When he said that the 9/11 hijackers weren’t cowards, he lost his network television show. So, I can understand his sensitivity, but Bill Maher is making an ass of himself here:
“I don’t think Rush Limbaugh should be stifled. I don’t agree with him, but he has every right to his opinion no matter how (expletive) that opinion is. And I think it’s a terrible trend that when anybody in this country says anything that you don’t like, you try to get rid of him. You know what, you don’t like Rush Limbaugh, then don’t listen to him.
“He’s been on 25 years, you know what this guy’s all about. He gave an apology. That’s it. It should be over. It bothers me the way that liberals cannot let this go.”
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have a right to a hugely profitable syndicated radio show anymore than Bill Maher had a right to appear on ABC. They both have a right to say pretty much everything they’d ever want to say. But they have no right to have their speech broadcast over public airwaves. That’s a privilege you earn through having the talent to have someone invite you to speak. If you can sell advertising, they’ll keep asking you back. If you can’t sell advertising, they won’t. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
When does Bill Maher not make an ass of himself? He’s arguably xenophobic and anti-Arab, he’s hawkish, he’s a sexist…he’s more or less what I picture your standard MRA (not the leaders, but the subscribers): a liberal who thinks he’s for equal rights but can’t see his own privilege to realize how dumb he actually sounds. He’s also anti-vaccination and pro-alternative medicine, which puts him up there with the religious idiots he criticizes as far as I’m concerned.
Nonetheless, I still give him a lot more leeway than I would Limbaugh. Maher actually is a comedian, and I give them far more room. And despite that, he still sounds stupid.
“He’s also anti-vaccination and pro-alternative medicine, which puts him up there with the religious idiots he criticizes as far as I’m concerned.”
I don’t know his stance on vaccination, but it is possible to be against some things like flu shots and still be reasonable. And alternative medicine is such a huge umbrella that to go after proponents of it categorically, as far as I’m concerned, can very fairly be called shortsighted at the least, and perhaps even a touch bigoted. I think if you examine your statement, you might come up with a better way to express it.
There’s not been one thing to come of 40 years of alternative medicine research. It’s a waste of money. If private citizens like Maher want to fund it, be my guest, but the government should stop wasting resources on fraudulent hucksters who believe in acupuncture and homeopathy.
It’s not reasonable to be “against” flu shots. Against mandatory government flu shots, sure, but not “against” them. And Maher is a Jenny McCarthy, and he’s actively contributing to the killing of children in his own home state of California with the recent rise of whooping cough with his legitimizing this nonsense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html
Bill Maher is also a believer that obesity is the reason for high health care costs — he’d be wrong there, too.
“It may be the case that the vaccine should have been used anyway to finish polio off, but there are some interesting facts on the other side.” Sure sounds like a raving lunatic, with all that “maybe the vaccine is a good idea” talk, don’cha think?
Doesn’t obesity contribute to health problems? Or do you suppose that people are “catching” diabetes in record numbers bc they’re not getting their shots during diabetes season? If you’re claiming that a sicker population doesn’t lead to higher health care costs, I’d love to see the studies that back up that position.
I’m trying to find reliable information about flu vaccinations, but it’s a swamp out there and a half hour of googling is getting me unsubstantiated claims from all corners. If you have reliable sources, I’d appreciate a link or two because my Sunday morning is rapidly expiring and my own efforts are wasting a lot of time. Video of people arguing doesn’t help.
A huge chunk of alternative medicine lies in preventive measures, such as diet, exercise, supplemental nutrition, you name it. To dismiss the whole of alternatives to traditional allopathic medicine as “homeopathy and acupuncture” is either deeply disingenuous, or plain ignorant.
But the thing is there are NO “interesting facts on the other side.” None. Zip. Zilch. The whole “vaccines are linked to autism” idea is a fraud. Literally. The guy who did that study has lost his license and all credibility. And anybody who makse coded hints in that direction is engaging in the promotion of ignorance at best. There are no two sides to the argument any more than there are two sides to anthropegenic climate change or evolution.
