Doug,
It is to Diane Rehm's credit that you *don't* know where she stands. That attests to her neutrality and skill as a fair interviewer. This is a compliment. She is truly about learning, exploring, and searching for the truth.

That is a concept that is all too unfortunately foreign to Rush. He is not the least bit interested in "the truth", only in jamming what he *insists* to be the truth--nevermind any contrary facts or logic that might mess up a good argument--down everyone's throats. Rush's relationship with the truth is purley incidental and random. That is *not* a compliment. Denouncing her and holding him up as a paragon of integrity and fairness just doesn't make sense.

This distinction between "jamming" and "seeking" is the crux of the difference, in fact, between what are called in the US today "conservatives" and liberals". (Had to clarify that, since in other times and locations the definitions vary considerably.) Conservatives believe they have all the answers and that new inquiry is only a distraction, punishable by not less than 5 and not more than 20 years. Liberals believe that we can always learn new ways of doing things and revisit our beliefs in light of new information or insights. In this regard, once again, I am proud to be a Liberal.


GC's support of him through advertising will definitely make me think carefully about my purchases there, such as they may be. And no, this has nothing to do with throttling free speech. Free speech on the airwaves is far more threatened by the consolidation of the media in fewer and fewer (rich, white, powerful) hands, as I mentioned in another thread recently.

And yes, using one's economic power as an adjunct to voting (which we all know may not always be counted) is a legitimate endeavor. In fact, I suggest that thinking, caring people have an *obligation* to practice it. That is what it is to live consciously.