I wonder if Taibbi has any inkling of how many El Rushbo fans also follow him. What do you say Matt? What's your guess. Rush is, was, and always will be be the first of the anti-establishment.
I’m not going to argue this point in the same way I did with Marcuse, but my response here would be to say I don’t think that Trump was anti-establishment. He funneled a lot of legitimate resentment and alienation into support of a party that was and is a wholly owned corporate subsidiary. That doesn’t mean he was wrong in his criticisms of people like the Clintons but Rush to me was deep into a devil’s bargain, and ultimately betrayed his audience by handing it over to the Bushes of the world.
I'm a liberal and loathed Rush but I also dislike the unimaginative mocking and belittling on the left, especially SNL these days ( in spite of talented performers). This is not wit that enlightens and makes people think. It's lazy sarcasm parading as humor. There's a difference people.
It's becoming harder to forget that SNL is shot in the same building (30 Rockefeller Center) as MSNBC. SNL's take on Gamestop a couple weeks ago was basically identical to MSNBC: to mock the Redditors for making Wall Street "not work right" while giving a pass to the short selling hedge funds whose standard practice is to squeeze a fortune out of the system while contributing nothing. It seems bizarre to call people who take this position "the left", and even more bizarre that some of Rush's last shows attacking Wall Street and praising the Redditors seemed much more like what I would call "liberal" (and I consider myself a liberal too!)
Trump was as anti-establishment as we are likely to ever see in the Whitehouse. Which is: not very much, and even then it is unable to counteract the establishment onslaught.
Many Trump supporters still believe to this day he was anti establishment. It's like corporate dems who still think Obomber was anti war or pro worker.
No, that is definitely not Rush Limbaugh at all or he would have backed the RINO Republicans. Not a perfect human being, at all, but not how you characterize him at all.
Yeah, this piece is a typical shallow hit piece on someone not even buried yet. He spoke three hours a day, five days a week for decades and all Matt does is spew hateful opinions with zero context. If Rush was even close to what Matt describes Conservatives would have slaughtered gays in mass and Trump would have never happened.
"... typical shallow hit piece.." Translated that means if you call out my side for our lies and hypocricy it is a 'shallow hit piece" and if you call out liberals then you are just reporting the truth...
Comm... You just revealed you are a partisan HACK with no interest in TRUTH. Rush got rich and famous pushing lies (Climate Change, Obama is a Muslim, tax cuts grow the economy, Universal Health Care will destroy the economy and on and on...). If you can't see how he lied then don't give your OPINIONS about how liberals LIE. Lies are Lies and they are on the right and left and people that cant call out their own side with out calling it a "shallow hit piece" lose their right to complain.
Lek.... St Augustine said "People Hate the truth for the sake of what ever they love more than the truth" Tiabbi revealed that the MSM was happy to exaggerate Russia and Trump because they liked the profits that came with such exaggerations and liberals that still believe Trump colluded with Russia like HATING Trump more than the Truth
So it is with Rush and his fans. Rush like the ratings and money he got by lying and exaggerating about liberals and his fans liked HATING liberals more than they liked the TRUTH...
That was RUSH.. That was the media reporting on the Mueller investigation. I am repulsed by the media reporting on Mueller as much as I am repulsed by Rush and those that glorify him
Ah, I saw you posted this somewhere else and wasn't going to bother to reply. Rush did not lie or omit the way the left media has been doing. And he warned about just what we are experiencing now -- which like many on here don't want to lay at the foot of the left where it belongs. Now, if the right were controlling people (lockdowns), censoring people, omitting and unfairly covering things, and even trying to control thought, speakers on campuses, you name it, I'd be "warning" people from the other side. Like Rush was doing. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I'd be protesting in the streets regardless of any poliltical position. So that is just not true.
LEK - If you can't admit to yourself that Rush lied to his fans about everything from how tax cuts impact poor and middle class families, to why we should go to war in Iraq, to climate change science to Trump winning the 2019 Presidential election.
If you can't admit that then you have totally lost your right to criticize the left for being fooled by the Mueller report. You exposed yourself on that one.
Matt: St Augustine said "People hate the truth for the sake of what ever the love more than the truth"
You accurately pointed out how the media lied and exaggerated about Trump and the Mueller report. The media liked the money they made by lying and exaggerating and people that still believe Trump colluded love HATING TRUMP more than the truth.
Rush is the exact same as are his fans.
He loved the money and fame he earned by lying and exaggerating about liberals and his fans have proven that they like HATING LIBERALS more than the truth.
Both can be bad, right? Or are you a dumb terminal that can only respond to 1/0 binary coding?
The worst part about tribalists is that they only think the other tribe has something wrong with it.
Marcuse's philosophical onanism is the basis for some of the worst decision-making in the world today. Rush is responsible for much of the Hate, Inc. that Matt chronicles in his great book.
Neither is a saint, both were mostly in it for the money, and right-minded people can find faults with both of them.
oh come on - Matt has much more bile in his prose for Marcuse than Rush, that's the obvious point here. He also wrote "I’m not going to argue this point in the same way I did with Marcuse...". So I feel kind of non-binary here.
Or, perhaps deep in his bones, Matt agrees with Dunne that his job as a journalists is to “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
The Ideology of Marcuse is currently in it's ascendance and a guiding ideology in America. Are you really looking for one more journalist to say "me too!"
Matt shows a genuine concern for his fellow American's, even as they choose to follow a pied piper he cannot support.
The easier (and more popular) story would be to lump Rush Limbaugh and his followers together as indistinguishable undesirables. If you want that you have MSNBC. The alternative comforting narrative is that Rush Limbaugh was a freedom fighter for all this is good and decent in America and that all his followers are true Americans on the winning side of history. You have Fox for that.
Matt is something different. It's why me and many others are here.
ok, that makes sense and I agree with the dunne principle - but for the 1000th time - Marcuse is not the reigning ideology of the left, and has nothing in common with idiot wokism. I hate wokism, I've studied and read much of Marcuse's work, and don't even like him much but I react to stupid, pointless analysis of dead intellectuals.
One can also think both are bad, but one worse than the other. I would concur with Matt. Show Biz people shouldn't be treated as harshly as academics. Academics, by virtue of their societal influence and appeal to authority, should know better. Rush was a DJ. Marcuse was a 'revered' intellect.
How many of the general population have heard of Marcuse? Granted, he may have influenced society through his work in academia. Anonymity doesn’t give Marcuse a “free pass”... but I’m quite sure Limbaugh had a much greater influence on millions of more people’s political beliefs and attitudes towards others. He was much more than just a DJ.
Thanks for that valuable clarification. i'm sure Matt really believes Rush was less negatively impactful on America than Marcuse. Your principle showman/academic here seems really intelligent.
So you’re not satisfied with this article because Matt didn’t hate on Rush enough to satisfy you? Gimme a fucking break... Rush Limbaugh was a total piece of shit, there’s no denying that. But I already know this. I don’t need Matt Taibbi to illustrate that further for me.
Thanks for pointing out that interview. I hadn't seen it. A much more robust defense of Critical Theory is possible than Eskow was giving which is that Taibbi's love of free speech IS the core principle in most CT (which itself is not some univocal POV). Habermas for example makes freedom of speech the singular axiom of his entire lifetime of work. What does it mean to protect free speech or make the claim that speech is uncoerced? His analysis comes in handy when you have something like The Citizens United decision that "money is speech", or that corporations are individuals with the same speech rights as individuals. I'd be willing to guess that Taibbi doesn't agree with the principle behind the Citizen's United decision. Habermas, the heir of Critical Theory gives us a really valuable framework to critique these political intercesssions on individual rights. Marcuse merely pointed towards that kind of analysis, which wasn't good enough and Matt's right to point to some problems of his work, but the rest of the claims are bogus anti-intellectualism and certainly don't apply to most Critical Theory.
yeah, i argued that same point, but good luck with that. Just how would Matt lock horns with Zizek? - it would be even more pathetic than with Marcuse. Perhaps he should critique Poincare or Heisenberg next, he wouldn't want to drink a beer with them either.
Not bad for a modest intellectual. It's not like he deposited his royalties in the ocean or the bank account of a homeless shelter.
For someone opposed to capitalism - and disturbed about how it creates one-dimensional men, he didn't have a problem utilizing it for himself and his family.
Marxists are only against *other* people having more money.
Matt, I think this response was more worthy of exploration versus the original article and its diatribe style. I think it is worth discussing why Rush would support both Bush and Trump, whether the "parties' consists of the same membership then and now, who was and is the establishment and which is residing on the corporate plantation then and now.The divergence/convergence of liberalism and conservatism and where on this cultural space - time continuum Rush fit, and I would guess he moved like culture itself.
I think so, too. It’s not a simple discussion. I was not a fan of The War on Terror or the Patriot Act (or the DHS, the TSA or No ChildLeft Behind) but I still voted for Bush twice (which I regret—should have protest-voted 3rd party).
But despite being lukewarm on the whole Iraq war thing and Gitmo I’ve become much more unhappy with the idea of endless war and the neocon position that now seems to dominate the establishment of both parties.
I don't think there are enough people unified on that to change that trajectory.
C'mon, the McConnells and Romneys of the world hated Rush and still do. We have a two party system. So, Bush vs Gore, Rush was supposed to push Gore? It was more like there weren't any options. The establishment used Rush and his audience, but things look a lot differently looking backwards now. I don't think he was ever establishment. It was always a love-hate relationship. Corporate republicans would have had a much easier job that would have enjoyed a lot more without the influence of Rush Limbaugh.
He was part of that Grand Oversimplification -- I can't fault him for playing the game. (in the abstract, maybe his conservatism was genuine, but in practice it was a gloss. )
I fault everyone who plays the game for playing the game. It's talked about as some kind of inevitability, when in the end maybe all we really have as human beings is our own ability to make moral choices.
I agree, Trump wasn't anti-establishment, he was just spouting stuff the "little" guy wanted to hear. I am not sure he really ever believed that crap, but he knew what to spout to keep the "little" guy in his corner. There would have been no Obama without Bush and no Trump without Obama. We keep going from hot to cold and back every election cycle. At some point we might crack if we keep doing this and don't get some continuity between election cycles.
Wrong. He was used to telling both sides what they wanted to hear to benefit himself for decades and he could have done the same here and probably stayed in office. He is not for this globalist bullshit and he loves America. They couldn't have that. He was appealing to too many people who felt the same and it disrupted their religious crazy agenda.
Marcuse's been dead for a while, and is also one of the many commie literally Hitlers. He's fair game and he got off easy.
As for Rush: who said obituaries had to be nice? Polite people, maybe, but we don't seem to live in polite times. I'm not supposed to agree with Matt with much of what he wrote but I mostly do, and I'm way more Republican than Democrat.
This wasn't your point, but let's agree on it: Matt's better when writing about more current matters.
I am thoroughly in favor of MT in Dostoevsky drag. He could have a long fake beard made out of shredded black craft store felt and Elmer's Glue and belabor a papier-mâché horse with a bullwhip on the next UI episode. Katie can feign mild horror.
I know. I hate it when Matt does a eulogy based on nothing more than the behavior of every single sparrow and their specific flight pattern over an entire Summer.
Well, my politics are center rightish and I can’t stand Rush or any of his ilk. So I really hope for the sake of his integrity that Matt keeps writing as he sees fit and not to please an audience.
Concur. I listened to Rush for many years, believe he was a net-positive and am very glad he didn't stay Jeff Christie, both for him and for his millions of listeners. But I would want Matt to both share his reasoned opinion and for me to disagree with it and for the conversation to continue.
I so agree, this article really got me heated because I love Rush, and I almost unsubscribed, but I really do value people’s opinion that differs from me and decided to continue to support because of this reason. I may have to hold my nose reading some of the content and comments, but it’s truly vital to understand so many different opinions, thoughts and motivations.
This isn't the first time I've heard someone with a conservative perspective say something along this line. I can't recall or can even imagine hearing someone on the left express a thought like this nowadays.
I hazily observe that this seems to be a profound observation, but my understanding of professional sports and fan culture is so poor that I am reluctant to further unpack it.
I'm reading Frederick Exley's "A Fan's Notes" in an effort to catch up. I will still never be a real red-blooded American sports fan, though, and they're basically all aliens to me.
Sports fans are sports fans across the globe-soccer in Scotland or Brazil, hockey in Russia, cricket in India, football in Ohio. It’s really a beautiful thing when you consider it in a larger social context than just the particular object being hurled, struck, or otherwise conveyed toward a goal.
a UK friend of mine went to an American football game (not soccer). Was astounded that the fans of both teams were mixed in the stands together. Sounds like the convo's further down
A few days ago somebody in Glenn's comments told Glenn that he had a moral responsibility to censor his right-wing commenters. (Yeah, I don't get it either.) I wonder if we'll get something like that here.
As I read it, DavidH was complaining about there being too much wrong-think in GG's comments. But there are reasons to moderate blog comments besides censoring the kind of wrong-think he was describing.
I run a service that includes public chat and believe moderation is necessary for several reasons and that there are kinds of moderation that have little to do with what I understand as censorship.
As someone who was reading Glenn Greenwald's original blog Unclaimed Territory even before Salon began hosting it, I'll attest that Glenn has been known to censor posts and block writers in his comment sections. Or to attempt to block them, anyway: anyone seeking proof of the axiom that "the medium of the Internet interprets censorship as noise, and routes around it" can find ample support from observing the tenacity of seriously obsessed Internet trolls, with their ability to conjure sock puppet identities from a bottomless list, and their single-minded I-never-sleep dedication to their mission. The majority of comment trolls can be successfully discouraged, but in some cases that takes a lot of time and diligent effort. I don't think any blog host thinks they've "won" when they depart; they know only too well that their return is always a possibility.
As a result, Glenn tended to only get involved in censorship when it was obvious that a troll was pursuing a personal vendetta against him. Everything else was a free for all.
I don't have the same attitude about trolls as many other Internet comment writers and readers; I view them as foils. Engaging with them is like sparring practice, for me; it's obvious that they're grossly wrong, and sometimes mind-bogglingly dimwitted. But the views they espouse often have some popular currency, so I use their "observations" as a way of clarifying my own objections to the positions they espouse, for further reference. It's ironic, but sometimes sheer simple-mindedness can be more difficult to argue against than skilled sophistry.* So it's a good idea to get some practice in doing it. Unpacking the elements of the fallacies, their factual ignorance, and their deceptions and self-deceptions in detail, like working out a math problem. It's exercise, for me. Exercise can be tedious, but it's also how you get stronger. And sometimes it can even get entertaining, like dancing around and throwing jabs at some palooka in the ring, making their Dummheit obvious. I like to think that at least one lurker is reading the exchange, but I don't require that. I do it for the love of the game. I enjoy it. I think it's groovy.
[*Joseph Heller's novel Good As Gold has a classic set-piece skit about that situation. The "family at the dinner table" scene. The book is worth looking up just for that passage. Although I liked reading it in its totality as a novel, too.)
Every read his manifesto? The dude had a point. And reasoned positions. And non-trivial predictive power. The part where he maimed and murdered people was clearly evil, and frankly I'm not clear why he didn't see that. But apparently some personal animus involved in some way, if not with the people than the organizations he felt they represented.
I think the take away would be violence does not help your case. No matter how much you think it does or should.
You may have intended "prescient," but I'll take "omniscient" too.
The Manifesto is one of the clearest cases for me, personally, of terrorism working. I was like, "A guy is willing to kill and maim people just so I can read what he has to say in the New York Times? I'm intrigued, I'll read it."
And I read it and it was long and rambling, but damn. Dude had some good points to make. If Ted K were like 20 years younger he might have just been bitching at the rest of us in this comment section -- which may have been one of his points.
Ted Kaczynski's actions were horrendous, but his manifesto stands as one of the great documents describing human alienation from nature due to the rise of technology that had become our masters rather than our servant, and all before the rise of ios and the current mass surveillance state. Uncanny.
It lead me to read Christian Anarchist Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" and "Propoganda," which both had a profound long lasting impact on my thinking. Both well worth the read if you haven't.
I think that was one of his points. I’m guilty of living a lot of his predictions. But the guy was brilliant but also crazy. I want the brilliant without the crazy. If he’d been not antisocial and sociopathic he might have done talk radio. Or at least a podcast.
"If he’d been not antisocial and sociopathic he might have done talk radio."
I would contend that being antisocial and sociopathic are not necessarily barriers to a career in talk radio.
The crazy is what makes it fun, as long as you're not the one getting blown up by a bomb made out of wood.
Would he be allowed to do a podcast from jail? I have no idea; not a lawyer. I'm all but certain he would sneer at the format, so this proposition will most likely remain in the realm of theory.
Ok...way off topic, but let’s talk about” the” OG anti establishment character (no one one mythical or “semi/mythical) “...I’m going to start with Akhenaten ...you get your very likeness removed from everything after your death..you definitely pissed off the establishment!
The most OG anti-establishment figure I know of is probably whoever "historical Jesus" was. Assuming he existed. We're getting into quasi-pre-history there, tho.
The self-declared "disciple" "Paul" was also rabidly anti-establishment, and he definitely existed.
All or most of the the mythologies probably have such anti-establishment figures.
I think he meant the first by reason of having all of the following; an anal cyst, making him 4-A during the Vietnam war, the first to be fat because of his diet and lifestyle, deaf from abusing Oxy and to die from lung cancer from a habit he denied caused illness in others from second hand smoke, and for which he thought he deserved the CMH for providing so much of his tobacco tax dollars to others' health research.
The man died an unimportant death, as most of us will, from a disease he gave himself, the same kind of self created misery he had no problem showing no empathy for in others.
His politics are not the issue; his belittling of those less fortunate is. The best thing this man ever did was not to procreate; amazing that all three of his wives were barren.
I was being sarcastic, as I tend to be. Methinks either Rush's port of entry on his wives was adjacent to that which would occasion a new born, the circumstances being right, or perhaps they were just cover for his real orientation.
Anyway, his death is a non event, as mine will be; I'm waiting for a real cause for celebration; Bush, Cheney, numerous neocons, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pompeo et al breathing their last. Rush was nothing but a carnival barker, making coin as he sold the joke that is US politics to willing dupes.
I was always much more of G. Gordon Liddy fan on the radio, never really listened to Rush. He was a Top 40 DJ, I preferred indie rock/alternative stations, back when such things existed.
Well, as of tonight, he has one less. I wouldn't expect Matt to be a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I also would have expected something a little more gracious.