Who mentioned autism? I’m simply asking where the evidence is supporting the effectiveness of flu shots. I can find any number of supportive websites by government and medical organizations intended to help educate on the usefulness of the shots and where and when to get them, but no actual data. On the flip side, I can find any number of websites blaring warnings against gov’t conspiracies, health warnings and ripoffs, but again no data. That’s all I’m saying.
Don’t knock Homeopathy it’s perfect for hypochondriacs which is what it’s primarily used for. The placebo effect is well documented.
The placebo effect is not medicine, and it’s not ethical for doctors to use.
.
Of course placebo is not a pharmaceutical drug, the placebo effect is indeed part of practicing medicine. The mind is part of the healing proces. Just as stress has a detrimental effect on your health.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."See also here, where Orac of ScienceBlogs takes Maher to school:The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award (a.k.a Bill Maher): Antivaccine lunatic and quackery supporter
All I read there is a handful of what appears to be factual statements backed up by the same person’s previous writings, interspersed with emotional appeals (specifically anger and derision) and personal insults. It’s an opinion piece. Opinions are a dime a dozen; I have better things to do than spend my weekend chasing down other peoples’ opinions if they can’t back them up.
Here, I’ll try to make it easier for you. Here’s what I’m looking for, and so far failing to find even at the CDC and NIH websites promoting flu vaccinations:
How are flu vaccines developed? I’ve read–undocumented–accounts suggesting that it takes almost a full year to develop vaccines which are based on a previous strain, mutated into 3 distinct strains which are considered the best “guess” as to what will be most likely to ravage the population beginning in about October or November. These accounts further state that the guesses are often wrong. I can’t find a reliable source for any of this.
How many people die or develop serious long term health complications due to flu every year? How do they break down demographically, ie age, state of health prior to infection, environmental factors, etc.
How many recipients of flu vaccinations die or develop serious complications anyway? Demographics, too.
How many people never receive flu vaccinations and get the flu? How many people never get vaccinations and never get the flu? and demographics.
Once we’ve answered the basic questions as to flu shot efficacy, we might go further into financial motivations influencing the pros and antis. It isn’t relevant to the advisability of getting annual flu shots, but it may provide some illumination into the overall matter.
As long as this information is not readily available, then it’s perfectly reasonable to have objections, to be “against” flu shots. What’s not reasonable is to conflate personal opinion with scientific fact. I’ll bet you were annoyed when Richard Duesberg came out against HIV, right? Or do you concur that HIV is totally harmless? Argument from authority works a lot of the time, but it’s not fail-proof.
Let me put it a different way: I have some background in higher math going beyond calculus and extending a little into linear algebra. But if I get into a discussion with a math professor on any of these subjects, he’s going to hand my ass to me every time, whether he’s right, or if he’s just making stuff up because he knows I lack the understanding of his arguments to call bs. Likewise, a scientist beating up on Bill Maher may be entertaining and cathartic, but it doesn’t prove anything.
I just want some facts and figures. So again, please, if you have any to hand, share the wealth.
Some of your questions are answered by a wealth of information at the AMA and CDC websites but you have to search wisely, slog through a lot of links and know how to do basic research. Your calculus isn’t going to help you there.
You could also Google something like “study on effectiveness of influenza vaccination” for example and pick the PDF from MN public radio for a list of many studies.
Make sure you don’t trust the judgment of your doctor, the AMA or the CDC. Make sure you only trust the advise of people on political blogs that hand deliver answers to every little question you ask.
I have better things to do than spend my weekend chasing down other peoples’ research needs if they can’t manage the leg work themselves.
Oh yeah, and I hope you don’t have children.
I googled “flu shot statistics” and got crap for my efforts. I got CDC websites, I dug into it, and got nothing substantial. I’m sorry it didn’t occur to me to look for the information I would find helpful on a radio website in Minnesota.
