Later, Hater

Let's take a moment to consider the man that he was:

Rush Limbaugh was given the Medal of Freedom at the State of the Union last night. Here's a bit on who he is.

Viewer discretion is advised. pic.twitter.com/rWYbfnDThl

— Media Matters (@mmfa) February 5, 2020

Before anyone chides me for celebrating the man's death, let's get this stright, I'm deploring the work that he did. The man that his mourners are calling a pioneer of conservative talk radio was a divisive bigot, a misogynist, a homophobe, an man who literally screamed that a fellow human being was a slut for hours because she believed that birth control should be treated as any other necessary health care.

It may be true that he blazed a path for others, as Father Coughlin or Joe Pyne could have been said to have blazed one for himself--but I would argue that was never a good thing. He lowered the discourse and called it entertainment in the way an abuser knocks someone around and then says they were kidding. He fought against "political correctness"--a made-up term that means when people try to apply some standards of decency to people who have stepped out of bounds, by being hyper-political and seldom correct. 

Anyway, he normalized the kind of rhetoric that made Trump sound so reasonable--it could be said that generations of conservatives had received a Limbaughtomy and their frontal cortexes never worked quite right again. 

I'm not grave-dancing--he hasn't been buried yet. But in a small and nasty way, the tone of my blog probably honors him better than the megadittoes of people who should be asked which inflammatory statements they think furthered conservative thought and ideals, and that's more than he deserves.

Torn

.@SpeakerPelosi tears up of State of the Union speech.#SOTU #SOTU2020 pic.twitter.com/sIpi4G7KsL

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 5, 2020

I'm not one for that GIF-y kind of "yas queen" political gesture, but I easily get the sentiment behind tearing up a copy of Trump's campaign speech delivered in the place of the State of the Union. It was, indeed, better than the alternative which, one can assume, was shoving the packet of self-serving lies and stage-dressing back down his nasty throat. The White House comms team responded to her action with pure absurdity.

She was tearing up none of the things alluded to in the White House's hackish Tweet, but rather the contempt Trump showed for any positive thing at all that might have been discussed or celebrated there by lying, by smearing immigrants with racist assertions, and by hanging a medal around the neck of an infamous hate-spreader, Rush Limbaugh.

I'll level with you, cancer is a horrendous disease and I could and would wish it on no one. But suffering doesn't change what a person has done with their platform in the course of their highly-lucrative career, and watching this virulent racist be awarded a high honor on a night when we could celebrate the service of the Tuskegee airman, watching this soldier in a culture war be rewarded for his divisiveness against fellow Americans instead of focusing on our shared patriotism--this was an affront. In Rush Limbaugh's entire career, he has heaped vilification on feminists, calling a reproductive health care activist a "slut" on his platform for days on end, and generally referring to feminists as "Nazis" while offering up rape apology and misogyny on a regular basis. Whatever charitable things he's ever done (possibly for PR) are nothing compared to the harm he's done for the discourse--and of course, this Birther, this showman of the bizarre and bent opinion, is a hero to Trump--Trump's presidency is based on Limbaugh's act!

But who is he to be so celebrated? A person anathema to the values of millions of us?

The state of our union is, we are torn. A divisive president has highlighted the ways in which we are divided. The Republicans who enthusiastically applauded his deeply partisan speech, the GOP Senators who mean to acquit him later this week for things they even admit he has done, can't unite us. Our disunion is strong. And that is how Trump has liked it, and that is how he now has it.

So say what you will about Speaker Pelosi tearing the speech up. Trump tears at the Constitution and at whatever still exists of our national comity. You figure out for yourself who is more to blame--the one who errs, or the one who points it out.

Alex Jones' Highly-Modified Limited Hangout

Somewhat popular CT radio host and "truth"-seeker Alex Jones has, despite his ample help in raising the profile of current White House Occupier-in-Chief supposed Russian-connected "billionaire" Donald Trump (who owes an awful lot to fake news"), found himself in a bit of a bind--continue on his mission, as he sees fit, to spin reality into neatly-exaggerated piles of biased pablum for the faithful to suck up and chuck up on Twitter and other social media fora, or hold his family together keep custody of his kids with a plausible "untruth"--he isn't a true believer, but a mere "entertainer".

I know. You could say "But Pizza Gate?" or "But Sandy Hook?" But huh! This is such an old ploy--did you know back in the day, one Rush Limbaugh had to sometimes be an entertainer, when his shenanigans grew too fretful? But he and his bullshit perseveres. Even though he pretends that the idea of his being an entertainer only came from The Left--and not because the right was disavowing his worst palaver!

So, I would presume, things would be mega-ditto with Jones. He can cheerily deny that he intended harm or even believes half of what his show consists of--all the while still spewing like a bullshit volcano. As a character, of course. A semi-respectable lying bottom-feeding character.

There's Outrage, and Then There's The Defense of the Indefensible...

I don't agree with Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh on very much, so I really don't follow them and don't blog about "OMG, this terrible thing some pundit said!" because really? What would be the point? They have a right to express their opinions, and while I can say they are dumb opinions or how I don't agree, it makes very little difference--except for this recent confluence of exquisitely grotesque pro-abuse and pro-rape comments that made me seriously wonder what the fuck they were about.

