Sunday, January 17, 2010

The Treason of Rush Limbaugh

One of our favorite blog friends, Man With a Muckrake wrote a wonderful post about the incredible phenomenon of guys like Rush Limbaugh and their audience.

My thesis is this: Limbaugh and propagandists like him prey on the fucked-up minds of American men in order to use these men to destroy the unity and cohesiveness of this nation. Limbaugh ought to be arrested, tried and hung for treason.

Those to whom I refer with the F-U-M are that miserable knot of Americans who cling to stereotypes of the past and refuse to see others as equal to themselves. As Orsen Wells said, ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They are, simply put, angry men looking to displace their anger onto others. America is plagued with millions of these angry men. It is, perhaps, epidemiological. Many of these men also carry weapons.. Weapons make them feel safer. So does yelling and demeaning chiding.


What's your opinion? What do you think motivates Limbaugh and the others to do what they do? Are they patriots in your opinion, as they claim? Are they showmen doing what they do for the ratings? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

25 comments:

  1. They aren't patriots. They are playing characters and pandering to a very definable demographic in order to get ratings, fame, money, and power. Maybe some of them actually believe what they say, but I am skeptical.

    Beck, for example, has a history of cruel and baiting behavior that is not restricted to "politics" or "patriotism." His life, and his trajectory as a tv/radio persona, seem clearly indicate that he spent many years looking for the right way in. Perhaps he has always been conservative, but his tearful "I just love America" schtick is not some heartfelt expression of patriotism. More like a shrewd manipulation of public sentiment, fear, and need.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Limbaugh ought to be arrested, tried and hung for treason.

    My Muckrakish-to-English translation skills are no great shakes, but I'll take a wild guess and assume he meant "hanged" rather than "hung" (which implies something quite different, and rather odd--and I'm not sure how such a penalty could be imposed on someone--well . . . maybe).

    Anyway, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone with so little respect for the Second Amendment would advocate death for those who use the First in ways he finds distasteful.

    How 'bout you, Mikeb? You're a pretty outspoken voice against the death penalty--do you make an exception for those who say things you find distasteful? I suppose you do, else you would not refer to Muckrake's post in which death to right-wing pundits was advocated as being "wonderful."

    Or is this another of those wacky "jokes" I have so much trouble getting? If so, it's pretty funny--hanging a guy for voicing his opinions--HA HA!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cruel & baiting behavior?

    I could easily say the same about Keith Olbermann.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't help it: The Ambrose Bierce Quote I like:

    PATRIOTISM, n.
    Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

    In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

    Which leads to
    PATRIOT, n.
    One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Exactly. If you look at the lives of Beck and Limbaugh--without the millions of dollars--you find people you don't want your children near: alcoholism, drug abuse, repeated failures both in their professional and private lives, taking a boatload of Viagra to a known sex tourism location, etc.

    Yet, these guys have followers who will eagerly lap up whatever crap they put forth.

    Lenny Bruce once said Americans need somebody to hate; folks like Limbaugh and Beck have found that a path to riches.


    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've never listened to Rush on purpose for more than a few minutes.

    I don't think Rush is out to change America, he's out to be perceived as changing America for his own good.

    No way I'd support any attempt to prosecute him for speech. There is a reason we have freedom of speech in the bill of rights, and I certainly don't want speech prosecuted because the current administration is opposed to it, wherever on the political spectrum that administration falls.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My favorite line from the post is this: "Limbaugh ought to be arrested, tried and hung for treason."

    1) Oops -- what happened to opposition to the death penalty?

    2) Death penalty aside, if Limbaugh were arrested for treason, do you think that any left-wing folks might be arrested for treason if a right-wing president is elected? Didn't Ann Coulter write a book advocating just that?

    Sometimes we are better off putting up with really undesirable free speech rather than starting a a First Amendment war that might lead someplace worse.


    PS: Isn't the "more equal" quote from Orwell?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can't speak for Muddy. Perhaps he meant every word literally, but that wasn't my understanding.

    When I read his post I took the "hanging for treason" to to be an extreme expression of how bad Limbaugh is for the country.

    I think the only reason to take the words literally is to attack the writer on the 1st Amendment thing, which is silly and off topic. The topic is what do you think about Limbaugh's schtick, which is exactly what SFL addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is the part about liberals that I cannot understand. Liberals, in spite of the name sharing the root with "liberty" always want to ban something. They are ban happy.

