WHAT DEMOCRATS BELIEVE

I had a lot of requests for copies of the list of Democrat beliefs. These are by no means all of them, but they pretty much sum up this year and the political campaign underway. Originally from Rich Lowry at National Review, some have been slightly altered by yours truly.

A presidential primary is a way for a political party to make up its mind. The Democrats of 2004 believe:

1. That wars should be authorized, but never fought.

2. That the United Nations is the world's last, best hope, and every jot of its writ should always be respected, unless it inconveniences Saddam Hussein.

3. That nation-building is always a humanitarian and just cause, unless it is undertaken in Iraq.

4. That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.

5. That French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is always right.

6. That President Bush isn't devoting enough resources to the reconstruction of Iraq, and that — in light of his $87 billion aid proposal — he is devoting far too many resources to the reconstruction of Iraq.

7. That George Bush maneuvered the United States into war in an act of manipulative genius, and also is very stupid.

8. That [fill in blank with latest conflict here] is another Vietnam.

9. That the U.S. military is overextended — and should be smaller.

10. That unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is brought to bear on Israel.

11. That it is absolutely necessary for the cause of clean government for candidates to abide by the limits set by the presidential public-financing system, unless they — like Kerry and Howard Dean — have enough money not to.

12. That big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by California Gov. Gray Davis.

13. That punch-card ballots are a travesty of justice, unless they elect a Democrat.

14. That groping is a minor offense of no interest to feminists, unless a Republican candidate is the groper.

15. That independent-counsel investigations are travesties of justice, unless they probe leaks in a Republican White House.

16. That Bush is bankrupting the federal government, but is a tightfisted ogre for signing only a $400 billion new prescription-drug benefit.

17. That Bush is fiscally irresponsible, but isn't spending enough on education, "first responders," health care or anything else not called "defense."

18. That the nation cannot afford the pending retirement of the baby boomers, but the baby boomers should get more benefits for their pending retirements.

19. That Bush is responsible for an economic downturn that began before he was elected and that Clinton is responsible for an economic recovery that began before he was elected (here at last — a kind of consistency!).

20. That small-business owners are the heart of the economy unless they succeed, at which point they become "the rich."

21. That it is evil to be rich, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz.

22. That it is wrong to be a millionaire, unless you got that way by suing people.

23. That the sons of the upper-crust Northeastern elite are always and everywhere out-of-touch, unless they are named Howard Dean.

24. That it is unseemly to mix military matters with politics, but you should vote for FORMER GENERAL Wesley Clark, and salute when you do so.

25. That a deranged candidate should not be elected president, unless he is named Dennis Kucinich.

26. That no child should be left behind, unless it is in an urban public-school system.

27. That no child should be left behind, unless it is in the womb.

28. That the Patriot Act is denying Americans their liberties, and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, or Bob Graham should be elected president after having voted for it.

29. That deposing John Ashcroft would be preferable to deposing Saddam Hussein.

30. That library records are sacred, but the Constitution — a "living document" subject to manipulation by judges — is not.

— Rich Lowry is author of the book, Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

GOD BLESS LIBERTarians...

Ed Haas, of the South Carolina Libertarian Party has issued a press release criticizing Charlie Condon's ads in the Senate campaign. Hmmm...just what does he have a problem with? Well...perhaps it's the fact no one is listening to the Libertarian Party these days.

Let me say that while I am supportive of a number of libertarian causes and often find myself agreeing more than I disagree with most of their issues...I think the recent complaints about the Patriot Act are just band-wagon political baloney. When no one is paying attention to you, you might as well jump on what others are saying so you can get some press too! Who knows, you may develop one of those things called, 'a coalition'...which everyone seems to think is great.

According to the release:

"...In his new television ad, Condon indicates his unwavering support for the embattled USA Patriot Act...We must use every tool to stop the terrorists before they strike again..."

"Condon ends each of his new political ads by saying, 'I say we stand up for freedom'...Which freedom do you plan to stand up for Mr. Condon?..."

Not bad, but just what is the complaint about the Patriot Act? I still don't know even when I read further:

"...Is it the freedom of government to whittle away at the Bill of Rights that you support? Do you favor more security in exchange for less freedom Mr. Condon?..."

