WOW, BUSY TIME

I have been out of it for a while dealing with home and family issues (11 month old and a pregnant wife), and today I'm dealing with the pollen headache we all know and love this time of year in South Carolina. Ouch. Fortunately, I have my old standby remedy...plenty of lime-Diet Coke and aspirin. Seems to work pretty well.

I have some very exciting news to report tomorrow, so I hope y'all stay tuned to this site and the radio show. As a matter of fact, today I'll be making the "just in case" announcement in the second hour of the program. On with the news...

One item sticks out today, and that is this big report of the latest casualties in Iraq:

FALLUJAH, Iraq – Jubilant residents yanked the bodies of four foreigners - one a woman, at least one an American - out of their burning cars Wednesday, dragged the charred corpses through the streets, and hung them from the bridge spanning the Euphrates River. Five American troops died in a roadside bombing nearby.

If this were Somalia, we'd turn tail and run right now...I half expect those that have opposed the operation in Iraq to call for just that today...we'll see.

The other is near and dear to my heart, but again...I'm taking an awful risk today by "speaking out" or being one of those "whistleblowers" you all hear about and admire:

The Reverend Jesse Jackson to Host Weekly Talk Show on Clear Channel Radio - Clear Channel Radio and the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson Sr. today announced that the Rev. Jackson will host of a live, one-hour talk show airing Sundays from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. Central time (8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern). Keep Hope Alive(tm) With the Rev. Jesse Jackson will debut April 4 exclusively on Clear Channel Radio stations and will originate from Chicago's WGCI-AM.

Another shakedown success by that con-artist Jesse Jackson. Wow, that guy is good. I have to hand it to him for being so successful at NOTHING and making a killing doing it. I've struggled for more than 15-years in honing my craft, building an audience, and doing what is necessary in order to finally get a gig in a top 100 market and all he does is take a cue from the current nervousness over corporate radio and WHAM...he's on five stations in some of the top markets in the country. Rest assured...he will NEVER...and I mean NEVER appear on the station I program as long as I am here. That may not be long now, though.

Oh, well...again, stay tuned tomorrow for the big announcement...have a great day.

INDECENCY ISSUE BECOMING INDECENT

I've expressed my view before on the new focus on indecency on the airwaves. I know a lot of people may not understand completely my support for Howard Stern and the phoney issue that the FCC must protect the public airwaves. A lot of people have agreed with my stand and said to me their alternative is to turn on their XM satellite radio or watch more cable and satellite TV. I say to them mostly the same thing I'm about to tell you...a simple rhetorical question:

Who do you think licenses satellite bandwidth and regulates their use?

Sure enough, I open my browser today and find the following...

FCC Adopts New Rules for Satellite TV

The story is about the FCC beginning regulations on political and children's programming and some of the rules about advertising...but why stop there? I'm telling you the old way of thinking that the government can't regulate what you pay for in a subscriber-based service like satellite radio and TV are over. Point proven.

And how long do you think it'll be before "free papers" are regulated? The chief complaint about radio and over-the-air television is that a child or someone under age could come across something that might be indecent. As it happens, I was reviewing a copy of the Charleston City Paper (Girl Talk at the bottom of the page) for show material and I came across a story about anal sex. Of course, I read it...but then got to thinking...

Stay tuned...

ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS

Very interesting editorial in the Moultrie News this week...since they don't have a web-version, you'll have to trust me in transcribing it:

It's called Letters Policy for Election Year, and beginning "...next week and continuing until the November election, we will not publish letters supporting candidates on any level in our Letters to the Editor section..."

Not a bad policy, but here's the catch: "...If you want to speak your mind in favor of, or against, any candidate, you can do so through a paid letter to the editor. The charge will be $9 per column inch...Please do not interpret this to mean we are discouraging letters to the editor. On the contrary, we welcome letters about the issues. Printing what's on your mind is an important part of our service to the communities we serve..." (emphasis added)

So...campaign finance rules strike too close to the money belt, it seems. But, in light of the new campaign finance rules (McCain-Feingold), I wonder if this amounts to an illegal donation on behalf of a candidate...especially in the 60-day window before a general election? Since you aren't allowed to mention another candidate in that period before the election, you should be prepared to censor yourselves...or find the Feds closing in on you.

IRAQI PROFILING

Apparently, this is the charge to the Bush Administration...that they engaged in too much Iraqi profiling when September 11th happened. Having a President who asks whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attack on the United States was an awful mistake on behalf of the Bush White House, eh? Of course, going to Afghanistan six days later sort of puts the lie to that claim...and waiting nearly two years to finally put the "plot" in place seems a little stupid, not to mention risky. So, let's go through a couple of points, shall we?