    They don't like or understand guns, then let's ban them. Don't like school kids praying, ban it. Don't like what Rush Limbaugh has to say then they want to ban him too, with a rope no less.

    I have never liked Rush Limbaugh, so when he comes on the radio, I tune to another station or turn it off. I don't like rap music either, never have. So I tune in to something else.

    If liberals, on the other hand, don't like something on the radio, instead of tuning to something else, they want to ban anyone else from hearing it.

    Liberals are usually just unhappy little people that have some need to interfere with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fat White Man:

    "This is the part about liberals that I cannot understand."

    I don't think that there are parts that you want to understand. Understanding WHY liberals get upset about things might make you and others question your own "values".

    I, for one, LIKE guns. I spent about half an hour talking to a collecter in a gun store recently (last week) about his collection of Mossbergs. He told me a lot about his collection (85 items, IIRC) the history of the Mossberg family and company and his own life (I'd guess he was about 75--and a man mountain, about 6'6" tall). We cleared up the politics thing, fairly quickly and both were willing to accept that we would not be changing our minds in that regard.

    I didn't prosletyze about banning guns--or confiscating them. He didn't rail about his right to have an arsenal in his house.

    You, and some of your fellow commenters, claim to know ALL about us "liberals" (I, btw, consider myself a left leaning pragmatist) while demonstrating the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mikeb says:

    When I read his post I took the "hanging for treason" to to be an extreme expression of how bad Limbaugh is for the country.

    So if I were to say that every public official who votes for, or otherwise supports, gun laws, should be shot for treason, you would (I trust) read it "to be an expession of how bad (gun laws are) for the country," and not as a literal call for the killing of these creatures--right, Mikeb?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mikeb: "I think the only reason to take the words literally is to attack the writer on the 1st Amendment thing, which is silly and off topic."

    Darn -- Zorro said it first.

    If a gunowner advocate, or Beck or Limbaugh, said something similar about hanging opponents for treason, then we KNOW that Mikeb would be singing a very different song.

    ReplyDelete
  13. FishyJay says:

    If a gunowner advocate, or Beck or Limbaugh, said something similar about hanging opponents for treason, then we KNOW that Mikeb would be singing a very different song.

    Come to think of it, FishyJay, Mikeb already has sung that song, more than once, and for much less explicit "hate speech" than specifically calling for the hanging of a specific person.

    We have "Let's Blame Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann:

    The folks who irresponsibly scream "fire" in the crowded theater that is America need to be held accountable for this. Some say the person who commits the crime is 100% responsible for his or her actions, which leaves no part of the responsibility for anyone else. I look at it differently. The killer can be held responsible as well as the Becks and Bachmanns who incite them, call the percentages what you will. Don't forget Mr. Adkisson's Manifesto.

    . . . Which takes us to:

    The connection between conservative talk-radio and the shooter's actions became even more evident with the release at his sentencing of a 4-page hand-written minifesto. In it he lays out his thinking, which as chilling as it may be, makes you wonder how prevalent it is.

    He has also called gun bloggers "irresponsible" for pointing out the threats to private gun ownership in the U.S., because doing so will somehow "force" crazy people to do, well . . . crazy things.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I guess that would depend on whether those folks were using treasonous talk, which Limbaugh most certainly does. I can't believe anyone would defend that piece of shit, but it takes all kinds, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, here's the difference. A small blog like A Man With a Muckrake or Mikeb302000 or Laci the Dog reaches a certain size audience. Limbaugh and Beck and O'Reilly reach millions. So the responsibility to be careful increases proportionately. I have criticized those highly popular TV and radio personalities for that very reason, not because I think they mean everything they say. They reach such a huge audience that the probability of pushing some borderline lunatic over the edge is great.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikeb says:

    OK, here's the difference. A small blog like A Man With a Muckrake or Mikeb302000 or Laci the Dog reaches a certain size audience. Limbaugh and Beck and O'Reilly reach millions. So the responsibility to be careful increases proportionately.

    So, whether or not a piece of given hate speech--such as "Limbaugh ought to be arrested, tried and hung [sic] for treason," should be subject to condemnation is dependent on not only the content of the hate speech, but the size of the audience. Well, that's an . . . interesting idea. "Interesting" being, in this case, a polite way (you know about my insistence on being polite) of saying "batshit crazy."

