It’s Un-American to Not Silent Rush

According to Marc Randazza, it’s apparently un-American to silence Rush Limbaugh because of our Freedom of Speech. Even though Randazza doesn’t like Rush either, he thinks if we silence one then we have the power to also silence Randazza. Well Randazza, are you planning on calling women “sluts” or saying slavery was good for America?

When the Bill of Rights was being drafted, obviously there was no radio or television or political talking heads, who nowadays get to say whatever they want whether it has or doesn’t have any truth to it. The closest colonial America had to that was Ben Franklin putting out a newspaper, but he didn’t even use his real name because it wasn’t about fame or making money. It was about critiquing the King openly and starting a conversation among his peers. What America also didn’t have was a large amount of privately-owned companies seeking places to advertise, to promote their philosophy and beliefs, or a company that owned many different mediums to spread the same message from Boston to Raleigh. 

So when they said Freedom of Speech, of course they meant for the common civilian to be able to voice their opinion and not live in fear that they’d be imprisoned or sentenced to death for what they thought. What it does not cover is how that citizen should be viewed, how advertisers should handle controversy or the desire to not have a citizen be publicly heard anymore. 
As a communications student (graduate this May) being able to speak on the radio, appear on TV or write for the newspaper is a privilege that comes with a lot of responsibility. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing entertainment, politics or the local news, it is one’s duty to serve the public without dehumanizing or denigrating the audience or subject. Rush has been viewed as the voice of Republican party since the 80s, with reported influence on politicians and their constituents. Because of this influence and time spent on the radio, he is and should be held to a higher standard. So when he does an incredible disservice to the public, it is only right that he faces consequences and understand the weight and value of his words. If we continue to let him say whatever he pleases, then are we protecting freedom of speech or freedom of hate.
Yes in essence we are asking Rush to be ‘silenced’ off the radio, but that does not mean we are violating his right to the First Amendment. He is allowed to say or think whatever he wants, as it’s also allowed for a (large) group of citizens to say “We don’t want our money we spend on your company to go to that guy.” The (large) group can also say they don’t want to hear Rush on any local or public radio programming. We are not exiling Rush to a foreign island or duct-taping his mouth shut, we’re just asking his microphone to be made smaller or gone completely. Whatever he wants to do with his free time and away from the mic, that’s fine with us.

Roland Martin makes an ass of himself, GLAAD joins in on the party

If you haven’t heard, GLAAD are vigorously demanding CNN fire Roland Martin’s over tweets he made during the Super Bowl. GLAAD’s biggest gripe is what Martin tweeted after viewing the new H&M commercial featuring sex icon David Beckham in nothing but underwear. “Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear!” Then adding, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”

Now at first glance, there is nothing obviously homophobic in the statement. He doesn’t say “I hate gay people for liking this commercial,” or “Gay people are stupid for liking Beckham.” Some people are more questioning his use of the words ‘bruh’ and ‘ish’.

And I’m sure Martin wasn’t the only one to utter this kind of opinion when Beckham’s fine sculpted body appeared on television. We’re talking about macho New York and Boston fans that are ok with football players slapping each other on the butt, but call it ‘gay’ when refs make a blown call.

But if you re-read the statements a couple times, the word ‘real’ starts to arrogantly shine above the rest. And then saying “[S]mack the ish out of him!” if a guy happens to like Beckham dressed in only underwear is starting to look questionable. What do you mean ‘real bruhs’ aren’t going to buy Beckham underwear?

So if a gay guy buys the briefs, or even a guy that just loves to shop at H&M, he is not a real man? And the best way to handle these types of men is to beat him senseless? And you’re on CNN?!? This is what people saw when they originally read these statements.

So there are some obvious problems with Martin’s tweets. Except when Twitter users begin calling him out on his slipups, Martin claims he’s just going after Beckham because he’s a soccer player. Really? Even if Martin has a disdain towards soccer (also known as Futbol), couldn’t he come up with something that attacks soccer and Beckham and not what makes men real or not? Plus Martin claims he’s been making cracks all day, even at a football player wearing a pink jumpsuit. That doesn’t help his argument.

GLAAD naturally had a problem with these statements, many people did. That’s not enough for GLAAD, they want CNN to fire Martin to make things right. While Martin went a little far with his tweets, GLAAD is going a little far in demanding Martin’s head.

Martin has apologized for his comments, which he should have done. But isn’t there a better way to promote awareness and being sensitive to other’s feeling? I’m not saying GLAAD should be appeased with a simple apology; they should make sure Martin understands what he did wrong. But constantly calling out people to be fired for making a stupid comment is not helping the situation.