IRAQ WAS REALLY THE TARGET FROM DAY 1 OF THIS ADMINISTRATION

If so, why wait until March of 2003 to go after Iraq? Given the political risks of it not going well near an election year (see current news bias), it would be the dumbest thing a politician has ever done short of messing around with a fat intern. So he's so smart that he planned it all from the beginning (see previous claims about his intellect), but he's so stupid he messed it up that badly. Which is it?

BUSH SHARES EQUAL BLAME FOR SEPTEMBER 11TH

This is a rich one...lack of attention to terrorism over 230-days is equal to lack of attention over a period of 8-years by the previous administration (notice I didn't say Clinton). When you consider that George W Bush didn't know he was going to be President until a mere 30-days before his inauguration (Dec 20th or so) because of the Gore re-re-re-re-count, it's not hard to imagine. You might say I'm giving him too much leway in that respect...and it's a fair point...BUT if the issue of terrorism was such a dire need for the new president to focus on, why didn't they do anything after the USS Cole was attacked in October of 2000? No response...nothing...zip...nada. And it wasn't just "innocent civilians" who were attacked...it was a US flagged war vessel. Perhaps in the "distraction" of a Presidential campaign, VP Gore didn't want Clinton to steal any headlines by launching an attack so near the November election. Why not...Clinton is still trying to steal headlines...it's his main objective these days: legacy preservation.

WHAT IF GEORGE DECIDED FROM DAY 1 TO GO AFTER AFGHANISTAN?

Think about that one for a minute...Donald Rumsfeld said it yesterday in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. If George W Bush decided on February 20th of 2001 to announce he was taking a pre-emptive strike at terrorism and was calling up the Reserves and National Guard in huge numbers for an invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden...what would have been the response from the same people we hear about today? Illegal war...pre-emptive attack...innocent civilians...quagmire...impeachable offense...misleading Americans in a rush to war...everything you've heard about Iraq (and to some degree the original attack on Afghanistan) today. I have to be honest, I would have loved to have seen that happen. To have the very same commission investigating 9/11 investigate the reasons we went to Afghanistan based on misleading evidence that Al Queda was there and was planning to attack us with weapons of mass destruction...hijacked airplanes flying into buildings.

BUSH DIDN'T BUILD A GOOD ENOUGH COALITION

The coalition shouldn't define the mission...the mission defines the coalition. And we currently have a coalition of the willing. I suspect that he only reason people are whining about a "lack of a proper coalition" is the implied lack of interest in fighting terrorism by those that didn't want to join.

Bottom line is this: The Democrats still want to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and refuse to acknowledge a pre-emptive policy toward destroying terrorists and the regimes who support and sponsor them. It's as simple as that. To them, arresting a person before they commit a crime is a legal impossibility...which it IS in the context of a crime here in the United States and under our Constitution. But when dealing with people outside our borders and beyond the reach of our morality, the US Constitution doesn't apply. Democrats have always hated war...strike that...hated the necessity of war. To them, shooting an enemy before they shoot you (as was done in virtually every US conflict) is wrong. You liberals ask yourself an important question...IF you knew the highjacked planes were coming and there was a chance they'd hit the buildings...would you authorize a shoot down of the planes filled with passengers?

George C Scott said it best in his portrayal of General George S Patton: "Your job is NOT to die for your country...your job is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country."

AND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE BEGINS...

Well, just a few months after ruling that Massachusetts must find a law that allows homosexual marriage because something in the Mass. Constitution requires it...there's this little item:

High court: incest law doesn't apply to stepparents

It's the case of a 60-year-old man accused of having sex with his teenage stepdaughter, the Supreme Judicial Court said under the current law the incest prohibition applies only to natural or adoptive parents. Astonishingly, they said in the ruling:

"...While the idea that this form of 'incest' may not be criminal may be repugnant to many, the words of a statute cannot be stretched beyond their fair meaning..."

So because it wasn't written in law EXACTLY - the court couldn't go beyond what was a fair meaning of "incest"...

So, unless we exactly specify that marriage is between one man and one woman who are not relatives and/or brothers, sisters, cousins, fathers, sons, daughters, once removed cousins from your mothers side, divorced widow of a previous husband you dated...

Well, you get the idea. Let the slippery slide begin here and now...

MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU KNOW

I'm watching with interest a story in the Washington Times this week - as well as this past weekend's story in the Post and Courier about illegal immigrants. One story has illegals suing companies for improper overtime pay...the other has immigrants somehow the victims in a scheme to get them counterfeit green cards. Both have major implications for how we plan to handle the issue of illegal immigration. I'm sorry...but maybe I'm being a bit simplistic in my view on the whole matter.

