I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
El PillBo, the MahaHashy, from "high" atop the EIB Building, with talent on loan from Merck...
So... he's saying he wants to go to prison? He should let the DA know.
Concur 100%.
Can we form a posse and go make a citizens' arrest?
As Uggabugga points out, these things should be handled on a case-by-case basis... unfortunately, the brownshirts have been very desirous of passing draconian mandatory sentence laws that take any sentencing discretion away from the judges... and, of course, Ashkkkroft has been very aggressive in imposing his own "moral" standards on prosecutors...
So tough shit, wingnuts, Rush should fry. What goes around, comes around.
Can we form a posse and go make a citizens' arrest?
LOL!
I'll bring the rope!
I am a lawyer who has worked as a drug counselor for 20 years, and have pretty definite feelings about drug treatment and the legal system's abuse of individuals who are addicts. I agree with Atrios' position and similar references without reservation; pretty much like I felt about that hypocrite, morals-peddling Bill Bennett when he got caught with his pants down.
I promised on another thread to go to bed, but I kain't resist. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that ol' Emerson saw, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, ... yadda, yadda, ..." during this brouhahaHAHAHAHAHA
That's it. My head hurts too much. Nite y'all, Happy Chris Columbus Day, and here's to the Cubs in the Series!
The members of the lynch mob always think it's different when they're brought up on charges. I say let's apply the standard "Judge not lest you be judged." They're the ones who want a "Christian" government, afterall. It won't be any trouble to find out what Rush and his friends advocated. Let their own words guide us, that's what they've always wanted isn't it. From what we know from his own mouth, Rush broke a number of laws and may have broken more. He was always screaming for the Clintons to cooperate in criminal investegations against them, if he holds back anything that could incriminate him it just shows what a big liar he is. Conservatives are all lying crybabies.
I'm neither Jewish nor Irish, so I suffer an even greater "identity crisis" on St. Patrick's Day than does John Kerry. I know that green beer is just regular beer with food coloring added, but it's still not the same. I'm not particularly fond of Bushmills, either. And, to top it off, two of my least favorite songs are "Danny Boy" and "The Wearin' o' the Green." But I stumble through somehow--after all, it's just one day out of the year. Now that Rush has revealed that he's "only human" and that he also "makes mistakes," I think that I'll feel better about myself in the future.
From
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepl...htm\">Medline's entry on "opiate addiction", here's what Rush's next thirty days might look like:
The reaction frequently includes sweating, shaking, headache, drug craving, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, inability to sleep, confusion, agitation, depression, anxiety, and other behavioral changes... Withdrawal includes dilated pupils, diarrhea, runny nose, goose bumps, and abdominal pain.
As if that weren't bad enough, check this out:
The biggest complication [of opiate withdrawal] is return to drug use. Most opiate overdose deaths occur in people who have just withdrawn or detoxed. Because withdrawal reduces a previously-developed tolerance, recently withdrawn addicts can overdose on a much smaller dose than they used to take daily.
Ahh, Karma. The circle is complete.
I guess I can put away my Rush Voodoo Doll. He's going to receive plenty of revenge without my doing anything...
Charles V--Here's hoping it's a learning experience.
Citiznes A-rest! Citiznes A-rest!
BTW--in a lot of states, drug addiction is grounds for divorce; has anyone told Marta? She can make her escape!!
This issue, about judging Limbaugh for his slide into drug abuse, and the correct posture of the opposition toward him and all of the other RW purveyors of double-standards, is tightly coupled to the entire “civility” debate. The most obvious connection is that the whining about the “negative tone” coming from the right is itself a colossal example of a double standard.
But whole problem of how to respond to the likes of Limbaugh goes deeper—it is really a moral issue. This is most clearly evidenced by the fact that, as has already happened in this thread, the Christian ethic (rarely used, some might say) of “judging not lest ye be judged” are often raised. But this use of Christian ethics can be quite inappropriate: when people feel rage upon reading of Limbaugh’s drug abuse or Bennett’s gambling problem, it is not simply equivalent to the crazy viciousness on the right that lead to the Clinton persecutions. The reason it is different is the context. Here we are dealing with the moral transgressions of an unsympathetic, uncharitable moralizer and polemicist, a poisoner of the public well, as it were, and so the rage on the left is triggered by a quite legitimate sense of justice.
The issue then is not just about “turning the other cheek” or “judging not”, but it concerns the very foundations of justice and fairness in a civil society. In Biblical terms we can summarize the issue as follows: It is right and fair for people to be judged by the standards to which they have held others, especially in the absence of any apology, any sense of contrition for past uncharitable, slanderous behavior. In Matthew, for example, we read (7:2) “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Notice how, while similar to the more well-known “judge not” idea, this is a much more active statement: it is a warning that takes on the character of a rule of fair play.
So, there are times when it is our moral and ethical duty to judge. And this is one of them. When equitable standards of judgment are not applied, it is rightly, though often not consciously, viewed by people as a terrible breach of civic standards of morality and ethical behavior. This leads to a quite understandable sense of outrage, or cynicism, or both in regard to the fairness of our public life.
Snake-oil salesman Limbaugh gets bit
Paul Mulshine
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger...edger/mulshine/
(reg lite)
A snip:
In an interview with MTV, Limbaugh said he was aware of Buckley's arguments but rejected them. "Even my friend William Buckley, the pro- legalization crowd, will admit to you it's not going to solve the drug problem," Limbaugh said. "All it will do is take some of the crime out of it. But you're still going to destroy people's lives."
If not destroyed, Limbaugh's life certainly seems to have been harmed, but not by the drugs. He is an otherwise upstanding citizen whose reputation is being ruined by the laws against drugs rather than the drugs themselves. At the moment, he looks like the poster boy for the legalization movement.
Yet Limbaugh has specifically rejected that movement. Why? I suspect the explanation arises out of the central flaw in the thinking of all of these talk-show conservatives, their hatred for what they term "elites." They fail to comprehend that conservatism is by its very nature an elitist philosophy. A thinking conservative would be bothered not in the least by the idea that it's fine for a cultured and civilized citizen to indulge in an activity that might cause chaos when indulged in by his inferiors. If in fact these charges against Limbaugh are borne out, here's what I'd like to hear him say: "Yeah, I do drugs. Mountains of them. But I don't bother anyone. I'm rich. I don't have to stick up 7-Elevens to pay for my habit. So it's none of the government's business."
I dont expect to hear that, however.
So, do you think that the rehab center will let Rush bring a couple of boxes of his favorite Cuban cigars with him? You know, to "take the edge off, man!"
Hey, wait a minute! Isn't it against the LAW for an AMERICAN to import products of CUBA onto the sacred soil of AMERICA?
Say it ain't so, Rush!
mondo dentro,
That was a very thoughtful, well argued piece.
And how many times has he driven to the 7-11 to get his elitist pints of Haagen-Dazs Vanilla, stoned to the gills? How many times did he join his pal Bx as they swerved around endangering the lives of everyone else?
'Good evening, Mr. Limbo. You're drooling on yourself again.' [7-11 Pakistani named 'Bill,' who is sending 50% of his income home to his family.]
He needs to be treated exactly like all the impoverished black males who have had addictions to less costly and more unhealthy "medications" who have been put in jail as a result of the political views he preaches.
No mercy for Rush. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"Compassionate conservatism" - showing compassion to republican hypocrits.
Copernicus - right on. A "compassionate conservative" is really only "compassionate to a conservative".
mondo - great post.
mondo - love the post.
For Rush, it greatly depends on the type of rehab he gets. Some centers 'ween' you off the meds, gradually reducing the dose. Others require cold turkey which is like going through labor in a sauna (as one who went through the experience put it to me).
either way, IMHO, 30-days ain't near long enough for the strength of the meds he was taking and for how long he says he was taking them--he will likely relapse. Plus, therapy after rehab is very important to recovery and Rush doesn't strike me as one who embraces therapy.
Can't say I feel sorry for him.
Electric Chair
Limbaugh sould be treated with the same amount of sympathy he would give others.
Really, really OT: I just found out my wonderful, local ISP has gone bust and I'm soon to be a part of the Earthlink community.
Does anyone here have experience with Earthlink? I have a 1.7MB DSL line @ $40 a month.
How screwed am I?
-M
How are the wingnuts taking this?
Nice post, mondo dentro.
I'm barely beyond laughing, pointing, and screaming HAH YOU RACISTFUCKINGJUNKIEHYPOCRITE I HOPE YOU SHIT YOUR INTESTINES OUT IN DETOX!!!
Clearly, I am not very evolved. Thank you for elevating the discourse.
The most delicious aspect of the Rush-gate, is the thought of his 20 million nodding(in agreement) and taking seriously the rantings of a dope fiend, for the last couple of years! Do they feel the least bit taken?
Clearly, I am not very evolved. Thank you for elevating the discourse.
Me neither. Believe me, I want to hold the bastard's head in a urinal 'til he fucking swears that he loves Hillary.
But I know that's just my lizard brain talking.
Maybe that's a big difference between all of the liberals (and real conservatives) and the mouth breathers: we know we have a lizard brain. They just unkowingly and irresponsibly spew shit and poison our lives.
