Why Rush Limbaugh Must Not be Censored

It's a scary time to be in the media. Any offhand remark can offend someone and complications result, and today it's easier than it's ever been to file a complaint. You don't even need to pick up the phone anymore. Just fire off an email in the right direction and voice your displeasure. But protests are curious things. Sometimes audiences and advertisers are lost, along with the income. Sometimes a protest will inspire a counter-protest and others are brought on board.

Rush Limbaugh's most recent attack on a woman has come under fire and initiated a microscopic looks at critical remarks made toward women. The aftermath of his false, intentionally misleading and inappropriate comments about Sandra Fluke who testified about how a friend of hers lost an ovary due to inability to avail herself of hormonal therapies. After being cycled through the Limbaugh Mangle-Bot, he claimed that she had so much sex she could not afford birth control, and that if she wanted to reimbursed for this birth control she was a slut and prostitute and would be obligated to provide an uplink to video of her having sex to compensate him.

The uproar over Limbaugh's hyperbole and slander caused many to engage in a campaign to express their outrage, with the result that he lost over 150 advertisers from his syndicated radio program. Several minutes of dead air were filled with PSA's.

It's difficult to feel badly for Limbaugh. For more than 20 years he's been making a fortune by uttering this exact kid of thing, and in fact, he is responsible for the word “feminazi,” which seems to mean a woman who isn't conservative having an opinion about something. His target audience eats it up and have rewarded him handsomely for talking smack about everything they hate. Basically, I abhor him and everything he stands for, but I believe it is essential that he continue to speak as he does and that he not be forced air because of his knowingly outrageous and incendiary comments.

On the contrary, Limbaugh's kind of hate speech needs to be brought into the open as much as possible for the very reason that we need to examine these statements and evaluate and accept or reject them on their own merits. It simply is not enough to accept at face value what we are told and by going to the source rather than relying on intermediaries. Weeks after Limbaugh's slanders, people who listen to him are still regurgitating his statements as though they were Gospel and had not been thoroughly refuted.

These days there are so many diversions and distractions circulating in the media that it can be difficult to know what is accurate and what is not. A plethora of information can be just as bad as a dearth; perhaps even more frustrating having too much to sift through than not enough. A skilled navigator on the sea of information is always a help.

Presidential Candidates and Pre-Existing Conditions

I've been thinking lately about the candidates and pre-existing conditions that they and their family members may have. Do Americans as employers want to be forced, possibly against our will and\or belief system, to provide medical care for a disabled daughter, or a wife with a chronic condition?

Purely a business decision, of course -- I'm sure they'll understand.

More Meaningful Pre-pregnancy Information

I don't understand the priorities of Republican politicians. They want to dictate when, how and with whom people have sex, they want to limit access to birth control, they want to stand up for religious freedom and free speech for corporations but not people.

And now they want to insist that abortion providers require women to view ultrasounds and hear detailed descriptions of that which they are about to abort – all in the name of her “right to know.” What about a woman's right not to know? Why is this information being mandated prior to terminating pregnancy, but all manner of abusive, neglectful and chemically dependent people are free to spawn at will and become parents? Not so much as a learner's permit is required.

I'm all for any patient having access to information, and that includes pluses AND minuses (it does not include being forced to listen to condescending or superfluous information). If you're going to force a woman to hear a detailed description of the fetus, doesn't equal time require that you also tell her what it's like to raise teenagers?

American Faith Party

The Huffington Post recent ran this article on the American Faith Party.

"Its leaders and adherents deny their goal is theocracy and say they only want religious freedoms protected"

I have to disagree; they only want THEIR religious freedoms protected, and they fail to see that the only way to protect ANY religious freedom is to protect ALL religious freedoms. This would mean giving atheist, agnostic and non-Christian candidates equal gravitas to that which has been enjoyed by Christians for more than 200 years.

I don't mind a "faith-based" party at all, in fact, I think it's a good thing. The two major parties certainly don't represent a majority of either side anymore -- the fringes on either side are too far apart and the moderates aren't different enough to see why one should choose a certain party over another. At least a party that wears its faith on its sleeve will have a certain degree of transparency.

However, what mechanism will be in place to make sure that separation of church and state is maintained and abuses avoided? Churches want to play in politics and influence their congregations and in order for that to continue, their tax-exempt status MUST be revoked.