Showing posts with label Keith Olbermann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keith Olbermann. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Back to Work & Looking Forward

Image: 38minutes

I apologize for the absence of any new posts for a couple of weeks. I hope that you all had a wonderful holiday and managed to get where you wanted to go and survive any weather in the process.

I was traveling, by car, and my 3G network was more often 1G in remote areas where I spent most of my time. I found that often, high-speed wireless offered in hotels is more like dial-up, so my ability to access the net was severely limited.

So, we start a new year and a new Congress. I think we are in for some truly interesting times and I look forward to continued discussions of the antics of Sarah Palin, the Republicans, and the punditry and villagers who try to tell us what to think.

I was struck yesterday by a comment made by Michele Bachmann in which she said (and I paraphrase) that the classes that she was organizing for the House to teach them the Constitution would enhance their purpose, which was to learn and study the Constitution each week while in session. Funny. I would expect that my representatives already have a good understanding of the Constitution and quite frankly, their purpose is not to learn and study the Constitution, but rather to apply it. Their job is to legislate, which means write law. Period.

Justice Scalia is in the news today for his comments about the Constitution, particularly his thoughts on the equality of women (not in the Constitution in his opinion). He is noted for saying that being a justice is easy, because the Constitution is so easy to understand and apply. Makes me wonder why we need him.

Keith Olbermann noted on his show tonight that progressives are actually quite pleased that the Republicans have decided to read the Constitution into the Congressional Record. Perhaps by reading it out loud, they will discover those amendments that they try to ignore (or perhaps do not even know) and also discover where they are wrong.

Still trying to get caught up so may be a little light on the posts for a bit, but I'm sure there will be no shortage of topics to discuss.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Keith Olbermann Special Comment, and Sign Your Name to The Health Care Reform Bill

He's baaack! And what a special comment it is. The money quote?
"You lost. You're behind the wheel of a political Toyota." to John Boehner.




Want to add your name to the Health Care Reform Bill? Organizing for America will establish a permanent archive with all the names , so that generations to come will have a record of those who stood together in this moment and won this fight for our future. Add your name here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Palin & Beck Projecting Anger Will Incite More Violence

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the others or their ilk are inciting violence by projecting their anger and hate onto others. Palin's cavalier attitude about lying is obviously something she feels is acceptable, and probably so because she has projected that attitude onto others. If you assume that everyone lies, then it is okay if you do it.

I've talked here a little about projection. It is a term that is extremely important to understand in the therapeutic process, and something that counselors pay attention to as we watch for transference and counter-transference. Most of the time, it has little effect on our day to day life if we are reasonably healthy (from a mental health standpoint) and functioning well.

What many people do not understand about mental illness, is that in all cases except one,* a necessary criteria for a diagnosis of a mental health disorder, is the effect on the ability to function. An individual may have a delusion, but if the delusion does not otherwise interfere with the activities of daily living, then a diagnosis of a disorder is not appropriate.That does not mean that an individual cannot have symptoms of a mental health disorder and exhibit features that are typical of someone with poor coping skills, one of the more common being projection. It also does not mean that everyone with poor coping skills and difficulty functioning has a mental illness. It is all too easy for armchair psychologists to diagnoses those they see in the news and decide what they should or should not do. Just as we complain about the pundits making pronouncements we disagree with, it is too easy to state that those we disagree with have some sort of mental illness.

Projection occurs when you place your fears and insecurities onto someone or something else. Everything that you dislike about yourself, everything that you are afraid of,is out there. The qualities you least like about yourself are those you are most likely to react to in others. Does the saying "thou doest protest too much" ring a bell? Are you having an affair, or seriously tempted to have one? You probably feel guilty about it, which sets up a cognitive dissonance. The brain does not like dissonance. It is uncomfortable. To resolve it, it projects those feelings onto someone else, so you believe your significant other is cheating, thus making your behavior okay. Do you cheat on your taxes? Then you assume that everyone else does. Do you lie? Even "tiny" lies (and tell me, where exactly is that line)? Then so does everyone else.

