Rush to the Rescue!

I'm going to quote Rush Limbaugh here a couple of times, but trust me: this entry is not about Rush Limbaugh. It's about the gullibility of those millions that listen to him daily, that drink in his every word (Rush-Ade), believing that his is the voice of Zeus, and, therefore, infallible.

I have a theory, as to why, but I'll save that for later. First, let me introduce the quotes and get that over with. The quotes are disgusting enough in their own right, so, to use them as teasers, only serves to make them more disgusting. By now, you've probably heard them. They have been used several times as lead-ins on cable news programs, with the hosts wide-eyed with disbelief at the utter insanity tucked away in the words.

Rush is many things, but he's not insane, not in the classical sense. Nutty, perhaps, but he's been a nutbar almost from the beginning, his audience growing exponentially, as the number of radio stations that picked him up grew, all wishing to cash in on the Rush phenomenon that was sweeping the nation.

Words have consequences. But don't tell that to this conservative "entertainer":

"The amount of seepage, seepage is what it is, not a gusher, but seepage. Throughout the world oil from subterranean deposits leaks out and it never reaches the surface because it's eaten up and destroyed by the ocean. So let's not panic here, folks. If there's plumes of oil ten miles wide under there it's probably not going to be nearly as bad as all the doomsayers say. It never is as bad as the doomsayers say, is it? Global warming is not as bad as they say. In fact, it's a hoax. So why not have a little common sense, a little reason attached to this, but you can't do that because then you stall the advancement of the left's agenda, then you have Juan Williams, "Oh, yeah, well, let's just go pour some oil in there, let's do that, yeah, ocean will take care of it," and these guys said, "Who said that?" Nobody is saying that. Nobody, not one person that I know of has ever said let's just go dump some oil in the ocean. So it's just fascinating to watch this. And again, the environmentalist wackos, I think this oil spill is a lot on you. I really do."

You see where he's going with this, right? He's shifting the blame for this environmental disaster, this oil-rig explosion that killed 11, sinking the oil platform, and with it, not the future of British Petroleum, but the efforts of "environmentalists" who have fought long against such risky and potentially disastrous enterprises.

Here's Rush's other inane quote:

"When do we ask the Sierra Club to pick up the tab for this leak? Everybody's focus is on BP and Halliburton and Transocean. Let me connect the dots here for you. The greeniacs have been driving our oil producers off the land from offshore to way offshore to way, way, way out there offshore, from low risk to high risk, to higher risk. We are now forced to drill. One mile under sea, that's 5,000 feet. Obviously it's going to be a much more expensive problematic proposition to get oil from that depth than elsewhere and yet that is what has been forced on everybody here."

That's it. I promise. No more Rush Limbaugh quotes, at least for this blog entry. I'm not sure if I can take more.

With his words above, Rush is laying the groundwork for future discussions of who's to blame for this impending ecological disaster. Note, it's not BP, Halliburton, or Transocean who are at fault, it's those pesky "environmental wackos," the Sierra Club by name. He's saying, essentially, if you're going to be mad at anybody, don't go after those poor souls who're actually responsible for this disaster, go after those "wackos" who petitioned the government to stop oil drilling on land, and forced the oil industry to do what they clearly didn't want to do--risk life, and capital drilling in inhospitable environs, miles out into the Gulf, and a mile down--to extract the lifeblood of this economy: Oil! Oil! Oil!

I'm not going to link to articles detailing the severity and magnitude of this oil spill, and who's to blame for the growing threat in the Gulf to coastal wetlands, fisheries, aquatic wildlife, tourism, and the livelihoods of thousands--having an economic impact in the billions of dollars, not only to locals, but to the nation.

Yet, is it not conservatives, and Republicans in particular, who wax eloquently about personal responsibility? And, yet, we have Rush Limbaugh flouting this major tenet of conservatism, and the battle cry of Republicanism.

