A wee bit of a Rush

I can't say that I'm fond of the title of Al Franken's 1999 book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot -- not because I'm a fan of Limbaugh's politics, but because flamethrowing, regardless of ideology, is the real idiocy.

Besides, in my opinion, Big Fat Idiot misses the mark. With apologies to soon-to-be-Sen. Franken, I suggest that a more fitting title might've been, Rush Limbaugh is a Sad Little Man.

Case-in-point, this was Limbaugh's on-air reaction to a magazine's recent request that he submit a 400-word perspective on his "hope for the Obama presidency":

"Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: 'I hope he fails.' ... I would be honored if the (media) headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.'"

Really, who can blame Limbaugh for exploiting the new administration to salvage his shriveling brand? From Pepsi® to Audi®, IKEA® to State Farm®, advertisers are wrapping their products in a hope-and-change message, so why not allow for an anti-hope campaign if it'll help sell Right Wingnut® Soap?

I do allow for it -- free speech is our constitutional right. It's just not the point.

Limbaugh, like many of the voices wailing from the intellectual desert of talk radio, mistakes contrarian for independent and confuses ideology with patriotism. Every broadcast is a double-dose of Damitol, injected directly into the weak brains of loyal listeners who can't tell bouillabaisse from barnyard waste.

The new occupant of the Oval Office is clear and present evidence that The People have refused Limbaugh's medication. In the process, a sad little man and his sad little band have been sentenced to the margins of American politics. Their own extremism banished them to Fringeville where, fittingly, they get to keep company with similarly exiled left-wing extremists.

For a refreshing contrast, here's how National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg -- a self-described conservative -- reacted to Tuesday's inauguration:

"I am proud of and excited by the fact that we have inaugurated the first black president of the United States. He wasn't my first choice, but he is nonetheless my president.

"Conservatives who try too hard to belittle the importance of this milestone are mistaken on several fronts. First, this is simply a wonderful -- and wonderfully American -- story. Any political movement that is joyless about what this represents risks succumbing to bitter political crankery."

"If Obama lives up to the dreams of his supporters in writing a post-racial chapter for America, he will have at once done more for America than any Democratic president in generations. But he also will have cut the knot holding much of the left together. As an American and as a conservative, I certainly hope that’s the case. He made a good start of it just by getting elected."

Limbaugh, naturally, whines that conservative "sellouts" like Goldberg have "sacrificed the whole concept of victory." Goldberg pays thoughtful, respectful tribute to a "milestone," while Limbaugh rants about "all these victims," deriding those of us who celebrate opportunity and diversity as "the race industry."

Had a satisfactorily conservative candidate won on November 4th, Limbaugh surely would've hailed it as a mandate. Now, quoting the equally mind-numbing Ann Coulter, this sad little man dismisses the result as "the tyranny of the majority."

We can't (and shouldn't) silence Limbaugh, his ilk and his disciples, but we should see them for what they are -- prisoners of ideology. They've decided that the right, as God gives them to see the right, can be accomplished only through the perpetuation of their own tired, failed dogma.

No ideology can stake that claim. Our highest ideal is independence. The only dogma worth perpetuating is the The Constitution of the United States of America. The "concept of victory" we pursue is our collective American victory.

Barack Obama no longer is a candidate -- he's my president. As an American, I'm invested in his success. As an independent citizen, I have a duty to advocate policies that I support and criticize those that I oppose. As one who values critical thought, mindless ideology plays no role in my choices.

And speaking with the independent voice of that citizen-patriot who still uses the brain he was born with, it's clear to me -- indeed, it's beyond credible dispute -- that Rush Limbaugh is a Sad Little Man.

Look who's talking

My indictment of talk radio for its lack of independent critical thought is a recurring theme here on KintlaLake Blog. Each and every day, crackling AM frequencies serve up a toxic brew of fear mongering and disinformation to support positions that don't require that kind of nonsense, credible conservative positions that stand on their own.

It annoys the hell out of me.

Then, every once in a while, I hear something that annoys me even more. That happened on Friday when "Adam," a high-schooler from Illinois, called Rush Limbaugh asking for advice. I've edited the transcript a bit here for brevity's sake, but I believe I've preserved its essence. Here's how the exchange began:

ADAM: "I have an economics teacher, Mr. McCoy. He's a screaming liberal, and I challenge him in his class, so he plans his lesson around me, and he tries to set little traps for me. Is there anything you can help me say just to shut him up and put him in his place?"

"He says, 'Like Adam, all conservatives hate public good. They want the lower class to suffer because they don't have enough money.'"

"He actually is a really good teacher and I do learn things from him, but his classes --"

LIMBAUGH: "Okay, wait a minute, now, why is he a good teacher, then?"

