Cops 'n Robbers: "Race" Ipsa Loquitur

As a writer, I know that one of the worst sins a writer can commit is plaigarism. That said, let me give credit for part of the title of this essay to the great David E. Kelly and his team of writers of one of my all-time favorite telvision show "Boston Legal." It was from the title of one of (I think) the better episodes of the show that I took part of my title. In law there is term "res ispa loquitur" which loosely translated mean "the thing speaks for itself." The play on words, with the substituion of the word "RACE" is therefore self-evident, as it was to anyone viewing the episode. The plot from that episode is eerily similar to the incident in Cambridge, Massachussetts involving the Harvard professor and the Cambridge police department.

In the "Boston Legal" episode, a young African-American man was accosted by a Boston police officer while standing on a sidewalk in an affluent neighborhood staring at a house. When asked by the officer for identification, the man protested that he was doing nothing wrong and refused to comply with the officer's instruction. The officer then attempted to place the man under arrest and he fought against the officer garnering himself charges of assaulting an officer and resisting arrest. To wrap this up without re-writing the script, the liberal champion fictional lawyer Alan Shore, together wtih a young, black, and very attractive public defender make the case all about race and get the man acquitted on all charges, because as it turned out the man was just doing what he'd read in a self-help book about visualizing success so he could someday afford a home like the one he was looking at for himself which is clearly NOT a crime, and in fact, a pro-active and positive step to achieving what we all acknowledge to be the great American dream. This fictional story ends with hugs, handshakes, and smiles all around.

Before the officer had finished testifying, I knew two things. First was that the writers of the show were liberal. Second, that they had not interviewed a real police officer before writing the testimony script, or if they had, they chose to utterly DISREGARD what he or she actually TOLD them. I know this because of the way the "officer" answered the counsel's question, "is standing on a public sidewalk staring at a house a crime in Boston?" The "officer" answered "no," but any REAL police officer would have said something to the effect that while merely looking at a house is not illegal, being a lookout for a burglary or home invasion in progress is." There is also another act that often precedes a burglary or home invasion, and in the vernacular of law enforcement, it is often referred to as "casing" a place, that is watching it to determine the best time and circumstance in which to commit either burglary with no one home, or home invasion, when the presence of the home's owner is desirable to the criminals.

In a strange twist of life imitating art, we find ourselves in present-day Cambridge, Massachussetts with an incident eerily similar to the fictional episode of Boston Legal in some ways, and distinctively different in others. Similarities can be found in the venue, the nonexistence of an actual CRIME (albeit strong circumstantial evidence and therefore the need to investigate), the cynical use of the racial profiling charge by disingnuous individuals with ulterior motives, and the proverbial "happy ending" in which the conflict is resolved and everybody goes home as happily as they can under the circumstances. The most notable DIFFERENCE between the fictional story and the Cambridge incident is the sociological "stature" of the minority "actor."

In the fiction, the "actor" was a lower income minority who was looking to avail himself of the "Great American Dream" by personal initiative, such as reading self-help success books, and practicing the "visualization/actualization" technique by going to the nicer neighborhood and looking at the kind of house he hoped to one day own. Contrast this with Professor Gates, an academician at the pinnacle as his career as a member of the Harvard faculty. He's not staring longingly at a house from the sidewalk, he's choosing to break into his OWN house and, unfortunately for him, his neighbor did not recognize him. FORTUNATELY for him, he had a neighbor who was willing to do what she thought was PROTECTING his property in his absence, something many neighborhoods organize neighborhood watches to do. Also fortunate for the Professor, the police responded quickly to protect his property, something many minorities complain does NOT happen in their neighborhoods.

In her closing argument in the trial on Boston Legal, the pretty female, African-American public defender who was assisting the rich and liberal silk stocking lawyer Alan Shore, raised the argument that the defendant in that case was a victim of abuse by law enforcement known as DWB - Driving While Black. This is a racially incendiary term which is used to accuse law enforcement of targeting innocent black motorists for harassment in the hopes of finding evidence of some misconduct. It hearkens to the days in the deep south during the civil rights movment when civil rights leaders were detained on the roadside by law enforcement to give other members the Ku Klux Klan (of which most of the local officers were members) time to get some people on the scene to kidnap the hapless black motorist for some "reorientation." This could mean a whipping, a lynching, or any of the other horrors for which the Klan of that era was infamous. In the years following the civil rights movement, the police have frequently stopped black motorists and in doing so have effected numerous arrests for everything from possession and sale of controlled substances to catching parole violators or people in possession of burglary tools, illegal weapons, etc. Notwithstanding their successes, law enforcement officers have been discouraged from the use of their instincts under the pressure from the politically correct crowd and the label "racial profiling."

In the Boston Legal episode, as in the Cambridge incident, there was no racial profiling. I've already covered what happened in the fictional story, so let me address the events that occurred at the home of Professor Gates when Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department responded to a dispatch call to investigate a possible break-in. What occurred can best be summed up as a clash between two strong-willed men with full heads of steam. Race played no discernable part in Sergeant Crowley's mindset as neither the 911 call that reported the break-in, not the dispatch transcripts reveal any suggestion of an African -American perpetrator. What he did know as he approached the door is that there was likely someon e in the house that did not belong there. What he did NOT know was who it was, how many, whether they were armed and if so, how heavily, whether there were hostages, or anything else that might affect the way he handled hinself in the situation. What he DID know is that whoever was inside had the proverbial "high ground," and that the second he went in the door, he could be a target from someone positioned to ambush him.

