Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Bernie and the Birth Certificate

One of my favorite undergrad instructors back at Antioch in the 1950s was a guy named Bernie Weisbesrger, who taught Intro to Western Civ. He was not the sort to dress up in costume, but he did do a marvellous rendition of Martin Luther in German to show us, as he said, just how argumentative those Protestant reformers could really sound. That sort of thing.

Bernie's introduction on the first day of the first semester, was an introduction to the historical method.
Good morning, my name is Bernard Weisberger. At least I think it is Bernie Weisberger. Indeed, I sincerely believe it to be so, but of course the sincerity of my own belief is no evidence at all for the truth of the proposition at issue. Aside from my own belief--my mother told me my name was Bernard Weisberger. She perhaps had the attributes of a good witness, but she might have been mistaken, or she might have been lying. I have also seen a birth certificate saying that I am Bernard Weisberger, but of course it might have been forged, or it might not be really mine at all...
You can see where this is going. We were off on a merry romp through the jungles of critical judgment, laced with the darker menace of phyrronism. That, even more than the bare substance, became the agenda for a truly memorable undergraduate course. The lesson, at least as I understood it, was twofold. On the one hand, nothing is certain--certainly not your mother nor the state. On other hand--and I think this was perhaps equally important, if easy to obscure--on the other hand, life goes on. Nothing is certain but we make judgments and act upon them, all the time recognizing that we really do not, in the strict sense, have any idea what we are talking about it.

I think of this whenever I try to follow the allegations about how the holocaust was a fantasy, or that the moon landing was a smoke-and-mirrors show, or any of the rest of the catalog of fantasies in the Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories (a delightful book, by the way, highly recommended). Strictly speaking, I suppose it is possible that, e.g., umpty ump pretended survivors gave consistent false testimony on the attempted eradication of the Jews. But I don't think it is even remotely likely and I have long since relinquished according the idea any but the most transitory thought.

Still, one remarkable and easy-to-ignore fact about virtually all conspiracy theories, together with urban legends and suchlike, is that they respond to real human concerns. The idea that those nice Germans would do something so awful to all those Jews is just too awful to bear (and besides, you know, those people are such whiners!*) The thought that a bunch of incompetents in Washington could execute anything as complex as intergalactic travel is just too distasteful to contemplate, etc. There's a wonderful novel by André Gide, now largely, it seems forgotten, called Les Caves du Vatican, aka Lafcadio's Adventure, about a gaggle of con men who undertake to disencumber prosperous Catholics of their wealth on the premise that the real Pope is being held prisoner in the basement--because no real Pope would utter all the pernicious nonsense we are hearing today!

The model for Gide's novel may have been Leo XIII, propounder of the (only very mildly) reformist encyclal De Rerum Novarum. It's easy to imagine Rush Limbaugh (say) reading that line about "
"the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class" and oofing his cookies. Surely, surely, this paltry shadow of a real pope--surely he must be an imposter!

So it is hardly surprising that some segment of the population sincerely entertains that the proposition that the incumbent President was not born in the place where the (alleged) birth certificate or the (putative) newspaper from that day and place says he is. And they may be right. For all I know, he was born in Kenya; hell, for all I know, his middle name is Murray and he arrived full-blown from the planet Zyrcon. The only surprise, I suppose, is that the cause is taken up by prominent people in a party that wants to be taken seriously as part of government--that people who look like grownups will struggle so hard not to be seen as such.

Afterthought: Come to think of it, has anybody ever seen a birth certificate for Rush Limbaugh?

--
*Irony.

Update: He's alive! And, I hope, well, I hope enjoying a hard-earned retirement after a long and distinguished career.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Rush and AIG

Leftbloggers are full of outrage at He Who Must Be Obeyed for coming to the defense of the AIG bonuses. My attitude is one more of bafflement--what the heck does The Big Guy think he can accomplish by aligning himself with a gang of knaves whose popularity right now is about the same as that of Fritzi the daughter-raper?

I know: if I'm so smart why ain't I rich? Rush cries all the way to the bank, and there is little evidence that he would profit from advice from me. But I do remember this: back in the Bush I years, Rush went all squiggly giggly over a president who let him sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. It was power of a sort, but it's worthwhile to remember that it also inflicted the worse curse the classs clown can fear: it made him boring. Slander, mockery, scabrous personal abuse--that's politics in the emerald city. But comforting the comfortable wins you nothing but a big yawn.

Update: Anna Gelpern, who does not have a talk show, makes a sophisticated version for the case against abrogation.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Failure Again

The other day I wondered if any Republican would be willing to distance themselves from the Limbaugh doctrine, aka "I want Obama to fail." Turns out there are is at least one. Here's Newt Gingrich wannabee Eric Cantor:
"And I don't — I don't think anyone wants anything to fail right now. We have such challenges. What we need to do is we need to put forth solutions to the problems that real families are facing today."
I'm willing to take Cantor at face value here. I think it's his intention to run a team that is more civil and constructive than some of his predecessors, although I'm not sure the kid can hit big league pitchin' and it will interesting to see if he gets recycled through the Limbaugh reeducation camp.

Meanwhile, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele wouldn't go that far, but he does seem a bit bent out of shape everybody is treating Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party when the real leader is, well, Michael ("I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party") Steele. I feel his pain, and I can suggest one cadre of allies in his campaign to dis-mantle Rush. That cadre would be the other celebrities in the Republican noise machine. If I were Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or (whoever), I'd be feeling a bit underappreciated this morning: hey, I've been spilling venom and bile for years now, pay attention to me!

Update: Sure enough!

Update II: Not everyone impressed (but it does seem to have taken the heat off Cantor).

