Is There Anything Fair about the "Fairness" Doctrine?

Like so many other government ideas, the "fairness" doctrine is a deliberate misnomer.  The innocuous sounding words totally obfuscate and distract the reader from their true meaning.  If the "fairness" doctrine lived up to its' name, it wouldn't be such a bad thing because fundamentally we're all for fairness and equality, or so the politically correct among us would have us believe.

The problem is that if the "fairness" doctrine were what it purported to be and were "fairly" and bi-laterally applied, it really would improve the balance of ideologies because it would actually give conservatives more of a voice in the traditional network and cable television media, which are now predominantly sources for liberal propaganda as opposed to honest and accurate journalism.,

If there were anything "fair" about the fairness doctrine, you would see liberal idealogues like Chris Matthew of MSNBC paired with a conservative bloviator like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.  In fact, every mainstream news or political program on every other station than Fox would actually be "fair and balanced" for a change. That is how we can know that there is nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine.  If there were, conservatives would be for it and liberals would be howling against it.

As things now stand, the liberals are championing the "fairness' doctine because they see it as a vehicle with with the either censor, or better still, eliminate the one platform that conservatives have to voice their opposition to the liberal steamroling of everything conservatives believe in and support.  The talk radio format is predominantly conservative because if you really listen to the liberal talk radio programs, they are nothing more than angry diatribes by failed and frustrated actors and comedians and their content is nothing more than "Bush is bad."  Who in their right mind is going to listen to hours of that?

Consequently, liberal talk radio shows have been commercially unsuccessful.  This is the free market place judging the quality of the product, NOT the political censorship claimed by the left.  But like most liberals, the leftist idealogues cannot accept that it is their PRODUCT that is defective so they run to the government and/or the courts to give them a "bailout."  Rather than improve their product and put on programming th

So onceat's actually entertaining, they prefer instead to have the government force their square pegs into our round holes with the force of a mallet.

If this is allowed to occur, radio stations that carry programs like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. will be forced to give similar time allotments to people like Al Franken (if he's not too busy screwing up in the senate to keep screwing up on the radio), Janeane Garafalo, Randy Rhodes, etc.  Whle some liberal entertainers are able to put on an entertaining and comercially successful program, the number of liberal radio failures far outweigh the successes.  The only successful liberal radio hosts I can think of are Don Imus and Stephanie Miller, both of whom I actually enjoy listening to.

What the liberals don't seem to get is that no one likes to listen to angry diatribes when they're driving in their cars or sitting in their homes.  If liberal radio programs would focus on entertaining as well as bloviating negativity, they might find a receptive audience somewhere.  Rush Limbaugh gets accused of being an angry man all the time, but if you actually listen to what he says, his message is very positive, not unlike the messages of Barack Obama, at least BEFORE he was elected.  But once again the libs show their true colors and their distrust is not disdain for the free market and the judgment of the American Public.  They would rather have the government force their excruciatingly dull and unpleasant diatribes down our throats than to follow the lead of shows like Saturday Night Live and add some decent content to entertain their audiences inbetween the torture sessions that liberal talk can be equated to.

If this "fairness" doctrine passes, the radio stations will be forced to air these ratings duds and will be hard-pressed to find advertisers willing to pay to run their ads in the time slots when no one is listening.  This is because despite their best efforts to force their programming on us, we the listening public still have the right to vote with our radio dials and the off switches.  They can lead us to their brackish water, but they can't make us drink it and the advertisers know this.  This is why Air America failed as a commercial enterprise and all other such programs devoid of any entertainment content will do likewise.  What this means is that radio stations will be giving advertisement time on liberal talk radio shows free with a gallon of gas.  

What's next for the socialist left?  If they succeed in putting radio stations out of business, will they then come after the internet?  Considering so much of their message and support is due to the internet, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they try to do so.  Of course, considering liberals are famous for forming "circular firing squads" when they attempt to do anything, we can only hope.

If the "fairness" doctrine were really fair and the net result of it would be more shows like "Hannity & Colmes," I would be the first in line to sign a petition in favor of it.  As much as I disagree politically with Alan Colmes, the ping-pong effect between him and Sean Hannity and the rigorous questioning and rehabiliting of guests that were either liberal or conservative by a moderator of the opposite political ideology was a good thing.  If we can't have civil but spirited political debate in this country, we really are in the last days of the great experiment known as the United States of America.  I pray this is not the case. Won't you pray with me?

