Speaking with your wallet, Rush loses touch yet again!

07/28/2012
It is interesting that one of the people I most often refer to in this blog is Rush Limbaugh. Could that be a clue as to how out of touch I believe him to be? For example, I happen to tune in to his show for only about 5-10 minutes yesterday, and here is what I heard. I won't be quoting him directly, instead I'll be presenting the context of the points he raised.

It was very revealing to hear Rush this week. I haven't turned his show on in a long time. It is now just one big 3 hour ad for his sponsors (and in case any of those sponsors is reading this, I listened closely to all of you that are on his show, I won't be purchasing any of your products any time soon). He really has gone downhill. That does show you how public opinion can affect your business. So let's explore what he had to say this time.

Rush was talking about the right of free speech and the recent national discussion on the political views of the CEO of Chick-fil-A and how a number of city and state politicians with a large right to marriage constituency have taken a stand against new store openings within their city or state. And here is the part I love - with one point, he managed to support and condemn the use of the that same first amendment, the right to free speech. And here is why I think, once again, that Rush is out of touch. He backs the ability of the CEO to make a statement that he wants to without repercussion in the arena of ideas and marketplace, but then pushes against that same right when members of duly elected governments use their voices to stand against the statements made by the CEO. How you can allow one but not the other, well that to me is a little disingenuous, Rush should be ashamed of himself (fat chance that will ever happen).

Rush forgets a couple of things, some of those that I mentioned in my last blog, the right for consumers to voice their opinion with their wallets (another thing that even the Supreme Court forgot when they voted in the "Citizens United" decision, another out of touch Susie I need to write about at some point), and that is that consumers do not want to support companies that use their revenue for causes the consumer does not believe in. This is free speech in action, and maybe the most productive way that citizens have to bring their voices quickly into focus (which unfortunately speaks volumes about the obstructionist policies of both parties, and their inability to move forward on even the most sensible decisions put in front of them).

If the common citizen is not able to rely on public discourse, the right for the elected and non elected to voice opinions, whether in the public square or with the wallet, then we truly have lost touch with our Bill of Rights. You can't give one right and take it away in the same breath, Rush, so shame on you. Especially coming from someone to whom the BULLY PULPIT is so important.

Losing touch with the right to protest.....

I like to read articles from The Atlantic magazine. And that is probably a little clue to my political leaning. But an article written by Jonathan Merritt definitely deserves a mention in the losttouchwith blog. Why? Because he talks about the ineffective (as he describes them) boycott measures that this country seems to be using more than a little these days.

For those of you who would like to read his article online, you can find it here (sorry, you'll have to copy and paste, links don't seem to be working right on blogger today):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/in-defense-of-eating-at-chick-fil-a/260139

What he fails to account for is the emotional benefit of the ability to boycott. I am one of those that will boycott Chick-fil-A even though I do like their food. I will boycott them because I do not want my hard earned money to be able to be contributed to any cause I don't believe in. That is, in my opinion, a little naive of a view, because I also purchase fuel, shop for clothes, eat at various restaurants, and generally consume goods at many places where my earnings are being passed on and used for causes I don't believe in. But emotionally it feels better when I take a stand of some sort.

In the long run, does it do any good? Maybe not in the larger world view. But it allows me to make a statement about what I believe in my own small way. And that allows me to stay in touch with my own sense of self, something that many people in the world and our own United States have lost touch with in this day and age.

Losing touch with.....right to vote?

So Texas and other states want to require IDs for voting, right? OK Texas, if you want to play hard ball and require IDs, that is fine.

Let's see, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote, but does state that the People of this country cannot be denied the right to vote. So I think that once again I've found an out of touch issue for the tea party right to vote crowd. I also think that if the states want to set rules requiring the presentation of IDs that that state should also be required by the Federal Government to provide said IDs to those who cannot afford them for free. Of course, the repubs would not want to go down that path, would they? Especially if they had to raise taxes to provide such an item.

Of course, if Texas hadn't just paid $25 mil for the remodeling effort of the Gov's mansion, they might not have to raise taxes to pay for IDs for everyone! Guess the guvnr of the greatstateofTexass deserves something for all that great campaigning he did, hmmm?

Long live the right of every American to vote! Feds, wake up and take a stand that really counts! Don't lose touch with one of our most important rights here in America! Rant, Rant, Rant!