![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
captainsblogIt was bad enough I had to deal with the news, late this morning, of the Supremes' latest trawling into the waters of Activist Judging. But to then have to hear the peals of glee about it from behind the golden EID (Excellence in Doctorshopping) Microphone, voiced by noted Constitutional scholar Rush Limbaugh? The words made me good and sick, but seeing them on the transcript was even worse:
My problem isn't especially with his take on the decision itself. In fact, I kinda like the way he put it, because his paraphrasing actually contained a stronger populist message than the opinion itself : that the First Amendment prohibits government action that limits speech based on how rich, how big, how fat, how much of an idiot you are. As soon as I heard it, I instantly thought, Well, if it doesn't matter "how much money you have or how big you are," then wouldn't you be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine to permit even the poorer, smaller, thinner, less idiotic voices to be heard on public airwaves as well?"
But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Of course he's not. In fact, right next to that exact section of his paraphrase was his website ad implying that the Fairness Doctrine would stifle him, rather than opening up the public airwaves to other views. When it's HIS speech (or rather, his right to make money off it) that's at stake, El Slushbo is all in favor of restrictions that permit the overwhelming majority of broadcasters to air his views while turning away from any obligation to present the other side on the frequencies given to those broadcasters FOR FREE more than 80 years ago.
But then, the ol' Dittohead is all in favor of Constitutional rights when the rights in question are his- like blocking access to his medical records on Bill of Rights grounds while being thoroughly supportive of Dubya's efforts to take those rights away from everyone else in the name of Keeping America Safe.
I'm off to watch Idiocracy now. After the past couple of days, it seems an especially appropriate choice.
My problem isn't especially with his take on the decision itself. In fact, I kinda like the way he put it, because his paraphrasing actually contained a stronger populist message than the opinion itself : that the First Amendment prohibits government action that limits speech based on how rich, how big, how fat, how much of an idiot you are. As soon as I heard it, I instantly thought, Well, if it doesn't matter "how much money you have or how big you are," then wouldn't you be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine to permit even the poorer, smaller, thinner, less idiotic voices to be heard on public airwaves as well?"
But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Of course he's not. In fact, right next to that exact section of his paraphrase was his website ad implying that the Fairness Doctrine would stifle him, rather than opening up the public airwaves to other views. When it's HIS speech (or rather, his right to make money off it) that's at stake, El Slushbo is all in favor of restrictions that permit the overwhelming majority of broadcasters to air his views while turning away from any obligation to present the other side on the frequencies given to those broadcasters FOR FREE more than 80 years ago.
But then, the ol' Dittohead is all in favor of Constitutional rights when the rights in question are his- like blocking access to his medical records on Bill of Rights grounds while being thoroughly supportive of Dubya's efforts to take those rights away from everyone else in the name of Keeping America Safe.
I'm off to watch Idiocracy now. After the past couple of days, it seems an especially appropriate choice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 09:49 pm (UTC)