...thinks about when he hears a nationally syndicated and adored talk radio show host say this?
Saving the United States of America means Obama has to be stopped. Rahm Emanuel has to be stopped. David Axelrod has to be stopped. Mayor Daley in Chicago has to be stopped because that's who's running the show. They have to be stopped.How, exactly, does Rush Limbaugh expect his listening audience to "stop" these politicians and civil servants? The next presidential election isn't until 2012. I suppose Limbaugh could be urging his audience to write emails or publicly protest through "tea parties" and the like. But, really, does he sincerely believe that this would "stop" Obama or his advisers from implementing their plan for rehabilitating the U.S. economy after 8 years of abuse? I don't think so.
So one has to wonder what exactly Rush expects from his incitements and calls to action to stop President Obama.
Unfortunately, the United States is chock full of Jim Adkissons who hear one message and one message only. When it's coming out of their car radio at 2 in the afternoon, they figure everyone else must hear it, too. All of a sudden, thanks to Rush and those like him, what they've been thinking about for the last year doesn't seem so aberrant anymore.
And we all well know how this story can end.
.
9 comments:
Remember, the same men who created the First Amendment also created and perpetuated slavery. Our cultural biases lead us to the false conclusion that "free speech" is an absolute good. But just as we evolved out of slavery, we must also evolve from the tyranny of an uncontrolled media.
Obama clearly recognizes this, as evidenced by his recent ABC health care special. I was happy to see that the White House and ABC worked together to keep obstructionist republicans from participating in the debate. Clearly, Obama "gets it" and sees the value in government regulation of speech.
Rick, clearly you "get it" too. Its time we realize that our experiment in "free speech" has failed. Global warming should be an analogous lessen to us: hot air kills.
For our species to evolve, we must recognize that addressing an audience ought to be a privilege, not a right. If the message conveyed does not advance the causes and ideals that society has collectively determined to be good, then the message, by definition, is dangerous.
Obama can and should be at the forefront of content regulation by government of mass media outlets. As you recognize, Rick, messages that undermine Obama's vision of Change and Hope (i.e. Yes we Can!) are dangerous and lead to bloodshed. They are a clear and imminent threat to progress.
Government supervision of media outlets is common throughout the world. In fact, our unregulated media is one of the reasons the world views us as arrogant. Its time we humbled ourselves and began conforming our behavior to the rest of the world's standards.
As you may know, Great Britain has already taken the lead and banned controversial American radio hosts from its shores. What are we waiting for?
Rhamblow: As clever and well stated as it is wrong. Excellent piece of satire.
The point, of course, when it comes to free expression, is that neither extreme is desirable, and that the solution is not only in the balance, but in flux. True, there's no absolute right to free speech. Also true, censorship is intolerable.
Then there's this: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-24-2009/0005050063&EDATE=
Unfortunately, there need to be limits. Finding where the line is drawn is the ongoing challenge. As a civil libertarian, I want them (limits) to be minimal, always. At the same time, I see value in disallowing radio hosts from encouraging listeners to slaughter (e.g.) public figures, ethnic groups, and gay people.
Meanwhile, Eat the Rich.
I've heard the same kind of speech not just from Limbaugh, but from Fox New's Sean Hannity to South Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman.
It's as if they want to create the conditions for unrest.
I'm sorry, R. (btw, you are the pseudonym Master!), but you apparently got us mixed up with your pals from Free Republic. You know, the Torture-Is-Patriotic, Barack-The-Magic-Negro crowd, who actually would give your inane punditry serious consideration.
Squathole, I have to disagree with you: this wingnut's game was lamer than lame. My opinion of you thusly comes down one rung.
.
Rick: The analogy with global warming and "hot air kills" was first-rate. No idea who (s)he is, altho you might.
Did you follow that link to talk-show host Turner, arrested for threatening federal judges? I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. I didn't even hear Michael Sewage address it.
Sorry Rick your answer to R is lame.
Rhamblow keep it up! Loves it.
Threatening the president is a felony (but then again so was Limbaugh's drug use and nothing ever came of that either)...
Anon: Did I answer him?
Oops. My bad. I didn't mean to.
.
I'm with Rick here.
Does it matter at all to the new-found Iran armchair freedom-fighters, who derided Mousavi as a false choice and actually hoped he would lose, that the dreaded BBC -- almost as bad as Dan Rather to these types -- is the main source of media consternation to the Iran regime?
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.