Sergeant Crowley likely went into the home after announcing himself. He most likely had his weapon drawn and levelled, and was probably holding himself in a classic dueling stance with his shoulders turned sideways to present as narrow a target as possible. When he gets into the living room, he encounters an older African-American man who was probably instructed to show his hands and possbly to assume a position against the wall. Upon ascertaining that there was no further danger to himself, Sergeant Crowley would have holstered his weapon, possibly frisked the man, and began to question him. At this point, Professor Gates likely informs him that he's the owner of the house and that it was he who forced the door either because he'd forgotten his key, or for whatever reason it didn't work. Proper procedure would require Sergeant Crowley to ask Professor Gates for identification both to ascertain his identity, and to confirm that he did in fact reside at that residence. Sinple enough when you think about it calmly and cooly and in hindsight, but if you consider that the sergeant was being verbally harangued by Professor Gates the entire time he was doing his duty, and add the fact that his adrenaline had been pumping mere moments earlier, you can understand how a routine situation could get out of control

Now that we've covered Sergeant Crowley and exp;ained some of what was going through HIS mind, let's look at Professor Gates for a moment. He's an older man who walks with a cane, which likely indicates some stiffness and discomfort in his leg, if not actual pain when he walks. He's been travelling all day, which means he's had to negotiate the hassles of two different aorports during the days travels and travails. Anyone who has been to an airport post 9-11 knows that the experience can test the patience of a saint. By the time the good professor gets to his door he's been through TWO airports, long lines, delays, inconveniences, etc. Imagine how he might be feeling when he's at his front door and all he wants to do is get inside, lose the luggage, change into something comfortable, pop open a cold Red Stripe, plop into his favorite chair, and forget the whole day. Imagine his fustration when he realizes he can't get IN to his own house, so he goes around back, decides to force the door, gets in, and in his own living room he's confronted by a police officer pointing a gun at him and ordering him up against the wall. That has be the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

Given that it was Professor Gates' temperment and his frustrations with the days experiences that caused him to harangue Sergeant Crowley, and given that neither of those two things would have been affected in the least by the presence of another officer, as all police officers are trained to follow certain procedures in a given situation. Professor Gates would likely have been just as belligerant to an African-American officer as he was to Sergeant Crowley. Any officer responding to that situation would likely have behaved in the same manner towards Professor Gates, and would have had the same heightened sense of awareness and adrenaline rushing that Sergeant Crowley had experienced. Professor Gates' race had NOTHING to do with Sergeant Crowley's reaction, as he would have most likely done the same thing had Professor Gates been of the caucasion persuasion. While I DO take issue with the decision to arrest the professor, I do NOT question the Sergeant's right to charge him for disturbing the peace under the circumstances. However, that complaint is usually presented in the form of a summons, NOT an arrest. Still, I have the luxury of hindsight, time, distance, and SAFETY from the situation to make my analysis, which was clearly shared by Sergeant Crowley's superiors in the Cambridge Police Department, as all charges against Professor Gates were dropped. All's well that end's well.

So where then is the "res" or "race" in all this? The answer is, like in many cases we hear about these days, it's either a non-entity or insignificant to the story as a whole. More and more, we are finding racial issues manufactured into the fabric of ordinary events, or even extraordinary ones. Most recently, it's been in levelling the racism charge against American citizens protesting government policies at tea parties and townhall meetings. The TRUTH of the matter is that the tea party I attended in St. Louis was a very integrated one. In fact, one of the speakers was Kevin Jackson, a black man and author of the best-selling book "The Big Black Lie," which talks about the negative effect liberal social policies have had on the African-American population since the 1960s. I've personally observed several large tea parties across the country since April 15 and most if not ALL of them have been thoroughly integrated not only by race but by political affiliation as well, meaning there were as many DEMOCRATS and Indpendents that supported and voted for Barak Obama as there were Republican and McCain supporters. But why let a little thing like the TRUTH interfere with liberal spin?

The simple truth is that there are now TWO generations in this country that have grown up in the "integrated" America following the landmark Supreme Court decisions of Brown v. Board of Education and Plessie v. Washington. My generation was the first, and second generation, or the hip-hop generation is the very personification of Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. This is not to say there are not still racists in this country, because there are. But the mainstream, insitutionalized racism of Selma, AL in the 196os is no more. There is no one alive today that has owned or whipped a slave. There is almost no one alive today or in any position of authority, with the exception of Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Ironically, Sen. Byrd is a DEMOCRAT! Why then is racism still the prevalent social issue that is seems to be?