Hey, I got it! How about the following law: before licensing, every radio talk show host has to perform a semiotic environmental impact statement!
I'm on Earthlink and like it OK. I do get about ten Nigerian spam emails a day, I don't know if that's Earthlink's poor filters.
But I know that's just my lizard brain talking.
And that's the diff between you and Rush and the other wingers. Your other brain layers recognize that your inner-reptile is talking, and then override it. The loudmouth racist folks (I'm excluding thoughtful conservatives like our AWOL Erik/Timshel) have disengaged their higher cognitive functions and let the primitive brain to all the heavy lifting.
off topic,
all spam should be forwarded, WITH COMPLETE HEADERS, to you ISP and the federal trade commission at
uce@ftc.gov
mondo dentro, well done.
So, there are times when it is our moral and ethical duty to judge.
If only Rush would become enlightened and realize why his thinking is so flawed. He's in for a bad time, that's for sure. I doubt that he'll be doing much soul-searching in the next few weeks.
Has William "7 come 11" Bennett had anything to say about this yet?
Odd...you'd think with this rampant moral decay and lapse of personal integrity in the media, he would be one of the first to speak out against this blowhard.
Just when you start thinking karma really doesn't exist, something like this happens.
Your other brain layers recognize that your inner-reptile is talking, and then override it.
NTodd, I agree, and I also like your comment about the "thoughtful conservatives".
I'm into the whole Enlightenment thing (in my own postomodern sort of way). That's why I was absolutely floored (and excited, and impressed as hell) when Clark talked, on Bill Maher, about America's intellectual and spiritual roots in the Enlightenment.
I am definitely a "lefty" in an non-Marxist, all-American sense. That's to say, I'm a proud member of the libertarian left. I'm not particulary "centrist" or "moderate". That being said, though, I also understand that the genius of our system is that it requires, in order to function, what we might call "children of the Enlightenment" from across the political spectrum.
When I refer to our brothers and sisters of the "real conservative" persuasion, I'm thinking precisely of these sorts of people.
The mouth breathers and fundamentalists, the worshipers of death and apocalypse, the irrational absolutists, these are the enemies of all thoughtful people, on both the left and right. That's why this struggle against the Apocalyptic Right is not a partisan issue.
Citing Matthew 7:2, Mondo Dentro wrote: "So, there are times when it is our moral and ethical duty to judge. And this is one of them."
I'm no biblical scholar -- so I may very well be full of it -- but when I read, “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you," I see that as a simple statement of karmic principal, not a call for the rest of society to get on our high horses.
The worst hypocrites are almost inevitably hoisted on their petards, sometimes quite publicly (e.g., Rush and Bill Bennett, lately). It's perfectly natural to salivate over the thought of the hypocritical transgressor put in stocks so that we can throw rotten tomatoes at them for a while. At its heart, however, this reptilian reaction betrays our own lack of trust that karma exacts its own forms of justice, which are more subtle and bitingly personal than anything a judge or jury could imagine or enact.
I say it's best we trust that Rush is undergoing a lovely karmic payback -- first being forced to slink off ESPN, followed closely by the embarrassment and pure hassle of being nailed on drugs, then in dealing with his nasty withdrawal symptoms, and finally in the recognition that nobody -- from right or left -- will ever take him quite as seriously as he so desperately wants to be taken, ever again.
Rush is damaged goods, my friends. Those in power, who Rush has always idolized and aspired to join, don't need him any more. He's outlived his usefulness to them (see Trent Lott). In all likelihood Sean Hannity will pick up Rush's scepter, and he'll be just as effective playing the role of chief shepherd of the conservatoid sheep.
Meantime, Rush will have to prove himself worthy of trust all over again. The question is, will he try to prove himself to the rich and powerful masters again, or might he decide to reinvent himself as something closer to a true populist? Stranger things have happened.
Anyway, the question raised by Matthew 7:2 is, "Would you have traded your life for Rush Limbaugh's three weeks ago, when he was ostensibly on top of the world?" Of course not -- because we all knew what a jerk he was. No amount of money, fame, or influence could change that basic fact. Subsequent revelations have only confirmed the obvious -- that the "success" of his life was a house of cards. In other words, "God" judges each human according to our unique weaknesses and lapses in compassion; there's really no need for the rest of us to pile on (and we do so at our own peril).
One last thought: Our higher selves know that we should treat Rush like any other fellow human being who has a drug problem. It's less viscerally satsifying in the short term, but who knows -- Rush could be the one man capable of introducing some sanity to America's drug laws. Seriously. It could happen.
modo, you are so much more dignified than I. My thoughts parallel yours in concept, though in practice, they come out more like: FUCK THAT FAT SANCTIMONIOUS BITCH!
I'm going to call his fat ass out every day until he says something like "I was wrong to have judged drug users so harshly."
Of course the day that happens is day I make peace with my maker, because surely THAT is the seventh sign of the Apocalypse.
Hey, I got it! How about the following law: before licensing, every radio talk show host has to perform a semiotic environmental impact statement!
LOL! I think your lizard brain must just use big words to disguise it's evil intentions, mondo. 'Cause for sure if you told someone like Michael Savage that he was required to do a semiotic environmental impact statement, the sudden, catastrophic rise in blood pressure would burst his head open like a cheap balloon. You'd be cleaning blood and bits of brain out of the carpet and drapes for weeks after.
Potpourri:
"He did come off high and mighty sometimes."
"Is that a powerful narcotic in your system or are you just happy to see me?"
T-Shirt
"I wanted to go to Occidental, but ended up transferring to Oxy-Contin."
"Let he who is without Sin get stoned with Rush."
"Rush Limbaugh's Planner:
Monday--get high.
Tuesday--get high.
Wednesday--get high, check with maid.
Thursday--where the fuck is the maid?
Friday--goddamn maid finally showed up. Get high.
Saturday--take the day off...on second thought, get high.
Sunday--still high from Saturday. Repeat schedule until further notice."
"Rush could sell his body to science, but he would get more on the black market."
Moralizing Junkie,
Sitting in a tree--
He knows what is wrong
With you and me.
Moralizing Junkie
Fell down on the ground,
Nobody noticed
'Cept a drug-sniffing hound.
***
Robbo, I can't really disagree with much that you say in your thoughtful post. I think what I was saying was more complementary to your post than different from it. Like you, I am no Biblical scholar--in fact, I am, much like many of our Founding Fathers, a pretty secular guy with a respect for both the fundamental importance and profound danger of religion in civil society.
I'm saying that "judging not" is not just a call to be passive. Sometimes we are called to speak out. Feeling rage and anger is not just a sign of our inner bad self. It sometimes is a sign that we are being called to speak in the name of justice.
It is possible to love Rush (in the Christian sense) and insist that he be held accountable. In fact, an important part of the deep ethics of public punishment is based on love--if we love someone (again, in a philosiphical sense--we need not "like" the person in order to love them in this way), we should want to do what we can to make them see the error of their ways.
Over at Right Christians, I posted the following:
The anger that Liberals are feeling in this case and in so many others these days comes from many sources, not all of which are morally uplifting. Certainly the naked, vengeful joy at the laying low of the likes of a Limbaugh is not something about which one should be proud, Christian or not.
But anger that stems instead from the recognition that a sort of poetic justice is being done should not be discounted, for it is based on our thirst for justice and fairness. To suppress even this type of anger and “judgmentalism” would be to embrace the “Nurturing Mother” archetype to a pathological extreme. Even within the context of Left/Christian compassion at its best, it is important when dealing with the likes of a Limbaugh (or even of a Bush) to maintain enough of the “Strong Father” within us to call a spade a spade, to call out wrong behavior, and to point out to those who have transgressed that their current problems are precisely the expected consequences of their bad behavior. After all, above the archetypes of the “Nurturing Mother” and the “Strong Father” lies the synthesis of the two, which we should think of as “The Good and Wise Parent”.
'Cause for sure if you told someone like Michael Savage that he was required to do a semiotic environmental impact statement, the sudden, catastrophic rise in blood pressure would burst his head open like a cheap balloon. You'd be cleaning blood and bits of brain out of the carpet and drapes for weeks after.
And, Peanut, I couldn't imagine any better form of Karmic blowback for the Savage Weiner.
After all, above the archetypes of the “Nurturing Mother” and the “Strong Father” lies the synthesis of the two, which we should think of as “The Good and Wise Parent”.
Yes! And this is, also, exactly what's missing in current American leadership.
I'm on dial-up on Highstream.net but I think they offer broadband. And their cheep. &9 a month (again, for dial-up) but no spam in the e-mail.
Oh and Rush can go to jail, or Hell, which ever is closer. practice what you preach you megalomaniacal blowhard!
"You'd be cleaning blood and bits of brain out of the carpet and drapes for weeks after."
I'd spring for a new carpet and set of drapes.
Tears for Rush - A poem by me
Tears for Rush who can't hear,
You know it hard with OxyContin coming out your ears.
Tears for Rush who swears its his back,
Well, at least, he wasn't doing crack.
Tears for Rush he's not to blame,
It was that Wilson guy and Valerie Plame.
