Your technology impaired friend needs your help. I have a counter at the bottom of this page, which works well, except that it doesn’t keep track of visitors to specific posts (via trackback, google searches, etc.) As a result, my statistics have become a little skewed over the past few months.

I’d like to find a way to have this counter pick up visitors in ever portion of the site, but I’m not exactly sure how to do that. Any help?

It’s been awhile since I’ve had an education story, but this one is really too good to pass up.

The Ohio affiliate of the National Education Association is continuing to harass teachers who resist donating to causes against their religion, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says.
Though no fines have been levied in the most recent of several cases brought against the Cleveland-based Ohio Education Association, the EEOC said in a Sept. 22 ruling that the OEA must resolve the case of William Morgan, a Quaker and janitor for Mentor Public Schools, about 30 miles east of Cleveland.
The EEOC can sue the OEA in federal court if the union doesn’t comply.
Mr. Morgan, whose yearly dues run between $400 and $500, says he has religious objections to his union dues being used to support organizations favorable to abortion and homosexuality.

Personally, I think Mr. Morgan should contact the ACLU. Wouldn’t you love to see the ACLU sue the NEA? Now that would a “Court TV” hall of fame moment.

And yes, I’m talking about the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson case. Well, not exactly the case itself. I’m talking about my blogging and the blogging of others. Lefties and righties are citing reports from the left and the right, and it ultimately comes down to one thing. Something I said in my first post on the issue.

I don’t think for a minute that the president had any knowledge of this leak, if it even came from the White House. It should go without saying that anybody, regardless of political party, who would endanger the lives of undercover agents does not deserve to be in office. But let’s get the facts out there before we start the lynch mob, okay?

The National Review, The Drudge Report, Robert Novak, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and all the rest… they’ll keep reporting on the scandal du jour. And the Justice Department will quietly investigate and then release its findings. And until that time comes, it all boils down to “wait and see.” I’m going to put myself on a 48 hour embargo on the story, just to let it develop a little more.

The very latest, by the way, is that we finally have a named source (albeit one who would have had a heck of a lot more credibility had he not gone off on the war with Iraq) who says Valerie Plame was indeed “undercover”. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean she was covered under the laws the CIA says she violated, but so what? I’ll repeat: anybody who would endanger the lives of undercover agents does not deserve to be in office. The President feels the same.

Bush called the investigation “a good thing” and said he has told his administration “to be fully cooperative.” “There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” the president said. “If the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation.”

We still have to find out if a leak occured and where. But give it time, please… and I’m going to try and heed my own advice.

***caveat***
On the show this morning, I did say I’d be talking about this in Hour 3 tomorrow (Wednesday). I will do that, but only with the understanding that there’s a lot of information out there to disseminate, and that anybody who claims to know how this is going to play out is kidding themselves.

I’m starting to think the whole Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame/CIA/Who leaked scandal is going to be shoved down our throats until we start to believe it. And I’m absolutely furious at the bias in the reporting of this story.

From The Associated Press:

The disclosure of the intelligence officer’s identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak came shortly after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, undermined Bush’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. In what turned out to be a major embarrassment, Bush acknowledged he could not back up his statement.

They’re dredging up an old “scandal that wasn’t” and trying to rewrite history! Does anybody remember the truth anymore? “British intelligence indicates…” and the Brits still stand by their claim. Bush never “acknowledged he could not back up his statement”. The statement was true then, and true today. What the administration said is that the claim itself could not be substantiated by U.S. intelligence and on that basis it should have been left out of the State of the Union speech. As far as it being a “major embarrassment”, I think most people who give a damn about following the news realized the truth was far less incriminating than the press made it out to be.

You just want to throttle these lying bags of scum sometimes. There are real scandals out there to be uncovered, but those lazy pieces of dirt would rather follow each other’s tail and continue spinning this elaborate web of deceit rather than inform us of what’s actually going on in the world.

Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane (who I respect and admire a great deal) says that a Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer used excessive force in shooting a suspect in the back after he refused to put his hands behind him and cooperate. But the D.A. also says the officer won’t face criminal charges because she “may have avoided a public safety tragedy to innocent bystanders'’ and had no “malice of heart'’ when she shot the intoxicated and uncooperative suspect.