My point is, if you google something like “flu shot statistics,” follow the links on the relevant governmental agency websites and still come up empty-handed, then by definition, that information is not readily available.
I don’t recall asking for your assistance with anything, but since you’ve offered your unsolicited opinions, you can do me a favor and stick them straight back up your fundament, from whence they no doubt originate.
I do have one child, but never fear, I will teach him to avoid condescending jerks like the plaque, so he shouldn’t be getting in your way. Unfortunately, there’s no such comfort for any children you may have.
Just a comment on pursuing the research: JeffL suggested you look for “study on effectiveness of influenza vaccinations” not “flu shot statistics” – the latter is too vague and won’t get you to the studies you’re looking for. Other suggestion: reference librarians are a great resource. google isn’t enough for real research.
I did try other search strings, including the word “effectiveness” and “efficacy,” and some other useful words in my vocabulary. I even–gasp–use other non-google search resources. Thanks anyway for your suggestions.
that’s why I recommend talking with a reference librarian
but he meant search the whole phrase not just the words
Yes, thank you, I know how to use quotes in web searches…
.
I agree with your caution on unnecessary vaccination and the toxic intake of medicine. I’m no supporter of alternative medicine, unless prescribed by a professional MD. I recall a true story of my dad in the Netherlands in 1930. In our family we have a genetic problem with our skin. After a number of visits to a world renowned professor in dermotology at the Boerhaave clinic of Leiden University, he advised my dad as last resort a herbs specialist, a lady. My dad is a very analytical and open-minded person did get the herbs and his skin problem healed.
As a rule, I consider a hospital surrounding a dangerous place to be for a number of reasons. The OR bacteria, mistakes made by surgeons, errors in medication and adverse effects of modern pharmaceutical drugs. The pharma companies, similar to Wall Street investment corporations have their goal set on maximizing profits, not their patients/clients.
Another example is the profits made off the community by the unnecessary vaccination for Mexican flu-epidemic in recent years. My grandchild was in the age group called up for a vaccination in two stages. After one shot I researched the status of the so-called “epidemic” and looked at the statistics of age groups who were prone for the flu. A healthy 3-year old did not belong to the danger group. It was the newly born and elderly or persons with a respiratory health issue. I did have a contact within the Dutch Health services who was responsible for the daily risc analysis. He made it clear it was the responsibility of the parent to make the call. However, from the short discussion I understood my analysis was the correct one.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I don’t even have all that strong an opinion against vaccination per se, it’s just an over-reliance on medication in general that I’m leery of. Medication of any sort carries risks, even otc pain relievers. It doesn’t mean you have to run screaming into the night over it, but it pays to know how likely a given course of treatment is to help heal your ills.
Antibiotics are great for dealing with acute infections and preventing them in cases of broken bones and etc. They’re not necessary for minor sore throats and sniffles, and as we’ve seen, when abused they actually create more resistant strains of bacteria.
If I had blood pressure or cholesterol problems, I would at least make a point of trying to do what I could in terms of nutrition and exercise to help reverse the situation, not just rely on statins and other medications that place a strain on the liver over time.
My kid gets all his recommended shots, but I make a point of researching them beforehand just so there are no surprises. Case in point, every kid here gets a TB vaccination shortly after birth. It leaves a huge scar on the shoulder where the skin rots in reaction, and it lasts for life. I looked up the procedure and found that in the US a swab is taken to test for latent TB, but the vaccination is only used if the test comes up positive. I asked the docs if we could do that with my kid, they said no, so I shrugged my shoulders and let them have their way.
When it comes to infancy and childhood, the risks for everything are greater. If I have a fever, I stop eating and sweat it out unless it just gets ridiculous. If my kid gets one, he goes to the doctor immediately. That’s the best I know how to do, but I don’t look down on other parents who do things differently.