The answer to that question is both simple, and sinister. It's simple because there is a contingent of our society whose enire reason for being is contingent upon keeping the racial struggle, real or imagined, alive and well. It is sinister, because their motivations for doing so are selfish and they have no regard for the pain and suffering their actions prolong. Their political, social, or economic interests depend on fanning these flames whenever possible, and since the number of white on black racicial incidents is, and has been, steadily declining, they have to resort to manufacturing these claims to jusify their own purposes. Those who do this for political, social, or worst of all, ECONOMIC reasons deserve to have reserved for them a place in the hottest part of hell, for it is on THEIR accounts that we can't seem to heal the racial wounds in this country. My grandmother used to admonish me not to pick at the scabs when I skinned my knee because in her words "if you keep pickin' at it, it will NEVER heal." So to it is with the wounds of racism. If they're left alone, they will heal, but if they're continuously ripped apart by self-serving indiviuals who do NOT have our welfare in mind, those wounds will NEVER heal and we will never get past racial divides.

The other reason we can't get past racism in this country is that there is a contingent of our own population that believes that racisim and descrimination are perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they're directed against the MAJORITY of our population. This is yet another steaming pile of the horse manure that passes for wisdom on the left. If racism and descrimination are wrong, then they are ALWAYS wrong, regardless of which way the "greater than" or "less than" arrow is pointing. Following the liberal's logic, Apartheid in South Africa or Sunni domination of Iraq would be perfectly acceptable, yet I doubt any self-confessed liberal would agree with those statements. Of course liberals don't consider themselves "racist" or "discriminatory" because they soften those harsh words in politically correct euphamisms like "affirmative action," "levelling the playing field," and "social and economic justice." What they FAIL to take into consideration is that the term "minority" is neither racial, nor pejorative, but DEMOGRAPHIC, and that blacks and hispanics are called "minorities" for a reason. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" To answer that, I will quote then presidential candidate Barak Obama, "Yes we Can," with the caveat "if you'll LET us."

Heil Hitler! Heil Obama! What the Heil is Happening Here??