THEY SHOULDN'T BE GETTING PAID ANYTHING SINCE THEY ARE ILLEGAL...AND THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED! WHO CARES WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE BEING TREATED FAIRLY! THEY BROKE THE LAW TO GET HERE AND THEY HAVE THE GALL TO COMPLAIN ABOUT A COMPANY BREAKING THE LAW?

Short and sweet today...I'm in that kind of mood.

I FIGGERED IT OUT

This John Kerry story about foreign leaders who are rooting for him to win has surprisingly strong legs. Whether or not he actually said "foreign leaders" or "more leaders" - which is the latest spin - or even "moron leaders" (which is more likely to be the case) is irrelevant. The fact is John Kerry defended the statement when it was first reported as foreign leaders by saying "I'm not making anything up at all...I stand by my statement" - he told the AP's Mike Glover on Monday night this week. This was before the Boston Globe reporter who transcribed Kerry's comments said he confused the word foreign with more.

One thing puzzles me in either case...why would American voters be so impressed with foreign support for one of our elections? I mean, the Democrats are actually bragging about non-American support for their cause...why?

I'll give you another example...and I've actually had quite a few emails from listeners when discussing recent Supreme Court decisions. In the Lawrence V Texas (sodomy ruling) case, Justice Stephen Breyer and others actually admitted they used a foreign source for their decision. Citing the European Court of Human Rights, they said, "Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change...we are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

Americans used to stand tall on their own and collect their self esteem from accomplishments in the economy, freedoms, GDP, agricultural prowess and a host of areas where we LEAD the world. Now it seems, just like our children in some schools today, we get our self esteem from wanting to be liked around the world. While I believe being liked around the world is a good idea...we shouldn't compromise our principles to do so. Respect and self esteem are supposed to come from accomplishing something...even if it means we end up making someone feel bad by beating them in one of those areas I mentioned.

Our founding fathers would be appalled. This country was established independent of foreign opinion and influence. The Federalist Papers actually discuss these worries in the chapters on "Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence".

Finally, what would the American people think if it were known that a politician running for office were not only receiving foreign support...but in more than just a verbal way? We outlaw and declare illegal foreign monetary contributions to our candidates...you'd think we would at least think ill of foreign influence through verbal endorsements. Yet we have one party who WELCOMES that support PROUDLY.

Maybe that's why John Kerry isn't naming names.

WOW, TWO IN ONE DAY!

A quick email reminder from a listener caused me to post for the second time today. But I figure as long as Howard Dean is around, I might as well continue to abuse his intellect. And when you think about it...which is more troubling: His lack of intelligence and stupidity, or his supporters?

Howard Dean campaigning for John Kerry yesterday blamed the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq for the terrorist bombing in Madrid. As he says in the story today in the Boston Globe...

"...He said Bush sent soldiers to Iraq unequipped, misled the country on the reasons for war, and made the United States less safe by focusing on a target that wasn't a threat.

And, he said, "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend."

Dean issued a statement later to The Associated Press that said, "Let me be clear, there is no justification for terrorism. Today I was simply repeating what those who have claimed responsibility for the bombings in Spain said was the reason they carried out that despicable act..."

Gee...you don't think that Howard Dean is being "misled" by terrorists, do you? It's funny how quick he is to believe a group of terrorists...and nothing George W Bush says. Who's side is he on again?

He also is being "misled" in the belief that there's no justification for terrorism. How can that be when it works so well? It changes election results in Spain...and it fools idiots into "repeating what those who have claimed responsibility for the bombings in Spain said..." in a US Presidential campaign.

JOBS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIVES

Senator John Kerry is going to have a difficult time with two issues...US trade policy, and US war on terror policy. He can't have it both ways unless he prefers jobs to human lives.

1. US Trade Policy...John Kerry advocates an "America first" policy. The fact that American jobs are being "outsourced" and "Benedict Arnold" companies are re-locating in foreign countries like China, India, and the Bahamas upsets John Kerry. Even though he voted in favor of NAFTA, as President, he would review the trade policy to make them more "fair" for America...including forcing other countries to live up to our standards on the environment, worker organization and wages. He must want to modify them if he believes that foreign countries are getting a better deal than us. You can see where this might be going. I think it's probably a given that the foreign countries who are getting a better deal won't necessarily be all that keen on the idea. Will John Kerry act "unilaterally" if the other countries object?

2. US Foreign Policy...John Kerry wants more cooperation and/or involvement from the United Nations on our policy on Iraq and the war on terror. In fact, he argues we should not have gone to war without the support of the "international community" - the United Nations. Again, given French, German, and Russian disagreement with our policy, John Kerry would have advocated changing our policy to keep within the good graces of the world community.

JOBS: John Kerry would act unilaterally if necessary and ignore the objections of the world community when it comes to trade agreements.