Actually, I’m old enough, I should really know better than to even get involved in the conversation. It pays off much more handsomely to get in a dispute over Israel and Palestine. Something about the subject of vaccination sounds a clarion call to the enormously self-righteous. I hope I’ve learned my lesson this time.
So you think only religious nuts are pro-alternative medicine? That’s interesting. (Not talking about anti-vaccine.
Uh, no. I think that people who are gung-ho about alternative medicine are on the same level of delusion as the religious nuts. Re-read what I said, please.
Good for you. The phenomenon you’re talking about certainly exists, but to equate that with “alternative medicine” per se, of which there are so many different kinds, is to make a vast overgeneralization that even a large proportion of the established medical profession would not agree with. A lot of alternative medicine begins with “consult your physician” and ends with the physician telling the patient “whatever you’re doing, keep doing it.”
Gaia Herbs
^^Anything on that level: quackery. And no, “whatever is working” is why people promote homeopathy and acupuncture, which has no scientific medical benefit. It’s just a bunch of anecdotes, “Well it helped me!” If you want to go do it, go do it. But I don’t want the government funding it — especially if/when we do have single payer.
A lot of these supplements and herbal holistic crap isn’t even regulated by the FDA, making some of it outright dangerous.
You’re the one that sounds like a fanatic.
K, w/e. This is one issue where the hippies are wrong — the stereotypical hippie, anyway. I’m sure dataguy will back me up, as he works in the area.
Sure some of the stuff called “Alternative” is bullshit, but my point is, you’re WAY overgeneralizing. And three’s a lot of bullshit in the regular medical profession too, it just works in a different way. The most sensible thing is a combination of both. For example, someone I know has recently been diagnosed with a serious thyroid condition. He’s under the care of an endocrinologist, but also taking a number of nutritional and herbal supplements. He checked with the doctor before using them, as is recommended on the labels of the supplements.
There’s a vitamin store nearby. People buy huge jars of supplements.
I do have a problem with the FDA not regulating them.
Safe and effective means a lot.
Some supplements go through fads where a lot of people take them.
seabe is right on this one.
You guys are holier than the pope, aren’t you?
http://nccam.nih.gov
Not one single thing has come from this federal boondoggle, and it’s taking money away from actual scientific research.
I’m sorry, seabe, but in equating acupuncture with homeopathy and herbalism, you’re showing real ignorance of the whole subject. This makes it hard to take your opinion seriously.
At very least, find out what acupuncture is, as an intrinsic part of traditional Asian medicine.
Here’s a nice comic for you, with a few links on the inside regarding its efficacy:
The Ghosts of Woo Research: Brought To you by Evidence Based Medicine
Yes, but so is herbalism, so why do you dismiss it wholesale?
As for homeopathy, I’m not particularly into it, but in the UK it’s respected and AVAILABLE ON THE NHS.
I do sometimes use a Weleda homeopathic preparation to help go to sleep. the active ingredients are valerian, oats, and caffeine. It’s incredibly effective (for me) at a FRACTION of the recommended dose.
He also misses the point. People who write to complain to advertisers are using free speech too. And advertisers have the right to free speech. Nobody is talking about censorship, people are just talking.
And the content of speech does have consequences, as it should.
So you are in favor of Free-Market principles here?
He called Palin a c***. This has been a huge issue, and allows the Repukeliscum to run the “false equivalency” meme.
The only thing that allows the GOP to run their false equivalency bullshit is our refusal to call them on it. Why not go after them instead of Maher? He called Palin a word that has sexist connotations–in addition to an absolute ton of other uses–one time in front of a private paying audience in a standup routine, whereas Limbaugh spent a huge portion of his 3-hour radio show for several days in a row running down the personal character and sexual habits of an advocate for women’s rights. Rather than going after Maher, why not focus your attack on the real malefactors here?
And let’s not forget the downright evil uses Palin has put her influence to. imo there’s not a word in the English language vile enough to describe her.
This is what it’s about. I really don’t need a man who calls any woman that word on my team.