Tears for Rush but its not a crime,
To say his fat ass should be doing time.
Now that the "rush" of shadenfreude has worn off--sorry, pun unavoidable--I'm switching to mondo dentro mode my self. (Nicely done BTW. mondo)
On a related topic, since the CA elections result, I've been jamming on a piece tackling the wierd polar universe occuppied by some groups--make that most groups--of people. Good OR evil. Right OR left. Chocalate OR vanilla. It's not strictly related to politics, because when when the Yanks play the Sox, there's plenty amazing and vicious equivocation going on. You get the picture.
The rules of the game currently being drawn in the coming '04 hairpull and carefully cultivated to the media (to, not in, the media--they're being re-conditioned in prep, again), is that right wing complaint is constructive to the fabric of discourse. Left wing observations of the Right are destructive. (David Brooks -NYT) And that right wing fallibility is evidence of commitment, albeit with natural human imperfection. (David Drier - Arnold Campaign Co-chair) In business you might call this emphasizing Brand Identity over Quality Assurance.
What's this mean? Simple. The reason that Righties do so well in the face of seemingly inexcusable failings is that they often place people before ideas, absolute group identity before absolute individual consistency. People identify far more deeply and resonantly with other people than with abstracts like "ideas". Some of us enjoy the jui-jitsu of wrestling with patterns, dynamics and reasons why? For most of us though, it makes our brains hurt: We say, "My conclusions could be wrong and then I'd look dumb. Or people may disagree, and then I'd be ostracized."
Look at Rush or Arnie and the response of true-identifying-believers: Patting someone on the head and bringing them a covered dish is easier than wrestling with working consistent ideas.
In a way, the old "Love the sinner, hate the sin" construct is at work. But following the theme that ideas are abstract, it's far easier on the ego and the faculties to just declare yourself a sinner, buy someone else's laminated list of predetermined "sins", and get on witht the *fun* part: belonging to a group of people. In a way, for certain parts of the humanity, specifics of ideology is the icing on the cake. A repeated and general and vague affirmation of the general principle of US versus THEM is what they worry about most, because it secures their cake--group membership, and the security blanket it offers in an increasingly fluid world--most effectively.
What did Julia say in 1984? Something along the lines of, "I volunteer for marches, I shout the loudest, I wave my banner hardest....Becasue it's the only way to be safe." Many people don't know what they truly believe. They only know they don't want to be alone. That is a humbling statement of what it's like to be alive. It's also a very potent and dangerous tool in the wrong individual's hands when leading large groups of people.
F
James, don't quit your day job. 
No encouragement for aspiring poets, eh. Someone pass the OxyContin and make mine a double.
Great post, bluto (or is it "F"?).
Your ideas demand much more response, but one thing really jumped out:
In a way, the old "Love the sinner, hate the sin" construct is at work. But following the theme that ideas are abstract, it's far easier on the ego and the faculties to just declare yourself a sinner, buy someone else's laminated list of predetermined "sins", and get on witht the *fun* part: belonging to a group of people.
This is something that really worries me. I predict Rush will "find Jesus" and be back with a vengeance. New! Improved! Rush! Now with Religious Fervor!
I also noticed that O'Reilly had a new morph on his liberal media meme: he kept saying "secular liberal media". As a sensitive reader of this shit, it sent a strong "uh oh" signal to my fight-fright-or-flight reflex.
The USA Today Rush story has an ad for mailorder Vicodin. The ads rotate, so if it doesn't show, refresh a couple-three times.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/
nat...statement_x.htm
USA Today Limbaugh Story
I read that it is very unlikely Rush will face prosecution because such cases are hard to bring to trial without catching the addict with drugs in his or her possession at the time of the arrest.
That may well be true, but I want to see that slimy bastard deny possession UNDER OATH in a legal deposition. And I want the videotape of that deposition broadcast to the nation.
The USA Today Rush story has an ad for mailorder Vicodin. The ads rotate, so if it doesn't show, refresh a couple-three times.
zizka, this is why comedy is so difficult to do these days. the real shit too absurd already.
I certainly have no love for Rush Limbaugh and feel that he should have to face the legal consequences of what he's done; equality under the law and all that. I can't stand listening to the guy and tuned out of ESPN when he was on, but I've never been able to feel hate for him. The reason is that you could just smell the self-loathing eminating off of the guy. The utter lack of true happiness in his soul. The overly confident self-assured front, the spewing of such hate, the allignment with truly selfish people, promoting each others' comtemptable agendas. These things don't arise in a vacuum, but come from such a dark, dark place inside.
Rush always seemed so pathetic to me. I never felt sorry for him; he obviously wouldn't give a crap about compassion from me now. But he's already been in his own Hell for years, and to paraphrase Barbara Bush (ala Al Franken), "I'm through with him." I've got better people to worry about.
BTW, I see the same thing in Bill O'Reilly.
...you could just smell the self-loathing eminating off of the guy. The utter lack of true happiness in his soul. The overly confident self-assured front, the spewing of such hate, the allignment with truly selfish people, promoting each others' comtemptable agendas. These things don't arise in a vacuum, but come from such a dark, dark place inside.
This is true, Goo--this is an excellent evaluation, but one that takes place on a purely spiritual/psychological level. And I wish him the best of luck with his Karmic voyages.
Meanwhile, in the actual world, I'm tired of getting bitten by this particular breed of angry ferile dog. I don't care what their motives and psychological disabilities are. I just want them stopped before they completely take over the town square.
Bluto,
i see your thoughts about group identity at work in the Dean grassroots. That is part of the reason why it's been so successful. There has been no leader among the Dems/Left for awhile. no movement. The meetups and the online fundraising challenges make one feel as part of a group. The Dean Blog regulars all describe feelings of inclusion and hope and fun as part of group set out to "Take Our Country Back"
relating to mondo's posts about Strong Father, Dean offers that "call it like I see it" quality so lacking in eqviocating beltway insiders. the first time i heard Dean speak in person i had a gut reaction. Here is a fighter, a champion to take on our cause. His critique of Bush has set the tone for others to follow. The specifics of his policies are left/center - we all probably agree with them and the others policies as well. If this election is to be fought symbolically i want a fighter for surely Bush/Rove will fight.
After all, above the archetypes of the “Nurturing Mother” and the “Strong Father” lies the synthesis of the two, which we should think of as “The Good and Wise Parent”.
hese fit nicely into the evolutionary psych dichotomy of "counter-dominant" and "dominant" worldviews. Counter-dominance is a more recent development, it appears. One would hope a some good ole Hegelian dialectic is at work, and nice synthesis will evolve.
Bluto,
i see your thoughts about group identity at work in the Dean grassroots. That is part of the reason why it's been so successful. There has been no leader among the Dems/Left for awhile. no movement. The meetups and the online fundraising challenges make one feel as part of a group. The Dean Blog regulars all describe feelings of inclusion and hope and fun as part of group set out to "Take Our Country Back"
relating to mondo's posts about Strong Father, Dean offers that "call it like I see it" quality so lacking in eqviocating beltway insiders. the first time i heard Dean speak in person i had a gut reaction. Here is a fighter, a champion to take on our cause. His critique of Bush has set the tone for others to follow. The specifics of his policies are left/center - we all probably agree with them and the others policies as well. If this election is to be fought symbolically i want a fighter for surely Bush/Rove will fight.
Totally OT, but some people might be interested in this analysis of vote counts registered by different types of voting machines in the recent California elections at Mark Crispin Miller's blog. Summary: it's probably not time for the tin-foil hats, but it wouldn't hurt to keep a roll handy. (Link courtesy of Orcinus which also has some comments on the subject.)
One would hope a some good ole Hegelian dialectic is at work, and nice synthesis will evolve.
Hey NTodd--how's it goin?
I actually have a strong faith in the workings of the D-word.
I really believe that the global outbreak of fundamentalism/absolutism is the dying, feverish gasp of something old and evil, in one last attempt to beat back the Enlightenment.
The real challenge, though, is to accomplish this period of chaos in which the "synthesis" is to occur with a minimum of bloodshed. I have always interpreted the mystical meaning of the Apocalypse in this way: it is the "lifting of the veil" that reveals the truth--it is the mythic, ultimate, last Hegelian synthesis.
The problem is the Apocalyptic Rightists this idea into a form of idolatry, not realizing that it is meant to be a spiritual struggle. They instead follow their death wish toward an actual worldly cataclysm. In this sense, the Christian rightists are similar to the Islamic jihadis who fail to understand jihad in its spiritual dimensions and instead blaspheme by insisting that the profane act of murder is in fact sacred.
Mondo: Me too (See below)
Firebrand: Exactly. A guy named Jim Collins in his book Good to Great uses a phrase: "get on the bus" He's talking about something to identify with larger than yourself. In this case, he means business vision and why some companies make the leap, and others, even with "all the tools" don't.
The latter--"all the tools"--describes the Democrats for me. Too many reasons and answers to cover here, but suffice to say it's eminently fixable. The requirement is that passion and purpose, not "perfection" be the goal. Shared purpose forgives a lot of mistakes, leaves room for eqiuvocation and uncertainty and options, while leaving friction- and drag-inducing arguments about commitment out of the equation. You get to start building the "what if". You get to get on with getting on.