We know why Rush is protecting Big Oil, we have only to look at his garish Internet site, and its naked appeal for his slavish listeners to buy something, to understand why.

But why do people listen to Rush's insanity? And this is not the first time he's said something this close to the edge. Why are millions tuned in to his daily claptrap, believing that, if Rush says it's so, it must be so? They aren't called "dittoheads" for nothing. If you've ever listened to his show (I did when he first appeared on the airwaves.), you know Rush rarely allows on the air a listener who disagrees with his position. From time to time, a few deceivers get through, but his scrupulous screening process is designed to keep undesirables out, and dittoheads in--Rush doesn't handle dissent very well.

As I was saying: The callers who do manage an audience with Rush invariably begin their spiel with a "ditto, Rush" before proceeding.

I'm no psychologist, but I'd like to take a stab as to why. But before I do, I'm going to break a promise. I'm going to quote Rush one last time. It's not a quote, exactly, but a description of The Rush Limbaugh Show. It's a short one, so I'll need only feel a small pang of contrition for breaking a vow. I wanted you to read how Rush describes himself, and his show. Don't read this just after eating, or on an empty stomach. Let your food settle, first.

"The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy.

"There is a 'consensus' among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.

"People who disagree with this are Rush Deniers."

This statement is as bloated as Rush, but offers important insight into the man, and how he sees him role as a "radio entertainer." I use the term, "radio entertainer," facetiously, because Rush is no "entertainer," as many on the Right would have us believe. A rabble-rouser, to be sure. An opportunist, undeniably. A self-serving, money-focused, take-no-prisoners showman, indubitably.

I confess, I have a penchant: I exalt rationality, introspection, and critical thinking, and abhor groupthink, and mass appeal. In addition, I avoid organizations built around personalities who surround themselves with cultish-like followers who express an "obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to, or veneration for, a person, principle, or thing."

From Rush, his followers can expect certain predictable, but indispensable outputs: a daily dose of confirmations, a daily dose of reinforcements, and a daily dose of acceptance of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that differ dramatically from the mainstream, but which he enthrones.

Rush gives his slavish listeners all they need to maintain their narrow worldview. Rush reinforces bigotry. Rush confirms biases. And Rush tolerates and accepts irrationality. Rush reinforces these things with the sheen of respectability, a respectability that comes from having a nationwide, radio talk show, and an army of "dittoheads" that generally agrees with his harebrained positions, beliefs, and attitudes--and his demonization of all things liberal, and progressive.

Rush gets paid amply to give legitimacy to bigotry, biases, and irrationality, and then call it conservatism.

To call Obama's presidency a regime, with the connotations that that word elicits, and have it "dittoed" by millions of Americans, seemingly without thinking about the implications of such usage, gives this country a black eye, mocks our democracy, and calls into question the inviolability of our constitution.

The Nobellicose Prize

"No prophet is accepted in his own country." This statement is applicable to prophets and black presidents. In the case of a certain black president, Barack Obama, not all countrymen, but enough to raise eyebrows, and curl lips.

We saw the truth of the statement within days of the president taking office. A certain radio personality put him, black folks, and the rest of world on notice with these words: "I hope he fails."

We're now so hardened that we're no longer shocked when ugly people say ugly things about the president. So when the Nobel Prize Committee gave its most prestigious award, the Nobel Peace Prize to a sitting U.S. president after ninety years, Woodrow Wilson being the last for his support of the League of Nations and his work on the Treaty of Versailles, we waited for the other shoe to fall, knowing that criticism from the Right wasn't far behind.

What caught us off guard was the harsh words on the Left.

We knew Republicans would line up to denounce the Nobel Prize committee for their choice. But we didn't expect liberals to slam the committee in language as harsh as their conservative counterparts: "Don't they see what's going on in the U.S.--high unemployment, an economy stumbling like some drunk searching for his next bottle." You'd think that, as long as our nation is seen as struggling, the president can't be singled out for any award except the "Golden Raspberry Award."

