About Me

Name: ilja
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Boycott the Boycotts!

I think it's time that those of us on the right and on the left started boycotting the Boycotts. It has gotten to where we are boycotting everything these days and sometimes for the most inane of reasons. I look at it as a fight where you should pick your battles else your tactic will lose it's impact.

When I first started considering this, the main reasons I thought we should boycott the Boycotts was so that people would not get so used to them they would start ignoring them and so that others might be more willing to join in if they weren't already sick of them.

Fortunately or what I thought was unfortunate at the time, I lost my original Blog on this topic. Since then in particular with what has happened to Imus in losing his job for something that he said, I am beginning to believe that we are causing more harm than good when we boycott.

The most immediate harm that we do albeit unintentionally is that we might very well be hurting people who had nothing to do with the original event that instigated our ire.

For instance, in the case of Imus, while I personally think it's ridiculous that he lost his job for what he said even though what he said was disgusting, he was hired to be a shock jock, which is exactly what he was. To be honest, it probably would not have bothered me nearly as much if MSNBC & CBS had given him more time to see how the market would react instead of caving so quickly to criticism.

Though from what I hear, he is not exactly a very nice person, I do believe that financially he is not going to have any problems if he has been wise with the bakoodles of money he has made over the years. Not that that excuses what happened to him but he is not the point I was trying to make. The ones who I am most concerned with are all the other people that made a living from his show. While some of you may have no problem finding another comparable job if you lost your current one, a lot of us are not in that situation.

Sure you can say but that's what these people deserve for working for such a despicable man. I disagree wholeheartedly. What if one of these people was a family member of yours? What if they depended on that paycheck to support their family and it was highly unlikely they could find another job that even came close to the same salary as they were making on his show? Is our anger at someone for saying something that we find disgusting and/or totally disagree with more important than the livelihood of people who just might feel the same way as ourselves? Even if they don't and even if they totally agree with the disgusting thing that someone said, does that mean they deserve to lose their job?

I am also concerned that if we keep boycotting or at least organize boycotts where a lot of people get involved whenever someone says something we don't like then it is going to backfire and bite each of us where the sun don't shine.

I am not saying that you have to shop somewhere where you don't want to or watch someone who you can't stand. I am saying that we seem to have taken this boycotting to an entirely new dimension when someone can't say something totally stupid on TV without fear of losing their job. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to shoot from the hip like that and not say something stupid ever?

For instance as disgusting as I find all the anti-American slurs that Rosie has been making, if Conservatives are such believers in Capitalism and Liberty, then why would you insist that someone be fired simply because you don't like their words? Sure I know that words have power but aren't we acting just like a liberal when we want to hurt someone personally rather than answer back with the facts?

As for the left, do you really want to insist that your Presidential Candidates avoid a cable TV station just because you disagree with it's format when I thought you guys were the arbiters of diversity and freedom of speech? Not to mention that you are hurting your own's chances of winning if they don't appear on stations that someone other than their base watches.

It appears to me that we are heading down a road that once we go, we can never turn back.

The greatness of America was not achieved by people who were so afraid of their shadow that they would dare not take any risks or chances. The greatness of America was and is obtained by people stepping out of their comfort zones and daring to challenge the status quo. How can we possibly expect to remain a free nation if we keep stifling the voices of those with whom we disagree? As repelling as we might find someone's ideas, wouldn't we achieve much more success if we quit hiding behind our offenses and dare to come up with ideas of our own to challenge them?

Why not join me in this newfangled idea of boycotting the boycotts and let us come up with solutions instead of roadblocks?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hannity, You're On Your Own Kiddo

For months and months when I've heard others complain about Sean Hannity, I would think to myself 'yeah but he sure loves the troops'. Sure I knew he was a partisan but he was so nice and sweet and good to those in need that I just didn't care. After all, he does those concerts every year for the children of those who gave all to further their education. Not only that, you can hear it in his voice whenever he talks to a member of the armed forces or to one of their family members.

When someone would complain about his supposed unending support of the GOP, I would remember his tirade about Dubois Ports and about the borders. Shoot he even went down to the border and filmed several episodes from there right when the GOP was hoping that the issue would die down. When he disagrees with the administration, he is not afraid to speak his mind.

Plus he's just so darn cute. He comes across as one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. I've heard Greta Van Susteren talk about him and she is most definitely a full-blown leftist but you can tell just by her voice that she thinks the world of him. I really do believe that he and Alan Colmes have a genuine friendship which shows me that he is able to keep his politics in perspective.

To be honest, I'm not really surprised with his latest actions seeing as I already knew he was not nearly as Conservative as he makes himself out to be. I can't remember which issue it was but I suspect it probably had to do with federal funding of embryonic-stem cell research. I realize there are a lot of people who don't consider that an important issue but it's funny how the ones that aren't really strong on life issues, often end up disappointing those on the right who are Social liberals. It appears to me that Social Conservatives who are major players have a much stronger backbone when it comes to other issues than those who are Social liberals.

The part about all of this that bugs me the most is that Sean has said over and over again how he is a Reagan-Conservative. He has said that his Conservatism comes first and foremost yet here he is endorsing with every bit of his power the least Conservative candidate of them all running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Don't get me wrong, I like Giuliani. I thought he did a wonderful job on and after September 11th as New York's mayor. I even thought he did a great job as Mayor of NY prior to 9/11.

Plus I like him much better than McCain and supposedly McCain is more Conservative than Rudy. Yet I trust McCain about as much as I do my ex's. Not to mention that I just can't stand him.

But I digress, this is suppose to be about my disappointment with Sean in regards to his obvious support of Giuliani. Simply because he said he would appoint Justices like Alito and Roberts, that doesn't mean that they are the only type of Judge's he would appoint. I keep remembering his praise of Ginsberg and the fact that he is pro-abortion.

Shoot, did you hear Rudy mention guns? He thought it was necessary to enforce some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. He even mentioned how he believes in the second amendment and that he has no intentions of interfering with our rights to hunt. Did you hear that? He thinks the second amendment is about hunting.

Then he goes on to explain how he thinks gun control laws are just fine and even necessary in certain parts of the country. Can someone please point out to me where it states in the Constitution that our Bill of Rights only apply in certain parts of the country?

Oh and have you heard Sean try and explain away Rudy's liberal stands on the issues? I'm sure you have if you have listened to him at all since he has become a regular Rudy apologist. He acts as if the President has no influence whatsoever on life issues but he conveniently forgets about Bush signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that was vetoed by Clinton (who Rudy admired by the way) and the Mexico City Policy that prohibits monies from going to federal agencies that perform abortions as a method of family planning in other nations. Can you see Rudy taking either of those stances?

Then what about the borders? I thought Sean cared about this issue but he simply describes Rudy's stance on the borders as being like President Bush's. Rudy seems to like the idea of a virtual fence. I have come to see virtual fence in the same light that I see guest worker program. Mainly what they are saying is that they don't support a "real" fence on the border just like they support "amnesty" for illegals.

Sean, Sean, Sean please remember your promise to us your listeners that you would never forsake your Conservative values. Please stop putting your desire to win at all costs above advancing Conservatism.

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »