The heart of a champion

I was cruising around the news sites reading various articles about the recent protest in Washington D.C. and feeling a bit queasy when I heard the news about Barbaro's passing. I was going to blog about the protest, but then I would have to read idiotic comments from pinheads like Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Maxine Waters, Tim Robbins and the like. I chose the horse. I didn't know Barbaro from a hole in the ground until he injured himself. I guess what effected me the most with this horse was how he seemed to beat the odds even when recovery appeared impossible.

I have mixed feelings about horse racing. It certainly is a beautiful sport but it is particularly dangerous for the horse. They are bred for speed (obviously) and it makes them vulnerable to serious injury. Here are some of the grim statistics: On average, one active racehorse a day is killed in Britain. More than 700 a year are killed in the United States and Canada. I'm not suggesting that the sport be banned but maybe a little more closely regulated. We are responsible for these animals. Breed these horses to be as sturdy as they are fast. It may slow the sport down a bit, but it will also kill fewer animals. I would like that to be Barbaro's legacy, but that's not going to happen.

If they bury Barbaro down at the Kentucky Horse Park I will make a special trip this summer to visit his grave.

First amendment, Kucinich style.

Dennis Kucinich wants to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. In a speech at the National Conference for Media Reform, Kucinich stated that the new congress was "in a position" to reintroduce "progressive ideas back into the marketplace". The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission at a time when media outlets were relatively small in number. It was abolished in 1987 under the Reagan administration, yet another reason to be thankful for that man, when many government restrictions on media outlets were removed (deregulation). An attempt was made in 1991 to bring it back, but it failed when George Bush said if the bill came to him, he'd veto it. I was working in Christian radio at the time and the owners of the station were very concerned. The station played southern gospel music most of the time, but on Sunday morning we aired recorded sermons from local pastors. Would the Fairness Doctrine require our station to air the opinions of Atheists? Satanists? Pagans? Who would we be required to give equal air time to?

This new effort to bring back the fairness doctrine is a direct response to the popularity of conservative talk radio. Air America, the liberal alternative, is such stunningly bad radio they can't sell it. The only way the liberal point of view can stay on the air is if they hijack, at least partially, the more popular conservative shows. Part of the reason is their philosophy can't stand scrutiny. Which is why they don't take many calls with other points of view. I hadn't noticed this until it was pointed out to me by a local talk show host Mike McConnell on one of his programs. Without that aspect, the caller, that kind of show becomes very tedious, very quickly. I've listened to Randi Rhodes and Al Franken a few times and it was just awful, not just the philosophy, it was bad radio. On top of that Rhodes is delusional. She believes that the only reason she doesn't have the listenership that Rush Limbaugh has is that Rush threatened to take all of his shows off Clear Channel Radio if Rhodes was put on as competition anywhere. She actually said that in an interview on C-Span!

I believe this new effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine will also fail because the original intent no longer applies. There are so many outlets now it would be nearly impossible to enforce the thing. And more than likely enforcement would be very selective and conservative talk radio would be the target. The pinkos love free speech, but only if you agree with them.

P.S. Spell check wanted me to replace "Kucinich" with "juiciness". I love spell check.

The first 100 hours

Favors for businesses in the area you represent, catty swipes at respected cabinet members, so far this is not looking like the ultra ethical government we were promised by the Democrats. Let's start with Nancy Pelosi. She promised the most honest, open and ethical Congress since Jesus was a teenager. So what happens under her speakership? A major corporation, that just happens to be in Pelosi's district, is exempted from the new minimum wage law by virtue of being in American Samoa, a territory of the United States. The company is Starkist Tuna who's parent company is Del Monte foods, who's headquarters is in San Francisco. I'm sure it's just a coincidence! Riiiiight. Fortunately for the good people of American Samoa, Pelosi was exposed for the fraud that she is, forcing the Democrats to now include all territories in the new minimum wage law. Most ethical my @$$.

One would expect more from a United States Senator than the catty remarks she made recently to Condoleeza Rice at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. "Who pays the price?" Barbara Boxer asked Rice regarding the war in Iraq. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. "So who pays the price? The American military and their families." The insinuation is that Rice who is single and childless does not have a dog in this fight, and is maybe less qualified because of that fact. Can you imagine what would have happened if it had been a Republican Senator addressing a democrat female cabinet member in that manner? But then again we republicans are held to a much higher standard. Either way, the suggestion Secretary Rice is somehow less qualified to make judgments regarding the war in Iraq is utterly absurd. If anyone pales by comparison, it's Boxer, which is probably the reason for the remarks in the first place. Let's not forget, Boxer essentially called Rice a liar at her confirmation hearings. So I don't expect much in the way of tactful or dignified behavior from Senator Boxer. One of my new year's resolutions was to put up a post at least once a week. If the democrats keep up their shenanigans at this pace, it will be easy.

San Fran Nan

"Most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history" That's how Nancy Pelosi described how the house will now be run. That remains to be seen, but what have seen so far is 4 days of celebration, a closed door meeting and a day off to watch football. Hardly the kind of "leadership" we were promised in her inaugural speech, but the kind I expected from a San Francisco liberal. But the biggest contradiction of all was watching her with a group of children standing at the podium. A contradiction, because she is the leader of the party that worships abortion. Keep an eye on this woman, she is in love with power. The following are comments by Dick Morris as to why Pelosi appointed Alcee Hastings, who was removed from federal judgeship for conspiring to accept a 150,000 dollar bribe, over Jane Harman for the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee: "Let's understand why Pelosi is pushing Hastings. It's a payoff to the Black Caucus, but it's also because Jane Harman, a fellow California female Democratic congresswoman, is the next in line in seniority, and she doesn't want a female competition. She doesn't want two aggressive Democratic women congressmen in California, in case she runs for governor or something else. She doesn't want the competition."
Why else would she appoint only the 6th person in history to be impeached from a federal judgeship? Is this how Nancy Pelosi interprets "most ethical"? I hope not, but that's probably the case.