Sunday, July 1: I like it:
————————————————————————————————-
Envy is ugly. All humans are capable of it, and some display it more than others. It’s always, always unattractive. When I feel a wave of it coming on, I channel the energy toward productive pursuits, drawing on my own strengths to create something instead of wallowing in envy over what others have created or trying to destroy or undermine it.
Envy is exactly why liberals are trying to revive a dead doctrine. Because no one wants to listen to a bunch of whiny white liberals on the radio all day, liberal talk radio is a dud. Conservative talk radio is king, and liberals can’t stand it. Instead of channeling the “envy energy” into creating profitable, market-driven programs (products) of their own, they want to shut down market-driven conservative talk by government fiat. Unimaginatively typical.
I had no idea liberal politicians were this serious about trying to destroy conservative talk radio. Last week, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives defeated an attempt to allow liberals to piggyback off the success of conservative radio, the Hill reports.
This wasn’t the first time liberal politicians have attempted to suppress speech they don’t like, and it won’t be the last. They want free speech rights for their views, but they’ll use the government to shut down everyone else’s. It’s frustratingly predictable.
The Hill sums up why conservatives oppose the so-called Fairness Doctrine as applied to talk radio:
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show†and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.
Liberals’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, destroy it.”
Conservatives’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, find an untapped or under-served market for your product and sell it there.”
Addendum: The left-leaning, taxpayer-supported National Public Radio is 37 years old. I wonder how long it would have survived if it had to rely on advertising instead of tax dollars…
Related posts:
Friday, June 29: Ego-related update — An attractive black reporter for Newsweek introduced himself to me last night, having recognized me from the bio page photo. It’s good to be reminded that not every black liberal hates me. 
Have a restful weekend.
———————————————
6/28 & 12:39 a.m.: Just a couple of notes before I crash. Pam Spaulding and I couldn’t be more different on social issues. For example, she’s a liberal lesbian who believes in same sex “marriage.” I’m a straight conservative who wants to protect traditional marriage. And that’s just a starting point. What we disagree about could fill volumes. (But we’ve agreed to do an annual photo together and post it on our blogs to freak people out.) When meeting people you disagree with face to face, there’s only one thing you should agree on: being civil.
All the liberal bloggers I talked to tonight were civil. Dare I say nice? Yes, they were nice people. We’re worlds apart on most issues, but hey, you can’t have everything. I had a civil conversation with Oliver Willis (we talked about religion, evolution v. Intelligent Design – amazing) and I enjoyed talking to him. Go figure!
And I’m so glad I met Faye Anderson (a conservative). She’s a doll. See what other bloggers had to say about the debate at the MBA page. I met Professor Kim and Liza Sabater, who is a liberal and a feminist, but she’s “crazy,” funny, and has a great laugh. And a cool video camera. Check her site tomorrow for videos.
[click to continue…]
Blogger’s block temporarily unblocked. This series on actor Kirk Cameron did the trick.
I’ve known for quite a few years that Cameron, of 80s-era “Growing Pains” fame, was an evangelical Christian in the traditional sense of the word, not a Hollywood or “liberal” kind of Christian. He became a believer while still on the show and had “issues” with some of the subject matter.
I forgot to mention last year that I saw him at my sister’s church when I was out in California for the 2006 God Blog Convention at Biola University. I wanted to do something really cheesy: take a picture of him with my cell phone camera and post it on the blog. Fortunately, the star-struck moment passed because he was hustling to get away from a growing crowd. Yes, even at church, the groupies were hovering.
I also knew that Cameron’s career as an actor in Hollywood would stall because of his faith. It’s common knowledge that Hollywood holds Christians in contempt. But that’s OK. They can keep their grubby studios and production companies. There’s nothing stopping Christians (or Christian-friendly folks) from producing and filming Christian-themed films.
[click to continue…]
Update (2:39 p.m.): The feed page at MBA is up. Check it for updates about tomorrow’s “debate.”
———————————————————————————–
Bear with me as I coast through blogger’s block. Updating this blog every day has moved down my must-do list, and I’m enjoying the freedom of not blogging if I don’t feel like it.