OK Liberal Democrats. I've really been resisting the urge to compare the modern democratic national socialist agenda with what happened in Germany in the 1930's, but every time I turn around I'm running into liberal propaganda equating George Bush, John McCain or conservative republicans in general with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime. There's an old adage which says that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," but as you persist in throwing rocks in your glass house, I'm just going to illustrate the many ways in which modern liberal democrats are much more in line with Adolph Hitler's Nazi movement than any conservative republican idea could ever be.
To be fair to liberal democrats, I'm not suggesting that liberal democrats want to commit genocide, conquer the world, or commit any of the other horrors typically associated with Nazi Germany. What I'm comparing is the method by which these comparable political ideologies acquired their power and the social, political, and economic environments that made these movement thrive and flourish.
The biggest single element that both German Nazis and American Liberal Socialists have in common is their spokesperson. In Germany, that person was Adolf Hitler. In modern socialist America, it's Barack Obama. What do Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler have in common? The answers might just surprise you. Again, I'm not suggesting that they are one and the same, far from it. But when you look at the two men side by side, and without the emotional disgust and revulsion that one normally associates with the name Adolf Hitler, you can see some similarities between the two men.
Let's start with Adolf Hitler, since the history has largely been written on him. Hitler came from modest means. Hist entire youth and early adulthood were marred by poverty and social ostracism. His father died when he as young, and he was frustrated in his attempts to achieve recognition and success as an artist. He blamed this failure not on his own lack of talent, evident to anyone who has ever seen any of his artwork, but rather on a conspiracy of Jewish professors at the Vienna Art Institute. This belief that he was cheated by this ethnic minority formed the nucleus of his lifelong passionate anti-semitism. Obama was the bi-racial child of a divorced, single mother but even though he did not grow up in poverty, I am relatively certain he suffered some social ostracism as a child.
Hitler migrated to Germany around the time of the outbreak of World War I, so Hitler joined the German Army. He needed a job, and he wanted to ingratiate himself with his adopted country. As a soldier in the German Army, Hitler distinguished himself in combat and rose to the rank of corporal, quite an achievement for a non-German, and was even awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. It was because of this distinction that Hitler was permitted to remain in the German Army after the mandatory downsizing of the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty restricted the German Army to less than 100,000 personnel. Obama never served in the military or saw combat, but he did engage in public civil service as a community organizer.
As part of his duties following the end of the war, corporal Hitler was assigned by his commanding officer, Captain Ernst Roehm (that's right, the same Ernst Roehm who would later head the Sturmabteilung, the SA brownshirted stormtroopers), to attend political meetings to determine if any of the activities or topics of conversation could be considered subversive or illegal under the new Weimar Republican Constitution. Once such group was the German Worker's Party. Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party in a beer hall in Munich and what he heard there was a message that extolled the virtues of German ideals, the supremacy of German might, the and the ability of Germany to rise again and take its' place once more among the leaders of the world.
To a fervent nationalist like corporal Adolf Hitler, these words resonated and enthralled the young Hitler so much so that he not only failed to report the group, he actually joined it. When questioned by Captain Roehm about his experiences, he told Roehm that he did not see anything subversive or illegal about the group in that meeting, but that he should attend future meetings to make sure that there was nothing for the government to be concerned about. The next time Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party, he requested permission to address the meeting. As he was the group's newest member, they were only too happy to have him speak. When he spoke, his spellbinding oratory moved the group to such an extent that membership increased immediately, and Hitler was made the spokesman for the group from that time forward. Obama and the liberal socialists of the democratic party are also strong in the labor movement and enjoy union support. Is it a coincidence that the Nazi party started life as a labor union?
Ironically, Hitler knew that if this group were to become a political force that could achieve any significant political power, there would have to be some changes made. He started with the name of the group, because he understood instinctively that if the party were to achieve any success, it was going to have to appeal to Germans from all social and economic classes and a worker's party implied that the members were blue-collar laborers who carried lunch boxes was pumpernickel sandwiches and warm beer in the thermos. This image was not likely to appeal to the aristocracy, the illuminati, the glitterati, or the professionals he would need to attract to the party.
Germany, unlike France, Russia, and other countries that had experienced revolutions, did not disposess or murder its aristocrats when it became a republic. Even though Germany had been a feudal monarchy prior to World War I, and the ruling Kaiser and his family and court fled the country at the war's end, the German citizenry still had respect and admiration for its' nobility. Many of the heroes of the war were from noble families and Hitler knew he would need the support of men with Von in their names if he were to achieve political power. He also knew he would need to associate himself with academic, political, military, and celebrity personalities to increase his popular appeal. Sound familiar? It wasn't John McCain that was supported by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg. Then factor in Colin Powell, Bruce Springstein, Kanye West, P-Diddy Combs, etc. and you have a modern comparison.
Regardless of his entourage, Hitler could not achieve any significant political successes until the advent of the Great Depression. It is only in a climate of economic misery and unbridled fear that the message of national socialism sounds even remotely attractive. Hitler used the Depression, the runaway inflation that made it necessary to take a wheelbarrow full of German currency to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread, and the rampant economic unrest to push his message of national pride, hope, and a return to past glories. Sound familiar?
With lines like "Germany forever," and "The German people are the rightful masters of the world," Hitler seduced the German citizens to support him, but even with all of these things going for him, he still couldn't win the power he sought. His newly named National Socialist, or "Nazi" party was gaining seats in the Reichstag, or Germany's congress, but it couldn't claim a majority against the communists, labor unionists, and worse, the democratic republicans who still believed in the viability of the Weimar Republic. Obama ran his campaign with slogans like "Yes we can," "I believe in you," "Our best days are ahead." etc.
Also problematic to Hitler's ambitions was the advocacy of the media against him. Newspapers and radio newscasters were trying to sound the alarm about Hitler and the true intentions of the Nazis. Unfortunately, Hitler had such reserves of cash and celebrity power that he was able to counter and ulitimately stifle and silence his critics. If you examine the ways this was done, you really begin to see some frightening similarities between Hitler's Nazis and modern liberal democratic politics.
First, the Nazis used their popular appeal and celebrity endorsers to boycott and punish by economic means, any newspaper or radio program that spoke negatively about Hitler or the Nazis. Economic assault proved to be very effective, but sometimes even that wasn't enough. When the economic muscle failed, Hitler brought in the stormtroopers, the brown shirted thugs of the SA, to help the misguided writers, editors, or broadcasters see the light. Sometimes this was done by trashing the newspaper offices, destroying the presses, or burning down the building. If that didn't do it, the stormtroopers would kick in the door of a journalist or editor whose writing they didn't like and maybe kick in his teeth, break his arms or some other such violence. If the target were too popular for such brutality, then the Nazis would engage in the politics of personal destruction to silence their critics. This could be accomplished a number of ways, but the most common was to photograph the person talking to a little girl or gay man, and release the photo charging all manner of inappropriate conduct, labeling the man as either a pedophile or a homosexual, effectively marginalizing him and alienating his public followers. He could then be shipped off to a prison or concentration camp with little or no public outcry. The politics or personal destruction. Sound familiar? Just ask Joe Werzelbacher or "Joe the Plumber" as he's more appropriately known. Ask Sarah Palin, if you need another example.
Silencing one's political critics is essential when you're trying to promote an agenda that if it were ever objectively examined would be denounced and defeated. The Nazis systematically removed any and all independent media outlets by passing laws that made it a criminal offense to publish or broadcast anything not approved by the Nazi Party. Sound familiar? The liberal socialists are idealogically aligned with nearly all of the mainstream media, so there are no worries about unfavorable press there. The same is true with most broadcast and cable television channels. The only media the liberal socialists do not control is talk radio and the internet. Talk radio is almost exclusively dominated by popular and therefore powerful conservative spokesmen and the liberal socialists want to silence these critics. Since they have failed to compete in the arena of ideas, they are turning to the same kind of government intervention that the Nazis relied upon, only now it's hypocritically referred to as the "fairness" doctrine. As for the internet, there have been rumblings about laws to require the registration of political websites. While this would seem to fairly apply to all such sites, it effectively draws a bulls eye on the backs of conservative political writers. After all, if we register, then they know where to send the stormtroopers, don't they?
Now, again to be fair, I'm not saying that Obama and the liberal socialist democrats are the Nazis. I'm not suggesting they are even remotely as malevolent, megalomaniacal, or genocidal as the Nazis proved to be. What I AM suggesting, is that there are remarkable and frightening similarities about how they achieved their power, and how they are attempting to keep it. If this last election cycle proved anything, it was that Nazi political tactics are alive and well and currently being used.
For the unbelievers that doubt that today's liberal socialists don't have their stormtroopers, their gestapo, their SS, etc. you would be very wrong. Ever heard of ACORN or SEIU? Those are the modern equivalent of stormtroopers, complete with kooky orange or purple hats and either orange or purple uniform shirts. They are the thugs that strong arm the opposition by breaking into foreclosed homes, registering dead and fraudulent voters, and engaging in other quasi criminal enterprises they dismiss as "civil disobedience" when confronted with their acts. Not surprisingly, there was a federal investigation into the activities of this group before the recent election, but I'm pretty willing to bet that this investigation will either become a whitewash, or will be swept under the rug altogether given the political sympathies of the group and its long history with our own Supreme Community Organizer in Chief. Of course, in true Hitlerian fashion, if his stormtroopers prove to be too big a political embarrassment, there might be another virtual "Night of Long Knives" in which Obama, like Hitler before him, determines it's more politically expedient to throw his stormtroopers under the bus and allow the justice department to prosecute them fully. Hitler used his SS, to arrest and murder the leadership of the Stormtroopers, including his old friend and Commanding Officer Ernest Roehm, when he needed the support of the German Army.
Who then are the modern liberal socialist's version of the SS?  Well, that is a little more subtle a comparison. There are no uniformed, jackbooted, mass murderers in the liberal socialist party that I'm aware of. However, if you visit sites like "the Daily Kos," "The Huffington Post," "Move on.org" or others of this ilk, you begin to see some similarities to the ideological purity espoused by Heinrich Himmler. Though not a racial issue today like it was with the Nazis of history, ideology has replaced race in the modern liberal socialist dogma. Today it is not Jews that are the target of liberal socialist ire, it is the "rich." Ironic when you consider that most of the liberal socialist poster boys and girls are themselves "rich." Still, it is the "rich" that are demonized and attacked by the liberal socialists. But the issue of Race is also alive and well, as the liberal socialists have proved more than once. They are perfectly willing to play the race card and any opportunity and brand anyone that disagrees with them as "racist."
Could today's "rich" end up in concentration camps? Well, read the editorials and blogs that call for the removal from office, and criminal prosecution of the Wall Street Banking and Trading executives that the liberal socialist propagandists blame for today's economic woes. Noticeably absent from the calls for incarceration, are the liberal socialists whose social engineering hubris is equally to blame. I'm not defending the Wall Streeters here. If they violated laws, they should be held accountable. I don't think anyone doubts that Bernie Madoff deserved his fate. There is, however, something fundamentally wrong with the notion that executives who ran a business and achieved economic success for their efforts should be punished for doing the things that have made them successful in the past merely because they were forced to take government money. Still, these executives may well be made scapegoats for the ills of today's society much in the same way the Jews were scapegoated by the Nazis. It is equally disingenuous behavior on the part of the socialist regimes whether in Germany in the 30's or here today.
Now, maybe next time you see an ACORN worker or SEIU Union member on the street in their conspicuous bright orange or purple shirts and hats, give 'em a "Heil." They might just "heil" you back. And now that I've sufficiently degressed myself, I'm getting the "heil" out of here to go do some serious drinking.  On second though, since HITLER first attempted to seize power in a beer hall, I might have to rethink that idea. 'Til we "meet" again.