Just to start with Hannity--

Hannity explained that he was hit by his father as a child, and he turned out just fine.

"I got hit with a strap. Bam, bam, bam. And I have never been to a shrink. I will tell you that I deserved it," he said.

"I think he went far," Hannity then said about Peterson. "But I don’t want to see this guy get a felony, I don’t want to see this guy lose his job. He deserves parenting classes."

Hannity then took off his belt to demonstrate the technique.

There are a lot of people who were paddled or whipped as kids, firmly, not to excess, and who lived and did well for themselves. But boasting that one has never been to a shrink is not that same as saying one hasn't experienced after-effects of one's abuse, and there could be an argument made that the discipline Hannity received taught him to be a punch-down, kiss-up authoritarian personality who goes out of his way to excuse power and malign the underdog. Just saying. But there's a real disconnect when someone tries to excuse the switch-beating of a four year old child that leaves cuts in his legs and scrotum. That just isn't acceptable. If Hannity can't see that this is a question not about the ability of parents to discipline, but the extent to which they carry that discipline out, then I really wonder. Can't parents carry out loving discipline that isn't harmful, and instill values by living them? Is that so preposterous? (For the record I may have been spanked, by hand, once in my life, by my parents. Never an implement.)

Rush Limbaugh--taking RW Radio down With Him?

This article at The Daily Beast implies it could be happening:

Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).” 

This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are “carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway).” Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue.

I think there was a sense before that whatever was said on talk radio was fine--but now it's hurting business. I have to disagree with Bill Maher regarding his defense of Limbaugh: Limbaugh didn't offer an actual apology because he barely acknowledged what he'd said, but also, sometimes it is right for an "entertainer" to lose business. It happens all the time even in cases where it isn't about censoring or censuring them over offensive remarks--actors can find it hard to get roles after having temporary fame, musicians can see their record sales go down. It's a part of the circle of life. Limbaugh's supposed ratings were always a little murky and his act was always fairly offensive to far more people than actually regularly listened (at times I wondered how many listened with "megadittos" in mind, versus how many listened simply because they were waiting for a, well, fluke of the tongue, where Limbaugh would cross an uncrossable line). This time, perhaps he has. At any rate, he's not owed a sinecure. (In radio? For crying out loud, who is in radio?)

But more than that, the value of his particular brand of commentary, with its hyperbolic style and lack of reliable information content (consider, for one thing, his bashing of Obama over sending advisers to Uganda to respond to the murderousness of....The Lord's Resistance Army, led by Joseph Kony) needs to be reconsidered.  Maybe the time has come to at least hold these talkers to a higher standard--I'm not saying that they can't be opinionated or even boldly opinionated, but misogynistic, racist, hate-filled, and dead wrong speech just isn't that valuable. People who want to spread it can start crappy little blogs or go be trolls on someone else's blog--they don't have to be rewarded with radio contracts, any more than they need to have tv shows or be ESPN commentators. 

At the same time, I don't like the false equivalence put up that Maher, or Olbermann, or Ed Schultz, or Michael Freaking Moore, are held to different standards by everyone on the left--no, feminists, for example, have absolutely got massive reservations about them being reliable allies due to past boorish comments. But there's a difference between being a poor ally, or a "potty-mouth", and being an actual avowed foe. Limbaugh's shtick involves calling someone like me a Nazi and stripping women of rights, dignity and respect. Our Lefty clods might call names at individual bad-actors, but I don't think they actually hate women. They're just occasionally clueless; they don't make a job of it.  I think we can reasonably tell the difference.

He could go all the way.

So, today was the fourth day that Rush Limbaugh felt the need to hold forth on the subject of Sandra Fluke and her testimony regarding the necessity of  private health insurance covering the Pill for a variety of compelling medical reasons, and once again, he slagged her a bit.

At first I was appalled when he was slagging her. Oh no. Why does he say these terrible things about a woman who is just saying what she wants to say?  Why is he bullying this person with constant imprecations against her character and personal habits, about which he knows nothing? Does the truth mean anything to him at all?

Now, finally and at long last, after a two-decades or so long career in radio broadcasting, Rush Limbaugh is finally entertaining me. I am entertained because he is losing sponsors and a couple of radio stations have stopped carrying his angry-white-guy-hating-stuff themed show.

Now, I'm sure this is no picnic for Sandra Fluke, who is now making the rounds of such shows as The View. It is dreadful to have one's profile raised by having one's sexual reputation trashed by people who are just making shit up and all the while, getting to repeat her point of view over and again in different venues from the one she  was originally cut out of--that has got to be a weird, weird situation.  But probably not as weird as the position Rush Limbaugh is in--after over 20 years of saying horrible stuff, finally having people actually listening to what he says.

Imagine that. And so many don't like those things.  Fancy that, too.

Oh, not to count out the people who used to listen to him before. But they were taking stock in his lies, not taking account of his lies (as John Cole devastatingly does here). As it turns out, Limbaugh doesn't tell the truth, and is actually just a big old tired hack bully.

