"What good is it, my brothers," James, the brother of Jesus asks in his letter, "if someone says he has faith but does not have works?"

    Hmmmm. So, Jesus calls Christians to "have works" in His name. Very well, but is any guidance given as to these works?

    Indeed it is. Only a few verses before his question, James advises that "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions…"

    That’s a tall order for me. I only know two widows, and both of them are well off as a result of their husbands’ prudent investments. And I’ve never visited an orphanage, though I have two adopted sons. Frankly, if I ever did make such a visit, I’m afraid I’d want to adopt every one of the kids!

    So how does a sincere Christian "visit widows and orphans"? Clearly, James was writing in a time when such ministrations literally meant life or death. Widows and orphans were not covered by any kind of social security system then. If they had been, Naomi would not have required a kinsman redeemer and Ruth would not have appeared in the lineage of our Lord Jesus.

    But "widows and orphans" still abound. We just have to look a bit afield for them. One place where such people exist in abundance, at least symbolically, is the jungles of Africa. For centuries, it has been the custom for women there to gather firewood and cook food over open fires while the men engage in other activities (sadly, much of which is sitting and watching the women work, but that’s another story). As time has gone by, the nearby forests for miles have been stripped of available firewood. This requires the women to walk dozens of miles each day in order to glean what wood they can find, only to walk the same long path back to their village with a few meager sticks balanced on their head. Cooking, tending to the children, and a few hours sleep before repeating the dreary routine for the next day’s cooking is the only life they know.

    The problem is exacerbated when the rainy season comes. Now the cooking fires must be made inside the mud-walled huts where the family lives. There is always a hole in the roof to allow some smoke to get out, but inevitably the hut becomes filled with choking clouds of dense smoke. The blackened walls inside the huts testify to the damaged lungs of the inhabitants. The statistics regarding instances of black lung disease, stunted growth, and susceptibility to disease from compromised cardiovascular systems among such people are truly horrifying.

    But now there is technology which virtually eliminates both of these problems. Solar ovens, which use the powerful rays of the sun for heat energy, allow an African woman to stay at home where she can cook, tend to her children, and add to the richness of her culture without having to invest many hours each day trekking off looking for firewood. Moreover, there is no smoke with solar ovens; hence no smoke damage.

    Solar ovens can be as simple as a black metal pot with a lid encased in a thick polyethylene bag to trap and magnify the sun’s rays or as complicated as a parabolic dish, much like a satellite TV receiver, which focuses the sun’s rays from 360 degrees down onto a black metal pot. The most cost-effective solar oven is a relatively simple stainless steel box with movable metal sides which can be positioned to provide maximum reflection of sunlight onto a black metal pot inside the box.

    Solar ovens are amazingly efficient. The best of them, operating on a sunny afternoon anywhere within thirty degrees of latitude north or south of the equator, can generate heat up to 285 degrees. That’s enough to bake bread, cook a stew, and thoroughly pasteurize milk and water—which is critical to eliminate the ever-present danger of worms, harmful bacteria, and hepatitis A viruses.

    So what does this have to do with widows and orphans? A group of Minneapolis-based Christians has founded the Solar Oven Society, an IRS-approved 501(3)(c) organization whose mission and ministry is to provide solar ovens to poor natives such as our African friends. The Solar Oven Society is dedicated to seeing that needy people in sun-rich, fuel-poor countries improve their health, nutrition, finances (through better use of time now available for small industry), and environment. The simple act of writing a check to the Society is a direct and highly effective means of "visiting widows and orphans in their affliction".

    Think what could happen if a corporation or institution adopted this exciting technology as a means of outreach to the peoples of Africa. Suddenly "hands across the sea" would be more than a line from a Paul McCartney song. Such a magnanimous gesture could literally transform a nation. Moreover, if the gift of solar ovens is delivered in the name of Jesus Christ, we could see many, many new African brothers and sisters in the kingdom of heaven with us for the joyous eons of eternity. What could be a better crown to lay at our King’s feet?

    Call the Solar Oven Society at 612-623-4700. Ask to speak to Lee. I did, and I greatly enjoyed the conversation. She’s been to Kenya with solar ovens and showed the native people the vast benefits of transforming their culinary habits using solar cooking. I encourage you, brothers and sisters, to join her in this fruitful ministry.