I don’t agree with the decision. The D.A. admits she made a mistake. Yet she’s getting a free pass because she hypothetically “avoided a public safety tragedy”. How many other public safety tragedies could be avoided by shooting every drunken motorist who doesn’t cooperate with police? There were other options available. Her baton, for instance. The D.A.’s already determined you can beat the snot out of a suspect with a baton when he’s not following directions and that’s not “excessive force”. She also had pepper spray to try and subdue the drunk driver. Instead she shot him, and she’s getting away with it because she had no “malice in her heart”. A mistake was made, and no punishment will be inflicted. I can’t help but think that’s wrong.

How’s the CIA helping its analysts think like terrorists? By spending millions of dollars on a video game.

The agency’s Counter Terrorist Center, or CTC, is working with the Los Angeles-based Institute for Creative Technologies on a project designed to help its analysts, “think outside the box,” a CIA spokesman said. The project is close to approval, but officials wouldn’t comment on the exact cost of the program.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield defended the video project and called it an “innovative approach” to counterterrorism. The game will select a scenario that could involve analysts playing terrorist-cell leaders or members, a terrorist “money mover” or a facilitator, he said.
“For out-of-the-box thinking, we are reaching out to academics, think tanks and external research institutes that are critical in the fight against terrorism,” Mr. Mansfield said. “If it will help us to prevent terrorist attacks, it is worthwhile.”

Once again, true hilarity is to be found only be reading to the end of the story.

Richard Lindheim, the institute’s executive director, said in an interview that the goal of the CIA game project is to train analysts.
“They will put their analysts in analytical specialities in one role or another and then change the roles,” Mr. Lindheim said. “It’s a learning tool.”
He said the institute develops simulations, such as the virtual reality simulator that it installed recently at the Army’s Fort Sill in Oklahoma.
The institute also makes video games.
“We think computer games are a really good way of imparting information,” he said. “We don’t call them games; we call them computer-based training aids.”
A game developed by the institute for the Army, called “Full Spectrum Warrior” and designed to help soldiers conduct peacekeeping operations, has won awards, he added. The institute has also received $45 million from the Army for other projects, including the warrior game.
The Army game involves no shooting, Mr. Lindheim said.
“It’s a decision-making strategy game,” he said. “You never have a gun. What you do is issue orders and see the effect of those orders. That’s the value of it.”
Administration officials said the game is typical of the “politically correct” Army under recently retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki.

Did you catch it? I know it’s hard to find the hilarity in a $45 million dollar contract to develop video games for government employees… but there’s a funny line in there.

The Army game involves no shooting, Mr. Lindheim said.

So we’ve got teenagers running around playing violent video games while we’ve got soldiers playing non-violent games.

Methinks the Pentagon might want to invest in an X-Box or two, and maybe the Department of Education can take the Institute’s $45 million in computer games and put them in the classroom.

The first GOP Babe of the Week to appear on the show will be this Friday. Rachel Marsden is going to be on to talk about Wesley Clark. If you haven’t read her latest piece, check it out on her website. It’s good stuff.

und Mutter Tochter Reifenloltia Russisch nackt Mädchenenge skinny nackt Hot schwarze Mädchenporn mmf Interrassisch bisexuellkrümmend Mädchen AsiatischeEbony Bilder-Galerie TeensAbspritz weiblich Teennackte Omas 60 Fett Map

Regarding the allegations of “outing” by former ambassador Joseph Wilson… there are a couple of things I find very curious. First of all, Wilson claims Robert Novak said a couple of senior administration officials said his wife was a CIA operative. Let’s take a look at what Novak actually said.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.

Two things. First of all, Novak doesn’t attribute the information about Plame to any source. He quotes “two senior administration officials” who say Plame suggested sending Wilson to Niger. But he also quotes someone at the CIA who says the agency asked Plame to contact her husband about the mission. Even if you believe these administration officials outed Valerie Plame, it seems to me the CIA confirmed it. Why isn’t Joseph Wilson raising cain about the CIA?

Secondly, on Good Morning America this morning, Wilson himself backed down from his claims that Karl Rove was behind the leak.

“In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove,” he said. “I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment. I don’t have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak. But I have great confidence that, at a minimum, he condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down.”

Essentially, what you have is one person who’s willing to put his name out there in accusing the administration of leaks. That person is Joseph Wilson, who has a pretty big axe to grind. Again you have to ask, why isn’t he upset with the CIA? The “senior official” quoted in the Washington Post as saying two other White House officials called six journalists to reveal Valerie Plame’s name and occupation? He’s still anonymous. The two “senior officials” who supposedly called the journalists? Still anonymous. And if only Robert Novak used this information, there are five other journalists out there who didn’t. Novak’s under no obligation to reveal his sources, but what about the other five? We don’t even know who they are.