This blog has a few awards of its own to hand out--the Nobellicose Prize--for those Republicans who spoke out the loudest, with malice aforethought, because President Obama was favored this year by the Nobel Prize Committee.

The Nobellicose Prize, then, goes to three honorees: Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, for their continued non-support of President Barack Obama. There are runner-ups, to be sure, but they're too numerous to mention here, but you know who they are. This time, I only wish to honor (strike that, dishonor) three of Obama's biggest admirers (strike that, haters).

Michael Steele earned his award with these cutting words, stating first that President Obama should for the sake of his own integrity refuse the award:

“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain – President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

And these gems, courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, making himself one of the three finalists for the coveted Nobellicose Prize:

"And the two girls came in, "Hey, Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize. It's really cool. It's a three-day weekend, Daddy. Let's get up and let's go."

"And Obama said, "Yeah, it's great to have kids to help you keep things in perspective." I'm on the verge of retching right there. Then Obama gets to the meat of the matter says he doesn't deserve the award. So Obama... (laughing) I mean, he's agreeing with the Taliban and us, because we don't think he deserves the award, neither does the Taliban! The Iranians are upset. (laughing) Al-Qaeda hadn't weighed in yet, Osama bin Laden, but there should be a tape before the weekend is out."

But that's not all, our last honoree, Glenn Beck, spoke these words to earn the Nobellicose Prize:

"The Nobel peace prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and should be given to the tea party goers and the 9/12 project....Because of the tea party goers and the 912 project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing from the things that he thought, 'Please I'm the messiah, I'll be able to accomplish that.'"

For Republicans clearly this president is not their president, and this country, under this president, is not their country. "We want our country back," they cry.

And when it comes to peace: The Republicans want us to fight our way to peace, not talk our way to peace--blind to the contradiction that this poses.

After listening to, or watching these wingnuts, I know now why it was necessary to fight a civil war in this country, and why Jim Crow lasted so long. There's a certain number of whites who will resist black progress, and, in the process, resist white progress towards filling in the racial divide. These whites gain more by resisting, than by cooperating; by holding back, than moving ahead; by increasing racial tension, than by relaxing it.

The Nobel Peace Prize could be seen as a finger in the eye of Republicans in this country who spend their days tarring and feathering President Obama.

I've read several articles justifying the Nobel Committee's decision to select President Obama as this year's recipient of The Nobel Peace Prize. Their reasons compel a reassessment of his achievements, but perhaps not as well as the following video segment from Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Achievements take on many colors and aren't always seen in our existential world of actions versus ideas, construction versus idealism, and material efforts versus a change of heart, humane aspirations, and noble pursuits.

And it belies the oft-repeated grumbling that people abroad see our president as some kind of lamb, one that's afraid of his own shadow. It's not about timidity in international policy, but the use of "smart power" which I've discussed before in one of my blog entries by that name.

The world's people don't want a bellicose America, one that lead international diplomacy with a heavy hand, and a fighting stance, but one that's willing to talk with enemies and seek common ground where possible.

Some days, the callous, racialistic events in this country transport me back to the forties and fifties and a "Colored Only" existence, justifying the anger and, yes, rage, I occasionally feel toward this country.

Isn't it ironic: the country that gave us a black president is working just as hard to take him away. It's this dichotomy, this white schizophrenia with which blacks must live that impacts our own sanity.

How do we keep our head, so to speak, while all those around us are losing theirs. And yet, I know how the story will end. We wrote the ending first ... before the story began. It's done that way sometime, when you wish to be certain of the outcome, because, if you don't, a story can get away from you, and create its own ending.

Planned GOPsolescence

The year is 1875 and you're a horsewhip maker, and you're hearing rumors that something is being developed that could put you out of business, or impact it greatly if you didn't adapt. That rumor, if you believed it, could throw you into panic, couldn't it?