Nope...still don't know what they're talking about. Did the Patriot Act eliminate the Bill of Rights? Of course not...here's more:

"...How about marshal law Mr. Condon? That would certainly be an effective tool. We could all be safer if we were no longer allowed to travel without prior governmental approval..."

Still nothing about the Patriot Act...martial law has always been an option in the United States. So has the ability to restrict travel outside the United States. They're called visas and you have to apply for them...read on:

"...We certainly would be safer if we had an established nationwide curfew. We would also be more secure if we just abolished that pesky Fourth Amendment..."

Boy, talk about hysterics. No wonder no one is paying attention to you. The Patriot Act doesn't call for a nation-wide curfew...or eliminate the Fourth Amendment. It might be a good idea to actually READ the Patriot Act provisions before you pop your mouth off, Ed...here's still some more:

"...Please tell us that's what you believe Mr. Condon. Please tell us what freedom means to you, and don't tell us freedom is to be free from the threat of terrorism..."

I'd ask the same question of you, Ed...just what is your problem with the Patriot Act? I still don't know. The fact is, there IS NOTHING WRONG with the Pariot Act and you know it.

I defy you to point out ONE CIVIL LIBERTY THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT. Go ahead and click the link to email those to me as soon as possible. Maybe by the time the election comes around you'll find one, but I doubt it.

Give up the hype and hyperbole and stick to some sensible facts. Tomorrow's post will include the major ones people are complaining about and a reasonable explanation behind them.

GOING ON THE DOLE...

Not the candidate, but the government. When did we lose the stigma of "being on the dole" as they call it in the more civilized parts of the world?

I reference an article in this past weekend's Post and Courier about the free/reduced school lunch program in the Charleston School District.

Putting aside the facts of the story, which are quite scary...what of these parents who may "fear the stigma attached to free or reduced school meals...that keeps them from applying?" Who are these parents? I'd like to know because I would like to congratulate them on being sensible...

I really would like to meet these parents...and hold them up as examples of how to be a great American. Somewhere along the way, we lost the ability to be humbled...ashamed...even apologetic for taking or needing public services. Thanks to poverty-pimp Democrats and their willing accomplices we've seen more and more Americans have become accustomed to accepting these services because we have been convinced we are due...we are owed these 'entitlements'...

It's funny, you know. We would be totally embarrassed if we had to go to our parents and ask to borrow money...many of us would have an extremely tough time asking for it...but we have no problem with asking a nameless, faceless, bureaucrat in Washington! Some of us go so far as to march in the streets to get an extra couple of months attached on to our unemployment compensation...we actually CALL OUR CONGRESSMAN if we feel we're not getting our checks on time! And the worse part is, they're only too willing to 'help' us.

The problem in America is staring at us in the mirror. Physician...heal thy self...

I'M IN CHARGE...NO, YOU'RE IN CHARGE...
Nothing really about politics today, folks. The following is a rant about some inside baseball for a lot of you.

We had a situation this morning with a major news event...train derailment of a military shipment and explosive cargo. You'd think that this would merit some attention and communication between authorities who have the need to dispense and the media who have the means to dispense...but no...no one could speak unless they were in an "official" capacity...so the story went haywire. Why is it I get the sense that people "in the know" are a bunch of hot-dogs who don't like their bread being buttered by anyone but themselves? I mean, we had a potentially serious event on our hands and we had to waste a lot of time running around to try and find the "official" who was the one pegged with the duty to inform the public. Here's how my morning went:

1. Listener informs us there's something happening on a train track.
2. We make calls to ALL police departments, ALL fire, EMT, and everyone we could think of to find out the info...everyone says they can't say anything about it. Some even say they had no idea about anything.
3. Finally, I go out there to the site only to be turned away by a cop, but he's kind enough to give me the chief's phone number.
4. I call the chief and about the only thing he has to say to me is a bunch of questions of how I got his number.

Truth here -- everyone likes to know something somebody else doesn't (including me)...we get a charge out of keeping it to ourselves until we can't take it anymore...we like to feel like a big-shot. But when you have a rail car full of live explosives, it's time to put away childish things.

