Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
There is a popular game (more of a diversion, really) called "Twenty questions". My siblings, parents, and I played it often on long road trips when I was a child. The object of the game, for those readers who have never heard of it, is this:
One person in the group thinks of a person, place, or thing, and the other players ask yes or no questions about it until they determine what it is, or until twenty questions have been exhausted.
Usually,the first questions are asked to determine if the the object or substance etc, in question is animal, mineral, or vegetable. If, by answering these questions, one has determined the answer will be a person, another question is usually asked to determine if the person in question is living or dead. This line of questioning will narrow the possibilities down quite a bit, allowing the questioners to more quickly draw a conclusion. If the questioners can determine the answer within twenty questions the questioner who gets the right answer wins. If the questioners don't determine the right answer within the allotted twenty questions, the answerer wins.
This has since become a popular internet game and a rather ingenious electronic game that can be purchased at various stores. One can find and play it online by simply going here.
Recently Marshall Art posted an entry on his blog expressing no small amount of outrage at Planned Parenthood for requesting government funding. His entry has generated about 79 comments to date.
I've written about this before. I am very passionate about this subject.
Once again, I allowed myself to be drawn into an insult trading contest with a certain commenter whose name I won't mention as it is not an integral part of the discussion. I don't wish to go into that at this time. Or ever, for that matter. So, if you follow the link to his post, please disregard the mud slinging by myself and a couple of others and focus, if you will, on the subject matter.
I would instead focus on the subject brought up by a couple of otherwise seemingly intelligent commenters on the "personhood" of a fetus.
I had thought this particular argument moot, due to the determination of just about every non-biased scientist (with the exception of those who graduated from the Josef Mengele school of medicine) on the planet that the fetus is a living human entity at the instant of conception, but apparently, there are still a few dinosaurs left who cling to the unscientific belief that somewhere during gestation the human fetus becomes a person, but starts out dead. Or, as they prefer to put it, "non-living". However, these same people can't seem to come up with a precise moment when the lifeless lump of tissue becomes a living human being.
One commenter actually said, "They do not kill babies. They perform abortions. There IS a difference."
As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between abortion and killing babies. It is my contention that a human conceived embryo is a human being from the exact instant of conception.
After that, the discussion degenerated into a discussion on when a fetus becomes a viable human being.
I will now present my side of the argument:
There is, and never has been, any time in the history of mankind wherein anything but two humans came together to create life naturally, biologically, in the womb, without aid of test tubes or other medical equipment.
Actually, even with test tubes and up-to-the-minute advances in medical science, the human egg still requires human fertilization in order to advance through the stages of development and become a living, breathing human baby. There has never been any human pregnancy that resulted from two different species, such as a Rhinoceros and a Hibiscus. Or even a human being and an animal. Human pregnancies always are a result of a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.
It will never be any different.
Thus, to suggest that at any time during the stages of human development the embryo is anything other than human, one must ask oneself, "If not human, what?"
It takes, as I mentioned, a human cell called a sperm cell from the male human being to fertilize a human cell called an egg which issues from a woman human being's fallopian tubes to create a human cell called a zygote. This zygote becomes a human embryo, which, in turn becomes a human fetus.
At no point during these stages of development does the zygote, embryo, or fetus ever become anything other than human.
The question with which these abortion rights advocates would attempt to cloud the issue is, "At what point during the developing stages does the fetus become a human being?"
They would argue that somewhere during the development cycle a non-living fetus becomes a living human being, but they cannot decide at what point. It would seem to me that if they don't know when it becomes a human then they can't say it isn't a human being.
To put it more simply, A human man impregnates a human woman, and within 9 months, give or take a few days, the result is a human baby. If it takes two humans to conceive, how could the resulting baby ever, during any stage of it's development, become anything other than human? And if it can, what does it become? And when does it change to whatever it becomes? And at what point does it change back to human?
