Rush Limbaugh

Fox News Debuts The Rush Limbaugh Hyperbole Hour

Posted by on December 15, 2011 at 12:21 pm. 3 Comments :

The Fox News web site for “those opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship,” Fox Nation, generally exhibits the same calm, thoughtful, and reasoned demeanor in its presentation of the news as its TV parent. For example, this morning the Fox Nationalists posted this headline story:

Fox Nation

For anyone who didn’t tune in to the interview of Rush Limbaugh by Greta Van Susteren yesterday (which was 99% of the country), what you missed was seeing Van Susteren turn over almost half of her program to Limbaugh. She asked a couple of questions and then let Limbaugh ramble on incessantly in his trademarked hyperbolic manner. And in all of the time he consumed he said nothing more than “Obama sucks,” over and over again.

And speaking of hyperbole, notice the Fox Nation headline saying that “Limbaugh Shatters Obama Into a Million Pieces.” Really? Because the last time I looked Rush is still hosting an AM radio program with an audience of self-described “dittoheads” and Obama is the leader of the free world. But this is typical of Fox Nation. Here is a small sampling of prior headlines that have graced this alleged “news” site:

  • Newt Obliterates OWS: ‘Go Get A Job Right After You Take A Bath
  • Allen West Obliterates Obama Official at Hearing
  • Flashback: Bill O’Reilly Obliterates Barney Frank
  • Bush Official Obliterates Code Pink Founder Over Krugman Column
  • CBO Director Obliterates Obama Budget
  • Limbaugh Demolishes Warren Buffett
  • Laura Ingraham Completely Demolishes Matt Lauer on ‘Today Show’
  • Wow! McCain Demolishes Boxer
  • O’Reilly Demolishes Liberal Hypocrisy
  • GOP Ad Destroys Obama with His Own Words
  • AP Fact Check Destroys Obama’s Libya Speech
  • FLASHBACK: Herman Cain Destroys Bill Clinton in Hillarycare Debate
  • Paul Ryan Destroys Reid Bill in Blistering Speech
  • Krauthammer Destroys Obama’s ‘Spike the Football’ Analogy
  • MUST WATCH: Gov. Christie Destroys ‘Thin-Skinned’ Reporter
  • LISTEN: Howard Stern Destroys Dem Senate Candidate
  • WATCH: Trump Destroys Mosque-Loving ‘Morning Joe’ Panel
  • O’Reilly Destroys Eminem and Media Matters
  • Politifact Annihilates Harry Reid
  • Must See! Cheney’s Daughter Annihilates MSNBC Anchor
  • O’Reilly Crushes Atheist Richard Dawkins
  • Palin Crushes TIME Magazine Over Their ‘Lies’
  • George Will Crushes ABC Panel
  • SHOWDOWN: Rubio Torches Kerry on Senate Floor
  • Risqué GOP Ad Torches Harry Reid for Vegas Blowout
  • ‘The Fact Checker’ Nukes Pelosi
  • CEO GOES NUCLEAR ON OBAMA
  • Ann Coulter Goes Nuclear on Scott Walker
  • Mark Levin Goes Nuclear Over Obama Destroying the Country
  • Trump Goes Nuclear on CNBC
  • Levin Goes Nuclear on Trump

By Fox News standards any time someone criticizes someone else they are either obliterated, demolished, destroyed, annihilated, crushed, torched, or nuked. Particularly if the criticism is directed to President Obama or a Democrat. And I didn’t even check my thesaurus to come up with other histrionic synonyms Fox might have employed.

The one thread that runs through all of this is how overtly hostile and violent their editorial rhetoric is. Clearly Fox regards their mission as one of war against their ideological adversaries. And given the fact that their audience consists of an inordinate percentage of fairly unbalanced and well-armed individuals, this is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

As Newt Gingrich once said, the Tea Party is “the militant wing of the Republican Party.” And Fox News is their Clarion Caller.

Rush Limbaugh Attacks Chelsea Clinton – Again

Posted by on November 14, 2011 at 2:44 pm. 5 Comments :

Conservative blowhard, Rush Limbaugh, is blowing harder than ever at the prospect of a politically connected offspring getting hired by a news organization.