The French Revolution: Not So Long Ago and Not So Far Away.

Lately there have been many comparisons made of current events with troubling historical events such as Ancient Roman times, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, or any number of historical events in which a supposedly civilized society lost its conscience or sense of morality. No historical event illustrates this more than the French Revolution. While it began with the noblest of motives, it quickly degenerated into one of the bloodiest and most reprehensible events in human history. Sadly, what’s happening in our modern and enlightened society seems to bring to mind events that transpired in France in the year 1789.

Then as now, the people were taxed mercilessly by a government that was all about
rewarding the privileged few at the expense of the majority of the population. In 1789 France, this privileged few were the aristocrats that ruled France. The taxes that supported their lavish lifestyles were borne by the majority of citizens that did not enjoy these lifestyles, nor could they enjoy much of the fruits of their own labors as most of what they earned was confiscated by tax collectors. Add to that, the national economy was in shambles due to rampant overspending by the King and the ruling classes in supporting not only their lavish lifestyles, but also in supporting and funding our own revolutionary war against Great Britain.

Then, as now, reports of lavish lifestyles and wasteful spending by the privileged
aristocracy angered and enraged the population. While they starved in the streets, the Royals and aristocrats lived well, dined gluttonously, spent lavishly, and average citizens were paying for it with their taxes. Add to that frustration, a famine that devastated the country’s grain crop resulting in extremely inflated prices for the most basic staple of the common french man’s diet, bread, and you have a powder keg of pent up rage and frustration ready to blow. That’s exactly what happened on July 14, 1789 when the enraged citizens of Paris stormed the Bastille prison fortress, overpowered the few guards on the premises, slaughtered them and the governor of the prison, freed the prisoners, and demolished the structure with their bare hands.

To be fair, the French Revolution started out like ours did, with noble intentions to make life better for all French citizens, not just the privileged few in the aristocracy or clergy. When the French Assembly convened in the tennis courts of Versailles and took the now famous “tennis courts oath” resolving not to disband until France had a Constitution and Bill of Rights of its own, they could not have foreseen the carnage that was to follow in the name of the new France. Likewise, they could not know that their experiment with liberty, equality and fraternity would end in utter failure, and with a return to oppressive dictatorship under a gent named Napoleon Bonaparte. If they had, maybe the whole revolution would not have taken place, for who in their right mind would consent to such bloodshed and brutality if there were nothing to be gained on the other side of it?