We assume that everyone else is just like us, that they behave like us, that they think like us, and that they will respond like us. We also believe that if people look like us, they will like us, so we like them. People tend to like those who like them, so if you like those around you, they will most likely like you. We tend to agree with those we associate with, and conversely, people who associate with us tend to agree with us. This is called the false consensus effect. It is an interesting dynamic and one that organizers of Tea Parties and Town Hall disruptions and other similar events understand. I am certain that along with all the other experts employed by public relations firms, social psychologists hold an important place.

People who project their fears and insecurities on others, have learned to avoid responsibility and to blame others. By projecting what is wrong onto someone or something else, you do not have to deal with it. Is everything going wrong in your life? Are you having problems at work or at home? Can't get along with your neighbors? It's the governments fault, those illegal immigrants, those minorities, that fake president, or something out there. It is not your fault, so you have no responsibility to solve the problem. It is somebody else's problem to fix.

If people don't look like us, then we become confused, especially if we have no frame of reference for dealing with people that are not like we are. Our normal method of processing information is shaken, and we look around for something or someone to help us and we become vulnerable to the likes of Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity; people who look like us and appear to have authority and talk and act as if they know what they are doing. When our locus of control is external, then we look to external sources to regain control.

Someone like Glenn Beck is projecting all of his anger and hate onto the people he blames for everything wrong with this country; President Obama and the Democrats and progressives. It does not matter what the president does, what Congress does or does not do, because they are who they are, it has to be wrong. Glenn is so full of rage and has focused that rage on President Obama, that he must generate ever more illogical "facts" to maintain the emotional momentum he is building. It still is not clear whether or not he believes what he is saying or whether or not he is in it purely for the money, but it is clear that there is an underlying hate in this man. He has incited acts of violence that have caused death. He continues to do so and laughs about causing the deaths of those he disagrees with. At this point, his motives don't matter. What matters, is that he has a national platform, a lot of followers, the support of the Republican Party, and a society with a lot of deeply disturbed people looking for directions.


Stop and think about this for a moment. He laughs about the possibility of Speaker Pelosi dying, and of his causing her death. He laughs at the thought of the President dying. He laughs at the thought of revolution. What does revolution mean? It means death, war in the street, people dying. He assumes that his followers are just like him. That they believe as he does. He opens his show and tells his viewers to "be sure to DVR this." And they do. What else will they do?

Sarah Palin is on her book tour this week. Over the weekend the AP fact checked her book and found numerous instances of out and out lies, which she referred to on her Facebook page as "opposition research." What is that? On Oprah, she accused "Obama's people" of coming to Alaska after the election and doing "opposition research" and claimed it as one of the reasons for her resignation from the governorship. Why would he? Why would he care? And again, what is "opposition research?"

On Keith Olbermann's show last night, he had great fun showing video clip after video clip side by side of lies told. One thing said a year ago and reported differently in the book. Most of them so trivial it was dumb to lie about it. Rachel Maddow had AnaMarie Cox on her show to discuss Sarah Palin's treatment of Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace (McCain campaign staff) in the book. Again, out and out lies easily verified through emails, video, and statements from others who had been present during the events spoken of.

But remember, in the Palinverse, just like the Beckverse, and in the world of those who are unable to cope with their own problems so project them onto others, everyone lies, so they do. All of their problems are caused by factors outside their control - in this case, President Obama - so they blame him. Sarah Palin lost the election (funny, I thought McCain did), so therefore it was the fault of everyone who worked on the campaign. The facts weren't quite interesting enough in the book, so re-write the scenes and make them fit the Palinverse. Have the truth come out? Oh well. Everyone lies. So what. That's what life is like in the Palinverse and how she wants to recreate our country.

Why should we care? Because there are many, many people in this country who are angry, scared, confused, filled with rage, hurting, and deeply disturbed. There are many, many people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, and thus their medications. People who have trouble coping and who have perhaps begun to (or continued to) self-medicate themselves as a way to cope. People who watch Fox News and grasp onto anything they can as an external locus of control, any way possible to blame someone else. Glenn Beck does it. Sarah Palin does it. Rush Limbaugh, the head of the Republican Party does it. Our legislative leadership stands back and allows it and in fact, appears with them and tacitly supports them. So we are sending the message to these people that violence is the answer. We are sending the message to people who are deeply angry and deeply disturbed that violence is okay.That these powerful, important people would like for the powerful, important Democrats to be dead.