The media needs to quit being instantly suspect of police (part of a larger issue) and police have to trust the media a little more. I know you guys (cops) have really taken it on the chin from the media in the past (Rodney King, Cincinnati, etc), but here's one media guy who wants to give you some slack...take it.

Done with rant...go on with your lives...everything is okay.

SORRY ABOUT THAT, CHIEF...

Well, I was doing pretty good there for a while updating the blog, but I did a little back-sliding yesterday. I had an extraordinarily busy day what with the State of the Union speech...the Howard Dean meltdown...and a ton of radio insider stuff. And one other thing...

My wife and I will be having another child. I found out yesterday. It's strange that I'm telling you anonymous folks who read this trash...because the only other people I've told are my parents. Go figure.

The show itself seems to be going pretty well, and I can't thank you all enough for the support and encouragement you give me. It's one of those things...people actually listen to what I do and that makes me feel good. You don't have to agree with everything (that's never been the point of talk radio) but at least you listen.

Now, if you'd do me just one favor...vote for me in the Charleston City Paper "Best Of" on-line poll. I'm asking for your vote...it may be the only vote people care about this election year. Thanks.

AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON...

I wonder how Congressman Jim Clyburn is feeling today? He announced his endorsement of Dick Gephardt the weekend before President Bush captured Saddam Hussein on December 13th. After his miserable failure (for like, the 19th time) in Iowa, Gephardt will thankfully drop out of the Presidential race today. Given that he said he would be "one poor SOB" if he didn't support Gephardt...he did...and he probably feels like one.

WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT?

As many of you may know, I've been rather concerned about the most recent "campaign-finance reform" legislation that the Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional. I believe it's a regulation on speech that goes far beyond what our founding fathers so brilliantly outlined in the US Constitution.

With the primary and caucus season in full swing, I have some chilling news for those of you who may belong to service organizations that normally would be considered tax exempt. Not only do the campaign finance reform laws regulate speech and spending by certain constituency groups...but those that violate the rules under "McCain-Feingold" may also put their tax exempt status at risk...

Witness the following. IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 (with added bold emphasis by yours truly):

"...Under the Internal Revenue Code, social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations generally are permitted to engage in advocacy or lobbying related to their exempt purposes. However, they may engage in only limited political campaign activity. The guidance clarifies the tax implications of advocacy that meets the definition of political campaign activity..."

According to the new rule, the criteria for identifying forbidden speech "include, but are not limited to":

a) The communication identifies a candidate for public office;

b) The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign;

c) The communication targets voters in a particular election;

d) The communication identifies that candidate's position on the public policy issue that is the subject of the communication;

e) The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications; and

f) The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue..."

So basically, if you have something to say about a candidate during an election it's best to just keep your mouth shut. Great country, isn't it? Imagine the commercial you might hear...

"There's a candidate in the election who wants to take away your right to own a gun. This person has specifically said that's what they want to do in a quote in a major newspaper story...but we can't tell you who it is, what state their running in, or even what election it's for...as a matter of fact, we can only say this once and then we have to go away until you're done voting...otherwise, we lose our tax-exempt status and we get fined by the US Government. We hope when you wake up on November 3rd, you still have a Second Amendment. If you don't, well...you can't say we didn't try to warn you."

WES CLARK (oh, excuse me) GENERAL CLARK - SUPPORTER OR LIAR? BOTH...

Very late in the program yesterday as Wes Clark (darn it) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark was speaking in South Carolina to prospective primary lemmings, we got a hold of some audio of his testimony before Congress in 2002 that shows he's a big fat fraud of a lying scumbag. Sorry to be blunt, but this Clark guy (shoot...) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark...scares the hell out of me. Let me tell you why:

He's a General and southern voters will like that...despite his insanity. Why? Because he's a General.

I said that already, I know...but for those of you who need further explanation read on...(all others can skip to the next paragraph)...40-percent of our military members are from the South and liberals want to be liked, remember? It allows a lot of anti-war nuts to be able to say they're supportive of the military (which they're not) and 'open-minded' enough to want to vote for a former military guy. See?