A Conservative Defends Speaker Nancy Pelosi

When the trillion dollar pork-a-pa-looza masquerading as the "National Recovery and Reinvestment Act"first came to light and I actually began READING the bill, I was outraged at the Democrats exploitation of the fear, pain, and suffering of the American people as a justification for the implementation of every knee-jerk liberal social engineering and wealth confiscation idea that had been gathering dust on their desks for as long as some of them have been in office, and others of them have been alive.  I'm astounded at all the fear mongering and sense of urgency ginned up by the Democrats in order to sell us on this package of pork.  I believe the terms used were "catastrophic," "depression," etc.  I also believe the justification for the bill was that it had to be "timely," "targeted," and "temporary.

In reading the 500 or so pages that I've actually been able to digest, I can't find anything that meets the 3-T challenge.  What I've found instead is a mass of programs that have basically doubled the amount of future discretionary spending that will be a part of the Federal budget for years to come.  The Democrats have had their absolute power for only two months now, and in that time they have managed to spend over a TRILLION of our tax dollars and double the discretionary budget .  I shudder to think what the next 22 months have in store, because it will be at least that long before we the people can do anything to change the path to political socialism and runaway inflation that we seem to on.

No one has taken more fire from us than Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi herself.  For the way she shut out the Repulican members of the house from the legislative process, she deserves the heat.  She and her liberal Democratic ilk now own this bill lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.  The congressional Republicans were well advised to steer clear of it, and those RINO (Republican in Name Only) senators that facilitated its' passage will likely pay a political price in the future.  

Notwithstanding this, Madame Speaker Pelosi has also been harshly criticized for her own slice of pork, the tens of millions of dollars she wants to protect the marshes that are home to a cute little mouse.  She has been called many names, including but not limited to, "Minnie Mouse," Mighty Mouse," and "the Mouse that Roared" to name a  few.  The problem is that in her own roundabout way, Nancy Pelosi's pet project may just be the best thing about this pork-laden boondogle.  It may be the only project  I've found that will actually accomplish the stated goal of creating a real job.

Now I can hear the jaws dropping out there and I can only imagine that you all might be thinking I've traded in my trademark Java for some liberal kool-aid, but you would be wrong and I encourage you to read on and hear me out.  What happens when you artificially protect the natural habitat of an animal?  Simply speaking, you enable that animal to survive and thrive.  What happens when rhodents thrive?  They BREED at the speed of light.  So, when the marshes are filled with millions of new mice then those mice are going to feel cramped and they're going to fan out all over San Francisco and the surrounding area.

Picture what is going to happen some fine morning when Nancy Pelosi or one of her liberal gal pals on Nob Hill reaches into the china cabinet to get a bone china bowl for her morning cereal and finds mouse turds in it.  She might first drop the bowl, shattering it into bits.  Then, aggrieved by the tragic loss of a piece of her favorite china, the grief will turn to rage and she'll either pick up the phone herself or direct her maid to do it for her, and call the exterminator.  This scene will be played out in houses and apartments all over the city because people universally react this way to vermin.  

One of my favorite actors of all time, James Woods, in his portraryal of powerhouse attorney Sebastian Stark uttered a line that is a pithy as it is brilliant.  He was investigating a homicide in Malibu and a lifeguard informed him that the tenant of a pricey beach house had asked him to run people off of his "private" beach.  As he heard this, Sebastian Stark said, "They're all liberals until someone blocks their ocean view."  Simply put, liberals will champion causes like the marsh mouse, until that mouse has the audacity to invade their homes.  Then, the mouse be damned, it's time to call the exterminator.  

This brings me to my point that Nancy Pelosi my be the only legislator whose pork project will actually accomplish the goal of creating new jobs, or saving old ones, in the foreseeable future because if San Francisco gets overrun with mice, the exterminators will either hire new workers or refrain from laying off any of their current ones.  This can occur within the next two years because of both the limited life span of mice, and the alarmingly rapid rate at which they reproduce, especially when their habitat is artificially protected.  