NBC announced today that Chelsea Clinton will become a correspondent for their non-political, human interest series, “Making a Difference.” That announcement has Limbaugh’s blood boiling this morning as he rants…

“Chelsea Clinton, starting today will be getting her paychecks from the National Broadcast Company – NBC. I wonder how Luke Russert feels about this? Chelsea Clinton at NBC. She is not a journalist. She is a politician in training. That’s what this means, politician in training. It’s an incestuous business, circuitous route, revolving door, politics in media, on the Democrat side, is one and the same profession.”

Limbaugh is appalled that a news enterprise would hire someone not specifically trained in journalism just because they are related to a Democratic political figure. On that point I’d have to agree with him. Journalists should have professional training and a commitment to codes of ethical conduct. But Limbaugh’s only complaint is that “this is an avenue not open to conservatives.” So he doesn’t really care about the degradation of standards, only that Republicans can’t participate in the degradation. On that score he must have forgotten Michael Reagan, Lynn Cheney, Meghan McCain, and even George W. Bush’s daughter Jenna Bush Hager, who is already working at NBC. But Limbaugh’s obliviousness doesn’t stop there. He continues with a delusional lament that only Democrats waver between media and politics:

“I guess you could say we go to the media after we bomb out in politics, and we go to Fox. But that’s after we bomb out. After we lose our elections, that’s where we get hired by Roger Ailes, and so forth and so on. But seldom do we go from Fox back to politics. I could be wrong about this. I’m trying to think off the top of my head if that happens, but we do know that Chelsea Clinton is going to go from NBC to politics. There’s no question about it whatsoever in my mind.”

Setting aside Limbaugh’s psychic aspirations, he is partially correct in that Republican losers do get swept up by Fox News. Witness Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. But if he needs help remembering Republicans who jumped from positions at Fox into electoral politics, he need not look further than the current GOP presidential primaries where both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum made that leap. He might also recall that current Ohio governor John Kasich left his Fox News program to run for that post.

Going back further in time, I can’t recall a single democratic politician whose career started in the media. However, on the Republican side I can count Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, and George Murphy. Going from politics to media there are a few from both sides. Bill Moyers and George Stephanopoulos were both presidential aides before landing at PBS and ABC respectively. Tony Snow went from Fox to the Bush White House to CNN. Diane Sawyer was a Nixon press aide who is currently the anchor of ABC’s World News Tonight.

It should be noted also that Limbaugh has a history of gratuitous attacks on Chelsea Clinton. On his failed TV show in 1993 he asked his audience, “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” Then he put up a picture of 13 year old Chelsea. At least the maturity level of the right is consistent.

I think what might be really bugging Limbaugh is not that Democrats have some imaginary entrée into the mediasphere, it’s that Republicans have such an embarrassing field of candidates by comparison. After all, most people would not view Chelsea Clinton, a graduate of Stanford and Oxford who is currently pursuing her doctorate, as unqualified for such a position. On the other hand, Bristol Palin couldn’t even make it through the season of Dancing With the Stars.

[Update] Limbaugh doubled-down this morning with another heaping pile of stupidity:

“Can you imagine Brian Williams, if one of the Bush twins, one of George W. Bush’s duaghters had been hired? [Responding to someone off mic] One of George W. Bush’s daughters is a correspondent on the Today Show? Really? I didn’t know that. That is interesting. And they haven’t undermined her yet?”

And he continues…

“You’ve got to get experience on television. You have learn how to use TV if you’re going to do anything in politics of a substantial nature. […] Chelsea…what’s her degree in? History or make-up?”

For the record, Limbaugh dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, “he flunked everything.”

The Bill O’Reilly Lecture: On Making Statements You Can’t Back Up

Posted by on October 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm. 8 Comments :

If there is anyone in the media whose experience and integrity has earned them the respect of their peers and the right to provide guidance to others – well, it isn’t this guy:

Bill O'Reilly

Indeed, Bill O’Reilly is proof that journalistic standards have waned. It’s nice of him to admit it. He is perhaps best known for telling guests to “Shut up,” and for declaring imaginary wars against holidays. Last night on his Fox News program he decided that he would promote himself to professor and lecture a guest on the standards of journalistic conduct, a field he has studiously avoided.

