I’m fascinated by the fact that the Dems have found a way to blame the GOP for the failure of Congress to pass any health care reform. How has this been allowed to happen? Dems have the majority, and they can do anything they want. Another example of the failure of the right to defend itself.

Recently, nearly every time I’m asked to appear as a “talking head” on a talk show, the subject of torture comes up, and I find myself trying to clarify that what we call “torture” would be laughed about in many parts of the world.

That being said, and since most talk shows give you mere seconds to make your point, let me clarify a few things:

I think torture is horrible. The evil that mankind has inflicted on each other since creation is beyond my comprehension. When I visit museums, or read books about ancient (or not so ancient) history, and see the devices men have created to torment other human beings it truly sickens me. I honestly can’t imagine how the human mind could invent such horrible contraptions as the “breast ripper”, the “brazen bull”, or “the rack”.

However, they exist, and the fact that we in America do not use them speaks volumes about us as a nation. As shocking as it may seem, in may parts of the world, disfiguring torture or some type of beating is to be expected if you’re picked up by the police. Mr. Miranda? Sorry, they’ve never heard of him. Innocent until proven guilty? The concept doesn’t exist.

Which brings me to the issue of waterboarding. I don’t claim to be an expert on the practice, and I’ve certainly never been waterboarded, but many of our military members have, and several prominent journalists have been also. It’s no doubt a miserable experience, but is it torture, in the true sense of the word? Is listening to music you can’t stand, played loudly, torture? Sleep deprivation?

All of those things sound like misery to me, and I have personal friends who have been captives, and who truly know what it means to be beaten and tortured, so when we’re talking about being frightened by a dog, or having panties put on your head, we may be talking humiliation, but don’t insult my friends’ sacrifice by calling humiliation torture.

When I think of torture, I think of beatings, being burned, raped, mutilated, having various parts of your body cut off while you’re still alive, beheading - you know, the things they do to our soldiers when they get ahold of them. Guess they’re not interested in following our examples, are they?

I hear a lot of talk about America “setting the example” in the way we treat prisoners. Why do you suppose that Somali pirate was grinning so broadly when he arrived in the States? Because he knew he was going to be tortured? To the contrary - he knows that we won’t do anything to him, and he’s never eaten so well in his life.

I wish “enhanced interrogation techniques” weren’t necessary, and in a perfect world, they wouldn’t be. Everyone would play nice, and no one would take your stuff. This may be news to the left, but we’re not there yet, so we must do all we can to protect our citizens from the bad guys, who don’t give us information just because it’s the right thing to do. Anyone who could plot to kill innocents is devoid of a conscience, get it?

Are we perfect? Of course not. Have there been abuses of power? Most certainly. But to accuse us of large scale torture is unfair, and merely emboldens our enemies. Let’s not forget that the so-called leaders of many of the detainees couldn’t care less if they’re ever returned alive. They’re not longer useful.

We must have a code of conduct that we adhere to, not because our enemies will agree to it, but because we never want to reduce ourselves to their level. But in the meantime, until someone can show me proof that the U.S. truly “tortures” people, like they do in the detainees’ native countries, I won’t lump uncomfortable treatment into the “torture” category. And to put torture into perspective, this is what they do in the Middle East… http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=4125

Obama’s Budget Chief Doesn’t Know Total Cost of Obama’s Health-Care Plan

Oh, good. I feel better now, knowing that our nation’s health care plan is in the hands of people so incompetent, they have no idea what the final cost will be!

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44198

Obama ‘Review’ Likely to Reverse Bush ‘Conscience’ Protections for Doctors, Health Workers

This has nothing to do with your right to an abortion. Lest anyone fail to notice, after 8 years in the White House, despite all the attempts by the pro-abortion crowd to foment fear of “losing your rights” convince women otherwise, President Bush did not make abortion illegal.

Some argue that doctors refusing to provide abortions or abortion information are denying women their right to the information. Not so. There are thousands of doctors who would be happy to provide the information, or even the procedure, should any woman so desire. Just as in the case of legislation which would force pastors to perform gay weddings, or refrain from calling homosexuality sin, this is legislation designed to force doctors to go along with a specific agenda, effectively removing the rights of the doctors far more than the patients, who have many options for care.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44255

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
The trouble with this silly piece of legislation is that it will have no effect on the children in countries where human rights are an afterthought. When parents think nothing of selling their daughters into prostitution, or strapping bombs on them for the cause of Allah, you’ve got a problem, and the U.S., which refuses to execute even the most heinous child murderers, isn’t the guilty nation. This treaty would do nothing for children, but it would erode the rights of parents to determine what their children are exposed to, and which values are passed on to them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

It’s amazing to me that people who entertain us for a living, who spend billions of dollars every year producing all forms of entertainment, cannot put on an awards show that - entertains…

Who cares about Visual Effects, Sound Editing, Set Direction, Sound Mixing, etc? I realize they’re all integral parts of film making, but the viewing audience does not care. It’s especially thrilling when the Sound Mixer Oscar winner gives a one minute speech, mentioning people we don’t know, in an accent so heavy we can barely understand him.

