Again, please enumerate the ways in which Rush has been supposedly
a “traitor to the principles of this country”.

I wonder, how much time has the “Bad Astronomer” spent listening to Rush?

Yeah, I figured…

(1) Well, put another way, if enjoyment of this blog, which is
supposedly about astronomy, is a function of political views, then
I would not enjoy reading this blog.
(2) When you get around to it, maybe you could be specific about
which of the “principles of this country” that Rush has betrayed.
(3) When was the last time you published a scientific paper? Oh.
Maybe that is why your blog is just political hackery…

I’ll add that if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he is anything but a bloviating traitor to the principles of this country, then you probably won’t enjoy reading this blog.

I am a professor and cosmologist/astrophysicist and I listen
to Limbaugh. I find him informative, sometimes obnoxious,
but very honest and smart.

I suggest that badAstronomy stick to astronomy and stop
engaging in amateurish political hackery.

We’re a) all on the Internet and b) acting as if this is some sort of new, horrible thing.

I am stuck somewhere between “so?” and “no one is forced to listen.” Welcome to America, comrades; whether factually correct or factually incorrect he’s still got the right and while we can indeed call Rushie for being a jerk I think arguing we need to /censor/ his views is a step in very much the wrong direction.

Contrary to jrkeller’s view that Rush worked his way up the ladder and we all have equal opportunity, I think there is ample evidence media monopolies, ie corporate controlled media and the influence of wealth buys that broadcasting access. I posted in the past a quote from a man who spent his life recording folk music from working people all over the world. It was something to the effect of “a million dollars for a transmitter and a million receivers for a dollar”. What he was saying was here were all these voices that were never to be heard on that inexpensive radio everyone could own but which only received transmissions from those million dollar transmitters very few people owned.

The Internet has changed that equation. While transmitters may not be a dollar, they are accessible to millions all over the world.

(BTW, don’t let the legislators turn the Internet into yet another million dollar transmitter. Fight for Net neutrality. It really does matter.)

>Why should he have the right, which I don’t have, to broadcast his ideas >to millions of people? Shouldn’t there be some standards required before >someone has that priviledge?

You have that right too. Regardless of how you feel about the man, Rush Limbaugh worked his butt off to get where is today. No one just handed him a mike, and 20 million listeners. He has been involved radio for close to 40 years and has had his own show for 22 years.

I personally don’t care for Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, but I would never say that they shouldn’t have the right to be on the airwaves and I should.

I’d say it was unmitigated gall.

Might sound reasonable, but here’s the problem.

Capitalism, which serves us fairly well, nonetheless has some inherent characteristics that don’t result in the optimal outcome for people in general. In the case of biotech companies, the corporate motive of the bottom line results in inadequate development of many drugs and treatment despite the huge market for some of them. The reason is R&D can represent such a large investment, companies don’t want to risk as much innovation as we could really benefit from. And, the large investments in R&D up front mean just having a market for a product doesn’t mean the market will be profitable enough to take the risks.

For example, drug companies have not been investing in new antibiotics despite the huge market for such products. Why? Because new antibiotics need to be used as little as possible to maintain their effectiveness against organisms that have developed resistance to other antibiotics. Whereas eventually the new antibiotics will be widely used as they become the only drug more and more organisms respond to, the return on investment isn’t fast enough to replace the invested capital. A company might have interest on debt during that time or stock prices might decline until more profit shows up on the books.

Also, you take antibiotics for a short time while other drugs such as those for high blood pressure, are taken daily the rest of a person’s life in most cases.

So without public supported research we get 15 versions of drugs that lower cholesterol and no new antibiotics for rapidly growing drug resistance in the bacterial population. That would be in the best interest of the corporation, but not in the best interest of the citizens in the USA.

We as people living in this country get a far higher return of value on dollars invested in medical research than on dollars invested in highways and other ‘commuinty’ properties.

This was about Rush Limbaugh?!

Scott

The Oracle says: Mikhail Gorbachev has a Rush Limbaugh number of 3.

Mikhail Gorbachev was in Paul McCartney Live in St. Petersburg (2003) (TV) with Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney was in “NFL on Fox Pregame Show” (1994) {Super Bowl XXXIX Pregame Show} with Bill Clinton (I)
Bill Clinton (I) was in “On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren” (2002) {(2005-10-04)} with Rush Limbaugh

Yeah, that was my bad. But anyways, we’re getting a bit too far off subject here. Let’s see who can connect Gorbachev back to Rush Limbaugh or MJF in the fewest steps.

Ready?

Go!

I don’t disagree with a single thing you said in your latest post. I was just pointing out that Gorbachev was never an elected leader. Or at least an elected leader in the way a democracy elects a leader.

The reason they elected a reformer (1985) is because they knew they were losing, dramatically, after Carter’s period of feckless weakness. The renewed, runaway economic success of America and Europe, the stronger conventional military, the mid range nukes in Europe, the Minuteman, SDI, and Reagan’s direct challenges to the leaders of the USSR are what did them in.