The guest was liberal commentator Leslie Marshall. In response to O’Reilly’s diatribe against Occupy Wall Street protesters, Marshall noted that the Tea Party had many of the same problems that O’Reilly assigned to the Occupiers. Specifically she raised the issue of the Koch brothers and their role in creating and promoting the Tea party.

Incensed, O’Reilly demanded to know whether Marshall had any direct evidence that the Koch brothers had bankrolled the Tea Party:

“Leslie, you are a Fox News contributor, you have a responsibility. Can you prove that the Koch brothers are tied into the Tea Party financially? Can you? […] I want to remind you not to make statements you can’t back up on this network. We don’t do that on this network. Other networks do. We don’t.”

The involvement of the Koch brothers in the Tea Party is not a secret. They flaunt it. Their Americans for Prosperity pays the expenses for speakers like Sarah Palin to travel the country on buses painted with Tea Party logos. Unfortunately, Marshall was ill-prepared to respond. She stumbled and conceded that she had no “check in hand.” That led O’Reilly to declare his hollow victory and tell her, in effect, to shut up as he turned to another guest with whom he agrees.

More interesting is O’Reilly’s arrogant scolding that making statements that cannot be backed up is not permitted at Fox News. Of course, there are warehouses full of documentation that reveal the absurdity of that assertion. From death panels to birth certificates to global cooling to monkey mercenaries (I’m not kidding), the list is too long to condense here. However, for convenient evidence to the contrary, all you would have to do is rewind your DVR to watch O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” delivered at the top of this program. In it he castigated the Occupy movement as pawns of nefarious behind the scenes power brokers:

“These people are being exploited by powerful radical organizations. They are being used in the hopes of embarrassing the USA. The Occupy Wall Street movement is not – is not – a spontaneous protest against inequality. It is a well thought out campaign to bring down the infrastructure of this country. To turn us into a Western European type entitlement state. That’s what George Soros, MoveOn, the SEIC (sic), and many far-left journalists want. And they are using the protest to that end.”

And what did O’Reilly have to back up any of that? Not a dang thing. MoveOn and some unions (including SEIU) have expressed support for the movement, but they were not involved in organizing or directing it. Soros has no association with it whatsoever. And the allegation that the the goal of these clandestine conspirators is to “bring down the infrastructure of this country,” must be O’Reilly’s attempt to fill Glenn Beck’s shoes now that Beck has descended into Internet purgatory.

It’s rather astonishing to watch O’Reilly pivot from hurling a load of nonsense like this in a prepared segment, without backing it up, to chastising a guest for not having reference materials to affirm comments made extemporaneously in a live debate. But that’s not even the worst of it. O’Reilly’s opening segment also attacked MoveOn for producing a video to solicit support for a Marine who was seriously injured by police at the Occupy Oakland demonstration.

“Enter the radical MoveOn organization which is funding some of the occupiers. It took just hours for them to produce this video. [MoveOn Video] Now it’s obvious that MoveOn was ready to exploit any violence so that they could portray the USA as a police state. That is part two of the Occupy movement. First demonize capitalism, tell the world how unfair the U.S. economic system is. Then show the world the cops are fascists. Disgracefully the mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, caved into the radical left. [Quan Video] Nice job Mayor. Throwing your entire police department under the bus. That’s what real leadership is all about.”

For some reason O’Reilly is surprised that MoveOn was able to post a one minute long video within a few hours of a breaking news event. That shows how little O’Reilly knows about the news business. But in telling this story, O’Reilly criticizes the video only after cutting out 22 critical seconds – the entire portion that showed Scott Olsen, the injured Marine, and the police assault on the demonstrators who tried to help him. (See the whole MoveOn video here). Removing that footage distorts the context of Mayor Quan’s statement. She was not apologizing for the police behavior, or throwing them under the bus. She was expressing regret for the grievous harm suffered by a veteran who was demonstrating peacefully.

O’Reilly’s objective here is to characterize the Occupy protesters as violent thugs itching to incite a riot. Rush Limbaugh posited the same theory on his radio show:

“They are hoping some sort of Kent State type massacre is gonna take place. They are hoping that there’s gonna be some kind of civil disobedience. They are hoping that general unrest is gonna take place, a riot is gonna start, the cops are gonna go in there to try to quell the riot, and I think that’s what they’re hoping for. This is the chaos that everybody is looking for.”

The irony of Limbaugh articulating such a devious plot is sublime. A few years ago he expressed his hopes for the Democratic National Convention in Denver saying “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!”

“[T]he dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Rush Limbaugh

Let’s face it, it’s miscreants like Limbaugh and O’Reilly who are hoping for chaos and violence. The protesters of the Occupy movement have been consistent in their insistence on peaceful behavior. That contrasts with Tea Partiers who carried guns to rallies or signs saying that “We came unarmed THIS time.”

Bill O’Reilly does not have the moral standing to criticize other people’s intentions or behavior. His personal history is rife with examples of low character and shamelessness. And so far as lecturing others on making statements that are not backed up, he really needs to shut up. In fact, that would hold true for everyone on Fox News.

#OccupyWallStreet Hacked? Andrew Breitbart Publishes Stolen Emails

Posted by on October 17, 2011 at 10:28 am. 5 Comments :

Andrew BreitbartThe last time Andrew Breitbart got any significant notice in the media was when he publicized the Twitter sexting of former congressman Anthony Weiner. It was a particularly repulsive bit of gossipy sensationalism that furthered no public interest, but ruined a man’s career (and possibly his family), just to satisfy Breitbart’s craving for attention and his obsession with destroying what he calls “the institutional left.”

That was four months ago and Breitbart must be getting antsy about having been ignored by the press ever since. Now, on his BigGoverment web site, he has published an article asking his readers to comb through thousands of emails that he says are from OccupyWallStreet organizers. He claims to have acquired them from Thomas Ryan, a “private cyber security researcher.” Breitbart provides links to download these emails so that his minions can scour them for evidence of “links to socialist, anarchist, and possibly even jihadist organizations.”

This article also appears on Alternet.org.

It’s not bad enough that right-wing media have attempted to portray the Occupy Movement as dirty hippies, lazy freeloaders, ignorant dupes, leftist traitors, godless heathens, diabolical Marxists, violent revolutionaries, and White House plants, Breitbart is adding Al-Qaeda terrorists to this list. If it wasn’t so dangerously provocative it would be moderately humorous. But Breitbart’s accusations are irresponsible and his activities may be illegal. The first paragraph of the story says…

Breitbart: “In keeping with the new media notion of crowdsourcing–enthusiastically embraced by the mainstream media when trawling through Sarah Palin’s emails–Big Government will be providing readers later today with links to a document drop consisting of thousands of emails.”

The correlation Breitbart draws between these emails and those of Sarah Palin is entirely inapplicable. Palin’s emails as governor of Alaska were released through a lawful process that requires communications by government officials to be available to the public. Both the state of Alaska and Palin’s attorneys had an opportunity to examine the emails for any privacy concerns and neither expressed any objection to their release.

Breitbart, however, is publishing emails that were expressly created by individuals for their personal use. They were private communications amongst people who did not grant their publication and were not advised of it. The emails were literally stolen by a hacker who admits that he gained access to them through deception and misrepresentation (social engineering). And Breitbart is now complicit in the crime by publishing the ill-gotten goods with full knowledge of their origins.

[Update: Gawker has more on Thomas Ryan and his “Black Cell” campaign to infiltrate and discredit the movement. Ryan’s activities include forwarding emails to the FBI, the NYPD, and companies targeted for protests.]

Anyone familiar with Breitbart’s Legacy of Sleaze will not be surprised by this latest atrocity. He previously was best known for unfairly smearing ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, and others, with videos that were deliberately edited to produce a false and negative impression.