It’s not false equivalence, to me. Same damn thing.
Bill Maher isn’t acting like an ass. He is one. The fact that he has some good ideas doesn’t excuse his idiotic ones. He is a contrarian in some instances for no discernable reason and that is why he is a low value celeb for the progressive movement. He is too stoned to understand when he crosses the line between making good entertainment with good political value to being an embarrassment. Rush needs no defense (and likely has none) and no one need to feel sorry for his predicament, particularly those among us who believe his ilk are bad for the country because of the hate he spews and fosters.
In the beginning there was nothing
Then god created light
There was still nothing
But now you could see it.
It’s bad enough to have to listen to the argument of religious freedoms and White House conspiracies spun on this. And freedom of speech is irrelevant here.
What matters is that Rush chose to make up a story out of whole cloth about what happened, Fox and friends followed suit and the original testimony no longer seemed to matter as they created an imaginery personhood that could be called rotten names to fit THEIR narrative.
That’s where BM went over the cliff, it’s not a story about freedom of speech or religion for that matter.
True. And I have never liked Bill Maher, even though I do occasionally agree with him.
At the risk of aligning myself with the arrogant imbeciles of the world, wtf is the furor over Maher here? He’s a friggin’ comic, and judging by the arc of his career and his personal success, an arguably good one.
If you don’t find his style particularly funny, bfd. If he says some stuff you don’t agree with, who cares? He’s not a political leader, even if his field of commentary is largely political–a great deal of comedy is, maybe all of it, at times.
Yes, I personally think it’s dumb in this one instance for Maher to chide Dems for not accepting Rush’s “apology;” everybody here knows that the problem with Rush’s diatribe is not the use of two isolated words. But for Pete’s sake, people, this is a tempest in a teapot, and none of us are going to earn any brownie points with the GOP or the rest of the American public by throwing an (actual) entertainer under the bus. It looks weak, unprincipled, and stupid. Keep the focus of your ire and derision on the real scum, and stop going for these idiotic distractions.
I think Bill Maher basically thinks that he and Rush are in the same business, doing the same sort of thing, just with a different flavor. Then it all makes perfect sense, and also shows how superficial Maher really is.
I think TarheelDem nails it a little bit down the page: it’s a professional courtesy on Maher’s part. I’ll go one further and say he thinks he’s being magnanimous by defending Rush, which is at least a little bit naive on his part, imo. I don’t think it makes him a shallow thinker, though. I do think it evidence of shallowness and superficial thinking when I read statements dismissing Maher’s positions simply because he smokes marijuana–not that you’ve said so, I just wanted to make that point somewhere.
Maher’s “freedom of speech” platitudes are indeed annoying at best, since they have nothing whatever to do with any attempt to take away Limbaugh’s freedom. He assumes, apparently that Limbaugh has some special right to speak above and beyond what the rest of us are granted — the right to keep a radio pulpit when the market no longer wants to pay for it.
OTOH, There’s this odd statement in the diary: “they have no right to have their speech broadcast over public airwaves. That’s a privilege you earn through having the talent to have someone invite you to speak.” Really? That’s how it’s done? Talent? Earned? LImbaugh? Palin? Coulter? Almost anyone else in commercial broadcasting?
What a quaint and credulous notion.
Maher’s statement is professional courtesy, something that will not be reciprocated.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a microphone. The folks who pay for the microphone can refuse to pay for it for any reason whatsoever. And Clearchannel can terminate his contract for whatever business reasons (including taking a hit on the severance package that is without a doubt in the contract).
The question for advertisers and Clearchannel is whether his views are what they want their customers to associate with the advertisers and Clearchannel’s brand.
How long can the show stay on the radio stations with out the ad money. Clearchannel, Premier and the stations have to have a point where the show has to be dumped.
Rush can say what he want, just not on commercial radio.
How long can the show stay on the radio stations with out the ad money. Clearchannel, Premier and the stations have to have a point where the show has to be dumped.
