Poor, Sad Rush Limbaugh

*shakes head*

So... just one year after Limbaugh started a mass exodus of advertisers from Right-WingRadio, that continues to this day, by responding to Women's Health Advocate Sandra Fluke's eloquent, emotional and medically sound testimony before Congress by calling her a "slut," on the air, and going on a three-day tear attacking her over what amounted to her sexual proclivities, as imagined by Rush Limbaugh,  the Great Gastropod has this to say about NFL Prospect Lauren Silverman:

[Female Kicker Means NFL As We Know It] "Isn't Long For This World"

Yes, Rush, as it turns out, women are people too.  It's a bitter pill to swallow, I know, but it turns out they can do a lot more than we give them  credit for.  Before you know it they'll want to be allowed to vote, and get the same pay as a man for doing the same job.  I mean... Who's going to make our sandwiches once that happens?!

In other news...

I would like to congratulate Danica Patrick on her strong finish at Daytona this year...

Eri Yoshida on her productive, if not spectacular, season in the North American Baseball League last year...

and my Wife who earned her 2nd Degree Brown Belt in Iaido last week.

What do you know,Rush? Women are people too!

Three Romantic Ideals

Is it me, or does it seem sometimes that the race to the top of Conservative media is little more than a contest to see who can be the biggest dick?

As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:



Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.

So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)

Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'

OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)

And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!

You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.

So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:

Rule #1: All women are beautiful.

Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.

Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.

First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.

ALL Women? Really?

Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?

I rest my case.

If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!

LOL

What about... ANN COULTER?

Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.

And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.

First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.

Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.

So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...

...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!

But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!

Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.

Misogyny.

(Please take the vulgar bits humorously, as they are intended, and bear with me for the overall point.)


Now that gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, it was not going to take long before the question of women serving in combat comes up. Well… it’s already come up informally, but I mean as a legislative measure. And I’m sure everyone who was around the last time the Republicans promsied us "something different" remembers Newt Gingrich's wonderfully awkward explanation of why women shouldn’t be allowed in combat:

If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.

Now, just for fun, and to drive home the point later, I'm going to address the… *ahem* questionable points, in the order that they appear.

“living in a ditch”

OK. I realize that our men in green DO spend some time in “ditches,” but LIVING IN THEM? I’ve heard of “always fighting the last war” but THIS GUY seemed stuck fighting World War ONE!  Newt: We don’t have too many men “living in ditches” anymore.

“biological problems” and/or “infections”

I didn’t SEE him say this myself, but I seriously wonder if he was blushing. Newt? WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Is he seriously suggesting that the simple act of “living in a ditch” is somehow more likely to give a woman an “infection” than a man? Somehow I doubt he’s talking about the risk of stepping on a rusty nail on your trench-climbing ladder, but I also strongly suspect that he has no idea WHAT he’s fucking talking about, and that 99% of his audience will be too embarrassed to ask. (The other 1% were women, but the women in HIS audience apparently know better, or at least did way back in 1995, than to question the men.)

“they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare”

Nobody said the numbers should be 50/50, Newt. The INTEREST isn't even 50/50!  The question is why those “relatively rare” (not “rare” mind you, “relatively rare”) specimens of brute femininity are barred from combat operations. Unless you use your dick to load a rifle, I think you just shot your entire argument in the foot. (And I hence award it the Purple Heart, and you the Purple Brain.)

“men are basically little piglets”

The more I here assholes like Newt Gingrich speak, the more I tend to agree with this point, but don’t try to drag the rest of us down to your level, Newt.

“These things are very real.”

The last refuge of every bullshitter: Assuring you that he’s NOT bullshitting you! (And I PROMISE YOU: That’s a FACT!)

“a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time”

Did you ever notice how the only time a man like this asshole ever acknowledges that a woman might be even remotely competent at anything, it’s usually in a job that he figures most men wouldn’t want anyway? (And while it’s beside the point I’m trying to make, I think he’s severely underestimated the popularity of video gaming amongst our young male population, seeing as how the job in question was “managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets.”)

“because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes”

Who the fuck hunts giraffes? Seriously.