It should be noted that, thus far, none of the emails that Breitbart or his lackeys have reviewed contain anything remotely embarrassing. That, however, hasn’t stopped him from lifting words like “destabalization” and “unrest” out of context to suggest something more devious than the public protesting that is protected by the Constitution. Breitbart will surely employ such tactics to demonize the movement, just as he did with his attacks on ACORN, etc. It’s hard-coded in his deviant nature.

Even if there are some unsavory comments sprinkled amongst the thousands of emails, they could not plausibly be attributed to the Occupy Movement as a whole because the movement has no leader or authoritative spokesperson. It would just be one person’s opinion. The possibility that someone in a group of passionate dissidents wrote something offensive is not inconceivable. But it is also not official doctrine and cannot honestly be represented as such. The key word there being “honestly.” If Breitbart finds something controversial he will no doubt try to tarnish the movement with the indiscreet remarks of a single, marginally associated individual.

In the telling of this story it must not be forgotten that the emails being reviewed by Breitbart & Co. were obtained in manner that is at least immoral. And this isn’t the only example of such despicable, and possibly unlawful, behavior on the part of right-wing activists.

Patrick Howley, an assistant editor for the uber-conservative American Spectator magazine, admitted to infiltrating OccupyDC for the purpose of undermining it. He then attempted to lead a group of protesters into storming the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. The protesters, being much smarter than Howley, did not play along. Howley stormed the museum alone and was pepper-sprayed by security.

Mark Williams, former spokesman for Tea Party Express, told his radio listeners that he was planning to sabotage union rallies with the intention of making them look “greedy and goonish.” And he beseeched his listeners to do the same. Williams was the one-time spokesperson for the Tea Party Express, but was dismissed for publishing a virulently racist article on his blog.

Mike Vanderboegh, a militiaman from Alabama, encouraged his followers to break the windows of Democratic offices with rocks and baseball bats. More recently Vanderboegh published a Photoshopped picture of Attorney General Eric Holder in a Nazi uniform.

Rush Limbaugh delivered a radio sermon in which he called for riots at the Democratic National Convention. The rant was titled “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” He was specific in describing his objective as “burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that.”

This illustrates just how afraid the right is of the 99% of Americans who are waking up to the injustice and corruption of the 1%. They are increasingly fearful that their free ride is over. When people like Rush Limbaugh call the Wall Street protesters “human debris;” when Glenn Beck asserts that they “will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you;” it is all too clear that they have lost control of their senses. They are so deranged by fear that there is no limit to the absurdity of their claims and actions.

It also illustrates the sort of desperation that leaves the likes of Breitbart clinging to the hope that he can find damning rhetoric that he can misrepresent in emails that were illicitly acquired. And it isn’t going to end any time soon. This is something that progressives and occupiers are going to have to be aware of as the struggle proceeds. Vigilance of the conservative whack jobs and their media accomplices must be an ongoing focus of the campaign for economic justice.

Rush Limbaugh Says That Obama Is Setting Up Riots

Posted by on October 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm. 3 Comments :

Now that Sarah Palin is officially out of the race for the GOP nomination for president, and is going to remain a full time wingnut pundit, Rush Limbaugh is feeling the pressure to amp up the stupid. Toward that end he had this to say on his radio program today:

“Obama is setting up riots. He is fanning the flames for riots and eventual violence. That’s all he’s got. And now you look, all this talk about millionaires and billionaires and people not paying their fair share, and this relentless assault on achievement in this country has resulted in … what? The appearance of a spontaneous combustion of angry, white, college students who are fed up with all the injustices that this country is famous for. That’s his base. Occupy Wall Street is his base. Those are his foot soldiers. The anarchists, the union thugs who are occupying Wall Street.”

