Use Protection: The First Amendment

Originally posted at Oakdale Patch.

Two weeks ago, Wednesday Feb. 29, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made some incendiary comments. Well, what else is new? The difference between Limbaugh’s recent set of comments and those of the past is that these specific comments have somehow ignited widespread media fury. Discussing Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke’s testimony before Congress in support of insurance mandates for birth control, Limbaugh, on top of displaying an ignorance of oral contraceptives, called her a few names (of which I am sure the reader is aware of but can research if not). Days after a media backlash and subsequent loss of sponsors, Limbaugh apologized.

The only thing more frustrating than Limbaugh’s actual comments is this entire so-called "controversy" perpetuated by those inherently obsessed with Rush Limbaugh no matter what he says or does, shoving this story down the throats of the rest of us. Those of us who do not listen to Limbaugh could have been spared the irritation—but no! One cannot escape the story. The Limbaugh/Fluke controversy is all over television, radio, news outlets, Facebook, Twitter and now Oakdale Patch (you’re welcome).

Everyone has weighed in, from comedians to musicians to pundits—time was even wasted on the House floor on the subject. But what is the point of all this? Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio making people upset for over 20 years; I have a hard time believing that only now has he crossed the line. Were Limbaugh’s comments insulting? Although I do believe Limbaugh was attempting to joke around (albeit mean-spiritedly) with his comments, I answer a subjective yes; it was insulting—and plenty weird at that. Was Limbaugh’s apology sincere? No one but Limbaugh can honestly answer that question. The most significant piece to this Limbaugh/Fluke “controversy” however is neither the specifics of Limbaugh’s comments nor the greater idea of insurance-covered contraception that Fluke advocates. No, the most important piece to this story is how the freedom of speech is being observed.

The reaction to Limbaugh’s comments has been more over-the-top than even Limbaugh is on a daily basis. Refuting the misinformation about oral birth control is welcome but the media frenzy has unfortunately not been limited to such an intellectual discussion. In fact, the narrative focus seems to be on the particulars of Limbaugh’s comments, which has done nothing but distract from the contraception and insurance mandate questions offered during the Congressional hearing. The media’s attempt to shame Limbaugh into silence seems pointless since his all-too-characteristic comments speak for themselves to the pint-sized concern of his 40 million-plus fan base. Doubtful are grounds for libel; therefore, what the commentary eventually boils down to is this: simply yet another misguided round of motor-mouthing from Mr. Limbaugh. So… What? Who cares? Limbaugh has no authority over our lives; Why is this news? Has a crime been committed? I see none.

I am very satisfied to see figures like Adam Carolla and Bill Maher, not unfamiliar with incendiary comments in the pursuit of humor themselves, stand up for Limbaugh purely on the basis of free speech. Allow me to join in.

This latest Limbaugh episode exposes the speech intolerance in America today. The Bill of Rights begins by addressing our natural right to free speech and yet, while always reserving that right for themselves, rarely do Americans respect that right for others. The entire nation seems to gasp and recoil every time somebody utters something not illegal or dangerous—but merely offensive. Why? The First Amendment does not protect only speech that everyone agrees with, it is meant to protect speech that others find provocative or downright offensive as well. One would assume that, in a nation that embraces the freedom of words, speech of all kinds would be not automatically endorsed but certainly permissible. Many if not most Americans seem to lack the ability to accept or even ignore offensive speech. The great irony in the media’s mission to shame and silence Limbaugh is that they are giving him the attention he seeks—ignoring him would have been a much more effective tool to mute Limbaugh’s voice and influence in politics.

Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh will continue on expressing his opinion in his own way for years to come and it is sure to offend at least a portion of the population. But the freedom to insult and be insulted is a cornerstone to our great Republic; if offensive speech were inadmissible, there would be no freedom of speech at all and everyone would live with less liberty. Americans must be more generous in the way they apply the First Amendment to others if they expect it to last for the generations to come.

Stadium Beating: NFL Rules Lead To Taxpayer-Funded Stadiums

Originally posted at Oakdale Patch.

Feeding on fans’ fears that the Vikings will leave Minnesota, the quest to build a new taxpayer-funded stadium for a team that has only been to the playoffs three times in the past 10 years has been rocky at best. One does not have to do much digging to absorb the scope of the silly back-and-forth between Vikings owner Zygi Wilf and our state representatives. Talks recently came full circle to a plan that would build upon a site located a stone’s throw away from the Metrodome and, although a complete deal still has not been finalized, the latest word is that the Vikings will play the 2012 season in Minnesota.

Both major parties do not want to be known as the party that lost the Vikings and, as a result, working toward a new taxpayer-funded Vikings stadium has basically been a bipartisanship effort (outside of some occasional petty bickering between the GOP Legislature and the DFL governor). This stadium deal has been in the news for years, but hardly anyone has mentioned the best case scenario for this Vikings problem, originating from our cheeseheaded neighbors to the east—save for the Libertarian Party of Minnesota (LPMN) and DFL State Representative Phyllis Kahn.

Since a majority of Minnesotans think that the Vikings are important to the state, this stadium issue has always been more about keeping the Vikings in Minnesota than simply acting on a desire to build a new stadium. The plans of Representative Kahn and the LPMN would be the best options to fund a new Vikings stadium and keep the team in Minnesota for good. Basically, the plans are revamped versions of the Green Bay Packers model. The Packers are the only publicly owned professional sports team in the Union, a fact that I find strange seeing as how well the ownership structure has worked for the success of the team. Far be it from a Vikings fan to heap praise upon the Green Bay Packers, but one must give credit where credit is due: the Green Bay Packers model is the best way to keep a team’s future in the hands of the fans.

While many states and cities have seen their favorite professional teams come and go, the Packers have stayed in Green Bay since the team’s stock went up for sale in 1923, winning four Super Bowls and nine pre-Super Bowl championships. Many Packers fans own shares of the team’s stock, no one person being allowed more than 200,000 shares to balance ownership control, and because the team is nonprofit, all profits are reinvested back into the team. Rep. Kahn submitted a plan that called for 70 percent of Vikings stocks to be sold to the public and the Libertarians feel their plan improves upon the Packers model by creating a for profit instead of a nonprofit team structure. Both plans secure fan control of the team and the Vikings would specifically become an investment opportunity for the fans, in effect giving back to the community, under the LPMN plan.

Although the best way to keep the Vikings in Minnesota with a new stadium would be to follow this Green Bay model, the option is inexorably un-viable due to NFL rules. The reason why so many sports teams come begging to governments for taxpayer-funded stadiums, and why governments usually comply, is because the system is set up that way. The National Football League prohibits publicly owned teams (except for the Packers organization, which was grandfathered into the League), creating a system that directly benefits the billionaire owners. Private owners, acting on business decisions that turn the biggest profit for their investment, will look to other markets when a location becomes less profitable compared to another. Politicians fear the loss of revenue generated by the team and proceed to bend over backwards with such enticements as new taxpayer-funded stadiums. The owners love this because they do not have to invest as much capital into a stadium of their own. The fans, in turn, allow the politicians to get away with this because they simply want to hold onto their team.

Vikings fans are undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief at the news that the Vikings are not relocating next year and are looking forward to seeing a final stadium deal, but how many realize that their team is forever held hostage by a system of ownership that leads to corporate welfare sanctioned by the NFL itself? If the fans want to end this exchange cycle of threats for taxpayer-funded stadiums and actually take control of their team, the NFL’s rules will have to be changed to simply allow for the public ownership of teams.