For me 24 hours of reading everyone's appropriate outrage at a moralizer's comeuppance was a well deserved coffee break. Now I'm ready to go back to understanding the "why" so I can focus the on tactics of the "why not."
mark
I actually have a strong faith in the workings of the D-word...
Preachin' to the choir!
An amazing exercise to come over to this site and read such distilled ill-will. It would be an interesting exercise for you guys to try for 24 hours to make reasoned arguments without name-calling, profanity, and Schadenfreude. Just a thought.
I said in an earlier post, in those heady days of early news, "I hope Rush dies in the gutter with a dirty needle in his arm."
I'm better now.
I was moved by mondo's succinct and beautifully wrought post and with the follow-ups it inspired. I'd like to think they express my own views, just in a more cogent argument than I could ever muster.
Now, I hope conservatives will move from defending Rush as a fallible to human, to an understanding that the Drug War is wrong-headed and counter to the finer impulses of this good nation. In particular I'm talking about the highly selective and onerous forfeiture laws that are so open to abuse, the court-sanctioned violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the mandatory sentencing laws, the incarceration of people who are sick and not criminal, and the paraphernalia laws that punish intent and not behavior which is akin to punishing unacceptable thoughts.
I hope conservatives will also rethink their opposition to clean needle exchanges, medicinal marijuana, and funding for rehab clinics.
These are things I hope for, but you'll forgive my pessimism when I say I won't hold my breath.
And, as I've also said before, Laura Bush's car has killed more people than my bong.
Village Idiot, I challenge you to form a coherent explanation how a nuanced discussion of the moral and ethical dimensions of Mr. Limbaugh's fall from grace is an exercise in "ill will".
Are you a person with integrity? If so, please tell me where you go regularly to post. What are your politics? What do you think of freepers? What did you think of the hunt for Clinton's Cock?
Don't worry--no effort is required on your part. No comment will be sufficient indication of intellectual dishonesty.
Firebrand: Bingo!
It's all about symbolism, archetype and myth, not white papers on Deforestation or labor conditions. If the facts were our only friends, we'd all be Bill Gates or .
My take is the DNC/DLC continually rolls out Edsels--great on paper, dead on the showroom floor. To follow the Dean point about groups (Mondo's point?) and extend the car analogy: Detroit said safety wouldn't sell. Volvo went ahead and sold safety, by slingshotting of of reliability.
Say what you want about republicans, but they're marketing in 2003. They use spreadsheets for facts, and "poetry" (if you can call it that) for nuance. They believe, and charge ahead like Joan of Arc. That's powerful stuff to 90% of the electorate. Democrats, on the other hand, appear to spreadsheet their passion, and leave themselves open to the impression they nuance facts like taxing and spending.
Like I said, fixable, because this current group of "CEOs" play exactly to the dark side of the CEO coin average americans are all too familiar with: Controlling, secretive, self-interested, self-satisfied and infallible. The stool just needs the right kick.
For what it's worth.
mark
Mondo et al. -- I do agree with much of what's been written here, but I don't believe it's backed by the book of Matthew. Your basic call for the legal system to harshly judge Rush actually seem to be more out of the Old Testament (not that there's anything particularly wrong with that).
Anyway, like a good leftie, let me tell you "where I'm coming from" -- After spending a newsless weeek in Baja California I returned last Thursday to find Rush and Bush both steeping in their own scandalous cesspools. And it was gooooooood. My lizard brain tingled for a week.
But at some point let's try to see the bigger picture. I think cosmic grappler's on the right track, though I join the grappler in not holding my breath waiting for overnight change in American drug laws. But it's reasonable to pursue slow, evolutionary change. I'd love to sit on the porch in 2030 and nurse a store-bought fattie, trying to remember the supersitious days before they legalized it.
Anyway, it would not serve anyone's long-term interest to see Rush Limbaugh punished in the brutal manner that he's always advocated for others. That just puts us one more step down the road to the totalitarian prison-state. While it's lovely and satisfying to indulge the reptile brain, we eventually need to move past that stage and to think stragetically.
Rush Limbaugh has been on the forefront of the movement to lock up millions of drug users and throw away the key. If some "liberal judge" allows Limbaugh to put his life back together, he might just end up being the poster boy for sanity in drug laws. At minimum, his example will provide opportunities for conservatoids to examine their black/white attitudes about drug use, and about the value of actual compassion in society.
And if he does just come back the same asshole, so what? The shine is off his apple, friends. His old, tired schtick ain't going to bring it back. You watch Hannity or some other young buck come and fill Rush's vaccuum. Rush + 3 years = Paul Harvey.
If you perceive weakness or passivity in my stance, ask yourself what long-term, progressive objective would be advanced by subjecting Limbaugh to harsher penalties than another first-time drug offender would receive. Fact is, he could just come back a martyr.
All things considered, I'm willing to let Marta, the RNC, Infinity Broadcasting, or some other nasty karmic agent exact my pound of flesh from El-Pillbo.
I do believe in Karma as described by many posters above, and in the Taoist belief that evil's destructiveness not only destroys good but also itself. That said, it's however all too much of an "in the long run" effect and as Keynes says, in the long run we're are all dead, or as in the case of fascistic evil, we're all killed or subdued. How many Jews must die before hubris subdues a Hitler? How much harm will the Neocons inflict before they are disgraced? As Camus depicted in La Peste, praying is all good but not enough.
Thus said, let's kick the neo-fascist asses, and then absolve ourselves with a sign of the cross, or whatever other form of absolution appropriate to one's beliefs.
Village Idiot,
It's apparent that you made no attempt at reading the posts. You just jumped in here and started doing that little troll dance you do so well.
I challenge you to read this entire thread and then come back with a thoughtful post about what Rush's problems mean in a legal, moral, political, or Biblical universe. When you post a serious thought then you'll be taken seriously.
Asshole.
In opposition to the village idiot's rantings, I'm quite proud of you people's level of discourse. Keep it up. Whether or not intended, it's classy! Expletives and all.
Perhaps a salient difference between liberals* (*watch for the use of the "secular" modifier--it is code for "enemy" to true believers) and conservatives. Liberals discuss and analyze a subject and their own reactions: for good or ill this is a bio-feedback technique called "reflection." A fast coming train of conservative thought is being dominated by an attitude that stymies any inclination at self-examination and simply puts the rope around "the bad guy's" neck, pussy-whipped introspection/reflection/investigation be damned.
Liberals have to clean up after themselves and the wingnut Mob--just see what size shovel Clark or Dean will have to use in the Middle East should either gain the Presidency. I suppose that "cleaning-up" could be arbitrarily viewed as a "feminine" role, but if my biology is right I already carry that archetype in my bones. Jung said that in the male there is the "anima"--a touch of the female--and in the female is carried the "animus"--a touch of the male. Jung speculated that a man is irrational in feeling and a woman is irrational in thought precisely because of this inner-opposite phenomenon (remember, he was very much a 19th Century white Euro-male). So do Wingers hate their bones?
Last Add: Rush never sleeps--he passes out.
***
Cosmic, I think you're correct, but what you suggest about needle exchange and shifts in perception is hearts and minds stuff--that's The Marshall Plan.
These guys are ramping up once more for Dresden. To them, the fight's just begun. And they're correct. The sad part is, they like the fight because righteous indignation is their fuel--for the fight, and for identity. A polar world is the only one they understand and can comfortably exist in, absent any coherent and resonant alternative. And that's the democrats job, obviously.
But many dems are still shellshocked from 2000. They seem to break into 2 subsets: CONFUSION as to why these people are so angry and combative when they control all the ostensible levers. Or ANGER as to how they can be so obtusely arrogant and careless in the face of all apparent facts on the ground.
As they say, reasonable people can disagree. But people who can be convinced they're under continual assault become unreasonable. They also become extremely potent when unified by this. It's the root of sincere statements like: "We had to destroy the village to save it." Or, "I want to starve the governement to the point where I can westle it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. Or "I'm for women's rights, and I'm voting for Arnold."
Phew. Just glad I'm an optimist with brass knuckles. Better go do halloween decorations with the kids for a humanity fix.
mark
I think anyone who wants to see the drug addiction issue in this country become treated as a health issue rather than a criminal issue to use the rally cry:
"What Should Happen To Rush?"
This puts conservatives in the tough position of reviewing this policy, using some sort of pathetic "elitist" determination of value to society to give Limbaugh a pass, or choosing to treat Limbaugh like any other junkie.
Limbaugh should be used as a litmus test.
Bluto (Mark) said:
It's all about symbolism, archetype and myth, not white papers on Deforestation or labor conditions.
and
Like I said, [it's] fixable, because this current group of "CEOs" play exactly to the dark side of the CEO coin average americans are all too familiar with: Controlling, secretive, self-interested, self-satisfied and infallible. The stool just needs the right kick.
You are one funk soul brother! Yes!
I think the overall strategic situation in meme-ville is this: the bad guys (Apocalyptic Rightists) seem sooo strong cuz they're soooo big and hairy and mean and nasty. On top of that, every time anyone complains, they come down hard on them for being traitors, perverts, scum, etc. in a classic example of aggressive projection. The result is an opposition that is suffering from the political form of battered wife syndrome.