Maybe the Justice Department will find and prosecute whoever leaked this information. I hope so. But there are some questions out there that need to be answered, and not all of them have to do with the conduct of those in the White House.

I’m just a simple cro-magnon neocon fascist shock jock talk show host (did I leave anything out?), so explain something to me. In this New York Times story, the reporter seems to be blaming President Bush for intelligence failures regarding Iraq.

The Bush administration, which has been laboring to build domestic and international support for its Iraq policies, is facing renewed criticism about how it managed intelligence before the war, and internal tensions over the leak of a C.I.A. agent’s identity.

The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was questioned persistently today about the House Intelligence Committee letter, which was first reported today by The Washington Post. She held to the White House position that its prewar intelligence about Iraq was as solid as it could be, given the difficulties of piercing the secrecy around Mr. Hussein’s authoritarian government.

I understand the concept of “the buck stops here” and ultimately the President has to take responsibility for everything that happens in his administration. But let’s be realistic. This intelligence was believe by everybody, from President Clinton, to the U.N., to the Democrats in Congress. There was no reason to believe this intelligence was faulty. I don’t see any hand-wringing over the 1998 airstrikes against Iraq, so I have to ask the question. Is there a statute of limitations on faulty intelligence?

Normally I don’t bother linking stuff I found at Instapundit, since it’s the Drudge Report of the blogosphere, but every now and then something comes along that I just have to salute as well.

20 Questions About Iraq from Along The Tracks is one of those entries. Good questions, all of them. Wish we had some answers.

I’m going to have to start calling Wesley Clark “The Jukebox” because he keeps changing his tune every three minutes. Here’s his explanation of his speech to Republicans in Little Rock back in 2001.

The Republicans came to me and said ‘Hey we would like for you to speak at our Lincoln Day fund-raiser. I said I am not going to be there for Lincoln Day. They said ‘General we’ll hold Lincoln Day whenever you can get here.’ So I did. I spoke to about 450 Republicans there at Embassy Suites. I was non-partisan. I basically praised Republicans for being Republicans. . . . But I knew what the Republican Party was like and I couldn’t identify with that party.

And here’s what he actually said in 2001.

“I’m very glad we’ve got this great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O’Neill - people I know very well - our President George W. Bush.”

Clark didn’t praise Republicans for being Republicans. He praised them for being a great team. The team in charge of our country. No, General Clark, this can’t be explained away so easily.

The Jukebox is also commenting on what former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton recently said:

“I’ve known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I’m not going to say whether I’m a Republican or a Democrat. I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.”

The Jukebox’s response?

“I’ve never heard anything about these integrity and character issues, and to be honest with you, I always liked Hugh Shelton and there’s no explanation for it,” Clark said. “The only thing I can say is we did have professional disagreements and obviously, for him, they became personal disagreements. For me, they were professional.”

Integrity and character issues have surrounded Clark for years. Something tells me he’s not going to get a pass on this one either.
That’s one good thing about the liberal mainstream media. There’s one thing they love even more than partisan politics.

Scandal.

The potential for scandal appears to be ripe for President Bush.

At CIA Director George J. Tenet’s request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative’s identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy “yellowcake” uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative’s identity is a violation of federal law.

In fact, Bush’s daddy (41), pushed for this law’s existence. How ironic would it be if the President were impeached because of his father’s law.

Of course, it won’t happen. Here’s why, in my opinion (and the opinion of several others in and around the blogosphere).

1- You first have to believe that Ambassador Wilson’s wife is an undercover agent. Typically, I would think, undercover agents would have a lower profile than “wife of ambassador”. Doesn’t mean she’s not an analyst. Just means she probably isn’t a secret agent.

2- You have to prove the leak came from the White House. Joseph Wilson isn’t a popular guy. There were probably people lining up to take shots at him, and it’s entirely possible that someone claiming to be from the White House leaked this information. Of couse, Bush isn’t a popular guy. Is it outside the realm of possibility that a Democrat would have leaked this info under the guise of working in the White House in an attempt to discredit the President?

