I think it’s a stretch to label Rush Limbaugh a racist. Sure, he’s said some provocative things that were on the line. But, the charge of ‘racist’ should be one we’re very slow to throw out here in America. You better have some really solid evidence.

Furthermore, even if Rush is a racist, should he be barred from buying an NFL team? Like it or not, it’s not illegal to be a racist in this country.

How can it be OK for Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member, to serve on the U.S. for 50 years, yet still be unacceptable for a radio talk show host (with no such affiliation) to own a football team?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-buy-bid-rams-nfl-jim-irsay-roger-goodell.html

Caller Russ on PM Bellingham tonight made a great point by reminding us of the phrase engraved in stone on the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.: “Equal Justice Under Law”… further callers pointed out Lady Justice’s blindfold.

Listen here: http://www.kgmi.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4076746

Think about the significance of that blindfold. Our laws are not based on feelings or appearances — they’re based on principles. Hate crime legislation runs counter to that, since the only difference between a person committing a hate crime and the ‘average’ criminal  is what’s happening in their mind.

Since when does Lady Justice weigh thoughts?

The House today extended the hate crime designation, but I’m arguing against ANY hate crime designation. I think all crimes committed against any person are hateful, no matter what reason the criminal cites. I’m in favor of punishing ALL crimes more harshly.

Why is this a problem for those who believe in hate crime laws?

UPDATE 10/09/09 - Interesting piece on hate crime laws here: http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1002/article/1199

On tonight’s show, caller Jerome from Mt. Vernon had a lot of good points about why Glenn Beck should not get his own day in that city, and should not get the ‘key to the city’ (whatever actual significance that has, I don’t know).

Listen to the show here:

http://www.kgmi.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4041918

My point was that if a city has a hometown boy that is as successful as Beck, they should be allowed to honor him, even if some people don’t like him. And a lot of people don’t like Glenn Beck. They hate Glenn Beck (which poses a question about hatred, but I won’t address that here).

But Jerome said he didn’t care whether Beck’s haters were on the left or the right, he said anyone that controversial shouldn’t be given the key to the city.

I brought up Howard Stern (and later, I also mentioned sports figures like Roger Clemens and Pete Rose). Many people are offended by Stern, just like many are offended by Beck. Should Stern’s hometown declare a ‘Howard Stern Day’ to honor his success? Should he be given the key to his city?

Jerome said no, and I appreciate his consistency. For him to say yes would be hypocritical.

But what about all this alleged damage to the city of Mt. Vernon. Jerome said people around the country plan to boycott the city’s businesses, even the famous tulip festival, over this apparent endorsement of Beck’s so-called hateful views. He said the city didn’t want or need this kind of attention.

Do you really believe the city of Mt. Vernon will suffer over declaring a ‘Glenn Beck Day’? Personally, I doubt it. Like they say, ‘No press is bad press’ (think about it).

Furthermore, who is responsible for any negative press for the city over this event? Certainly not Glenn Beck or those who organized the event. The negativity arose from people who decided to make a big issue out of something that’s really not a big deal.

If it weren’t for people freaking out about it, hardly anyone would know.  It was a little local story that hardly anyone beyond Whatcom and Skagit counties would really care about until people began to protest it.

Driving up the Hannegan on my way home from work this week, I noticed a new government road sign. It was some logo inside an ‘O’ shape. Immediately, it reminded me of the Obama ‘O’ from the 2008 campaign, but as I got closer, I realized it had something to do with the construction project ahead, where crews have the road closed to replace the Scott Ditch bridge.

Today, I noticed this article in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/17/senate-dems-approve-road-signs-that-tout-stimulus//print/

Apparently, there’s controversy over whether the feds should be spending millions on these signs. Maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist, but I think we should be concerned that they look like the Obama ‘O’.

Am I crazy?  Have you seen these signs, with the ‘O’ shape broken into four quarters with different symbols?

And, honestly, did it remind you of the Obama ‘O’?