Of course. Why didn’t I see it? The way to win reelection is to preside over civil unrest and a despondent population. That Barack Obama is a genius. But it took Limbaugh to see through the plot and reveal the President’s dastardly plan. Only Limbaugh could have done this because of his unique experience with setting up riots. Here is what he said just prior to the Democratic National Convention in 2008:

Rush Limbaugh - Screw the World

“Screw the World. Riot In Denver,” is the actual headline of Limbaugh’s article on his own web site. He continues…

“Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.” […]

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Limbaugh’s absurd allegation about Obama was based on his assertion that Obama expressed solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, although he offered no support for that claim. The only thing Obama said about the protest was…

“I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. People are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”

That’s not even remotely an endorsement, much less a call to riot. However, Limbaugh did advocate violence himself in no uncertain terms. That just makes his phony whining about Obama and the protesters on Wall Street all the more ludicrous and hypocritical.

Limbaugh is not alone in making unsupported claims about Obama and the peaceful protesters. Fox Nation posted an item with the headline “Obama Gives Blessing to Anti-Capitalist Wall Street Protests.”

Fox Nation

This item not only falsely associates Obama with an independent, populist movement, it disparagingly refers to thousands of patriotic demonstrators, who are participating freely in a democratic process, of being anti-capitalist, which Foxheads read as anti-American. And once again, the claim is completely unfounded.

If all of this tells us anything, it is that Limbaugh, Fox, et al, are very much afraid of what’s happening in Lower Manhattan. They are afraid that their benefactors in the Ivory Tower suites on Wall Street and other corporate and media offices are finally being held to account for their abuses and crimes. They are afraid that their position of privilege is being challenged. But mostly they are afraid that Americans are no longer going to tolerate being held down by ultra-wealthy elitists who put more faith in corporations than in people, and don’t care about the Constitution, fairness, and democracy.

Fox News FINALLY Refudiates Violent Rhetoric

Posted by on August 31, 2010 at 3:02 pm. 9 Comments :

Almost since its inception, Fox News has been a hotbed of irresponsible discourse that encouraged intolerance and hostility. They have harbored hosts, contributors and guests whose language was sometimes thinly veiled advocacy of violence, and sometimes there was no veil at all.

  • Bill O’Reilly threatened to “hunt down” and “strangle” members of the media.
  • Liz Trotta joked that “somebody knock off Osama … uh … Obama … well, both if we could.”
  • Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to start riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, “with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”
  • Sarah Palin has taken to giving her followers this advice: “Don’t retreat…Reload!”
  • Glenn Beck agreed with his guest Michael Scheuer that the only hope for America “is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

Beck is one of the worst perpetrators of hostile rhetoric. He used to have a regular radio bit wherein he speculated about who he would like to beat to death with a shovel. He fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death with his bare hands. And more recently he frequently condemns progressives as a cancer that has to be “cut out.” So perhaps it was Beck to whom this Fox News story was referring when they said that provocative remarks “could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts.” And that fans “could be influenced because of their devotion.” The article quoted Cooper Lawrence, the author of “Cult of Celebrity” saying that:

“The fear isn’t that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star.”

Image consultant Michael Sands concurred saying that he “is taking his fame too seriously. He is having delusions and his anger” could “get him arrested!”

These criticisms ought to be taken seriously by anyone, left or right, who ventures into such disturbing scenarios and has the ability to influence others who may not be of particularly sound mind. Certainly that would apply to someone with the public posture of Glenn Beck. Just one little thing…The article was not referring to Beck or any of the other viscerally divisive characters above. It was referring to actor John Cusack who Tweeted…

“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS”

Much of the reaction at Fox News, and elsewhere in the rightist blogosphere, is that Cusack was articulating some kind of threat. That just illustrates how deficient their comprehension skills are. Anyone with a functioning cerebrum can see that Cusack was responding to the bigoted and illogical arguments against the Islamic community center being planned near ground zero in Lower Manhattan. Cusack was satirically turning the controversy on its head by proposing a church of Satan near Fox’s offices. But the dimwits at Fox, and their ideological peers, just don’t get it.

It’s too bad that when Fox News finally gets around to making a principled statement against violent hate-speech that they direct it toward someone who wasn’t engaging in it and ignore their own complicity. It would be nice if those getting so worked up about this phony misinterpretation of Cusack’s comments would be similarly outraged by the very real violent rhetoric that is a regular part of Fox’s programming, as noted above. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that expression of fairness and balance to occur.

