I was 14 years old when I got my first lesson in the bigotted ideals that guided my so called "liberal" family. My brother was learning to drive, and my dad had purchased his first car for him. He was talking with my brother about driving, and contemptuously referring to the "rich bitches" who drove fancier cars to the school.

And it didn't end there. My father never had a kind word for anyone who was successful. They were all liars, cheats, and dishonest in his eyes.

Small wonder, then, that in my young adult years I held the same views. I started out as a part time thug, because rich people were crooks, and they deserved me cleaning the money out of the purse they left on the bureau when they skipped out to a friend's house without locking the door. They deserved to have the money I stole from their cars pilfered or their homes vandalized. They were the crooks, not me, and I was just setting things right.

In my experience with liberals, I have to say that, to a person, every AMERICAN liberal I have known fits that very description (I'll let you liberal foreigners off the hook. In my interactions with you I am deciding there is a marked difference between a "liberal" in Australia or Canada than the US flavor). And a look around the Internet, at left wing sites, or a listen to liberal pundits like Michael Moore or Al Franken would seem to reinforce that admitted stereotype.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but so far the evidence to controvert my theory seems rather weak, as the entire ideological base of the liberal movement (once again, I am speaking of America here) seems predicated on the idea that wealth is gained unjustly and that government redistribution of wealth is the only way to remedy that injustice.

Somewhere lost in the shuffle of political debates is that area called rational thought. An area that respects the free market, but is dedicated to finding ways to make society better and stronger. That sees itself not as the champion of justice but as an arbiter of fair practices. And I'm hoping desperately to find that area.

Is it irrational to assume that there actually ARE people who believe we have a responsibility to help ensure that the poor have adequate access to health care, transportation, food, shelter and employment, but that we should find ways to do so in the private sector because the government is inefficient and top heavy? Is it irrational to assume that there are people who believe we can make social change not through legislation, but through education and a positive, proactive approach? Or am I just whizzing in the wind here?

I hope I'm wrong in my assessment that liberals hate success. I really do. But so far, all I have seen from the left is an utter contempt for success. And until I'm proven wrong, that's the stereotype that will guide my view.