There were about a thousand anti-establishmenters before Rush (Hunter S. Thompson, Jim McMahon, David Bowie, etc, etc, etc) - and I would argue Rush wasn't even anti-establishment. He was on CORPORATE RADIO?! You think he was getting paid by individual listeners? He was a shill.
What difference does it make if a lot of Rush Limbaugh fans are also Matt Taibbi fans? What? So he’s supposed to cater to them and only report on things in a way that makes them feel comfortable? This is the exact opposite of Matt’s entire stance. I wonder if people even hear/read the things they say...
You comment indicates you didn't listen to his show. He didn't "hate" anyone. Poking fun at your political opponents is miles away from hate.
You not liking how he was anti-establishment doesn't mean he wasn't.
The media today being criticized in progressive circles is because now you are affected, 25 years ago when Rush criticized it he was met with guffaws by the likes of you.
I just saw Rush as a great radio satirist. He was right about the Feminazis - and I say that as a woman who had to deal with Feminazis. He was also a helluva lot better satirist than Stephen Colbert ever. I will argue that the best, funniest satirists are conservatives, not lefties. Leftist satirists are so boringly predictable. Hey, Orange Man bad! I see Rush's satire the way I do South Park or Tom Wolfe or Scott Adams or Moliere or Thackery or Babylon Bee. It's not about being politically incisive, it's about being deeply cynical about vain,greedy, power-hungry human self-righteousness that calls itself “liberal.”
This is a good point-it isn’t cool for anyone-of any political stripe-to punch down at people who are clearly in a weaker social position-gays in the AIDS era, “deplorable” today-it doesn’t matter. Like all pre-20th century battlefield troops knew-shoot at the generals and officers first!
I really liked Colbert on the Colbert Report. He seemed to know his subject and put some effort into his satiric critiques. Now, though, he's just awful and unfunny. And lazy. Good satire and lazy don't mix.
Why is stirring up division viewed as great ? I see all of them as graft since making fun of people is rarely constructive and usually has more to do with playing the blame game.
Well done: this is a very well written, well researched, well argued comment, that ends in error. You talk about greed but can’t see the pyramids around you.
" I will argue that the best, funniest satirists are conservatives, not lefties." I'd argue the best satirists understood it wasn't a liberal or conservative view that was the poison, but the groups of people abusing their power. See the Monte Python skit about putting things on top of other things for a humorous and subtle swipe at the problem.
I’m currently reading a bio of HL Mencken, and while being a consistent and public supporter of women’s-including black women by mention-suffrage in his newspaper column, he also said stuff like “Maybe you would have better results if you sent the state legislators a barrel of liquor every month instead of annoying everyone with your protests”!!!
Ok-honest question-can you name a current or former left wing satirist whose humor can or could honestly be appreciated by someone without any ideological skin in the game, so to speak? In jokes aren’t funny for the masses.
No, I certainly don’t mean funny like Rush-you are right about style of humor (I detest PHC). I would say more like Mencken or PJ O’Rourke, or even George Carlin. Someone who can do satire that is universally accepted as funny, w/out worrying about ideological boundaries.
You're reading one: Taibbi and his co host Katie Halper; then there's Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski when he wants to be funny. Colbert was until he aligned himself totally with the corporate Dems. His roast of Bush after 9-11, to an unamused D.C. elite was unmatched. Now, of course, he's joined them; money will do that to some.
Of course, when it comes to mocking people with Parkinson's, I'll admit Limbaugh was in a class of his own.
Instead you should just hate certain crowds like ol' Rush stirred folks into doing. But it's okay since he got rich doing it.
Now if Rachael Maddow gets rich doing the same thing it's a total tragedy.
What a bunch of shit.
How about we condemn all the graft masters and hate mongers pushing division, stereotyping, and propagandizing via emotional manipulation for personal gain ??
Hi Arcanaut - here's the Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House Will Menaker is the son of the late Dan Menaker who passed away last year and was a great, great humor (and fiction) editor and a hilariously funny writer himself. I'll always treasure the times we spoke and got together and he made me laugh. Will is really talented. I'm glad his dad got to see how successful his beloved son became. And as for T.D. - please write your own appreciation of CTH instead of insulting me.
Taibbi is mistaken. Rush didn't have a racist bone in his body. People that obsess about race can't conceive of how a mind works that is not obsessed with race.
Racism resides in our culture, institutions, and individuals (3 types - Overt racism, Covert or Institutional Racism, and internalized racism). How anyone in this culture escapes racism is either through denial or death, but if you are breathing and have a pre-frontal cortex then racism is possible -- either consciously or unconsciously we replicate it in our institutions.
So, how someone on the internet knows Rush was or was not a racist is beyond the capacity of this forum and pretty much an opinion with little merit.
Key word being THEIR actions-not the collective actions of anyone happening to share the same basic levels of melanin. If you can’t specify, don’t speechify.
I am not saying people are malicious or are purposely trying to injure another. I am saying that racism exists at multiple levels of our culture (often unconsciously) and our job to be aware that it
1) exists (and is not some pretend thing being made up)
2) awareness of both the conscious and unconscious is required to make change occur
People's hearts have nothing to do with it. My relative can be racist and still have their heart in the right place -- the question is how do people come to understand something that they do no know about. Being open, asking questions, and being able to own your own behavior is the starting place.
Why, if someone is, as you say, not being malicious and not hurting someone, is it required that we need to "make them aware"? Racism used to be the defined as a belief that another race had qualities that made them inferior. If someone is unconsciously a racist, then they are a racist. So how can they possibly not be doing something malicious?
The problem with what you are saying is that people don't know they're racist, but they are according to me. And by God, we need to make sure they know they are racist so they can change the way I want them to. And if they deny they are a racist, well, just by saying that they are racist and we need to change them. And if they keep denying they are racist, well, then we just need to cancel them because they are the worst kind of racist.
That's what's happening in today's world. Everyone's a racist unless they are actively telling everyone else how racist they are, or if they're saying America is the most racist nation on earth, or if they're actively tearing down statues or re-naming schools named after such obvious racists as Lincoln, Feinstein and Washington.
Essentially, if you're not one of the woke, you're a racist. If you're white, you're a racist. If you're unaware you're racist or a denier, then you're the worst kind of racist.
How about assume the best intentions of people and stop pinning a racist tag on everyone other than your almighty self. Stop telling people how to behave and what they need to know and how they need to act. How about respecting someone when they tell you they aren't a racist and leaving it be.
Posts like yours and people like you are what's really causing the divide in this country.
I think you are missing the point with me. I am critic of woke culture just as I am denial culture. Americans no longer get to vacation in the denial of racism and go about their lives pretending it away. However, if one equates this with forcing people into cancel culture boxes -- then you've lost me.
Racism lives in our culture. It was born there. And we see it in our institutions, relationships, and internalized beliefs about ourselves and "others". To deny racism leaking into different systems, is to be daft and unaware of the living conditions of millions of people. To overuse the signaling of racism and to force people to make changes individually is a poor strategy as to change culture --- you have to change the institutions operating in that culture.
So, there is no amount of signaling (Kenti Cloths) from Pelosi and Congress, or the front lawn signage in Bethesda neighborhoods to align with the perceived forms of racism without actually helping people who have been oppressed with actual fucking policies.
It's simple. Take away the denial (just like in Climate Science). And take away the idea that individuals are bad and need to change immediately upon request dictated by some new standard, when racism is deeply embedded in larger institutions who bear responsibility for making so many of the racial inequalities that already existed worse.
To solve this problem, it is important to acknowledge, to repair and to sort through systems --- young people get this in large quantities.
In ending, posts like yours are interesting. You are late to the posting party by 3 days, but have strong opinions. So, you really never have to engage a challenge. And thus, posting for you is a version of playing with yourself.
I won't stop you, but by the look of the your last post, you could go blind with repeated usage. Do not mischaracterize others post please.
So sorry for being 3 days late. Thanks for letting me know that I'm masturbating as well. Also, thanks for letting me know I'm a chicken.
You're so well educated. Racism was born in our culture? Please provide evidence. Please show me that there was zero racism in the world prior to the creation of the United States. You made the claim, now back it up with proof. Or, if I suspect, you're going to claim that you weren't talking about the United States, you were talking about white people, then please provide proof that racism didn't exist before white people started walking the earth - which, by all accounts came after people of color. So you must have proof there was zero racism before whitey ever came about.
At least you're honest about one thing. You want to change the institutions. You want to dismantle America and what it stands for. You claim that the U.S. is systemically racist, but show no proof. You cite how millions of people are living in sub standard conditions. How is that racist? Do poor white, homeless people not count in your world? Of course they don't because that doesn't fit your narrative. And if it doesn't fit the narrative then it's of no use when trying to change America into your socialist utopia.
Since you won't be able to prove your point that racism was born in our culture (whoever "our" is - I'm sure you'll make something up), how about just keep slinging name calling around. Isn't that what all liberals do? Since they can't win the day with ideas, let's resort to calling everyone a racist or a masturbator or something else only a sick mind could come up with.
Make it simple; acknowledge the fact everyone has likes and dislikes, even when it comes to people; and that’s not a bad thing. It’s what people do related to their likes and dislikes that causes issues outside their sphere.
This view ignores the history of racism, violence and oppression in our country, especially in our institutions (3/5 of person, Jim Crow south, lynchings redlining, great white flight into the suburbs, prison industrial complex, and CIA funding drug operations (onset of crack) in LA black communities, FBI's harassment of MLK, Malcolm X etc.
Likes and dislikes can be attributed to individual interactions along with self control, but what about property rights, wage/income differentials for the same work, trans-generational wealth passed on from generation to generation for white families (almost 10 times that of black families)?
Making it simple for white people is what we have been doing already in my estimation. It needs to get harder for them, not simple.
Good night nurse, you must think people of color are very stupid and they can only survive if whites prop them up. In the 1970's there was the population shift called "White Flight". Was that a bad thing? If so, why? Why wasn't there a "Black Flight"?
Are people of color incapable of doing for themselves? Consider the popular term "white privilege", where did that originate?
I guess if only people of color experienced the issues you cite then I would be in total agreement, but that isn't the case. A lot of people of all races have, and continue to experience such events because government enables the environment to exist. Money is the balm for society, black and white.
For those who keep asking for more government, my question is, do you want more government so it can oppress people, because that's what governments do? Jim Crow was a government edict.
Finally, as a southerner, in the early 1970's I remember my father laughing about a guy he knew through his job, who lived in Boston. That guy, a good Yankee (that's because he was still in Boston) would ask my dad if we were having trouble with our "coloreds" during the busing issues. However a couple of years later, when busing was imposed in the northeast, the white outcry was much more violent than it was here. My dad got a kick out of that. So to toss the south under the "racist" bus is an old way to distract attention from your own neighborhood.
the existence of (some) racism (somewhere) doesn't mean its the reason for differential outcomes in demographic groups. Other things explain the difference more...
If you read his comment, he says “our culture, institutions and individuals” are racist. And we can only escape it through denial or death. He didn’t say “some of our...”.
What's in my heart doesn't matter. How I behave does.
Experiments easily show that everybody exhibits "unfair" biases, some of which are reasonably described as racist. A lot of people have little inkling how deep and pervasive these biases are in themselves (some will even deny the evidence). Of those who do have some understanding of how these biases work, many (most?) will still deny being racist.
I don't. I see it as: these are the cards we are all dealt. But they are by no means the only cards we have. It's up to me (us) to work on mitigating the "bad" behavior and doing more of the "good," which is very doable. For example, Daryl Davis in this short conversation with Jimmy Dore explains a simple theoretical model of racist and other kinds of intolerant behavior abd how to counter-condition disposition to that behavior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZYm1re6fM Davis also has some wonderful examples of success. Look for them, they are inspiring wonderful stories.
We all have the means to be better and therefore the moral choice to invest in doing better or not. That's the key difference. How do I choose to live? How have I done so far, taking an honest review? How do I feel about my previous ignorance of my choices or refusal to accept responsibility for the choices I had?
No, that's 0 for 2, sport. It means being aware of racism at each level and doing something about it at each level (relational, systemic, community) but it seems you think it does not exist -- so we are at an impasse.
Your construct only works if every single person sees racism at all three levels forever and always. Someome discounting your basic construct does not make it more true nor them more racist. Simply repeating it as some sort of natural law doesn't make it more true either. Say, for example, via magic wand all racism at all levels were eradicated by all measures - you would still insist on the Truth of the construct, meaning it never was valid. If racism isn't actually pervasive throughout every person, institution and community, then your logic fails. Finally, you excluded the power angle. You meant to say all white people are racist in every way...not all people generally.
One can actually proves racism exists (internalized) from neonatal studies on women of color who have lived in this culture one generation. They tend to have worse birthing outcomes by a factor of 3 I believe. Saying this another way, there is something in this culture which makes child birth more dangerous for black women, especially. The main theory is that multitude of stressors (safety, socio-economic differentials, housing, support, and a slew of other variables) cause an overload of stress hormones, often associated with systemic or institutional racism, that cause pre-mature death in black babies at 3-4 times the rates of other ethnicities.
And we do not see this at all with women who are first generation Africans who give birth here. This is a problem embedded in systems and our culture not individuals.
Ok, I'll bite. What you're talking about a couple of papers on race and infant mortality written by a neonatologist (Richard Davis MD). I read through the papers and his premise is that black-American women lose their babies at a higher rate than black-African women. He goes on to opine that since the genetic make-up of the two groups are the same, then the only possible reason for the difference in birth outcomes is the discrimination that black-American women must have experienced during their pre-natal years. His papers are rife with should have, could have, would have type language but no testable data to support his hypothesis. It stands to reason a stressed out pregnant woman, regardless of color, is going to have prenatal problems and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that these woman tragically lose their babies at a higher rate. To say that this body of work is proof of systemic racism is not defensible. To say that there may be other issues aside from racism and/or relevant cultural factors is the more valid argument.
Arguably what we call racism is an instinctual awareness of “The Scary Other” which probably served some survival purpose in the long, long ago. So it is a capacity that everyone likely has and experiences in some form, and culture either works to constrain it, redirect it, or enhance it.
We won't all lose, some losers lose more than others especially if they lose all.
Your side is yours, mine is mine. We want to be left alone, you are incapable of leaving others alone. The respective 'sides' dear were chosen for us by those in power, whom leftists serve.
So what? If we define "racism" so broadly that it means any kind of preference for or against groups of people, how do you expect humans to cleanse themselves? Do you really think that even in a world of perfect clones, people would not find ways to judge groups, even if just by geography? Those nasty people who live on the other side of the street/county/ocean are just not to be trusted! What do you call racism when there are no races?
A social construct fabricated to explain away differences in areas that are of no interest to elite financiers except as a way to divide people into groups as to make them more malleable and competitive (fighting for scraps of the common herd) or as JP Morgan might suggest --- things of little difference among those who are among the monied class.
On an individual level, one can navigate difference much more easily -- its when the racism is hidden/embedded in larger institutions (Pinkertons, Congress, Corridors of powers (Japanese internment camps etc) where the individual experience with Overt racism becomes a non-stop 24 hour lived experience within families, communities, countries where institutions prop up those with unearned advantages at the expense of people of all colors (except, the culture deludes itself to thinking it is only "those" people over there that are exploited or oppressed.
How else could the Sackler Family have caused a crisis in opioids and heroine in the past 15 years and walk away with a small fine (as they slowly distance themselves from Perdue Pharma).
Can you imagine the right-wing fewm if a wealthy black family had caused the deaths of tens of thousands of white people strung out on drugs? But we see it time and time again - Financial crisis, Enron, Hurricane Katrina and the Army Corps of Engineers. Every three years we have an incident where the wealthy class fuck up royally and there are no consequences. It is a rigged system and its designed to split the populace up by something that does not exist.
You wrote: "how someone on the internet knows Rush was or was not a racist is beyond the capacity of this forum and pretty much an opinion with little merit".
So you are saying Taibbi's column, predicated on Limbaugh being racist, is "without merit", right?
I hear you. It is always cause for pause whether to respond to - and thus validate - a comment that is utter nonsense. Part of me hopes that readers understand, but many reactions suggest folks follow slavishly along with threads that are lacking in reality.
I do like to point out the regular crew of idiots, however. They are fairly predictable and it likely sticks in their craws that they are called on their shit.
Resist: Its not that Trump did not have a racist bone in his body. It is that racists could not see the racist bones in him because they were merely looking at a mirror. Paying a black dude to work with you does not mean your not racists, it means you know you need someone to deflect your own truth and those people can always be purchased. Right?
This type of bile and the beliefs and actions it encouraged is directly related to the significantly higher rate of suicide among LGBT people. If anyone has trouble understanding this, please take any basic course in psychology and communications.
"The data clearly shows that supportive networks and proactive anti-discrimination policies make a difference in LGBT mental health. In the time of COVID-19, when many LGBT people may be stuck living with unsupportive family members or without access to their usual support networks, the LGBT mental health crisis is more important to address than ever."
PS, My assertion is basically common knowledge as well as common sense, as a 1-second Google search illustrates in abundance. Thank you for taking the time to point me to reading about your take on this issue.
Gay rights have made such strides in my lifetime that I think it's difficult for younger people to realize just how vicious and nasty the anti-gay atmosphere -- conflated with HIV allegedly being a "gay disease" -- was in the US of the '70s-'90s. (Before that the gays just stayed in the closet so they didn't get bashed.)
P.S. Rush = totally in the closet. Yeah I said it.
It's better, but still a problem - the urban-based, elite media is awful about creating the illusion that everything is unicorns and rainbows for gays nationwide. Young LGBT people stuck at home with unsupportive parents during Covid is a serious problem that will have lasting repercussions.
Skutch; in earlier reply to erasing statues being of the past , and of no consequence to the living, er 1) No.
2) but if that is true lets erase the history of slavery as well, along with the Civil rights movement, MLK and all the rest, shall we?
3). Rest assured if we keep going down this path one or the other will be erased, and in all time frames - past , present, future.
This is the normal course of human affairs.
4) the contest then becomes a matter of who is strongest.
5) Numbers and tools for “erasing” count in such contests.
6) Holding the Commanding Heights of Words and Fiat money the Erase Whites side may be convinced they will win.
7) Except they left a rather large gap in their capabilities called “force.”
8) The organs of force have many Rush Limbaugh listeners, and also reflect the society at large- especially in numbers.
9) The Left isn’t too popular among the organs of force.
Perhaps shooting policemen and investigating the military endlessly wasn’t a good idea.