President Obama receives on average 30 death threats per day. This is a 400% increase from the average 3,000 per year that President George W. Bush received.

The people that Sarah Palin speak to, that she is trying to attract, are the people who carry guns to presidential events. When asked by Oprah what her plans were for a presidential run in 2012 were, she responded with something her father had said, "She didn't quit, she just stopped to reload." Shortly afterward, a woman called into a newspaper in Michigan and threatened "to do what they did at Fort Hood" because she didn't like an anti-tea party editorial. Carrie Prejean runs around crying about her free speech supported by Beck and Palin, and their supporters threaten the free speech of others?

AnaMarie Cox suggested last night that with this book, any political aspirations that Sarah Palin might have are over. Other political pundits disagree, saying that with a Republican party membership at about 20%, and a primary field so large, it is very possible that Sarah Palin could win the nomination. She really doesn't need that many votes to actually win the Republican primaries. Many Democrats say yay, no way could she win against Obama. But look at the progressive and Democratic anger against Obama. Are we sure? She may be a liar and a joke, but even the Joker was dangerous.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

* DSM-IV criteria include as a condition for a diagnosis, an impairment in the ability to function in one or more of life's major activities, except one, dysthymia, which is characterized as a low-grade, chronic depression, sort of like always having the blues, but not enough to really interfere with your day to day life. So in effect, a legitimate DSM-IV diagnosis, treatable, but does not require the criteria of functional impairment.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Faux News GOPhers



Interesting brouhaha in the media. The White House—in response to another attack, this time against Anita Dunn—has come out and said quite plainly that Fox News is not news. They have said that Fox airs a point of view, not news.

Anyone who has been paying attention, and by that, I mean paying attention to more than one or two media sources, knows that the people that Fox puts on the air tend to manipulate the “news.” Quotes truncated. Video clips edited. Speeches cherry-picked. Backgrounds mined for missteps. Those appearing on air are masters of the raised eyebrow, the shrug, the wink, and the earnest gaze into the camera, all designed to imply a meaning to the stated message that we are then to use to infer some nefarious intent, some sliminess of character belonging to the subject of the “news” we have just received.

You will note that I say “the people that Fox puts on the air.” I hesitate to call them reporters, or journalists. I suppose I could call them hosts, although only a few of them actually “host” a show. A commentator, to me, is someone who provides commentary on the issues of the day, and, again in my opinion, should base that commentary on some knowledge of the issues. Knowledge of the historical context of that issue should be a requirement for providing commentary, as well as the significance of the issue to our current and future situation. I hesitate as well to call these on-air individuals personalities, as that calls to mind the Hollywood genre of celebrity—people who are simply famous for being famous. Villagers as a title is already in use as a name to include all the mainstream media sheep following their corporate masters’ direction, usually seen on ABC, NBC, and CBS and read at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Monikers that come to mind for those on Fox News, however, include Foxes, Faux (Foes?), Foxers, or GOPhers.

Names aside, the outrage, much of it from the “mainstream” non-cable media appears directed toward the White House. Apparently, by choosing to engage, the White House has somehow weakened itself and appears petty, unable to “take the heat” according to Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post. Comparing Fox to MSNBC, cable show to cable show, is apparently sufficient, or as Keith Olbermann likes to say, a false equivalency.

I know many people who receive all their “news” from Fox. They say that they prefer Fox because every other source is “too liberal.” They don’t like the positive stories about Obama, or the negative stories about Bush. They prefer watching a media source that tells them the news they want to hear in the way that they want to hear it. If asked to question something—anything—they get angry. I asked someone the other day if MSNBC is so liberal, why they had Morning Joe and Pat Buchanan? Why their straight news had negative stories about Democrats as well as Republicans? I asked them who on Fox News represented progressives? When they had seen a news story on Fox that said positive things about Obama? Or Democrats? Or negative things about the GOP? I asked if they had every actually watched Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann? Or read a progressive blog? Or read about the same news story in more than one newspaper? Or watched the same news story on more than one station (not Fox)? Not only could they not answer, they got angry.