Therefore, in her own way, the Speaker is actually going to use her tens of millions (chump change compared to some of the other projects in the bill) to create new jobs.  Granted, it's an unintended consequence of the government's typical approach to problem solving, i.e. trying to lower the river instead of raising the bridge.  Still, the new hires at the exterminating companies can thank Speaker Pelosi for the good fortune.  So God Bless you, Nancy Pelosi and later we can take a moment of silence for the rhodent holocaust that will surely follow.

So, there it is.  Nancy Pelosi may be the only legislator whose fingerprints on this bureacratic nightmare can actually be linked to a new job created in the next year or two.  And if you disagree with me, then you sir, madame, or (since we ARE talking about San Francisco here), anyone inbetween, are worse than Greg Gutfeld.

The Gifts of a Dictator

In ancient Rome a man by the name of Gaius Julius Caesar came to power because he understood a very simple principle. He understood that the average Roman citizen preferred the gifts of a dictator to earning those same things through their own industry and effort in the free market economy that Rome was fortunate enough to have at the time. Caesar consolidated his power by using the spoils of his conquests in Germany, France, and Briain to buy the affection and loyalty of the common or plebian class of Rome. In doing this, he violated the age-old undertanding with his fellow nobles of the Patrician class which ultimately led to his assasination at the hands of those self-same Patrician senators he had angered.

Consider the key words in the pharae "Gifts of a Dictator" and you get a clearer picture of why such gifts are not, or should not, be preferable to the rewards earned in a free market economy. The first word, "gift" implies something given freely and with love from a friend, relative, or loved one. Gifts conjure images of Christmas, birthdays, families and friends. These are generally positive images that invoke warm and fuzzy sentiments. Now consider the word "Dictator" and a much different image comes to mind. Personally I think of the more tryannical Caesars such as Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. If you're less inclined to the classics, you have the more modern examples such as Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. These names definitely do NOT invoke any warm and fuzzy sentiments.

The gifts from a dictator are very likely to come with serious strings attached and it is those strings that make the case for NOT taking any gifts from a dictatorial entity. After all, the entity that has the power to give gifts also has the power to take them away whereas what you earn by your own efforts, no one can take from you with the possible exception of the government by taxation.

If you need a more concrete example of why a political encomony is not a good thing, take a look at the largest political economy in modern history, the former Soviet Union. In the last 70's, the era of the leisure suit, platform shoes, and discos like Studio 54, there was a climactic anomaly that started with an unusually early warming period followed by a very bitter cold snap. This resulted in the decimation of the corn and grain crops of the former Soviet Union and did considerable damage to the US farmers crops as well. The difference was that unlike the farms of the Soviet Union, which suffered more than 90% crop losses, the US farms only suffered about 30% losses. The US farmers were able to sell their crops at a higher cost, but they were still able to feed not only the US, but were able to sell food to the Soviet Union as well. Though there was no formal trade between the US and the Soviets at the time, President Carter offered to sell food to Premier Leonid Breznev to keep the Russian people rom starving and possibly preventing another Russian Revolution.

Anyone who has ever looked at a map of the former Soviet Union couldn't help but notice that the USSR had signicantly more farmland than the USA. Also noteworthy is the fact the farms in the Soviet Union were not the small family farm operations that we have in the USA, but rather that the farms in the Soviet Union were large collective industrial operations with thousands of workers whose career path had been predestined by their aptitude test scores at the elementary school level. Notwithstanding the fact that these farm workers were less than thrilled with their jobs, they still had to DO the work or they risked ending up in the army or a gulag. Given these seeming advantages, why were the Soviets unable to feed their population without our assistance.

The answer is very simple. Because US farms are predominantly family owned small businesses, when the crops were in danger of freezing, US farmers were willing to get themselves and their families out of bed in the middle of the night with hair dryers plugged into extention cords to warm their crops and prevent them from freezing to death. They were also willing to work through the night laying down plastic to protect the crops thereby saving their harvests. They were willing to take these extra measures because if they did not, they would not eat. Furthermore, if they couldn't sell their crops at market, they would not be able to pay their mortgages, car notes, etc. The difference between US and Soviet Farmers is that US farmers were motivated to go the extra mile because they had "skin in the game" to borrow one of President Obama's favorite expressions. The Soviet farmers, while being forced to work hard when they were on the farm, were nowhere to be found in the middle of the night when the damage was being done, because like most employees, they were home in bed and would not return to the farms until the following morning which was too late to save their crops.