10). You might not know this but the military all pretty much comes from the same families and clusters if families, same ones that produce the police.
11) this would probably remain academic - oh except- the Dem govt in power now was sworn in and guarded even now by Troops. And policemen. Perhaps in retrospect the Left should have secured purchase there- instead of animus.
12) The oath of the soldiers and police is to the Constitution - not to the government or party in power.
13) one may only hope that the ties that bind together soldiers, veterans, police - and were getting towards ~18 million armed, trained, experienced men ~ that the bonds they have will transcend the increasingly bizarre taunts and ultimatums from our elites and their striving minions hustling CRT and all the rest. Because if not and since the issue is now decided by troops- then its the strongest.
I'll listen to any argument here, but I rate Jesse Jackson well above Barack Obama.
Virtually all US politicians seeking power at the federal level are hypocrites to some extent, but only a few fully embrace "four legs good, two legs better."
This is all so appalling, I’m so disgusted by the hate being spewed over the death of this break through pioneer..without Rush, the conservatives in this country would NEVER have any platform to represent us. He paved the way for the half of the Country, that was completely ignored, to have an alternative place to listen. Rush Limbaugh is a hero, and I’m so grateful for his legacy that brought us so many alternatives to the ridiculous, elitist, racist, intolerant, cancel driven left!
It was conservatives that really pioneered cancel culture. I remember boycotting Disney as a kid because they had a Pride Parade, the Dixie Chicks cancelled around 2003, etc.
Are you kidding me, you’re ridiculous!! Why was the Dixie Chicks canceled? Because on foreign land they bashed our Country, Disney was a child influencer who was delving into areas that conservatives didn’t think children should be privy to....the left cancels anyone who stands up for Patriotism or for morality and screams racist at everyone...give me a break.
Did anyone go after Disney's or the Dixie Chicks suppliers, network providers, lawyers etc. with threats if they didn't disown? The modern cancel culture is much more insidious and pervasive than boycotts of the past and seeks to fire, un-bank, un-sponsor, un-platform and unfriend people. Sadly, its a great way to radicalize folks....and we are getting uncomfortably close to that.
I do hear your point that too many view censorship as just when it is flowing in the preferred direction.
It was dumb when people tried to cancel the Dixie Chicks. If they didn't want to buy their product any more--that's one thing. Trying to get them cancelled and holding bonfires of CDs or whatever . . . that crap is crazy.
Just as all the cancelations going on today. It's all bad.
The new left will have you fired for pledging support for Israel. Heard of BDS? Palestinians are the victims now. Try to say otherwise and be labeled Islamaphobic Pretty sure no one ever got kicked off social media for being anti-Semitic in fact - it’s all the rage
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about AIPAC and anti-war/subsidy politicians getting a well-funded primary opponent?
Also, I'm not sure I'd put this on the right-winger side. Pew did a poll on what it means to be Jewish. Supporting Israel was number 1, remembering the Holocaust was #2. Given Jewish individuals provide about ~50% of DNC funding, hard to see a healthy amount of "bipartisanship" here.
Cancel culture sucks and is a negative pretty much no matter who or which side is doing it. The Dixie Chicks thing was so stupid. Burning CDs? Or burying them? Really?
Cancel culture is recreation for people who are mean and stupid. Ideology largely irrelevant.
Actually is far more insidious. If you read Matt’s piece on Marcuse or read about anti-racism you will see that this is not recreation it is an ideology. It’s a social obligation. No - it’s a religion. Which is ironic since the worshippers despise religion
It’s not “some people”. It is federal policy again. It is being taught to children all across the nation. If you are “anti-racist”, a thing demanded by adherents of CRT, then you have been captured by the propaganda. Colorblindness is not allowed in this ideology. You have to pick a race and fight against anything different. It will end us and quickly.
Hmm, I recently cancelled some Amazon subscriptions because of the Parler thing and general big-tech-monopoly concerns. Is it ok to cancel those who cancel others?
Well I for one and shocked, SHOCKED to discover there is political hate out there.
Thank you so much for the valuable update. I had no idea until you mentioned it. Good to learn also that it is the exclusive property of only one group.
So what you’re saying is that every time Rush Limbaugh spewed his vile, hateful bullshit all over the airwaves, he was “speaking for you”? Maybe you might wanna think about that for a second...
I listened to him a few times and didn’t like him so I didn’t listen anymore. I had that choice because I live in the US. Hate destroys. And it will inevitably destroy the person who hates
predictable and obvious because any 8th grader with 1/2 a brain could figure out what Rush was selling. It's the stupid fools like my brother who believed him
Man, you leftist are a true and total trip. I had to stop and ask, where did the Nazi reference come from? Then I lowered my sights and realize you must think Herr is a Nazi reference. Herr is Mister (Mr.) in German amigo; and no, I'm not calling you a member of a Mexican drug cartel. Thanks for the laugh, something I get a lot more of than I anticipated when I subscribed to this.
It seems there is not a rational thought among any of you.
Just curious-what do you call individuals who are 150 or 170 degrees from your political POV, whatever it may be? I’m a libertarian-I’ll call someone a statist or a big gov chugger or a lefty b/c, well, they are ideologically opposite of me.
I'm not one of those who calls people I disagree with, or disagree with me, names; what's the point? If I call someone a Nazi it's because they either claim to be one or they display the tendencies of one, and if I call them one I'll cite evidence justifying the label.
As for Matt, not too long ago I saw someone's post where they concluded Matt has an obligation to conform to his audience's wishes and ignore many of the failings that ooze from the left; and I suspect that person is correct. Hey, he's in it for the money, just like Rush.
However, to demonstrate my appreciation and respect for you and Senor Taibbi, as a tribute after I post this I am going to crank up Costello's "Two Little Hitlers". ;-)
The Limbaugh fanboys having their feelings hurt is an astonishing spectacle. The dude's whole business model was hurting other people's feelings. Don't dish it out if you can't take it: Iron Law of Schoolyard Bullyism.
Internet edgelord, is that what I am? Is it good or bad? As for you using lol, it has sort of lost its meaning, if it ever had a meaning.
As for the leftist term, I don't mean it as an insult, and I am surprised when it is considered to be such. And skewering folks is a bit of sport, but what makes that most enjoyable is when they don't get it.
You really get off track when you say "... you start calling him a grifter the second he aims his guns at right-wing sacred cows." I know no sacred cows. Rush was good and I believe he was right much more often than wrong, but he was far from perfect. I classify myself as a Christian Conservative CONTRARIAN because I take issue much more often with folks supposedly on the right than the left.
I respect, that doesn't mean I admire or agree with, folks on the left because while I think they are wrong more often than not, they at least stick to their guns. The majority on the right are lukewarm conservatives. Those are the ones who are against government until it is doing what they agree with, then government ain't so bad. Those are the people I don't trust.
As for people on this site, I agree, there are quite a few intelligent folks from both sides of the aisle; unfortunately there are some who don't know when they have made their point, and they write a book, eventually losing their audience.
With this piece, from my perspective, Matt would have been better served by acknowledging Limbaugh was a success at what he did, that he made a lot of people happy and a lot of people mad. By this point there are no undecideds on Rush and all Matt did was add to an unnecessary piling on. But that's what pays the bills in the 21st century?
This is a disappointment, Matt - no insight, nothing new. I was never a Limbaugh fan - only listened to him when a coworker had him on in the office. But to simply dismiss him as some kind of con-man comes across as the typical liberal resentment that the great unwashed don't recognize their betters. Which is the viewpoint you're, generally, very good at stepping outside of.
Frankly, this reads like Reagan-era Hunter S. Thompson - he had no clue what was going on by that time, and so his over the top rhetorical flourishes that treated Reagan like Nixon 2.0 were embarrassing because they so obviously missed the point.
I'm still not sure what the appeal of Limbaugh was to so many folks - and this article gets me no closer. I imagine, though, that the way to find out would be to actually talk to some Limbaugh fans instead of just dismissing them as corn-pone hicks sitting on their front porch drooling all over their overalls.
My feelings exactly. The few times I listened to Limbaugh I was put off by his style-over-substance approach to pointing out the foibles of the emerging authoritarian left. Whether he was a racist appealing to kindred spirits I don't know; I do know he used several shop-worn race tropes that left me feeling not quite clean. On that front, I found him to be a pale imitation on the right of Al Sharpton's vile race profiteering that left me feeling filthy.
One advantage of being older than dirt is having experienced a significant part of our nation's history. In my view, Limbaugh was late to the party in the politics-as-entertainment schtick. The real trailblazer was JFK. He took to television like the movie-star he appeared to be, and relied on good looks and patter as much as critical thinking. I'm a big JFK fan, he inspired me to become a liberal Democrat . . . forty-nine years before Nancy Pelosi inspired me to become a liberal independent. In retrospect, JFK was an innocent in an industry that produced Rush Limbaugh, Joy Behar, Donald Trump, Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity.
Limbaugh was successful because he was a pioneer in many ways of a medium in the midst of change.
Forget the Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh, like his contemporary, Howard Stern, figured out the medium - especially for people trapped in their cars for long commutes/hauls. As suburban America became exurban America, and truck driving was in the middle of a growth spurt https://www.statista.com/statistics/940006/employment-in-us-truck-transportation-industry/. With no streaming media available, and a need to keep eyes on the road both radio personalities built their audience by being better than their competition. Remember Air America? Allan Colmes?
The ability to keep people waiting to know what you would say next not only kept them through the commercials, but also kept the "haters" listening, too. Rush's use of "taboo" subject matter without kid gloves made for entertaining radio - even if you disagreed.
I wouldn't call myself a "fan." I never listened constantly, but I listened often over the years and if you DID, you'd hear him talk to a liberal or just discuss real observations of things and he'd see things other people didn't. He was surprising. He was respectful to every caller unless they lied about what they were going to talk about. He was entertaining. And he was funny. And if you listened ENOUGH, you could see what a good heart he had. But even his picking on liberals was more lighthearted than what comes back from them. He was a true critical thinker--he just concluded different things than progressives. And he was the first person who pushed back on them. Liberals think only THEY should have a place to talk. He was the first conservative voice in news. He made a few big mistakes, apologized for a few. But people talking about him like this says more about them than about him. Again, we did no such thing when Ginsberg died and many people ocnsidered her a murderer. You just don't say things like that.
PLEASE. So would have to hear the whole thing myself before I believed your characterization. But let's say you are right. Ginsberg was responsible for killing millions of babies. ACtually KILLING them. DUH. But of course, that doesn't matter to you people. Though I am reluctantly pro choice through TEN weeks. TWELVE outside for a lot of reasons. A heartbeat would be a good cutting off point. And now we're going to kill them right up to and the moment of birth -- something you wouldn't do to a dog. Barbarism.
And no excuse for it. Rush might have made a mistake (I would have to hear it), but nowhere near the mistake SHE made. Not even legislated by our elected officials. Legislated from the bench. So don't virtue signal to ME. You people, tons of you, celebrate having abortions like it's the most wonderful thing in the world, celebrate the stupidity of doing such a thing more than one time! And as appalling as find all that, we didn't behave like that we when Ginsberg died. But you all should be careful. Some people become more powerful after they are dead as you should all know, especially when attacked like this. So keep up the stupidity. I see a lot of people are going to stop subscribing. I won't, because of the last article Matt wrote, hope he makes a difference to people like you, but I might not bother to read him anymore. But I'll support his right to write stupid shit like this because that is the point.
This is abortion crap. I'm way beyond caring about the right and wrong of that, sounds like something for Solomon if we deal with the other thousand problems that are more urgent. Snuffing the unborn is less significant than the snuffing of the born, if we can't agree on that then all hope is lost.
Sadly, you’ve utterly shit the bed on this take, Matt......Rush was THE most positively influential voice of Conservatism in our modern history. What he did with AM talk radio was nothing short of astonishing. He believed in EVERYONE, he believed in America with no exceptions....
Well not everyone. 3 Divorces, Oxycodone, Sandra Fluke, Michael J Fox, Deepwater Horizon eco-terrorists, Abu Ghraib prisoners, Feminists, Environmentalists, Pot smokers, minorities-LGBT community, and the ACLU... But that is just a small fraction of people.
Jake.. how can someone who lied to his audience daily be a 'positive influence". Heck he told his audience that tobacco does not cause lung cancer for God's sake.
Not a fan of Limbaugh's limberger utterances, but he worked his butt off, filled a void, and might have died with a half a billion in the bank. Criticism is fine, but it has to be measured against his accomplishments. He's dead. Let it go.
Excellent point. Lets remember on his first day of the Presidency Biden took time to drone some African people in Somalia. I would put the actual killing of people on a higher level of evil than making fun of people's deaths. Obama also noted that he had got quite good at killing people.
After a summer of pulling down statues, I propose that popular sentiment may lean towards relentlessly mocking the dead. The dead don't care but it seems to scratch an itch with many of the living.
History proves this is the case. Why won’t the Democrats here admit this? Why won’t they admit that they are supporting the foundations of genocide as it has been implemented dozens of times throughout history? Hilariously, they think they will escape the purge when it happens. Read a damn history book people.
This is the pattern of Liberals since the French Revolution is to think they are either on the same side or using the violent ones, this pattern is repeated from the Duc D'Orleans in the French Revolution, the Kadets in the Russian Revolution, etc. In the American case they think because they've bought them they're safe, it worked for the 60s radicals. > However the 60s did not have racial genocide - or any genocide - on the menu. Most of the 1960s white rioters were in a Draft Riot over conscription to Vietnam, most of the Black Radicals were taking Civil Rights to the next step of violence. While both half heartedly called for Revolution, none were calling for genocide, tearing down statues, erasing history, condemning an entire race to be 'erased'.
The crowd now absolutely is following the genocide cookbook.
As an aside incitement to genocide is a felony violation of US Law, 18USC S.1091C: Incitement of Genocide. Purely an aside, like all our laws.
The statues are symbols. They mean nothing to the dead and shouldn't mean anything to the living either. Not one of those statues being torn down changed one iota of history.
For a guy who spent his entire career being a worthless, shitty prick to most of the country, I hope he'd consider this a tribute to his ethos: Fuck you Rush. Everyone I know is glad you're dead.
I can only hope one day all we do, pretty much all day, is celebrate the deaths or pain of people we disagree with. I think wishing death on others and then celebrating them when the occur--because we don't like their wrongthink--is super-healthy.
This dude reveled in other people's deaths. It's pretty explicitly spelled out in the article above. I'm glad he's dead. Rush would understand the sentiment.
He did not, in the decade+ I spent listening to him. Post 2008 I only ever caught brief snippets of his show (the Obama bashing became very repetitive for me) . . . but let's say he did. I think it's unhealthy then, too. It's just an unhealthy and obsessive behavior that is (IMO) soul-poisoning. No matter who does it or who they are doing it to. But to each their own!
...he really did try out a regular bit called the “AIDS Update,” where he mocked people who died of HIV over music tracks like “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”
The difference between Rush and I is that I'm just a dude with a job and a family. Rush's hate was beamed into millions of homes. Maybe focus your attention on that instead. But to each their own!
Ah, I see you are the believer of random chance giving you a virus, rather than dangerous behavior.
Apparently you don't know whole networks of guys taking PrEP while engaging in sex with HIV+ people because the risk of death is less important than the sex. Finally convinced someone to give up on that not that long ago. Or about gay bath houses back in the late 70s. Or the whole needle sharing lifestyle that jump-started the initial spread of the disease. Lost a few friends to that, too.
Rush thought it was the behavior. The truth is "hate" to you. Being deficient in logic as you are, this is not unexpected.
You're trying to spin it as some sort of educational PSA to mock the death of millions because it was far less verboten to make fun of gay people in the 80s? Knock yourself out logic warrior.
No one knew about aids in the late 70’s...as far as risky behavior leading to death...where’s the indignity related to obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes etc etc? All results in one way or another of behavior. And those cause exponentially more deaths than aids or needle drugs do
Yes, he had that segment for 2 weeks (in a multiple decade career) before regretting and apologizing for it. (from the link: "Limbaugh would call the segment one of 'most regretful things I’ve ever done' because it was 'making fun of people who were dying long, painful and excruciating deaths."”) I guess it's kind of like digging for a one-time tweet from long ago and insisting that the person who wrote the tweet should be punished for it forever. (I wasn't a fan of Rush but I believe in fairness and forgiveness.)
Okay. Now imagine you lost a few close friends and a family member to HIV during that time. How might you feel right now?
Also, mocking people's deaths for weeks in a produced radio segment beamed out to millions of people isn't really the same as a one-time tweet. We both know that. It's just a bogus rationalization.
It's so gross how many people here want the public to treat Rush's death with reverence. He danced on countless graves during his life. He mortgaged his chance at respect by being a gleeful prick. Fuck him.
They might say he told a lot of truths, and those outweigh the falsehoods and bad behavior. After all, everyone makes mistakes and off-color jokes are one of life's guilty pleasures.
In other comments of yours, you hold it against him, no matter the apology and regrets. I would guess that you, and others like you, are what caused the rise of people like Rush and Trump. All hate and no forgiveness or attempt at understanding others.
Yeah, sorry I'm judging him on his career, his politics, his actions, and his stated beliefs. I'll do better next time. It's much better to just gullibly accept his self-serving apology.
Let's also not pretend this is the sole mistake in his career. He was an enthusiastic Iraq War supporter, a war of choice built on a lie. His record on the environment is ignorant and abysmal. He had to *frequently* apologize for gross racism.
Reluctantly, I have to agree. I remember having this "debate" with a "Nazi" (sarc) facebook buddy about the morality of keeping kids on the border in cages. Finally, he just gave up and said, "ok, I admit it: I just don't give a shit what happens to those kids. They are not from here". I had a certain amount of respect for him, honestly, for being honest, and I told him. So, I am glad the fat fuck is dead. The world is a better place because of it.
Nah, I said the conservatives I know are too smart to listen to Rush. I actually rarely agree with them on the issues but enjoy our chats when we talk politics. Nice try though.
People who think this just take one or two things he said, highlighted by left media, sometimes out of context, but definitely not who he was overall, and didn't really listen to him themselves. You can do that to almost everyone.
So under your criteria I’ll have to assume that you’ll be thrilled when Obama (you know, that guy with the white mom, something he has purposely forgotten) dies, right?
I'm not particularly fond of Obama but I'm not sure what his white mother has to do with Rush spending decades beaming hateful, ignorant shit to millions of people on the radio. I'm sure you have your reasons to be hung up about it though.