Check out these graphics:

Stimulus Road Signs:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/aara_logo-340.jpg

http://www.ksl.com/emedia/slc/1265/126545/12654573.jpg

Obama Logo:

http://media.azpm.org/master/img/bdy_img/ObamaLogo.jpg

Oh, and here’s a great version of the stimulus logo (you’ll laugh!):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/SkVO0v16qKI/AAAAAAAAB24/FFmO6DlNa9c/s400/porklogo2.jpg

Read an interesting article from McClatchy today, reporting that global temperatures seem to be cooling from their peak in 1998.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html

Of course, global warming proponents were quick to say this was simply ‘cherry picking’ a small time frame, and that it doesn’t disprove global warming.

But isn’t that the whole issue? All the fear about global warming is based on a relatively small time frame, in the first place. From a larger perspective, the last hundred years of  record-keeping is just a blip on the global temperature radar screen. It appears the global warming proponents can have their own argument used against them.

They insist global warming will resume in the coming years, with a certainty that almost seems hopeful, as if they want it to happen. They have so much invested in the global warming theory, they won’t let updated facts slow them down to re-examine their hypothesis.

I realize a decade of cooling doesn’t prove or disprove anything, but, similarly, does a hundred years of warming?

I was shocked to hear that Congress may be considering to label healthcare a ‘right’ here in this country. What isn’t a ‘right’ anymore? No joke, they want to call it a right — here’s the story:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html

There’s a term that hasn’t been used too much as of late, but I’m bringing it back: CRADLE TO GRAVE. That’s where we’re headed, and it scares me. If you aren’t scared, you should be — look at this chart, and your head will spin:

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

If you didn’t just click on that link, go back and do it. If you haven’t looked at it, you’re deliberately keeping your head in the sand.

OK, maybe I’m over the top, but when this is the ridiculous level of bureaucratic complexity we need to simply ensure we aren’t DENYING Americans a ‘right’, WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM… not to mention a multi-trillion-dollar price tag.

I didn’t get to this on Thursday’s show, but at the end of the day, the whole controversy over David Letterman’s off-color comments about Sarah Palin and family is really all about RATINGS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31271743/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_are_viewers_dropping_ditching_conan_obrien_for_david_letterman.html

I can almost guarantee you that Letterman and his writers sat down and said, ‘how can we stir things up a bit?’ since Letterman’s show is in a head-to-head ratings race with Conan O’Brien’s show, and a shot of controversy always helps the ratings.

To take cheap shots at people’s families for the sake of ratings, though, is still unfair and, well, lame. But, it’ll probably work for him just the way he hoped — watch his ratings, and you’ll see.

Here’s the article I referenced at the beginning of the show:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/11/palin-says-letterman-a-threat-to-14-year-old-daughter-willow/

Apparently, the President is feeling the pressure of public dissatisfaction with his administration’s penchant for spending our tax dollars, so he’s now coming out with a new ‘Pay As You Go’ message (which isn’t new at all).

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0938720120090609

The fact that people are actually buying this and believing that Obama is serious about fiscal responsibility is disheartening. His administration, and the U.S. Congress, for that matter, has seemingly had no problems with spending billions upon billions upon billions thus far into his presidency, so why now is he lecturing Congress on spending? And what about this huge stimulus package — is it somehow exempt from this ‘fiscal responsibility’ talk?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090609/D98MRQU80.html

Read this op-ed from the Wall Street Journal on how the stimulus is going:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

It is good, though, to hear that more people are being critical of this administration than were initially. We’ll see if Obama sticks to his ‘PayGo’ guns on some upcoming decisions on war funding and healthcare.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN08333615

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Its-OK-to-borrow-to-pay-apf-15483626.html?.v=13

This afternoon, Jackie and I talked about a group of students at the University of Chicago that formed a group called ‘Men in Power’… they want to ‘help men get ahead professionally’. Does this make them anti women?

Here’s the story from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story

I can’t believe some people are calling these guys ‘misogynistic’. Do we believe in equality, or not? There are countless women’s groups, why not a men’s group?