Excellence (and Hypocrisy) in Broadcasting

I must be a glutton for punishment, because I actually listened to a little bit of Rush Limbaugh yesterday on my way to work. In addition to something about how chocolate doughnuts help him regain his voice when he has a cold, and how the NAACP is giving out crack for votes, Rush replied to some caller asking about how the country could become more unified. Rush's answer was that the country didn't need to be unified, and how it was "the Left" that kept talking about unity. Who is it who's constantly saying that nobody should criticize the President, though? I don't have any hard numbers on the matter, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it isn't the Democrats. And wasn't it this same President who was applauded for saying he was "a uniter, not a divider" (in stark contrast to his supposed hero, if we're to believe Matthew 10:34-36), and was applauded for it by his supporters? I don't know for sure that Rush ever conveyed those opinions, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that he did. But I shouldn't be surprised. This is coming from the type of people who accuse "the Left" of supporting panaceas (in a Xerox shop or otherwise), when Bush is proposing community college and tort reform as magical cures. Then we have Bush saying that Kerry is using "scare tactics," when he and Cheney are going around telling people that electing Kerry will make a terrorist attack on the United States more likely. And do you ever get the impression that the homophobes who are always yakking about the "gay agenda" are the ones who ACTUALLY have the agenda? Now, I don't want to stereotype all conservatives, or imply that people like Dubya and Rush speak for all of them (although it might not be entirely unfair to stereotype Limbaugh's fans, since calling yourself a "dittohead" suggests that you don't WANT to be seen as an individual), but certain parts of "the Right" seem to have more than their fair share of pots who call kettles black. I also don't know that ALL Democrats and Leftists are all that liberal, but I do get the general impression that "the Left" is more willing to tolerate dissent and recognize that there aren't always easy answers than "the Right," where the prevailing opinion at least appears to be that they're right, and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

I also got a Gmail account yesterday. I've heard about the security concerns with Gmail, but just having the account can't hurt anything, can it? I might end up using it as a backup e-mail system, at least for messages that aren't of a particularly private nature.

Balancing Act

I got this link from countblastula. A planned speech by author Terry Tempest Williams at Florida Gulf Coast University was cancelled by the school's Republican president because it only presented one side of an issue. I don't know anything about Williams, but come on, this is ridiculous! I found the suggestion that they add another speaker to the event to be particularly dumb. If a speaker is going to come out against racism, is a Klansman going to be called in to balance things out? Will a speaker from the zoo or a wildlife commission have to be accompanied by a poacher? Will an artist be "balanced" with someone who thinks art is unnecessary? What about a feminist being paired with a chauvinist who thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen? I think you get where I'm going with this. Even putting aside what strikes me as obvious party politics, I hate that the modern definition of "balance" seems to be "two people with diametrically opposed views yelling at each other." Never mind that this sometimes comes down to one person presenting facts while the other just makes stuff up, and that a lot of issues can't be reduced to a mere two viewpoints. But this particular situation doesn't strike me as anything that would have been at all controversial if the president hadn't made it into one.

By the way, Bush is on the TV, repeating the same lies to the people in Minnesota that he's been peddling for some time. Increasing the taxes on the top 2% won't be enough to pay for new federal spending? Well, that depends on how much they're increased, doesn't it? Most small business owners are in the top 2%? I don't think so. Other countries' national health care systems have all failed? Strike three, idiot. Sheesh, can we get RID of this guy already?