Agreed. Rush was a horrible, selfish, mean, pandering hypocritical grifter and I never liked him or his show. He was a shitty person and people who cannot see that are also shitty people. I would be lying if I said I feel bad for him dying of cancer. I know I'm not supposed to think or say that. And certainly, he was never sorry anyone with whom he disagreed ever died of cancer or any other thing - and I don't want to be like Rush. But enough with the polite BS. Rush was an asshole that the world really would have been better off without. Next.
...he really did try out a regular bit called the “AIDS Update,” where he mocked people who died of HIV over music tracks like “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”
He reveled in the deaths of others. He mocked their suffering. Pretty tough to get upset when the shoe's on the other foot.
I don't remember that, but there were several things he did that really pissed me off. I wouldn't have liked that. He called Chelsea Clinton ugly, which was terrible to do a young girl. And he apologized for a few things, too. Let's not list the stupid crap Biden has said and done in the past that is just overlooked now. How they are behaving to his death is inexcusable.
I mean, whether you remember it happening or not doesn't really change the fact that it did happen. And the fact that you think Biden sucks (I largely agree, at that) doesn't have much to do with doing a scoreboard dance while gays were dying by the millions.
In the end, he sowed a lot of hate. Now he's reaping it. Tough shit for him.
Your opinion is what it is, no beef with that. However, "gays" weren't dying by the millions. Less than one million people of all groups had even had aids before 2000. Drug users were also a huge proportion of those inflicted and a large number of non-drug using heterosexual people also contracted it. The bit was wrong, as he later acknowledged, regardless of how many died, but the details are still important. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm
Fair enough and apologies if my numbers were off. Believe something like 30+ million have died of AIDS/HIV globally (according to UN figures). I've dealt with how I personally feel about Rush's empathy and the quality of his apologies elsewhere so I won't belabor that here when you're just trying to get some facts on record. Suffice it to say this isn't the only issue I had with him while he was alive, just one I felt strongly about and one Matt referenced in his blog.
well, by saying I didn't see it or hear it, I'd have to hear the whole thing in context. Because I've seen things misrepresented way too often. But if it's as y ou describe I'd have to say it was a major mistake on his part. He made a few. But that still is not the sum total of his life or message. I think Rush was ok if he wanted to believe being gay wasn't normal (as long as he agreed they deserve equal rights)--gay people have rights to do exactly as they please but they do not have the right to make anyone else say or believe it's normal -- but it would have been really really disgusting if he celebrated anyone dying, regardless. (And I don't think millions were dying, either.) He did a few things that weren't the best, but I think he apologized for some and there is nobody in the public eye who hasn't made mistakes. And big ones often.
"He called Chelsea Clinton ugly, which was terrible to do a young girl."
Proposition 1: Rush was an asshole
Proposition 2: Things worked out for Chelsea in the end; she is worth many millions of dollars from doing vaguely defined "foundation" jobs and may have gotten over any hurt feelings instigated by the mean and now deceased Rush
These 2 propositions are not mutually incompatible
Sorry, no sacred cows. The attachment to Limbaugh is peculiar given his routinely exercising his right to offend.
But he did talk three hours a day (right?) during which time if you weren’t boring your audience to death it would be impossible to not say something indelicately or cross some lines.
Yes, he made a few mistakes. But here is what leftists can't stand about him OR Trump. They were both authentic. Neither of them actually ARE the people the left would like to claim they are--because people would see through that immediately. Any time spent with either of them and --compared to the swamp in Washington -- would reveal that they are authentic, real people. And leftists can't have that. They know just how dangerous that is. -- They told the unfiltered truth, too. Since their views were totally opposite from the left, they must be demonized. Not just debated (because they would lose), but demonized.
I appreciate your authenticity. I am sure there were, for example, people hoping for RBG to die sooner than later because of their "moral" feelings about abortion but probably were not advertising it. Both you and Limbaugh have this in common, willingness to show your true colors. I wish there was more of that.
I appreciate your sarcasm. Meanwhile, why just repeat back to me what I wrote? And - why do you not remember the millions of people who rejoiced when she died? Go drown your sorrows elsewhere, Mac.
not sarcastic at all. and also not a fan or hater of Limbaugh to whom listened only few times so I could form my own opinion. ( too many low end commercials breaks for fishy products ) I found your comments refreshing. We live in an era where Pelosi claims to pray for Trump and do so daily and now calls for healing are everywhere, but you on other hand are clear about being glad he is dead. This country would benefit greatly from honesty of this kind and things getting sorted on basis of raw political power within constitutional guide rails without all that nauseating pretense. My compliments were such.
Maybe I just didn’t realize the ideological variety in Matt’s audience, but I’m floored by some of the comments here. Rush was an absolute cancer to political discourse in this country and Matt is right to call him out for that, even in death. How you can look at the sum total of his life and see anything but a net negative is beyond me.
Normally I’d be sympathetic to the argument that someone’s death is the wrong time to take potshots at them, but this is measured cultural analysis of a massively influential figure, not just dancing on their grave. Also, you’d be hard pressed to find someone this prominent who was so openly disdainful of other human beings that didn’t agree with him. This piece by Matt is charitable when you consider how he treated his opponents.
He was the the unrestrained id of the American right whose dark and entirely manufactured “worldview” was given legitimacy by his mass audience.
I literally grew up listening to Rush, so I’m actually quite familiar with what he stood for, which was his own bottom line and nothing more. He was a grifter. I’m curious what you think he stood for.
Actually, I wanted to write Keith Olbermann as someone who undoubtedly would agree with your world view, but couldn’t think of his name. Maddow, Olbermann....two sides of the same coin. You probably don’t think that they, as only two examples, are “absolute cancer(s) to political discourse in this country” in your words.
You guys are great a throwing stones but never explain, specifically, why you are throwing them. What, specifically did Rush do to deserve the accusation of being "... an absolute cancer to political discourse in this country ..."? If you are going to toss the brilliantly thought out "he was mean and hateful", how so?
He was an entertainer who used his considerable talent to enrage people or appeal to their base instincts. He supported the Iraq War wholeheartedly. He denied climate change completely. He helped chart the course for partisan media.
Yep, he was known to point out that entertainment was his primary purpose. You say, as though there is a difference, that he appealed to people's base instincts or enraged them. Why do you separate enrage from base instincts?
It's hard to remember how enthusiastically he supported going into Iraq. If he did, that would have been a place I would have disagreed with him. Unfortunately, a lot of people confuse supporting the troops with supporting a war; they are not the same.
He did help chart the course for partisan media. Prior to Rush, national media was steering a hard tack left, all the way.
Did you read the article ? Just curious. He doesn't have to hate anyone to lead others into hate and binary thought much like the rest of today's media does.
Oh, you mean like when a rabid Sanders supporter, James Hodgkinson, went to the baseball field where the Republicans were practicing for their annual Congressional BB game? Bernie didn't say, "Hey James, go over there and shoot some Republicans", yet some way or another he communicated with James that he needed to do something to address his hatred and binary thoughts. Is that where you are going with your position?
Ok I’ll study the right some more despite being immersed in it during my most formative years and coming out a leftist. Thank you for calling out my apparent lack of knowledge of a culture I’m deeply familiar with
A lot of people are tastelessly saying "good riddance" to Limbaugh. Matt is merely making the uncontroversial point that Rush should not have become a hate monger.
If you're upset by this column, then maybe you need to stop being so sensitive.
I used to share an office with a coworker, back in the 90s. He would have Rush on the radio. I guess your idea of hate monger and my idea of hate monger aretwo different things. He may have been trying to just be funny but I don’t find that sort of humor particularly clever.
No one ever got led into hatred by Rush but everyone got led into hatred by SNL or any other media outlet that mocked conservatives ? Is that how it works ??
Well we're at 6 hours since press time and the comments are pushing 600. Matt hit a nerve with this one. I listened to Rush off and on for 25 years. Over a career everyone is going to make mistakes and Rush made his fair share. But what's not mentioned here alongside his gaffes is Rush's support of charitable causes (Tunnels To Towers is a recent example) and the evolution of his thinking over the last 10 years which argue against the Matt's caricature of a mouth-breathing, partisan antagonist. Rush despised the Left but he gave principled Liberals their due. He spoke highly of Glenn Greenwald, for example, and often cited Glenn's work. Rush spoke early on about the hypocrisy of corporate media and the dangers of an overly powerful Executive branch. I could go on but I won't. Your race is run, Rush. Rest In Peace.
As someone who grew up amidst the cornfields of Southern Indiana during the 1980s, it is important to remember just how many stations across the Midwest who had Limbaugh's show were born out of deregulation of the Telecom industry. You could not escape Paul Harvey or Rush Limbaugh if you tried any kind of station search, as Clear Channel Communications dominated the landscape. He was ubiquitous, loud, and was the country version of Howard Stern minus the sex, foul language.
In small town Southern Indiana, it is funny to reflect that two biggest personalities were two bullies leading the way in radio and basketball (not to mention Eli Lilly) - Rush Limbaugh and Robert Montgomery Knight.
"Telling it like it is" was often code for white men speaking freely without any surrounding consequences. Plain truth country spokesmen of the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" club. When I look back upon this time in the conservative state of Indiana (and at that time ascendence of Dan Quayle), we cannot forget how deregulation birthed the next generation of the corporatist right moving even farther right. It is as if this strategy of saturation (Rush) was the experimental seedling that grew into a larger media profile of Fox news.
If and when the neoliberal turn is analyzed, I think we'll see the 1996 Telecom Act, and the investment in a monopolistic strategy to buy up radio stations across the country reinforced an entire generation of voters to move right (whether they wanted to or not). Rush was the carnival barker in the beginning of this history, and a sad one at that.
Thank you for the trip down memory lane - what a piece of work that guy was.
I wonder if Taibbi has any inkling of how many El Rushbo fans also follow him. What do you say Matt? What's your guess. Rush is, was, and always will be be the first of the anti-establishment.
I’m not going to argue this point in the same way I did with Marcuse, but my response here would be to say I don’t think that Trump was anti-establishment. He funneled a lot of legitimate resentment and alienation into support of a party that was and is a wholly owned corporate subsidiary. That doesn’t mean he was wrong in his criticisms of people like the Clintons but Rush to me was deep into a devil’s bargain, and ultimately betrayed his audience by handing it over to the Bushes of the world.
Rush fan, and fan of yours. For the same reasons. Make of that what you will, but it's a compliment to you both.
I'm a liberal and loathed Rush but I also dislike the unimaginative mocking and belittling on the left, especially SNL these days ( in spite of talented performers). This is not wit that enlightens and makes people think. It's lazy sarcasm parading as humor. There's a difference people.
It's becoming harder to forget that SNL is shot in the same building (30 Rockefeller Center) as MSNBC. SNL's take on Gamestop a couple weeks ago was basically identical to MSNBC: to mock the Redditors for making Wall Street "not work right" while giving a pass to the short selling hedge funds whose standard practice is to squeeze a fortune out of the system while contributing nothing. It seems bizarre to call people who take this position "the left", and even more bizarre that some of Rush's last shows attacking Wall Street and praising the Redditors seemed much more like what I would call "liberal" (and I consider myself a liberal too!)
Trump was as anti-establishment as we are likely to ever see in the Whitehouse. Which is: not very much, and even then it is unable to counteract the establishment onslaught.
I meant to write Rush there. I agree Trump after a fashion was anti-establishment.
Trump was antiglobalist. Globalism will destroy democracy.
Many Trump supporters still believe to this day he was anti establishment. It's like corporate dems who still think Obomber was anti war or pro worker.
No, that is definitely not Rush Limbaugh at all or he would have backed the RINO Republicans. Not a perfect human being, at all, but not how you characterize him at all.
Yeah, this piece is a typical shallow hit piece on someone not even buried yet. He spoke three hours a day, five days a week for decades and all Matt does is spew hateful opinions with zero context. If Rush was even close to what Matt describes Conservatives would have slaughtered gays in mass and Trump would have never happened.
"... typical shallow hit piece.." Translated that means if you call out my side for our lies and hypocricy it is a 'shallow hit piece" and if you call out liberals then you are just reporting the truth...
Comm... You just revealed you are a partisan HACK with no interest in TRUTH. Rush got rich and famous pushing lies (Climate Change, Obama is a Muslim, tax cuts grow the economy, Universal Health Care will destroy the economy and on and on...). If you can't see how he lied then don't give your OPINIONS about how liberals LIE. Lies are Lies and they are on the right and left and people that cant call out their own side with out calling it a "shallow hit piece" lose their right to complain.
Lek.... St Augustine said "People Hate the truth for the sake of what ever they love more than the truth" Tiabbi revealed that the MSM was happy to exaggerate Russia and Trump because they liked the profits that came with such exaggerations and liberals that still believe Trump colluded with Russia like HATING Trump more than the Truth
So it is with Rush and his fans. Rush like the ratings and money he got by lying and exaggerating about liberals and his fans liked HATING liberals more than they liked the TRUTH...
That was RUSH.. That was the media reporting on the Mueller investigation. I am repulsed by the media reporting on Mueller as much as I am repulsed by Rush and those that glorify him
Ah, I saw you posted this somewhere else and wasn't going to bother to reply. Rush did not lie or omit the way the left media has been doing. And he warned about just what we are experiencing now -- which like many on here don't want to lay at the foot of the left where it belongs. Now, if the right were controlling people (lockdowns), censoring people, omitting and unfairly covering things, and even trying to control thought, speakers on campuses, you name it, I'd be "warning" people from the other side. Like Rush was doing. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I'd be protesting in the streets regardless of any poliltical position. So that is just not true.
LEK - If you can't admit to yourself that Rush lied to his fans about everything from how tax cuts impact poor and middle class families, to why we should go to war in Iraq, to climate change science to Trump winning the 2019 Presidential election.
If you can't admit that then you have totally lost your right to criticize the left for being fooled by the Mueller report. You exposed yourself on that one.
Oh bologne. All garbage. Ridiculous.
https://theweek.com/articles/967351/how-rush-limbaugh-created-modern-politics
Who was he to hand it over to?
?????
This being the problem, there really aren't two parties.
He trooped along plugging the GOP like a good soldier, mind you often being critical.
We simply aren't represented in DC for some time, and we see what happens when we send an outsider, however imperfect he was.
DC really is it's own world, now a fortified with razor wire castle.
I don't know why they don't add a moat as well, diverting the Potomac would be a shovel ready job.
Matt: St Augustine said "People hate the truth for the sake of what ever the love more than the truth"
You accurately pointed out how the media lied and exaggerated about Trump and the Mueller report. The media liked the money they made by lying and exaggerating and people that still believe Trump colluded love HATING TRUMP more than the truth.
Rush is the exact same as are his fans.
He loved the money and fame he earned by lying and exaggerating about liberals and his fans have proven that they like HATING LIBERALS more than the truth.
Right - Rush was not nearly as big of a cancer on the body politic as Marcuse, that's for sure. Save your firepower for long dead philosophers.
Both can be bad, right? Or are you a dumb terminal that can only respond to 1/0 binary coding?
The worst part about tribalists is that they only think the other tribe has something wrong with it.
Marcuse's philosophical onanism is the basis for some of the worst decision-making in the world today. Rush is responsible for much of the Hate, Inc. that Matt chronicles in his great book.
Neither is a saint, both were mostly in it for the money, and right-minded people can find faults with both of them.
oh come on - Matt has much more bile in his prose for Marcuse than Rush, that's the obvious point here. He also wrote "I’m not going to argue this point in the same way I did with Marcuse...". So I feel kind of non-binary here.
Or, perhaps deep in his bones, Matt agrees with Dunne that his job as a journalists is to “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
The Ideology of Marcuse is currently in it's ascendance and a guiding ideology in America. Are you really looking for one more journalist to say "me too!"
Matt shows a genuine concern for his fellow American's, even as they choose to follow a pied piper he cannot support.
The easier (and more popular) story would be to lump Rush Limbaugh and his followers together as indistinguishable undesirables. If you want that you have MSNBC. The alternative comforting narrative is that Rush Limbaugh was a freedom fighter for all this is good and decent in America and that all his followers are true Americans on the winning side of history. You have Fox for that.
Matt is something different. It's why me and many others are here.
ok, that makes sense and I agree with the dunne principle - but for the 1000th time - Marcuse is not the reigning ideology of the left, and has nothing in common with idiot wokism. I hate wokism, I've studied and read much of Marcuse's work, and don't even like him much but I react to stupid, pointless analysis of dead intellectuals.
One can also think both are bad, but one worse than the other. I would concur with Matt. Show Biz people shouldn't be treated as harshly as academics. Academics, by virtue of their societal influence and appeal to authority, should know better. Rush was a DJ. Marcuse was a 'revered' intellect.
How many of the general population have heard of Marcuse? Granted, he may have influenced society through his work in academia. Anonymity doesn’t give Marcuse a “free pass”... but I’m quite sure Limbaugh had a much greater influence on millions of more people’s political beliefs and attitudes towards others. He was much more than just a DJ.
Thanks for that valuable clarification. i'm sure Matt really believes Rush was less negatively impactful on America than Marcuse. Your principle showman/academic here seems really intelligent.
So you’re not satisfied with this article because Matt didn’t hate on Rush enough to satisfy you? Gimme a fucking break... Rush Limbaugh was a total piece of shit, there’s no denying that. But I already know this. I don’t need Matt Taibbi to illustrate that further for me.
O gimme a break. that's obviously not my point
Thanks for pointing out that interview. I hadn't seen it. A much more robust defense of Critical Theory is possible than Eskow was giving which is that Taibbi's love of free speech IS the core principle in most CT (which itself is not some univocal POV). Habermas for example makes freedom of speech the singular axiom of his entire lifetime of work. What does it mean to protect free speech or make the claim that speech is uncoerced? His analysis comes in handy when you have something like The Citizens United decision that "money is speech", or that corporations are individuals with the same speech rights as individuals. I'd be willing to guess that Taibbi doesn't agree with the principle behind the Citizen's United decision. Habermas, the heir of Critical Theory gives us a really valuable framework to critique these political intercesssions on individual rights. Marcuse merely pointed towards that kind of analysis, which wasn't good enough and Matt's right to point to some problems of his work, but the rest of the claims are bogus anti-intellectualism and certainly don't apply to most Critical Theory.
What’s wrong with zizek?
yeah, i argued that same point, but good luck with that. Just how would Matt lock horns with Zizek? - it would be even more pathetic than with Marcuse. Perhaps he should critique Poincare or Heisenberg next, he wouldn't want to drink a beer with them either.