3- This is so confusing and intricate that the general public will tune out of this in a matter of days. It’s essentially a “he said, she said” case, and unless there are juicy allegations (Dubya was in on it! Mrs. Wilson’s a radical Muslim!) this story will fade into obscurity, at least in Middle America.

I don’t think for a minute that the president had any knowledge of this leak, if it even came from the White House. It should go without saying that anybody, regardless of political party, who would endanger the lives of undercover agents does not deserve to be in office. But let’s get the facts out there before we start the lynch mob, okay?

Now this is interesting.

While journalists are often accused of having a liberal bias, “most media are owned by Republican conservatives, so there is a healthy balance and tension” within the news operation, [Associated Press CEO Tom] Curley said.

Okay, so Curley didn’t exactly admit a liberal bias in the press. But hear me out. If you have conservatives who “own the media”, and yet you have “a healthy balance and tension” within the news operation, doesn’t the press have to be, by and large, liberal? Conservatives owning companies operated by moderates wouldn’t have a “healthy balance”.

It sounds to me like Curley wants us to believe it’s okay to have reporters biased towards the left because their bosses are biased towards the right. Unfortunately, the bosses are going to care more about the bottom line than the slant of a story, not to mention the fact that the bosses would be hard pressed to replace their liberal reporters with a conservative. I believe the culture of reporting turns most moderate reporters into liberals. It’s part of the pack mentality.

As a former reporter myself, I can tell you that peer pressure exists in the world of journalism. You don’t want to be an outsider, you want to be like everyone else. Why do you think I was so willing to leave reporting behind to become a talk show host?

Tens of thousands of blooming idiots have taken to the streets of London, Paris, Athens, and elsewhere… demanding an end to the occupation of Iraq.

This despite the fact that a vast majority of Iraqis want us to stay until free elections are held, the Governing Council wants us to stay until elections are held, and those elections could take place in a year.

Why the heck aren’t these nutballs protesting the UN get out of Kosovo? After all, they’ve been there for four years now.

Just found a lengthy but interesting piece on Wesley Clark’s background. I still want to know why he was removed from command of NATO a few months early. I still want to know he was raising money for the Republicans two years ago. I still want to know exactly what this man thinks about the issues. It seems every time he gives an answer someone doesn’t like, he’ll change his tune.

A lot of liberals at various message boards see the discussion of Wesley Clark and say things like “Conservatives must be scared of him! This is great news for the Democrats.” I’ll confess to being scared of Wesley Clark, but not for the reason you might think.

I’m not scared of Clark the candidate. I’m scared of Clark the President. I’m not scared of his past, but his past makes me scared of what the future might hold if he’s elected.

Just a quick aside… am I the only one who tries to sing like Frankie Valli when hears a Four Seasons song? Yes? Okay, then I’ll just move right along.

Finally a woman has written the article I’ve been waiting for. Stacey Pressmen, a producer at ESPN, says there’s nothing sexy about a “metrosexual”. You know, the guys who pay waaayyy too much attention to their hair, their clothes. The straight guys after a “Queer Eye” makeover. That’s a metrosexual, and Stacey Pressman says “Guys… don’t be that guy”.

I liken the metrosexual to the female body builder. While there is nothing wrong with a woman who is healthy and physically fit, who works out and builds muscle mass, there is something aesthetically unappealing when taken to the extreme. She looks masculine. To me, all of the lifestyle characteristics of the metrosexual man make him look feminine.

Frankly, I’m done with the back-and-crack-waxing-salon-spa guy. Does America really need to see all of this “manscaping?” What’s wrong with a good old-fashioned manly man? One who doesn’t know the difference between mauve and taupe, and who won’t refer to his wardrobe as “couture.” Heck, I’ll take him color-blind.

To me, there is something endearing about a man with wrinkled khakis, the kind that signifies, “I’m not too perfect.” You boys can have your Armani and Gucci man boutiques. You can strive for overpriced perfection. I’ll find the Armani guy. Only he’ll be on a TJ Maxx rack with a tag dangling off him that reads “slightly irregular.” Any savvy shopper knows there’s nothing wrong with a faint quirk. It’s called a good deal.

Okay, I’m not sure how I like being compared to a TJ Maxx suit, but other than that… thank God for women like Stacey Pressman. This whole “sensitive male” hooey has got to go.

We need to reclaim our ratty boxer shorts. We need to feel comfortable not shaving on Saturdays. We need to scratch, and not be ashamed.