ADAM: "I've learned things in his class."

If you're even the least bit familiar with Limbaugh's modus operandi, you think you know what's coming next -- but read on:

LIMBAUGH: "You know, it sounds to me like you're doing pretty well in this class, because what's happening here -- I know you've called me and asked for assistance, and I know millions would like to get that from me, but you're out there, you're thinking that whatever this guy is doing, whatever he's teaching he's still inspiring you to think critically and that's the most important thing.

Excuse me?

LIMBAUGH: "I don't care what else you get out of school with, whatever grades you get in classes and so forth, but if you get out of there with the ability to think critically and challenge things that don't make sense to you off the top, that's good. Critical thinking is what is not taught anymore."

Ok, now that just pisses me off.

Limbaugh is pompous, self-absorbed and (arguably) megalomaniacal, ideologically hamstrung and shamefully dismissive of facts. He cranks out bogeys faster than Hershey churns out chocolate bars.

And yet, in this case, he's absolutely correct. So what's my problem?

If caller "Adam" takes Limbaugh's counsel -- and again, on its own it's excellent advice -- he'll learn to think critically about everything he encounters. Naturally, that'd include what he hears on conservative talk radio, which probably isn't what the host had in mind.

Case-in-point, the "Four Corners of Deceit." Limbaugh warns his listeners that government, academia, the media and science are in the business of lying to the People, hopelessly co-opted by liberal ideology. Anything attributed to these sources should be presumed false (at best) or sinister (at worst) until proven otherwise.

That's reactionary cynicism, not critical thought. It's anchored in political ideology, an approach which makes independent critical thought quite impossible.

If Rush Limbaugh truly subscribed to independent critical thought, Dittohead Nation would cease to exist. He'd never again utter the words, "Don't doubt me!"

So what makes me cranky, ultimately, is that he encouraged "Adam" to "think critically and challenge things that don't make sense" -- that is, as long as it's not applied to him.

Let's review

"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." (Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, February 29th)


[After Limbaugh spent three days repeating and amplifying those sentiments, his radio show's sponsors began pulling their advertising. Six had fled by Saturday morning; the list now numbers nine: Tax Resolution Services, AOL, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Sleep Number beds, Sleep Train, Citrix, Carbonite and LegalZoom.]


"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." (Limbaugh on Saturday, March 3rd)


"Yes, I think he should have apologized. I had said he used very crude language. And I think he gets over the top at times. But it's in his best interest. That's why he did it. I don't think he's very apologetic. He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that he was concerned about." (Ron Paul on Sunday, March 4th)


"Our numbers suggest that Rush Limbaugh has seen significant erosion in his popularity with Republican voters over the last week. The last time we polled on him nationally [in 2009] he was at 80/12 with GOPers. But now we find him below 50% in all three of these [Super Tuesday] states: he's at 45/28 in Ohio, 46/29 in Tennessee, and 44/30 in Georgia." (Public Policy Polling on Monday, March 5th)


"I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words." (Limbaugh on Monday, March 5th)


"The left, folks -- the media -- are giddy that some advertisers have said they're leaving the program. And I'm sorry to see 'em go. They have profited handsomely from you. These advertisers who have split the scene have done very well due to their access to you, my audience, from this program. To offer their products and services to you through this venue is the best opportunity that they have ever had to advertise their wares. Now they've chosen to deny themselves that access, and that's a business decision, and it's theirs alone to make.

"They've decided they don't want you or your business anymore. So be it." (Limbaugh on Monday, March 5th)


"Hey, Rush -- who's the 'slut' now?" (KintlaLake on Monday, March 5th)


[For a thoughtful, reasoned commentary on the Limbaugh dustup, I recommend "Are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh?" by David Frum]

'Are you going to keep helping them do it?'

I listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show yesterday. Surprised?

Because I don't hew to the extremes, Limbaugh neither offends nor validates me ideologically. But like all talk-radio windbags, whether they blare from the right or the left, he insults critical thought.

I swear, the guy must employ a staff devoted exclusively to creating "triggers" -- Hussein, Democrat Party, drive-by media and the like, terms guaranteed to get his mindless listeners convulsing like neo-con clones of Maynard G. Krebs. Yesterday's buzz-word, repeated no fewer than two dozen times during a dissociative rant about visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, was ChiCom.

I'm not going to dignify it with a definition. You figure it out.

Since the Tucson shooting there's been lots of chatter about the increasingly negative tone of American politics. Salon.com columnist Gene Lyons has an interesting theory about that:

"Ever since Rush Limbaugh adapted the techniques of drive-time sports radio to politics -- the loudmouth hyperbole, the fake omniscience, the mute button -- the mass-marketing of outrage to people stuck in freeway traffic with blood-pressure levels already approaching the blowout range has coarsened public discourse to the level of road rage."

