I won't soon forget Eight Bells...

On the day of the Preakness Stakes, the second race of Triple Crown fame, many may still be thinking of fillie Eight Belles, whom raced hard at the end of the Kentucky Derby to finish second. The tragedy that happened afterwards, most know.

I shed tears for Eight Belles, just as I had for Michael Vick's dogs. And the more I think about it, the more I lean towards horse racing, in it's current form, being cruelty to animals.

Arguments as tremendously feeble as "it's part of the sport" or "we treat these animals like royalty, but sometimes these things happen" are flatly unacceptable.

I was disgusted by the news stories and interviews with industry insiders, and I think everyone else should be too. These majestic animals don't deserve this treatment, and when one interviewee suggests that horses are meant to be raced because if you see they in a meadow, they are running about playfully, it makes me sick.

Do these people have no conscious? Like dog owners who fight their dogs, these people who think like this don't deserve to be pet owners.

Associated Press sports columnist Tim Dahlberg wrote, "The people who cried for Eight Belles got it out of the way on the track. They had no choice, because the business of racing goes on."

What a nice compassionate observation there. Tim goes on to say, "Racing is a brutal business because it has to be. If we mourned every horse that lost its life early on the track or in the barn, we'd have no time left to cheer those who can still run." Is this guy serious? When he explains that "...these 1,000-pound beasts are bred and raised for maximum speed, not maximum life span", does not a little of him die inside? Maybe he's made these matter of fact statements so callously in the past that he is completely dead inside. The evidence may be in Tim's final statement where he quotes Big Brown trainer saying how this is part of the game and you have to go through it, before ending his article with "said Big Brown trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who should have been spending the day celebrating his horse's big win."

Now folks, I don't typically call people out here...I like to keep things civil. But this kind of unparalleled lack of empathy has my blood boiling. And this is just a reporter. Imagine what the people in the business say and think.

So for me, this is right along the lines of dog fighting. These beautiful animals can't tell us what they want...they can't tell us that they are hurting...they can't opt not to race. They do what they are told/trained to do. They are loving animals, like many pets, and mostly want to please us....and we thank them with ultimate betrayal.

I don't know what the answer is...maintaining over 100 years of tradition vs. banning the sport entirely...you don't get more polarized than that. All I know is that a young female horse, who like all animals should be bred for maximum lifespan, is no longer with us. She did nothing more than love her owners and tried to please them. It's sad. It's cruel. And it needs to stop.

God's Greatest Gift...

It is often said that God's greatest gift to us is his Son, whom he sent to deliver us from sin. But what if you aren't in the vast majority that believes the notion of original sin, or sin in general for that matter? If you don't believe in the notion of sin, then you are left with love. It is love, that I believe is God's greatest gift, but first I should explain why I am in the minority of dismissing the concept of sin. Before I start, I should make it clear that I don't begrudge or believe myself better than anyone that believes in the notion of sin...it's just not a concept that I embrace within my relationship with God.

Original sin. While we are all born human, and therefore destined to free-will flaws such as greed or lust, I can't accept that merely being born with free-will, and the inevitability of being imperfect, renders us doomed to hell from the start. My God would not bring an infant into this world, and with an unfortunate early death, deem that original sin prevents that precious child from rejoining Him.

Now in my branch of Christianity, Baptist, it is said that a child is exempt from damnation until the day they are capable of realizing they are sinners. This goes back to the concept of original sin, that somehow a child has lived 5, 6, 7+ years...the only way a child knows how...only to find out that he or she has been a sinner their entire life. Is this some massive guilt trip that God would lay on a child's shoulders? Haha, you've lived your life happy-go-lucky, or so you thought, but you are actually a sinner and need to repent your happy-go-lucky years. That doesn't make sense to me.

And how can God who supposedly loves us dearly, which I know he does, bring us into this world and become so angry with us that if for a flash in time, which is our life compared to eternity, we don't acknowledge him that we are doomed? That too, perplexes me.

Does He not make us in His image? Would you make a decision to bring a child into this world and if he or she doesn't do exactly as you say, you would harm that child? Of course not.

And THAT is where God's greatest gift lies. Unconditional Love. God's love is unconditional. He wants us to live the best life possible...to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. If we stray, His love doesn't wain. If we falter, He may be disappointed, but His love remains...just as the love we have for our children.

His gifts are infinite, but so is His love for us. And that's His greatest gift to us...to allow us to love someone, our child, just as much as He loves us, His children.

Miley Cyrus' problems...

As everyone knows by now, Miley Cyrus posed for pictures in the Vanity Fair magazine, which includes no one remotely close to her fan base. The pictures were distasteful to say the least, leaving people to blame Vanity Fair as well as photographer Annie Leibovitz. But I say the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of her parents, and specifically Billy Ray Cyrus...who was at the photo session.

Regardless of the claims of many stars of "whatever Annie says, you do", a father's judgement should trump everything else. We live in a culture that's rapidly becoming desensitized, but a parent's first priority should be to protect their childern.

I've been critical of Billy Ray's approach to parenting for some time now...ever since I saw him on Glenn Beck. His approach is really hands off, and he values friendship far more than the father/daughter relationship.

He speaks of Miley having a good head on her shoulders and trusting her judgement, suggesting that he allows her to make many of her own decisions. While it's happened to work well so far, it's a dangerous and slippery slope, and a sloppy approach to parenting.

Any father who hasn't done so yet, please read Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker. Her research indicates that while people believe that kids are growing up faster and becoming adults quicker, there minds still don't become fully developed with the ability to foresee some of the consequences of their choices until into their mid-20s.

This, do a degree, negates the notion of trusting your child to make their own choices. It's unfair and puts an undue burden on the kids, even if they don't realize it.

I urge and plead fathers to stay connected...push through the draining feeling and urge to just give in. You're doing your daughters justice by staying in the fight...even if it makes her unhappy for a time.

The key to our future in deeply entrenched in family values...please let our children learn the family values from you, rather than the culture at large. Resist the notion of wanting to be your daughter's friend first...later on in life, it will make all the difference in your relationship...when your daughter is truly ready to run her own life. And when that time comes, not only will you have been put up on a pedestal as the man she most respects in her life...which will far out weight the notion of being a friend or the coolest parent when she's younger.

Ron Paul was right...

...and so was George Bush, 8 years ago. Yes, when President Bush was just a former governor running for president, he was asked in a debate about his views on the role of the military. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that the military was not to be used for nation building.

Now for some reason, President Bush has revised that belief he stated 8 years ago, but this is exactly the stance that Ron Paul took, which many people scoffed at during recent debates.

Granted, Ron Paul took an even more extremist view in that he believed that our military should shut down all it's bases abroad and come back home. To be honest, I don't know why more people didn't love that viewpoint...but it made Republicans leery.

But the overall premise stays the same. The military is designed to fight wars...or more accurately, protect America. It should not be and isn't designed to rebuild nations. So we should have been looking to withdraw our military in a quick and orderly fashion long ago...once we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

That's not to dismiss the "we broke it, we fix it" crowd. But our military doesn't do that...we have the Peace Corps, and hundreds of other government and private humanitarian aid organizations for that.

Had we followed that plan, it would have likely feed the conspiracy crowds with all kinds of outrageous accusations, but our country wouldn't be as broke as it is. And as much as I'd love to help others, if we aren't in the position to help ourselves, it makes it hard to help others.

I know that the parties are nearly set...but it makes you realize that neither John "another 100 years" McCain, nor Barack "I'm pulling out for the sake of pulling out and because I was right before the war started about no war except that I was a state senator not a US senator who would privy to more detailed information" Obama have it right.