I wear my wrinkled khakis with pride. Yes, I go to the gym, but that’s only so my belly doesn’t have it’s own zip code. I’m not looking to turn myself into a Calvin Klein model. I am man…

Hear me belch.

Both Elaine and I have come down with the crud that’s going around this week. Stuffy nose, chest congestion, general feeling of malaise.

This, of course, means that Andrew’s decided tonight will be a great night to act like a typical three year old. Gone are the sweet sounds of “I love you, Daddy”. Instead it’s “I’m angry at you!” shouted at the top of his lungs (this because I tried to move him off Elaine. He was trying to burrow his head into her chest in kind of a “reverse-Alien” move).

So… anybody know a good nanny? I could probably use a good nurse as well. It’s not nearly as much fun being sick when your wife is sick too (you can’t whine, you get no pity, no special treatment. Much like my marriage on any other given day!).

I was going to head out to my high school alma mater’s Homecoming game tonight, but I’m just too wiped out. Go Rockets, beat Riverside!

Since I never really talk about the “winners” in the Feel Good Friday on the air, I thought I’d start providing a little update on who I visited every week.

This week, a woman whose son was killed last week received flowers. One of her co-workers nominated her, and it was a very emotional scene. I can’t imagine having to go through the death of a child like that (he was killed while riding his bicycle). My heart just ached when I read the email from her coworker.

Two women received flowers after being nominated by their husbands. One woman is now the sole breadwinner while her husband is out of work. The other woman recently lost a job she loved working at a local church.

One high school teacher received the cookie bouquet after being nominated by a fellow teacher. He’s a 26 year Navy veteran (a pilot) who was absolutely fantastic in dealing with students (and some faculty) who had loved ones heading overseas to fight in Iraq. We called him into a classroom filled with his kids and presented the bouquet. The teacher who nominated him was crying, he’s blushing to high heaven… and the kids are staring intently at the cookies.

I’ll be heading back out next Friday, so if you know someone who deserves a pat on the back or a little pick me up (in the Oklahoma City area), send me an email Friday morning between 6-9 a.m. and it will be placed into the random drawing.

The good news: Bruce Willis peformed for troops in Northern Iraq this week.

The bad news: it was his “one man show” version of Hudson Hawk.

Just kidding Bruce. Thanks for supporting our troops.

Here’s what the Australian prime minister had to say about France’s naysaying of the war in Iraq.

“I hear the French and others complaining about the Americans and us on Iraq,” he said on Melbourne radio 3AW.

“I might remind them that the bombing of Serbia and the action to help the people of Kosovo was not carried out by the NATO countries including France with the approval of the UN Security Council because the Russians said they would veto any resolution authorising that military action.

“So the relevant countries including France just went ahead and did it. In legal terms that is exactly the same as what happened in Iraq.

“It was a perfectly legal thing we did, but it’s a bit hypocritical of others who, having themselves ignored the Security Council, now turn around and say ‘You must never do anything which does not involve the Security Council’.”

Crikey, Mr. Howard. That’s some good stuff.

Of course, would expect the truth from French Connection United Kingdom? The company, better known by its acronym, is defending its decision to run ads for the “Scent to Bed” campaign in Seventeen magazine.

Stacy Gubinski, public relations manager for French Connection United Kingdom, said Wednesday the ad campaign is targeted toward 18- to 25-year-olds and that the acronym is “meant to be taken tongue and cheek (sic).”

Actually, after reading that quote, maybe Stacy Gubinski isn’t a liar. Maybe she’s just a moron. It’s tongue in cheek, lady.

But the point is this. FCUK is a very successful company, and you don’t get that way by being idiotic. It’s idiotic to target 18-25 year olds in a magazine called Seventeen. Seventeen year olds don’t read Seventeen. The magazine’s actually geared towards 13, 14, and maybe some 15 year olds. So either the company is lying about it’s marketing campaign, or it’s just become incredibly successful despite the morons in charge.

And let’s not let the quote from the American Library Association spokeswoman go unnoticed.

Veteran Greenville, S.C., school librarian Pat Scales sits on the American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee, and she is a member of the association’s faculty of Lawyers for Libraries.

Scales thinks pulling questionable material is “the chicken way out.” She authored a book, “Teaching Banned Books,” which outlines her position that questionable material should be dealt with directly by talking with students.

She said Seventeen magazine and others like it are simply reflecting society and giving teens what the publishers think they want. About six years ago she wrote a defense for the Long Island Coalition Against Censorship, which was trying to prevent the removal of Seventeen from libraries there because of the clothing, articles and advertisements.