As an example, Lyons points to something that Limbaugh said last week. This unfiltered bullshit comes directly from Limbaugh's site:

"What [the Tucson shooter] knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. ... He knows that a Democrat Party, the Democrat Party, is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim."

"That smiling mug shot, this guy...understands he's got a political party doing everything it can -- plus a local sheriff -- doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder but something lesser."

Lyons observes, quite correctly,

"If you believe that, you'll believe anything."

No thinking person would. The column concludes:

"Meanwhile, the Tucson radio station that advertised 'Rush Limbaugh: Straight Shooter' with a billboard full of simulated bullet holes has taken it down.

"See, they compete with each other, these clowns, to set you against an imaginary enemy consisting of your friends and neighbors because conflict pushes ratings, and higher ratings lead to more money.

"Are you going to keep helping them do it?"

Not me. How about you?

* * *
Gene Lyons also tipped me off to another post-Tucson gem. Mark Shields attributed this observation to his friend Allen Ginsberg:

"This week, we saw a white, Catholic, Republican federal judge murdered on his way to greet a Democratic woman, member of Congress, who was his friend and was Jewish. Her life was saved initially by a 20-year-old Mexican-American college student, who saved her, and eventually by a Korean-American combat surgeon.

"And then it was all eulogized and explained by our African-American president. And, in a tragic event, that's a remarkable statement about the country."

I couldn't agree more.

Let's review (an addendum)

First of all, the list of Rush Limbaugh's fleeing advertisers, mentioned in yesterday's post, has grown by three -- Bonobos, Sears and Allstate also have pulled their sponsorship.

Limbaugh does a masterful job of raising the issues we should be debating and then obfuscating the hell out of them. He subdues relevance with red-meat rhetoric and births new bogies daily, crushing information with innuendo and ignoring facts at every turn.

In the second paragraph of his non-apology apology, he actually came close to hitting the real target:

"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."

After issuing that statement, true to form, Limbaugh slipped back beneath the surface of intellectual honesty.

Sandra Fluke has been misrepresented by ideologues on both the left and the right. It's been widely reported that the 30-year-old Fluke researched Georgetown University's student-healthcare coverage before enrolling, making sure that the Jesuit institution didn't cover birth control -- a committed activist, she engineered her opportunity to protest the policy from within the student body.

She's also on-record advocating that any healthcare plan that doesn't cover the cost of gender-reassignment surgery -- that's the politically correct term for what most people call sex-change operations -- is discriminatory and should be sued.

No kidding.

On the one hand, Fluke is neither a "slut" nor a "prostitute," as Limbaugh characterized her; on the other, she's far from the sympathetic figure she's portrayed to be by Nancy Pelosi et al.

She's an opportunist with a cause -- and her cause is, without a doubt, expanding the entitlement culture that's poisoned our society and crippled our government.

That, in case you missed it, is the issue.

It doesn't get much better

Lately I've been treating myself to (or torturing myself with) 20 minutes of Rush Limbaugh each weekday, going so far as to impose the experience on my 15-year-old during the ride home from school. We find it entertaining, in a disturbing sort of way.

Shortly after 2pm today, Limbaugh began yakking about holding one particularly hot story until the final hour of his show -- and then regretting the move, because,

"...I realized that while people have heard [the story], they probably don't really know what to think about it totally 'til I've commented on it."

That, right there, tells us all we need to know about talk radio.

Anyway, the aforementioned hot story had to do with National Public Radio fundraising VP Ron Schiller getting hoodwinked by a couple of guys hired by right-wing slimeball James O'Keefe, the pair posing as members of a phony Muslim group. And I was listening to the Prince of Pomposity prattle about the Duke of Deception duping a Lord of Liberalism. Entertainment-wise, that's just about as good as it gets.

On Limbaugh's website, the headline blares, "NPR Executive Caught on Tape Being an Ignorant, Arrogant Liberal." The transcript captures the host highlighting Schiller's greatest hits:

"The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian...and I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's a weird, evangelical kind of movement.

"The current Republican Party is not even the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is...not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic. I mean, basically...they believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting. I mean, it's pretty scary. They're...seriously racist, racist people."

"It feels to me as though there's a real anti-intellectual mood on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party. You know, in my personal opinion liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced. I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country, which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is...too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large uneducated part of the population that...carries these ideas. It's...much more about anti-intellectualism than it is about [politics]."

"Republicans play off of the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the government. Very little of our funding comes from the government, but they act as though all of it comes from the government. ... Frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding."