Now move ahead several decades, and turn the corner into the twenty-first century, and you have a similar situation, but it's not horsewhip makers panicking, but a political party. It's the year 2004 and you're hearing about this scrawny senator from Chicago, with a funny name, who may have presidential ambitions, and who, as keynote speaker at that year's Democratic National convention, has brought the crowd to its feet admist thunderous applause, and if you're Republican and a presidential hopeful, or just a Republican hoping to replace Bush with another Republican, your heart may flutter a bit.

And then you learn that the speaker is also black. If you're a Republican you may not panic right away, but you sure as hell want to keep a close eye on what could possibly be a dark horse: You may have thought to search for that outdated buggy whip you've been holding onto for such an occasion.

And if you heard any part of that black man's speech that night to the Democratic National Convention, you still may not panic, but a tinge of worry would certainly leave foot prints across the surface of your mind, as he spoke the following:

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us--the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America-- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America--there’s the United States of America."

And you may not have panicked when Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee claimed huge wins in Iowa, with Obama edging out Hillary Clinton, garnering 38 percent of voters. You may not have panicked, but worry lines would be seen forming across your weary brow, as Huckabee took in a respectable 34 percent of the voters, but was still four percentage points below the Democratic front runner. And you'd note: The press saw Obama's victory as a win for change over experience. And still you'd see no cause to panic.

If you didn't panic when Obama won Iowa, worry lines would certainly began to deepen when he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton in a heated contest to represent the Democrat Party against rival John McCain, who made a surprise, come-from-behind showing to become the Republican Party nominee.

If you managed to keep your composure up to now, you noticed that GOPers were beginning to show the first signs of panic at McCain-Palin rallies, when cries of "terrorist," and "kill him," in reference to then Democrat candidate Barack Obama punctuated rally speeches. You would also notice: The signs of panic became full-blown terror when posters of Obama flanked by Osama bin Laden, Curious George dolls, and boxes of "Obama Waffles" for sale, and racist e-mails began to surface.

You think: If this scrawny black guy with the funny name (which GOPers abundantly made fun of) actually do the unthinkable, win the presidency, with his laundry list of social programs, then the GOPers had more to worry about than a black man in the White House.

Their very existence was at stake.

If Obama succeeds, then conservatism fails. People would come to see the benefits and advantages of liberalism, especially if that dreaded healthcare reform law, with that "public option" is allowed to pass. If Obama does what he promises, then liberalism will be preferred to conservatism--and where would that leave Republicans. Liberalism had to be stopped at all cost. Its success would spell the death of the Republican party, and conservatism will have met its Waterloo.

Republicans would have to bring out the big guns, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and concerted Republican resistance to any and all things Obama attempts. They all had a stake in destroying Obama, and the party he represented. With liberalism on top, succeeding where conservatism failed, then the Republican Party would be obsolete.

Then you'd know the awful truth: Obama must be stopped. Must be stopped at all cost. And you'd tell fellow GOPers why he must be stopped:

For one, Obama would usher in a post-racial age, narrowing the racial divide. No longer could race be exploited, and white voters be counted on to vote for the white guy in local and national elections. Something had to be done. GOPers's strategy: keep reminding all voters, Democrats as well as Republicans, of Obama's race, of his African-Americaness. Draw him into a debate on race, thinking that would surely alienate white voters. Tell whites that his health-care plan was little more than a black give away, a reparation for blacks. And when everything else failed, attach his blackness to his policies.

Call blacks racists, including the president, himself. Talk secession. Talk "taking the country back." Talk civil war and arming militias.

For two, Obama would usher in liberalism-socialism. Take Obama's message of "change," and distort it. Tell Americans that he's moving to fast, seeking wholesale change, where incremental change is all that's needed. Tell them that he's a socialist, and that socialism is bad, and that capitalism and the free market made America strong (although greed, and a lack of regulatory restraints on financial institutions had plunged the nation into a recession that threatened to become a depression).