These questions will be argued by abortion rights advocates as a question of semantics. They will no doubt say something like, "We aren't saying it isn't human. We are saying it isn't living!" They will offer variations of this same statement, but it makes the same point. And it means basically the same thing. Their point will be, unless it breathes, or can exist outside the woman's body, or it's heart is beating, etc, it isn't a living being.
But that is flawed logic , to wit:
At the very instant of conception, the female human egg cell begins to divide and grow. It is microscopic, and although it starts with only one cell, as soon as the male human sperm cell binds with the egg, it becomes two cells, and from there, it continues to grow, unless impeded, until it becomes a fully developed human being.
If it grows, it must be alive.
What, if anything on this planet, has grown while dead? What living entity on this planet does not continue to grow until death? Point being, if it grows it is alive. At what point in development does the human embryo not grow?
So, I will submit that the question is not, "When does a zygote, embryo, fetus, et al, become a living human being?", but rather,
"When is it not a living human being?"
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Something new has been added for this entry! Footnotes! Check ‘em out!
AlGore, the self-appointed Goracle of the second newest religion on the planet, AlGorianity, (1. which teaches a philosophy that posits man made Worldwide climate change, particularly unavoidable, unchangeable, gradual warming Global temperatures, is an immediate and imminent cataclysmic, life-ending danger to all life on this planet, has (again) made an amazingly astounding (and confounding) pronouncement. (2.
According to Ann Coulter‘s weekly internet column, “On ‘Meet the Press’ last weekend, (Al)Gore called on America to be carbon dioxide-free within 10 years“.
Really? Carbon Dioxide-free?
As I said, “Astounding“!
Now, I am aware that some skeptics consider anything Ann Coulter has to say to be unadulterated lies, but I’m fairly confident a quick Google search would confirm the validity of Ann’s claim that AlGore really did make that absolutely incredible statement, so I‘m not even going to do the research myself. I’ll leave that task up to the unbelievers.
I have scoured my brain thoroughly in search of some logical explanation as to why this Caliphate of Climatic Calamity, this Pope of Pomposity, would make such an asinine proclamation, and have only been able to come up with two possible explanations:
1. He thinks Americans are morons, or
2. AlGore himself is a moron.
What should we call worshippers of AlGore, anyway? Christians are named for their founder, Jesus Christ, so let’s just call AlGore’s disciples “AlGorians“, shall we?
But I digress. Here, for the logically-challenged, hereafter to be referred to as “AlGorians”, (3. is a scientific fact, which incidentally, I learned in Mr. Clarence Zink‘s eighth grade Basic Science class: (4
Bi-pedal Carbon-based life form units (That’s human beings, to offer clarification for any AlGorians who happen to be reading this) and animals (all animals) breathe by inhaling into their bodies, air, which consists mostly of oxygen. By a remarkable chemical conversion process, that same oxygenated air is converted somewhere within the body, to air consisting of mostly carbon dioxide, which is then expelled from the body through the process of breathing out. (5. Here is just one web site that supports this claim, but more scientifically than I.
It reads, and I quote:
“When we humans breathe, we breathe through our lungs. The air we pull in when we inhale through our nose and our mouth moves into our bronchial tubes, then into our avaoli sacks, and from there into our blood stream. Once in the blood stream the oxygen travels through our bodies. At the same time we are breathing in the oxygen we are exhaling the carbon dioxide. The CO² leaves our bodies when we exhale“.
In layman’s terms, that means we expel Carbon Dioxide directly into the air during the basic, natural, normal process of breathing. Breathing would be virtually impossible if Carbon Dioxide were eliminated. And without breathing, life on this earth would be non-existent. Breathing is one way in which living entities are distinguished from non-living and/or non-thinking entities, such as mountains, rocks, most Hollywood celebrities, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and B. Hussein Obama.
Conversely, plant life on this planet (plants, defined for the benefit of AlGorians everywhere, as trees, flowers, grass, weeds, etc.) breathes air exactly opposite the way people and animals breathe. (6. They inhale carbon dioxide, and expel oxygen!
Well, I suppose eliminating all Carbon Dioxide on this planet would create an immediate, imminent, cataclysmic end to life on this planet after all.