Today and tomorrow:
Non-political:
by La Shawn on June 25, 2007
in General
A pregnant woman missing for over a week. A two-year-old left home alone. A town mobilized in the search for the woman, feared dead.
Provocative facts come to light: A cop was suspected of killing her. The cop, who is black, has a penchant for white women. The pregnant woman was white, and she was involved with the cop, who’s married to someone else. The murdered woman carried the cop’s baby, and the cop is the father of her two-year-old son. The cop has at least three children by three different women.
The cop has a criminal record, but he was still on the force. One of his baby’s mothers says the cop once stalked her and broke into her home. Cable news networks live on this stuff.
The cop, Bobby Cutts, was arrested for the murder of Jessie Davis and her unborn baby. A woman named Myisha Ferrell was arrested for hindering the investigation. Lots of online chatter about immoral lifestyles, the interracial factor, “unborn fetus” v. “unborn baby,” and on and on.
The only reason I’m blogging about the Jessie Davis-Bobby Cutts case is to contrast it with the story of a woman missing since Memorial Day weekend. Her story isn’t provocative, and it hadn’t gone national until a day or so ago. Stepha Henry was in South Florida, down from New York, and was last seen leaving a club with a group of people. Her family’s on the case, but somebody needs to help them get national attention. Spread the word.
A Miami Herald reporter scheduled to appear on an MSNBC talking head show to talk about the missing Henry got bumped for Paris Hilton coverage. It’s sad, but the misadventures of slutty heiresses sell.
Some say the “white woman in distress” syndrome, or some variation on the theme, is in full effect. They tend to get more media coverage than black women in distress. News outlets can’t cover every single missing woman story; only the titilating tales or man-bites-dog dramas get national press. Ratings, baby. And there’s no point claiming race doesn’t matter. I believe it makes a big difference to talking head show producers. If more white people watch the shows, why not cover what interests them? Then again, class and fame are factors, too. I mean, if Miss Oprah went missing…
Fortunately, America’s Most Wanted covered Stepha Henry’s story.
More on the Davis case and the Henry case at Google News.
Remember the dimwit “bride” who faked her kidnapping and had half the country mobilized looking for her sorry butt? 
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is reminding me of what our government was conceived to be.
What law students learn as “constitutional law” is merely a series of Supreme Court (which effectively usurped power from the states and blurred the line separating powers) decisions and little or no review of English and colonial forerunners to our Constitution or the ratification debates (crucial for understanding original intent).
The original understanding has been lost, even to so-called “originalist†conservative justices. Homosexual “marriage,” abortion, state-sponsored school prayer — all of these issues and more fall within the purview of the states, not the federal government.
More later. In the meantime, check out State-Sponsored School Prayer and the Constitution.
Liberals are such crybabies. (By the grace of God, I’m no longer a liberal. No more tears!)
They’re still whining about the domination of conservative talk radio. The Center for American Progress and Free Press, liberal “think†tanks, put out a joint 40-page report titled, Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (PDF). They outline the “problem†and propose solutions that wouldn’t surprise even the most politically apathetic American.
The Numbers
Liberals are hopeless. On the one hand, they seem to hate concepts like “business†and “market.†On the other, they have no problem taking advantage of the jobs and capital created by businesses or the opportunities created by a particular market. In fact, they want to piggyback off the success of conservative talk radio.
The researchers found that 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative and only 9 percent is liberal (they use the word progressive; I won’t). Every weekday, people who want to listen to conservative radio can enjoy 2,570 hours (and 15 minutes!) of it. Liberals who listen to liberal radio have to settle for only 254 hours. But that’s what the market demands, right? Not necessarily so, say the libs. I’ll get to that later.
The tanks say that 76 percent of the programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative. “While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast,†cried the researchers.
Why does conservative talk dominate the airwaves? I (and many other conservatives and a few honest liberals) believe that conservative talk dominates the airwaves because of de-regulation of the airwaves in the 1980s and because there’s a bigger market for conservative talk. But the think tanks believe these explanations are inadequate. Not wrong, mind you, but inadequate.