Taken with a grain of salt, as should be everything on the interwebs: https://networthroom.com/case/herbert-marcuse-net-worth-bio/
Not bad for a modest intellectual. It's not like he deposited his royalties in the ocean or the bank account of a homeless shelter.
For someone opposed to capitalism - and disturbed about how it creates one-dimensional men, he didn't have a problem utilizing it for himself and his family.
Marxists are only against *other* people having more money.
Oh great, it's Stephan again.
Aw, he can do his thing. Free speech, right?
Matt, I think this response was more worthy of exploration versus the original article and its diatribe style. I think it is worth discussing why Rush would support both Bush and Trump, whether the "parties' consists of the same membership then and now, who was and is the establishment and which is residing on the corporate plantation then and now.The divergence/convergence of liberalism and conservatism and where on this cultural space - time continuum Rush fit, and I would guess he moved like culture itself.
In other words, provide some context for the hateful accusations and name calling, like a journalist is supposed to do.
I think so, too. It’s not a simple discussion. I was not a fan of The War on Terror or the Patriot Act (or the DHS, the TSA or No ChildLeft Behind) but I still voted for Bush twice (which I regret—should have protest-voted 3rd party).
But despite being lukewarm on the whole Iraq war thing and Gitmo I’ve become much more unhappy with the idea of endless war and the neocon position that now seems to dominate the establishment of both parties.
I don't think there are enough people unified on that to change that trajectory.
C'mon, the McConnells and Romneys of the world hated Rush and still do. We have a two party system. So, Bush vs Gore, Rush was supposed to push Gore? It was more like there weren't any options. The establishment used Rush and his audience, but things look a lot differently looking backwards now. I don't think he was ever establishment. It was always a love-hate relationship. Corporate republicans would have had a much easier job that would have enjoyed a lot more without the influence of Rush Limbaugh.
He was part of that Grand Oversimplification -- I can't fault him for playing the game. (in the abstract, maybe his conservatism was genuine, but in practice it was a gloss. )
I fault everyone who plays the game for playing the game. It's talked about as some kind of inevitability, when in the end maybe all we really have as human beings is our own ability to make moral choices.
I say: fuck the game.
Then hate the fuckers who started it! JFK knew - https://youtu.be/3NbQkyvbw18
Underneath the chilly gray November sky
We can make believe that Kennedy is still alive
We're shootin for the moon, and smiling Jackie's driving by
They say: Good try.
Tomorrow Wendy is gonna die.
––A. Prieboy
I agree, Trump wasn't anti-establishment, he was just spouting stuff the "little" guy wanted to hear. I am not sure he really ever believed that crap, but he knew what to spout to keep the "little" guy in his corner. There would have been no Obama without Bush and no Trump without Obama. We keep going from hot to cold and back every election cycle. At some point we might crack if we keep doing this and don't get some continuity between election cycles.
Wrong. He was used to telling both sides what they wanted to hear to benefit himself for decades and he could have done the same here and probably stayed in office. He is not for this globalist bullshit and he loves America. They couldn't have that. He was appealing to too many people who felt the same and it disrupted their religious crazy agenda.
Marcuse's been dead for a while, and is also one of the many commie literally Hitlers. He's fair game and he got off easy.
As for Rush: who said obituaries had to be nice? Polite people, maybe, but we don't seem to live in polite times. I'm not supposed to agree with Matt with much of what he wrote but I mostly do, and I'm way more Republican than Democrat.
This wasn't your point, but let's agree on it: Matt's better when writing about more current matters.
I meant Matt's EVEN better when writing about more current matters.
I am thoroughly in favor of MT in Dostoevsky drag. He could have a long fake beard made out of shredded black craft store felt and Elmer's Glue and belabor a papier-mâché horse with a bullwhip on the next UI episode. Katie can feign mild horror.
I know. I hate it when Matt does a eulogy based on nothing more than the behavior of every single sparrow and their specific flight pattern over an entire Summer.
Yea this is a bit too quick. Class Matt.
Pssyt. That's what my dog hears when she needs correction.
I’m conservative, I’m not interested in a self righteous feel good news feed. I suspect his larger audience is similar
Well, my politics are center rightish and I can’t stand Rush or any of his ilk. So I really hope for the sake of his integrity that Matt keeps writing as he sees fit and not to please an audience.
Concur. I listened to Rush for many years, believe he was a net-positive and am very glad he didn't stay Jeff Christie, both for him and for his millions of listeners. But I would want Matt to both share his reasoned opinion and for me to disagree with it and for the conversation to continue.
reading thru the commenters arguing below, its clear Matt has achieved a cross team-blue and team-red set of subscribers. We need more of that.
We need fewer "teams."
I so agree, this article really got me heated because I love Rush, and I almost unsubscribed, but I really do value people’s opinion that differs from me and decided to continue to support because of this reason. I may have to hold my nose reading some of the content and comments, but it’s truly vital to understand so many different opinions, thoughts and motivations.
This isn't the first time I've heard someone with a conservative perspective say something along this line. I can't recall or can even imagine hearing someone on the left express a thought like this nowadays.
Talk about virtue signaling.
Take it outside!
Thank you. As you said earlier, life is not a game, but in this mysterious journey all we have is our moral compass...fuck the game!
Agreed-a real team knows what it’s ultimate goal is and can put aside differences to achieve it. Fans of a team are NOT part of a team.
"Fans of a team are NOT part of a team."
I hazily observe that this seems to be a profound observation, but my understanding of professional sports and fan culture is so poor that I am reluctant to further unpack it.
I'm reading Frederick Exley's "A Fan's Notes" in an effort to catch up. I will still never be a real red-blooded American sports fan, though, and they're basically all aliens to me.
Sports fans are sports fans across the globe-soccer in Scotland or Brazil, hockey in Russia, cricket in India, football in Ohio. It’s really a beautiful thing when you consider it in a larger social context than just the particular object being hurled, struck, or otherwise conveyed toward a goal.
a UK friend of mine went to an American football game (not soccer). Was astounded that the fans of both teams were mixed in the stands together. Sounds like the convo's further down
I don't disagree. I think there's some part of my spirit missing that makes me unappreciative of sports and unable to participate in religion.
Let's find out...
A few days ago somebody in Glenn's comments told Glenn that he had a moral responsibility to censor his right-wing commenters. (Yeah, I don't get it either.) I wonder if we'll get something like that here.
Censorship not needed, we're all smart enough to weed out the wackos from those willing to engage on our own...
Right. It was such a weird thing to say to, of all people, Glenn Greenwald. I hope this link works.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims/comments#comment-1285869
As I read it, DavidH was complaining about there being too much wrong-think in GG's comments. But there are reasons to moderate blog comments besides censoring the kind of wrong-think he was describing.
For example, I would not describe Naked Capitalism's rigorous comment moderation as censorship. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/01/restoring-comments.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/01/another-warning-about-comments.html
I run a service that includes public chat and believe moderation is necessary for several reasons and that there are kinds of moderation that have little to do with what I understand as censorship.
As someone who was reading Glenn Greenwald's original blog Unclaimed Territory even before Salon began hosting it, I'll attest that Glenn has been known to censor posts and block writers in his comment sections. Or to attempt to block them, anyway: anyone seeking proof of the axiom that "the medium of the Internet interprets censorship as noise, and routes around it" can find ample support from observing the tenacity of seriously obsessed Internet trolls, with their ability to conjure sock puppet identities from a bottomless list, and their single-minded I-never-sleep dedication to their mission. The majority of comment trolls can be successfully discouraged, but in some cases that takes a lot of time and diligent effort. I don't think any blog host thinks they've "won" when they depart; they know only too well that their return is always a possibility.
As a result, Glenn tended to only get involved in censorship when it was obvious that a troll was pursuing a personal vendetta against him. Everything else was a free for all.
I don't have the same attitude about trolls as many other Internet comment writers and readers; I view them as foils. Engaging with them is like sparring practice, for me; it's obvious that they're grossly wrong, and sometimes mind-bogglingly dimwitted. But the views they espouse often have some popular currency, so I use their "observations" as a way of clarifying my own objections to the positions they espouse, for further reference. It's ironic, but sometimes sheer simple-mindedness can be more difficult to argue against than skilled sophistry.* So it's a good idea to get some practice in doing it. Unpacking the elements of the fallacies, their factual ignorance, and their deceptions and self-deceptions in detail, like working out a math problem. It's exercise, for me. Exercise can be tedious, but it's also how you get stronger. And sometimes it can even get entertaining, like dancing around and throwing jabs at some palooka in the ring, making their Dummheit obvious. I like to think that at least one lurker is reading the exchange, but I don't require that. I do it for the love of the game. I enjoy it. I think it's groovy.
[*Joseph Heller's novel Good As Gold has a classic set-piece skit about that situation. The "family at the dinner table" scene. The book is worth looking up just for that passage. Although I liked reading it in its totality as a novel, too.)
I am certain everyone who writes eventually will.
Matt knows.
Also, lots of anti-establishment figures predated Rush. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind.
Every read his manifesto? The dude had a point. And reasoned positions. And non-trivial predictive power. The part where he maimed and murdered people was clearly evil, and frankly I'm not clear why he didn't see that. But apparently some personal animus involved in some way, if not with the people than the organizations he felt they represented.
I think the take away would be violence does not help your case. No matter how much you think it does or should.
Ted's manifesto was creepily omniscient and reasoned. Thought I was crazy for reading it!
You may have intended "prescient," but I'll take "omniscient" too.
The Manifesto is one of the clearest cases for me, personally, of terrorism working. I was like, "A guy is willing to kill and maim people just so I can read what he has to say in the New York Times? I'm intrigued, I'll read it."
And I read it and it was long and rambling, but damn. Dude had some good points to make. If Ted K were like 20 years younger he might have just been bitching at the rest of us in this comment section -- which may have been one of his points.
Ted Kaczynski's actions were horrendous, but his manifesto stands as one of the great documents describing human alienation from nature due to the rise of technology that had become our masters rather than our servant, and all before the rise of ios and the current mass surveillance state. Uncanny.
It lead me to read Christian Anarchist Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" and "Propoganda," which both had a profound long lasting impact on my thinking. Both well worth the read if you haven't.
While not incorrect, prescient was the word I was looking for.
The Netflix series got me intrigued to read it, but again, the Manifesto proved prescient!
I think that was one of his points. I’m guilty of living a lot of his predictions. But the guy was brilliant but also crazy. I want the brilliant without the crazy. If he’d been not antisocial and sociopathic he might have done talk radio. Or at least a podcast.
"If he’d been not antisocial and sociopathic he might have done talk radio."
I would contend that being antisocial and sociopathic are not necessarily barriers to a career in talk radio.
The crazy is what makes it fun, as long as you're not the one getting blown up by a bomb made out of wood.
Would he be allowed to do a podcast from jail? I have no idea; not a lawyer. I'm all but certain he would sneer at the format, so this proposition will most likely remain in the realm of theory.
Ok...way off topic, but let’s talk about” the” OG anti establishment character (no one one mythical or “semi/mythical) “...I’m going to start with Akhenaten ...you get your very likeness removed from everything after your death..you definitely pissed off the establishment!
The most OG anti-establishment figure I know of is probably whoever "historical Jesus" was. Assuming he existed. We're getting into quasi-pre-history there, tho.
The self-declared "disciple" "Paul" was also rabidly anti-establishment, and he definitely existed.
All or most of the the mythologies probably have such anti-establishment figures.
I think he meant the first by reason of having all of the following; an anal cyst, making him 4-A during the Vietnam war, the first to be fat because of his diet and lifestyle, deaf from abusing Oxy and to die from lung cancer from a habit he denied caused illness in others from second hand smoke, and for which he thought he deserved the CMH for providing so much of his tobacco tax dollars to others' health research.
The man died an unimportant death, as most of us will, from a disease he gave himself, the same kind of self created misery he had no problem showing no empathy for in others.
His politics are not the issue; his belittling of those less fortunate is. The best thing this man ever did was not to procreate; amazing that all three of his wives were barren.
"His politics are not the issue; his belittling of those less fortunate is."
word.
"The best thing this man ever did was not to procreate; amazing that all three of his wives were barren."
Somehow don't think the wives were the issue here.
I was being sarcastic, as I tend to be. Methinks either Rush's port of entry on his wives was adjacent to that which would occasion a new born, the circumstances being right, or perhaps they were just cover for his real orientation.
Anyway, his death is a non event, as mine will be; I'm waiting for a real cause for celebration; Bush, Cheney, numerous neocons, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pompeo et al breathing their last. Rush was nothing but a carnival barker, making coin as he sold the joke that is US politics to willing dupes.
Jusging by the tyranny of big tech today, Ted got a lot of things correct.
Bullshit. Rush was the infrastructure of the Republican Establishment...
I was always much more of G. Gordon Liddy fan on the radio, never really listened to Rush. He was a Top 40 DJ, I preferred indie rock/alternative stations, back when such things existed.
Rush never killed anybody by pushing a sharp #2 pencil into their ear canal.
Maybe so, but let's not push in the Pro-ear canal cabal just yet. Plenty a bundle of stereocilia have been known to be whimpering at his bombast. :)
"Put Rush in the" - sorry wish I had an editing function.
Well, as of tonight, he has one less. I wouldn't expect Matt to be a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I also would have expected something a little more gracious.
I hope things go better for you over at Fox News. All the news you want you hear.
There were about a thousand anti-establishmenters before Rush (Hunter S. Thompson, Jim McMahon, David Bowie, etc, etc, etc) - and I would argue Rush wasn't even anti-establishment. He was on CORPORATE RADIO?! You think he was getting paid by individual listeners? He was a shill.
What difference does it make if a lot of Rush Limbaugh fans are also Matt Taibbi fans? What? So he’s supposed to cater to them and only report on things in a way that makes them feel comfortable? This is the exact opposite of Matt’s entire stance. I wonder if people even hear/read the things they say...
LMAOOOoo
You comment indicates you didn't listen to his show. He didn't "hate" anyone. Poking fun at your political opponents is miles away from hate.
You not liking how he was anti-establishment doesn't mean he wasn't.
The media today being criticized in progressive circles is because now you are affected, 25 years ago when Rush criticized it he was met with guffaws by the likes of you.
turns out he was right the whole time.
LOL
I just saw Rush as a great radio satirist. He was right about the Feminazis - and I say that as a woman who had to deal with Feminazis. He was also a helluva lot better satirist than Stephen Colbert ever. I will argue that the best, funniest satirists are conservatives, not lefties. Leftist satirists are so boringly predictable. Hey, Orange Man bad! I see Rush's satire the way I do South Park or Tom Wolfe or Scott Adams or Moliere or Thackery or Babylon Bee. It's not about being politically incisive, it's about being deeply cynical about vain,greedy, power-hungry human self-righteousness that calls itself “liberal.”
He was certainly at his best when he was skewering limousine liberals like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
This is a good point-it isn’t cool for anyone-of any political stripe-to punch down at people who are clearly in a weaker social position-gays in the AIDS era, “deplorable” today-it doesn’t matter. Like all pre-20th century battlefield troops knew-shoot at the generals and officers first!
I really liked Colbert on the Colbert Report. He seemed to know his subject and put some effort into his satiric critiques. Now, though, he's just awful and unfunny. And lazy. Good satire and lazy don't mix.
Colbert lost Trump and he doesn’t know how to make jokes about anything else.
He's not a satirist anymore. He's a talk show host.
Just saying I used to find him funny and compelling and he seems to have lost that mojo. IMO.
But he gained a really big bank account. Personally I'd take the really big bank account any day of the week & twice on Sundays.
The left is not funny, barely even amusing, unless you think snarky is humorous. Taibbi is actually funny sometimes.
Why is stirring up division viewed as great ? I see all of them as graft since making fun of people is rarely constructive and usually has more to do with playing the blame game.
Well done: this is a very well written, well researched, well argued comment, that ends in error. You talk about greed but can’t see the pyramids around you.
" I will argue that the best, funniest satirists are conservatives, not lefties." I'd argue the best satirists understood it wasn't a liberal or conservative view that was the poison, but the groups of people abusing their power. See the Monte Python skit about putting things on top of other things for a humorous and subtle swipe at the problem.
I’m currently reading a bio of HL Mencken, and while being a consistent and public supporter of women’s-including black women by mention-suffrage in his newspaper column, he also said stuff like “Maybe you would have better results if you sent the state legislators a barrel of liquor every month instead of annoying everyone with your protests”!!!
Ok-honest question-can you name a current or former left wing satirist whose humor can or could honestly be appreciated by someone without any ideological skin in the game, so to speak? In jokes aren’t funny for the masses.
No, I certainly don’t mean funny like Rush-you are right about style of humor (I detest PHC). I would say more like Mencken or PJ O’Rourke, or even George Carlin. Someone who can do satire that is universally accepted as funny, w/out worrying about ideological boundaries.
Xir couldn’t give you any examples of a funny leftist.
You're reading one: Taibbi and his co host Katie Halper; then there's Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski when he wants to be funny. Colbert was until he aligned himself totally with the corporate Dems. His roast of Bush after 9-11, to an unamused D.C. elite was unmatched. Now, of course, he's joined them; money will do that to some.
Of course, when it comes to mocking people with Parkinson's, I'll admit Limbaugh was in a class of his own.
Tell me more of this Chapo Trap House.
If you are into self hate you will love it.
Instead you should just hate certain crowds like ol' Rush stirred folks into doing. But it's okay since he got rich doing it.
Now if Rachael Maddow gets rich doing the same thing it's a total tragedy.
What a bunch of shit.
How about we condemn all the graft masters and hate mongers pushing division, stereotyping, and propagandizing via emotional manipulation for personal gain ??
Hi Arcanaut - here's the Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House Will Menaker is the son of the late Dan Menaker who passed away last year and was a great, great humor (and fiction) editor and a hilariously funny writer himself. I'll always treasure the times we spoke and got together and he made me laugh. Will is really talented. I'm glad his dad got to see how successful his beloved son became. And as for T.D. - please write your own appreciation of CTH instead of insulting me.
One of the Chapo Trap House people is the son of the best humor editor I ever knew. So buzz off, thank you.
Of course I've listened to Chapo Trap House.
love how narrow your definition of "the left" is...kinda self serving
Taibbi is mistaken. Rush didn't have a racist bone in his body. People that obsess about race can't conceive of how a mind works that is not obsessed with race.
