Free to Say Stupid Stuff, Not Free of Consequences

I've long been an advocate of free speech. Being in communications and having a passion for it in all forms, it seems like the cornerstone of a free, thriving society is the ability to say what's on your mind. It's a great thing. And I support even idiots speaking their minds. But what I also support is people saying stupid stuff and then having to deal with the consequences. You have the freedom to say anything. That freedom does not extend to being free of those consequences.

So watching sponsors and people vote with their dollars (the most powerful of all votes) and saying that calling women on birth control prostitutes and sluts, or even criticizing the character --not the content--of someone whose an outspoken advocate for an issue, is not acceptable.

I was watching as the list grew longer, but I have to say that I was proud when the American Heart Association was added. Not that the AHA was paying for ads on Rush Limbaugh. To be clear as a former employee, I can tell you that the American Heart Association does not, as a rule, buy ad time. There's a tiny budget used years ago for a larger campaign, but unless something changed dramatically, they were never buying ads. They are also very conscious about remaining party neutral, so again, having ads on a politically charged show is not like them.

However, when Rush Limbaugh offered free ads on his show, they declined. And in that declination gained my support even more so. It had to be hard to decline free advertising to a show with millions of listeners. But to even have an implication of misogyny for an organization that has a whole campaign around women's heart health (Go Red For Women).

Hat's off to the AHA yet again for making the right move. And hat's off to Saturday Night Live for actually making me the thing that made me aware of that. LOL.

Is the Pope Catholic? And does he hate women? Same answer to both.

I can't assume that the pope hates women, but I have really been struggling with this whole birth control debate. Growing up Catholic, I know that they have to remain hardcore about their beliefs (they being the clergy), but I would think that that would also include the belief of protecting children and telling the truth--and we know how those have turned out lately.

So the Catholics (which technically I was confirmed into, but I consider myself non-practicing) are against being made to offer birth control to their employees. They don't, however, have a problem offering Viagra. And this is what absolutely kills me. Erectile dysfunction is what people consider a "medical ailment," so it is covered by insurance now. Can someone point out one case of erectile dysfunction that has caused death? And I mean direct death, not some angry repressed middle-aged man who beat the hooker who made fun of him.

Birth control pills have been shown to prevent not only babies but also ovarian cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, not to mention cysts and painful periods. Being on the pill does not make you more promiscuous. It makes you responsible and isn't personal responsibility something we all strive for?

Aside from the larger debate, it just pissed me off that the people make this decision are men. Men who would't let women testify at the congressional hearing (how is okay that NO women were allowed to give testimony--I find it impossible believe that NO WOMEN were qualified to talk about birth control-- REALLY?!?!?)  and when they were given the chance to testify, one big loudmouth calls her a slut and a prostitute. Just so I'm not accused of taking things out of context, here's the whole quote:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."--Rush Limbaugh on his show, February 29, 2012.

I wonder if Rush thinks it's okay for us to pay for his Viagra or if he pays for that full price. What about all those painkillers he's addicted to?

At least I can say that the bill still stands. So suck it.

Rush, both a name and a feeling

I'm tired of Rush Limbaugh. Sick of him and his big bloated carcass. Sick of having the bile come up from my stomach and reach the back of my tongue every time I hear his voice.

Look, Rush is in it for the money. If he actually believed a lot of what he was spewing, he would be married to his first (not third) wife, and would have the discipline of a monk. Instead he's failed at marriage, failed at sobriety and taking it out on others.

Everyone has a right to say what they want. That's what's so great about this country. But what sucks is that we falsely believe that the loudest voice wins. Rush is trying to be the loudest voice. Would he have ever called for a debate with George W. Bush when he was president? Hell, no. Even though Republicans (and notice that I didn't say conservatives) hated a lot of Bush's policies (especially when it came to fiscal responsibility) too.

Is it the Republican's new strategy to send a big blowhard to throw stones and then look like they're not so bad comparatively? I'm not getting it. Neither are Americans.

One party, one decision, one bill, did not get us into this mess. One party, one decision, one bill is not going to get us out of it.