This is why you don't want a political economy when you are blessed with a free market capitalist econony like we have here. If there are those who are willing to throw it away, it can only be because they either don't understand what they are giving up, or they are too lazy in their though processes to take advantage of the opportunities available to anyone and everyone in this economic system.

I'm not calling American workers lazy, only lazy in their thought processes if they think that the government can take better care of them in this country than they can take care of themselves with a little smart work on their part. Opportunities for success are as common in this free market economy as is sand on the beach. The problem most people have is that they expect to reap the rewards without putting out the effort. A free market ecomony is like an ocean full of fish. If you know how to fish, you'll never go hungry. Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten how to catch a fish and prefer instead to get their fish from the freezer section at the local supermarket.

There's an old saying that says "if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." This sums up free market capitalism in a nutshell. You'll never starve in a market driven economy if you know how to bait a hook. cast a line, and pull out a fish. But most of us don't know how to do those things and would prefer for the government to just pass out fish to those willing to stand in line to get them. The problem with that is that the government doesn't fish, either. In order for the government to give you free fish, it must first confiscate the fish from the fishermen who braved the icy waters of the North Atlantic, ripped their hands to shreds pulling nets full of fish from those icy waters, and descaled and cut off the heads and tails, gutted, and cleaned the fish, and were expecting to sell those fish for profit so they could pay their bills as well as feed some of the fish to their families.

Imagine if you were such a fisherman and when you pulled back into the harbor you were met by a government bureaucrat and armed federal agents who confiscated your cargo, but left you only enough fish to feed your family. You would be furious at those developments, of course. But the real conssequence of this confiscation would be that you might be less willing to go out and brave those icy waters again when it would be just as easy for you to sleep in and then go stand in line waiting for your free fish that the givernment confiscated from some other sap dumb enough to go out and put his life on the line. Eventually, no one is going to brave those icy waters and they where will we be? I seriously doubt that the givernment is going to go fishing to feed the rest of us while we stand idly by on shore waiting for our handouts.

I gave you an example of a political economy that failed so now let me show you what is possible in a free market economy. A high school graduate decided he didn't want to go to college but didn't want to work at a job for someone else either. So he persuaded his parents to let him take his tuition money and use it to buy a sandwich shop that we know today as Subway. This free market economy also enabled a couple of friends working in their parents garage to invent a gadget that was the basis for the company we now call Apple. Other kids working in garages formed mult-billion dollar multinational companies like Google, Yahoo, and so many more. People like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others of their ilk, including the biggest liberal success story of them all, Oprah Winfrey, owe their successes to our free market economy. Only in America would their stories be possible.

Maybe we would take a minute to think about what we're so willing to throw away before we make the decisions that could eliminate our economic system and with it our prospects for success, especially if we're willing to exchange the infinite possibilities inherent in a free market ecnomy for a few measly gifts from a dictatorial entity. As we learned in grade school, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it, even if it isn't you.

Let me leave you with this closing thought. Aesop told a fable about a dog with a bone who saw his reflection in a river as he was crossing over a bridge. Unfortuately, the dog didn't realize that he was looking at his own reflection and thought he saw another dog with another large bone. Naturally, the dog thought he would take the other dog's bone and have two bones for himself. So he opened his jaw to snatch the other bone and as he did so, his own bone fell into the river and sank out of sight. The moral of the story is "be careful when grasping at shadows or you may lose what is real.

Defending Denise Richards

I wish I had a dime for every time one of my friends said I should write an op-ed column or get my own talk radio show. The problem with those things is that on becomes dependent on others for the success or failure of such enterprises. With this method of communication public support is not necessary for an outspoken individual such as myself to find an outlet for the myriad of thoughts buzzing around in my cerebral cortex. When I informed my friends that I had decided to enter the blogosphere with my ideas they were enthusiastic as supportive. When asked what my inaugural tupoc would be, their enthusiasm waned. When I asked why that should be the response was something along the lines of, "With all the things going on in this country and the world, why on earth would you want to write about a minor celebrity?For the answer to this question I go back to my most recent visit to the local hair stylists and something I overheard while waiting to get my monthly mane taming. As I sat in the waiting area reading an old issue of Time magazine perusing an article about the lack of scientific evidence regarding the liberals three card monty issue of global warming I overheard a rather heated exchange among the other ladies in the waiting area. Although I was trying to tune out the conversation, I kept hearing angry words like "bitch", "slut&", "hussy" and several other unflattering epithets. Ignoring my own inner voice and against all my better judgment I asked the woman next to me who is was that they were referring to. She replied in what could only be described as a hissing sound that the subject of the conversation was Denise Richards.