But wouldn’t that be a self fulfilling prophecy, if by some supernatural power, AlGore was indeed actually able to accomplish the elimination of all Carbon Dioxide on the earth? Hmmmm. .. Maybe he’s on to something after all.
But seriously, folks. Can anything AlGore says really be taken seriously anymore?
Maybe AlGore has discovered some way of inhaling oxygen without expelling Carbon Dioxide. I wonder. Where would the air that isn’t expelled go? Would it be excreted through the pores of the skin by osmosis? Or would it simply build up within the body until the body burst, like an overfilled blimp or helium filled balloon? Perhaps both! Helium filled balloons eventually just lose helium, if they don’t burst first, don’t they?
I’m no scientist, but I’ve always assumed the helium slowly passes out through the pores of the rubber of the balloon, and that’s why they eventually sink to the ground and get smaller, but I could be mistaken.
Hmmm… come to think of it, His Holiness AlGore has been looking a little bloated lately.
But wait a minute. That wouldn’t work either. Whether we burst from too much retention of Carbon Dioxide in our bodies or we excrete the gas through the pores in our skin, Carbon Dioxide would still be released into the atmosphere eventually. Right?
What to do? What to do?
I just don’t see how we are going to be Carbon Dioxide-free in ten years. Or ever. Unless we all cease to exist, that is. Isn’t ceasing to exist the very condition the AlGorians are trying to avoid?
Somebody throw me a bone here.
Well, perhaps AlGore, the God of Global Warming, has transcended mortal human existence and has become omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-everything else. Because that’s the only way he could ever accomplish the elimination of Carbon Dioxide without killing off all life on Planet Earth.
Which brings me back to my original summation:
He’s either a moron, or he believes everyone else are morons.
Wait! There’s another option to consider:
3. Perhaps he fancies himself the ultimate Svengali, who has accomplished the monumental task of mesmerizing all humans on this planet into believing even the most preposterous hypnotic suggestion. (7.
Actually, whether AlGore is a moron or not, anyone who believes the nonsense he spews is by default, a moron, in my humble opinion.
Unless, of course, he has his minions mesmerized. There. I’ve provided a ready-made excuse for you Liberals out there.
No doubt the AlGorians are already scrambling to offer plausible explanations for their Master’s idiotic statements. You know, “That’s not what he meant! You’re taking it out of context! Waaaaahhh!”
Actually, Ann quite effectively put everything he said into context, so that what he said could be better understood. I saw the interview, which, I mean to tell you, was a particularly excruciating experience, so my Conservative friends won't have to suffer through it themselves. (You can thank me later) He actually said "100% Carbon free in ten years", Which is even more impossible than merely Carbon Dioxide free. We all are, after all, carbon based life forms. I think Ann was actually giving him a break. Later on he used the term "Carbon Dioxide" to further clarify his stated, intended goal.
Seriously, after this ludicrous pronouncement, how can anyone, even the most illiterate, naïve, stupid, blind, AlGorian believe anything this self-appointed Messiah of the Masses says? (8. About anything?
What? Am I insinuating I am more intelligent than AlGore and his followers?
1. The newest religion is "Obamarama-ding-dong".
2. How’s that for a long, rambling, much too wordy, grammatically incorrect sentence?
3. To distinguish them from members of their parent church, the church of the Lemming-mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.
4.Carlton Jr. High School, Derby, Kansas 1964-5 (now defunct)
5. Which, according to another religious philosophy called Darwinism, merely invented itself naturally, without intelligent design.