I'm hard-pressed to disagree with some of those points -- raging anti-intellectualism, xenophobia and the failure of the Tea Party, now polluted by the religious right's social agenda, to lift a libertarian message above an undercurrent of hate. And if public broadcasting really doesn't want taxpayers' money, we should grant Schiller's wish that federal funding disappear.

Problem is, Schiller stakes his claim to higher ground because he's a liberal -- his ideology makes him superior. That’s bullshit, of course.

Limbaugh, O'Keefe and their ilk, though they'd never admit it, suffer from the same condition that afflicts the left-wing Schiller. That they're "ignorant, arrogant" conservatives is the disease, not the cure.

(Watch the 12-minute version of Schiller's comeuppance here. If you have two hours to kill, you'll find the full video punking here.)

Meteorology vs. melodrama

While waiting for the younger spawn to emerge from school on the first day of classes yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh nonsensically connect the dots -- from the perceived "hype" over Hurricane Irene to the media's allegiance to the Obama "regime."

It was like listening to a drunken college freshman use what he'd learned in Psych 101 to explain nuclear physics.

Moving on, he noted that Colin Powell said on Sunday that he hasn't yet decided who he'll vote for in 2012. Limbaugh then predicted that Powell again would vote for Pres. Obama because,

"Melanin is thicker than water."

The man knows his Dittoheads, I'll give him that. "Don't doubt me!" he bellows. "The fix is in!"

And indeed it is -- just don't tell Limbaugh's simple-minded poodles.

Getting back to Irene -- I'm no meteorologist, but I'm smart enough to recognize that forecasting weather, especially tropical systems, is an inexact science. Irene, like most hurricanes, bobbed and wiggled. It threatened to follow a path that could take an unprecedented toll in lives, livelihoods, property and infrastructure.

The worst didn't happen. Perfect hindsight, however, doesn't warrant indicting the press, forecasters or public officials for warning citizens of the scientifically reasonable chance that it could happen.

Yes, the media did inject unnecessary drama into the whole affair, but that's not unusual. They do it every day. It doesn't move me.

I do have a problem, though, with characterizing some as "ignoring" or "defying" official evacuation orders. Not the true idiots, people who went swimming in the surf as Hurricane Irene made landfall -- I'm talking about prepared, independent citizens who gauged the risks and responsibly chose to shelter-in-place.

Truth be told, the vast majority of folks who stayed put were guided by sentiment or ego, not by critical thought or common sense. The unprepared now complain that they're still stranded or that their power still hasn't been restored. And yes, even they deserve the right to ride out a big storm in their own homes.

Personally (and within reason) I would've done whatever it took to avoid becoming a refugee in my own land. That choice is neither ignorant nor defiant -- it's independent.

I spent 20-plus years of my life in southern New England. Often I ventured north into Vermont, New Hampshire and the Adirondacks of New York -- for the scenery, sure, but also because I was drawn to the region's independent spirit.

The remnants of Hurricane Irene unleashed catastrophic flooding on the area. Bridges I've crossed -- swept away. Streets I walked, the riverside restaurant where I savored morning coffee -- devastated. A friend's house perched on the bank of the Mad River, the place where I celebrated Independence Day a dozen years ago -- gone.

My heart aches for these Americans, and yet I have no doubt that they'll rebound and rebuild like the People they are.

Up there, see, especially in rural communities and small villages, independence wins out over drama -- every time.

Rush to GOP: Don't listen, just talk

At a pizza parlor in Arlington, Virginia last Saturday, a group of Republicans kicked off a "listening tour" with an appearance by three of the party's leading lights -- 2008 presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

The audience was younger than might be expected for such a gathering. Romney, Bush and Cantor shared their vision of a GOP renaissance and heard firsthand the concerns of voters.

Listening -- it seems so obvious, so sensible, especially for a minority party in political exile. Some hard-core ideologues, however, continue to clang, clinging fast to their fantasies.

A handful of noisy conservative activists, protesting that the event was run by dreaded RINOs, demonstrated in the restaurant's parking lot. The irrepressible Rush Limbaugh, Republicans' verus rector, had this reaction yesterday:

"Look, folks, it's this simple. We do not need a listening tour. We need a teaching tour. That is what the Republican Party, or, slash, the conservative movement needs to focus on. Listening tour ain't it. Teaching tour is more apt."

My mistake -- listening is overrated. What the hell was I thinking?

Limbaugh's prescription [sic] for reviving the Republican Party-slash-conservatism is to keep repeating the same old ideas, only louder. Since that shut-up-and-let-me-talk approach models his successful entertainment empire, he must know what he's talking about.

Not.