[click to continue…]
Commenter Shade dropped this link: Border jumpers are burning down border posts and setting fires along patrol routes to distract agents and get across. Yeah, these people should be rewarded with precious U.S. citizenship. Way to go, King George! 
[click to continue…]
I just got word that Star Parker, one of my favorite people, will guest host ABC’s “The View” tomorrow. As you probably know, even if you live in a cave, Rosie O’Donnell left the show. I’ve never, ever watched it; I’ll see it for the first and only time tomorrow.
See Star’s latest column, “A detached NAACP in crisis.” My unsolicited advice to the organization: go away.
Book reviews:
Related post:
by La Shawn on June 18, 2007
in Justice
Here’s what needs to happen next: Round up all 700 raping perverts, tie them to stakes, and roast them alive.
Oh, wait. I skipped a step. Give them a fair trial, then tie them to stakes and roast them alive.
Related post and column:
Tuesday, June 19: Mike Nifong is a true idiot. After being disbarred, he had the nerve to announce he’d remain in office for another four weeks (to collect more money and build up his pension)! The man has been stripped of his license to practice law! He’s a disgrace. Fortunately not everyone is disgraceful. The judge said, “Get out now.” Today, the sheriff served the suspension order and took his badge and office keys.
Monday, June 18: As you know, it’s not over for Nifong. He could face criminal contempt charges and civil lawsuits. The reason things have gotten this bad for Nifong is that he pushed forward a case in which he couldn’t place the accused men at the scene of the so-called crime (in fact, there was no evidence a crime even occurred), hadn’t spoken to the accuser until months after the indictments, intentionally misrepresented evidence, intentionally withheld evidence, and used the case to campaign for office. If he was inexperienced and overwhelmed trying a felony case of this magnitude, he should have asked for help, guidance, something.
Nifong merely is reaping what he’s sown for the past year, and it’s no one’s fault but his own. Check out my Townhall column, Nifong’s Swan Song.
I forgot to mention this yesterday. I believe all three former Duke lacrosse players testified at Nifong’s hearing last week. I read an account of Reade Seligmann’s testimony. He was the only white student in an “African American” studies course. After the accusations, his study partner gave him the cold shoulder and wrote an article about how the sexual assault of a black woman by white men signifies the return of the Jim Crow south, or some such BS. This kind of ignorance flourishes when admissions standards are lowered.
Add these books to your reading list:
Update (3:03 p.m): Just caught this. Reade Seligmann, the formerly indicted-for-rape lacrosse player with the alibi, says he, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans plan to sue Nifong. Good move. File suit against Duke University while you’re at it…
Later…Ha! Just found out via KC Johnson that Duke U has settled with Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans. Hmmm…how much?
Even later…And criminal charges, too? Better put Nifong on suicide watch…
[click to continue…]
America may be too good for its own good.
The qualities that draw people from all over the world – religious and political freedom, the rule of law, due process, a vibrant economy, and a high standard of living – are the same qualities bad eggs use against us.
There are an estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the United States. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the net cost of illegal immigration is about $70 billion per year, which doesn’t include unemployment compensation for legal citizens who lost jobs to illegal aliens.
While men and women are dying in Iraq to “make the world safe for democracy,†illegal aliens flout the rule of law at home, freely crossing our borders with a miniscule chance of being caught and deported. If Al Qaeda wanted to smuggle in a nuclear weapon, America’s southern border is a very inviting place to start.
In the age of terrorism, the federal government still won’t enforce immigration law. We can only guess why: addiction to cheap labor, fear of being called racists, blackmail by Mexican president Vicente Fox. I’m only half-kidding about Fox, but it makes me wonder why the government refuses to enforce the law.
[Now former] Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona wonders, too. In his new book, Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, And the War on Terror, he explains how America is complicit in illegal immigration, a fact that would-be terrorists (who he calls “Islamofascists”) use to their advantage. Excluding the notes and index, the book is a quick read at just under 200 pages with 11 chapters. Hayworth uses plain language, devoid of politically correct jargon. He offers persuasive arguments against the nation-destroying insanity that is allowing millions of illegal aliens to infiltrate, overburden, and ultimately destroy our way of life.