Based on what he testified to in Congress, HE SUPPORTED A PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IN IRAQ. This is not in dispute...if you need proof - listen to the show.

He can spin and wiggle and waffle all he wants, but he cannot deny his own words - for instance:

"...Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary...Yes, he (Saddam) has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001...The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely...Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts...And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive...It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this...I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It's normal. It's natural...That?s inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat..." (I could go on, but you get the point)

So, dear readers...how do I answer the following email from a listener?

"DEAR GREG, I usually listen to your show and get the point you're trying to get across, but you should show a little more respect for Clark. (hey, that's Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark to you pal) He was talking about how we "should" have done the Iraq thing...by NOT LOSING A SINGLE AMERICAN LIFE like he did in Bosnia. He's a General for (xxxx)'s sake...you don't get to be a General by being dumb."

Yes, he's a General...I think I said that. But what kind of General? First this...

1. Yugoslavia posed no threat to the US...not imminent, not now, not then, not ever.

2. Slobadan Milosevic never tried to assassinate a US President.

3. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists - (although the people we were fighting for did)

4. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians...Hussein killed well over a million (Iran, Kurds, Kuwaiti, his own people, etc)

5. He had no rape rooms, torture rooms, Uday or Qusay...no wood chippers for enemies.

So, we launched a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia. But what kind of war? Under his command...

1. We bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake...and the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Hungarian ambassadors' homes.

2. No ground war, right? Yet 3 POW's were taken and we needed Jesse freakin' Jackson to get them back. Yeah, we were standing tall on that one...too bad we didn't have Jesse land on an aircraft carrier with a "mission accomplished" sign behind him

3. We bombed a civilian convoy...and Clark (whoops again) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark...lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO did it, then he blamed it on an innocent US pilot.

4. Bill Clinton (paragon of virtue) fired him for lying.

5. When Clark (dammit) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark...left, Milosevic was still in power.

6. Today...10-years and 15-billion dollars later...we still have US troops there and apparently NO QUAGMIRE.

The liberals' idea of a General...

So...Clark (oh crap, sorry) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark...WAS a supporter of our war in Iraq AND is a current liar about that support. Either that, or he lied to Congress...(now, wouldn't that make for a fun presidency? Impeachment anyone?)

Have a great weekend.

IT'S A "BLACK" THING...

The continuing controversy over Charleston Police Reuben Greenberg's comments about black on black crime is beginning to really bug me.

Here are the simple facts that the Chief is apparently concerned about...

1. Blacks make up 12-percent of the national population
2. They account for 46-percent of total violent crime...more than any other 'race' combined.
3. 90-percent of black murders are committed by other blacks

I'm sorry I had to point this out, but it seems to be ignored an awful lot by the so-called civil rights establishment. Now, I expect to be called a racist for telling you this, but I can take the heat so don't worry.

Specifically, I had a caller yesterday (Hey, Karl!) who went to great pains to point out that the use of race in statistics was wrong and no different, he said, than taking their religious affiliation into account (90-percent were CHRISTIAN!). Well, the US Government uses racial statistics for arguably good reasons like - affirmative action, redistricting, housing, etc. All are used to 'correct wrongs' in our society (mostly by liberals)...so isn't it also fair to use those same statistics to correct THIS WRONG?

And if you think it doesn't matter: Imagine yourself at a casino and playing the slots. If you knew that one particular machine (even though they all looked the same) paid off 20-percent more often, wouldn't there be a big line behind that machine? Of course there would. In poker, you'd be the worst player in the world if you waited to bet only when you had a royal flush.

Well, now Chief Greenberg has offered an explanation for his comments in a letter to the Post and Courier. I wanted to point out some key portions of his comments...(stay with me, now)

"These criminals have no regard or respect for their families or the communities in which they prey on..."

"Families that see other family members indulging in the criminal activity that I have described should not be surprised when their loved one meets with a tragic end..."

"If they have done all they can (emphasis added) to help them to stop living this criminal lifestyle, then there is nothing else they can do, and they can take some solace in knowing that they were not a part of the problem that led to the incarceration, injury or death of their family member..."