How then did the noble experiment spin so wildly out of control and become the horror
show we know today as “The French Revolution?” The answer is not a simple one, but
it can be explained as follows: A select cabal of elitist ideologues seized control of a country from the elected legislature by creating a climate of crisis, fear, panic, and blind anger and used the “will of the people” excuse to justify tyrannical behavior. This same elitist cabal then used a complicit media to keep the people in a frenzied “lynch-mob state” and used that mob to enforce its will on an entire population. Sound familiar? It should because it’s happening right in front of our very eyes. Thankfully, we haven’t yet regressed to the mob violence or the class genocide, but we’re moving in that direction at a frightening pace.

In eighteenth century France, the populace driver was an underground newspaper
called ironically enough, “L’Amie de Peuple” (translation: The Friend of the People).
This paper was run by a professional malcontent by the name of Jean Paul Marat. Mr.
Marat had been living in the sewers of Paris before the revolution as he had failed at every commercial endeavor he had undertaken. To be fair, it wasn’t always possible to rise on one’s own merit in the feudalistic social order of pre-revolutionary France, but this man was nothing more than an angry, hate-filled, zealot who saw his opportunity for personal power and glory in the climate of the revolution. He was like the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken of his day and he rose to national pre-eminence like Andy Griffith’s character in “A Face In The Crowd.”

He used his new found power to wreak havoc on the french population. His rants
resulted in multiple acts of barbarism, including murder, rape, pillage, and other crimes which would have met with severe punishment in a civilized, law abiding society. His word alone was enough to send hundreds of innocent people to the guillotine. As a direct result of one of his rants, the citizens of Paris raided a french prison where there were prisoners awaiting their so-called “trials” and executions, and basically committed wholesale rape, robbery, torture, and murder in the name of the revolution. Ironically, the barbarism was conducted in a large cell that had a mural of “The Rights of Man” as codified by the French Assembly at the beginning of the revolution. As if in homage to the term “poetic justice,” Marat was murdered by a woman who concluded that the country she loved would be better off without him. She paid for her crime gladly, and today she’s considered a hero in France. Her name is Charlotte Corday.

Contrast that to the way the modern media, both the so-called “legitimate” press, and
the less revered blogosphere has been ginning up anger and hatred against the
executives and employees of AIG. I remember just a few short years ago that AIG ran
an ad campaign touting themselves as “the biggest insurance company in the world you
never heard of.” In many ways, I wish that were still a true statement. How then do a
bunch of homeless, disheveled malcontents end up protesting on the front lawns of AIG
executives’ homes in Connecticut? Answer, the media, in conjunction with self-serving
politicians, ginned up a mob mentality that not only led to such protests in the streets, but also empowered unscrupulous congressmen to pass a law designed solely to
confiscate wealth. This law is a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to support, but they were bolstered in this effort by the lynch mob mentality that boosts its’ approval ratings (albeit temporarily), and if the law is later struck down as unconstitutional, they can tell the voters that it’s not their fault.

This makes the very real (unfortunately) Barney Frank more like the character of
Madame DeFarge from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities.” He sits at the foot of
the guillotine knitting while his victims lose their heads and complains when the mob
makes too much noise causing him to drop a stitch messing up his knitting. Never mind
he is one of the causes of this misery, he’s’ only TOO happy to lead the charge against those he can point the finger of blame towards keeping it away from himself and othersof his ilk.

The bloodiest carnage of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, was the brainchild of an Avatar class of elitists led by Maximilian Robespierre, and they had the audacity to call themselves “The Committee for Public Safety.” Using the pretexts of a looming war with other European monarchies, together with the economic crisis that was threatening to topple the fragile government, these committee members effectively suspended the new constitution and took absolute power unto themselves, ostensibly just until the crises had abated. Ironically, this committee saw to it that most of its former colleagues in the full assembly were declared enemies of the new republic and sent them straight to the guillotine. In point of fact, very few of the men that took the “Tennis Court Oaths” lived to see the government they had envisioned become a reality.

I would hate to have been one of those French politicians that had to stroll the streets of downtown Paris and see all the blood soaked into the street stones from the guillotine scaffold only to realize that he was responsible for that. I would hate to have a been a French politician that had to look into the faces of children in the orphanage in Paris and realize that he was responsible for making those children orphans.

So maybe you politicians in Washington can take a lesson from what happened in
France those many years ago. When you pander to the mob, you empower and
unleash that mob, and then you bear responsibility for the consequences of that
decision and of the mob’s actions. A mob is not a sentient body. It does not think, it does not reason, it runs on pure unadulterated emotion, usually anger or fear. Once unleashed it cannot be controlled effectively and very often turns against those who unleashed it in the first place. Such was the case in the French Revolution. Every member of the Committee for Public Safety met an unnatural end, most on the
guillotine to which they had consigned so many others.