WAR: John Kerry would not act unilaterally if necessary and succumb to the will of the world community when it comes to war agreements.

The question is - which would you rather have? A job? or a life?

BACK TO THE FUTURE

I am taking an awful risk today, but I have to stand up for what I believe in, right? It involves the Hunley and the seemingly endless news about the failed submarine of the Civil War. A news item today claims that 30-thousand people will attend the burial of the 8 Confederate soldiers who died in 1864. I have a hard time believing that this event is going to be all that big of a deal. Is it just me or do the people all giddy over the Hunley are strikingly similar to a group of Star Trek convention goers?

I'm in a strange position, because while I honor anyone's commitment to their state and/or service to their country...I'm just not all that jazzed about this Hunley deal. As a person normally fascinated by historical events and archeology...I'm already kind of bored with the constant stream of "updates" and front-page coverage that this is getting. Yet I live and work in an area that feeds on 'brotherhood in the cause' and, to some degree, shuns 'outsiders' who come from the North. On the one hand, I want to belong...on the other, belonging means putting up with all of the silliness.

An observation, then a question. The Hunley was a failure. I know people want to believe it a success - given that it is reported as the first submarine to sink an enemy target - but it sank itself. We're calling the operators of the submarine 'heroes' in the apparent belief that they somehow knew they would not return. I think they built the Hunley with the expectation that they would RETURN successful. They didn't. That doesn't qualify as a success in my book. Kamikazes in WWII knew they were sacrificing themselves in the cause - I don't think the Hunley crew thought they were.

Here's an honest question: I can think of quite a few other wars and significant historical stories of bravery that warrant this kind of highlight...is it wrong for me to wonder where the Korean War re-enactments are? Battle of the Bulge? Midway? Pearl Harbor? Tet Offensive? Desert Storm?

As I said...it's an awful risk for me to say this...but I believe it. Tell me where I'm wrong.

TERRORISM WORKS

The attack in Spain on 3/11 should be a pretty good lesson for those appeasers and nervous nelly's who want to run from a fight. People have to understand that terrorism is just an ugly word for 'bully' and it's used for great effect...as the elections in Spain showed. Just a reminder, the 'conservative' party LOST...and the 'socialists' won.

I just have a very difficult time trying to figure out what other way we could fight this blatant attack on our system of government and our right to exist. God forbid, there should be another attack on our country in the waning days of the election and people in the United States have a knee jerk reaction to it like those in Spain. On the other hand, if there's NO attack...it might be even worse...we may start listening even more to the policy appeasers and milktoasted weenies like John Kerry. We'll listen, but we won't hear much of an alternative plan. We haven't yet.

THE WAR IS OVER...SO THEY THINK

I wrote about it a while ago, but there’s some additional information available today in a piece by Byron York of National Review. He does a nice job of rounding out the information from the exit polls of Democrats, but only the headline makes the point.

According to the article (and confirmed by AP published reports), terrorism and national security rank well down on the list of concerns that Democrats have for their issues. They simply don’t care about terrorism. It must be truly a blow to their entire belief system when a situation like the Madrid, Spain attack happens. But I have a feeling that despite what they say, they honestly don’t care about anyone but themselves. But it must give them one heck of a gut check...but I’m sure they’re able to explain it away like they do with a lot of other issues – blame Bush, claim America First, talk about health care, you name it. Anything but the news that might call into question their belief system. For instance:

economic recovery...BUT it's only for a few and the deficit is too big a number
Saddam is caught...BUT Osama is still around and we're ignoring him
no terrorists acts in US...BUT Osama is still around and we're failing to hunt him down
Iraq constitution...BUT soldiers are still there
soldiers come home...BUT we don't have enough there
international cooperation...BUT France and Germany aren't

Bottom line: The Democrats think the war is over and it's time to move on to bigger issues...themselves. Selfish fools...

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

I offer my congratulations and sincere welcome to the liberal talk radio network, AirAmerica. I wish you the best in your capitalistic venture. Oops...sorry to use the 'c-word' so soon, but you're going to have a number of problems. For review, see below...and again...good luck.

1. The hosts.

AIR AMERICA RADIO unveiled the lineup for its new liberal talk radio network WEDNESDAY morning, with MARK WALSH and AL FRANKEN announcing that comedian MARC MARON will do mornings ("UPRISING") with co-hosts SUE ELLICOTT and MARK RILEY, "DAILY SHOW" co-creator LIZZ WINSTEAD with PUBLIC ENEMY founder CHUCK D and LAURA FLANDERS ("UNFILTERED") 9a-Noon ET, FRANKEN and KATHERINE LANPHER ("THE O'FRANKEN FACTOR") Noon-3p ET, former WJNO-A/WEST PALM BEACH afternoon host RANDI RHODES 3-7p ET, Prof. MARTY KAPLAN's "SO WHAT ELSE IS NEWS?" media roundtable 7-8p ET, and JANEANE GAROFALO with SAM SEDER ("THE MAJORITY REPORT") 8-11p. The network will launch MARCH 31, and talk programming will be delayed 3 hours for the West Coast.