6. That’s grass and weeds you walk on, not smoke. I have to keep in mind that I’m explaining this to Liberals, also.
7. See Svengali - www.Google.com
8. Including GK-S, drlobojo, and Dan
Friday, July 25, 2008
I woke up in the middle of the night and "T'aint nobody's business if I do" (performed specifically by Gladys Knight, Chaka Khan, and Etta James, with B. B. King from an old Showtime Blues special) was in my head, and I just couldn't go back to sleep without searching it out on youtube.com and posting the video. Here it is:
I am a huge fan of Gladys Knight, so I just can't stop there. Here's a couple of other songs from the same special:
By the way, it was on this program that I first discovered Etta James. I became a big fan of her, too. Here's one by her and Dr. John:
Monday, July 21, 2008
I found this story on the front page of our local paper this morning:
The March 2003 image became one of the most iconic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq: that of a bespectacled American soldier carrying an Iraqi child to safety. The photograph of Army Pfc. Joseph Dwyer, who was raised in Mount Sinai, was used by news outlets around the world.
After being lionized by many as the human face of the U.S. effort to rebuild a troubled Iraq, Dwyer brought the battlefield home with him, often grappling violently with delusions that he was being hunted by Iraqi killers.
His internal terror got so bad that, in 2005, he shot up his El Paso, Texas, apartment and held police at bay for three hours with a 9-mm handgun, believing Iraqis were trying to get in.
Last month, on June 28, police in Pinehurst, N.C., who responded to Dwyer's home, said the 31-year-old collapsed and died after abusing a computer cleaner aerosol. Dwyer had moved to North Carolina after living in Texas.
Dwyer, who joined the Army two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and who was assigned to a unit of the 3rd Infantry Division that one officer called "the tip of the tip of the spear" in the first days of the U.S. invasion, had since then battled depression, sleeplessness and other anxieties that military doctors eventually attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.
The war that made him a hero at 26 haunted him to the last moments of his life.
War is Hell.
I've always said I am against war. I've also always said sometimes war is the only option. The fact that Pfc Dwyer suffered from PTSD (or maybe just paranoid schizophrenia) has nothing to do with whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.
There have been, and there will be many more stories like this one. Most will be printed as an indictment against the Bush administration and it's policies. I will agree that mistakes were made in the prosecution of the current war on terror. We should have taken a much more aggressive strategy. We should have put an adequate number of troops on the ground from the beginning. We should have started "the surge" on day one.
Well, no one is an expert in war.
The story of Joseph Dwyer describes an unfortunate by-product of the terrors of war in general. And many will point to this as proof that the war we are currently engaged in is an immoral and unnecessary conflict.
But remember this:
The terrors that Pfc Dwyer experienced in Iraq came not from our involvement over there but from the terrorists who target innocent civilians in their misguided quest to convert the entire world to their obscene murderous concept of religion. It is because of terrorism our soldiers are there. We are there to protect the innocents who otherwise would be left to fend for themselves against an enemy determined to wipe out everyone who doesn't believe.
We do not attack innocent civilians. We do not murder innocent men, women, and children with bombs devised wholly to maim, kill, and destroy lives. Our enemies do that. We are there to prevent it from happening if we can.
If not for Pfc Joseph Dwyer and all those others who have volunteered to protect and defend freedom all over the world, there would be thousands more deaths in Iraq, and indeed, the rest of the world.
Pfc Dwyer is a hero. He is the human face of the U.S. effort to rebuild a troubled Iraq. The death of Pfc Joseph Dwyer is not a propaganda tool of the anti-war left in this country.
It is a tragic reminder that all war, even a war fought with righteous intent, is still Hell.
We must continue the fight, regardless of the short and long term repercussions associated with the horrors of the war. Terrorism cannot be allowed to win.
For the innocent victim's sake. For our Country's sake. For the world's sake.
For Pfc Joseph Dwyer's sake.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
It has recently been suggested to me that I keep a dictionary handy, presumably so I can use it to look up the word "compunction". The author of that comment apparently assumes, for whatever reason, that I am not as erudite as he. Perhaps it's because I prefer to keep my writing style simple enough so that readers like he cannot misunderstand the intent of my elucidation. I don't content myself to merely imply that I think the aforementioned commenter is a hypocritical jerk.
I prefer to make it quite clear that I think he is a hypocritical jerk.
Furthermore, he goes on to state, curiously, and at great length, that he doesn't really care what I think, to which another commenter pointed out that he certainly goes to no small amount of effort to impress someone he doesn't really care about impressing.