It’s especially surprising GLAAD is demanding Martin to be let go a week after One Million Moms demanded Ellen DeGeneres to be dropped as spokesperson of JC Penney. Have we dropped civil discourse from our ways of dealing with situations?

3 notes

"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill our dreams."

President Obama’s Statement On The Anniversary Of “Roe Vs. Wade” - The Frisky (via thefrisky)

(via thefrisky)

18 notes

"Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush."

8 notes

"Yet to the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul, all because of his views on domestic spying, bailouts for banksters, and military intervention abroad, the fact that 90 percent of his political platform is right-wing boilerplate about slashing taxes on the rich, slashing programs for the poor and working class, breaking unions, drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere, and privatizing everything from retirement programs to health care doesn’t matter: the fact that he’ll ostensibly legalize drugs is enough. And this is so, even though he has merely said he would leave drug laws up to the states (which means 49 separate drug wars, everywhere except maybe Vermont, so ya know, congrats hippies!), and he would oppose spending public money on drug rehab or education, both of which you’d need more of if drugs were legalized, but why let little details like that bother you? Yessir, legal weed and an end to the TSA: enough to make some supposed leftists ignore everything else Ron Paul has ever said, and ignore the fundamental incompatibility of Ayn Randian thinking with anything remotely resembling a progressive or even humane worldview. And this is so, even though he wouldn’t actually have the authority to end the TSA as president, a slight glitch that is conveniently ignored by those who are desperate to once again be able to take large bottles of shaving gel onto airplanes in the name of “liberty.” I want those of you who are seriously singing Paul’s praises, while calling yourself progressive or left to ask what it signifies — not about Ron Paul, but about you — that you can look the rest of us in the eye, your political colleagues and allies, and say, in effect, “Well, he might be a little racist, but… How do you think that sounds to black people, without whom no remotely progressive candidate stands a chance of winning shit in this country at a national level? How does it sound to them — a group that has been more loyal to progressive and left politics than any group in this country — when you praise a man who opposes probably the single most important piece of legislation ever passed in this country, and whose position on the right of businesses to discriminate, places him on the side of the segregated lunchcounter owners? And how do you think they take it that you praise this man, or possibly even support him for president, all so as to teach the black guy currently in the office a lesson for failing to live up to your expectations? How do you think it sounds to them, right now, this week, as we prepare to mark the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, that you claim to be progressive, and yet you are praising or even encouraging support for a man who voted against that holiday, who opposes almost every aspect of King’s public policy agenda, and the crowning achievements of the movement he helped lead? My guess is that you don’t think about this at all. Because you don’t have to. One guess as to why not."

AZspot: Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals  

I think more right leaning independents are supporting Ron Paul with a few leftists mixed in there, but still a great article on why Progressive Liberals should not support Ron Paul.

38 notes

"When Sarah Palin said that Obamacare would involve “death panels,” it was called the lie of the year. But under Obamacare, there will be panels of people who decide what is covered and what is not under various plans, and as a result of their decisions, some people will die. That’s a fact. No, these panels aren’t called death panels. They just happen to be panels that will make decisions that will result in death. It is ridiculous to call Sarah Palin’s characterization a lie. Yes, her characterization is inflammatory. It’s divisive. Maybe it’s even unfair. But it’s not false. Don’t call it a lie.
Brisbane has the problem all wrong. The problem isn’t that journalists don’t pursue the truth. The problem is that journalists don’t understand what the truth is."

The Trunk: The Problem of Truth 

Don’t really see how “journalists don’t understand what the truth is” based on those arguments, which are more opinions of events rather than fact checking. Seems people don’t see truth as others do, or they stretch it thin to back up their belief. Either journalists are not doing enough work that people have to rely on social commentators to frame their views, or audience members don’t really care enough until it fits their agenda.

20 notes

Canada looking cooler these days.

Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the US airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish the anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non-partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper’s proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right-wing network, “Sun TV News” which Canadians call “Fox News North.”


Asian-American soldier was forced by comrades to crawl 100m on gravel while being pelted with rocks hours before he killed himself


The parents of a New York City Army private who committed suicide in Afghanistan have been told distressing new details of the racial bullying and mistreatment their son endured at the hands of his comrades.

(Source: yes-butno)

264 notes


A brotester at a brotest.


A brotester at a brotest.

342 notes


If you’re thinking of voting Republican because you’re pissed at Obama, remember the words of Stephen Colbert in the voting booth.


If you’re thinking of voting Republican because you’re pissed at Obama, remember the words of Stephen Colbert in the voting booth.

16,898 notes