Next week: how to partner a thriving business in Afghanistan for $25.

Posted by Hale Meserow

April 10, 2007

    Many years ago, an economics professor whose class I took as an undergraduate admonished his students not to be "shouldists."  By that he meant one must strive to recognize reality, not what you think the world "should" be.

    Of course, there are caveats to this principle.  Had William Wilberforce not envisioned the end of slavery in the British Empire, or the world as it "should" be in a moral sense, slavery would not have been outlawed there in 1833.  If his vision had not borne fruit after decades of hard work in the face of devils and men, the subsequent rise of Darwinism, which excuses racial discrimination on the basis of perceived evolutionary superiority, might have ensured the existence of slavery for centuries.

    My economics professor was referring to the lens through which a person views the world.  Liberals and conservatives in today's political climate view the world very differently.  For example, a teen-aged male of color holds up a convenience store, shooting the proprietor and escaping with a few hundred dollars and a carton of cigarettes.  Conservatives view that as a criminal act and call for a trial, conviction, and years of prison.  Liberals are prone to excuse the perpetrator because he experienced a fatherless home, the rigors of a ghetto upbringing, dismissal from school after the ninth grade due to non-performance and the resulting negative effect upon his employment opportunities, and inbred racial prejudice in American society.

    Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., a forensic psychologist, offers a fascinating look into the worldview of a liberal in his new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."  I highly recommend it.

    In this wonderfully comprehensive book, Dr. Rossiter explains that liberals reveal their true character in what they hold to be valuable.  They live in a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, mistrust, and accusation.  The objects of their emotional swamp are those whom they view as true perpetrators: heartless conservatives, Big Oil, Big CEO's, capitalist greed (i.e. the pursuit of that loathsome word, "profit"), American imperialists, oppressors, the rich, the powerful, and Christian fundamentalists.  Those whose lives are negatively affected by this motley lot are workers, minorities, women, the little guy, the poor, the weak, the unemployed, the sick, the wronged, the cheated, the exploited, those discriminated against, the disenfranchised, those experiencing racial prejudice, and victims of every stripe.  Such people, in the liberal's view, are not to be held accountable for lashing out at the horrible injustice heaped upon them by a system which only exists to take advantage of them.  Instead, they are to be pitied, accommodated, spared, and given special privilege wherever possible.

    Concomitant with this worldview are the concepts the liberal mind does NOT hold as valuable.  These include the idea that the individual is not the ultimate economic, social, and political unit (Government, properly capitalized so as to inspire reverence, occupies this position).  The liberal mind does not respect individual liberty and a system of law and order which ensures it.  It views private property as merely transitory until Government needs it.  It views contracts as "evolving" depending upon the needs of the moment.  This mindset does not preach an ethic of self-reliance, industry, accomplishment, or accountability.  It does not value self-restraint, adherence to sexual abstinence until marriage and fidelity thereafter, or genuine altruism exemplified by charity.  Perhaps most egregious, it does not learn the lessons of history that teach that such thinking, such worship of collectivism and Government, has lead only to disaster wherever it was practiced.  

    The liberal mind holds that this life is all there is.  On occasion they may profess faith in a traditional Christian denomination, but such profession is always negated by their failure to practice or even honor the moral principles of the faith.  One or more may make a public display of adherence to a mystical spiritism such as The Universal Consciousness or Buddhism or Shinto, but they are invariably annoyed when asked to verify such faith with any measure of proof.  In so doing, they demonstrate that such adherence is a sham, and that their true god can be found in the mirror--right here, right now, not in some afterlife.  That is why liberals revere Government.  If this life is all there is, you line up with the forces which can offer you access to the best this world has to offer, and that means control over the lives, fortunes, and behavior of others for your own enrichment.  Proof positive of this is the number of very wealthy liberals in Congress.  They moan over the plight of the (see above list of victims), propose bills to enable Government to extract more taxes from the oppressor class in order to mollify said victims, and then jump in their chauffeured limousines for lobster in Boston.

