This is the original left-field wall at Fulton County Stadium, over which Hank Aaron hit the seven hundred and fifteenth homer of his career (breaking Babe Ruth's previous record).
The latest news in the business of radio broadcasting comes to us from Cumulus Media.
On January 6, talk show hosts with the corporation were directed to stop talking about the recent presidential election....or else. (1)
"We need to help induce calm NOW, and will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended...if you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately"
-- Brian Phillips, Executive Vice President of Content, Cumulus Media
Basically, the company has said to its many conservative hosts, "we know you think the election was not legitimately conducted. Shut up about it, or you're fired".
This directive has raised an important question, one involving free speech. Can a media corporation such as Cumulus, or any company for that matter, tell its employees what they can and cannot say? As long as the company isn't a government entity, then yes, they can. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you must work for a particular company. If you disagree with company policy, you're free to seek employment with another company that you agree with, policy-wise.
Perhaps the more pressing question is whether the action of Cumulus is ethically correct. I am of the opinion that it is not. Company policy aside, if someone has an opinion that things are a bit shady, they should be able to express that opinion without fear of losing their job. The fact that employees of Cumulus Media cannot do as such is disturbing to me...but maybe I worry too much. (2)
What's this idea that we all have certain rights about? Seriously, we don't have any "God-given rights". Rather, we have government-granted permissions.
There is no right to free speech or free press, there is only permission to speak, and express ideas that the government approves of. There is no right to free assembly, or free association. There is no right to worship or not worship as you choose and believe, or to gather with others in such worship. And you absolutely do not have the right to free and fair elections. Those can be rigged as the government finds necessary.
Let's be real; we all know Joe Biden did not legally win the presidency. It doesn't matter, because he came up with the most votes, right? The thing that really matters is the opinion of those who count the votes. If they say Biden has been elected, it must be so, for it could not be otherwise. All who believe differently are said to be either lying, deluded, "racist", or stupid (thanks in part to the left's media partners).
Even so, there still seems to be this lingering notion that our government's purpose is to protect our rights, and that it will stand up for those rights when they are threatened. Uh, no....if you STILL think anyone in Washington cares about you, think again. The only things that many of them care about is power, control, and their own self-interests. One need only look as far as the last Joint Session to figure that out.
That includes people like Senator Richard Blumenthal. I could be standing on top of the tallest building in Hartford, waving a sign saying "I've got a question" and my phone number; he still wouldn't give me even the time of day. And yes, this has been recently proven, to some extent.
If they cared about the average citizen, they would have the spine to stand up and object to not just the election, but to ever-increasing attacks on our liberty. If he cared, vice president Mike Pence would've used his lawful authority to not recognize fraudulent votes and procedures. If they cared, they would realize that they govern by the consent of "we the people", and that we DID NOT CONSENT/DO NOT CONSENT to Joe Biden as president.
And yes liberals, Donald Trump is indeed the president...for ten more days. You can wait ten days for him to leave office; frankly, conservatives waited eight years for Obama to do the same.
Anyways, I'm not done. If they cared, our so-called "representatives" would understand that when they do not protect our rights, the people have a right and duty to rise up and say "NO" (this includes civil disobedience to unjust laws). Wanton acts of violence aside, we have the right to say "I WILL NOT COMPLY". When we the people are left with no other choice, this can and likely will happen. That is the reality we have been driven to.
The simple fact is that politicians in Washington do not understand this, nor do many of them care. I've had it up to here with that attitude; it is straight out of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (the book, not the year). "This is what you must believe; and we have ways of making you believe it"....forget that!
I'm putting everyone who purports to represent us, whether in Hartford or in Washington, on notice. For not just me, but many others as well, "the gloves are off". If you think I was confrontational before, then as the song says, "you ain't seen nothin' yet". I have, and will continue to, call out both acts of tyranny and those that commit them. I will not stand by as the "American dream" becomes the "American nightmare" (as it has seemingly become already)....
....no more "Mr. Nice Guy"!
"Politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't...you have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything...they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They don't give a...about you. They don't give a...about you! They don't care about you...at all, at all, at all!"
- George Carlin (1937-2008)
Just been thinking about this song today.
<walks over to the jukebox>
:: PLINK ::
“She's All I Ever Had”
Originally recorded by Ricky Martin
Written by George Noriega, Jon Secada, & Draco Rosa (1)
Here I am
Broken wings.To hold my hand.
She's all, she's all I ever had
She's the air I breathe.
She's all, she's all I ever had.
CHORUS:
It's the way she makes me feel
It's the only thing that's real.
It's the way she understands
She's my lover, she's my friend.
When I look into her eyes
It's the way I feel inside.
Like the man I want to be
She's all I ever need.
So much time
So much pain, (but)
There's one thing
That still remains (it's the)
The way she cared
The love we shared.
And through it all
She's always been there.
She's all, she's all I ever had
In a world so cold, so empty
She's all, she's all I ever had
(CHORUS)
She's all, she's all I ever had
I love to make her see.
She's all, she's all I ever had.
(CHORUS 2X)
Here I am.
It sounds like a scenario out of the "Twilight Zone". "Imagine, if you will"...that an organization purporting to oversee high school sports in the state of Connecticut allows competition based on "gender identity". That is, a male can compete as a female (and vice-versa) simply by saying that they are a female (1).
Incredible as it sounds, this idea doesn't come from a science fiction novel; it is the actual policy of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC). Logic and actual results dictate that this pushes actual females to the side; a biological female will never be able to compete with a biological male (see author's note). Yet this doesn't seem to matter to leadership of the Conference. Nor does it matter that opportunities are being taken away from biological females. CIAC claims that "Connecticut law is clear", and that they are in compliance with it (2).
Nevertheless, on the issue at hand, the United States Department of Education (supported by the Department of Justice) disagrees. Following a complaint and subsequent investigation, the Department (on May 15, 2020) issued a "Letter of Impending Action" to the Conference. The letter declared that CIAC policy is in violation of the federal law known as "Title IX", and gave the Conference until June 4 2020 to remedy the problem, else risk the loss of federal funds (3). CIAC's response was to double-down, and utterly refuse to negotiate a solution.
CIAC Executive Director Glenn Lungarini knows that the Conference is not only violating Title IX, but pushing it backward thirty years. The whole point of the law is not to deny opportunities, but to give females a chance to succeed where they have traditionally been unable to. And perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that you can't just ignore a federal law, states' rights or no. There is a reason (see above) for Title IX, and the law that goes along with it (4).
So why won't CIAC obey the "laws of the land"? Perhaps they believe that federal law doesn't apply to them, and that they are above such laws? That's the same attitude that many in the south's "good-ol-boy network" took towards segregation and injustice. "I can run my city/county/state the way I want to; the law means nothing to me". This was the wrong idea then, and it's the wrong idea now.
In any event, I suggest that if CIAC will not obey the laws of our nation, maybe it's time to rethink this "one state, one conference" thing. Perhaps it's time to found a new organization that intends to obey the law, rather than maintain membership in one that has no such intent.
Author's Note: In the words of professional wrestler "Eli Drake", "that's not an insult, that is just a fact of life".