When did everything from the left become a personal attack? When did everything from the right become righteous? I used to be tolerant and believe that we were all entitled to our opinions, but when allowing everyone their opinion meant tolerating racism, classism, sexism, and every other kind of ism that I abhor, I find I’ve lost my tolerance.

It’s okay to have an opinion. In fact, we should have an opinion. In a representative democracy, it’s necessary. If you’re unhappy about something, it is incumbent upon you to inform yourself about the issue, weigh the information, form an opinion—based on facts—and make your voice heard to those who will make the decisions about that issue. It is absolutely okay for the GOPhers on Fox News to have an opinion and to voice that opinion. It is absolutely okay for Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News to pay those people to voice his opinion. When that opinion refuses to acknowledge fact, and science, and history, and humanity, then I don’t have to tolerate it and I do have to do everything in my power to work against it and work to ensure that that opinion does not become a part of the social fabric.

What is NOT okay, is to call that opinion news. What is not okay is to provide the GOP 24/7 access to free TV advertising. What is not okay is to have a “news” outlet have a show to “debate” an issue before Congress and have the “opposing” opinion be simply someone slightly less conservative than the first opinion. I’m glad the White House has stepped up and called Fox News on its behavior. I hope that they stand firm on this and hope other media realize that we are not idiots and that we do understand the difference between news and opinion and not only that, we understand the difference between opinion based on fact, and opinion based on crap.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Call to Action

Join Keith Olbermann's Call to Action. He is trying to raise funds to hold 5 free health care clinics in the state capitals of the 5 senators most resistant to a public health care option. As of last night, enough funds have been raised to hold one free clinic. The 2 top venues are New Orleans (Sen. Landrieu) and Baton Rouge (Sens. Lincoln and Pryor), with the remaining 3 to be Butte (Sen. Baucus), Lincoln, Nebraska (Sen. Ben Nelson), and Las Vegas (Sen. Reid). In addition to actual funds, his goal is to achieve donors, so small donations are necessary to show the senators how many people support the public option. It is far better to have 100 people donate $10 each than 10 people donate $100.

The clinics will be conducted by the National Association of Free Clinics", the same organization that held the free clinic recently in Houston.

Their Mission: To provide research, education and resources to promote, strengthen and advocate for member organizations and the communities they serve.

Their Vision: To be a national voice and essential partner for building a healthy America.

Who They Are: The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States . 

Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington , D.C. , the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

If you'd like to read the transcript of Keith's special comment, or watch the video segment, go here. To make a donation, go here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Ms. Toons (Michelle Bachmann) - Worst Person in the World





In case you missed (or don't watch) Keith Olbermann last night, Michelle Bachmann won the title of Worst Person in the World, a nightly feature in Keith's Top 5 roundup.

Each night, 3 people are selected to receive the bronze, silver, and gold for worse, worser, and worst persons in the world for their actions on that particular day - or for coming to the notice of the media (or Keith) on that particular day.





Ms. Looney Toons (not to be confused with the fine, artistic series produced by Leon Schlesinger for Warner Bros. that brought us Bugs Bunny and pals) in one of her entertaining tirades on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, speaking of a proposal to expand the Americorps Program, a program to help disadvantaged kids and provide jobs to college students, said of the program:


"[It's] under the guise of quote, volunteerism, but it's not volunteers at all," she said on the Sue Jeffers radio show in April. "It's paying people to do work on behalf of government. There are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people get trained in the philosophy the government puts forward and then they have to go work in these politically correct forums.
"As a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time seeing my children do this."

In an article on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, columnist Jon Tevlin provided the above quote, as he described the work of Americorp Teachers (from their website) while noting that Harrison Bachmann, Ms. Toons adult son, had been hired as an Americorp teacher as he praised him for his service.
So what, you say?
The Minneapolis Post, on Thursday follows up with a story about a fundraising plea from Ms. Toons, describing the 'hit piece' done by the Star-Tribune. On page 3 of her appeal, she says,

"But just as they did with Sarah Palin, the more I talk about the issues, the more they attack with below-the-belt personal hits. In fact, yesterday, a Minnesota paper gave a full column to a hit piece on one of my kids!"
Want to know what they said about her kid Harrison?
"For the first time, we have to rely on the charity of good kids like Harrison Bachmann to step up and help out at our schools."
[...]

