Question of the Week

     So Don Imus, joking around on the air with his pals, refers to some young female college basket ball athletes as "nappy 'ho's" and is booted off the air. Rush Limbaugh, THE de facto head of the Republican Party, goes on the air and repeatedly refers by name,  to a young Georgetown University law student who testified before Congress on the health care, birth control issue, and calls her a slut and a prostitute and demanded that, "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, . . . we want you to post the videos on line so we can all watch." 
     Not a single Republican Congressperson declared that Rush's comments crossed the line, were unacceptable, were despicable.  Clear Channel has not removed him from the air, or fined him.  Our own local station, KVEC, still carries his program.  Local businesses still sponsor comments like this. And otherwise decent SLOTowners remain ardent fans.  Even decent SLOTowners with college-age daughters of their own, will scramble to excuse his despicable comments.  No cognative dissonance for them. Only glowingly unacknowledged hypocrisy.  
     But there's an upside to all this.  Thanks to Rush's latest and deliciously unconscious true confession on air, we now know that this creepy drug addict, who needs Viagra to have sex, likes to watch.

Addendum

     To my previous posting about Andrew Breitbart's sudden passing, I would like to add a post-script observation.  He did get the Anthony Weiner story right and that time he actually hit the right target for the right reasons. Which begs a question: Is it possible that with time, maturity, a few critical epiphanies, and perhaps a better understanding that journalism, even the self-aggrandized "new media" journalism, is still a sacred calling and that facts and getting the story right really do matter?   Given his obvious talents and energy, that he chose to ignore that holy calling and then ran out of time, is a shame.