I have to admit I found that exchange amusing.
Perhaps some background behind the exchange of ad hominen attacks on each other is warranted here. The commenter, who's name (his initials are GK-S) shall not be revealed in this entry, remarked that he was celebrating the fact that the late Senator Jesse Helms was now, as he put it, "worm food". He didn't explain why he thinks Mr. Helms was such a deplorable person that he would deserve such disrespect, but I feel it only fair to point out the fact that Jesse Helms is not in any way "worm food", now or ever. Jesse Helms is in spirit form, wherever he now resides. The only thing remaining of Senator Helms that is "worm food" is the vehicle which carried his eternal soul around on this earth. And that vehicle was created by Helm's Creator to be disposable.
As is mine. As is Mr. GK-S's.
Let me state for the record that no dictionary was required. I am quite familiar with the word "compunction" but I never use it myself, primarily because I find the word sounds like it should have an entirely different meaning. Don't ask me to explain why. It just sounds to me, on intonation, rather coarse and vulgar. There is no sound reason why I feel that way. I just don't feel a compunction to use the word.
Be that as it may, I will admit that this naked intent to offend me had its desired effect, because I was duly insulted.
I'm funny that way. I get insulted over the most trivial of slights while casually brushing aside much stronger verbal assaults. If I am called ugly, I laugh. If I am called simple, I shrug. Call me an elitist if you will and I will not disagree, although I myself will use that word often to describe and denigrate those who I consider to be lemming mentality bleeding heart liberal sob sisters.
Of course, when I use the word "elitist" to describe a Liberal, I use it with a negative connotation. When I apply it to myself, it carries with it a very positive connotation.
The word "elitist" springs to mind almost every time I hear a snippet from a speech by B. Hussein Obama, yet I don't mind the appellation when it's applied to me, because, quite frankly, I consider myself an elitist, but in a good way.
I am not a "redneck", nor have I ever been. I don't care if someone calls me a redneck, but the appellation is not applicable in any way to me or my character.
I wouldn't want anyone to infer that I have anything against rednecks, because I don't. I just don't consider myself thus.
I could be a redneck easily enough, though.
God knows I wasn't born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. Quite the contrary, I was born the sixth child in a family that struggled week to week, month to month, just to put enough food on the table to keep us all properly nourished. Often, we as a family would have either chicken or pot roast for Sunday dinner, and then subsist on the leftovers as long as they lasted, then finish the week eating navy beans and cornbread. Then, the cycle would begin again the next week. And so on.
We didn't rub shoulders with the upper crust, and we didn't attempt to ingratiate ourselves into their company. We were erusticated but proud. It is that pride, I think, that compels me to consider myself elite. I have tried to raise my own children with that attitude. I have often repeated to them, "We may be poor white trash, but we don't have to act like it".
You will excuse the faux pas of ending the previous sentence with a preposition, one of my pet peeves. It is what I say, and it makes the point.
I wasn't always an elitist. I suffered from class envy myself until I was well into my twenties, or maybe even into my thirties. I don't recall when the realization came to me that the wealthy were not to be scorned but appreciated for their ability to amass large amounts of money. It is no small task. I suppose it would be fair to say I still envy the rich, but it is with admiration rather than scorn now. If they didn't attain their wealth by hard work and intelligent decisions, they most certainly maintain their riches thusly.
I should probably add here, that I still am not a wealthy man, by any one's estimation. I still struggle week to week, sometimes barely making it to the next paycheck. I am not whining, just stating a fact. I am always working hard to improve my situation. Sometimes I make wrong choices, which result in getting myself into dire straits, but I don't ask for sympathy or help from anyone. I am responsible for myself. I either succeed or fail on my own. I guess it's part of my elitist pride. I refuse to accept pity or assistance from anyone.
I certainly have little right to consider myself elite. I don't possess a degree from any institution of higher learning, unless high school is considered higher learning. I did complete 26 hours of University study, but because of a typical youthful lack of money and ambition, I never finished. Unlike three of my five brothers and sisters, I didn't earn a full academic scholarship.