State Of Shock: An Artist Examines The Hatred In Media And Politics

Posted by on May 24, 2010 at 10:23 am. 7 Comments :

Political commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been stretching the limits of civility for years. They compare their ideological adversaries to Nazis and Stalinists and assert that they are deliberately trying to destroy America and all that is good in the world. They openly hope for the nation to fail and even for it to be attacked by Osama Bin Laden again.

Fletcher Crossman, a British artist currently residing in the U.S., has opened an exhibit at the Eye Level Gallery in Charleston, SC, that explores this hostility and projects it out to its darkest conclusions. The pieces include Glenn Beck swinging from a noose over a gloomy New York skyline and Rush Limbaugh feasting on a pile of infant corpses. Interspersed are images of the media portrayal of similarly gruesome events including the assassination of President Obama. The media is not a peripheral addendum to the exhibit, but an integral part of the unfolding message. Crossman described the role of the media in comments to a local Charleston reporter:

“I use the media to not only progress the story, but to point the role that mainstream media has in adding spin to any issue,” said Crossman. “When you begin to study [media outlets] you begin to realize how even when they change a word or two, how twisted an idea can become to the public. It’s powerful.”

These works appear to be an inspirational and prophetic look at the consequences of hateful and irresponsible rhetoric. They are uncompromising in their judgments of fear mongering demagogues and their enablers in the press. They are beautifully presented in both concept and execution. Here is some video of the exhibit:

This is the sort of work that can have a profound effect on viewers. It can stimulate conversation and provoke action. It needs to be seen by as broad an audience as possible. I congratulate the artist for his insight and talent, and I hope that he can arrange for the exhibit to tour the country and gain exposure.

Limbaugh Lectures Obama On Character Assassination

Posted by on April 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm. 3 Comments :

If there’s one topic of study for which Rush Limbaugh can be regarded as an expert it’s character assassination. He has spent his career contriving dishonest assaults on his enemies that take the most vile form.

With regard to Barack Obama, Limbaugh started early by hoping that he would fail. Limbaugh expanded on that to accuse the President of being a socialist, a Marxist, and worse. He repeatedly asserts that Obama has an explicit desire to destroy America, the Constitution, and the values of faith and family that the nation embodies. If that isn’t character assassination, then I don’t know what is. Yet it is Limbaugh who is now whining to Politico about being the victim of the President’s wrath. In a CBS interview, Obama told Harry Smith that the vitriol of opponents like Limbaugh was troublesome. That seems to be a rather restrained description, but Limbaugh took great offense to what he portrayed as “constant attempts at character assassination.”

The funny thing is that Limbaugh should regard being considered troublesome by the President as a compliment. Isn’t it his intent to cause trouble for this administration? But he somehow has turned it into an insult. Even funnier is this bit of self-denial:

“I think the president is trying to distract me, to get me talking about ME on my show instead of talking about him and the regime’s agenda. But it won’t work. I’m wise to their tactics.”

But it did work. Limbaugh IS talking about himself. And if Obama wants to get Limbaugh to talk about himself he only needs to remember this one thing: The secret to getting Limbaugh to talk about himself is to just let him talk (preferably with a microphone nearby). Limbaugh spends a majority of his airtime talking about himself. He even continued doing it in his comments to Politico, describing himself as being “on the top of the mountain” of opposition to the administration. He can’t stop talking about himself, and the last thing he needs is provocation from the President.

Limbaugh’s pathological unawareness of his self-obsession is manifested in much of his hypocritical rhetoric. He simply cannot correlate his commentary with his own actions. Amidst the widespread reports of escalating hostilities within the fringe conservative community, Limbaugh had a warning for Tea Partiers from whom he says the country is being stolen:

“So you tea party people, I’m sure you know this, but they are trying to get you provoked so that you act in ways similar to the way they’re accusing you. […] They have a morally superior view of their agenda and of themselves. They look at anything that opposes them as evil, and with evil you must do whatever it takes, ends justify the means to wipe it out.”

