|
DaddySatyr -> The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 8:30:00 AM)
|
Forbes Online
quote:
Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do the one thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.
Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.
Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.
“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”
Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?
Either Limbaugh serves a large demographic or he doesn’t, it’s pretty simple. As long as he doesn’t violate any laws I don’t see what argument there is to be made to remove him based on serving some imaginary definition of the public interest. It seems to me the public has spoken quite clearly about what it likes. A large portion of it still likes Rush, although fewer than before this flap began.
Then they argued that while Limbaugh is “is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions … he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.”
I just don’t understand this line of reasoning. Just at the very moment when the public has come alive to the fact that Limbaugh has long since crossed over the line of decency, when the system, in fact, is working, along come these three to say that “the people” need to remove Limbaugh via the FCC. Even as “the people” seem to be doing a pretty good job of it already.
No. That is the wrong way to do it. The “people” need to get rid of Limbaugh the old fashioned way, by not listening to his show. By offering strong counter-arguments to his diminished pulpit. By telling his sponsors they’ve had enough. By proving that the First Amendment still protects all speech, even Limbaugh’s, but that it cuts both ways.
As long as liberals argue that government should protect us from upsetting opinions they are never going to win, and shouldn’t. Begging the FCC to do what listeners have yet to do—get rid of Limbaugh—both looks and is weak.
I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh’s show. So I don’t listen to it. He hasn’t gotten one Nielsen rating from me, and his sponsors have missed me too. And in the past few weeks many more people who used to be on the fence about Limbaugh have come around to my point of view, it seems. If enough people argue back against his ill-informed spew, using facts, a real, meaningful change will have taken place in this country.
Liberals and Democrats either need to make their case better than Limbaugh does, or, just as effectively, sit back and watch as his hate machine continues to eat its own tail. Eventually, though, you run out of tail. And that’s when the fun really starts. In fact, you could say the past two weeks have offered a pretty great argument as to why Limbaugh and his kind don’t deserve your vote, by any definition of that word. So let them talk.
For those of you that don't remember ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gloria Steinem
on Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
She's a female impersonator. You know, someone who looks like us but thinks like them
No war on women there ... well, obviously, even women make war on the women that don't advance their femme-agogue agenda.
As for Robin Morgan, it would almost be fair to say that as editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine she is somewhat akin to the captain of a ship in that she's responsible for everything that eminates from the rag but, I will be fair and just give a quote that's attributed to her ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robin Morgan
I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
And then, of course, there's good ol' "Hanoi Jane" the treasonous palin that went to North Vietnam, a country with who we were at war and ...
quote:
Snopes
The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWs who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.
These are the "ladies" that have decided to put their name to a public attack on the 1st amendment wherein they ask the FCC to silence Rush Limbaugh.
Once again, Limbaugh was absolutely wrong for the words he used, a couple of weeks ago and I fully the support the people, doing what they feel is right by pressuring advertisers but the people launching this attack have proven themselves to be anti-(some)women and in one case, down-right un-American.
The hypocrisy and almost ironic failed memory of their own history is laughable.
What is not a laughing matter is that these "ladies" hold some sway in this country and could get some attention.
Forget Limbaugh. Forget Hanoi Jane. Forget Gloria. If you defend the right to free speech for some, you must defend the right to free speech for all or your words are empty and shallow and you place yourself next to people like the unholy trinity of Gloria, Robin, and Hanoi Jane.
I can certainly understand some agreeing with one or even two but, if you take a position with the third, I can only say this: "If you don't want to stand behind the fine men and women that defend our freedom - including your freedom to call them "war criminals" for doing their job - please feel free to stand in front of them while they're locked and loaded."
Peace and comfort,
Michael
|
|
|
|