Fortuately for me I was called by my stylist so there was no opportunity to get further involved in the discussion that could only be described as if the Harpies of mythology were ripping a poor unfortunate mortal to shreds before my very eyes. On the way to my destination I noticed a tabloid paper showing an article about the never ending saga that is Ms. Richards divorce from another tabloid favorite, hollywood bad-boy Charlie Sheen. That explained what started these ladies gossipping on this particular topic, but could not explain the seething hatred that these otherwise normal women were expressing. You would think Ms. Richards had run over their pet chihuahuas the way they were acting. What is it about Denise Richards that would turn four ordinary small town women into the harpies of old?

This question occupied my thoughts as I ambled home after my appointment and the only answer I could come up with came from an eposiode of Boston Legal in which the term "schaddenfreude" was defined. Schaddenfreude comes from two german words which separately mean "damage' and "joy." It is the term used to define the tendency of people to enjoy the misery of those who would otherwise be considered better off than themselves. This is especially true is the subject of the misery is pertty, popular, or rich as we love to demonize anyone who has it better than we do.

The other thing that got my attention was that these ladies were reacting to a tabloid story as if it were gospel truth. This is disconcerting to me because tabloid newspapers have always been suspect when it comes to the veracity of the stories they print. Tabloid newspapers typically pay for their information, and they are not known for doing much in the way of research when reporting their stories. What is most disconcerting to me is that the so-called "legitimate press is doing pretty much the same thing these days. What does it say when the purported flagship of journalistic integrity and ethics like the New York Times publishes a story about John McCain based on evidence that would not even be considered in a court of law because of the hearsay rules and totally ignores a story about John Edwards that is more or less bulletproof allowing a tabloid newspaper to scoop them? It says to me that if I want to know the truth of anything I have to do my own research.

Anyone that has gone to college knows that research is work, so why would anyone undertake such work on behalf of Denise Richards. The answer is simple when you take into account that this writer can be considered a knight in rusty aluminum foil. I have never been able to resist riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress This character anomoly has gotten me in trouble on more than one occasion so why should this be any different. That said, trying to find positive press on Denise Richards is like trying to find positive press on a Republican these days. It is next to impossible.

I'm sure Ms. Richards and her publicists experienced the same level of frustration in trying to get her side of the story to the teeming masses which probably accounts for her doing a reality show to try and present her side of things. Thank goodness the tabloid press has created a built-in market to ensure ratings for such a show or the E network might not have green lighted the project. Were it not for my desire to get to the truth of things, I probably would not have watched a single episode, but seeing as there was no other way to hear Denise Richards' side of things I had to tune in.

Here's where things get dicey because I have to live with the fact that I have lost four hours of my life I will never get back in following up on this idea. That said, I am not here to function as a television or entertainment critic. What I wanted to do was observe Ms. Richards in a way that I would not have been able to absent running the risk of a conviction for stalking or a change of career to becoming a paparrazo. Thankfully this was not necessary because thanks to the largesse of the E entertainment network I was able to join America and the world as a video voyeur.

What I observed about Ms. Richards more than anything is that she appears to have gotten a bad rap from just about everone. I did not see a diva, a bitch, a whore, a talentless hack, or any of the other unlattering apellations assigned to her by the tabloid press or the ladies of the hair salon. What I saw was a caring mother and a loving daughter, sister, and friend. That said, I am alo well aware that just because a show is called "realty TV" it is anything but. I know that even an unscripted show is produced and edited to highlight the things the producers and "stars" want you to see.