His teaching tour would serve only to isolate a shrinking minority and ensure its ultimate demise. Limbaugh seems to be unaware that we, The People, have learned everything we need to know about mindless ideology.

The lecture is over. Class dismissed.

Republicans who reject the value of listening to the very voters on whom their party's survival depends are destined to become loud, proud and completely irrelevant.

Our nation needs conservative voices, thoughtful conservative voices, especially on issues like illegal immigration, fiscal policy and Second Amendment rights. I fear that a scorched-earth approach to regaining squandered political ground, however, will further alienate independent and moderate voters who might otherwise be receptive to conservatives' positions on these and other crucial issues -- and if that happens, we all lose.

The talkers need to stop talking, and we need to quit listening to ideologues who ignore the will of The People.

So sit down, Rush, and shut the hell up -- it's our turn.

Thirty-two words

Since the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, there's been a lot of hubbub about something she said in a 2001 speech:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I'll grant that if a "white male" (like me) had made an equivalent statement, he'd be tarred as a raving bigot. That's not the point here, of course, but it's the way our society works -- the politics of pouncing, if you will -- which provides an explanation, if not an excuse, for what Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday:

"So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one...."

The moment I heard that, I was tempted to dismiss it as typical talk-radio garbage -- but what if it's true? I mean, sometimes the truth is buried at the bottom of a dumpster.

The intellectually honest thing to do, I decided, was to seek context for the 32 words that moved Limbaugh and his apostles to label the judge "a racist." So last night I read Sotomayor's entire speech, all 3,929 words of it.

Here's what I discovered, beginning with the passage that's raised all the ruckus.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Sotomayor's candor is refreshing and, in my opinion, altogether proper and anything but racist. Her apparent thoughtfulness humanizes the bench, which reportedly is what Pres. Obama was looking for in his first nominee.

I didn't need this case-in-point to know that if talk radio suddenly became intellectually honest, it would cease to exist. Broadcast buffoonery would disappear if more Americans applied critical thought to what they see and hear, and Rush the Entertainer would be spinning scratchy vinyl records in Tupelo (sponsored by the local apothecary, no doubt).

While I don't have time to dissect all of Sotomayor's speeches and decisions, I can say unequivocally that the flap over those 32 words is nothing but a canard manufactured by hopeless conservatives.

I have plenty of other reasons to be concerned about this nominee, but racism -- or "reverse" racism, whatever the hell that is -- sure isn't one of them.

It's Election Day

Today, December 15th, is the day that Barack Obama will be elected the 44th President of the United States.

As set forth in the Constitution, when we went to the polls on November 4th, we chose our states' electors. Today those electors will cast their (ideally representative) votes for President and Vice President.

There's no suspense here, of course. For the record, I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of holding indirect elections in the modern age, nor will I discuss some states' punishment of so-called "faithless electors."

This is how Americans choose a president. Citizens are best served by examining our own role in the process -- engage, register, turn out, vote, repeat.

According to statistics compiled and reported by Michael McDonald of George Mason University, voter turnout on November 4th was 61.6%, the highest national rate since 1968. State-by-state, rates ranged from just over half of eligible voters to almost 78%.

Kudos to the civic-minded citizens of Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Maine. Shame on the slackers in West Virginia, Hawaii, Utah, Texas and Arkansas. Here in Ohio, my neighbors and I beat the national turnout rate, with 66.9% of us going to the polls.

The numbers are interesting, mildly encouraging and, for McCain-Palin supporters especially, instructive. The GOP, however, doesn't seem to be paying attention.

Yesterday the Republican National Committee released a YouTube video entitled "Questions Remain." Reprising the guilt-by-association approach that sealed its fate in November, the RNC now attempts to link President-elect Obama to disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Questions remain? Sure -- just not the ones that Republicans are asking.

Maybe party leaders should ask themselves why they insist on appealing to a base that didn't (and couldn't) deliver enough votes to prevent a thumping six weeks ago. Perhaps it'd be worth wondering why the marginal, mind-numbing Sarah Palin, whose nomination contributed greatly to the ticket's doom, continues to be considered a rising star in a party that should be moving in the opposite direction.

Is Mort Kondracke right?

"How can the Republican Party rebound? The first step would be to quit letting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham set its agenda. ...Step One is to fire Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as the intellectual bosses of the GOP."

Is the party willing to quicken its pace to keep up with a changing electorate? Might it be politically more productive to focus attention where the people live, not merely where 1980s-era votes are assured? Is the GOP capable of speaking to the interests of independent Americans, on whom its success depends?

And finally (for now), isn't it just a wee bit late to launch an attack ad?

Personally, I don't believe that the party has the self-awareness to conduct a proper interrogation -- it's been breathing its own fumes for far too long. Denial, like Kool-Aid, runs deep in the elephants' habitat.

