Mel Brooks could have talked about it. It would have been funny. It would even have been funny to transgenders. And nobody would have complained.
How come Mel Brooks gets away with stuff that gets others fired, boycotted... ?
Howard could have talked about it, too. It would have been funny but not as funny. And someone would have complained, if only on general principles because their hobby is monitoring Howard and writing complaints to the commission.
Also, as noted, they failed to mention was that the insurance policy that was offered to transgender individuals was to be paid by the individual AT EXTRA COST TO THEM, NOT THE TAXPAYERS!
Now, I have no idea if what you are saying is true or not, but I do know that just because the employee is paying more for additional insurance coverage, that doesn't mean the employer isn't also paying more, which in this case would mean the taxpayers.
Now, I have no idea if what you are saying is true or not, but I do know that just because the employee is paying more for additional insurance coverage, that doesn't mean the employer isn't also paying more, which in this case would mean the taxpayers.
Then why don't you do some research before jumping to conclusions?
Why, is Entercom owned by the government?
Also, insurance coverage by an employer is part of your compensation as an employee. This idea that you're getting it for "free" by your employer is ridiculous. That's like saying you get your paycheck for free too.
The person making the claims that the employee is paying needs to do the research, if they care that much. I just stated a fact.
The only fact here is that the coverage is optional, and must be paid by the employee. THAT is the fact. What you stated was your opinion.
Last I knew, city employee's insurance wasn't covered by Entercom alone.
How can anybody defend the indefensible? I listened to this bit. It was about 11 minutes longer than it needed to be. There was a time when good air talent had a sixth sense about shtick. When a bit wasn't working, they bailed. But here, they drove the friggin' bus off the cliff and it went up in flames. Yet some people here thought it was... funny? For real?
If you do a twelve minute bit, the chances of driving off the cliff increase exponentially after the first 60 seconds. If Kimberly had just thought about framing the issues before she opened her mouth, she might have generated some worthwhile points. Around 6:45, she raised the issue about medical insurance not covering cancer therapies which to her, were more worthwhile than gender transectomies. But by that time, the damage had been done. The bit was embarrassing to listen to. Like going to a play where the acting is bad, the script sucks and there's no plot. Having heard the bit, it's pretty clear that Entercom had no choice but to give these clowns the hook.
After playing Aerosmith, Kimberly & Beck should have segued into this >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHDyfJpRcwo
That's NOT why they were fired. They were fired because a bunch of thugs that want to stomp out all speech they disagree with demanded it.
If anyone doesn't see why this is dangerous, you're terribly ill-informed.
So what is a victim of a radio rant supposed to do? Put yourself in their place, and tell me.
Short of outright slander and other already illegal forms of speech, there is no such thing as "victim" of a radio rant.
You're dodging the question. Use another word. Say they're the object of a radio rant. One that they didn't provoke. What should they do? Just sit there and take it?
Until we as a people stop looking to be offended at every little thing, we're doomed as a society.