For three, an Obama presidency would end the careers of talk show hosts, Rush Limbaugh and a number of other Republican and conservative pundits that make a pretty damn good living exploiting every thing from race to religion, from pitting one party against the other to putting loud, and disruptive plants at town hall meetings, to replacing actual turf (grassroots movements) with "AstroTurf" movements paid for by affected corporations and institutions.

For four, it would spell the death of Fox News. Fox has "made its bones" on holding liberals at bay, supporting George Bush's policies, his war in Iraq, attacking Cindy Sheehan on every occasion, and Dr. Tiller, "the baby killer." If liberalism succeeds, if the people are actually shown to benefit, then Fox News would have no natural adversaries, no cause, nothing, and no one to fight, no standard to bear, nothing to do but fold up its tent and steal away into the night, as ratings drop, in a desperate effort to reformat programs, and restructure how it delivers news-propaganda.

You'd remind them: If the GOP becomes obsolete, those who depend on it for their own survival, will also become obselete: Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and a host of conservative poltical strategists and pundits. Their livilihood and fortune depended on Obama failing. They know this, and early on, they announced their intentions to destroy him politically.

You'd remind them: Medicare has been such a success, that any government run program that emulates it, and expands it, must be attacked. The GOP can't give the Democratics this poltical edge, and neither can Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and those of his ilk.

You'd remind them: Survival at all cost. There's still some use for whips, but not as much as before the twentieth century. If President Obama and liberals succeed in reforming health care, actually finding ways to increase competition, and dramatically cutting the cost of healthcare for Americans, the GOP may not be, in this century, as useful as whips.

Strange Days

A movie came out a few years back, starring Angela Bassett, as a member of this partly all-star cast, called Strange Days. No it's not the movie I wish to review here, nor to critique Angela Bassett's performance in this Science Fiction look into a future where technology is used to capture experiences for later viewing and reliving as though they were just happening.

It's the title that intrigues me.

We seem to be living in Strange Days, a departure from those saner days when we could pretty much predict with some certainty how people might behave.

During the last few days, I caught a little of CPAC, not because I'm a Republican, or even a conservative, but because it's good to know what the political parties of our nation are contemplating.

Now a days, politics is shaping not only our economy, but some of our social interactions.

Strange days, indeed.

Rush Limbaugh's speech before CPAC resembled a pep talk of a sort, receiving so many standing O's that the people were standing more than sitting, with the ovations more than rivaling Obama's first address before a Joint Session of congress.

Rush restated his unequivocal position, "I hope Obama fails," as a way to further defy opposition from the left, and from some members of his own party.

In an equally defiant tone, he gushed, "I hope liberalism fails. Liberalism is destroying the country."

That's going to be hard sell. But then gullibility thrives because too many of us prefer the laziness of ignorance over the industry of knowledge.

You don't need that much of a fact check to learn that Republicans not only controlled both Houses of Congress for six years, but own the presidency for eight.

It wasn't liberalism that was in charge during that time, but conservatism, and it was this conservatism, this laissez-faire approach to the economy (few or no regulations in the financial sector of the economy), that led to our economic meltdown.

We're told: "Greed is good for the country. Capitalism flourishes under Greed."

Perhaps, but unregulated greed has only led to disaster for most, and has plunged the world's economy into a "black hole," one that is sucking up the light of opportunity, and the world's financial stability.

Strange days, I tell you!

Limbaugh called for a taking back of the country, "We can take back our country," he insisted, with a hubris that suggested that it belonged exclusively to Republicans, and we must do it because of our love of country.

(Of course, only Republicans love their country.)

Liberalism was equated with "socialism," that insufferable evil and anathema to capitalism, despite the recent foray into it with the TARP funds, and years and years of flirtation with it in our economy through subsidies of one sort or another.