Questions do, indeed, remain. Until Republicans ask (and answer) the hard questions, they're riding the express train to the political wilderness.

Weak end

Michigan's had a rough year.

The state can lay claim to the nation's highest unemployment and lowest high-school graduation rates, home foreclosures happening at more than two-and-a-half times the national average and an auto industry that's circling the proverbial bowl (federal benevolence notwithstanding).

As bleak as things are in real life, you won't find many Michiganders singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game." Sports doesn't offer much of an escape these days, either.

With the Wolverines' unprecedented futility still fresh in fans' minds, yesterday afternoon brought yet another round of sporting shame -- the 2008 edition of the Detroit Lions officially became the least successful team in NFL history.

Sixteen games, sixteen losses.

There's still reason for hope, however. The Pistons may be in second place, well behind the division-leading Cleveland Cavaliers, but at least they're winning. The Red Wings have a good shot at a second straight Stanley Cup and the Spartans have a puncher's chance of upsetting Georgia on New Year's Day.

Sitting here in Ohio, I know I'm in no position to pitch rocks across the border. I mean, our own economy is nothing to brag about, and besides, the Browns and Bengals didn't win enough games combined to make the playoffs.

Looks like there's plenty of shame to go around.

Larry's last call
When I was an OSU student back in the '70s, everyone "knew" that Larry's, a dingy High Street joint across from North Campus, was a gay bar -- but it wasn't.

Larry's was a haven for edge-dwellers and counterculture types, welcoming all, including gays, into its dim confines. For most of its 85 years, the place hosted misfits, rebels and groundbreakers, cultivating legends along the way.

Now Larry's is gone, closing its doors Saturday night, a casualty of mismanagement and society's preference for more polished, cookie-cutter establishments. Maybe that's what progress looks like.

Some will say that an old beatnik bar is an anachronism in the 21st century. I say that Columbus is poorer for the loss.

House divided
To the delight of my Morgantown missus, West Virginia defeated North Carolina, 31-30, in Saturday's Meineke Car Care Bowl. I may be a devoted Ohio State fan, but I cheered and fretted and celebrated right alongside my wife as quarterback Pat White willed his team to its fourth bowl win in as many seasons.

While the final seconds were ticking down in that football game, a basketball game was getting underway in Columbus -- OSU vs. WVU.

Uh-oh.

Ohio State entered the contest undefeated, the Mountaineers with two losses. Even though the young Buckeyes were down by seven at the half, I was sure that they'd pull out a victory, especially in front of the home crowd. They didn't, losing to West Virginia in humbling fashion, 76-48.

Mrs. KintlaLake is doing her best not to gloat.

Stupid is, stupid does
Chip Saltsman once chaired the Tennessee Republican Party. He ran Mike Huckabee's campaign for president. Now he wants to be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable career path.

Mr. Saltsman is promoting his candidacy with a 41-track CD, which he distributed to RNC members as a Christmas gift. One of the musical numbers is a parody called "Barack the Magic Negro."

Yes, it's sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon." And no, I have no idea what Mr. Saltsman has been smoking.

Predictably, GOP leaders are scrambling to issue statements decrying the song (publicly, anyway). Rush Limbaugh is defending it with typically idiotic froth -- and why wouldn't he? After all, the We Hate The USA CD, which also features "The Star-Spanglish Banner" and "Wright Place, Wrong Pastor" among its mindless selections, was produced by Limbaugh sidekick Paul Shanklin.

Most disturbing, I think, is Mr. Saltsman's judgment that the CD would find a receptive audience at the RNC. It may not be surprising that third-grade "satire," the daily fare of talk radio, still amuses some people, but it's sad to see that Mr. Saltsman (like those Committee members, presumably) believes that clumsily veiled racism is essential to resuscitating a dying party.

Until Republicans learn the difference between conservative and stupid -- and ditch the talk-radio compass -- make that a dead party.

Quotes of the day

"Here's what it boils down to: I think that the country could survive four more years of Obama. But I don't believe the country can survive...full of people that would reelect him." (Rush Limbaugh)

"Let us come to the point. Obama is reaching out to his very own special constituency. It is composed of those who believe that the Republicans would put up as their candidate for the presidency a person who in his business life would engage in fraud, tax evasion, even murder. Mr. Obama is casting his net for the moron vote. I do not believe that there are enough morons out there to reelect him." (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in The American Spectator)

I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh (this time) and, regrettably, I must disagree with Bob Tyrell -- there are more than enough moronic American voters to sustain this president's assault on Liberty.

This he understood

In this era of talk-radio klaxons and political opportunists, we'd be wise to make the acquaintance of one Frédéric Bastiat, the 19th-century French economist and essayist.