    Dr. Rossiter holds, rightfully in my opinion, that such a mindset is not the result of sloppy fact-gathering.  On the contrary, liberals typically don't care to deal in facts.  Take the fact, for example, that in the American system of government U.S. attorneys serve exclusively at the pleasure of the President of the United States.  That's the law.  Combine this with the fact that one of Bill Clinton's first acts after assuming office in 1993 was to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys without cause.  He could...he was the President.  Yet when President Bush's Attorney General fires eight U.S. attorneys for non-performance, the liberal voices in Congress act as though he had committed the most awful act ever perpetrated in this nation.  Facts are irrelevant to liberals; they tend to get in the way of their opinions.

    On the contrary, says Dr. Rossiter, the liberal mindset is a form of psychopathology.  In ignoring basic common sense, logical sequences, normal reasoning, and cause-and-effect analysis, liberals display a mental illness.  So extravagant are the excesses of the liberal mind that they can only be diagnosed by trained psychologists--and rational conservatives--as a disorder of the psyche, as clinically disturbed personalities.

    Think about it.  What else but a mental illness could motivate someone to champion the murder of a baby in the womb at any stage of life?  What else could explain someone calling for Government to rescue a victim of oppressors by endorsing denial of personal responsibility, calls for pity, and sexual indulgence of every sort with people or animals of any age or gender?  What other mindset celebrates violence in pursuit of personal goals, dismissal of financial obligations, rudeness, profanity, pornography, complaining and blaming?  

     The liberal mental illness induces politicians to act as the hero in the life drama of ensuring everyone's material welfare, health care, self-esteem, destruction of prejudicial obstacles, and elimination of all class distinctions.  The mechanism by which they attempt to create these superhuman feats--which deny all actual differences that humans display (some are taller, smarter, stronger, etc.) are multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services, and social band-aids.

    Of course, the life drama in which the liberal politician stars in his/her own mind uses only Monopoly money.  Politicians don't create any wealth; they merely transfer wealth from those whom they consider oppressors to those whom they consider victims, thus ensuring the future votes of the victims and a lifetime role as star of the drama.

    Such a mindset is continually in pursuit of a Marxist utopia, where, as Jacques Barzun describes it, "everyone should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways."  That world does not exist in reality.  Non-shouldists realize that there is indeed strife, inequality, discrimination, and unfairness in life.  But we also know that there is opportunity.  Mentally deranged liberals and their happily sponsored victim-receivers will never comprehend that fundamental truth.  Hence the battle--and the need for conservatives to identify non-shouldists and vote, vote, vote for them.
    

1.      Since the earliest days of the fledgling American colonies, our nation has faced and overcome myriad dangers.  The specter of famine and disease nearly ended the infant colonial outposts before they were fully launched.  Indignant natives across the continent took rightful umbrage at being replaced and wreaked murderous havoc for decades.  Border disputes with Mexico and battles with Caribbean pirates along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts tested the young nation's ability to defend itself.  On two horrific occasions, America has been savagely attacked and destroyed, once by the Japanese in 1941 and once by Islamofascists in 2001.  Even now, we face imminent danger from Islam, a political ideology disguised as a religion which claims the indisputable right to requre submission and/or execution of all the world's people in order to achieve its goal of world domination.

    Irrespective of external threats, however, the most dangerous times we have faced in the last two centuries have arisen from internal dissention.  Most notable was the Civil War, where the question of the economic and social value of enslaved human beings caused a cataclysm which claimed over six hundred thousand lives and threatened to cleave the nation in two.

    Today we are confronted by the enemy within.  There is NO greater danger to this country.

    This enemy, though it had been brewing for decades, began to bloom midway through the last century.  On January 11, 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, serving in his fourth term as President of the United States, delivered his annual address to the American people as a "fireside chat" radio broadcast.  Liberal historians have labeled this speech the most important address of the twentieth century.  Others have termed it the beginning of the era of destruction of the American ideal.

    Roosevelt, secure in a virtually lifetime presidency, came out of the closet as it were and declared a new society based upon socialist tenets--although he certainly didn't identify it as such.  No longer was he content to lead the nation that had been created by the Founding Fathers and entrusted to his care.  No longer was he satisfied to respect America's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Calling the imminent victory of World War II a guarantee of "mere survival," Roosevelt boldly declared that a new and sacred obligation had been imposed upon the American people.  And what was that "sacred obligation"?  Roosevelt defined it as Security, capitalizing the word as though it was deserving of worship.  Declaring that America had moved beyond the days of formation and survival, he decreed that it was now high time to ensure Security for all Americans by guaranteeing economic, moral, and social protection.  