Nevertheless, I am an elitist. This is not to say I am arrogant, because I'm usually not, although I sometimes catch myself being condescending to others. (In much the same way as GK-S, but not as frequently) Most notably, as it happens, to rednecks. Jeff Foxworthy defines a redneck as someone "with a glorious lack of sophistication". I am loathe to admit it, but I consider myself too sophisticated to be a redneck, at least in the way Foxworthy defines them.
Yes, I'm rambling. It has been a few days since the aforementioned nasty argument occurred. It took this long for the offense to really start eating at me, so much so that I found myself lying awake in bed tonight, mulling over possible retorts.
But, I am better than that.
I lowered myself to GK-S's level by responding in the way that I did, and I am not remorseful for that, because in my opinion, he deserved that and more for his irreverent, smarmy, un-Christian remarks. What I am ashamed of is that I allowed myself to be drawn into a sophomoric, pointless sort of argument, which is better left to the non-thinking Liberals in the blogosphere.
I am above that.
Incidentally, I mentioned that I don't know why he held the opinion that Senator Helms was such a deplorable person, and unfortunately and wrongly, I resorted to the old Liberal tactic of pointing to an example of a Democrat Legislator who's prejudices are arguably as bad or worse than those attributed to Helms. Robert Byrd, to be exact.
What I should have done, was do some research into the life and career of Mr. Helms, and countered with that, instead.
Not knowing the exact reasoning behind the offending commenters disrespectful comments has me at a disadvantage to be sure, but I would assume he was referring to the supposed racism that Liberals and Democrats (the two are not mutually inclusive) of which Mr Helms has often been accused.
The truth can be easily ascertained by a simple googling of Jesse Helm's name. It would seem that Helms has been pretty much a lifetime victim of slander. He wasn't a racist by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, he was quite the opposite.
I got this information from Ann Coulter's online column, which I realize has no credibility in Liberal circles. But before any Liberals raise their expected objection to my using Ann Coulter as a resource, let me point out that in the same article she praised Ted Kennedy for maintaining a good relationship with his staffers, so it must be factual. Here is what Ann says about Jesse Helms:
Helms was viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist -- including in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week. In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.
Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."
Helms was for integration; he was simply against "movements." He would later hire James Meredith, who was the first black to attend the University of Mississippi -- with the assistance of federal troops. By 1989, Meredith's views had come around to those of Helms, not the other way around.
After years of reading and studying and attending law school at Columbia University, Meredith concluded that blacks had been better off when they worked for themselves and not for white liberals.
Now, if Mr GK-S has some reason to dislike Jesse Helms other than the false allegations of racism leveled at him by Liberal Democrats, perhaps he would care to educate us poor, dumb, uneducated bloggers.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Every now and then some Democrat starts pushing the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine" again. Recently it was San Fran Nancy "Stretch" (Bela)Pelosi.
For the uninitiated (is there really anybody more uninitiated than me?), the Fairness Doctrine presumably would force radio and television outlets to present equal time to all sides of every issue. Political, social, religious, and any other category.
Democrats insist we must level the playing field, but why must we level it by lowering the more productive to the level of the less productive? Why can't we try to level it by elevating the less fortunate?
To take the idea to extremes, the Fairness Doctrine would, presumably, insure that Saturday morning gardening radio shows offer equal time opinions on why planting vegetables is more important than planting flowers, and vice versa.
But that isn't really what Democrats have in mind. They want to silence free speech. Not all free speech, of course. Only the free speech with which they disagree.
That isn't completely true. I find it highly unlikely that they really disagree with many Conservative ideologies.
It's probably more accurate to say they only want to silence free speech that might cause their Liberal constituencies to think.
After all, it is to the Liberal Democrat politicians advantage to make sure their constituency doesn't think. Thinking is a political liability to Democrats.
Within minutes after a Liberal Democrat begins logically thinking on his own, he becomes a Conservative.
I would say he becomes a Republican, but John McCain disproves that theory.