OK, THAT was fun. But what’s the POINT? (Apart from making Newt Gingrich look like a crusty old bafoon, which is about as difficult as poutting on a hat.)  Well… In thinking about this line of reasoning, something dawned on me. And I might be late to the party here, but I don’t care.  Maybe you'll all read this and say, "DUH!" But I thought it was rather profound, so please humor me. The chauvinists ALWAYS try to make this kind of an argument: That the sexes are equal, but not the same, and that they’re just good at different things. And USUALLY, at least to me, it seems that the things women are “good at” are generally things men don’t want to do. (Unless the job pays more.) (Which it certainly will, once more men start doing it!)

But it’s not about what women can or can’t do, or even can or can’t do better than men. That really isn’t part of the true reasoning at all. It’s completely irrelevant to them. And that’s evident even in Newt’s own rant: He acknowledges that some, “relatively rare” women, may in fact possess the necessary “upper body strength.” (IOW: Could probably DO this currently men-only job.) But he offers no reason why they should then just be written off. (Unless, as I said, a fifth appendage is somehow necessary to load a rifle and shoot someone.)

Now… give this same man a few drinks (i.e.: loosen him up) and ask him in all seriousness, if there’s REALLY anything a man can do passably well that women can’t.  See… I’ve (mis)spent a lot of my youth drinking with chauvinists and you’d be surprised how often (almost every time) I got the following answer: Pee standing up.


[tongue-in-cheek]

Now, putting aside the profound societal implications that upright urination otherwise enables, I’m sure these same men, in all their infinite wisdom, would be as surprised as many of you no doubt might be, to find out that woman CAN, in fact, pee standing up. With all the socially critical upright posture and politically important accuracy and stream velocity. In fact, with the slightest amount of practice, most women would find that they could “write their name in the snow” every bit as neatly and completely as most men can! (And that’s a critical, combat-related skill after all! I mean: What if your unit got lost in the arctic and you needed to leave a message to help your rescuers locate you?)

[/tongue-in-cheek]


OK, yes, I’m being a bit absurd. And more than a bit vulgar here. But in all seriousness, I am telling NO LIE in my evaluation of the human female’s potential aptitude for artistic expression in that particular media. And what do you supposed would be the answer received from these very same men, given evidence of that revelation?

Well… They’d probably say that it was disgusting. (As I’m sure many of you have also though once or twice by now, hopefully with a unwanted smile, at least on the inside.) But when THEY say “it’s disgusting” that a lot different from YOU saying it, and here’s why:

With you? It’s likely just because you don't appreca vulgarity as much as I hope you do. But with a "little piglet" like Gingrich? It’s because, just like with combat, it’s not about what women can or can’t do, but about what men like Newt Gingrich think they SHOULD be doing. Any woman who comes up against a piece of shit like [Gingrich] in their life, job, relationship, family, etc… will find a constantly moving set of goal posts. At first the man says, “No,” because, “you are not ABLE to do [whatever.]” Then, when a woman shows she CAN do [whatever], the objection becomes. “Men do it better” or (more PC) “men are biologically advantaged towards certain types of activities.” Then when a woman beats out every single man in the world in said activity? She still fails to gain appreciation or acceptance, this time for no reason other than “this is not something [they] think a woman SHOULD be doing.”

The woman’s aptitude for the task in irrelevant, because men like Newt Gingrich don’t really CARE about the task. What they CARE about is the POWER to determine WHO should be doing WHAT. The POWER to decide what tasks should be done by men, (i.e.: the relatively fun, uber-glorified, high paying ones) and what tasks men don’t want to do women are *ahem* better at. What women really can or can’t do, or what (or even IOF) they are REALLY better at, is secondary to these men maintaining their accumulated power over them.

It’s not about a woman taking a man's “job,” whatever that job might have been. It’s about a woman taking away a man’s power to decide where they belong, what a "man's job" actually IS, as opposed to their own ability and actual, objective evidence of their aptitude deciding. Like almost everything else with the Right, REALITY takes a back seat to the perpetuation of beliefs that are beneficial to maintaining their POWER.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear Rush Limbaugh, or any of these fools, talk about equal employment, equal pay, or other “women’s issues.”