Hayworth points out the absurdity of our current policies and wonders why illegal aliens are fearful of getting caught when the chances of being deported are low:
[click to continue…]
Chastity is a misunderstood virtue.
It is more than simply refraining from premarital sex. It’s an attitude, a way of life, and open rebellion against a debauched culture. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians don’t think sex is dirty or evil. Christians believe sex outside marriage is wrong.
The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On is part memoir and part how-to guide on giving up casual sex, embracing chastity, and experiencing “a life more hope-filled, more vibrant, and more real” by putting sex in its proper place. That kind of life, says author Dawn Eden, is the thrill of the chaste.
The thirty-something [now former] New York Daily News editor, blogger, and Christian convert has written a nakedly honest book for a specific audience: single women ready to admit that premarital sex is not making them happy or helping them find the husband they desperately seek.
In The Thrill of the Chaste, Eden contends that our casual sex culture encourages singles to view one another as commodities. Like many young single women, she was caught up in the hype that sex is the way to a man’s heart. Eden began to understand that premarital sex and its attendant baggage actually made it less likely that she’d get married. For example, to protect oneself from the eventual let-down of casual encounters, one must develop a toughness. In Eden’s case, she sabotaged relationships before she got dumped so she could remain in control.
“[T]he same armor that enabled me to tolerate casual sex made me less attractive to the kind of man I most desired.”
[click to continue…]
I met actor Joseph C. Phillips last year when we shared a discussion panel with Shelby Steele (author of White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era) on race relations. At one point during the Q&A, Phillips lost his temper with someone in the audience. He admonished the person for failing to acknowledge that America’s Founders, regardless of their faults, had the right ideas. Individual liberty, freedom of expression, due process, etc., are objectively good principles, even if the Founders hadn’t intended to apply these principles to blacks.
Phillips had committed the “sin” of publicly expressing gratitude for being an American, despite America’s history of slavery and subjugation. His new book, He Talk Like A White Boy, is a semi-autobiographical collection of essays about his love for this country and his respect for the “old school” values that make America strong. Recurring themes are family, faith, and freedom.
Best known for his roles as Lt. Martin Kendall on “The Cosby Show” and Justus Ward on the soap opera “General Hospital,” Phillips is a rarity in Hollywood. He writes candidly about growing up speaking proper English (”talking white”), being different from the mainstream, and having his “blackness” questioned.
The opening anecdote of the 232-page book sets the tone and reveals what eventually becomes a lifelong frustration. After he made a comment in his junior high school accelerated English class, another black student said, “He talk like a white boy!” What does that mean? Phillips thought. Instead of chastising the girl or dealing with the substance of the remark, the teacher merely corrected her grammar.
“No, LaQueesha. Joseph speaks like a white boy!” The teacher had the entire class repeat the correct sentence. “[T]hat moment,” writes Phillips, “was not only the beginning of junior high school, it was the beginning of my life.”
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on June 11, 2007
in Columns
Update: I’m getting e-mail from people taking me to task for calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice. Whether or not someone is born homosexual — and I believe biology plays a role — is not the point.
Homosexuality may be natural for some people, but it doesn’t mean one is compelled to act on those inclinations. To be precise, I should have written in the column that homosexual behavior (including “marrying” someone of the same sex) is a lifestyle choice, whether or not a person is “born” homosexual. (I’ll be clearer next time!)
In that regard, homosexual behavior is in no way comparable to race. I’m black; I have no choice in the matter, no say at all. A homosexual may have no choice in being a homosexual, but he can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.
———————————————————————-
Forty years ago — a little over a month after I was born — the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. See Loving v. Virginia.
Extremists on one side say interracial marriage has opened the door to deviant unions. Extremists on the other side say that Loving v. Virginia and the civil rights movement of the 1960s bolster their arguments for homosexual “marriage.”
Is interracial marriage a slippery slope? (The question is rhetorical, of course.)
I believe that changing the definition of marriage to include the union of two men and two women opens the door to legalizing increasingly deviant unions.
Non-rhetorical question: If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people? Or 10? Or close relatives? Or adults and children?
Related posts:
