THIS 70's Show

When I think of the 70's a myriad of images comes to my mind.  On the one hand there's the fashions, like the leisure suit, platform shoes, spread-collared shirts unbuttoned to the waist with layers of gold chains handing down onto hairy chests, the smell of Aqua Velva, Brut, Hai Karate, and other best selling fragrances, etc.   There's also the images of John Travolta in his white polyester suit and black shirt disco dancing across the screen or bopping down the streets of Brooklyn in his leather jacket and long hair, movie s like Jaws, Star Wars, and more.  And who could forget Charlie's Angels and that poster of Farrah Fawcett in the swimsuit?  But, not all the images I recall from the 70's were as good.  I also recall the long lines at gas pumps, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and events like Watergate, The Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis, etc.

I can't decide which images disgust or frighten me more.  There is the image of my parents decked out in the fashions of the day practicing their disco moves in our basement with their friends, or the ones that showed up on the television night after night on ABC's "The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage" which propelled Ted Koppel to stardom and served to create the long running "Nightline" series on ABC News.  There were the conversations about the latest fashion trends, esp the ones that took place at my house when Dad put on his first leisure suit, and the ones I remember about how they were going to pay the bills this month because everything seemed to cost so much more than it had a few short weeks ago.  I remember the discussions about whether my Mom should take extra shifts at the hospital or whether Dad should get a part-time second job.  I also remember my grandparents talking about what became of their money as well, and they were what I considered "rich" at the time.

As you can see, the 70's was not as it is shown in the popular sitcom "That 70's Show."  Sure the hairstyles and clothing are somewhat accurate, but there seems to be no mention of the economic and social malaise that plagued the country from the late 60's until the early 80's.  Notwithstanding the fact the the show at issue is a sitcom, still you would think there would have been some allusion to the realities of that decade.  If I had to guess a reason for these critical omissions, I would imagine it had something to do with the fact that the writers of that show were either not alive or not old enough to really REMEMBER the 70's. 

The same must be true of the writers of textbooks used by middle and high school students today, because I find the same lack of historical accuracy present in those tomes.   But this is not by accident.  After all, if you distort history when teaching it to those too young to have experienced it first hand, eventually those young people will outlive the ones that actually lived the history, so the only recollections to survive will be the distorted ones learned through the schools effectively re-writing and thus changing history.  If those who cannot remember the past are truly condemned to repeat it, then we're in for a nightmare of epic proportions.  

In all the reasearch I've done on the history of the 70's I can find any number of references to Watergate, Nixon, the evil Republicans, the Vietnam War Protests, Kent State, etc.  What is surprisingly absent from these historical references is any mention of the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, out of control drug and sexual behaviors, the anarchy of groups like The Black Panthers and even The Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, ring a bell?).   Also missing is any suggestion as to the CAUSE of the economic miseries endured throughout the 70's.  It is our own "lost decade" and this fact seems to have been "lost" to the liberal writers of history.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely in these libral historians for my recollection.  When the 70's began, I was a student in elementary school.  When they ended, I was graduating high school.  I was too young to get into the discos and lose myself in the cocaine and casual sex of the disco era.  I didn't get my first fake ID card until after I had graduated from high school and was on active duty in the US Navy so I actually REMEMBER the 70's quite well.  I also had the good fortune to take one of the only economics courses in college I was able to stay awake in  from a professor who was so hell bent on discrediting Ronald Reagan's economic policies, that he was forced to look honestly at the economic misery of the 70's and at it's root cause.  That root cause, in a nutshell, was the rampant overspending by the US Government in the 1960s.

Now let's disect that statement a bit because I realize it is a loaded one.   That said, look at what was taking place during the 1960s.  At the beginning of the 60s, Kenendy was President and in the first year of his term we had the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the beginnings of the Vietnam Conflict.  You also had the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and other such societal changes.  After Kennedy's assasination in 1963,  Lyndon Johnson took over the Presidency and in relatively short order, the conflict in Vietman was escalated to a full blown war, necessitating great increases in spending, and at the same time, you had the creation of the welfare state, ironically referred to as "The Great Society."  Wars are expensive, as we've just had a recent remider of, and social engineering is, likewise, very expensive.