    I've mentioned you calling pro-gun bloggers "irresponsible" for warning about potential threats to gun rights. I doubt there's a single gun rights blogger with an audience coming anywhere close to the size of Rush Limbaugh's. Sebastian and SayUncle get pretty good traffic, I'm sure, but nothing like Limbaugh's radio audience. My question, then, is, in your crazy-as-a-bag-of-cats theory of audience size playing a prime role in determining what is acceptable to say, what is the dividing line in audience size?

    Let's say, for example, that all of a sudden I become crazy-as-a-burning-duck-in-a-tornado, and adopt this novel theory of yours--what amount of blog traffic should I designate as being "too much" to say certain things?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Democommie says:

    I guess that would depend on whether those folks were using treasonous talk, which Limbaugh most certainly does. I can't believe anyone would defend that piece of shit, but it takes all kinds, I guess.

    You must have a fascinating definition of "treason," but rather than ask you to elaborate, I'll address your other sentence. Defending the right of a "piece of shit" to express his views in no way constitutes agreement with said "piece of shit." If you doubt that, then you must believe that the ACLU agrees with neo-nazis, with NAMBLA, and--yes, even with Limbaugh himself.

    I find that unlikely--how 'bout you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, Zorro, you wound me! Of course I disagree with the ACLU's defense of scum like Limbaugh and NAMBLA (of which Limbaugh must surely be a member) but I wouldn't try to stop them from doing so. They are, after all, protecting the rights of ALL americans, something which Limbaugh has no interest in doing. So, is Limbaugh one of your heroes? I mean he is a disgusting scumbag and a pitiful excuse for a human being, but I can see why you might look up to him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, Zorro, you wound me! Of course I disagree with the ACLU's defense of scum like Limbaugh and NAMBLA (of which Limbaugh must surely be a member) but I wouldn't try to stop them from doing so.

    I think the ACLU does good work in defending the free speech rights of people for whom I harbor contempt and loathing--because I am well aware that my contempt and loathing should have no impact on anyone's rights. I know furthermore that offensive speech is the most likely to need defense.

    As to my own opinion on Limbaugh, it's none too high--although it's not low enough to libel him with disgusting, wholly unfounded accusations of NAMBLA membership. Again, though, what the hell does my personal opinion about Limbaugh have to do with anything?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Zorro, Do me a favor and refrain from linking to other sites or stories about NAMBLA from my site. We get your point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. About the hate speech and small blogs vs. huge radio or TV audiences, I'll say this. I don't base my comments and opinions on the letter of the law, exactly what constitutes hate speech etc. I'm simply saying that the possibility of Muddy pushing someone over the edge by writing something on his blog is probably zero. The chance of Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Beck doing it is extremely high, right around 100%. I refer you to Jim Adkisson's Manifesto.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zorro, Do me a favor and refrain from linking to other sites or stories about NAMBLA from my site.

    Um, sure, Mikeb--sorry--didn't mean to be a problem. I admit I often make deliberate attempts to punch your buttons, but that wasn't one of them. I thought it helped illustrate my reason for admiring the ACLU's consistency in protecting everyone's rights, even people they presumably despise. Now, if only the national organization would follow the Nevada chapter's enlightened example . . .

    Again, if the NAMBLA link is a problem, take the comment down, and I promise not to scream "Censorship!"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Looks like it's time to post this again, from a June 2008 article in the New York Times:

    Burt Neuborne, a professor of law at New York University and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that while the debate was not new, “the ability to technologically call up snippets of speech” is.

    Mr. Neuborne said that a commentator’s language, no matter how colorful, generally cannot be treated as an incitement unless it directly instructs individuals to commit violence.

    “In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”

    Let's read the important part again:

    “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nicely done, FishyJay. It would seem that by Mikeb's . . . novel "theory" (ahem) of "shared responsibility," the ACLU and other free speech advocates must absorb some of the blame for violence supposedly "incited" by Limbaugh, Beck, etc.

    That, after all, makes just as much sense as placing any blame for so-called "gun violence" on RKBA advocates. If "gun violence" is enabled by gun rights advocacy, then "incitement" is enabled by free speech advocacy.

    Is that about right, Mikeb?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Fishy-Jay, That's a pretty good quote, I think I said that last time. The fact that he formerly was with the ACLU makes it especially so. Nevertheless, I and many people disagree. The poisonous rhetoric which these TV and radio personalities pump out, is not helping the situation, it's adding to it. That's my opinion.

    Zorro, You're right the shared responsibility works in both directions, which means if you carry it forward, it boils down to the comparison of DGUs and gun violence. Guess which one wins in my book.

    ReplyDelete