But... But... The thing is that any objective analysis of the shit the rightists spew shows it to be in INCREDIBLE BAD FAITH. They are very brittle precisely because they are operating, psychologically, ideologically, even tactically, are just like Enron--they're highly leveraged and engaged in a sort of socio-political ponzy scheme.
So, as Mark/Bluto sez, a kick or two in the right place, and the entire house of cards WILL COME DOWN.
But it has to be a very well aimed kick.
Mark/Bluto,
I agree with your analyses, right down the line. I think left-wingers need Howard Dean, for while he's mostly a centrist he does put forth an actual personality that a person can relate to -- something Al Gore or Gray Davis could really have used.
My question for you is PSoTD's: What should happen to Rush? By your arguments, "allowing" Rush to wiggle out of his predicament (the way virtually all first-time drug offenders get off relatively lightly) would put him in a gray zone that would truly annoy the fascists. I think they'd prefer stringing him up in a public square, the way they did to Trent Lott. Rush has similarly outlived his usefulness to the movement and they'd love to see him ride off into the sunset, making way for new blood. I like the idea of letting him hang around in Limbaugh Limbo, trying to square conservative fascism with the breaks he'll get in the American legal system.
robbo commented:
Your basic call for the legal system to harshly judge Rush actually seem to be more out of the Old Testament.
Gosh, I really must have failed, despite my best efforts, if that's your interpretation of what my position is. I don't see anywhere where I said anything like that.
We need to think creatively about what the right response is. Being a viscious prick is not the answer. Neither is sitting back and waiting for Karma to do the job for us.
Russ should have to do community service, helping in homeless shelters and leading discussion groups at rehab centers. Lots and lots of hours. Then he has to write a book about what he learned because people will teach him much about life in America.
Strange that from Rush's sordid, self-immolation such elevated discussion can arise, phoenix like. I don't think Rush will do the same.
While I would like to think that this experience would shake Limbaugh's convictions, cause him to rethink his positions, I can't be optimistic about it. He has millions of enablers to tell him that all is forgiven. Rush needs them, probably more than they need him, and he will continue to give them what they want in return for their love. If he doesn't, he will be discarded.
There's no guarantee that Limbaugh even wholly shares his audience's viewpoints. He started out much less extreme, more open to debate, but Rush is not an artist who is answerable only to some inner vision. He craves his audience's affirmation. Rush has become a human feedback loop, playing back to his listeners the harsh static of their own minds.
Rush might be able to kick his drug addiction, but his real addiction is to his audience. There's no rehab for that and no recovery from it unless his audience gives him up first.
I think a week or two of delirious and vicious Schadenfreude is entirely understandable and forgivable for us "touchy-feely" types. Considering that a few short weeks ago I was feeling so overwhelmed, oppressed and frustrated by how much of a pass the RW was getting in the press, and had been getting for years, it was an incredible relief when the tide started turning.
After the initial euphoria, we're turning to the larger picture, trying to discover how someone's downfall may become a positive both for society and for the person himself. I hope Rush becomes a better person, though that necessarily means his ratings will plummet, since his career is built on dishonesty and vitriolic rhetoric.
But as Al Franken said on Aaron Brown's show last night, recovery takes a great amount of honesty, which Rush probably doesn't have and certainly won't have after only 30 days. And as Michael Wolff said on that same show, Rush will place his business interests (250 million of them) above his health and recovery, and that's too bad.
(More Schadenfreude--paraphrased Franken: "$250 million doesn't make you as happy as $200 million and a fistful of OxyContin.")
RE: limbaugh is over, no longer useful to the conservative cause. Matthews had Glenn Burke on a few days ago to discuss Rush - he's a younger Rush type, radio show, already has book out.
anyway his booking on the show struck me as "here's your new role model." he even has a slight resemblence to Rush - uber white, slightly pudgy.
tangent: did anyone see Brent Bozell on Hardball talk about the awful "pushers" who pushed the drugs to Rush! As if Rush was a helpless victim in all this. Does he really believe Rush was helpless to the siren song of a pusher? how would rush come to associate with such scum?
Mondo,
You wrote: "In Matthew, for example, we read (7:2) 'For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.' Notice how, while similar to the more well-known 'judge not' idea, this is a much more active statement: it is a warning that takes on the character of a rule of fair play."
Like I said, I'm no student of the Bible, so I'm quite possibly talking out my ass, but when I read "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged," I take it as Matthew referring to judgment from a higher power.
You took it to mean: "So, there are times when it is our moral and ethical duty to judge. And this is one of them." Progressives preach the rule of law, and we let the legal system do our "judging." That system is, of course, deeply flawed, and we are entitled to our own opinions -- judgments -- about Rush and his actions. But I don't think we should advocate harsher treatment of Rush than any other first-time user would receive just because he has been harsh in his own judgments.
The disconnect between his own raving intolerance and the tolerance he is likely to receive from the American justice system will be for him and his minions to sort out. That's why I don't want to see him subjected to an Old Testament-style stoning (which is where I thought your argument seemed to be heading).
At any rate, no hard feelings on this end. I've greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts and those of others in this forum. Cheers!
robbo,
I think you're right about Matthew 7:2. Jesus' general teaching seemed to be that everybody sins, so no one has any business judging anyone else.
Actually, I would like to see more 'Old Testament justice' in our judicial system, specifically Leviticus 19:15. "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."
Let Rush by judged by the same laws that the poor are subject to. That'll be good enough for me.
robbo, you say:
You took it to mean: "So, there are times when it is our moral and ethical duty to judge. And this is one of them." Progressives preach the rule of law, and we let the legal system do our "judging."
OK, so far so good. But I don't see how this makes me an advocate of Old Testament justice--which I decidedly am not. You seem to be advocating not saying tough things in public--which is what I disagree with.
Then:
But I don't think we should advocate harsher treatment of Rush than any other first-time user would receive just because he has been harsh in his own judgments.
But nowhere do I say this. I am talking about narrative, political symbolism, and the need for righteous indignation from the left. I'm not advocating lynching the guy.
Finally:
At any rate, no hard feelings on this end. I've greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts and those of others in this forum. Cheers!
Likewise! Thanks so much for your responses.
Pie,
Does it reveal too much of the soft, forgiving, willing-to-believe-in-redemption side of me that I endorse and hope you're right about the community service, scales-falling-from-Rush's-eyes post?
Damn this empathy. Life is so much simpler if you're a Republican.
Somewhere, Bill Clinton is laughing...
bring me the pigboy....
i asked a RL fan
what he thought.
he said,
ask me in 30 days
Don't you think, cosmic grappler, that he would change if he actually helped make people's lives better, instead if railing against perceived societal evils?
He needs an up-close-and-personal life experience. If he doesn't learn what he needs to from this, he's a dead man, figuratively and literally.
of railing
Back from pumpkin land. Wow the clubhouse has been busy! Cool!
Robbo, you're a laserbeam, sir. Let him twist in the wind, with firm but benevolent smiles and short sharp questions from the metaphysical playbook, not the political one. Succesful character debates are best conducted in dulcet tones, not by Paul Begala or James Carville trying to outscreech the patently, obiously "evil other". How many of us have have had elders/mentors/people-we-respect at some point in our lives, teach us the most profound lessons or gain from us the deepest sense of remorse and respect not by shouting at us, but by chuckling at our foolishness or self-shaming us, if neccessary, by their attentive and profound SILENCE.
El Rushbo is a tree in the woods, only *we* can acknowledge the sounds emanating from him. (I'd rather not imagine that one too much further.) Rush, Bill Bennett and the like are not knights in shining armour. Just the opposite. Like the moon is the reflected light of the sun, these guys take the quasi-divine light of true, small-d, democratic ideals and, instead of reflecting it honestly and broadly, they refract it into a mean-sprited, cherry-picking, members-only kind of spotlight. In other words, these guys means-test their compassion.
Americans know this, they just haven't had it eloquently and memorably pointed out as being plain wrong in quite some time.
Until someone does, many are willing to do whatever it takes, hedge whatever principle, and crowd into that fickle refracted beam, because it is warmer in the available light, no matter how dingy.
It's time for someone to begin pointing it out.
Mondo, Thanks for the clarification.
"I am talking about narrative, political symbolism, and the need for righteous indignation from the left. I'm not advocating lynching the guy."
Sounds great to me. I expect there will be no shortage of rigteous indignation -- the awkward lameness of Rush's situation doesn't take a lot of brainpower to grasp. I think he's political toast, at least in the short term, and that it will definitely help the left's "narrative and political symbolism" if we stand on our own ideals and not get too caught up in the fun of slinging mud and piling on.
The enfant terribles of the right are digging their own graves, and I trust that in 2004 Democrats will offer America the choice of a straight-talking, left-leaning adult, such as Howard Dean, so that we can start pulling our collective asses out of the fire.
It is quite interesting to read all the posts discussing the metaphysical aspects of the Rush affair and how we might apply certain Christian value systems to his situation, but, in my humble opinion, it's all just so much moralistic bullshit.