Racism resides in our culture, institutions, and individuals (3 types - Overt racism, Covert or Institutional Racism, and internalized racism). How anyone in this culture escapes racism is either through denial or death, but if you are breathing and have a pre-frontal cortex then racism is possible -- either consciously or unconsciously we replicate it in our institutions.
So, how someone on the internet knows Rush was or was not a racist is beyond the capacity of this forum and pretty much an opinion with little merit.
Please stop. Not everyone is racist. You do not know what is in peoples hearts.
You may not know what's in people's hearts, but you can certainly interpret what their actions and their consequences mean in the real world.
Key word being THEIR actions-not the collective actions of anyone happening to share the same basic levels of melanin. If you can’t specify, don’t speechify.
I am not saying people are malicious or are purposely trying to injure another. I am saying that racism exists at multiple levels of our culture (often unconsciously) and our job to be aware that it
1) exists (and is not some pretend thing being made up)
2) awareness of both the conscious and unconscious is required to make change occur
People's hearts have nothing to do with it. My relative can be racist and still have their heart in the right place -- the question is how do people come to understand something that they do no know about. Being open, asking questions, and being able to own your own behavior is the starting place.
So, does one have to be "white" to be racist?
No.
Thank you .... :D
But racism in people of color is so fundamentally different than racism in white people that they should be represented by entirely different words.
Does one have to be a minority to steal our jobs, be on welfare, or be somehow morally inferior ?
Who's "we"?
In many people's minds they do.
I don't listen to those racists though. They're cunts.
Why, if someone is, as you say, not being malicious and not hurting someone, is it required that we need to "make them aware"? Racism used to be the defined as a belief that another race had qualities that made them inferior. If someone is unconsciously a racist, then they are a racist. So how can they possibly not be doing something malicious?
The problem with what you are saying is that people don't know they're racist, but they are according to me. And by God, we need to make sure they know they are racist so they can change the way I want them to. And if they deny they are a racist, well, just by saying that they are racist and we need to change them. And if they keep denying they are racist, well, then we just need to cancel them because they are the worst kind of racist.
That's what's happening in today's world. Everyone's a racist unless they are actively telling everyone else how racist they are, or if they're saying America is the most racist nation on earth, or if they're actively tearing down statues or re-naming schools named after such obvious racists as Lincoln, Feinstein and Washington.
Essentially, if you're not one of the woke, you're a racist. If you're white, you're a racist. If you're unaware you're racist or a denier, then you're the worst kind of racist.
How about assume the best intentions of people and stop pinning a racist tag on everyone other than your almighty self. Stop telling people how to behave and what they need to know and how they need to act. How about respecting someone when they tell you they aren't a racist and leaving it be.
Posts like yours and people like you are what's really causing the divide in this country.
Oh. You have thoughts now, after 3 days of posts?
I think you are missing the point with me. I am critic of woke culture just as I am denial culture. Americans no longer get to vacation in the denial of racism and go about their lives pretending it away. However, if one equates this with forcing people into cancel culture boxes -- then you've lost me.
Racism lives in our culture. It was born there. And we see it in our institutions, relationships, and internalized beliefs about ourselves and "others". To deny racism leaking into different systems, is to be daft and unaware of the living conditions of millions of people. To overuse the signaling of racism and to force people to make changes individually is a poor strategy as to change culture --- you have to change the institutions operating in that culture.
So, there is no amount of signaling (Kenti Cloths) from Pelosi and Congress, or the front lawn signage in Bethesda neighborhoods to align with the perceived forms of racism without actually helping people who have been oppressed with actual fucking policies.
It's simple. Take away the denial (just like in Climate Science). And take away the idea that individuals are bad and need to change immediately upon request dictated by some new standard, when racism is deeply embedded in larger institutions who bear responsibility for making so many of the racial inequalities that already existed worse.
To solve this problem, it is important to acknowledge, to repair and to sort through systems --- young people get this in large quantities.
In ending, posts like yours are interesting. You are late to the posting party by 3 days, but have strong opinions. So, you really never have to engage a challenge. And thus, posting for you is a version of playing with yourself.
I won't stop you, but by the look of the your last post, you could go blind with repeated usage. Do not mischaracterize others post please.
So sorry for being 3 days late. Thanks for letting me know that I'm masturbating as well. Also, thanks for letting me know I'm a chicken.
You're so well educated. Racism was born in our culture? Please provide evidence. Please show me that there was zero racism in the world prior to the creation of the United States. You made the claim, now back it up with proof. Or, if I suspect, you're going to claim that you weren't talking about the United States, you were talking about white people, then please provide proof that racism didn't exist before white people started walking the earth - which, by all accounts came after people of color. So you must have proof there was zero racism before whitey ever came about.
At least you're honest about one thing. You want to change the institutions. You want to dismantle America and what it stands for. You claim that the U.S. is systemically racist, but show no proof. You cite how millions of people are living in sub standard conditions. How is that racist? Do poor white, homeless people not count in your world? Of course they don't because that doesn't fit your narrative. And if it doesn't fit the narrative then it's of no use when trying to change America into your socialist utopia.
Since you won't be able to prove your point that racism was born in our culture (whoever "our" is - I'm sure you'll make something up), how about just keep slinging name calling around. Isn't that what all liberals do? Since they can't win the day with ideas, let's resort to calling everyone a racist or a masturbator or something else only a sick mind could come up with.
Good post :)
Of course racism exists - the ? is does "race" and if not, then from whence comes racism?
Make it simple; acknowledge the fact everyone has likes and dislikes, even when it comes to people; and that’s not a bad thing. It’s what people do related to their likes and dislikes that causes issues outside their sphere.
It’s all about self-control!
This view ignores the history of racism, violence and oppression in our country, especially in our institutions (3/5 of person, Jim Crow south, lynchings redlining, great white flight into the suburbs, prison industrial complex, and CIA funding drug operations (onset of crack) in LA black communities, FBI's harassment of MLK, Malcolm X etc.
Likes and dislikes can be attributed to individual interactions along with self control, but what about property rights, wage/income differentials for the same work, trans-generational wealth passed on from generation to generation for white families (almost 10 times that of black families)?
Making it simple for white people is what we have been doing already in my estimation. It needs to get harder for them, not simple.
Uh, what about simply making it easier for black folks - why make things harder for anybody?
Good night nurse, you must think people of color are very stupid and they can only survive if whites prop them up. In the 1970's there was the population shift called "White Flight". Was that a bad thing? If so, why? Why wasn't there a "Black Flight"?
Are people of color incapable of doing for themselves? Consider the popular term "white privilege", where did that originate?
I guess if only people of color experienced the issues you cite then I would be in total agreement, but that isn't the case. A lot of people of all races have, and continue to experience such events because government enables the environment to exist. Money is the balm for society, black and white.
For those who keep asking for more government, my question is, do you want more government so it can oppress people, because that's what governments do? Jim Crow was a government edict.
Finally, as a southerner, in the early 1970's I remember my father laughing about a guy he knew through his job, who lived in Boston. That guy, a good Yankee (that's because he was still in Boston) would ask my dad if we were having trouble with our "coloreds" during the busing issues. However a couple of years later, when busing was imposed in the northeast, the white outcry was much more violent than it was here. My dad got a kick out of that. So to toss the south under the "racist" bus is an old way to distract attention from your own neighborhood.
How about we white people make it harder for you?
"It’s all about self-control!"
I leave this one to Laura Branigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP0_8J7uxhs
Never liked her singing; it was sad how she died.
Pretty sure everyone all over the world and across all races are in fact racist.
Madam, never show weakness or say “Please”. You are speaking to implacable aggressors, criminals, genocidal psychopaths.
Tell them NO.
Depends on how you define racist. I think everybody is racist but I don’t necessarily define that as it is politically defined.
Please stop assuming every time someone points out the existence of racism that they are claiming everyone is racist.
the existence of (some) racism (somewhere) doesn't mean its the reason for differential outcomes in demographic groups. Other things explain the difference more...
Like lifetime servitude of the black race in America ? That had nothing to do with outcomes of families for generations to come ?
What other "things" are you talking about ?
If you read his comment, he says “our culture, institutions and individuals” are racist. And we can only escape it through denial or death. He didn’t say “some of our...”.
Only if you read his comment with a bias.
What's in my heart doesn't matter. How I behave does.
Experiments easily show that everybody exhibits "unfair" biases, some of which are reasonably described as racist. A lot of people have little inkling how deep and pervasive these biases are in themselves (some will even deny the evidence). Of those who do have some understanding of how these biases work, many (most?) will still deny being racist.
I don't. I see it as: these are the cards we are all dealt. But they are by no means the only cards we have. It's up to me (us) to work on mitigating the "bad" behavior and doing more of the "good," which is very doable. For example, Daryl Davis in this short conversation with Jimmy Dore explains a simple theoretical model of racist and other kinds of intolerant behavior abd how to counter-condition disposition to that behavior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZYm1re6fM Davis also has some wonderful examples of success. Look for them, they are inspiring wonderful stories.
We all have the means to be better and therefore the moral choice to invest in doing better or not. That's the key difference. How do I choose to live? How have I done so far, taking an honest review? How do I feel about my previous ignorance of my choices or refusal to accept responsibility for the choices I had?
so everyone's racist. which means it doesn't matter.
No, that's 0 for 2, sport. It means being aware of racism at each level and doing something about it at each level (relational, systemic, community) but it seems you think it does not exist -- so we are at an impasse.
Your construct only works if every single person sees racism at all three levels forever and always. Someome discounting your basic construct does not make it more true nor them more racist. Simply repeating it as some sort of natural law doesn't make it more true either. Say, for example, via magic wand all racism at all levels were eradicated by all measures - you would still insist on the Truth of the construct, meaning it never was valid. If racism isn't actually pervasive throughout every person, institution and community, then your logic fails. Finally, you excluded the power angle. You meant to say all white people are racist in every way...not all people generally.
Its not my construct but the work of many scholars - here is one that is particularly good because she makes it simple. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
Please read the following two rebuttals to the scholarly work you site:
https://www.city-journal.org/achievement-gap-explains-demographic-disparities
https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/
These essays address the true elements of the societal ills you are concerned with. They are painful truths.
One can actually proves racism exists (internalized) from neonatal studies on women of color who have lived in this culture one generation. They tend to have worse birthing outcomes by a factor of 3 I believe. Saying this another way, there is something in this culture which makes child birth more dangerous for black women, especially. The main theory is that multitude of stressors (safety, socio-economic differentials, housing, support, and a slew of other variables) cause an overload of stress hormones, often associated with systemic or institutional racism, that cause pre-mature death in black babies at 3-4 times the rates of other ethnicities.
And we do not see this at all with women who are first generation Africans who give birth here. This is a problem embedded in systems and our culture not individuals.
Ok, I'll bite. What you're talking about a couple of papers on race and infant mortality written by a neonatologist (Richard Davis MD). I read through the papers and his premise is that black-American women lose their babies at a higher rate than black-African women. He goes on to opine that since the genetic make-up of the two groups are the same, then the only possible reason for the difference in birth outcomes is the discrimination that black-American women must have experienced during their pre-natal years. His papers are rife with should have, could have, would have type language but no testable data to support his hypothesis. It stands to reason a stressed out pregnant woman, regardless of color, is going to have prenatal problems and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that these woman tragically lose their babies at a higher rate. To say that this body of work is proof of systemic racism is not defensible. To say that there may be other issues aside from racism and/or relevant cultural factors is the more valid argument.
hmmm could it be that pregnant African immigrants behave differently than pregnant US blacks?
https://unnaturalcauses.org/
prove (wish there were an edit button)
Very well, we’re all racist. So?
That means all-
All peoples are racist.
Whites idiotically tried to change that, and are suffering the consequences of going to war with human nature, instead of accepting it and moving on.
We’re all paying for Whitey’s mistakes. Whitey should stop making it, absolutely stop apologizing for anything, and get back to running things.
The rest of you have been a terrible disappointment, to say the least.
Lets go back to having a functional society.
Get out of the way, and just let us run the place.
Arguably what we call racism is an instinctual awareness of “The Scary Other” which probably served some survival purpose in the long, long ago. So it is a capacity that everyone likely has and experiences in some form, and culture either works to constrain it, redirect it, or enhance it.
Time, past time to constrain it - from a very early age ...
No dear, its time for one side or the other to win.
As it happens we’re all born on our respective teams, so lets get on with it!
Because thats quite enough CO2 emissions from your side.
Now you spend your lives stirring up trouble, here it is.
We are all born as human beings - we don't have to "pick sides"
So what is "my side" and what is yours - you apparently think you and i are on different sides, why?
If we don't decide to be on the same "team" - we all lose, make no mistake ...
Good God, no we're not on the same team.
We won't all lose, some losers lose more than others especially if they lose all.
Your side is yours, mine is mine. We want to be left alone, you are incapable of leaving others alone. The respective 'sides' dear were chosen for us by those in power, whom leftists serve.
So what? If we define "racism" so broadly that it means any kind of preference for or against groups of people, how do you expect humans to cleanse themselves? Do you really think that even in a world of perfect clones, people would not find ways to judge groups, even if just by geography? Those nasty people who live on the other side of the street/county/ocean are just not to be trusted! What do you call racism when there are no races?
A social construct fabricated to explain away differences in areas that are of no interest to elite financiers except as a way to divide people into groups as to make them more malleable and competitive (fighting for scraps of the common herd) or as JP Morgan might suggest --- things of little difference among those who are among the monied class.
On an individual level, one can navigate difference much more easily -- its when the racism is hidden/embedded in larger institutions (Pinkertons, Congress, Corridors of powers (Japanese internment camps etc) where the individual experience with Overt racism becomes a non-stop 24 hour lived experience within families, communities, countries where institutions prop up those with unearned advantages at the expense of people of all colors (except, the culture deludes itself to thinking it is only "those" people over there that are exploited or oppressed.
How else could the Sackler Family have caused a crisis in opioids and heroine in the past 15 years and walk away with a small fine (as they slowly distance themselves from Perdue Pharma).
Can you imagine the right-wing fewm if a wealthy black family had caused the deaths of tens of thousands of white people strung out on drugs? But we see it time and time again - Financial crisis, Enron, Hurricane Katrina and the Army Corps of Engineers. Every three years we have an incident where the wealthy class fuck up royally and there are no consequences. It is a rigged system and its designed to split the populace up by something that does not exist.
You wrote: "how someone on the internet knows Rush was or was not a racist is beyond the capacity of this forum and pretty much an opinion with little merit".
So you are saying Taibbi's column, predicated on Limbaugh being racist, is "without merit", right?
Forum of responders. I hold Matt in higher esteem.
Since were racist no matter what this sin justifies any action.
NO.
No, we’ll just be racist then, and you’ll just have to endure us- as we have endured for far too long YOU.
Or we don’t endure each other and the winners cancel out the Other.
Now leave us alone; or else.
And I’m fine being racist on the above terms.
Sorry, could you just clarify who is the "we" and "you"?
I think you may have expressed a key sentiment here - so I want to make sure I get it ....
You need to seek mental help.
So now he has escaped racism ...
Ya gotta ignore trolls like Rory, SH, and a few others.
I hear you. It is always cause for pause whether to respond to - and thus validate - a comment that is utter nonsense. Part of me hopes that readers understand, but many reactions suggest folks follow slavishly along with threads that are lacking in reality.
I do like to point out the regular crew of idiots, however. They are fairly predictable and it likely sticks in their craws that they are called on their shit.
I love that thing about bones not being racist. The bones aren't the problem.
Resist: Its not that Trump did not have a racist bone in his body. It is that racists could not see the racist bones in him because they were merely looking at a mirror. Paying a black dude to work with you does not mean your not racists, it means you know you need someone to deflect your own truth and those people can always be purchased. Right?
"Rush didn't have a racist bone in his body"
Can you back up your supposition with any evidence ??
yeah. its the same evidence that the false accusers have
Sure, it's black people that are the real racists.
This type of bile and the beliefs and actions it encouraged is directly related to the significantly higher rate of suicide among LGBT people. If anyone has trouble understanding this, please take any basic course in psychology and communications.
thats not why those populations have higher suicide rates...
Please feel free to explain further, and provide sources for your assertions.
Still waiting for your sources for your assertions in your post. Me doubting your claims (without evidence) is how this goes...
"The data clearly shows that supportive networks and proactive anti-discrimination policies make a difference in LGBT mental health. In the time of COVID-19, when many LGBT people may be stuck living with unsupportive family members or without access to their usual support networks, the LGBT mental health crisis is more important to address than ever."
https://msmagazine.com/2020/10/27/lgbt-people-at-higher-risk-for-suicide/
Your go.
PS, My assertion is basically common knowledge as well as common sense, as a 1-second Google search illustrates in abundance. Thank you for taking the time to point me to reading about your take on this issue.
The Rush stans are free to do their thing.
Gay rights have made such strides in my lifetime that I think it's difficult for younger people to realize just how vicious and nasty the anti-gay atmosphere -- conflated with HIV allegedly being a "gay disease" -- was in the US of the '70s-'90s. (Before that the gays just stayed in the closet so they didn't get bashed.)
P.S. Rush = totally in the closet. Yeah I said it.
It's better, but still a problem - the urban-based, elite media is awful about creating the illusion that everything is unicorns and rainbows for gays nationwide. Young LGBT people stuck at home with unsupportive parents during Covid is a serious problem that will have lasting repercussions.
Louis M... what kind of person hears Rush saying that and then thinks "... he did not have a racist bone in his body"
talking shit about your political opponents (who call you racist regardless) isnt racist...
Perhaps you should word search the definition of political opponents ??
Skutch; in earlier reply to erasing statues being of the past , and of no consequence to the living, er 1) No.
2) but if that is true lets erase the history of slavery as well, along with the Civil rights movement, MLK and all the rest, shall we?
3). Rest assured if we keep going down this path one or the other will be erased, and in all time frames - past , present, future.
This is the normal course of human affairs.
4) the contest then becomes a matter of who is strongest.
5) Numbers and tools for “erasing” count in such contests.
6) Holding the Commanding Heights of Words and Fiat money the Erase Whites side may be convinced they will win.
7) Except they left a rather large gap in their capabilities called “force.”
8) The organs of force have many Rush Limbaugh listeners, and also reflect the society at large- especially in numbers.
9) The Left isn’t too popular among the organs of force.
Perhaps shooting policemen and investigating the military endlessly wasn’t a good idea.
10). You might not know this but the military all pretty much comes from the same families and clusters if families, same ones that produce the police.