With that in mind, there was a coincidental incident just yesterday...here's the headline and a link to the story.

"Witnesses Walk Away from Shooting - Two Men Gunned Down"

A portion of the story...

"...Residents say it's best not to get involved. "If they get involved with it, their family gets involved with it, too. They don't want that. They don't want to get hurt," says Jermaine Smalls. Resident Shaun Brown agrees, "I can't put myself in that situation. I got a child and a family, you know?..."

NOW...can you blame the Chief for expressing his frustration? Does anyone in the civil rights crowd want to answer the Chief's call?

"...The Police Department is ready to assist any family that asks us for help to avoid the inevitable results I have described...."

I didn't think so...

WELCOME AL FRANKEN AND LIBERAL RADIO!

Seriously, I look forward to the competition...just don't come whining to the government when things go bad. I have several things to say about the Central Air Network, the new liberal talk radio network. Some of them can actually apply to conservative radio as well...BUT FIRST, a few things from the announcement by Progress Media (parent company of the liberal radio network) on the signing of Al Franken as radio host.

From the press release...

"Progress Media announced today that comedian and best-selling author Al Franken will hit the airwaves to host his own radio talk show when the radio network launches...Franken?s show will air weekdays (12p-3p ET)"

He'll compete directly with Rush Limbaugh in the five radio markets they've already secured. Good luck. If I were a radio programmer (and I am), I'd put him AFTER Rush and position the show to take issue directly with the content of the Limbaugh program.

"Al is one of the new masters of political humor. His entertaining and insightful comedy and commentary has established him as one of the savviest and most engaging voices in America today..."

Umm...NEW MASTER of political humor? I remember him on SNL in the late 70's...and he wasn't all that funny THEN. Disagree? Quick, send me a joke and I'll let you know if I think it's funny...

"...the network is unveiling another program in its lineup. Champions of Justice, co-hosted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mike Papantonio, will bring a fresh and entertaining perspective to talk radio from the top legal minds in the country with a focus on informing Americans about the inner workings of corporations..."

All I can say is...ZZZZzzzz. Sorry dozed off there for a moment. Seriously...it's exactly what American's want to hear on the radio...lawyers talking about multi-national corporation. Sorry, gotta go...the phone's ringing off the hook.

NOW, to the entire idea of the liberal network:

1. Be honest..."progressive" radio? Funny thing in America: Conservatives are PROUD of being called conservative...Liberals have to spin the word to something that 'sounds' better. Starting a network on a lie is not a good thing.

2. Get RADIO people to do the shows. Al Franken may be good at television, but radio is more than just turning on a switch and talking. It's an art...it takes practice, imagination, and a different kind of style of conversation. People who start out in radio, work long and hard in radio, and become hosts on radio understand this...television people, or actors, or lawyers, politicians, etc...DON'T. You'd have to use both hands and toes to count the number of 'actors' and 15-seconds-of-fame people who tried doing talk shows on either television or radio and stunk up the place. The same goes for RADIO hosts who try Television.

3. Get ready to take the heat. Very simply, you have to be able to back up your opinions with callers and others who may disagree with you...this is an absolute necessity. In my view, Liberals can't do this because they're opinions are NOT based in fact or logic or anything 'regular' Americans find appealing...it's based on emotionalism. Bottom line...they're wimps.

4. Don't please everyone. Liberals will want to do this and you can't. They'll end up agreeing with anyone they can't pinhole as a 'right wing extremist' and that will hurt their credibility. Take a stand. Liberals are full of 'grey areas' and that will get them in a lot of trouble. The natural need for them to be 'open-minded' will get them agreeing with an awful lot of B-S. Be likeable, but don't make everyone like you.

5. Keep control of the audience and callers. Somewhat a repeat of the above, but liberals again have a natural tendency to 'go with the flow' and be super-serving of the audience. You have to have the ability to recognize that something isn't working and be able to move on...hang up on a caller, not take a call, demonstrate a range of personality, etc. Liberals will have a hard time not recognizing that the views of the callers DO NOT reflect the views of the audience. Program your show to the audience, NOT the callers.