Of Bastiat's many works on economics and Liberty, perhaps the most relevant to our time is The Law, published in 1850. An excerpt:

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

You say: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?

It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others -- and even from themselves -- under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law — only justice -- the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

If you can't read that without hearing Limbaugh or Beck or Palin, your ideology has crippled you -- but if Bastiat's words stir in you echoes of the Founders, you get it.

The Law, penned by a Frenchman 162 years ago, belongs in every Liberty-loving American's library today.

[For a very readable plain-English translation of Bastiat's The Law, click here; for a more formal translation, click here. Both versions are presented in pdf format.]

On second thought

Sometimes I fear that if I keep quoting myself, I'll go blind.

I'll take the risk. A week after Election Day, wondering aloud about whether the spike in gun sales is prudent or panicked, I wrote this:

"...with far more pressing economic issues on center stage we can be relatively sure that Obama-Biden won't launch its gun-control agenda right away. Provided the new president can keep an anxious Congress in check, we likely won't see new law in the first 100 days, probably not before the 2010 State of the Union address."

Now that the new administration is halfway through its first hundred days, I'm not so sure that I still believe what I said back in November.

In less than two months, I've watched Pres. Barack Obama put the political pedal to the metal -- on the economic crisis and a range of other issues, he's shown that he's not at all bashful about damning the torpedoes and pressing his agenda. Especially after eight years of a propaganda presidency, his purposeful approach is refreshing. In some ways, putting policy differences aside, it's even admirable.

With that as prologue, I can predict that Obama-Biden-Holder will make good on its promise to push for a permanent assault-weapons ban sooner rather than later. Incidents like Tuesday's massacre in southern Alabama, in which the killer reportedly used an AK-47 and an "M-16" (an AR-15, more likely), increase the ominous prospect. Yesterday's school shooting in Germany doesn't help, either, despite it having happened over four thousand miles from Washington, DC.

It's beyond dispute that Obama-Biden-Holder constitutes a threat to individual citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Now the constitutional danger appears to be as present as it is clear.

So is it time now for law-abiding American gun owners to panic? No, I don't think so -- but we'd damned well better accelerate our prudence.

None of the above (The Movie)
My wife and I watched Religulous last night. In light of what I said in Tuesday's post, you might suspect that this 2008 anti-religion docu-comedy would be right up my alley -- and you'd be wrong.

With comic-pundit Bill Maher in front of the camera and director Larry Charles (Borat) behind it, I didn't expect a cerebral film, but I did expect it to be funny. It wasn't, really, at least not to me.

Maher has a satchelful of well-founded reservations about organized religion. He opens Religulous by musing to us (sincerely, I think) about seeking the reasons why people believe and gather and worship one god or another.

After a promising start, however, the movie descends into unrelenting mockery, usually in the form of a gotcha interview or a rambling soliloquy on the idiocy of religion -- and knowing Maher and Charles, I suppose I should've seen that coming. With the possible exception of anything that skewers Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or conspiracy theories, I'm not big on mockery.

Oh, there is humor in Religulous. Organized religion is more than capable of making itself look ridiculous -- "It's so shamelessly invented," Maher correctly observes -- and the film is chock-full of clips, some thought-provoking and others downright hilarious, that allow the faithful fringe to embarrass itself quite thoroughly.

That's genuinely funny stuff on its own, but grad-school editing, wretched direction and Maher's interruptions rob it of its comedic potential and, as an unfortunate result, sabotage any chance that Religulous has of making a credible social point. It ends up being the kind of movie that keeps reminding us that it's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Considering what might've been, that's a shame.

Despite its many flaws, I consider Religulous recommended viewing and I'm glad to have seen it. I simply have no particular interest in watching this disappointing film more than once.

None of the above (The Magazine)
While I'm on the subject of religion (or the lack thereof), I also can recommend Paul Starobin's cover story in the March issue of National Journal.

"Rise of the Godless" -- which, by the way, was published prior to the release of the survey discussed in my previous post -- is a smart, well-written piece about the growing influence of secularism in America. Beyond statistics and politics, Starobin does a good job of covering the growing pains of the "movement," exposing tensions disconcertingly similar to those afflicting theistic groups.

From the National Journal article, here's Lori Lipman Brown, the former director of The Secular Coalition for America:

"There are people who want to focus more on explaining their conclusion about whether there is a deity than making the country feel comfortable and safe for people like themselves."

Well, you'll have that. It's the sort of thing that happens, in my experience, every single time that we humans try to organize into groups around our personal beliefs. The individual is absorbed by the collective, faith becomes ideology and independence fades.