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Is Rush Right?

Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants the President to fail:


Would this be right, I wonder? I admit, I can see how it might be tempting. I vividly remember 2001. I didn't vote for George Bush; I didn't/don't even think he was really elected. But at that time, I was not deeply hostile to him, and in any event, I very much subscribed to the view that we get only one President at a time, and that we all had a stake in Bush's success.

Flash forward a year or so and of course it wasn't a question of wanting him to fail; Bush had pretty much taken care of that problem himself. But I admit I did feel myself a bit of a chump for ever so much a having entertained any attitude of charity and goodwill, against people with so much contempt against anybody who did not share their own ruffian ways. I suppose we can imagine an Obama regime that is such a farrago of malice and incompetence that we'll start counting the days all over again.

Is that the attitude of Susan Collins? Arlen Specter? Lindsey Graham? Any of those other Republicans that we choose to treart as "statesmen," at least as that term is understood on the Sunday morning talk shows?

My guess: they don't want Obama to fail. They feel more or less as I did in 2001 (and suspect they will not have reason to feel as I did by 2002). My guess is that Limbaugh knows that as well as I do--and in fact, he isn't even presuming to speak for them. What he is doing is to offer an assertion of dominance, an attempt at humiliation: he wants to show, hopes he can show, that people like Collins, Specter and Graham are so afraid of the great gasbag that they won't even be willing to step up for this fundamental act of civi responsibility.

So where are you guys? Will you let yourself be bullied by Limbaugh? Or will you step up and say that no, you for one do not hope that our President will fail? Anyone? Anyone?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Uh, Say Again? (Rush Limbaugh Department)

Did he mean this?

Well, I guess it could mean:
  • Gingrey apologizes to Limbaugh for what Gingrey said about Limbaugh.
  • Gingrey apologizes to God Limbaugh's presence on the planet.
The reader is invited to make his own guess.

HT: Thanks, John.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Who's Your Daddy?

They say that the most important part of any job is figuring out who your real boss is--figuring out who has the final say over whether you live or die. For example, Donald Regan only figured out too late that the one who wore the pants in the Reagan family was Nancy.

Apparently John McCain knows who's boss.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Ivan Goes to the Piggly Wiggly,
And Finds Consolation

Ivan's in his truck again:

i was driving to ardmore yesterday, WLRH was off the air, my second choice is A&M station but it had rapcrap, i finally ended up with rush limburger. he was screaming hysterically against huckabee. went to the bank, came out, he was still screaming against huckabee. went to piggly wiggly, came out, he was still screaming against huckabee. went to lottery ticket store, came out, he was still screaming against huckabee. maybe huckabee's win last night has its auxiliary benefits.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Immigration: All Balls Loose on the Table

We’ve got painters all around the outside of Chez Buce today so I can’t get to my car without wading through a band of Limbaugh surround sound (I hope our neighbors will forgive us). It did give me the exquisite pleasure of hearing Rush whine that he was being “marginalized by the Republican party.”

“Marginalized” seems to be a favorite word among the self-pity faction of the wingnut set these days, but it occurred to me he does have a point. That is: he was talking about immigration and here, at last, we have an issue that really sets traditional alliances on their head. I remarked earlier today that I found myself in the odd position of agreement with NRO’s Corner. DeLong (along with others) points out that the issue has caused The Corner at last to discover the mean-spirited arrogance at the editiorial page of the Wall Street Journal (link). NPR this morning took delight in running supposedly “acting against type” soundbytes: A Republican who embraced the cause of illegals, a Dem who thought we were being over run with them.

I don’t have any confident expectations here, but I do know that all balls are loose on the table at the moment, and when they are all loose on the table, you never know what will carom off what. And let’s hear it for marginalization. I hope these guys are better as housepainters than they are as critical students of politics.

Fn.: I stay away from opining about immigration not because I don't care but because I haven't a clue what to say about it. I know that not even Jack Bauer is going to school-bus 12 million illegals back to Mexico (aside: thanks, Kevin!). I tend to suspect that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out of it, but you'd never guess it from hanging around at the prompt-care door to any even remotely public hospital. I do suspect that the United States will probably hive off some kind of new entity in the southwest within the next 100 years, though probably not within my lifetime. I wouldn't say "a new nation," because the very idea of the nation-state seems to be under stress at the moment--but that is a whole nuther story.

Monday, March 05, 2007

An Army of One

There’s nothing in particular to be gained from joining the general pile-on against Ann Coulter, but maybe I can deploy the occasion to offer what I think is a new proposition: Ann Coulter really is in a class by herself.

No, wait. I mean—well, Michelle Malkin may be a venomous little dweeb, but “Intern the Japanese” actually is a a coherent proposition, however contemptible. And that’s the trouble with most of what Malkin writes: not that it is unintelligible, but that it’s too intelligible, stuff whose very intelligibility leaves the world a more shabby place. So also with Rush Limbaugh: he’s big and fat, alright, but he’s really not an idiot—he’s smart enough and if you like schoolyard bullying (and who among us does not?) then once in a while you’re going to find him funny—at least as funny as this guy, who came in 95th in the polling for funniest standups—perhaps as funny as this guy, who ran 21st.

The thing about Coulter is that she isn’t as substantive as Malkin, and isn’t as funny as Limbaugh. She’s the null set, the vacuum, the black hole in the center of the political universe. When you hear all those young conservatives whistling and stomping, they’re not endorsing what she stands for because she doesn’t stand for anything at all. Putting “John Edwards” and “faggot” and “rehab” isn’t a statement; it is a piece of dada poetry made out of right-wing refrigerator magnets.