11) this would probably remain academic - oh except- the Dem govt in power now was sworn in and guarded even now by Troops. And policemen. Perhaps in retrospect the Left should have secured purchase there- instead of animus.
12) The oath of the soldiers and police is to the Constitution - not to the government or party in power.
13) one may only hope that the ties that bind together soldiers, veterans, police - and were getting towards ~18 million armed, trained, experienced men ~ that the bonds they have will transcend the increasingly bizarre taunts and ultimatums from our elites and their striving minions hustling CRT and all the rest. Because if not and since the issue is now decided by troops- then its the strongest.
There we are, 13 points. Instead of the 13 words.
But of course come to it the 13 words will apply.
Race is very, very foolish course to pursue.
not worth a reply
And you've sold more dodges in this thread than Chrysler dealerships ever did.
Jesse Jackson is a vile hypocrite who deserves no quarter for the things he has "led" blacks into
I'll listen to any argument here, but I rate Jesse Jackson well above Barack Obama.
Virtually all US politicians seeking power at the federal level are hypocrites to some extent, but only a few fully embrace "four legs good, two legs better."
But Rush Limbaugh gets a pass for everything he led red necks into ?? Jesus, that's rich !
LOL
This is all so appalling, I’m so disgusted by the hate being spewed over the death of this break through pioneer..without Rush, the conservatives in this country would NEVER have any platform to represent us. He paved the way for the half of the Country, that was completely ignored, to have an alternative place to listen. Rush Limbaugh is a hero, and I’m so grateful for his legacy that brought us so many alternatives to the ridiculous, elitist, racist, intolerant, cancel driven left!
It was conservatives that really pioneered cancel culture. I remember boycotting Disney as a kid because they had a Pride Parade, the Dixie Chicks cancelled around 2003, etc.
Are you kidding me, you’re ridiculous!! Why was the Dixie Chicks canceled? Because on foreign land they bashed our Country, Disney was a child influencer who was delving into areas that conservatives didn’t think children should be privy to....the left cancels anyone who stands up for Patriotism or for morality and screams racist at everyone...give me a break.
"It's not canceling when MY beliefs are offended. Please take me seriously"
Did anyone go after Disney's or the Dixie Chicks suppliers, network providers, lawyers etc. with threats if they didn't disown? The modern cancel culture is much more insidious and pervasive than boycotts of the past and seeks to fire, un-bank, un-sponsor, un-platform and unfriend people. Sadly, its a great way to radicalize folks....and we are getting uncomfortably close to that.
I do hear your point that too many view censorship as just when it is flowing in the preferred direction.
It was dumb when people tried to cancel the Dixie Chicks. If they didn't want to buy their product any more--that's one thing. Trying to get them cancelled and holding bonfires of CDs or whatever . . . that crap is crazy.
Just as all the cancelations going on today. It's all bad.
Perhaps you noticed Athena1 cited examples from around 20 years ago.
This is pretty cancel culturey, too: https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/963128750857641984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E963128750857641984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gq.com%2Fstory%2Fnra-ad-tv-hammer
Well, that was when I was a right winger myself. I would assume they haven't stopped doing that stuff. I'm just not plugged into that world any more.
The new left will have you fired for pledging support for Israel. Heard of BDS? Palestinians are the victims now. Try to say otherwise and be labeled Islamaphobic Pretty sure no one ever got kicked off social media for being anti-Semitic in fact - it’s all the rage
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about AIPAC and anti-war/subsidy politicians getting a well-funded primary opponent?
Also, I'm not sure I'd put this on the right-winger side. Pew did a poll on what it means to be Jewish. Supporting Israel was number 1, remembering the Holocaust was #2. Given Jewish individuals provide about ~50% of DNC funding, hard to see a healthy amount of "bipartisanship" here.
*hard to not see
so have the left.... bad example
Cancel culture sucks and is a negative pretty much no matter who or which side is doing it. The Dixie Chicks thing was so stupid. Burning CDs? Or burying them? Really?
Cancel culture is recreation for people who are mean and stupid. Ideology largely irrelevant.
Actually is far more insidious. If you read Matt’s piece on Marcuse or read about anti-racism you will see that this is not recreation it is an ideology. It’s a social obligation. No - it’s a religion. Which is ironic since the worshippers despise religion
I consider myself an anti-racist, but I also agree that some people use critical race theory like a religion. It's very creepy.
It’s not “some people”. It is federal policy again. It is being taught to children all across the nation. If you are “anti-racist”, a thing demanded by adherents of CRT, then you have been captured by the propaganda. Colorblindness is not allowed in this ideology. You have to pick a race and fight against anything different. It will end us and quickly.
I think people who claim "colorblindness" regarding race irl are lying.
Cancel culture is part of the bread and circus used to cover up the war crimes and fraud. Works like a charm.
Hmm, I recently cancelled some Amazon subscriptions because of the Parler thing and general big-tech-monopoly concerns. Is it ok to cancel those who cancel others?
I honestly thought this was a parody but then I got to the end and didn't find the punchline.
Well I for one and shocked, SHOCKED to discover there is political hate out there.
Thank you so much for the valuable update. I had no idea until you mentioned it. Good to learn also that it is the exclusive property of only one group.
Preach it!!
So what you’re saying is that every time Rush Limbaugh spewed his vile, hateful bullshit all over the airwaves, he was “speaking for you”? Maybe you might wanna think about that for a second...
I listened to him a few times and didn’t like him so I didn’t listen anymore. I had that choice because I live in the US. Hate destroys. And it will inevitably destroy the person who hates
This is the correct position to have.
Nah I think it was cancer.
he didn't hate...repeating the lie doesn't make it true
He just led others into hating. I guess we should pardon the people on the left for doing the same then ?
Great comment! Agree 100%!
That was a very predictable piece Herr Taibbi.
predictable and obvious because any 8th grader with 1/2 a brain could figure out what Rush was selling. It's the stupid fools like my brother who believed him
Will they let you move to the 9th grade next year?
Hopefully
Everyone who disagrees with me about anything is a Nazi. Welcome to the Internet.
I had a little Golden Book with that title as a child.
Man, you leftist are a true and total trip. I had to stop and ask, where did the Nazi reference come from? Then I lowered my sights and realize you must think Herr is a Nazi reference. Herr is Mister (Mr.) in German amigo; and no, I'm not calling you a member of a Mexican drug cartel. Thanks for the laugh, something I get a lot more of than I anticipated when I subscribed to this.
It seems there is not a rational thought among any of you.
This is why people dislike Limbaugh. Calling someone a leftist because they do not immediately fall in line with group think is his calling card.
Leftist seem to be the only ones who toss the Nazi label around. If the glove don't fit ... .
Haha. Rush literally termed “feminazi”
Just curious-what do you call individuals who are 150 or 170 degrees from your political POV, whatever it may be? I’m a libertarian-I’ll call someone a statist or a big gov chugger or a lefty b/c, well, they are ideologically opposite of me.
I'm not one of those who calls people I disagree with, or disagree with me, names; what's the point? If I call someone a Nazi it's because they either claim to be one or they display the tendencies of one, and if I call them one I'll cite evidence justifying the label.
As for Matt, not too long ago I saw someone's post where they concluded Matt has an obligation to conform to his audience's wishes and ignore many of the failings that ooze from the left; and I suspect that person is correct. Hey, he's in it for the money, just like Rush.
However, to demonstrate my appreciation and respect for you and Senor Taibbi, as a tribute after I post this I am going to crank up Costello's "Two Little Hitlers". ;-)
The Limbaugh fanboys having their feelings hurt is an astonishing spectacle. The dude's whole business model was hurting other people's feelings. Don't dish it out if you can't take it: Iron Law of Schoolyard Bullyism.
Internet edgelord, is that what I am? Is it good or bad? As for you using lol, it has sort of lost its meaning, if it ever had a meaning.
As for the leftist term, I don't mean it as an insult, and I am surprised when it is considered to be such. And skewering folks is a bit of sport, but what makes that most enjoyable is when they don't get it.
You really get off track when you say "... you start calling him a grifter the second he aims his guns at right-wing sacred cows." I know no sacred cows. Rush was good and I believe he was right much more often than wrong, but he was far from perfect. I classify myself as a Christian Conservative CONTRARIAN because I take issue much more often with folks supposedly on the right than the left.
I respect, that doesn't mean I admire or agree with, folks on the left because while I think they are wrong more often than not, they at least stick to their guns. The majority on the right are lukewarm conservatives. Those are the ones who are against government until it is doing what they agree with, then government ain't so bad. Those are the people I don't trust.
As for people on this site, I agree, there are quite a few intelligent folks from both sides of the aisle; unfortunately there are some who don't know when they have made their point, and they write a book, eventually losing their audience.
With this piece, from my perspective, Matt would have been better served by acknowledging Limbaugh was a success at what he did, that he made a lot of people happy and a lot of people mad. By this point there are no undecideds on Rush and all Matt did was add to an unnecessary piling on. But that's what pays the bills in the 21st century?
Rosa Luxemburg went by Fraulein.....just sayin....
This is a disappointment, Matt - no insight, nothing new. I was never a Limbaugh fan - only listened to him when a coworker had him on in the office. But to simply dismiss him as some kind of con-man comes across as the typical liberal resentment that the great unwashed don't recognize their betters. Which is the viewpoint you're, generally, very good at stepping outside of.
Frankly, this reads like Reagan-era Hunter S. Thompson - he had no clue what was going on by that time, and so his over the top rhetorical flourishes that treated Reagan like Nixon 2.0 were embarrassing because they so obviously missed the point.
I'm still not sure what the appeal of Limbaugh was to so many folks - and this article gets me no closer. I imagine, though, that the way to find out would be to actually talk to some Limbaugh fans instead of just dismissing them as corn-pone hicks sitting on their front porch drooling all over their overalls.
My feelings exactly. The few times I listened to Limbaugh I was put off by his style-over-substance approach to pointing out the foibles of the emerging authoritarian left. Whether he was a racist appealing to kindred spirits I don't know; I do know he used several shop-worn race tropes that left me feeling not quite clean. On that front, I found him to be a pale imitation on the right of Al Sharpton's vile race profiteering that left me feeling filthy.
One advantage of being older than dirt is having experienced a significant part of our nation's history. In my view, Limbaugh was late to the party in the politics-as-entertainment schtick. The real trailblazer was JFK. He took to television like the movie-star he appeared to be, and relied on good looks and patter as much as critical thinking. I'm a big JFK fan, he inspired me to become a liberal Democrat . . . forty-nine years before Nancy Pelosi inspired me to become a liberal independent. In retrospect, JFK was an innocent in an industry that produced Rush Limbaugh, Joy Behar, Donald Trump, Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity.
Limbaugh was successful because he was a pioneer in many ways of a medium in the midst of change.
Forget the Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh, like his contemporary, Howard Stern, figured out the medium - especially for people trapped in their cars for long commutes/hauls. As suburban America became exurban America, and truck driving was in the middle of a growth spurt https://www.statista.com/statistics/940006/employment-in-us-truck-transportation-industry/. With no streaming media available, and a need to keep eyes on the road both radio personalities built their audience by being better than their competition. Remember Air America? Allan Colmes?
The ability to keep people waiting to know what you would say next not only kept them through the commercials, but also kept the "haters" listening, too. Rush's use of "taboo" subject matter without kid gloves made for entertaining radio - even if you disagreed.
You'd never see a "Hannity and Colmes" show today. Two complete opposites, yet they were great friends.
I wouldn't call myself a "fan." I never listened constantly, but I listened often over the years and if you DID, you'd hear him talk to a liberal or just discuss real observations of things and he'd see things other people didn't. He was surprising. He was respectful to every caller unless they lied about what they were going to talk about. He was entertaining. And he was funny. And if you listened ENOUGH, you could see what a good heart he had. But even his picking on liberals was more lighthearted than what comes back from them. He was a true critical thinker--he just concluded different things than progressives. And he was the first person who pushed back on them. Liberals think only THEY should have a place to talk. He was the first conservative voice in news. He made a few big mistakes, apologized for a few. But people talking about him like this says more about them than about him. Again, we did no such thing when Ginsberg died and many people ocnsidered her a murderer. You just don't say things like that.
Sorry - who did Ginsberg murder?
You know very well what I'm talking about. Pro-life people viewed her that way and nobody did this to her when she died.
How many times did she dance on other people's grave on air ?
PLEASE. So would have to hear the whole thing myself before I believed your characterization. But let's say you are right. Ginsberg was responsible for killing millions of babies. ACtually KILLING them. DUH. But of course, that doesn't matter to you people. Though I am reluctantly pro choice through TEN weeks. TWELVE outside for a lot of reasons. A heartbeat would be a good cutting off point. And now we're going to kill them right up to and the moment of birth -- something you wouldn't do to a dog. Barbarism.
And no excuse for it. Rush might have made a mistake (I would have to hear it), but nowhere near the mistake SHE made. Not even legislated by our elected officials. Legislated from the bench. So don't virtue signal to ME. You people, tons of you, celebrate having abortions like it's the most wonderful thing in the world, celebrate the stupidity of doing such a thing more than one time! And as appalling as find all that, we didn't behave like that we when Ginsberg died. But you all should be careful. Some people become more powerful after they are dead as you should all know, especially when attacked like this. So keep up the stupidity. I see a lot of people are going to stop subscribing. I won't, because of the last article Matt wrote, hope he makes a difference to people like you, but I might not bother to read him anymore. But I'll support his right to write stupid shit like this because that is the point.
Being pro birth is the ultimate virtue signaling and has been for decades now.
Rush had decades of blathering stupid divisive shit that enriched him a great deal.
Hopefully Rush will be the reason people stop listening to people like Rush.
That would be powerful.
Woops a couple typos up there.
...she probably put some people in jail? I dunno.
This is abortion crap. I'm way beyond caring about the right and wrong of that, sounds like something for Solomon if we deal with the other thousand problems that are more urgent. Snuffing the unborn is less significant than the snuffing of the born, if we can't agree on that then all hope is lost.
I guess I was hoping for informed dissent ...
It's an opinion piece, why would he interview Rush fans about his own opinion ?
People with balls really piss Matt off.
Sadly, you’ve utterly shit the bed on this take, Matt......Rush was THE most positively influential voice of Conservatism in our modern history. What he did with AM talk radio was nothing short of astonishing. He believed in EVERYONE, he believed in America with no exceptions....
Well not everyone. 3 Divorces, Oxycodone, Sandra Fluke, Michael J Fox, Deepwater Horizon eco-terrorists, Abu Ghraib prisoners, Feminists, Environmentalists, Pot smokers, minorities-LGBT community, and the ACLU... But that is just a small fraction of people.
Well done on a fabulous summary of Rush-bo's life. Like the turd I flushed this morning, he won't be missed.
...women who think birth control should be covered by insurance. I could go on.
Sheesh.
...but men get Viagra covered by insurance.
There are a lot of limp dicks hahaha
Jake.. how can someone who lied to his audience daily be a 'positive influence". Heck he told his audience that tobacco does not cause lung cancer for God's sake.
Not a fan of Limbaugh's limberger utterances, but he worked his butt off, filled a void, and might have died with a half a billion in the bank. Criticism is fine, but it has to be measured against his accomplishments. He's dead. Let it go.
He got rich lying and spewing hate for ad money. This is not really something I admire.
But to each their own, I guess.
"Lying and Spewing Hate" ? I would submit this post could be characterized as the same.
I can submit that a toaster can be characterized as a type of Chihuahua, if I wish, but it would be a silly thing to say.
Hahaha
Excellent point. Lets remember on his first day of the Presidency Biden took time to drone some African people in Somalia. I would put the actual killing of people on a higher level of evil than making fun of people's deaths. Obama also noted that he had got quite good at killing people.
That's true, but we're (or were) talking about the propagandists, not the politicians they promote, here.
"And now is that different than The View, CNN or MSNBC?"
It isn't any different and that's the point.
You can't just condemn part of it while trying to promote Rush as some sort of "truth teller" or advocate for a kinder gentler society.
Or Faux not news ?
dont hold your breath waiting for the OP to not be a hypocrite
Hmmm, would you say the same of Louis Farrakhan when he dies and will undoubtedly get plenty of criticism thrown his way for his repugnant views?
Who the hell is Louis Farrakhan? (just kidding)
After a summer of pulling down statues, I propose that popular sentiment may lean towards relentlessly mocking the dead. The dead don't care but it seems to scratch an itch with many of the living.
They are moving of course towards Erasing the Living, the statues are a test program.
History proves this is the case. Why won’t the Democrats here admit this? Why won’t they admit that they are supporting the foundations of genocide as it has been implemented dozens of times throughout history? Hilariously, they think they will escape the purge when it happens. Read a damn history book people.
This is the pattern of Liberals since the French Revolution is to think they are either on the same side or using the violent ones, this pattern is repeated from the Duc D'Orleans in the French Revolution, the Kadets in the Russian Revolution, etc. In the American case they think because they've bought them they're safe, it worked for the 60s radicals. > However the 60s did not have racial genocide - or any genocide - on the menu. Most of the 1960s white rioters were in a Draft Riot over conscription to Vietnam, most of the Black Radicals were taking Civil Rights to the next step of violence. While both half heartedly called for Revolution, none were calling for genocide, tearing down statues, erasing history, condemning an entire race to be 'erased'.
The crowd now absolutely is following the genocide cookbook.
As an aside incitement to genocide is a felony violation of US Law, 18USC S.1091C: Incitement of Genocide. Purely an aside, like all our laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091
Don't worry Dems, the laws of course don't apply to you, and we non-elite whites 'have no standing'.
Still though this is the sort of thing that if you swing and miss the counterstroke can be quite severe.
What's the matter, you don't like US foreign policy becoming domestic policy ?
The indoctrination worked like a charm on you didn't it ?
The same money that backs these crowds backed the so called "insurrection" at the capital.
Who are you talking to? It can’t be me.
I’ve been pointing out DC green zone all month.
The MAGA crowds were real, it is possible however the ones who walked through the capitol were infiltrators.
So what?
Yes of course US FP is now domestic. It will have the same results.
Inshallah.
The statues are symbols. They mean nothing to the dead and shouldn't mean anything to the living either. Not one of those statues being torn down changed one iota of history.
I doubt there are any paid covert assets stirring up comments about Rush after he's dead. I'm sure there were some egging on pulling down statues.
Funny how US foreign policy is even hated by Americans when it's on their home court.
His accomplishments ?? So as long as you get famous and make tons of money it doesn't matter how you do it ?