Ironically, it was the latter, the welfare state, that so bloated the federal budget that we were in deep deficit spending before the end of Johnson's first term of office.  The argument for the Great Society was that with the new found freedoms earned as a reasult of the civil rights movement, the US had a duty to help care for and support minorities as they were integrated into our society.  While this sounds good, as most liberal social engineering programs do, it was a LIE.  Lyndon Johnson, like Andrew Johnson (no relation) before him, was a rabid racist.  He did not want minorities integrated into society, but rather wanted to keep them segregated on their side of town without using the "S" word and offending his liberal constituents. 

The whole premise of the welfare state was to say to minority citizens that if they would agree to live where the government told them to, and vote the way the government told them to, that the government would see to it that they would have everything they needed to live comfortably, if not well, and that all they had to do was to behave and stay out of everyone else's way.  Rather than integrating minorities into our society it had just the opposite effect, as most social engineering programs do.  It created a welfare dependent class that contributed nothing but debt, illigitimate children, and drugs to our culture.  This resulted in increases in welfare recipients and the prison population all of which were spiralling out of control until the system was finally reformed by one William Jefferson Clinton.  But the evils of welfare is the subject for a whole different article altogether.

The point of the comparison was that the spending of the 60's was what caused the double digit inflation and unemployment of the 70's.  Now the difference between the spending then, and the spending now is that in 60's we were spending our own money.   We weren't borrowing it from the Chinese or anybody else.  Also, the social security trust fund was still intact and not a Ponzi scheme like it is now.  Add to that, the amount of spending then pales in comparison to the amount of spending now, even after you adjust for inflation, cost of living increases, etc.   If spending our own money caused us to lose a decade, what do you think spending borrowed money will do? 

%o put it in the form a model everyone can relate to, this would be the equivalent of attempting to save money by not paying your monthly bills with your salary, but rather by taking out a credit card for each such bill, paying the bill with the credit card, and making the minimum interst payment on each card every month.  In the beginning you would save money by making only those minimum payments instead of paying the full amount of the bill, but how long would it take for you to max out that card and have the minimum payment ballon to where it exceeded your regulary monthly bill payment?  Now imagine doing that for every bill you have each month.  Eventually the minimum payments would exceed your bills, your cards would be maxed out, and the bills would keep on coming.  No one in their right mind would do that, would they?

Well, you might think that, but in my 10 plus years working as a bankruptcy paralegal I saw exactly that same scenario over and over again.  This is exactly what our own government is doing as we speak.  If spending REAL money caused us to lose a decade, imagine what we're looking at with what's happening today? 

Every time I hear some politician or political pundit talking about today's economy being the worst since the Great Depression, I want to scream at my TV "What about the 70's you Moron?" Sometimes I even DO, because most the politicians and pundits ARE old enough to have some memories of that "lost" decade, even if they were too busy doing coke and having rampant casual sex in the local disco to remember ALL of it.    But for those of whose only reference to the 70's is the sitcom "That 70's Show," or the distortions of liberal historians, THIS 70's show is not going to be a sitcom and it's going to last a lot longer than half an hour.

Thanks in no small part to this admininistration's unrealistic attitudes towards the production of domestic energy, we're likely to see a repeat of another familiar icon from the 1969s. I remember very well the long lines at the local gas station or the sign "Sorry, Out of Gas" that appeared at the most inopportune of times.  Like it or not, gasoline is the life blood of this country and as long as alternative energy is not in our foreseeable fugure, we're going to have to provide the oil we need domestically which would help solve the unemployment problem to some extent, pr we're going to have to continue to transfer massive asmounts of our wealth to nations that do not have our best interests at heart.  We can no more stop using gasoline than we can stop using oxygen and if you think the French went wild over lack of bread, wait til you see Americans without affordable gasoline or other energy.   Exploiting the tragedy of the gulf  rig explosion  to artificially reduce the supply and increase the cost of energy to the average citizen is reprehensible at best. Likewise, closing down offshore oil rigs will only lose many more jobs, result in the rigs being dismantled and taken to a more user friendly location, and the oil that should be ours will be lost to the Chinese now drilling off the cuban coast in SHALLOW waters.  Where's the sense in any of THAT?

Unlike the REAL 70's which we got through in discos, snorting coke, and boffing our brains out with any partner that would stand still and let us, this generation is not going to have such pleasant diversions.   But, for the benefit of those that missed the original "lost decade", thanks to our failed war on drugs, the coke supply is still up to meeting the demand, and thanks to liberal social engineering in our schools, casusal sex is as plentiful today as it was then.  Finally, thanks to "Mama Mia" you can still hear ABBA on the radio, in FM stereo instead of AM mono this time. Who says you can't improve on an original?

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.

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.