The point isn't whether Democrats personally disagree with things like the myth of man-made Global Warming, or that Homosexual marriage is in direct juxtaposition with the original concept of a one man, one woman marriage, etc.
It's about political expediency. And about money. If a Democrat can see a monetary or political advantage in an ideology, it doesn't matter whether they personally agree with the concept.
So, the idea is to prevent people from thinking logically. Hence, the "Fairness Doctrine".
The "fair" part of the "Fairness Doctrine" means, according to the Democrats, that all opinions on any given political subject should be presented within an equal amount of time with every other opinion. Thus, a Liberal viewpoint would get equal time with a Libertarian viewpoint, and a Conservative viewpoint, and a Green viewpoint, and a Judeo/Christian viewpoint, and a Satanic Viewpoint, and a Nazi viewpoint, and a Communist viewpoint, etc, etc, etc.
Which, admittedly, seems to be -- uh ---fair.
But what of the radio and television executives? How fair is that to them? They are in the business of making money. Everyone works to make money. Even Liberals, in spite of their insistence that they only do what they do to make the world better. They wouldn't be community activists or politicians if it didn't make them money.
Some of us work to get rich. Some of us work simply to make a living. But both wealth and merely getting by requires money.
My point is this:
If the fairness doctrine is implemented in the way Democrats say they want it to be implemented, it would severely decrease the numbers of listeners/viewers, and without listeners, their advertisers stop buying airtime to promote their products, and the radio/TV networks would lose so much money they would be forced to shut down.
So, I suppose the Democrats would eventually get what they really want. The end of Conservative talk radio and TV. But many Radio and Television personnel would be out of work.
Now, wait a minute, Liberals. Try to think logically about this assertion. For once.
Lets say, for example, Rush Limbaugh wants to present his opinion on Gas Prices. He has a certain amount of time to present his opinion, and then he must move over to let a Liberal (Al Franken perhaps?)talk show host present his side. The Liberal has the equal amount of time to present his side, but then, he also has to move over so the Conspiracy theorist can present his side, and so on.
Now. Rush Limbaugh has high ratings for his rant. Then, the ratings drop precipitously. Liberals don't get the ratings to sustain an entire network of Liberal talk shows, let alone short segments when any liberals in the audience have to sit through an hour of common sense talk by Rush Limbaugh first. The ratings for the Liberal host are dismal at best, and ratings for other crackpot rantings even worse.
Aside: I would tend to listen to a conspiracy theorist before I'd listen to a Liberal, and I suspect, so would just about everyone else. I suspect the conspiracy theorist would garner even better ratings than the Liberal.
Many Democrats have questioned why Conservatives have better ratings then their Liberal counterparts.
Their reasoning is that Conservatives have monopolized the market, hence, the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation.
This theory defies logic, which should be pointed out, is why it is such a popular theory among lemming mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.
Here is the real reason Liberals don't listen to Liberal talk radio:
They don't listen because they prefer to listen to music and/or comedy programs. Particularly music and comedy that bashes Conservatives. They do not want to listen to talk radio. Talk radio of any kind prompts the listener to think.
Liberals don't like to think. Logic interferes with their need to feel.
While feelings and logic are not necessarily mutually exclusive to each other, the Liberals need to base their political ideology on emotion usually cancels out logic.
Conservative talk radio invites the listener to think logically and even disagree with the hosts conclusions on occasion. Liberal talk radio invites the listener to agree with everything the hosts say, whether it is logical or not.
But, either way, if a listener listens long enough to either, whether said listener is a Conservative or Liberal, the listener begins to think for himself.
Then, the Liberal begins to see and understand the fallacy of the typical Liberal ideology.
And when that happens, Liberal talk radio becomes irrelevant to the thinking listener. Hence, Liberal talk radio loses listeners to Conservative talk radio.
Conservative talk radio is already fair.
It gives the listeners what they want. It enables the listeners to stay Conservative and the Liberals to continue listening to George Carlin and Marilyn Manson.
What is more fair than allowing the listener to make their own choice?