"Rise of the Godless" doesn't pretend to draw any grand conclusions, but I found it informative as hell (you should pardon the expression). Inspirational as well as cautionary, it's worthwhile reading for truly independent critical thinkers.

Read the National Journal article: "Rise of the Godless" (pdf).

How to swing an election

The year was 1950. In the Florida primary campaign for the U.S. Senate, incumbent Claude Pepper faced challenger George Smathers.

Long before "swing voter" became part of our electoral lexicon, Smathers knew what he had to do: appeal to uneducated rural Floridians.

According to Time magazine, the Smathers stump speech went like this:

"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert?

"Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York!

"Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, he habitually practiced celibacy!"

(No doubt Smathers also accused Pepper of masticating at the dinner table, even as an adult.)

This was no Norm Crosby malaprop routine. It was calculated to exploit ignorance in order to inflame fear. And it worked -- Smathers beat Pepper by a reported 67,000 votes.

In 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Washington, D.C.'s African-American mayor Anthony Williams, used the word "niggardly" in discussing a city budget with co-workers -- one of whom, Marshall Brown, presumed (incorrectly) that Howard had uttered some sort of racial slur.

Predictably, a flap followed. Howard was forced to resign ten days later -- even though "niggardly" isn't a racial slur (it means "miserly") and doesn't share etymological origins with the infamous "n-word." No, David Howard was vilified because he'd used sixty-four-dollar language that sounded suspiciously offensive.

That Mayor Williams ultimately reinstated Howard is entirely beside the point. Ignorance was rewarded, and fear gained ground that it still holds.

For present-day equivalents, look no further than your e-mail inbox. There you'll find messages trying to persuade you that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim (false) and that he intends to take the presidential oath-of-office on the Quran (false).

Better yet, spend some time listening to political talk radio -- left- or right-leaning, it doesn't matter. The poster boy for appealing to listeners' ignorance might be Rush Limbaugh, if it weren't for Cincinnati's Bill Cunningham.

Cunningham and his ilk repeatedly invoke Sen. Obama's middle name and then feign innocence. ("What's wrong with that? That's his name, isn't it?") Their game isn't to link the candidate to anything truly sinister. They know that today's electorate, like the Florida voters of 1950, are just as easily swayed by something that simply sounds sinister.

Ignorance reigns. Fear flames. Votes swing.

Of course, you're smarter than that.

Aren't you?

Nutjobs & nonsense

"If [Pres. Barack Obama] was a shoo-in for re-election, Osama bin Laden would still be alive today. There would have been no need to undertake the mission." (Rush Limbaugh, to his poodles-- er, fans)

"I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of [Osama bin Laden], you’re stupid. Just think to yourself -- they paraded [Saddam Hussein's] dead sons around to prove they were dead -- why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of [Osama bin Laden] at sea? This lying, murderous [U.S.] Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent -- just put your flags away and THINK!" (Cindy Sheehan, who really is "sorry" -- just not the way she meant it)

"Of course, [Pres. Obama] made his announcement right in the middle of Donald Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice' show. Of course, that was just a coincidence." (Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation, who has yet to meet a conspiracy theory he doesn't love)

"The free world, particularly the United States, has a right to make sure Osama bin Laden is really dead. Every American has a right to walk right up to bin Laden’s corpse and view it. We are entitled to know for a fact that the witch is dead. No shroud for dignity’s sake, please -- bin Laden’s naked, bullet-riddled corpse should be put on display in lower Manhattan for all the world to see. The entire body should be digitally scanned, inside and out -- and made available for everyone to take his or her own picture." (J. Michael Walker, via Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, giving fuel to the "deathers" movement)

"So why did [Pres. Obama] announce the [assassination of Osama bin Laden] like he was reading the dictionary? You know the answer. It’s because his speech wasn’t so much aimed at Americans. He was being careful of how the 'Arab Street' would interpret his remarks. Any hint of gloating or happiness might be rubbing it in the face of some of the crazies in the Arab World and heaven forbid we get them upset! How dare we Americans look like we’re celebrating his death! The travesty of it all! Give me a break. Isn’t it time to stop catering to thugs?" (David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network)

"Maybe I should have read Proverbs 24:17 before I wrote that.

"Proverbs 24:17 says: 'Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice.'

President Obama actually lived by that important biblical verse by the words and tone he used. I did not and for that I apologize. While I do believe that his remarks were measured so as not to cause more commotion in the Arab World, I got a little caught up in the euphoric celebrations of the evening. The Book of Proverbs got it right and therefore so did President Obama. Pulling out the Bible is the best thing you can do and I wish I had done it sooner." (Brody again -- yet another right-wing ideologue caught with his politics wedged uncomfortably between his religious beliefs)