Only one of the listed hosts have any experience whatsoever in commercial radio. That's a bad sign. I've always said that those who are going to be successful in commercial radio must work their way up the ladder like anyone else. No matter how much you don't want to believe it, working many hats - small gigs - and generating an understanding of some of the particulars of radio are going to be your best bets in becoming a success. I'd need all my fingers and toes to list the number of people on TV and Radio who have been given a blessing by some network or syndicator somewhere...and granted the moniker "talk show host" and left without leaving any evidence they were there. You cannot achieve success in radio if your original claim to fame is in something completely unrelated. Name recognition will only get you so far. Just ask Kato Kaelin.

2. The hosts, part II.

"The top talent in the country is coming together to ensure Central Air provides the most compelling and entertaining programming on radio," said Central Air President Jon Sinton.

Notice he doesn't say, "radio programming"...just programming on radio. Out of those named (Chuck D, Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, Marc Macon, etc) are all primarily a different kind of entertainer. Specifically, Chuck D (Public Enemy) is a "musician" (I only put it in quotes because I don't consider rap to be music)...how long will he last when and if he gets another offer to record music again? Al Franken, is his first love radio? I don't think so. Janeane Garafalo will last just long enough until she gets an offer to star in "The Truth about Cats and Dogs, Part II"...she'll split for the next 10-million dollar movie offer. Marc Macon is a comedian...you want to bet that he'd exit the radio gig the minute he gets a deal from HBO or a network sitcom? Katherine Lanpher is another one - she's from radio world...PUBLIC RADIO which is a whole different ball-game. She's out of there when she realizes her duties will be to her advertisers as well as audience.

3. The premise.

"Our success to date proves what we have known all along: a progressive radio network can be entertaining and engaging while also being a successful business venture," said Mark Walsh, Chief Executive Officer of Progress Media, Inc. and the Central Air radio network.

The premise is to make money (I know, it's to beat Bush, but we'll get to that later)...and a lot of it. That's going to be very hard for so-called "progressives" to quantify in their minds. Liberals are people who feel guilty when they make a lot of money...and having to maintain relationships with the very people who they're criticizing (corporate sponsorships?) will be a necessary evil in their minds. I'd be interested to know whether or not they're going to be 'progressively' charging their sponsors...the more the sponsors earn the more they charge? A commercial rate based on how much money a sponsor earns company-wide?

4. Longevity.

FRANKEN, speaking "somewhere between BATON ROUGE and NEW ORLEANS on cell phone," referred to rival BILL O'REILLY and urged "BILL, we want you to sue us. We're going to be baiting him... we'd like him to come on to the 'zero spin zone.'" FRANKEN asserted that "we're going to put it to BUSH, BUSH is going down in NOVEMBER...

Al Franken says he's going to beat Bush. Then what?

5. Listeners.

Programming chief JON SINTON said that the network is looking to "break the mold" and will use less listener interaction than other talk radio

Ooops. If you don't give listeners a stake in the programming...they're not going to have any need to have a stake in your programming. I understand the reasoning behind this based on what I've believed about liberals for a very long time - they can't take the heat. Their views and belief system is not based on any logic or factual basis at all...it's all emotionalism and purposeful lying. The minute they get caught in an obvious factual and logical wrong - they resort to name calling and insults. The reason they want to 'break the mold' is because they have to...listeners will spot a phoney in a minute. Corrections in a news analysis piece are hidden on page 6B...corrections on radio are on the radio for all to hear...instantly, not the next day.

Again, From the website: "Our success to date proves what we have known all along: a progressive radio network can be entertaining and engaging while also being a successful business venture"

In a strange way, you better hope not. You'll realize how much success is punished in this country...and you'll become what you fight. Wait a minute...that's not a bad idea...

THIS IS SO LAME...BUT WHAT THE HECK

I like to lead conversations...have a thought process, an opinion, something to get the ball rolling other than a simple poll question on the radio. I'll leave it to the lightweights in our midst to do that kind of radio...I call it, "trolling for callers."

That's when a host (who usually is afraid of having an opinion that might lose one of his 5 listeners) fields a 3-hour radio show with nothing but questions. He/she forgets that people tire of polls quickly. But it also leads to the belief by the host that the opinions expressed in a poll question on the radio MEAN something...they don't. The first rule I learned in talk radio school was about this...your ability to generate calls is no indication of your talent. Your ability to generate GOOD calls is.

