Wednesday, June 22, 2011

"The Reason God Invented the Radio"

The reason that God invented the radio, Mr. Limbaugh, was not so that you might misinform others about the population crisis, or to out-and-out lie about the intent of those like Al Gore to spread awareness about the need for increased access to fertility management to women across the globe.

The reason God invented the radio was not so that you, Mr. Limbaugh, might further inflame your listeners, who no doubt are already seething with vitriol and hate for those in the scientific and humanitarian community which you so readily and often demonize, into thinking that what Al Gore really means by increased access to fertility management to women across the globe is that he wants a “Planned Parenthood on every corner…and you know what goes on at Planned Parenthood.”

No, Mr. Limbaugh, he is not calling for more abortions. He is calling for more choice, more options than the single one that many women in the world face- have children, have many of them, until you can’t have any more. Perhaps for a better option, something like Oh, I Don’t Know, the ability to say “We have no money, not enough water, and some of my children are sick [or have died]. Perhaps now is not the best time to present another precious child into such a harsh and debilitating world.” The option to take a pill which prevents pregnancy until she chooses to have it. The option to put off child rearing until she can receive an education or start her own business, so that she may not have to rely upon her husband for financial stability. Or even the option to put off child birth until she can raise the stakes of it surviving its first case of diarrhea by a few percentage points, perhaps. And that’s just what it is, Mr. Limbaugh. An option. A choice for the woman. Not a mandate. Not the “communist Chi-Com’s” forced abortion policy that you so readily related it to in hopes of instilling even more fear into your listeners.

The reason that God invented radio was not so that you can attempt to sway others into believing that this option is evil- that it is derived from those evil times, the 1960’s and 70’s, which brought about 'feminism' on steroids, ready to attack our testosterone laced society and to turn all of our men into women (Or, as he so eloquently reports it to be, the “chickafication” of our society. Yes, that’s right, computer, “chickafication” is indeed not a word.)

A very serious problem with you, Mr. Limbaugh, stating that you are the reason that “God invented the radio” is that it insinuates that God agrees, even sanctions, your daily screeds- including this one. I doubt that God would find your characterization of the population crisis “not about the unequal distribution of resources, but that there is not enough resources- not enough capitalism” very accurate, nor would He probably agree with your insinuation that if we were to glance around at the countries most deprived of food, clean water, and sanitation, that we’d find that most were “under Marxist regimes.”

Really, Mr. Limbaugh? Firstly, and quickly, I must ask this of you: is everything about Marxism, Communism, and Socialism to you? Also, another brief sidenote, and I’m not sure if you and others (cough- Michael Savage) know this, but Marxism, Socialism, and Communism and not the same thing. Okay, back to the main point… Many citizens in the rural lands of India, a firm ally or ours (and by no means a socialist country), lack access to clean water. Many in Sudan, a government run solely within the city of Khartoum and at the hands of those less interested in wealth distribution to those in need than in murdering those of a differing religion and social class, die every single day out of starvation, thirst, and sickness. Many women in the Congo, a nation so long in conflict certainly not under the auspices of any Marxist-like revolution, must sell their bodies (if they are not raped by soldiers first), in order to feed themselves and their children- this while watching their husbands, brothers, and fathers die while fighting in the constant civil wars, all while near 20% of their children die of diarrheal diseases. Diarrheal diseases, in fact, which are so easily treated with safe access to sanitation facilities, clean water, and vaccinations.

But, of course, since capitalism has not yet reached the Congo, clean water and food is impossible to distribute ("Distribute"-no doubt a socialist word, right El Rushbo?) to those in need. They can all just die. They can all just die, and your explanation is not that those in power are stripping their nation’s resources to sell abroad to enrich themselves (Oil in the case of Sudan, minerals and diamonds in the case of the Congo-a pretty accurate description of free-market capitalism if I do say so myself), but that there is just not enough capitalism going around to keep up with the need for resources.

If that assumption is correct, I’d also venture to guess that he thinks that there is no population problem in the first place, then. It’s not that there are too many people for the amount of resources we have to go around, or that many of those alive aren’t allowed the privileged access to food and water like those of better regions, races, social classes, and religions- it’s instead that there is too little capitalism, and if other nations would just attempt to live just as the USA does, they could continue to reproduce just as they do(Hell, why not more), and without the need for even the option not to reproduce, and all would be well. Children wouldn’t die of thirst, starvation, or rampant and easily curable diseases because, of course, capitalism creates resources, right? It creates the water we drink (and it might even privatize it!) and it creates the food we eat. It even instantly recycles itself again and again into new energy like oil, coal, solar, and hydroelectric power, because it’s just that damned amazing.

Well, Mr. Limbaugh, I’d like to hear how, especially in the cases of the non-Marxist nations mentioned above (where much of the population problem is so pronounced), how Marxism has kept so many from the very resources they dream of, but could never have had because those in power denied them of it, until their last painful breath. Please, “Maha Rushie,” explain to us why you think it is that humans should populate the Earth just as they continue to do and how they should not expect diminishing resources. For as much as the implementation of one economic doctrine or another may create some forms of capitol, it can never regenerate the natural resources we are so rapidly depleting and denying to those most in need.

1 comment:

Michael G. Starkey said...

Awesome writing. It's truly painful to listen the ideas and thoughts that are blasted out onto the mainstream media through the voices of the talking heads. Not only painful, but deeply troubling and disturbing if you relate those ideas to the rest of the world...