballooned from the 20-1 CEO to average pay ratio from 1950. This also doesn't account for other board members and top brass within these companies who also saw their incomes balloon higher than the average employee. While CEO's saw their pay rate rise as high as 1,750 percent since 1950, the average worker hasn't seen the same pay hike.

In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60 which doesn't sound like a great deal, but when adjusted for inflation, has as much buying power as someone who make over $21 an hour today. That means if you make under $21 an hour today, you are no better off than a minimum wage employee was 48 years ago. You would have to make $41,680 a year ($21 an hour at full-time) to have the equal buying power of a minimum wage employee in 1968.

Today, 63 percent of Americans make under $41,680. That is 63 percent of Americans who make wages that have not kept up with inflation and the cost of living. There are teachers, first responders, business managers, and many other professions that make less than that. This means the face of person that has knocked down by the elite shouldn't be a fast food employee, but instead should be someone such as a soldier, teach, or EMT, for they too have been gypped.

While those who the strawman argue against minimum wage being raised to $15 an hour love posting pictures of fast food employees as the face of their argument, those who make less than $21 should ban together and counter this argument.

It's not one or another when it comes to fast food employees versus someone such as an EMT. The elite use this example to pit the poor against the poor. This takes the heat off what they themselves make. If you make under $15 an hour, you should direct your anger at those who run your place of business and not those who make around the same amount.

Daylight Saving Time Looms

March 13 will bring the beginning of Daylight Saving Time in California and most of the other American states this year and tons of Americans will wake up the next morning needing an extra shot of caffeine to get by the day. At 2am that morning, the clocks will magically jump to 3am.

Benjamin Franklin was a proponent of DST to save on lamp oil and candles. It was also meant to preserve every hour of daylight possible for people such as farmers to work their land.

In present day, Daylight Saving Time was originally thought to help when it comes to preserving electricity and cutting costs on American's utility bills. In a study about Indiana's energy use, it was found that since they adopted Daylight Saving Time in 2006, energy use actually went up. Pollution from car emissions went up as well as it was found that more people hit the roads while it was still light out. From a health standpoint, the loss of an hour of sleep creates an increase of heart attacks, car accidents, and injuries at work because of drowsiness during the week that follows the time change.

Assemblyman Kansen Chu, D-San Jose has introduced a bill that would get rid of the Daylight Saving Time Act of 1949 in the state of California. If passed, when the clock falls back in November, it will never spring forward again. States such as Hawaii and Arizona already do not observe Daylight Saving Time, so a precedent has already been set in the United States.

DST is outdated and should be overturned. While people would lose the benefit of gaining an extra hour of free time or sleep in the fall, they don't have to worry about losing an hour of sleep in the spring. It would be most beneficial for the United States to have a permanent standard time instead.

Superdelegates Carry too Much Power

Photo from Bernie Sanders' Facebook page

Now that it's primary season, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders intensifies. Clinton was supposed to be the lockdown favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination, but thanks to social media and a message that reaches the first class, Sanders has become a serious contender to Clinton. This isn't too dissimilar to President Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 when he defeated Clinton through social media and his grassroots campaign. The problem for Sanders in 2016 is the superdelegates.

For those of you who don't know what a superdelegate is, they are a party leaders and distinguished elected officials that can choose whomever they want to endorse instead of being beholden to the voters' wishes of their state.

The problem with this is that their single vote could be equal to thousands of regular citizens' votes. This is unfair. In America, every vote should be counted as equal. The superdelegates have enough power to swing a primary election in the favor of a candidate that the general public did not choose to represent them.

Sanders has this problem currently. Already fighting an uphill battle with the media that gives him little airtime despite selling out rally venues up to the size of Madison Square Garden, Clinton has been presumed the party nominee from day one by the media, disrespecting the Senator from Vermont. Sanders has reached more people through social media than any other candidate for either party yet he is presumed to be a fringe candidate.

If you look at the delegate count as of March 4, Clinton has a modest lead with a count of 601 delegates compared to Sanders' 409. With the early southern states that have already held their primaries, this is not a surprise since Clinton polled better in the south. Sanders on the other hand polls better in western and northern states and if you look at the difference of the regular delegates, Sanders would be far from being knocked out of the race and would carry a certain momentum with him as states such as California and Oregon would hold their primaries in the future.

The monkey wrench is that Clinton dominates with the superdelegates. Instead of being a close race, when the superdelegates are factored in, Clinton is winning 1,058 to Sanders' 431. When future voters who have yet to participate in a primary look at this, it would appear that Clinton is destroying Sanders. This is only because she has 457 superdelegates compared to Sanders' 22. The 457 superdelegates she has have more power than the thousands of regular, everyday people that have voted for Sanders already. This is by far unfair.

On CNN, Jake Tapper asked the Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

This sounds awfully bad. So campaigns that gain their power from the everyday person instead of those already in power are considered to be not as important in Schultz's eyes. Power remains in power. The will of the people is thwarted by those already in power. Maybe she feels this way since she was in charge of Clinton's first campaign for President in 2008 which fell to the grass-roots campaign run by Barack Obama.

With the appearance that Clinton is destroying Sanders this badly so far, many undecided voters find themselves swayed to vote for Clinton because she is winning instead of voting for who they think is really the best candidate.

Because of the existence of superdelegates, Sanders could beat Clinton by 711 delegate votes, effectively winning the majority of the United States by far and still lose the Democratic nomination if all 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. Once again, extremely unfair and against the will of the regular everyday Democratic voter.

Neither party should have superdelegates. It's not fair to those who are not considered the front runner for their party's nomination at the beginning of the primary process. Sanders has proven that instead of being a fringe candidate, he is a real threat to win the majority of the regular everyday person's votes, but without the support of the superdelegates, it wouldn't matter.

Power keeps power.