(Which, despite what Newt Gingrich might tell you, don't generally have anything to do with “infections!”)

What a difference a day makes...

Wow. So… one day after I left what may have been my most provocative comment, in terms of responses anyway, on MMFA, I leave what appears to be by far  my LEAST popular: 6 Thumbs down, 0 up at the time of this posting, to go along with what I believe to be some rather unreasonably scathing comments from Dharmasatya. 
 
I'm not going into the details here. If you're that interested, go there, check out the thread, and then PLEASE come back and tell me why what I'm saying is so wrong!  Seriously.  I think you all know me to be a pretty reasonable guy.  I've admitted I've been wrong before and I've changed my position on certain things as well.  But... Rather than even TRY to persuade me she opted for outright abuse.  That's fine. That's her right. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me at all! Anyway, sorry, that's the last time I'll mention her.  (As hard as that will be for me.)  I WOULD like to defend my position however.  So if, after rading this, you think I'm  full of it, PLEASE, by all means: let me know where I'm going wrong!

By now, I’m sure most of you caught some of my outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling the NOW “a bunch of whores” [to liberalism.] And as a follow up to that, MMFA gave an example of what the claimed was “selective outrage” (IOW: hypocrisy) on the part of FOX, for being OUTRAGED over one of Brown’s staffers calling Whitman a whore (which is fine – nothing wrong with that outrage) but not being upset with one of Whitman's staffer's saying the same thing about CONGRESS.  And from this point out, since neither campaign has really apologized, I'm going to treat the words as if they come from the Candidates themselves.  Right or wrong, it's juts easier.  Besides, this is more of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument anyway and the details of what REALLY happened, in this instance, aren't actually critical to it.

Now… I claimed that this example was weak tea on MMFA’s part. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.”  LOL.  The claim of hypocrisy in this case is bullshit. Sorry to have to give one to Fox here, but it’s Apples and Oranges. A MAN (such as Limbaugh, or Brown) calling a woman (such as the NOW, or Whitman) a “whore” is unacceptable in any context! It’s off limits! Like I said: Calling NOW a “bunch of whores” is NO DIFFERENT than calling the NAACP a “bunch of Niggers.” Both are wildly inappropriate, and completely unacceptable.  But a woman say the same about a bunch of men?  TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.

I'll explain...

See... I treat all of these kinds of words (whore, nigger, faggot, etc...) the same going the other way.

For example:  I, as a White person, have no business telling Blacks that they can’t use the word “nigger” however they want to. If they want to call each other “nigger,” either as friendly, male banter, or even in anger, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN’T! But... If Bill Cosby (for example) doesn’t like it? FINE! Listen to HIM! He has some standing in this discussion! He’s Black! But seeing as how White People INVENTED that word to HURT and SUPPRESS Blacks? HOW DARE we tell them how they can and can’t use it! They can use it however they want!  And we can’t. EVER. And what's more, Whites have no right to tell them that THEY CAN’T.

To me? All this is self evident.  If what I just said doesn't make sense to you?  Either explain to me WHY, or... (just some friendly advice?)  Avoid talking about race issues in mixed company. You'll probably REALLY piss somebody off!

And I'm inclined to treat "whore" the exact same way.

WOMEN can use that word, however they want.  No harm no foul. If one woman calls another a whore? That’s her business. As a MAN, I have no standing to tell her that’s inappropriate. If a woman calls a MAN a whore? Again: NO harm, no foul. And still: that doesn’t give him leave to turn it around. Men don’t get to use the word “whore,” like that, anymore than white people get to use the word “nigger.” Period.

So while it may have been VULGAR on the part of Whitman’s campaign, it simply ain’t misogynistic. Whitman calling CONGRESS “Whores” is one thing. Brown calling WHITMAN a “whore?” Limbaugh calling NOW “whores?” Something else entirely.  So Fox getting mad about Brown, but not Whitman? Not hypocrisy.  (Yeah, it's hypocrisy that they give Limbaugh a pass - but that wasn't the example.)

