Keeping The Airwaves Fair

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." ~ Albert Einstein

Every now and then some Democrat starts pushing the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine" again. Recently it was San Fran Nancy "Stretch" (Bela)Pelosi.

For the uninitiated (is there really anybody more uninitiated than me?), the Fairness Doctrine presumably would force radio and television outlets to present equal time to all sides of every issue. Political, social, religious, and any other category.

Democrats insist we must level the playing field, but why must we level it by lowering the more productive to the level of the less productive? Why can't we try to level it by elevating the less fortunate?

To take the idea to extremes, the Fairness Doctrine would, presumably, insure that Saturday morning gardening radio shows offer equal time opinions on why planting vegetables is more important than planting flowers, and vice versa.

But that isn't really what Democrats have in mind. They want to silence free speech. Not all free speech, of course. Only the free speech with which they disagree.

No, wait.

That isn't completely true. I find it highly unlikely that they really disagree with many Conservative ideologies.

It's probably more accurate to say they only want to silence free speech that might cause their Liberal constituencies to think.

After all, it is to the Liberal Democrat politicians advantage to make sure their constituency doesn't think. Thinking is a political liability to Democrats.

Within minutes after a Liberal Democrat begins logically thinking on his own, he becomes a Conservative.

I would say he becomes a Republican, but John McCain disproves that theory.

The point isn't whether Democrats personally disagree with things like the myth of man-made Global Warming, or that Homosexual marriage is in direct juxtaposition with the original concept of a one man, one woman marriage, etc.

It's about political expediency. And about money. If a Democrat can see a monetary or political advantage in an ideology, it doesn't matter whether they personally agree with the concept.

So, the idea is to prevent people from thinking logically. Hence, the "Fairness Doctrine".

The "fair" part of the "Fairness Doctrine" means, according to the Democrats, that all opinions on any given political subject should be presented within an equal amount of time with every other opinion. Thus, a Liberal viewpoint would get equal time with a Libertarian viewpoint, and a Conservative viewpoint, and a Green viewpoint, and a Judeo/Christian viewpoint, and a Satanic Viewpoint, and a Nazi viewpoint, and a Communist viewpoint, etc, etc, etc.

Which, admittedly, seems to be -- uh ---fair.

But what of the radio and television executives? How fair is that to them? They are in the business of making money. Everyone works to make money. Even Liberals, in spite of their insistence that they only do what they do to make the world better. They wouldn't be community activists or politicians if it didn't make them money.

Some of us work to get rich. Some of us work simply to make a living. But both wealth and merely getting by requires money.

My point is this:

If the fairness doctrine is implemented in the way Democrats say they want it to be implemented, it would severely decrease the numbers of listeners/viewers, and without listeners, their advertisers stop buying airtime to promote their products, and the radio/TV networks would lose so much money they would be forced to shut down.

So, I suppose the Democrats would eventually get what they really want. The end of Conservative talk radio and TV. But many Radio and Television personnel would be out of work.

Now, wait a minute, Liberals. Try to think logically about this assertion. For once.

Lets say, for example, Rush Limbaugh wants to present his opinion on Gas Prices. He has a certain amount of time to present his opinion, and then he must move over to let a Liberal (Al Franken perhaps?)talk show host present his side. The Liberal has the equal amount of time to present his side, but then, he also has to move over so the Conspiracy theorist can present his side, and so on.

Now. Rush Limbaugh has high ratings for his rant. Then, the ratings drop precipitously. Liberals don't get the ratings to sustain an entire network of Liberal talk shows, let alone short segments when any liberals in the audience have to sit through an hour of common sense talk by Rush Limbaugh first. The ratings for the Liberal host are dismal at best, and ratings for other crackpot rantings even worse.

Aside: I would tend to listen to a conspiracy theorist before I'd listen to a Liberal, and I suspect, so would just about everyone else. I suspect the conspiracy theorist would garner even better ratings than the Liberal.

Many Democrats have questioned why Conservatives have better ratings then their Liberal counterparts.

Their reasoning is that Conservatives have monopolized the market, hence, the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation.

This theory defies logic, which should be pointed out, is why it is such a popular theory among lemming mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.

Here is the real reason Liberals don't listen to Liberal talk radio:

They don't listen because they prefer to listen to music and/or comedy programs. Particularly music and comedy that bashes Conservatives. They do not want to listen to talk radio. Talk radio of any kind prompts the listener to think.

Liberals don't like to think. Logic interferes with their need to feel.

While feelings and logic are not necessarily mutually exclusive to each other, the Liberals need to base their political ideology on emotion usually cancels out logic.

Conservative talk radio invites the listener to think logically and even disagree with the hosts conclusions on occasion. Liberal talk radio invites the listener to agree with everything the hosts say, whether it is logical or not.

But, either way, if a listener listens long enough to either, whether said listener is a Conservative or Liberal, the listener begins to think for himself.

Then, the Liberal begins to see and understand the fallacy of the typical Liberal ideology.

And when that happens, Liberal talk radio becomes irrelevant to the thinking listener. Hence, Liberal talk radio loses listeners to Conservative talk radio.

Conservative talk radio is already fair.

It gives the listeners what they want. It enables the listeners to stay Conservative and the Liberals to continue listening to George Carlin and Marilyn Manson.

What is more fair than allowing the listener to make their own choice?