    By virtue of that speech, Roosevelt added Security to the defining American principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Moreover, he declared Security the king of all freedoms.  No longer were free speech, the right of free assembly, the right to worship freely, the right to a trial by jury (free if necessary), and the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure sufficient for the grand design of an enlightened America that he had in mind.   By his speech, Roosevelt became the opener of Pandora's Box.  He introduced the cancer of the administrative state, which necessarily presupposes the establishment and rampant growth of an entrenced intellectual, political, and bureaucratic elite who are sooooo much smarter than the rest of us, don't you know, and who arrogate never-ending power unto themselves to reign over the American people in order to provide Security.

    In so doing, Roosevelt had become more French than the French.  Their Revolution of 1789 resulted in the national ethic "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"--literally, a kind of "everybody's free, everybody's everybody's friend, and everybody's equal" mode of thinking.  It is not possible to be more socialist than that.  In creating their new non-monarchical society, the French failed to recognize the wisdom of America's Founding Fathers.  Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and others had put aside all idyllic pretensions of the human pshche and declared it for what it is: self-centered, self-motivated, empowered by God and not by government, and energetic in the pursuit of self-defined happiness.  With this clear understanding, they wisely perceived that no system of government will succeed as well as that which provides basic protection (i.e., real security) and then steps out of the way of all those self-motivated citizens.  

    In such an environment, people can eagerly go about furthering their personal goals and enriching themselves without fear of attack.  In such an environment, market forces arise and prevail which ensure price protection, energetic and often brilliant innovation, and abundant opportunity for improving one's lot in life.  In such an environment, man can truly be free, and security is a natural byproduct of his own hard work and production.  In such an environment, the rising economic tide heightens the national standard of living  in a way the rest of the world never dreamed and stands in awe to observe.

    But because some people are "more" than others in any society--more energetic, more motivated, harder working, smarter, and yes, more privileged--some boats in the rising economic tide have fared worse than others.  Some have sprung leaks and floundered.  Inequality will do that.  The Founding Fathers said, in effect, "Okay, boys, there's your new society.  Now you elect a government which will keep you safe but not bother you with burdensome and unneccessary rules, regulations, requirements, and high taxes.  Then go get it!"  Those who are unable or unwilling to go get it are necessarily dependent upon others to ensure that their boat stays afloat, even if it will never become a cruise ship.  In the fundamentally brilliant and insightful view of the Founding Fathers, those "others" are family, religious institutions, and charitable organizations, but definitely NOT government.

    This was not good enough for Roosevelt.  Rightly perceving that some are not as successul in the game of life as others and declaring that situation unacceptable, he declared the following new "rights":

    *  The right to a useful and remunerative job
    *  The right to earn sufficient income to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation
    *  The right of every farmer to grow and sell his produce at a profit
    *  The right of every businessman to trade in an atmosphere free from monopolies
    *  The right of every family to a decent home
    *  The right of everyone to satisfactory medical care
    *  The right to adequate protection from difficulty resulting from old age, illness, sickness, or unemployment   

•     *  The right to a good and free education.

    With these new liberties, Roosevelt was standing America on its head.  In effect, he was prescribing that the haves--those who achieve success--must guarantee the well-being of the have-nots.  The mechanisms for this new order are massive taxation, which transfers wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and a bureaucracy to coerce such transfers.

    President Ronald Reagan, who may well be regarded over time by objective historians as one of the five best American Presidents, attempted mightily to reverse Roosevelt's colossal mangling of the American ideal.  In his first inauguaral address, Reagan said "In this present crisis (of high and mounting taxation, massive inflation, crushing rates of interest, and inflation, all caused by inept government manhandling of the economy and obsessive bureaucratic interference with people's lives), government is not the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem."  The unelected elite spawned by Rooseveltian theology (a fair description; after all, liberals--who compromise most if not all bureaucrats--worship the government of man, not God) was severely undermining the ability of the American people to "go get it."