Hollywood has a choice - either produce a ceremony that appeals to the REST of us, (you know, the ones advertisers are trying to reach), or continue to produce a show for yourselves, and lose audiences as a result. People tune in to see the stars they recognize, and what they’re wearing. Period. Although we appreciate the behind the scenes folks, we don’t know them and don’t want to see them. Do that part of the show prior to network air, and put it on the internet for those who are so bored they’d like to watch it.

Even without the awards no one in the general public cares about, how can funny people do skits that aren’t funny? Steve Martin and Tina Fey are two of the funniest people in the business, yet their skit fell flat. How does this happen? Who writes this stuff? Who wrote that ridiculous song and dance number in the middle? I’ve seen better routines at company talent shows! Come to think of it, I’ve DONE better routines at company talent shows…and that ain’t sayin’ much!

For the life of me, I can’t understand why we’re just accepting the destruction of what’s left of our free market. Doesn’t anyone realize that this “stimulus” package has nothing to do with helping the economy, and everything to do with pushing a green/socialist agenda? There’s no way the American people would allow all this spending on pet projects under any other circumstances, and the Democratic Congress knows that. This is their chance to cram all of this down our throats under the guise of an “economic crisis”.

I have followed this story for awhile, and it makes me sad, because the stupid decisions people make cause so much pain to their children. Why anyone who is not married, regardless of who they sleep with, would bring a child into the world is beyond me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the height of selfishness to have a child without regard to the life that child will have. Intentionally depriving a child of a father is disgusting, whether you get pregnant by a boyfriend or a turkey baster.

The worst part is that this case had become about gay rights, not parental rights. If the “partner” had been a boyfriend who was not medically related to the child, this case would have been settled a long time ago. The ramifications of this case are frightening. Let this be a lesson to all women - if you can’t or won’t get married and provide a two parent stable environment, don’t get pregnant. You’re not entitled to a child, just because you want one. The innocent kids should be entitled to a decent family life.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=87430

I guess I’m sheltered, but I can’t even believe what passes for entertainment these days. I have never watched Nip/Tuck, because based on the previews, it doesn’t even look mildly interesting. I watched the Nip/Tuck clip, and I’m still shaking. I’m not squeamish and have no problem watching real life gore, such as Trauma:Life in the ER, because people are actually being helped, and it’s not gratuitous. This scene was horrendous, by any standards. Regardless of how “real” it may or may not have looked, it’s horrifying. What next, throwing Christians to the lions and putting that on cable? At least that would look more real…

This says more about us as a nation than it does about the producers of the show. We don’t expect them to have standards, but we, the viewing public, are supposed to hold them accountable, by refusing to support this garbage.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/01/ptc-objects-to-niptuck-selfmutilation.html

There’s been a lot of concern about the Fainress Doctrine being reinstated, especially among conservatives. Many of us were concerned that an Obama administration would be likely to reinstate it. However, since the Democrats won congrol of congress and the presidency, you’d think they’d be content. (Apparently, those of us on the right DON’T control the minds of all Americans)

However in a meeting with members of congress last week, he admonished Republicans…”You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”. Was that a shot across the bow of the talk radio boat? Could be.

It may surprise you to know that most of the people I know in radio are liberals. Every Program Director I’ve had has been more liberal than I am. Most of the GM’s, Sales Managers, and consultants I know are more liberal than I am. The fact is, radio is full of libs, and although the best paid hosts happen to be conservative, that’s not why they are well paid.

How will the reinstated Fairness Doctrine manifest itself? I have no idea, since I started my radio career only 10 years ago. Will I still have a job? Be forced to have to have a liberal co-host? There’s no telling. Here’s a link for more information on the history of the Fairness Doctrine:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Many station owners and radio executives are liberal, and they don’t see red or blue, they see green. Prior to this week, I would have expected cooler financial heads to prevail, but when you consider the fact that the Dems are going to do all they can to retain their majority, anything’s possible. Now that I think about it, there are many examples where people will put ideology above cash. They do it in hollywood every day. Pushing politically correct anti-American movies that no one goes to see, while turning a blind eye to the success of family and pro American movies is one example.

Who knows what the future holds for my industry, or for that matter, many others. Either way, I’m sur they’ll be change, just maybe not the kind of change any of us want.

OMG - I just watched a local “news” cast, and after a one sided stem cell interview was aired, the anchor went on to say, “President Bush didn’t allow funding for stem cell research”…a complete and total lie! I am so tired of hearing that lie repeated! Here are the facts: President Bush did not allow federal funding for stem cell research with embryos created after a certain date…he NEVER prohibited private funding of stem cell research. Liars!!!! Regardless of whether you believe an embryo is a person, or merely a potential person, at least be honest about the facts.

Here, for the edification of those who care to know the truth…the Federal Policy under Bush…

Federal Policy
President Bush’s Criteria

On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:

* The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.