Likewise, the members of the media, both the “legitimate” press, and the blogosphere
might want to consider their responsibilities as well. It’s easy to spew venom and vitriol from the virtual safety of the internet and then disavow all responsibility for what ensues. But just as we enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech (for now, anyway), we also have a responsibility to use that speech judiciously. We cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded theater and escape the consequences of that action. Yet that is what many so-called journalists and bloggers do every day. What happens when the wife or child of one of these AIG executives gets hurt by a protestor? Even if the harm is not intended, how are we going to feel if it happens? I would like to think we’re all human enough to say that we would feel terrible if someone actually got hurt. If that is the case, then we need to think before we write. If that is not the case, then keep doing what you’re doing and cheer loudly when the guillotine gets erected in Times Square.

Was Our Economy Murdered? A Grand Jury Case for Indictment On a PREMEDITATED MURDER Charge!

The following article is being presented as if it were a criminal case being presented to a Grand Jury to secure and indictment against the defendants believed by the police and prosecuting attorney to have committed that crime.  When a crime is suspected or has occurred, most citizens react by calling this police. Police work and crime detection are as much about luck and hunches as they are about actual physical evidence and the proverbial “smoking gun.”  It is no wonder they sometimes get it wrong.  That said, I firmly believe that MOST police officers and honest well-intentioned public protectors, but like any other human group, you got good ones, and corrupt ones.  This is exactly why it takes more than a cop hunch to put someone in prison or to death.  That’s what jury trials are for. But before you can get to a jury trial, a charge has to be filed with the court.  That charge can be based on a prosecutor’s affidavit or an indictment by a Grand Jury which means that a panel of ordinary citizens has concluded that a crime was committed, and that the accused defendant probably committed it.  It is that proceeding that I’m going to replicate today.  I will be the prosecutor, and you Dear readers will be my Grand Jury.


My burden will be to prove that our economy was, in fact, the victim of a crime and that>the crime charged is attempted murder.  It is only attempted murder at this time because our economy is not dead, contrary to liberal media opinion.  It has been grievously injured and could possibly die, but as of now it’s very much alive if not well.  Most states define attempted murder as the commission of an act with the unlawful intent to deprive the victim of his life.  It would also be desirable for the accused to have failed in that attempt so that the does not get increased to murder in either the first or second degree.  


My subsequent burden will be to show that the person or persons against whom this indictment is sought had to motive, opportunity, and criminal intent to commit the crime charged, and to present evidence to show that they, in fact, did commit the crime charged.  In assessing culpability, the grand jury *you, the readers) are not required to find guilt or innocence, only probable cause that the crime was committed and that the accused could have committed it.  


Could the economy have been Murdered, or was the economic decline just a result ofnatural market forces?  There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides, but one of the more compelling arguments supporting foul play is the overwhelming benefit to one of the accused from the economic tsunami.  The ONLY beneficiary in all of this is the Democratic Party.  No private enterprise, private citizen, or public entity other than theDemocratic Party and its candidates benefit from this economic malaise.  But the Democrats are not the only ones accused here.                      


To understand why both Republicans and Democrats stand accused, you have to first understand how the economy was injured.  We can all agree the tsunami, for lack of a better term, occurred in mid September of 2008, but that wasn’t the first potentially fatal blow.  The first potentially fatal blow to this economy occurred shortly after the election of the Democrats to majority in the House and Senate.  They passed a law that reinstated the mark-to-market accounting rule that had been removed ironically by the Roosevelt administration to help bring about recovery from the Great Depression.  This was done in response to the Enron collapse, but it had the unintended (or intended) consequence of setting up the financial sector of are economy for fiscal Armageddon.


The longest occurring and most lingering assault on the economy has been a verbal one by Democratic politicians and their allies in the media.  Democrats or their surrogates and sympathizers have been trying to talk down the economy since before the 2006 midterm elections.  They first tried a frontal assault on the economy, telling us that the economy was not good.  This flew in the face of record high indices, free-flowing credit, and all appearances to the contrary so it failed.  Not to be discouraged, the Democrats resorted to a classic from their play book, class warfare.  They changed the premise from a bad economy to an unfair one in which only the rich were benefitting.  Even this failed and the Democrats were left with no other strategy than to lie to the voting public and promise that if they were put in power they would end the war in Iraq.


This was disingenuous at best, and an outright LIE at worst.  Any one who was taken a high school civics course knows that only the President of the United States to order our armed forces to engage in or withdraw from combat.  The Democrats knew, and hoped the voting public didn’t, that the most they could do with withdraw funding from the Defense Department which would essentially leave our troops naked in the field.  No clear thinking politician would dare attach his or her name to such a bill.  Only the most committed ideologues would even consider such a thing, and then only because they knew it wouldn’t pass.  This makes the promise they made to the voting public a false one, and true to form, they failed which infuriated the far left but not the majority of Democratic voters.


To make matters worse for the Democrats, our troops (aided by the surge of new forces) started winning in Iraq despite the best efforts of the Democrats to convince us otherwise that the war was, in fact, lost.  No matter how they proclaimed the statistics were wrong, and that General David Petraeus was a liar (i.e., the “suspension of disbelief” comment by then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) the facts spoke for themselves.  Casualties were down, elections were held, Iraqi troops were taking the field and taking control, and all evidence showed we were winning the war.  The Democrats knew they would not be able to win in 2008 on that issue.  They had lost credibility promising to end the war, and now that we were winning it, the war rage vote would not be enough. 


