Okay... Let's Be Fair."

In the late 1960s and early 70's the war in Viet Nam was raging. This conflict at its outset was received by the American public with little opposition, willing to initially believe that our government was correct in its assumption that without a forceful presence of our military in southeast Asia , the end result would be an unrelenting tide of communism would remain unchecked to engulf that part of the world. Such a perceived consequence was regarded as an unwelcomed shift in the balance of powers, which would eventually threaten all of the remaining democratically ruled nations in that region. The voices of disagreement were initially few, often quelled by hawkish slogans such as, "My country! Love it or leave it!" Vocal dissent against the war was decidedly squelched with angry threats and accusations towards those who would speak otherwise as being treasonous and unpatriotic.

The initial introduction of a few "military advisers" evolved over the coming months into the insertion of battalions of this country's military fighting forces until the bulk of the ensuing bloody combat was being waged by American troops. The tide of public opinion began to steadily swell into a chorus of dissent, as the casualty and death reports filled the nightly news reports. Leading the challenge to American remaining in this increasingly unpopular war were the college and university students who weathered the bullets of Kent State, who burned in protest their draft cards, and who shouted for all the world to hear, "Hell No! We won't go!" What once had been considered the "right thing to do," turned into an overwhelming clamoring for America to get out of Viet Nam.

If the Viet Nam era teaches us anything, it should impart the lesson that public opinion is at best fickled. Introduce the subjects of politics or religion into any conversation and the varying opinions from the mildly held to the infuriatingly upheld pour torridly forth like a snow melt mountain river in spring time. This present perilous time in America is no different than in the decades of the 60s and 70s. A new president has moved into the White House and with him he has installed in the executive wing a new assembly of cabinet and lesser government officials who have begun to chart a "new direction" for this country to pursue. What once was embraced by the majority of Americans, prior to January 20, was the anticipated dawning of a new day of hope. What has dawned instead in its wake is still another day followed by yet another day of trepidation, fear, anxiety, and an increasingly uneasy sense of foreboding and loss of hope. This country is floundering in despair and the opinions regarding our appointed leadership's ability to right our nation's ship are becoming increasingly boisterous and, perhaps, eventually unruly.

Of late some of the more vocal individuals within the ruling majority party, who are hearing the crescendo wrath of their constituency, are suggesting that some means of control should be instituted, which would guarantee that those who so vociferously oppose the present administration's policies and Congressional dictates could no longer dominate the nation's public airwaves. Generally known as the "Fairness Doctrine," such a reinstitution of this policy would require radio and television stations licenced by the Federal Communications Commission to utilize the free and public airwaves would have to, by statute, provide programing and give "voice" to those individuals who hold contrary opinion.

Examples... All radio stations that air Rush Limbaugh's daily conservative talk show would be required to provide equal time for programing that was decidedly moderate if not liberal in its content. A religious radio or television station that is, by their avowed faith, voicing opposition to abortion or with the homosexual lifestyle, would in turn be required to air equal time to opposing view points on those two topics. On first blush that would appear to be "only fair." However, let's be realistic in analyzing that assumption. In the first example, it is the revenues generated by the sale of advertising spots immersed in the individual station's programming that affords the stations to remain on the air and to anticipate, rightly, a reasonable profit for doing so. Programs which do not generate sufficient revenue are deemed unprofitable and are soon jettisoned from their respective formats. Forcing the radio and television stations to air programing that the free market doesn't want, will not listen to or watch, and thus attracts no advertisers to underwrite, is a formula for a rapidly diminishing audience and revenue base that eventually could lead to a loss of those stations all together. Non-profit and specialized media outlets, such as religiously formatted stations, rely on the continuous generosity of their listeners and viewership to underwrite their programing. Forcing such entities to air programing contrary to their core beliefs would not only erode, devastatingly so, their support constituency, but would force the ownership to refuse to adhere to the fairness dictates, thus electing to cease further operation rather than bow down to Cesar's decree.

President Harry Truman said it best, "If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen." For those individuals in positions of national leadership who believe that their toes are being unduly stepped upon and thus require a more level playing field on which to be judged, let me suggest that you band together and purchase your own radio and television stations that will air nothing but your favored opinions. Then, by all means, go out into the marketplace and secure as many willing advertisers that will subscribe to your selected format and then see if they will hang in there with you for the long haul. If they do, then you now finally understand how the free market and the marketplace of ideas truly functions in this country...not by writ, but by choice.

So, in deference to the underlying attack on free speech in this country and in anticipation of some form of Fairness Doctrine eventually coming to bear, let me personally attempt to be unbiased in expressing my personal opinions about the current leadership of our country.

Opinion Number One: The people currently in charge of our Federal government are complete idiotic incompetents.

Opinion Number Two: The people currently in charge of our Federal government are without a doubt bumbling fools!

There...that seems fair. Now, is everyone happy? Let's all join in and sing a chorus of Cum Bye Yaw.