The man is a cockroach, and the sooner he and his ilk are removed from polite society, the better.
He and his fellow travelers are no more capable of self-reflection and compassion than is your average alley cat, and believing that they will somehow come to their senses and reject his hate-filled brand of conservatism is naive in the extreme.
Throw the fat fuck in jail, and if he happens to suffer the awful indignitities that have befallen so many of those that he has denigrated, so be it. If his incarceration happens to lead to an honest discussion of our draconian drug laws,then that's great, but in the meantime we will have removed a great cancerous lump of shit from the body politic.
Have a nice day, Rush. Say hello to the fellows on the cellblock from me, and be careful about dropping that soap in the shower.
Mondo, funk soul brother reporting for duty, sir. I'll take Clinton. the one with the slightly bigger hair and the better musical chops.
Right on with the Archetypology. Here's the type: John Wayne after a visit to Wharton. Howard Roarke after a vist to Dale Carnegie and Wharton. Dunnoo how close that gets us to Dean or, say, Clark, but it's in the neighborhood.
Muscular Democrats, Muscular Liberalism, whatever. Who ever they are, they need to take the innate pride we all feel to belong to this thing called the USA: Are you a citizen? Great! You're in. Then, they need to do a little quantifying: We're great buiders. We're great thinkers. We're great sharers. We're great doers. We make things happen. It is who we are. America is NOT about being perfect. It is about seeking the ideal of perfection. Why? Because the minute we say perfect, we're done. Our reason for being is gone. Besides being impossible, "Perfect" is a destination. Terminal. Where to from there? If the world keeps turning, nowhere but irrelevance. But seeking perfection, not accepting good enough, now there's a journey. And a plan. And journeys need supplies, new help, new ideas and new things to discover. The right journeys are always glasses half-full. They are self-sustaining and self-starting and magnetic. As creators and thinkers and sharers, the stuff we need to feel alive and growing is, as it turns out, the stuff others want the world over. There's a ready market for the things we innately believe. We don't have to fake it. Do we stop, sit, and congratulate ourselves? Do we alienate the very people who admire much of what we built and done, and want to know how? No. We survey the lanscape. We weigh our options. We make a choice. And we vote.
Dat's how I'd say it's done
mark
"the man is a cockroach" someone wrote.
How can this be?
Our fearless leader has call him "a great American".
I'm afraid I having cognitive dissonance. Arrgh!
As I read through the subsequent posts, I alternated between thinking "Thank you. That seems a civil comment which can be addressed on its merits," and "Thank you for proving my point."
I have done a speed-search on Mr. Limbaugh's previous opinions on drug use and drug law and found A) It doesn't seem to have been a hot issue with him; B) He has generally been in favor of severity, but not draconian measures; C) He has had a very civil debate about legalization with Buckley (Rush were agin' it); and D) most of his negative remarks are of the "marijuana makes you vague and stupid" variety.
I did not uncover any of the hate-filled rhetoric some posters believe is common to him. I admit I am no expert, and there may be a rich vein of such comments under some rock I did not lift.
I am certainly sorry to have lumped you together, ignoring the varieties of opinion and expression. But the best of you must certainly acknowledge that there is a frightening amount of violence to Rush and some (not all?) conservatives advocated on this site. I don't accept the all-in-good-fun explanation, as human history shows that what one person intends as hyperbole, the next will take as a call to arms.
I have certainly moved rightward since my student socialist days, but don't think I am a knee-jerk conservative. I tend toward humorous and centrist blog sites (and no, I am not going to tell you, because I don't want some of you to come over), but wander into the extreme ones from time to time just to administer swirlies to the intellectually needy from time to time. You may call that trolling if it relieves you of worry.
I will note in passing that the extremist right-wing sites are just as angry and insulting, but do not make violent comments and personal comments as often as I see here. Please spare me the usual counter-examples, as they are usually debunked at urban legend sites. New material is welcome.
Cocaine addiction never stopped Larry Kudlow from representing himself as a spokesman for those claiming the high moral ground. No one even noticed. Rush's career will probably not be impeded one bit.
Rush should do time.
This isn't about just the drugs. This is about his abuse of the little people.
Consider the criminal coercion and facilitation involved in threatening his housekeeper to get him more painkillers. You don't think this woman knew damn well she could be fired? How good is $370 a week as far as per capita income goes in Palm Beach County (and isn't there some delicious irony there?).
Consider also that Rush, apparently through his attorney, entreated this woman to destroy evidence in exchange for cash. That's obstruction of justice and conspiring to obstruct justice. His lawyer should be looking at potential disbarment over this, in addition to prosecution.
Imagine if Bruce Lindsey had even been alleged to have offered Monica Lewinsky money to destroy the hard drive of the computer with that "talking points" guide on it. What would the right have said? Ken Starr would have shown no mercy.
It's not the drugs, although that's pretty bad. Perhaps he does deserve rehab. But he is getting away with things that cost stockbrokers their licenses and careers in furtherance of the addiction.
And he should be made to suffer for that.
Rush indicated that when protesters get in the way of traffic, they deserve to be run over
(this was in regard to either Seattle or Washington, I don't recall which). He also said elderly
people in the Northeast have only themselves to blame for freezing in the winter because they
voted for Clinton. He said that if a gene for liberalism is found, he'll support selective abortion.
On his TV program, he said that, in addition to the White House cat Socks, there was a
White House Dog. That was followed by the presentation of a picture of Chelsea Clinton
behind him. He later blamed a staffer, but never explained what he was going to use to follow up
his introduction to the joke, if not that picture. This was long before the Clintons acquired Buddy.
He once described former Labor Secretary Robert Reich as a "munchkin," as though he can't
help the fact that a childhood disease stunted his growth. I didn't personally hear this,
but I have it from a trustworthy source that he gave a severe tongue lashing to Kurt Cobain
AFTER THE LATTER'S SUICIDE! As if a shotgun blast to the head was not enough
for this moral monster Rush Limbaugh!
Ediotr's note: I heard it. Worse than you'd figure, Pigboy went off on Cobain and called him
"a useless human debris" and "everything that was wrong with America."
It's real damn hard to exaggerate what Rush says.
Rob reports:
My personal last-straw moment with Rush was on the day environmental activist Judi Berry
died from cancer. Rush literally cackled with glee when he announced her death, and spent
the ten minutes at the opening of his show completely mischaracterizing her life and
accomplishments. I haven't listened to him since, and don't miss his show at all. The hatred
needed to lie and defame a dead person, and the obvious pleasure he tok while doing it
made me realize what a poor, sad little man he really is.
I'd like to repeat two of my "favorite" Rush tantrums:
The day Tip O'Neill died, Rush did the entire three hours on what a horrible, evil, greedy,
self-serving, harmful to America, destroyer of wealth, pinko-commie," and he went on
and on for so long, (and I can take almost anything) I called the local Nazi station and
asked how they could continue to broadcast three hours of that filth and they just said,
"That's just Rush being Rush."
But one of his most vulgar days ever had to be the day their buried Jackie Kennedy.
He had his people search the globe for Why-I-hate-Jackie stories.
She didn't love Jack,
she was a snotty, snobby bitch,
all the niceness was a sham,
hated the little people - and she always hated them,
On and on and on, for three full hours.
Then callers know that Rush is putting Jackie-haters on the air,
and everybody wants to be on Rush's show, right?
So the more outrageous the hate, the quicker you went on and the longer he let you vent.
Every disgusting thought you could
Limbaugh was downing 30 Oxycontin a day. Up to just the other day, too. You don't think he could have dragged himself to the studio while kicking a habit that deep, do you? Which kind of makes you wonder why the cops, who knew, didn't pat him down, because he had pills in his pocket at the very moment he made that broadcast about going off to rehab.
30 Oxycontin a day. He wouldn't survive cold turkey. No way they can ramp him down to zero over a mere thirty days either. The man needs methadone, for years. Because he'll never quit until he wants to quit, and for him to decide that will take long, quiet years.
I think he's too proud, which means he's gonna die.
By the way, those of you who said you want to see him go to jail, if you ended up on his jury, would you vote "guilty"? Hey, I hate the guy too, but I could never vote to convict and send a guy to jail on a drug charge, not even a sleazy prick like Limbaugh.
Village Idiot - I'm not sure what response you're looking for exactly. James has gone to the trouble of collecting a number of examples of Rush's general vitriol, but is that really what you want? Would you like to discuss why some who have posted here feel such hostility towards Rush?
You seem concerned with the tone of the discourse here. You say that posters on the extremist right-wing sites do not make violent or personal attacks as often as posters here, but you also ask that we don't bother to cite contrary examples. So how should we address this assertion or defend this site without them? You have simultaneously made an accusation and shut down open discussion of it. So why raise the subject at all? It seems pointless and smacks of lefty-baiting.
If you really are concerned with the level of our discourse then perhaps you should join in and help to improve it with some rational insight into the topics. I don't promise that no one here will ever make ad hominem attacks, but most posters here will happily respond to well-reasoned argument from anywhere on the political spectrum.
Just sat down and read this whole thread, and I'm grateful to all the musing here to chew on. Thanks to mondo, bluto, firebrand, et al.