I don’t know, but only a few short years ago he signed a 10 year/$500,000,000 contract. Yes, you read that right. $50 mil a year.
I’d forgotten that. They sure aren’t getting their money’s worth.
I think this will play out slowly. It takes a bit of time for stations to replace a three hour show.
I hope he goes away.
his rant against Sandra Fluke was horrifying. had no connection with reality at all or with her testimony
Rush has to be taking drugs.
He crossed the line and shouldn’t be on the public airwaves.
Yes, he certainly crossed the line. He has hearing loss. I read somewhere that could be caused by prescription [?] drug use but now can’t source my info.
OxyContin (ab)use can lead to hearing loss:
http://www.after50health.com/understand-how-your-oxycontin-drug-abuse-can-result-in-hearing-loss.htm
l
“Overuse of painkillers, apart from temporary side effects, causes long lasting damage. Because of this Oxycontin and hearing loss are interlinked. The toxins of their drug can have a negative effect on the central nervous system comprising the brain and the spinal cord, the auditory nerve that takes sounds from outside to the brain to be processed and heard. Damage to the auditory nerve causes partial or total loss of hearing. Over dosage of Oxycontin causes loss of hearing according to media news, Rush Limbaugh, talk show host, suffered loss of hearing due to his drug abuse of vicodin and oxycontin and established the interlink between the drugs and hearing loss.”
Do they affect emotional state as well – his rants against Sandra Fluke are truly bizarre, definitely off the rails
I wish that were the whole truth of the matter. But Rush doesn’t dominate entire media markets, such as being carried by several radio stations in the same city, simply because of the advertising revenue he brings in. Washington DC is not chockablock with right wing talk radio because they have the most popular message. When you crowd the airwaves with one type of message, you squeeze all the alternative voices out.
Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes know that political power is a compensation worth losing a little bit of money over in the short term. Powerful corporations like Raytheon and Merck realize that if they pay exorbitant amounts of money in advertisements that essentially subsidize entire news programs, they’re much less likely to receive scrutiny in those programs’ coverage.
It’s way too complicated to go into all the details here, but basically the markets do not make the right decisions for the public interest when left unregulated, which is an argument I think we all understand only too well here.
Depends on how big a loss the Clearchannel executives want to take on one show in order to shove through their political ideology.
I don’t even see it as a professional courtesy, but I do think it’s all about how Maher sees his profession. His defense of Limbaugh is simply his defense of himself. The actual content of what Limbaugh said is irrelevant, all that matters is the fact that it caused a furor. The obtuseness of Maher’s statement is a consequence of its sheer formalism — a lazy way of thinking that produces what looks more or less like a valid argument without having to worry about whether it actually is or not. Booman’s term for this is “irrelevant equivalency.”
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Yep, professional courtesy as defense of oneself by defending one’s profession.
This is true, and everyone else has every right to decide whether or not they want to consume his opinion. They also have every right to make their opinion known to as wide an audience as they can, be that opinion that liberals should STFU about Rush or that Rush’s advertisers should be boycotted.
Everyone here is fully within their rights.
Maher is a coward with no integrity. Setting the Limbaugh issue aside, on his last two shows he ran videos made by Alexandra Pelosi, and both were crap. The first one presented a wildly unrepresentative portrait of Mississippians – rednecks, no teeth, living in squalor – as a way of making that state and Republicans look foolish. The second video was of New York “Welfare Queens” (Peolosi’s terminology), and it was also unrepresentative. It was mostly black guys outside a welfare office saying that they want their food stamps or government check. They were off-putting, to be sure, but that’s not how you argue for or against a policy. I don’t see how it was any different from the James O’Keefe videos.
After the Pelosi New York Video was aired, Maher was strutting about how great and objective he is by offending rednecks and blacks on relief – even though Pelosi herself said she was showing “stereotypes”. Then he made sure to tell his audience that he and Alexandra were “not racists”. Thanks, Bill. I guess self-proclaimed non-racism means it’s got to be true.