Well, I've probably given them far too much advice. I honestly can't wait for the network to debut...it will interesting to see their reaction to the radio audience...REAL working people, not the phoney's they're used to referring to.

People who have the time and ability to listen to the radio in the middle of the day ARE NOT working in a factory somewhere on an assembly line...they're professionals, upscale, hard working blue-collar type individuals...they're CONSERVATIVE.

ATTENTION BUSH-HATERS/CLINTON-DEAN-LOVERS!
You're about to get the truth.

I caution you in continuing this rant about GW Bush having a policy in place to topple Saddam Hussein prior to September 11th. I mean, go ahead and keep spinning it so it sounds like the whole plan to get rid of Saddam was "cooked up in Texas" or that Saddam was no threat or even "Bush lied" about WMD's...you're all rather foolish and most people think as I do.

Let me just offer a little quotation for you from something called, "The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" --

"An Act -- To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..."

"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Know what this means? It means it was ALWAYS the policy of the United States to want to topple Saddam Hussein...this LAW was passed by Congress overwhelmingly...all of the current Senators who are running for President VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT. Here's the rundown:

Senate vote, Oct 7, 1998 -- Unanimous
House vote, Oct 31, 1998 -- 360 in favor, 38 opposed
Signed into law by WILLIAM JEFFERSON BLITHE CLINTON!

Feel better? Probably not...

CATCH 22 --

I work for a company that faces a lot of heat from politicians, special interests, and the general public for not being "local" enough. Usually, these are people that don't have a clue what they're talking about. Politicians should know better because they write the rules; special interests are just whiney because no one likes their political view; and the general public still view radio with 1950's glasses.

Go figure...we cut an hour from a nationally syndicated radio program in favor of more local programming. We did this after a special survey we conducted determined there was a need and interest for doing this...and a lot of people are complaining. I think I'm just going to blame it on the politicians...

ON WITH THE NEWS

More CARTA whining in the local paper this weekend...get this, "Taxi companies expect to see increased demand" in the Post and Courier. Among the more interesting tidbits from the story (emphasis added):

"Business is looking even better for the taxi company where Vernon Adams works..."

"...cab companies will see more business...it seems clear that as the cuts take effect...I'm sure we'll benefit from it..."

"...cab companies could see an even bigger boom in business in a few months as CARTA will run out of money in April..."

"...Renee Frost, who lives on the upper part of the peninsula, said she'll be able to walk to work downtown. "It's a nice little walk for me. I enjoy walking..."

"...he is looking at adding to the company's fleet of 18 olive-green cabs. He also said some CARTA drivers have approached him about driving cabs..."

All of this is reported as "bad news" in the story. They even have a few quotes from the beneficiaries of the increased business saying that they feel guilty about it. Amazing...we truly have lost our minds in this country.

THE STATUS OF EDUCATION AND WHY
I found an interesting list...and I hate lists. You know the kind: Best Pick-Up Lines of 2003, Best Hair 2003, etc.

This one is kind of cute. It's about education and it comes from educators themselves. You're going to hear a lot of carping and whining about "school choice" and "education cuts" and No Child Left Behind over the next few months...mainly because the Education Establishment are full of a bunch of lazy bums who don't want really to educate children. I mean that. They're more worried about protecting their own jobs.

The list is a collection of Public Education Quotes of the Year. I could certainly assemble a list of local educators who have had some choice things to say in light of the recent lowering of standards for testing, but I plan to home school my own child and I'm just getting into the mode of being a lazy bum just like them.

My favorite quote? Of course, it's the number one on the list.
“We expect parents to work in the best interest of the kids. We’re working in the best interest of the teachers.”– Hudson (Ohio) Education Association President David Spohn. (October 9 Akron Beacon Journal)

HMMM...SEEMS TO BE A POPULAR PHRASE THESE DAYS

In previous posts, Charleston Police Chief Rueben Greenberg has been criticized for using the phrase "SOB" in a recent news story.