"What do you think about..." is the only thought starter they have. It's really funny when they call it a "conversation" and pretend that their ability to create a question is somehow solving some big issue. It gets even funnier when they take both sides of virtually every caller...never really disagreeing with anything since they have no core beliefs.

With that said, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. In all likelihood, we probably won't get John Kerry to appear on a show like mine or any other "confrontational" program at length. It's not that he's afraid of what I might ask him, he's afraid of the lack of control he would have over YOU. That's why you'll only find them doing their alleged "town hall" meetings where they make sure that only dummies get to participate.

BUT IF WE DID, what ONE QUESTION would you ask in order to provoke an answer that might help make or break someone's decision to vote for him? I know you folks can do this, because generally, talk radio listeners are more educated that the average music station audience...so give it a try. I'll post them as I get them...

But I'LL make the final determination of whether or not they're worthy of posting...because that's what a good host would do.

EMAIL THEM HERE

OR HERE

AN INSIDER TELLS ALL

I've really been thinking about this whole Martha Stewart thing. I understand - I think it's nutty - but I understand the "get the rich chick" mentality, but I want to talk about what she actually did...something called, INSIDER TRADING.

Now, given that I'm a complete novice to investing, what exactly does that mean? Insider trading. I usually act (if I have the money to) on my investments when I believe in a company or product that a company produces. I'd like to think that is a majority opinion, but I know it's not true. Insider trading is acting on knowledge that is otherwise not public...am I right there? If not, feel free to explain the rules to me if you'd like in an email...but how is that so wrong?

I work for a public-traded company...and I have certain knowledge of something that may cause the stock I own to go up or down depending on the kind of information I have...is it wrong for me to change my behavior and buy or sell stock on that basis? For instance, the company I work for recently dropped Howard Stern on six of their radio stations...as well as a semi-syndicated talent in Florida. All told, the revenue from those two programs on the stations generated more than 20-million dollars a year. I estimate that the drop in ratings and/or loss of advertisers could be around 2-million dollars (I generally don't believe they'll lose ALL of that revenue). Combined with the outward PR of the move, and some of the inside knowledge I have of the whole issue of "indecency" on the airwaves and the moves being made to affect it, am I breaking the law by acting accordingly?

I may have to buy more Clear Channel stock...

In my book, INSIDER TRADING is acting on information faster than another person. That shouldn't be wrong. If it is SO wrong...then how do our politicians do when it comes to acting on information THEY have...especially when they can force the action?

Proof? Read this story about how politicians are doing with their investment portfolios compared to those of us who are "not in the know"...

Are US Senators real 'inside traders'?

or this one...

In stock market, US Senators beat averages

A LONG DRIVE THIS MORNING

My morning commute is only about 25-minutes at the most...but this morning, it turned into more than an hour - thanks to...something. Don't you hate that? You're driving along, listening to the radio traffic reports, you see cars backed up for miles...and just when you think you've made it through the heaviest, it gets worse...then you finally reach your destination and you never know the reason why things were so messed up. Well, it got my mind to wander a little and that's a good thing.

I was listening to Dan Moon this morning discussing a topic involving the use of the words "gay" and "queer"...which now mean something completely different than they used to. Dan and his callers were lamenting the fact that the language has changed. Sure, some of them are still outlawed by political correctness, but others have changed meaning entirely. GAY is now a sexual orientation instead of a feeling or act...QUEER also describes a sexual orientation - proudly used by the homosexual advocates. It used to mean something "strange" or "weird"...now, I think it still does, but I'm a homophobe (which REALLY means fear of fear - but that's beside the point). I've assembled a few words with their real meanings, new meanings, and whether or not they are acceptable:

old GAY - happy, bright and pleasant. Promoting a feeling of cheer.

new GAY - someone who practices homosexuality. Having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex.

USAGE: Considered the only word that non-homosexuals should use when describing someone of homosexual orientation. Recommended for all media. Old definition no longer considered a good idea in conversation where it might be mis-interpreted...especially by the generation of Americans born before 1960.

old QUEER - not as expected. Beyond the usual.

new QUEER - offensive term for a homosexual male. Homosexual or arousing homosexual desires.

USAGE: Depending on your political orientation, used to describe a person of homosexual orientation. Recommended for television shows highlighting homosexual behavior in a positive way. Considered derogatory if used by a person who disagrees with any viewpoint of a homosexual.

old FAG, FAGGOT - finely ground tobacco wrapped in paper used for smoking. A bundle of sticks wound together.

new FAG, FAGGOT - offensive terms for a homosexual man. A term of endearment between homosexual men.