Most Republicans believe that the party failed, not because it failed to articulate its advantage over its opponent's, not because it has become irrelevant to a growing number of Americans, not because it has been unwilling to distance itself from the failed policies of the Bush years (we're seeing some of that now), but because Republicans strayed from their center, their core values.

And if the party succeeds it will be because of its willingness to reconnect with those values. They believe that in a showdown, liberalism fails. When conservatism is compared with liberalism, the differences of the two will be blatantly obvious, and the superiority of conservatism over liberalism will be self-evident.

In that case, why all the urgency to supplant conservatism with liberalism. If liberalism is the self-evident evil that conservatives insist that it is, then, why do anything?

Liberalism will die of its own accord. And Republicans can be the vultures to pick away at the little flesh that's left on our economic bones.

Yet, this is not what Rush and company want: They want to destroy liberalism, to take back the country, to save the country from this liberal evil.

Republicans tell us that they can't allow liberalism under Obama to succeed. If it is allowed to succeed, the country, as we know it, is doomed. The statement, in and of itself, is contradictory. Liberalism, according to Republicans, can't succeed, since it carries within it the seed of its own destruction.

So what is it that Republicans and conservatives are afraid of? They're afraid of this: They're afraid that if Obama is allowed to succeed, then that success will spell the end of the Republican party as it is now constituted, and will signal their eventual demise, as it will be all but assured.

If Obama succeeds, they fail. It's as simple as that.

So the party has to root for the home team, rather than for the league, the league being the country.

Better the country goes down along with liberalism than allow it to stand strong under it.

Strange days, to be sure!

And what is the Republicans' prescription for fixing the economy? It is their "core values," of course, those values that we hear so much about these day, those principles that should govern the actions of every Republican, those "core conservative values" that will clearly, once and for all, show the country, and indeed the world, just how evil, and destructive (of human happiness, success, and enterprise) that liberalism is to the economic, social, and political landscape.

Some conservatives identify so much with what they call their "core values," that I don't think that they can survive without them. Those values are linked indelibly to their self-image, and their self-worth, and is the cornerstone of all things holy and righteous for them.

This self-identification is intractable, it can't be compromised, can't be modified without damaging a holy allegiance, or a Mount Sinai handing down of godly commandments filled with Thy Shalt Nots.

Here are the conclusions I've reached: Republicans and conservatives cannot allow, will not allow, Obama and liberalism to succeed, because it will steer the country further and further away from those core, conservative values that are quickly becoming the party's new/old identity, and prescription for saving the country from itself.

They see their mission as a holy, and just one, because we Americans just don't know what we're doing by our flirtation with "socialism," and the supposed direction that the liberals are taken us--perhaps Marxism, or outright communism.

And they point to the class warfare that Obama is fomenting between the haves and the have-nots, the rich, the middle class, and the poor, by taxing those who earn more than $250,000 more severely than those making less than that amount (not taking into account that it's merely reversing "top-down economics" with "bottom-up economics" that has favored the rich at the expense of the "working poor," and not taking into account that the gap between the two are still growing exponentially), as proof of their claim.

Robert Reich's Blog discusses these two models on his blog, not to say that those making $250,000 are being punished for their success, and are in the same boat as corporations, but that the models underscore a difference in the tax direction that's been prevalent for many years in our flagging economy, along with all its assumptions that rich corporations and individuals will take care of those who work for them, as long as corporations and individuals are doing well financially.

I said earlier: These are strange days. And I can only imagine just how strange they must seem to some Republicans and conservatives who are now seeing their "core conservative values" under attack by the liberal party in power who're pushing a so-called liberal agenda.

And if Republicans have any hope of seeing more days to their liking, and of their making, they have to hope that the country fails under both liberalism and the Obama administration--fails economically, politically, and perhaps socially (there's a great deal of talk about overthrowing the government these days). And Republicans have already signalled, with their unwillingness to sign on to the Economic Recovery Bill, that their party will do whatever it has to, to assure that.

I don't think it gets any stranger than that!