Isn’t this precisely the view that Limbaugh has toward the administration (which he has lately begun referring to as “the regime”)? Doesn’t he consider his positions to be morally superior and his opponents to be evil? He certainly has expressed an intention to do whatever it takes to defeat the left he hates so fiercely. During the Democratic National Convention in he 2008 he literally said “Screw the World: Riot in Denver!”

“I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

“Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

These are unambiguous directives to his listeners, who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. These are every bit as bad as the Tea Bagger who recently advised his followers to go out and throw bricks through the windows of the offices or homes of Democratic lawmakers, and to engage in other sorts of vandalism and violence. These are the irresponsible edicts of a man who professes to obey the law, but asserts that his opponents do not:

“Something else about the Democrats, deep in their hearts they know that we are law-abiding people. They know that we don’t make messes. That’s why they’re trying to stoke lawbreaking behavior from the tea party people because they know that we obey the law. They don’t.”

Oh really? And inciting people to riot, to burn cars and throw bricks, is lawful behavior? Limbaugh is a despicable provocateur and he knows it. He is using a fabricated argument to project his perverse philosophy onto his perceived enemies. And, as usual, he is encouraging his feeble-minded followers to engage in activities that he himself is too cowardly to consider.

Limbaugh’s hypocrisy is classic, but his depraved licentiousness is completely off the scale of social decency and civility. And this attitude is by no means restricted to Limbaugh. Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the Fox News thugs, plus a variety of rabidly right-wing members of congress, are equally as culpable for the rancorous environment in the political atmosphere. No wonder there is so much vitriol wafting up in the steam from those tea cups.

Ron Paul’s CPAC Poll Victory: What Does It Mean?

Posted by on February 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm. 9 Comments :

A lot of jaws dropped yesterday when the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference announced the results of their presidential straw poll (pdf).

In a surprise victory, Ron Paul far outpaced his GOP rivals with 31%. Mitt Romney, who has won in several previous CPAC polls came in second with 22%. Sarah Palin, a presumed conservative favorite, trailed badly with only 7%.

So what might have contributed to these unexpected results? For one thing, it is not possible to make general representations about the CPAC attendees. Only 2,395 of them (out of approximately 10,000) voted in the poll. That means that 70% abstained. And there was no effort to develop representative sampling, so the results can’t be extrapolated to the attendees at large.

Ron Paul has fired up a certain segment of conservatives with his independent streak and appeal to anti-government types. But he is also 74 years old (a year older than John McCain) and a plurality of CPAC voters (48%) were students. Apparently that demographic split didn’t hurt Paul. It may, in fact, point to the more anarchistic bent of youth, while older establishment conservatives lean toward the comfort food candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Some analysts have attributed Palin’s poor showing to her not showing. She announced weeks ago that she would not be attending CPAC in favor of the Tea Baggers Ball in Nashville. Of course there was nothing stopping her from going to both – except that the Tea Baggers paid her a hundred grand and CPAC is a gratis affair. Also, presidential hopefuls Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee all showed up, gave warmly received speeches, and finished below no-show Palin.

Some other questions posed in the poll may shed light on the presidential numbers. For instance, most voters (53%) were unsatisfied with the current crop of candidates. An overwhelming majority cite smaller government, a key Paul issue, as their main goal. Issues championed by Palin, like traditional values (9%) and national security (7%), were far less important to this crowd. And bombast seems to be out of favor judging by the high negatives of Glenn Beck (27%) and Rush Limbaugh (27%). You would think that number would get more attention. Nearly a third of CPACers have a negative view of their most prominent spokesmen. For some reason, Palin was not included in the favorability question. Not to worry. Perhaps that’s for the best as a recent poll showed that she is not particularly welcome in the 2012 race anyway. 71% said they did not want her to run. That included 56% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, and even 58% of conservatives.

So what does it all mean? The Hell if I know. The only thing that I come away from this with is the certainty that the roster of also-rans in this poll will shortly be adopting more of Ron Paul’s policies and rhetoric.