I'm way too tired to synthesize all this and formulate a coherent response now, but it will all be grist for the (I hope) productive communal mill we're developing here.
Question: why do those who advocate fair treatment of RL keep mentioning the treatment any "first-time user" would get, when (if the newspaper reports were correct) he was purchasing much larger quantities than he could have ever hoped to consume himself? Seems to me I heard about several thousand in a 40-day period. That has to fall in the category of possession with intent to distribute, no? No matter how stoned he was, he could not possibly have swallowed 100 of these pills a day and lived. So the question is: would fairness then mean his getting the same prosecutorial treatment any first-time drug DEALER would get?
To spork_incident: we had an ISP that was bought out by Earthlink. They promised a smooth transition, reliability, and the same rates we had with the original ISP. They failed on all their promises. Service kept going down regularly (or I should say, randomly, but frequently), and a month after the switch they raised the rates. And we found them to be only somewhat less obnoxious than AOL would be. They want to track you like crazy, have you do things the way THEY want you to do them, etc. When service went down it seemed like their technical help folks would spin any story if it would just get us to hang up and leave them alone. Our experience was also that if we didn't watch them like a hawk they would try to overbill us. So we switched to a cable connection, and have been happy ever since. Of course, that's just our opinion. YMMV.
Village idiot: IMO, a very decent and sensible post. Welcome back (from me at least). I would say that what I see and hear, read for myself, or interpret in the back and forth from both sides of the aisle are twin sons of different mothers: vitriol and condescension. A lot of what I've posted today is about the results of what each group's leadership has wrought with all the trickle down talking points and short-sighted bomb-throwing.
Seems those who don't have the time or inclination or ability to formulate a useful, personal, portable viewpoint often get theirs off the rack. Since places like the corner and the WSJ op ed page (or DU or whatever) are in the business of offering opinion, people are left with that choice, frayed material, inconsistency, and narrow-focus, anger and all, Take it or leave it. Yes, bad manners are on display everywhere. Yes, wiser words could be chosen.
But it seems odd that the more credentialed, well-mannered and well-informed everybody is and ought to be, one thing remains clear: Politics is as vulgar and subjective as ever. Patently equivalent situations and words and deeds of 5 years ago and today are reviewed by the exact same people, who, stunningly to many, reach different conclusions this time. What gives?
Jane Voter doesn't understand or like that. She can get safe formula, a true gallon of gas and exact change. Why can't her leaders monitor product quality the same way? If Rush truly thinks "Kurt Cobain was a suicide in waiting for 12 years and finally got it right with a shotgun", we're interested in hearing Rush's autobiography. Why did Clinton get a pass from feminists? Same reason your boys are getting tea and cakes from Fox et al. Because he had proved his heart was substantially in the same place as theirs.
Nobody has a franchise on "the truth", and this will obviously be taken as "my opinion". Regardless, the right empirically takes the low road while making high noises. The Left of late, up to now, up to recent crystalizing events, has more regularly taken the High road while making teeny, squeaky, ineffectual noises, if any at all.
Given how 2000 turned. Given how 9-11 created a climate of bygones for many. Given how that other cheek was injudiciously slapped in many rhetorical- and policy-based piques....
Well, that sense out there is one of "how dare they?" "Show us the title papers: Didn't we get more votes?" And Texas redistricting games, recalls, reg rewrites, secrecy, disinclusion, dodgy facts is your way of demonstating partnership and citizenship?
Village, that's the meat of it. Your side has been deemed impolite company by many of the people it needs in order to credibly say to the world, "this is an example of democracy." The next step is downward, and it's to match rules of engagement. Nobody wants that.
Couldn't put that last one to bed, Village.
The question is: Is this the logic we as Americans want to formalize now that the world can watch us as never before? It's not the America I read about in the brochures. And not the one I want to leave my kids.
Maybe that's where there's some hope in all this. Our kids. What they get from us. I care about mine. I know you care about yours. And they'll have each other--yours and mine--not us. There's a beginning to halt the suspicion. Because, my friend, speaking as a person of US/UK/European parents and family, I know the world is watching. They tell me. They lecture me.
(I know you'll skip the "who cares what they think?" That's childish and inoperative given an economy like ours.)
They don't like what they see. It's a fight between petty and recalcitrant people who don't realize what they have, want still more, and who didn't used to be that way. Clumsy? Sure. Over-bearing at times? You bet. But not purges, not political cleansing with the media selling tickets and gladly handicapping it all for more earnings per share.
What do they see? Decline, Village, decline. Yours and mine, plain and simple.
mark
"But the best of you must certainly acknowledge that there is a frightening amount of violence to Rush and some (not all?) conservatives advocated on this site."
Your point?
" I don't accept the all-in-good-fun explanation, as human history shows that what one person intends as hyperbole, the next will take as a call to arms."
TELL IT TO ANN COULTER, FREEPER TROLL!!!!
I have certainly moved rightward since my student socialist days, but don't think I am a knee-jerk conservative.
"I have certainly moved rightward since my student socialist days, but don't think I am a knee-jerk conservative."
Try a little rouge on those knees.
Fuck Village Idiot and the horse (or Pigboy) he rode in on.
The only reasoned discourse I care to hear re: Pigboy is his liberal lawyer arguing for a reduction in the sentencing guidelines.
Go listen to the freepers bemoan the loss of the fat fuck's voice in promoting their agenda and perhaps you'll realize, as I have, that he has been largely responsible for the ascension of the right-wing crazies in our government. The same right-wing government that is now raping the Constitution while sending our sons and daughters to die as they gather ever more riches.
I guess you folks haven't noticed but, Fuckboy and his camp followers are NOT slowing their assault on the institutions and values that are the bedrock of this country and to expect them to do so is nothing less than naive.
Wake up! These nuts declared war on us and our cherished values long ago, and unless we come to that realization pretty damn quick we're going to be living in a (more) fascist society sooner, rather than later.
I rejoice in that fat pig's misfortune and fall from grace as it might, just might, allow us a modicum of respite from his daily bleatings of bile.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
"Try a little rouge on those knees"
David E.
Right on brother.
BTW, checked out your blog today and was very impressed. Keep on keeping on.
Thanks.
I shall.
Can we all stop apologizing for using dirty words now??? We've been defending ourselves against a pretty worthless argument all day now.
Village Idiot - my initial reaction to your first post was "are you for real?" I just finished watching Tucker Carlson and Al Franken on Tim Russert's show. Al Franken who is considered one of the more feisty left wingers was super polite to Tucker while Tucker ho-ho'd and harrumphed to Franken's statements. I see that over and over again. Why don't you go complain about that before you come over here and complain.
If the content at this site is too uncouth for your virgin eyes then move on and don't come back.
And oh yes, I would guarantee you if Franken/Corn/Conason/Begala/Carville were found to be getting 4000 valiums a month the wingnutes would not only be making all kinds of crude jokes about them but would be implicating their wives' in the deal, pushing their shows' advertisers to drop them but be pushing for the death penalty. And I wouldn't blame them because you re talking about liberal stars. C'mon you are talking about a conservative institution here not just some third rate Rush wanna-be. I personally hope this is a sign of beginning of the end of right wing talk radio.
I guess you folks haven't noticed but, Fuckboy and his camp followers are NOT slowing their assault on the institutions and values that are the bedrock of this country and to expect them to do so is nothing less than naive.
Nah, Chris, we noticed. Having a cow here isn't gonna slow them down any, unless it's to rubberneck at the mess a bit.
We're past coming to the cherished values realization thingy. We've moved on to scrap drives and knitting socks for the troops. We be formulatin' strategery here.
Relax, have a legally obtained mood altering substance of choice. Maybe 10.
Nads: Fuck yes.
bluto,
Brother, I'd be chillin like a villain, but, along with his other crimes against humanity, Pigboy seems to have sucked up all the available meds...just visited Denny's, and couldn't score anything more than a Super Slam breakfast.
The fat bastard..
Wolfie had the misfortune of having Alan Dershowitz on when he was running clips from the Limbaugh confession. While Wolf was trying to put words in Dershowitz's mouth along the lines of ``It's a positive thing that he's taking responsibility for his actions, going to rehab, blah blah'' Dershowitz wasn't having any of it. He said that the first thing a lawyer tells a client when there's a drug case is to check into rehab. Wolf protests that, well, this isn't the first time he's gone to rehab. Dershowitz replies, it's the first time he's been identified in public for taking drugs illegally, and it's standard for a lawyer to get a client immediately into rehab to begin building a defense.
It was a small but delicious moment.
The only reason Limbaugh's fessin up and going to rehab is because HE GOT CAUGHT.
ya got that right, secular.
the fat fuck has only one agenda, protect himself, and the devil take the hindmost.
shove his bloated butt into the hole and let nature take its course.
I withdraw my objection to profanity per se, but keep it on the table as a substitute for discourse. I am unable to answer all at once without going on at tedious length.
First, what's a freeper? Apparently I am one, and it's not good.