    The legacy of Roosevelt's grand plan of socialism for America lives on, manifested in the persons of liberal politicians, elitist academics, and entrenched bureaucrats who are like a parasite eating at its host, the American people.

Next week: the psychology of a liberal.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 26, 2007

 

     We Americans have a fun and somewhat therapeutic tradition of sending one another "happy" cards for the hard times.  If you’re hospitalized or laid up at home, you can reasonably expect several ‘get well’ cards.  If you suffer the loss of a family member, the sympathy cards pour in.  If you and a close friend haven’t connected in a while, you may receive a ‘missing you’ card.  And, of course, there's always the postcard from your workmate who's vacationing in Aruba and really doesn’t miss you at all.

    Reaching out and touching one another like this is a healthy, connective means of strengthening the bonds of society.  We lift each other up when dark days come and give each other an endorphin-laden belly laugh in the good times.

    One of the axiomatic requirements of a ‘lift you up’ card is mutual acknowledgement that the dark days are indeed here.  Something is missing; something bad has happened; there’s reason to be saddened.

    So why, then, does the abortion industry put such a smiley face on the act of murdering a fetus in the womb?

    Planned Parenthood is the major provider of abortions in the United States.  Founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, a nurse who advocated eugenics—the study and control of the gene pool in an effort to bring about the removal of "human weeds" (Sanger’s term) such as Negroes and the products of rampant "reckless breeding" and "dysgenic breeding" (again, her terms)—Planned Parenthood advocates for unlimited access to abortion up to the very instant of the birth of a fully-formed, healthy human being.  They’ve been very effective in the black community, thus advancing Margaret Sanger's dream: three out of five pregnancies of black women in America end in abortion.  At that rate, blacks are indulging in mindless self-elimination as a race.

    Planned Parenthood tells prospective abortion prospects—from whom Planned Parenthood grows demonstrably wealthy—that abortion solves problems without guilt.

    For example, Planned Parenthood’s website states emphatically that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.  But any objective scientist will be quick to back away from that statement, as there are significant studies which assert exactly the opposite.  The number of such studies is increasing each year.

    Planned Parenthood’s website assures abortion prospects who are concerned that their baby might find the act of having its limbs ripped from its body as it is sucked out of the womb somewhat painful that "We know for sure that the embryo or fetus cannot perceive pain in the nearly 99 percent of all abortions that occur before the 20^th week of pregnancy."  On the contrary, advances in the study of fetal development have clearly demonstrated that the fetus has all its organs, limbs, features, and systems fully in place by the 20^th week, and the last four months of pregnancy are days of growth. Thus the fully-formed nervous system of the fetus who is being dismembered screams with signals of agony to the quite functional brain.

    Planned Parenthood uses these outright falsehoods and distortions in its literature to create the assurance that abortion is a mere inconvenience, no more disturbing to mother and baby than a slight headache. One of its most egregious lies is the statement "Some people who oppose a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions claim that abortion often causes long-lasting emotional problems, or ‘post-abortion syndrome.’ There is no scientific proof for these claims."

    No proof? Consider the 1998 study by the Elliott Institute. They conducted a survey of 260 women—a considerable and quite valid universe in statistical terms—who had their abortion, on average, 10.6 years prior to the study. They were all volunteers who were seeking post-abortion counseling after suffering from significant (requiring counseling and/or therapy) post-abortion syndrome:

• 92% reported permanent "emotional deadening", a deliberate ploy to stifle their emotions rather than allow themselves to feel the guilt of what they had done
• 86% reported an increased tendency toward anger or rage, with 48% confessing a tendency toward violence when provoked to anger for any reason
• 86% reported a fear of others learning about their abortion
• 86% had a general sense of fear of the future or the unknown
• 82% had strong feelings of loneliness or isolation
• 75% had considerably diminished self-confidence
• 73% suffered from sexual dysfunction
• 58% suffered from post-abortion insomnia or nightmares involving a baby
• 57% reported significant difficulty in developing or maintaining relationships with both sexes
• 56% had considered suicide, with 28% actually attempting it
• 53% had begun or increased the use of drugs and/or alcohol post-abortion
• 39% experienced eating disorders post-abortion

The Elliott Institute does stipulate that the control group was composed of women who were in counseling due to their abortion and "may not be representative of the entire universe of women who have had abortions, of which very little is known."  The fact is, as pastors and psychologists across the country will attest, post-abortion syndrome is felt in varying degrees by millions of post-abortive women.