And I MIGHT be going out on a limb here, by personally? I'm OK with a MAN calling another MAN a "whore." Hey: I've done it. For example... I've (probably) called Dick Cheney a whore to the oil industry, at some point.  (IDK. It sounds like something I'd say, anyway. LOL)  Why is that OK? IN THAT CONTEXT, it is stripped of any feminine connotations!  I'm not suggesting he's a WOMAN; of of ill repute or otherwise. I'm using a colorful metaphor to say that, as a man, he is getting sodomized (METAPHORICALLY) by the oil industry, for MONEY.  Now... I'm not completely heartless here.  If that offends women? (Or MEN for that matter?)  LET ME KNOW!  Just do it in a way that recognizes how much we AGREE ON when it comes to issues of respect and gender equality.  That's all I ask.  Because I tend to respond in kind.  It's human nature, and I'm happy to report that I am very much a human being.  More reasonable than most, but if you attack me unfairly?  I promise you I'm going to get defensive.  But I dont think any of you really think I'm someone that can't be reasoned with.  Shit, that's why I DO this!  It's not just so I can read the sound of my voice! I WANT to be told when I'm full of shit!

ANYWAY... (Sorry.  Still steamed about... she who shall not be named.)

The difference, of course, is, and always will be, CONTEXT. To quote America’s last great Stand-Up Philosopher, George Carlin:

We don’t care is Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor use the word “nigger” because we know they’re not racist.

How do we know that?

They’re niggers!

  

Now... as I said before: If Bill Cosby wants to take issue with them (or Chris Rock?) using that word? That's fine.  But it is not MY PLACE to say what Black people can and can't say.  And while I’m all in favor of feeling outraged over blatantly misogynistic language, lets at least TRY to make sure it’s well placed!

Because I’m pretty sure Meg Whitman doesn’t hate women. Congress, maybe, but that’s her prerogative.

To recap:

Woman pissed at a man for calling another woman a Whore? PERFECT. Strong woman!

Man pissed at a man for calling a woman a Whore? ALSO PERFECT. Quality man!

Woman pissed at another woman for calling yet another woman a whore? I ain't takin' sides, but... Nothing wrong with that at all: Have it out!

Man pissed at a woman for calling another woman (or another man) a Whore?  Really ought to mind his own fucking business.

Man pissed at a man for calling another man a Whore? Hey, depends on the context, but I'd say he's probably being a bit too sensitive about things.

Woman pissed at man for calling another man a Whore? Again, depends on the context, but if I were that man? I'd treat lightly and acknowledge she might have a point. 

But again: CONSIDER the CONTEXT and reason it out!

Now... Can someone please tell me what I’m missing here?

WHORES?! REALLY?!

Today I posted something on MMFA that got a response many times greater than anything else I've ever posted there. And I'd like to summarize it here, and invite you to comment either here or there.   This was in repsonse to Rush Limbaugh, that great defender of women, *barf*, making the statement that "the NAG'S [his nickname for NOW] are a bunch of WHORES, to liberalism."  Here's the clip:



Now... I am absolutely a defender of equality.  Without question.  I stand against all forms of discrimination whether it be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender or gender expression.  All HUMAN BEINGS deserve equal treatment and respect.  That being said, NOW's position in this instance? Sure it's debatable.  Shoot, ALL "women's issues" are DEBATABLE: Abortion, Equal Pay, Serving in Combat, Maternity Leave, Societal Gender Roles... all of these things can be debated.  And I might disagree with everything [an asshole like Limbaugh] has to say on the topic,  but I won't deny his right to argue his position. In fact, it is critically important to our national, social and political discourse that we ALL do so! But calling them WHORES?  That's completely and utterly unacceptable.  And that should have NO PLACE in our  national, social and political discourse.

And what really pisses me off? (Unless society closed the gender gap when I wasn't looking?) You watch: This won't even be a news story.  He won't be held accountable by the market for this. You watch: No one will say "boo" about it!

Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez got fired for making relatively innocuous remarks about Jews.

Don Imus and Laura Schlesinger were fired over very offensive remarks they made about Blacks.

And Mike Savage was fired for making offensive remarks about Gays.

And that's fine!  Thats' exactly as it should be! 