Enter once more, the economy.  It was still at record highs and the Democrats knew that unless something changed dramatically, they might not be able to take the White House or keep their control of Congress.  Shortly after January of 2007, Democratic supporters on the blogs began a “whisper” campaign about the economy.  This time instead of a frontal assault, the bloggers started reporting that the economy was not sound.  It was not “real.”  Words like “illusion,” “smoke and mirrors,” “house of cards,” etc. started appearing in the texts and it wasn’t long before these sentiments started finding their way into the mainstream media coverage of economic news.  


Not surprising, as the rumors grew and spread, the stock market traders reacted by short-selling financial stocks, driving their prices and perceived values downward.  Not long after this started, credit rating agencies like Moodys and Standard & Poores announced that they were lowering the credit rating of investment banks like Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, and any other bank that traded in mortgage security instruments backed by sub-prime and conventional loans.  The decision of the rating agencies was made across the board and did not take into account the fact that most of the mortgage loans were paying.


Once the credit ratings were lowered, the investment banks found themselves in the unenviable position of going from having balanced books with cash reserves to being insolvent overnight.  They did the only thing they could do, which was to scramble to sell assets to raise capital.  Under the newly reenacted mark-to-market rules, however, the value of the assets had so fallen that it was impossible to raise capital in a timely manner.  For Bear-Stearns, this meant a shotgun wedding with our government holding the shotgun, but for Lehman Brothers, there was no relief and it was forced into bankruptcy.


The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was the second domino to fall, and set off a chain reaction that is still going on Wall Street.  Had the government known of the events to follow, it would likely have reversed its decision not to save Lehman Brothers but, as in all things, hindsight is 20-20.  The identity of the person that made the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail is not known, but it is certain he or she was an employee or officer in the previous administration.  As to what happened after Lehman Brothers, we have only to look at our 401K statements and the Dow Jones Industrial Average to answer that.




The final question to answer is the why of it all.  To answer that, you simply have to look for the answer to one question: who benefitted?  Who is the sole beneficiary to all of this economic chaos and misery?  The only beneficiary I can find is the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters such as the media.  AT the time of the economic collapse in September of 2008, John McCain was ahead in the polls, and the Republican’s “Joe the Plumber” anti-socialism message was beginning to resonate.  Add to that the resurrection of the Reverend Wright ads and controversy and Obama was flailing and losing ground.  Then, the economy collapsed and this single event followed by the serio-comic response of John McCain and the government as a whole in passing the Trouble Asset Recovery Program, put the Republicans on the mat never to return.


Had it not been for the economic meltdown, John McCain might well have won the presidency and even if he did not, it is relatively certain that the Democrats would not likely be enjoying their hold on absolute power in Congress right now.  Now, I’m not saying that the politicians in the Democratic Party intentionally visited this much misery on the country merely to win an election.   Politicians, whatever their ideology, go into public service to help people and I’m not yet jaded enough to say otherwise.  You may think me a Pollyanna for this belief, but until the evidence to the contrary is more than anecdotal, I remain a true believer. This nobility is reserved solely for elected politicians.  However, for every politician you see on stage, there’s an unseen force of a few to thousands of nameless, faceless political operatives and supporters you do not see, and these people will stop at nothing short of criminal behavior to get their candidate elected.  It seems that, given the
evidence of this last election cycle, that we can no longer exclude criminal behavior, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle.  After all, it was democratic supporters like ACORN and the preppie college students in Ohio that committed countless cases of voter registration and outright voter fraud, and it was democrats that refused to install any credit card security software on their sites resulting in numerous allegations of credit card fraud.   


The last item I wish to present is that the Democratic Party is the only party whose membership consists of a core of ideologues that believe no one is entitled to private wealth and that such wealth should be confiscated by the government and redistributed evenly to all citizens regardless of whether they had anything to do with its’ creation in the first place.  This constituency would think nothing of wiping out the wealth and retirement savings of millions of American because they do not believe anyone is entitled to private wealth in the first place and that the temporary misery is justified by the liberal utopia they hope to create.  It’s like my parents used to tell me as they were spanking me with a paddle, “its for your own good and you’ll thank me for it someday.” 


So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I submit that I have established more than enough evidence to conclude that our free market economy was and IS the victim of the crime of attempted murder and that said crime is ongoing to this day.  Now that Obama and the Democrats are the doctors charged with saving this economy, they continue the assault against it every time they open their mouths.  It is almost as if, rather than employing heroic measures such as CPR, defibrillation, administering medicines like epinephrine, etc, they are putting a pillow over the face of the economy to hasten demise.  Fortunately, they are just as much a failure at that as they have been about everything else thus far because our economy is not dead.




This concludes my presentation to you, the members of my grand jury, and I now charge you to return a True Bill of Indictment for the crime of attempted murder against the following defendants: The United States Governments for the years 2006 to the present, including former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters from the last election cycle, including the main stream media coalition, and last but not least, the greedy and unscrupulous wall street traders that orchestrated the demolition and devaluation of the financial stocks by short selling and other strategies designed to force stock prices down for their own personal enrichment regardless of the consequences to others.  This case is respectfully submitted for your consideration.  Thank you for your attention.

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.