Notwithstanding the obvious purpose of the show, it can safety be said that Ms. Richards will never give actresses like Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, or any other academy award winner anything to worry about. Consequently it can be said that with Ms. Richards what you see is what you get. If she can't act, she can't be fake. She may never be a candidate for sainthood, but I did not see anything in her to justify the vitriolic reaction I observed from the ladies at the hair salon. Of course, the ladies in the hair salon would not have reacted as they did had Ms. Richards been given a fair shake in the press so I guess that is where the fault truly lies.

To illustrate this point I refer to a number of critics who opined that Ms. Richards would use her show as a platform for bashing her ex husband and promote herself for her career. There were also charges that she might be an unfit mother for exploiting her children in her show. This point was raised against her repeatedly in interviews on daytime shows like "Good Morning America," "Regis and Kelly," and "The View." As much as I love to disagree with the ladies of "The View," the truth of the matter is that in the four episiodes of her show that I watched, the only time I saw her children was when they ran into a camera show to be with their mother or grandfather. This is hardly the exploitation railed against by the talk show mavens. Even after seeing these four episodes, I would not be able to recognize either girl publicly if they were not in the company of Denise or her father. 

As to the issue of Charlie bashing, the only reference I noted to the tabloid bad-boy was a comment made about the removal of his name from a tattoo and the appropriate comment of "bye bye Charlie" that accompanied the deed. This is further eBvidence that Ms. Richards is a concerned mother and does not want to affect the girls relationship with their father by bashing him publicly.

Before I made it my mission to find out about Denise Richards, my only thoughts about her were as the girl in the pool with Neve Campbell in "Wild Things," Dr. Christmas Jones from 'The World is Not Enough," the cousin with the hair from "Friends,"or the pageant contestant from "Drop Dead Gorgeous," a term which is still appropriate in describing the appearance of Ms. Richards to the naked eye. Since looking to get to know the person behind the hype I've discovered the mother, the daughter, the friend, the cool aunt, the animal lover, and the reuctant blind date. If this exercise has taught me anything, it's that we all have different sides to our personality and that you have to take people as YOU find them, not how someone else tells you they are.

In closing I just want to say to Denise Richards that I found her to be an interesting person, much more so than I would have originally thought. I guess this accounts for her celebrity and it is NOT undeserved. Yes she was born with good genes, but she also works to maintain her greatest assets Though she may never win an oscar, I have to agree with Ron Silver that she has a talent for comedy and should be able to succeed in a television sitcom if given that opportunity. Lastly, how can you hate a girl that can agree to a "white trash weekend" and be such a good sport about everything. I can't but then again I'm a guy. Ironically after they read this, some of my friends may express doubts about the truth of that last statement.

If I had the opportunity to say anything to Denise Richards herself, it would be that,as one Illinoisian to another, I got your back. I wish you continued success and happiness and I'm looking forward to your debut on "Dancing With The Stars. I'm also looking forward to more television in future, next time with some quality writing to support you. I would also say that I'm proud of hte way you handled yourself in the variety of situations I observed and especially the eay you handled your former assistant. You showed a remarkable restraint in not firing him a lot sooner. Personally I would have canned him before hiring an assistant to help him do his job, but that's me. I'm also happy you have a good family and friends as well as a thick skin to help you cope with everything you have to deal with. Lord knows I couldn't do it without going postal on someone. You must be a better person than most want to give you credit for.

So live your live, love your family and friends, date more ordinary guys as they get less negative press than the hollywood types, and don't make the mistake of thinking a guy might be gay if he doesn't mention your steamy threesome on a firest date. Some of us are actually nice guys that would rather get to know the real you than focus on the roles you've played in the movies. If you think about it logically, that would be the equivalent of a date handing you his issue of Playboy with your picture on the cover for you to autograph. Trust me when I say that we all have them, and were all well aware of the scenes in Wild Things," but some of us know better than to use those things to try to make a good impression on you, or at least I HOPE we would.

Finally, best wishes for success as you dance with the stars. I'm sure you'll do your fellow Illinosians proud.

Greetings to my fellow Purlple People

Welcome to the Purple People Periodical.  I created this site for people like me who are neither the fire enigine red of the far right, nor the midnight blue of the far left.  If I've learned one thing from this past election cycle, it is that most people (and by most I mean more than half) are somewhere inbetween.  As we learned in elementary school art class, primary colors combine to form secondary colors and when you combine the primary colors of red and blue, you get some shade of purple.  In that most Americans are not the extreme idealogues such as those on the far left and the far right, we fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes.