USAGE: To be used only during homosexual pride parades. Not to be used by anyone who isn't a confirmed member of the homosexual community. Religious use by anti-homosexual advocates considered inflammatory. Old definition only acceptable for use by Australians.

Anyway...this got me to thinking about gay marriage. Why? Well, I was hoping a caller would point it out - but as you know, most talk show hosts think for a living...so it's left to me.

Homosexual rights advocates say it's not about "redefining marriage"...as a matter of fact, they're rather hot under the collar that anyone would think it's redefining marriage. But from the above, you can see that the proper definition for words and phrases is entirely subjective. And that's the goal - to make the definition of marriage entirely meaningless or subject to your own personal or political views on the matter. So, IT IS a redefinition.

And for proof? Just look at the difficulty that homosexuals are having with the determination of who is signing the phoney marriage licenses in California, New York, New Mexico, Florida and other places. They can't decide (and often change the form to feel better) who is going to be "husband" and who is going to be the "wife" on the form? But, I suppose we'll solve that at some point when we start redefining those words too...

SO FINE ME

Sorry I missed out on the normally daily post yesterday...it was one of those days. People don't usually understand that my job is more than just the three hours I put over the airwaves. I had meeting after meeting after meeting yesterday, and just barely found enough time to have a comprehensible program. I used to look at the Dilbert cartoons as parody...but I'm living it more and more each day.

Anyway...seatbelts. There are a few interesting points to be made...as I outlined on the program yesterday.

If we establish public policy on the basis of public safety (which it appears we want to move in that direction) we are empowering government to control our lives. I'm becoming more libertarian in this respect, in that the purpose of government has changed. Government is now in the business of keeping themselves in business. Here's how it works...

1. We decide smoking/speeding/seat belt use is a matter of public safety.

2. Moderate controls are place on the activity.

3. The decision is made that we authorize government to save us from our own choices...limiting personal responsibility.

4. It becomes a matter of public "health."

5. We now empower government to pose as "public health advocates" and continue to refine the method by which they enforce the law.

6. The argument now is over what level to set the controls...moderate controls disappear.

RESULT: A continued effort by government to "raise the bar" and advocate more safety...jobs for politicians.

BE ALL YOU CAN BE...IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

No wonder people don't want to be teachers anymore...and it's not just the pay. Contrary to popular belief, parents ARE involved in their children's education...they're just on the wrong side in a lot of cases.

Witness the story today in the Post and Courier about the Fort Dorchester coach who has been ARRESTED.

Now, if I were a news paper or television station I would stop there and you'd be left with the impression that teachers are out of control. You've heard the reports...a "touching" incident here; an accusation of "inappropriate contact" there; an allegation of "involvement" or "altercation" over there; even a "confrontation" merits splashy coverage...TEACHERS ARE OUT OF CONTROL! RIGHT?

It's the parents, stupid.

According to the story, the punk in question - and I'm speaking of the student, - wouldn't do what the teacher/coach wanted him to do.

"..it began with a dispute about where cheerleaders would sit on the bus after the game....the varsity cheerleading coach yelled at the players about the seating arrangements and some of the players yelled back..." and then "...the (cheerleading) coach told (another) student to get (the head coach). (He) told the boys to move to the front of the bus...The student alleges that's when the coach grabbed him..." and finally "...The 15-year-old student signed an affidavit to have an arrest warrant issued for (the teacher) on a charge of simple assault and battery..."

As a point of reference (much later in the story, of course) we are told that this same student is alleged to have shoved another teacher earlier in the day. So the main points I'd like to get across to you is:

The STUDENTS YELLED BACK at the teachers when told to do something. The TEACHER GRABBED the student. The TEACHER WAS ARRESTED after the student filed a complaint. And THE MOTHER is backing up the student.

Folks, we all want parents to be involved in our children's education...it's just that some parents shouldn't be involved with producing children.

Final note: No mention of a father involved...you don't say...

US VS. THEM

Although the English translation isn't yet available, I thought it would be interesting to outline some of the provisions of the Iraqi Constitution and compare it to our own. I got the "preliminary" Constitution (does anyone know why I have to capitalize that, by the way?) from a website source that popped up on Google. Please remember, that this is an interim Constitution...just like our own, it's subject to change.

"Law of Administering the Iraqi State for the Transitional Period."

Article 3. Iraq is an independent state possessing full sovereignty. Its capital is Baghdad. Its system is democratic, parliamentary, pluralist, and federal.

That's a shocker in and of itself in the Middle East...an INDEPENDENT state...DEMOCRATIC, PARLIAMENTARY, FEDERAL...sound familiar?

Article 4. Islam is the official religion and shall be considered a basic source among the sources of legislation. This law shall respect the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and shall completely guarantee freedom, practice, and rites of the other religions.