(OK, Thomas and Sanchez both got screwed, actually, but you know what I'm saying.)

But why are we so ready to get up in arms with our collective outrage when it's about Jews,  Blacks,  Gays, etc... (and as I said: that's GOOD) but not when it's about WOMEN?  I know there's a double standard in our society.  I'm well aware of that.  But come on: A guy with the public stature of Rush Limbaugh calling an organization that satnds up for strong, successfull women, in general, WHORES?  Why is that different from calling GLAAD a "bunch of faggots" or the NAACP a "bunch of niggers?"  Seriously!

Why are we so unwilling to feel the same outrage over hateful, abusive language when it's aimed at women?

Hey, maybe we are.  I could be wrong.  I'd certainly be happy to be wrong, in this case.  (Of course, I'm almost never wrong when I'd be happy to be so!)

And this isn't just about NOW. NOW is his target because they're Liberal, but he's talking about FEMINISTS in general.  And even women who DON'T fall in with the Liberal Feminists? Say... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell or Meg Whitman?  Were it not for the feminists who came before, were it not for the woman's movement in general, were it not for NOW and the hundreds and thousands of sisters before them who stood up to society, THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE HOME MAKING SANDWICHES RIGHT NOW!

It is becasue of NOW, and those that came before,  that ALL women have the opportunity to make of their lives what they choose!  And it's because of assholes like Limbaugh, and the society that tolerates (shit: REWARDS) them that they STILL have to work twice as hard as a man to do so!

And that's REALLY what's going on here.  Who's a WHORE? Anyone who's not some smiling, empty-headed, barbie-doll offering to get their husband something to eat or another beer.  NOW is a symbol of everything that's changed for women.  Of all the social progress that's been made.  Maybe not all women agree with everything they stand for.  That's fine.  But that doesn't give any MAN the right to call them WHORES, without someone calling him out for it!

So... that's what I'm doing I guess.  I'm standing up and calling him out.

I'm calling for Rush to recieve the same treatement, over his remarks about WOMEN that so many others have over their remarks about Gays, Blacks, Jews or any other group.  There should not be a place in our societal discourse for someone to call women "whores" over a political disagreement.

And I'm really getting sick and tired about all these Conservatives trying to make these sorts of things out to be some kind of first ammendment issue!  This is NOT a first ammendment issue! No one is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT pull him from the air.  I'm simply using MY firts ammendemnt rigths - and might moral judgement - to expres my DISGUST at it! 

To that? A bunch off perople told me to "just ignore him" or "just don't listen."

Um... UH-DUUUUUH! I don't! [listen to him]

But telling me that? In this context? Is really just telling me to "shut up." 

Well that's their right, but also it's mine to respond in kind: FUCK YOU.

Or, because NO ONE can fuck with me when it comes to twisting logic, fine, "Don't Listen." "Ignore him." 
Only while they're saying it to ME...  Me, I'm saying tio the whole damned country.  Let's NOT LISTEN. What's more... Let's STOP PAYING HIS SALARY! Let's BOYCOTT HIS SPONSORS!  If Corporations should be allowed to "speak" by spedning money, surely we are allowed to speak by choosing NOT TO, right?  Isn't that OUR 1st ammendment right?
Even calling for his ouster is not a 1st Ammendment issue.  No employer is required to retain an employe who is disceminating a message that they don't agree with, find offensive or that brings ahrm to the comapny.  You can say whatever you want, by not on the comapny's dime.  Free speech never promised anoyone a JOB or a SALARY for it!  Words have CONSEQUENCES.  A the free-market is a BITCH, baby! So do you know what Clear Chanel is saying by NOT taking action? That they endorse his message.  That they think it's OK to call women WHORES if they dare to have an opinon that's different from thiers.  With that thought in midn, it's about time this society sent CLEAR CHANNEL and every other peddler of misogyny a message.  It's about time that we boycott ANY company who sponors ANY SHOW on ANY Clear Channel network or affiliate.

What pisses me of the most?  Is that we won't.  The double standard will continue.

And I seriously CAN'T WAIT to be proven wrong.

But I'm not holding my breath.