“I feel kids are intelligent enough to talk through this. Let’s talk about advertising. What’s the subliminal message here?” Scales said. “Make it a teachable moment. Not talking about it is scarier than talking about it.”

Oh please. I can teach my kids the right way to approach sex without having to demonstrate to them examples of the wrong attitude. This is like saying that it’s okay to have an ad promoting smoking pot because it gives parents the opportunity to say “pot is bad”. It’s not an issue of censorship. It’s a matter of (in this case) schools in Knoxville, Tennessee deciding they don’t want to subscribe to Seventeen magazine anymore because they don’t feel lit’s appropriate for middle school girls to read. This isn’t “Catcher In The Rye”. It’s an ad for perfume, and just because the magazine is “giving kids what they think they want” doesn’t mean the school system has to help out.

The more I hear about this company the more I dislike them. They’ve officially replaced Abercrombie and Fitch at the top of my list of “stores designed to turn my daughter into a slut.”

From Drudge:

How much have Sen. John Edwards’ presidential ambitions affected his current job? Here’s one yardstick: This month, he has made more trips to early nominating states than to the Senate floor. Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, has missed 38 of the 42 roll-call votes since the U.S. Senate returned from its August recess, Winston-Salem Journal reported Thursday.

His record is hardly unusual for a presidential candidate. In fact, it is better than the three other Senate Democrats in the race.

But Republican critics have seized upon his absences to argue that Edwards — who announced this month that he won’t seek re-election to the Senate — should go ahead and step down.

But Edwards said that he plans to serve out his term and that his attention to North Carolina issues has not waned. And he says “that his voting record is a poor gauge of his involvement in Senate business.

So your voting record is no indication of your involvement in Senate business, eh? That’s like me telling my boss “Hey, me not showing up for two and a half hours of my show is no gauge of my involvement in this radio station.” I’d still be fired.

Senator Edwards, who was in Oklahoma this week (and is spending a buttload of cash on television ads here as well), should do the honorable thing and step down.

I was talking with an acquaintance today when the subject of racial discrimination came up. This person has a ten year old son who’s had some tough times at his elementary school, mainly because of the color of his skin.

I just don’t get it. I don’t get why people can’t look past skin color. I don’t understand the concept of “white pride” or “black pride” or “brown pride”. I don’t understand the philosophy of taking pride in something over which you have no control. I’m no more proud of the color of my skin than I am ashamed of being bald. Couldn’t control being born white. Couldn’t control losing my hair.

I understand the importance of recognizing your heritage. I wasn’t born in Scotland, but I like to learn about my Scottish ancestors. Not because it makes me proud of myself, but because I like to know where I came from. Compare that with the white supremacist Robert Millar, who I interviewed at Elohim City back in the late ’90’s. That man was so proud of his Scottish heritage… his whiteness in general. When he found out I was of Scottish descent, that raised his opinion of me. I couldn’t understand it then, and I don’t understand it now.

I take no credit for the attributes I was born with, nor do I place blame upon myself for the deficiencies I was born with. I am a white male, but I take no pride in that. I take pride in being a good father and husband, a good talk show host, a good friend (I hope). Those are things I have created in my life, things I have control over.

Just as I take no pride in my skin color, I find no fault in the skin color of others. Being white doesn’t make you successful, being black doesn’t make you poor. Being brown doesn’t make you a terrorist, or an illegal alien. You make yourself successful. You choose to be a terrorist. You choose to be an illegal alien.

Can we ever get beyond the point of judging a book by its cover? I look at my kids and I believe it’s possible. We’ve already come a long way. It’s just sad that we’re not they’re yet.

Thanks, your honor, for getting all of America ticked off at the Sooner State.

OKLAHOMA CITY - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national “do-not-call” list against telemarketers.

The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

U.S. District Judge Lee R. West said the main issue in the case was “whether the FTC had the authority to promulgate a national do-not-call registry. The court finds it did not.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Wednesday they were confident the ruling would be overturned and believe Congress did give the FTC the necessary authority.

Why not give Judge West a call at 405-609-5140 and let him know how you feel. Then ask him if he’d like to try vinyl siding. Then ask him if he wants to refinance his home.

Don’t be alarmed if you can’t reach the judge, however. When I tried to call I didn’t get an answer, and his voicemail is full.

Imagine that.