    But there is hope for these women and, by implication, the enormous number of other post-abortion women who suffer in silence with shattered lives.  Now an Oakland-based organization called "Exhale" is offering a series of electronic greeting cards which friends can send to a post-abortive woman.  It prescribes soothing messages such as "You did the right thing," and "As you grieve, remember you are loved."  The classic is "God will never leave you or forsake you."

    Why would a right created out of thin air by seven Supreme Court judges in 1973 cause such anguish—which Planned Parenthood vehemently denies—and the thought that the post-abortive woman would need sympathy?  Does expressing your right to free speech or to assemble with others cause depression?  How about your right to bear arms?  Or not to have to shelter soldiers?  Is there a significant possibility of feelings of fear, loneliness, diminished self-confidence, or increased anger among those who exercise their right to a trial by jury?  Do those who practice freedom of religion tend toward suicide?

    Abortion is murder. That’s reality. To deny it with glib phrases and electronic happy cards is the equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and gibbering "I can’t hear you!" when post-abortion syndrome rears its ugly head.  The British philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) said "The ultimate effect of shielding men (and women) from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."   Planned Parenthood is doing its best to induce pregnant women to make the foolish decision to murder their baby.

    Hallmark and its competitors in the greeting card industry should look into happy cards for post-abortion syndrome. More than thirty million women need them, some very desperately.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 19, 2007

     The essence of the Fairness Doctrine is that a radio or television station must offer equal airtime to any politician who feels he or she was maligned, misquoted, or mistreated to present a rebuttal.  This doctine, arguably the most blatant and egregious attempt at Big Brother socialism the left has ever fostered in this country, was killed by the Federal Communications Commission in August, 1987.  In its ruling (the Syracuse Peace Council decision), the FCC opined that there had developed by that time sufficient media outlets for any politician to fully vent.  Besides, they reasoned, there is this thing called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prevents government from telling the people what they can and cannot say.  (The first cousin to the Fairness Doctrine is McCain-Feingold, which disallows Americans their First Amendment right to express an opinion about a candidate where any reasonable number of people can hear it or read it within X days of an election.  We can always hope that Congress will kill this turkey sometime soon.)

    Recently, Hillary Clinton called for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.  Alertly recognizing that radio talk shows are overwhelmingly conservative and tend to base their offerings on facts, she reasons that they don't present her in what she feels is her best light.  Radio talk show hosts have an annoying habit of using facts to bolster their arguments.  Due to the advent of LexisNexis and other fact-checking devices, Hillary's tendency to say one thing to her current audience and often the opposite to the next group is routinely exposed.  Hillary doesn't care to be embarrassed that way and wants free airtime so she can spin the situation.

    In its simplest form, the Fairness Doctrine is like two men's clothing stores.  Let's say you and I open men's apparel shops across the street from one another.  In your store, you offer practical, sensible, attractive, and reasonably priced merchandise.  At first only a few customers come into your store, but they leave with merchandise and smiles.  Soon, as word gets around, droves and droves of customers come into your store and become believers in your product.  You become so swamped with business that you have to expand your store and then expand it fourfold again.  Within a short time, other entrepreneurs like you copy your formula and open successful stores of their own.  Soon they are expanding as well.

    By contrast, in my store, I offer only tie-died shirts, bell-bottom trousers, headbands, octagonal sunglasses, beads, incense, and other relics of the 60's.  Modernity means nothing to me; I am so taken with the ideas of the revolution that my store proudly reflects that era and will not vary its offering.

    Alas, only a few people come into my store.  Granted, they're as rabid as I am, but they don't pay the bills.  Day after day, I look longingly and with increasing bitterness at the hordes of people going into your store and coming out convinced of the value of your product.  It's not long before I realize that something has to change or I'm going to go broke.  So I invoke the Fairness Doctrine.  The Federal Clothing Store Commission orders you to abandon your store three days a week, first removing all the merchandise from the shelves.  This allows me to come in and set up my products on your shelves.