As to Pelosi’s technique. Maybe next time she should go to the county mental health center and interview crazypeople to see if they can make a compelling case for them getting treatment and support. They can’t do it? Oh, too bad. But they are losers, don’t you know.
As to the cowardice. Those two videos that Maher had on his show – videos where people of limited ability fail to make their case, and therefore invalidate whatever program or positions they are associated with. That’s exactly what Maher did in his movie Religulous.
I’m an atheist, but when I see Maher “debating” the existence of god with a passel of simple-minded people that’s not demonstrating integrity. Maher gets cheap wins but overwhelming avoids talking to serious theologians.
Maher is smug, snide, and not very smart. He’s the kind of “liberal” we don’t want on our side.
Oh, and he’s not funny (nor are the writers for his show).
The segment in Religulous that stuck with me wasn’t simple-minded preachers or adherents. It was his interview with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), who was just as adamant in his defense of anti-intellectual “faith.”
I take anything like that with a grain of salt, since editing, as we know from Breitbart et al, can make anyone look bad. But there’s no context in which Pryor can utter what he did without a viewer coming to the conclusion that some senior politicians in both parties don’t take the separation of (their Christian) church and state very seriously. Maher’s rants in his movie were one thing; that segment, while not surprising, was quite another. Especially when you consider how many people that think like Pryor on that score there are in Congress, and how many open atheists there are.
Lastly, given all the pandering to Christianity that happens in our pop culture and our politics (anyone for another TV series about guardian angels?), a movie that forcefully advocates for atheism, flaws and all, is still a valuable step toward counterbalance.
I agree that Christianity has a privileged status in our current discourse, and I don’t think that’s warranted in today’s world.
Maher’s frontal assault with a blunderbuss on Christianity is not the way to get results. It’s a way to get attention, to be sure, but won’t change many (or any) minds.
Movement Atheism, to the extent that you could say such a thing exists, is not concerned with gaining converts, it’s about freedom from religious bullying. Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, and some of your other high-profile atheists may come across as needlessly aggressive or contemptuous toward religious institutions and/or people, but from their perspective they’re an oppressed minority fighting a human rights battle that, as with all other human rights battles, should have ceased to be an issue long ago in an “enlightened civilization.” And they’re sick of taking crap from religious majorities, or, as we know them in the US, people calling themselves Christians. Or that’s how it seems to me. I think they’re long past caring about hurting feelings or insulting followers of any particular faith tradition. Note, I’m not lumping all atheists together, just noting my impressions of the more vociferous public figures.
“That’s a privilege you earn through having the talent to have someone invite you to speak. If you can sell advertising, they’ll keep asking you back. If you can’t sell advertising, they won’t.”
Are you talking about boycotts or banning?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html
I hope you’re not talking about the latter, because if so you don’t understand the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Strictly speaking, I am not talking about either boycotts or banning.
I have the right to say that Jennifer Aniston drinks the blood of Christian babies. She’s a public figure, and I can defame her all I want. But do I have a right to have someone invite me on television or radio to defame her?
If I go on on television or radio and defame her in that way, do I have the right to come back tomorrow and do it again?
If someone is paying me to appear on television or radio, do they have the right to terminate my contract if I start defaming Jennifer Aniston?
Are advertisers under any obligation to buy ads during a program where Jennifer Aniston is constantly defamed?
Is the public allowed to protest my defamation and call on advertisers to pull their support of my program?
Finally, why is Rush Limbaugh on the air and I am not? Is it because he has more First Amendment rights than I have? Why am I being denied a microphone? If silencing Limbaugh violates his rights, then my rights are being violated every single day that I am not broadcast in syndication all across the country.
No, Limbaugh is on the air and I am not because he sells advertising at an astronomically greater clip than I do. If that changes, Limbaugh will join me in the shadows of our national discourse.