Not quite the First Amendment of our own Constitution, but notice the "respect and guarantee of the freedom of other religions" and the statement (which we can't make in our country) that they have a "basic source" for their belief system.

Article 5. The flag and emblem of the state shall be defined by law.
Article 6. The Arabic language shall be the official language in the country, while the current special situation in the territory of Kurdistan shall be respected.

Well, at least they have the guts (and opportunity) to declare an official language...probably just a racist tool of the right wing in Iraq, right? It's a wonder how they got these people in Iraq who we all know are incapable of democracy to agree on an official and common language...we have a long way to go in the United States, don't we?

Article 7. The people are the source of authorities.

Here, they say much the same as "of the people, by the people, for the people." The word "authorities" here means that the PEOPLE are in charge of their own destiny.

Article 9. Iraqis are equal in rights and duties. With respect to sex, nationality, sect, and race, they are equal before the law.

Gender equity? In the Middle East? Are you starting to understand why "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was so opposed by the left wing nuts? Imagine how infectious this is going to be with respect to surrounding countries...not their governments, but the people. Once permanent, my guess is they'll have their own problems with illegal immigration.

Article 10. Public and private freedoms are sacrosanct. The people have the right to freely express themselves, organize, meet, move, and publish, and they have the right to demonstrate and strike in accordance with the provisions of law.

Again...are you processing this?!? We're talking about "private freedoms" in the Middle East...even some people in Israel don't have these kinds of freedoms. This is stunning. No wonder the left wing nuts want us out of the "quagmire" in Iraq...they might actually have more freedoms than US some day...

Article 11. The individual has the right to education, well-being, work, and security and the right to a fair public trial.

Remember, a fair and public trial in the past was being spirited away in the middle of the night and hung by a hook in a dungeon somewhere never to see your family again. The right to work? Well being? Education? Yikes...

Article 14. Private property shall be preserved. It shall not be taken from its owner except for public benefit in return for just and swift compensation. This appropriation shall be regulated by law. An Iraqi citizen has ownership rights in all areas of Iraq.

Notice that this only applies to Iraqi citizens...not foreigners. I wish our government had such a strong emphasis on government control and compensation for the taking of land for public benefit. DARN...and I thought this was all done so we could take their oil....damn.

Article 16. It shall be forbidden to carry weapons for self-defense except by permit issued according to law.

Not quite the 2nd Amendment, but the Coalition Authority has a provision now whereby individuals CAN get permission to carry weapons for self-defense. It's the left wingers who would love to have this one replace our own 2nd Amendment...but again, this is a temporary provision in the Iraqi Constitution.

The Bottom Line: This Constitution upsets the entire balance of the relationships between other countries in the Middle East...this is a groundbreaking and incredible development. It's something that virtually every other government in the area is afraid of...which is why they have state controlled media not willing to tell the people about this. But trust me, word will get out that Iraqi citizens have something none of the people of other countries have - freedom. You understand now why those who don't want this "infection" to spread and why they're blowing up primarily Muslim targets.

MONDAY MORNING MEMO

Just a bit of an update on a couple of things -- then today's conversation starter a little later.

1. See? I told you I was on to something about the Howard Stern controversy! Howard is blaming BUSH for his "firing" by Clear Channel. Again, the conspiracy is that Howard was talking down the Bush administration, so he got his friends at Clear Channel to drop him in important radio markets like Florida, New York, and California. I'll keep an eye on this one further for you.

2. Again...do I have to spell this out for you people? The amendment to the Constitution (why do we capitalize that, by the way?) DEFINES marriage...it doesn't BAN it for some people. Read the stinkin' amendment if you have to and you'll see for yourself...H.J. Res. 56

3. The LIBS say, "Leave it up to the states"...well, that's interesting SINCE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DOES EXACTLY THAT!!! What a bunch of idiots. I am more convinced than ever that the Democrat party relies on your ignorance and stupidity to get you to agree with them. I wonder how many of the libs would agree to let abortion be a matter left to the states? Let's also remember that the whole REASON a Constitutional amendment is being proposed is because 4 judges in Massachusetts decided on their own to make it law...and they're not even ELECTED. What could be more "left up to the people" than a vote?

Whew! Now, on another issue:

John Edwards in the debate last night: Edwards repeated his campaign’s signature slogan by saying, "I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else."

Am I to take from that the fact that John Edwards wants to provide "everything they need every single day" for the "other" America? How does he propose to do that? In one respect, I agree with him...we do live in two Americas. ONE: The informed, intelligent, common sense thinking, individualistic America...and TWO: The perennially pissed off ignorant uninformed morons. And thank God, I'm trying to change that myself, by informing the second America about how stupid they must really be in order to believe and support this drivel.

God...I can't wait for the show today.