Well, it seems to be a very popular phrase. I wonder if Congressman Jim Clyburn actually said the words instead of the shortened version and the newspaper covered for him by printing only the initials? And, I guess you could say he was calling himself an SOB, so technically it shouldn't be as big of a deal...still:

From The State newspaper in Columbia:

Clyburn endorsed Gephardt for the state’s first-in-the-South Democratic primary and will head to Michigan and Iowa this weekend to stump for the Missouri Democrat.
“I would be one ungrateful SOB (emphasis added) if I didn’t recognize the importance of that help, not just to me, but to the whole state of South Carolina,” Clyburn said.
The national media has pegged the 63-year-old Clyburn as a kingmaker in the Feb. 3 primary, where African-Americans are expected to make up 40 to 50 percent of those voting. But some experts question his influence over black voters statewide.

And a different version in the Post and Courier:

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina who drew a spotlight Wednesday as he said he was morally obligated to back Gephardt after 11 years of friendship and favors in Washington.
"I would be a real S.O.B. (emphasis added) if I were to ignore all the positive impact that Dick Gephardt has had on my congressional district and South Carolina," Clyburn said, adding "I've got to get people to understand where his heart is."

Again, I always thought they were referring to South Of Broad...

So, where are the real men?

Regarding the below topic, it is my contention that illegitimacy and the lack of fathers have been the largest contributing factor to the outlandish behavior of young people today. There's not a whole lot government can do about that...except stop encouraging them to leave with government "incentives" for unwed mothers.

But here's a great article about what kind of men we have in this country. Dan Quayle was right...

Are YOUR kids barbarians or whimps? I congratulate you if you have the courage to read the whole article.

Lazy political posturing...

I'm continually amazed at how politicians seem to be able to pull the wool over our eyes so many times and get away with it. Where are the statesmen of today? I'm convinced we have changed the definition of politicians...from representative to constant whiner. The most recent example is a story in the Post and Courier about the homicide rate in 2003. It's a well-defined story...the basis of which is that half of the 57-homicides were black men killed by other black men. You'd think that would be an issue that our politicians would want to "fix"...right? Well, once again, you'd be wrong.

3 Councilmen recently held a press conference to decry the use of "son of a bitch" by the police chief. The context of which was the following:

"I refuse to take responsibility every time one black son of a bitch kills another," he said. "I have no control over that. There are social factors much more powerful than anything we can concoct in the Charleston Police Department."

It's sheer laziness if you ask me...the politicians like to sit at their comfy desks, focus on the "real problems" in our country, but never want to actually get their hands dirty. Distract attention away from the hard work of solving the problem. It's sad.

By the way, my 8-month old daughter crawled for the first time today. I'm going to have a good day despite frustration I feel.

WHAT IS "POVERTY?"

You know how it is...you watch a local television report about some poor soul who needs help during the difficult holiday season. You know the story, right? they always dig these stories out of the drawer this time of year. Anyway...you're watching the news story and in the background during the interview of the mother in the story you see the kids playing with an Xbox system that costs 200-bucks and a game that costs more than 40-bucks a pop. I see these kinds of stories all the time and no one seems to notice they're watching cable TV or there's a box of 5-dollar cereal on the kitchen table...we have the wealthiest poor in the world here in America.

I found this information very interesting. It shocked me, it should shock YOU. The next time you hear someone talking about helping "the poor," you can look at this information...

From The Heritage Foundation...so of course, liberals will dismiss the data...but if they "connect with the poor" as much as they say they do, they should already know this:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Amazing, isn't it? Read the rest of the report HERE.

I find it interesting that the Stratford High School is now referred to as "the drug raid high school" in most of the news reports now. The principal just resigned...I hope the people who called for him to do so get a chance to actually meet the man. I'm sad to say I probably won't. Another education career ruined for the sake of "our children" and their milky-soft self esteem.

On another matter...I get the feeling that the news media's constant reports on the new security proceedures at international airports are designed to make us angy. It almost seems they want us to be mad about the fact people will now be finger-printed when they enter the country from certain countries. I'm not...and I honestly believe that the media will be surprised that we aren't.

Tomorrow should be a fun day on the radio...so many things left unsaid today. Pete Rose...Howard Dean and his defense of Osama...Britney Spears getting married as a "joke" and a host of other things.