I have not fully embraced many conservative claims, and even less do I sign on to some rhetoric, but I am firmly anti-liberal at this point. All are free to scout the various websites and declare that their impression of threatened violence is just the opposite of mine. I haven't done a comparative violent word count, and doubt that reporting a CVWC of 4.2 for liberals versus a 2.2 for conservatives would be very persuasive, no matter how precisely and artfully done. But I don't back down from the statement at all, and you need look no further than this thread.
As to Ann Coulter, I have heard her quoted secondhand as saying we should kill the leaders of Arab countries and converting them to Christianity. That certainly does qualify as hate speech, whether in the heat of post 9/11 or not. I don't know if that's exactly true, but it put me off enough that I haven't read her. If someone shows me she was misquoted then I might consider seeing what she has to say. Until then, I have too many other books I haven't enough time for to try and work in a place for her.
Anecdote: In 1996, when Clinton was campaigning here, a mentally ill person tried to break through the crowd and accost him for some psychotic reason. The people where I work spoke in hushed tones about how frightening that was, and can you imagine what would have happened... that strikes me as a reasonable response. Thursday, a mentally ill woman drove her car across the runway at Air Force One. On Friday the people where I work had a different response: "What makes you think she's crazy?" "Well, at least she had the right idea!" "Why did they stop her?" Several comments were from the same people. Well ha ha ha. Isn't that funny? There were no comic comments about Clinton's danger. There was nothing but comic comments about Bush's. It's appalling.
I don't know the exactness or context of the Rush quotes, so I can't comment. I don't accept them at face value. I will try to look them up by googling them. Until then, I will say that it does seem in bad taste to make negative comments about someone in the context of announcing their death. One should try to be as charitable as possible at such times. But that doesn't also mean that there is never justified criticism of that type. My experience is that folks can't resist making negative comments when they feel that the recently-deceased is being beatified by others.
Anecdote 2: I went from intensely involved radical to uninterested radical immediately after Watergate. I felt we'd won, somehow, and I could just get on with my life while the New Dawning played itself out. In the late 70's I ran with a more politically involved crowd but remain
apparently I ran over my allotted space. I'll cut it short.
...remained at a distance myself. I found it was very easy to appear in the know by use of a very short list of prejudices and references. Jerry Falwell! Ha ha ha. A decade later there was no change -- without reading a magazine or a paper I could look like a well-informed, savvy liberal. I decided that liberalism is a social skill-set, not an intellectual skill-set.
That's an oversimplification, of course, but it has more to it than folks want to admit. You don't have to know politics from Adam's off ox, but a few minutes with the right paper or program and you can make pronouncements that everyone accepts. Because they have been told the same thing themselves. It's easy. The people who try and can't are recognized as socially inept, not politically. Watch closely.
Village, it's a pity to see your thoughtful and interesting post so late in the day. I hope some time to be able to have a discussion with you at some length about your comments.
But my nutshell response to your post hinges on this:
I decided that liberalism is a social skill-set, not an intellectual skill-set.
I think I know exactly what you're talking about. You were a radical, I assume a young one. In college, perhaps. You came to see how it was all phony, how everyone was just playing a game, trying to say the right things in order to win acceptance, get laid, etc. I've been there, too.
But, by rejecting what is fundamentally an ideological position (or, more accurately a set of ideological positions) because of the shallowness of those around you, you have, it seems to me not really rejected "liberalism", but some caricature of your own making. You sound (based on your posts today) to be rejecting liberals as "people who think like those phony assholes I got tired of trying to please". But come on. You're obviously a thoughtful, sincere person (and I'm not just blowing smoke): do you really think things would have been any different if you came of age during a conservative period (such as the one we live in now), and had had to deal with shallow, phony, "dittoheads" and "libertarians" and Ayn Rand wannabes? I don't think so. What you are describing is the human condition. It has nothing to do with "liberalism". We're all "sinners", or, as Firesign Theater says, "We're all Bozos on this bus".
I suspect that you and I have an affinity in at least one respect: I hate feeling like I'm "supposed" to act a certain way, especially when I'm being fed that vibe by people who, to me, seem to be acting like unthinking automatons. I know the difference between phony this and real that--well, at least I try to. It can be a struggle sometimes. But that's why I've always hated PC crap. However, my "liberalism", which, to be sure, has its idiosyncrasies, is based on values, not the opinions of some "in crowd". The issue is, what do you think the function of civil society is? How do you think power and wealth should be allocated in a society? What is the role of government? What should the relationship be between the individual's right to pursue his own bliss, and the needs of his or her neighbors?
Wow. I know--that's way too much to talk about now. Besides, I have to go make dinner for my kids.
But maybe we'll catch up some other time.
Cheers.
There were no comic comments about Clinton's danger. There was nothing but comic comments about Bush's. It's appalling.
Your colleagues seem to have figured out that George W. Bush is a very dangerous person, and that the world would be better off without him.
If you're concerned by that perception, you should do everything you can to get him out of power, so he's no longer a threat.
Just catching up on the past day -- the thread seems to have worn itself out yesterday, which is fine.
VI wrote,"... without reading a magazine or a paper I could look like a well-informed, savvy liberal."
Megadittos for Mondo Dentro's response to this -- VI's sentiments apply equally to both sides of the political spectrum. People tend to forget that the point is not to APPEAR well-informed, it is to BE well-informed, and hopefully to apply that knowledge toward building a better society. I often have to remind myself of that last bit -- otherwise it does get to be about such "goals" as making small talk at parties or wasting time commenting on blogs. Peace out.
Dave wrote:
"So tough shit, wingnuts, Rush should fry. What goes around, comes around."
We shouldn't be wishing for the Hell of the drug war to be visited upon anybody. This is a great time to press for legalization and to end or at least mitigate the legal aspects of the "War on Drugs".
I thank you for your comments, which are well-taken. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a standoff. The people I encounter now are not fools, and are generally not shallow. They are, in other areas, some of the more open-minded and intellectually adventurous people I know. And they do occasionally make new or interesting points that have come from some real thought. But the bulk of even their comments are so clearly social and elaborately rationalized, that I am driven to wonder what is going on.
I do hear conservatives make such comments, and perhaps if I were in an environment dominated by conservatives I would be more aware of their groupthink. But what I encounter every day is liberals condescending and conservatives making intellectual arguments. Something is afoot, Holmes.
Making an intellectual argument does not equal correctness. I am impressed that libertarians usually make an appeal to reason and principle, even though I don't often agree. But I listen to the nine Dem candidates, or DNC spokespeople, or talking heads make the same vacuous, we rule/they drool arguments.
I find The New Republic centrist, and trying very hard to make rational arguments. The Nation is intolerable. In contrast, even though I frequently disagree, National Review attempts to set out a case for its views. While agreeing that the same sin occurs in both camps, I find the weighting against the liberals to be dramatic.
I find The New Republic centrist, and trying very hard to make rational arguments.
If only the "facts" they used weren't so obviously at odds with reality, it might be something more than a waste of valuable printing ink.
While agreeing that the same sin occurs in both camps, I find the weighting against the liberals to be dramatic.
Wow. OK. We disagree here. And not to a subtle degree.
I live in a world were I am confronted by rightist propaganda at every turn, and it's coming from major media outlets and the government. There is also the huge number of people swept up in the Apocalyptic Christian Revival (the Left Behind series is a huge "cult" hit--pun intended), and all of those cheesy cable religion shows that have no counterpart on the progressive side whatsoever. Where I live, one can hear street preachers regularly telling gays and liberals they are going to hell--they're "nice" about it, but still... Quakers and liberal Episcopalians, for example, do not have even remotely the same public presence, either in the street or in the media.
The fact that I may talk to people in my daily life that are exhibiting liberal groupthink is not in the same category. Sorry, but I think you are doing some major data filtering in coming to your conclusions. No doubt, you think I'm doing the same thing--but I'm ready to stack my empiricism up against yours.
I'm curious, can you tell me what demographic/geographic area you live in? I live in a prosperous, even booming, college town in the middle of Pennsylvania.
Cheers.
One thing i'd like to say - I have found it strsnge to hear all these people taking about the gulf between Rush's private life and his public persona. Particularly the stuff about his social clumsiness and shyness etc.. That's just insensitive - the guy's stone-deaf for chirssakes. And I dont really care about this 'hypocrisy' - He cynically manpulates truth and twists the minds of his listeners. He has had the most terrible influence on American life. What he says is wrong - wrong for everyone - but hypocrisy? He could go home and fart ruby tuesday every night for all i care. Rush's fall is a massive, objective victory for the forces of good. that's all. not a fascinating example of hubris or anything else.
Has anybody looked into public records of any donations Rush has made to local law enforcemtne elections..?
Thank you, MD. I work in human services in NH. I agree that there is a considerable rightist presence of the sort you describe. The equivalent on the left can be located near the words "candlelight vigil," certainly as intentionally guilt-inducing as any hellfire-and-brimstone preacher. Just a different style. Annalogy: NPR is not commercial free. It's just a different kind of commercial.
You have been sincere and civil, and you deserve my best arguments, but I will not be giving them. I am going back to sites where there is more discussion.
Hint to the rabid: If you call a person who disagrees with you a troll on his first posting, you are likely to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. Which is enormously comforting, I'm sure, but doesn't sharpen the intellect any.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