Wanna see what he does with himself on day five of Flukeapallooza? Because at this point, I kind of do. Go ahead, Rush, you big old Free Speech Warrior. Tell us in more graphic detail how you want to see porn of college students young enough to be the daughters you never had. Make another, more entertaining,"poor word choice". Don't stop now that you have so much attention: Entertain us.

I wish an entertainer would.

Limbaugh's Non-apology, Title X and Planned Parenthood

Rush Limbaugh issued a non-apology to Sandra Fluke (sort of) in response to the loss of advertisers he has faced since the row over his offensive mischaracterization of Ms. Fluke and her testimony regarding women's reproductive health. His apology is facetious and still deeply wrong regarding her argument for health coverage of the contraceptive pill. He writes:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. 

“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level." 

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

 As I stated earlier, this is absolutely wrong, because the mandate is for insurance companies to cover contraception, not taxpayers.  And what annoys me about this duplicity is that taxpayers have been paying for family planning services for low-income people for over forty years under Title X (about 25% of those grants going toward the right wing's favorite foe, lately, Planned Parenthood).  Which gets me to thinking (oh, these are dangerous times in which we are living!) if this whole disinformation gambit on Limbaugh's (and the rest of them, congress-critters included) part isn't really presaging an attack on the "real" problem: the access of lower-income women to family services at all.  


Gee, Rush.  Thanks for the information regarding where the GOP War on Women is heading.  Good job.

Rush Limbaugh's Last Straw (Slut)

Rush Limbaugh has had a long and prosperous career, hasn't he? Sure, he says horrible things from time to time, but obviously, he has quite a lot of pull politically, am I right? After all, Speaker of the House, John Boehner, when called upon to repudiate Limbaugh's recent characterization of a 30-year-old law student as a "slut", could only tepidly call Limbaugh's words "inappropriate", while many GOP and conservative spox-folks have hopped on the "support Rush" bandwagon. So let's first revisit the slut-shaming Limbaugh has lent his "talent on loan from God" to for the past three days:

“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it,” Limbaugh said, adding that high school boys applying to college should consider Georgetown. “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!” 

The conservative radio host continued: “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Nice. Of course, we all know that the Pill is taken daily for birth control (or for other medically-related applications). It's Viagra you need to take each time you want to have sex, if you are a male-bodied person requiring that assistance. That's a drug (and who knows from drugs, seriously?) Limbaugh might know more about. And what she was referring to was not having sex--not that there's anything at all wrong with an adult woman choosing to have sex--but a friend of hers not being able to access the Pill as a drug for health care. And finally, she was talking about how women are under-served by insurance policies that don't include reproductive health--insurance policies being products offered by corporations that we either buy or are provided to us as part of a compensation package through our employer (for which some part of our salary may still go towards the premiums of). In other words--Limbaugh went out of his way to get every conceivable point wrong, just for the pleasure of being able to call Fluke a "slut".  If he did not do that intentionally, he has shown that he does not understand how birth control works, how sex works, how insurance works, and what women care about. He may actually be so ignorant--I don't know.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh--OFFS

Honestly, some days I wonder how we'll explain these people to future generations. Because I'm pretty sure somebody is surely going to ask what the hell was that all about.
At best, I'd have to say they were about conservative identity politics to the bitter end, where ultimately, the only truth was that which served their version of conservatism, the only good people to them were people who served that cause, and that any demonstrable fact or contervailing opinion that undermined their version of conservatism was to be destroyed. Also, sometimes they failed to recall their own words, even the really gutless intellectually devoid lying ones, in order to support one of their very own.

I find that I have a real intolerance for one thing--intolerance. If people of color, people of differing religious viewpoints (like Islam in the US--or like atheism, nearly everywhere) LGBT*QA people, etc. are maligned, I feel like I need to go stand with them. When I see people like Limbaugh and Coulter go wrap themselves up in Hermain Cain as a matter of race, I see red. Where are they for any other person of color?  And where do Mr. Feminazi and Ms. Phyllis Schlafly Jr. stand regarding the rights of women to not be seen as sexual objects in the workplace? Are they saying it's okay if it were Bill Clinton and Paula Jones? (If it were.  Not that I say it were...but hypothetically?)

I'm sorry, Rush, Ann....but we know you. And really. Stop reminding us of what we already know.

Rush and the Volcano--wow. So unlike Rush to go so low.

One of my pet peeves is pundits and televangelists and politicians using some disaster as a sign of "God's" (which is to say, the speaker's) displeasure. Things like hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes, are just a fact of life on this planet, and there really is no plausible causality in these "X made God mad, so He did Y" formulations.

Which is why I was a little surprised the hear Rush made one of these pronouncements regarding the volcano in Iceland and....health care reform?



Iceland isn't getting health care reform, the US is. And it's Europe's air travel that's mostly getting buggered up*. Of course, Limbaugh doesn't believe a word of what he's saying here, he's just saying, um--could be Apocalypse! You never know!

*Although on EDIT, the economy being global and all, this hurts everyone, but still--it hurts everyone. Whereas HCR is going to....help people.