    But no new customers come into the store while I'm the proprietor.  My fellow lovers of peace, group hugs, and flower power socialism walk across the street and buy from me, but eventually reality prevails and I go under.

    That's what happened with Air America.  Seeing the pervasive and growing popularity of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham and others like them, liberals longed for a medium where their view of this nation could be heard.  With millions of dollars of backing from wealthy sympathizers, Air America was proudly launched.

    It was a bomb from the start.  Unlike conservative talk radio, which actually has listeners, Air America has never had the capability to pay its way.  Potential advertisers prefer stations where they have a chance to sell their products to more than a handful of listeners.  Finally, after six years of constant struggle, Air America allowed its sanity-challenged principal host, Al Franken, to "resign."  The network was recently sold to the Green Family, who promise to reorganize and make it successful.  I don't recommend holding your breath until it happens.

    Hillary Clinton, covetous of the enormous audience to whom conservative talk radio regularly broadcasts, now wants to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.  She wants a piece of Rush's show.  Evidently she doesn't think the Green Family is going to fix the ailing Air America.

    Maybe Bill could go on a few more speaking tours, or they could hock some of the furniture the Clintons stole from the White House.  Then he could buy Hillary her own radio station.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 14, 2007

     Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in distress at not receiving much of a favorable nod from talk radio, recently revived the specter of the Fairness Doctrine.  This concept was introduced and rapidly killed in the last century.  She was joined in this clamor by fellow liberals, to no one's surprise.  

    The essence of the Fairness Doctrine is equality in presenting points of view.  The idea is that if one political candidate is criticized on a media outlet such as television or radio, he or she must be given equal time to rebut with a personal defense.

    The problem with the doctrine, which was quickly discovered when the original act was implemented, is that the United States of America is not a socialist nation.  That is, the airwaves are "public" in the sense that no one owns them per se, but they are very private in that one must pay money--big money--to secure the exclusive right to broadcast on a particular bandwidth.  Neither you nor I could broadcast an alternate program on one of the major networks because they have a license to transmit solely their choice of programming.

    Thus, to demand of Rush Limbaugh's network that Al Franken be allowed equal time to do his unfunny rant-and-rave routine, which failed miserably on Air America despite being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars in donor contributions, one would cite the Fairness Doctrine as the casus belli.  (Note that that particular Latin term is deliciously appropriate: it means the rationale for going to war.)  

    But the Doctrine quickly ran into the problem of ownership.  Having nothing of substance to say, liberals are rather boring.  Once one sees past their accusations and spins, a process which requires up to five minutes for the most dull-witted of us, they are worthless in terms of entertainment or interest value.  Radio and TV stations make their money from renting air time to advertisers, who pay the high fees to pitch their products and services in anticipation that there is someone out there listening.  If your main content is a drag, your ratings go in the tank and advertisers go where the eyes and ears are.  Hence the merciful death of Air America after years of useless drivel.  It was a total, utter, and dreadfully embarrassing failure for liberals because they have nothing whatsoever to say that anyone other than a moveon.org mouth-foamer would want to hear.

    But Hillary says that's not fair.  After all, she alleges, talk radio is almost entirely conservative.  Therefore, radio listeners are presented with a daily barrage of conservative points of view and there is no surviving liberal counterpart.  

    This is somewhat mysterious.  After all, Hillary is reasonably bright.  She managed to survive the Bill years with a reputation that enabled her to buy a New York senate seat.  Does she not understand that no one wants to hear liberals on the radio because there is nothing to hear?  That listeners tune in to talk radio--voluntarily, with no one holding a shotgun to their head--because conservative points of view are preceived to be factual, sensible, and reasonable?   That they are actually interesting?

    Perhaps Hillary isn't so bright after all.  She seems to think America is rather stupid not to see through her nonsense.  But then, liberals are by definition afflicted by the mental disorder of trying to live in the world of their imaginations and earnest emotional desires rather than reality.  More likely than not, she is sincere and just living up to her job description.

    Next week: why the Fairness Doctrine is like a men's clothing store.

Posted by Hale Meserow, March 12, 2007