For a guy who spent his entire career being a worthless, shitty prick to most of the country, I hope he'd consider this a tribute to his ethos: Fuck you Rush. Everyone I know is glad you're dead.
I can only hope one day all we do, pretty much all day, is celebrate the deaths or pain of people we disagree with. I think wishing death on others and then celebrating them when the occur--because we don't like their wrongthink--is super-healthy.
This dude reveled in other people's deaths. It's pretty explicitly spelled out in the article above. I'm glad he's dead. Rush would understand the sentiment.
He did not, in the decade+ I spent listening to him. Post 2008 I only ever caught brief snippets of his show (the Obama bashing became very repetitive for me) . . . but let's say he did. I think it's unhealthy then, too. It's just an unhealthy and obsessive behavior that is (IMO) soul-poisoning. No matter who does it or who they are doing it to. But to each their own!
From the article above:
...he really did try out a regular bit called the “AIDS Update,” where he mocked people who died of HIV over music tracks like “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”
The difference between Rush and I is that I'm just a dude with a job and a family. Rush's hate was beamed into millions of homes. Maybe focus your attention on that instead. But to each their own!
Ah, I see you are the believer of random chance giving you a virus, rather than dangerous behavior.
Apparently you don't know whole networks of guys taking PrEP while engaging in sex with HIV+ people because the risk of death is less important than the sex. Finally convinced someone to give up on that not that long ago. Or about gay bath houses back in the late 70s. Or the whole needle sharing lifestyle that jump-started the initial spread of the disease. Lost a few friends to that, too.
Rush thought it was the behavior. The truth is "hate" to you. Being deficient in logic as you are, this is not unexpected.
You're trying to spin it as some sort of educational PSA to mock the death of millions because it was far less verboten to make fun of gay people in the 80s? Knock yourself out logic warrior.
You are lambasting those celebrating the death of a man they detested who celebrated the deaths of men he detested. Lol.
No one knew about aids in the late 70’s...as far as risky behavior leading to death...where’s the indignity related to obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes etc etc? All results in one way or another of behavior. And those cause exponentially more deaths than aids or needle drugs do
The whole time Rush bashed people for risky behavior he was smoking cigarettes and popping pills.
Nothing risky about those behaviors now is there ??
Rush was a total perpetrator of conservative victim hood.
And it wasn't just hate. Hate was just the sugar and spice of the content. The real meat was often just plain misinformation.
I say this as someone who was raised to be a theocratic Dittohead.
yes, vice minister of information
> But to each their own!
We agree on that! Need to look it up. I do not remember that but if may have been something I missed.
No, he didn't. If you want to be taken even a little seriously, don't lie.
Lemme know when you read Matt's article and get to the part about the "AIDS Update." Then we can talk.
Yes, he had that segment for 2 weeks (in a multiple decade career) before regretting and apologizing for it. (from the link: "Limbaugh would call the segment one of 'most regretful things I’ve ever done' because it was 'making fun of people who were dying long, painful and excruciating deaths."”) I guess it's kind of like digging for a one-time tweet from long ago and insisting that the person who wrote the tweet should be punished for it forever. (I wasn't a fan of Rush but I believe in fairness and forgiveness.)
Okay. Now imagine you lost a few close friends and a family member to HIV during that time. How might you feel right now?
Also, mocking people's deaths for weeks in a produced radio segment beamed out to millions of people isn't really the same as a one-time tweet. We both know that. It's just a bogus rationalization.
your reminder that when Jerry Garcia died, Rush Limbaugh called him "just another dead doper. and a dirt bag" Takes one to know one
It's so gross how many people here want the public to treat Rush's death with reverence. He danced on countless graves during his life. He mortgaged his chance at respect by being a gleeful prick. Fuck him.
They might say he told a lot of truths, and those outweigh the falsehoods and bad behavior. After all, everyone makes mistakes and off-color jokes are one of life's guilty pleasures.
"This dude reveled in other people's deaths."
And yet, here you do the same thing...
Think of it as a tribute to Rush. Just doing my part to honor a great man.
In other comments of yours, you hold it against him, no matter the apology and regrets. I would guess that you, and others like you, are what caused the rise of people like Rush and Trump. All hate and no forgiveness or attempt at understanding others.
Yeah, sorry I'm judging him on his career, his politics, his actions, and his stated beliefs. I'll do better next time. It's much better to just gullibly accept his self-serving apology.
Let's also not pretend this is the sole mistake in his career. He was an enthusiastic Iraq War supporter, a war of choice built on a lie. His record on the environment is ignorant and abysmal. He had to *frequently* apologize for gross racism.
He sucked. Now he's dead.
Reluctantly, I have to agree. I remember having this "debate" with a "Nazi" (sarc) facebook buddy about the morality of keeping kids on the border in cages. Finally, he just gave up and said, "ok, I admit it: I just don't give a shit what happens to those kids. They are not from here". I had a certain amount of respect for him, honestly, for being honest, and I told him. So, I am glad the fat fuck is dead. The world is a better place because of it.
Expand your network.
There are a good deal of conservatives in my family and friend group. They're all too smart to spend hours listening to this shitboy.
Got it, everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. Well, that will explain the constrained network pretty well.
Nah, I said the conservatives I know are too smart to listen to Rush. I actually rarely agree with them on the issues but enjoy our chats when we talk politics. Nice try though.
Nope, you actually said they are too smart to listen to Rush. You don't like Rush. Ergo, those that disagree with you on this point are stupid.
Also, the OP hasn't listened to Rush nor have any of their conservative friends. But feel qualified to expound upon it.
On a related note, why do people today have such trouble with logic?
People who think this just take one or two things he said, highlighted by left media, sometimes out of context, but definitely not who he was overall, and didn't really listen to him themselves. You can do that to almost everyone.
What "context" is required to mock the death of millions of gays exactly?
I had a parrot once that made more points.
And better points.
everyone you know sucks balls. big time.
So under your criteria I’ll have to assume that you’ll be thrilled when Obama (you know, that guy with the white mom, something he has purposely forgotten) dies, right?
Can’t be much more of a worthless, shitty prick.
I'm not particularly fond of Obama but I'm not sure what his white mother has to do with Rush spending decades beaming hateful, ignorant shit to millions of people on the radio. I'm sure you have your reasons to be hung up about it though.
Yeah, you obviously never listed to Rush Limbaugh.
Often surprising or unpleasant emotions arise within us. Most know better than to publicly run with it.
We should find out where they bury him and go shit on his grave !
Karma is a bitch. Enjoy.
you should get out more
Agreed. Rush was a horrible, selfish, mean, pandering hypocritical grifter and I never liked him or his show. He was a shitty person and people who cannot see that are also shitty people. I would be lying if I said I feel bad for him dying of cancer. I know I'm not supposed to think or say that. And certainly, he was never sorry anyone with whom he disagreed ever died of cancer or any other thing - and I don't want to be like Rush. But enough with the polite BS. Rush was an asshole that the world really would have been better off without. Next.
As noted by MT above:
...he really did try out a regular bit called the “AIDS Update,” where he mocked people who died of HIV over music tracks like “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”
He reveled in the deaths of others. He mocked their suffering. Pretty tough to get upset when the shoe's on the other foot.
I don't remember that, but there were several things he did that really pissed me off. I wouldn't have liked that. He called Chelsea Clinton ugly, which was terrible to do a young girl. And he apologized for a few things, too. Let's not list the stupid crap Biden has said and done in the past that is just overlooked now. How they are behaving to his death is inexcusable.
I mean, whether you remember it happening or not doesn't really change the fact that it did happen. And the fact that you think Biden sucks (I largely agree, at that) doesn't have much to do with doing a scoreboard dance while gays were dying by the millions.
In the end, he sowed a lot of hate. Now he's reaping it. Tough shit for him.
Your opinion is what it is, no beef with that. However, "gays" weren't dying by the millions. Less than one million people of all groups had even had aids before 2000. Drug users were also a huge proportion of those inflicted and a large number of non-drug using heterosexual people also contracted it. The bit was wrong, as he later acknowledged, regardless of how many died, but the details are still important. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm
Fair enough and apologies if my numbers were off. Believe something like 30+ million have died of AIDS/HIV globally (according to UN figures). I've dealt with how I personally feel about Rush's empathy and the quality of his apologies elsewhere so I won't belabor that here when you're just trying to get some facts on record. Suffice it to say this isn't the only issue I had with him while he was alive, just one I felt strongly about and one Matt referenced in his blog.
well, by saying I didn't see it or hear it, I'd have to hear the whole thing in context. Because I've seen things misrepresented way too often. But if it's as y ou describe I'd have to say it was a major mistake on his part. He made a few. But that still is not the sum total of his life or message. I think Rush was ok if he wanted to believe being gay wasn't normal (as long as he agreed they deserve equal rights)--gay people have rights to do exactly as they please but they do not have the right to make anyone else say or believe it's normal -- but it would have been really really disgusting if he celebrated anyone dying, regardless. (And I don't think millions were dying, either.) He did a few things that weren't the best, but I think he apologized for some and there is nobody in the public eye who hasn't made mistakes. And big ones often.
"He called Chelsea Clinton ugly, which was terrible to do a young girl."
Proposition 1: Rush was an asshole
Proposition 2: Things worked out for Chelsea in the end; she is worth many millions of dollars from doing vaguely defined "foundation" jobs and may have gotten over any hurt feelings instigated by the mean and now deceased Rush
These 2 propositions are not mutually incompatible
mansplaining or rush apologist?
Mansplaining. I do it a lot 'cuz I a man and I like to 'splain.
To hone my useless point:
Rush publicly mocking a teenage girl's looks reflected his petty, insecure soul. He may have been...dare I say it...a Mean Girl.
Chelsea Clinton is hardly underprivileged. I'm sure she got all her jobs strictly due to merit in the meritocracy tho.
What does it matter who the child was?
And the money to change her face
Sorry, no sacred cows. The attachment to Limbaugh is peculiar given his routinely exercising his right to offend.
But he did talk three hours a day (right?) during which time if you weren’t boring your audience to death it would be impossible to not say something indelicately or cross some lines.
Yes, he made a few mistakes. But here is what leftists can't stand about him OR Trump. They were both authentic. Neither of them actually ARE the people the left would like to claim they are--because people would see through that immediately. Any time spent with either of them and --compared to the swamp in Washington -- would reveal that they are authentic, real people. And leftists can't have that. They know just how dangerous that is. -- They told the unfiltered truth, too. Since their views were totally opposite from the left, they must be demonized. Not just debated (because they would lose), but demonized.
Well, I don’t like to speak ill of the dead but I’m not going to be sorry he won’t be on the air any longer. He was a horrible influence on people.
I appreciate your authenticity. I am sure there were, for example, people hoping for RBG to die sooner than later because of their "moral" feelings about abortion but probably were not advertising it. Both you and Limbaugh have this in common, willingness to show your true colors. I wish there was more of that.
I appreciate your sarcasm. Meanwhile, why just repeat back to me what I wrote? And - why do you not remember the millions of people who rejoiced when she died? Go drown your sorrows elsewhere, Mac.
not sarcastic at all. and also not a fan or hater of Limbaugh to whom listened only few times so I could form my own opinion. ( too many low end commercials breaks for fishy products ) I found your comments refreshing. We live in an era where Pelosi claims to pray for Trump and do so daily and now calls for healing are everywhere, but you on other hand are clear about being glad he is dead. This country would benefit greatly from honesty of this kind and things getting sorted on basis of raw political power within constitutional guide rails without all that nauseating pretense. My compliments were such.
"not supposed to think or say that." says who?
all the moms
Not mine :) or any of his ex-wives :)
Ha! Ok, nearly all the moms... :)
Maybe I just didn’t realize the ideological variety in Matt’s audience, but I’m floored by some of the comments here. Rush was an absolute cancer to political discourse in this country and Matt is right to call him out for that, even in death. How you can look at the sum total of his life and see anything but a net negative is beyond me.
Normally I’d be sympathetic to the argument that someone’s death is the wrong time to take potshots at them, but this is measured cultural analysis of a massively influential figure, not just dancing on their grave. Also, you’d be hard pressed to find someone this prominent who was so openly disdainful of other human beings that didn’t agree with him. This piece by Matt is charitable when you consider how he treated his opponents.
He was the the unrestrained id of the American right whose dark and entirely manufactured “worldview” was given legitimacy by his mass audience.
Your and Matt’s description is a caricature of what Democrats, whose only exposure to Rush was leftist media opinions of him, think Rush stood for.
Rush stood for Rush getting rich. Both ideologies have come to the conclusion lately that as long as you get rich whatever you do is justified.
That's how we got to now.
I literally grew up listening to Rush, so I’m actually quite familiar with what he stood for, which was his own bottom line and nothing more. He was a grifter. I’m curious what you think he stood for.
Wow- A perfect synopsis of the "worldview" that Rush the warned against and opposed.
Good job.
What do you mean? What worldview does my comment represent?
Actually, I wanted to write Keith Olbermann as someone who undoubtedly would agree with your world view, but couldn’t think of his name. Maddow, Olbermann....two sides of the same coin. You probably don’t think that they, as only two examples, are “absolute cancer(s) to political discourse in this country” in your words.
There will be no unifying this country.
Hard to say, but whatever it is I’m quite certain Rachel Maddow agrees with it.
‘Nuff said.
I can’t stand Rachel Maddow. Part of the reason I despised Rush is precisely because he helped build the template for partisan media like MSNBC
My apologies
You guys are great a throwing stones but never explain, specifically, why you are throwing them. What, specifically did Rush do to deserve the accusation of being "... an absolute cancer to political discourse in this country ..."? If you are going to toss the brilliantly thought out "he was mean and hateful", how so?
He was an entertainer who used his considerable talent to enrage people or appeal to their base instincts. He supported the Iraq War wholeheartedly. He denied climate change completely. He helped chart the course for partisan media.
Yep, he was known to point out that entertainment was his primary purpose. You say, as though there is a difference, that he appealed to people's base instincts or enraged them. Why do you separate enrage from base instincts?
It's hard to remember how enthusiastically he supported going into Iraq. If he did, that would have been a place I would have disagreed with him. Unfortunately, a lot of people confuse supporting the troops with supporting a war; they are not the same.
He did help chart the course for partisan media. Prior to Rush, national media was steering a hard tack left, all the way.
There are several lists going in this thread alone. He was a hate monger just like everyone else in the media.
Or is he an exception because he aimed his venom at the people you're mad at ?
Nobody ever cites examples of what they accuse him of doing. Who did he hate and how did he convey it?
Did you read the article ? Just curious. He doesn't have to hate anyone to lead others into hate and binary thought much like the rest of today's media does.
Oh, you mean like when a rabid Sanders supporter, James Hodgkinson, went to the baseball field where the Republicans were practicing for their annual Congressional BB game? Bernie didn't say, "Hey James, go over there and shoot some Republicans", yet some way or another he communicated with James that he needed to do something to address his hatred and binary thoughts. Is that where you are going with your position?
That would be a result of people like Rush playing on people's fear and emotions. Much like the surge in white supremacist groups under Trump.
“Dark” worldview on the right?! Wow, you have absolutely no knowledge of the right then.
Ok I’ll study the right some more despite being immersed in it during my most formative years and coming out a leftist. Thank you for calling out my apparent lack of knowledge of a culture I’m deeply familiar with
A lot of people are tastelessly saying "good riddance" to Limbaugh. Matt is merely making the uncontroversial point that Rush should not have become a hate monger.
If you're upset by this column, then maybe you need to stop being so sensitive.
Except that Rush was not a hate monger. His audience was not built on hatred. Quite the opposite.
Every time I see something like "Rush is a hate monger", I hear someone who didn't listen to him very much, if at all.
I used to share an office with a coworker, back in the 90s. He would have Rush on the radio. I guess your idea of hate monger and my idea of hate monger aretwo different things. He may have been trying to just be funny but I don’t find that sort of humor particularly clever.
Exactly, a cubicle inhabitant has an opinion of “hate monger”, that’s an oxymoron.
disagreeing on humor makes him a "hate monger"? Care to revise your previous assertion?
Getting -people to hate people has nothing to do with whether or not you hate the people you are dissing on.
Funny how you ASSUME you know who Rush hated or if he hated anyone at all.
No one ever got led into hatred by Rush but everyone got led into hatred by SNL or any other media outlet that mocked conservatives ? Is that how it works ??
Sounds to me like you're a little bit jealous of Rush, Mr. Taibbi...
Well we're at 6 hours since press time and the comments are pushing 600. Matt hit a nerve with this one. I listened to Rush off and on for 25 years. Over a career everyone is going to make mistakes and Rush made his fair share. But what's not mentioned here alongside his gaffes is Rush's support of charitable causes (Tunnels To Towers is a recent example) and the evolution of his thinking over the last 10 years which argue against the Matt's caricature of a mouth-breathing, partisan antagonist. Rush despised the Left but he gave principled Liberals their due. He spoke highly of Glenn Greenwald, for example, and often cited Glenn's work. Rush spoke early on about the hypocrisy of corporate media and the dangers of an overly powerful Executive branch. I could go on but I won't. Your race is run, Rush. Rest In Peace.
Enjoyed this article.
As someone who grew up amidst the cornfields of Southern Indiana during the 1980s, it is important to remember just how many stations across the Midwest who had Limbaugh's show were born out of deregulation of the Telecom industry. You could not escape Paul Harvey or Rush Limbaugh if you tried any kind of station search, as Clear Channel Communications dominated the landscape. He was ubiquitous, loud, and was the country version of Howard Stern minus the sex, foul language.
In small town Southern Indiana, it is funny to reflect that two biggest personalities were two bullies leading the way in radio and basketball (not to mention Eli Lilly) - Rush Limbaugh and Robert Montgomery Knight.
"Telling it like it is" was often code for white men speaking freely without any surrounding consequences. Plain truth country spokesmen of the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" club. When I look back upon this time in the conservative state of Indiana (and at that time ascendence of Dan Quayle), we cannot forget how deregulation birthed the next generation of the corporatist right moving even farther right. It is as if this strategy of saturation (Rush) was the experimental seedling that grew into a larger media profile of Fox news.
If and when the neoliberal turn is analyzed, I think we'll see the 1996 Telecom Act, and the investment in a monopolistic strategy to buy up radio stations across the country reinforced an entire generation of voters to move right (whether they wanted to or not). Rush was the carnival barker in the beginning of this history, and a sad one at that.
Thank you for the trip down memory lane - what a piece of work that guy was.
Perfectly stated. Thank you.