Jim Cates

In October of 2002 I started listening to the Jim Cates Show. Before that I hadn't thought much of talk radio. Since then I've become a loyal listener, frequent caller, and occasional guest on his show.

Recently Cumulus Broadcasting decided to terminate the # 1 rated talk show in Kansas. The only details are that the new station management wanted to change the format in a way that would effectively cut the heart out of the show - they wanted to end the Open Lines sessions and censor any "negative" issues.

The Jim Cates Show provided a community forum for people in Topeka, and he allowed anyone to call in and discuss issues of importance. Like everyone, Jim has his own views, but his show was never about HIS views - he allowed the public a chance to speak. Even when Jim disagreed with a caller, he was always respectful about it, but he made it a point to let people speak even if they have opposing views.

I've always liked his show, but I've really been impressed with the man himself. Jim Cates has a level of sincerity and integrity that too many people seem to lack today. It wasn't just on air either; every time I've seen Jim in public, whether at the park, a coffeehouse, or even his favorite local bar, he has always been friendly and cool to hang out with.

This morning we held a rally at Cumulus headquarters in downtown Topeka. I'd say about 30-35 people showed, many of them were people I knew from their on-air voice. Several sponsors were also their, announcing that they were pulling their advertising from ALL Cumulus stations until Jim Cates is reinstated.

After my recent correspondences with certain Cumulus officials, I've lost confidence in that corporation. Regardless of the few short "standard replies" they've given, the fact is that Cumulus has effectively silenced the voice of the people, and basically told their most loyal listeners where we could put our voice...

I hope Jim is able to get his show back on air, perhaps on AM 580 WIBW. Or maybe his Sunday morning show on 49 KTKA will expand to a few days per week? Topeka has a lot of potential, and people like Jim Cates can help us reach that potential.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us

World History Maps by TAL: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/

Lessman's Farm & Catfish Pond:
www.thomaslessman.com/LessmanFarm/

=======================

(Note: the Topeka Capital-Journal also has a short article about this situation)

Buzz Hates Atheists

A guy name Buzz had his opinion about atheists published on CJonline, in a piece titled, "Letter: Rights for All Others". I wonder if he held anything back, or did he tell us how he really feels?

I'm not even atheist and I can see the bigotry in his words. I'm going to repeat some of his rant, but I'll switch the words "atheist" and "christian" so you can see how this sounds:

"What societal good have Christians ever done? Atheism is the only reason Christians even have the right to believe in God. It wasn't some native tribe's beads that gave Christians that right, because it was Atheists who established protections for minorities in this country."

In his letter, Buzz blames atheists for Hitler, Stalin, and several other nasty characters in history. It makes me wonder, does he also blame atheists for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islam, Oil prices, the Titanic, and Mondays?

Buzz, is there anything bad that you DON'T blame on atheists?

For the record, I do see atheism as a type of religion (religiously anti-religious). And some atheists do go overboard sometimes when they are defending their beliefs against others. Some atheists are even as fanatical as some christian or muslim fanatics (like Pat Roberts, Louis Farrakhan, Phred Phelps, and Bin Laden).

However most atheists are good and simple people trying to survive and live their life as best as they can. Just like the vast majority of christians, jews, muslims, and even spiritual but non-religious people like me. They have their own beliefs and don't want to be harassed or treated unfairly because of their religion.

Hate-filled rants and religious bigotry have caused enough misery on our planet. And it started long before atheism was even thought of.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
--------------------

World History Maps
: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/

Gay Marriage "Rights"?

I got into a debate with a local "Gay Rights" activist on our local newspaper website over the "Gay Marriage" issue. I really don't care what consenting adults do, and I don't care if someone is gay or not (as long as they don't shove it in my face). Because honestly, the more guys who are gay, the less competition there is... DUH!

However, the issue of "gay marriage" interests me because I see the much of the same hypocrisy, distortions, and victimology from the "gay rights movement" as I do from Feminists and other "professional victim" groups.

First, there is no "Right to Marry", just like there is no "Right to have sex" or a "Right to drive". Marriage is only a government-granted privilege (not a human right). Marriage was originally a religious ceremony meant to symbolicly unite a man and woman in a committed relationship. Unfortunately the Government took over the power to grant marriages. We ALL know that when the government gets involved, bad things happen. So what was originally a religious ceremony has now become a potential gold mine for one partner, and a trap for the other. Government has no good reason to get involved in marriage, but they did it anyway and made a mess of it!

Second (and my main point) is that, IF traditional marriage (one man and one woman) is considered discrimination against gays, then doesn't it also discriminate against bigamists, polygamists, and guys with large harems? Thus, if we expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples, then don't we also have to expand marriage to allow bigamist, polygamist, plural, and any other type of marriages that aren't considered "traditional"?

(After all, would it be fair to discriminate against polygamists, and not allow them to marry the way they want to, simply because they aren't gay?)

One commenter responded by saying that we could write the laws so that any two (and ONLY two) people could marry. He obviously ignored or didn't see what I was getting at.

The gay rights activist, however, responded to my question with hostility, basically making false assumptions about me and my intentions. The interesting part was where he said, "I will not be derailed by your weak attempts to compare my committed loving relationship to any other controversial group. I.E. What's next people... robot marriage?"

In other words, he believes it's discrimination to not allow "his people" to marry the way they want to marry, but he believes it's okay to use that same "discrimination" against other groups that aren't like his. And even though he calls it discrimination, he still used the same type of argument that his opponents use against his cause. (His "What's next, robog marriage" is too similar to the "What's next, do we allow beastiality marriages" argument I've seen other people use to argue against gay marriage.

His response is comparable to a Jew arguing that it was ok for the Nazis to murder Gypsies, Gays, Poles, and other groups because they aren't like his people. It's exactly like feminists, who argue that gender discrimination is wrong, but only if it's against a woman because they think it's okay to discriminate against men.

Just like feminists and race-baiters, this guy is so stuck on seeing himself and "his group" as a victim class, that he can't see his own bigotry and hypocrisy and thus becomes what he accuses his opponents of.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------