To illustrate my point, I offer myself.  I am politically conservative.  I believe in a strong national defense, including securing our borders and knowing who is in this country.  I also favor free market capitalism, freedom of religion (including the right to celebrate the Christmas Holiday), and some semblance of morality in my fellow human beings.  So far I'm sounding like a garden variety conservative, but like most people, I have more than one facet to my personality.  My liberal twin side is in favor of gay marriage.  Will someone PLEASE explain to me how my marriage, your marriage, or any body else's marriage is the least bit affected by a gay couple three doors down being married.  And, if it is, how is that THEIR problem:?  Do I have other flaws according to my fellow conservatives?  The answer would be a resounding "YES" because I'm also in favor of keeping abortion a legal option in this country.  I don't ever want to lose another woman's life because she was forced to get her proceducre at a back alley midwife or worse perform her own with a coat hanger or a knitting needle.  I have lost members of my family in this manner and don't wish to lose anyone else.

There are many other purple people out there.  You might be surprised to learn their identities.,  I've no wish to out anyone, but the following purple people are public figures and so their belifs are known to all.  I would like to nominate the following to the purple people hall of fame.  The nominees are: Bill O'Reilly, Whoopi Goldberg, Arnold Schwarznegger, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and last but not least, Hillary Clinton.  Now if I were an omniciscent diety I would be able to hear all the horrific gasps and questions forming in your minds about the preceding list.  How, you may ask, can these people from such opposing political backgrounds, have anything in common enough to make them purple people?  To set your minds at ease, let me explain in choice in greater detail.  There are many other candidates I could have named, but the ones Ive chose seem to represent a fair cross section of celebrity choices sufficent to illustrate the principle.

My first choice, Bill O'Reilly, was chose because, contrary to popular opinion, Bill O'Reilly is not a far right kind of guy.  He is conservative in his political beliefs in the same way I am, but he is also an avid proponent of social justice, fairness, and he wants all people to experience the best life has to offer.  He is a bloviator to be sure, but if you are straight with him, even if he disagrees with you, he will be fair to you.  If you dobt this, just ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

My second choice is Whoopi Goldberg.  Ms. Goldberg is politically liberal but she is a purple person because in her own words, she owns guns and she's in favor of abortion.  She belives in religious freedom, civil rights, equal justice under law, etc.   While not a regular viewer of "The View", I am fortunate to catch excerpts from it on programs such as "The O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity," "Red Eye", and other programs such as "E News Daily," The Daily 10," and "Entertainment Tonight."  Like Bill O'Reilly she will defend her position , but she also gives her guests a chance to state theirs and is willing to extend them the simple courtesey of not interrupting or belittling them as they do so. And who could forget Whoopi's performance in "Jumpin' Jack Flash?"  I'll never forget her saying, "I'm a little black woman in a big silver box." That particular line is irrelevant to this subject matter, but in unlikely event she ever reads this, I wanted to let her know how I felt about that performance.

The last names on that list are all pretty obvious s to why they were included here.  For one thing, they are all politicians,  As for Arnold Schwarznegger, hes a Republican governing a very liberal state.  He's also married to a liberal Democrat.  You have to be purple to live and govern under those conditions.  John McCain and Joe Lieberman are another classic odd couple, albeit only in political terms.  Senator Lieberman broke with his party to support John McCain in his presidential candidacy because he was more loyal to his friend than to the idealogy of his party.  As for John McCain, how many times has he crossed the aisle to the consternation of his fellow Republicns?  But, like him or hate him, you have to respect him.  Not only did he stay true to his principles during a blistering campaign, but he remained genial and respectful towards President Obama throughout the entire campaign.  How can you not respect a man who used some of his limited campaign warchest to broadcast a commercial congratulating his opponent on his historic nomination?  As for Hillary Clinton, she supported President Bush after September 11, 2001, she also voted for the Patriot Act, and the surge of troops that made victory in Iraq a likely outcome.  She has also shown herself to be strong on national defense, and willing to cross the aisle to work with republicans, albeit  mostly moderate ones.  

 

Now that I've given you this glimpse into my mind and character, I hope you'll come back for more because there is lots more where this came from.