"The pay's not bad for a recent graduate, but Harrison will likely earn it. According to the TFA website: "Our teachers ... go above and beyond traditional expectations to lead their students to significant academic achievement, despite the challenges of poverty and the limited capacity of the school system. Our mission is to build the movement to eliminate educational inequity by enlisting our nation's most promising future leaders in the effort."
"Harrison must be a smart kid, a caring kid. Must have been raised well."

[...]
"As an AmeriCorps member, he won't be allowed to participate in politics or disseminate partisan material. Even if there were a "propaganda camp," as Jeffers called it, he sounds like the kind of person who could survive it."

"Thank you, Harrison, for your service. Here's hoping you inspire kids to dream, and get inspired in the process."


The Post goes on to conclude that,
"This [Tevlin's column] wasn't a hit piece on your son, Congresswoman — it was a hit piece on you. And not in your capacity as a mother, but as an elected public official."

You see? Looney Toons.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Health Care

If you don't watch Countdown on MSNBC, this Special Comment by Keith Olbermann is worth watching. This is his longest special comment and a rare one as he doesn't often offer one outside the campaign season.

Watch.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Friday, May 29, 2009

Poor Dick, That Hole is Getting Deeper and Deeper

General Petraeus, the man the right has proclaimed the best hope for resolving the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man that John McCain quoted extensively during his campaign, and the man that many Republicans are floating as a possible presidential candidate for 2012, was on Fox's Live Desk today. What he had to say will not please Dick Cheney. It isn't the first time he's come out against torture, but today he was a little firmer, and a little clearer.

General Petraus made it clear he supports President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, agreeing that it "...has inflamed anti-US hostility." He added:
“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.
When asked about the disposition of the detainees currently being held at Guantanamo - a subject of much controversy and a massive NIMBY (not in my backyard) campaign, he said:
“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,” he added. “What we stand for and so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battle field and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.”

The interviewer asked him then if he was confident then that the detainees at Guantanamo would never go free, to which he replied:

"I certainly hope that's the case."

It was clear listening to General Petraeus that he is willing to take the risk, unlike the current and past administration, that like anyone else entering our judicial system, the detainees currently held at Guantanamo might be found not guilty and as a result, be required to be released.

Asked about the use of so-called enhanced interrogation during the previous administration, Petraeus said that, "...banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States."

To continue the bad news for Dick Cheney, last night Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke at the Foreign Policy Association. Senator Levin is Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee which recently released its 200-page bipartisan report of its 18-month investigation into Abu Ghraib. If you haven't yet read the report, it is very accessible, and damning.

In his speech last night, Levin responded specifically to Cheney's speech last week, stating that he had seen the memos Cheney had asked to be de-classified. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did was right and necessary. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately (for Cheney), the memos show no such thing, says Senator Levin. In fact, Senator Levin said that Mr. Cheney lied.

Here's a clip from Countdown that shows clips from Senator Levin's speech.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Did Wanda Sykes Go To Far?

I've been hearing a lot about the White House Correspondent's Dinner this past weekend. Keith Olbermann on his show last night put his discussion of the dinner in the #1 spot when he stated that comedian Wanda Sykes went too far when she suggested that Rush Limbaugh was the 20th high-jacker and also "I hope his kidney's fail." When she then said, "Too far?" Keith responded, yes.

I'm a huge fan of Keith's and usually agree with him, but on this, I'm really torn. I like to think I'm the bigger person, that I wouldn't stoop to this level. That because I have been deeply offended by similar remarks made by Rush Limbaugh, I am of course, deeply offended by the same remarks turned back towards him. But I'm having a hard time being offended, and I think it's because of who they are.

Wanda Sykes is a comedian. She's edgy. Richard Wolffe, Keith's guest said that she was chosen because she is edgy, but he agreed with Keith that jokes about 9/11 and jokes about kidney failure are never appropriate. Richard Wolffe offered a wonderful insight about this dinner and the humor of previous presidents attending the same event. He said that Reagan made fun of people who weren't in the room and everyone laughed, Bush made jokes about people who were in the room and was "frankly mean to them" and everyone laughed because he was president, while Obama made jokes about himself and people laughed because he was funny.

This attitude about Wanda Sykes appears to be the conventional wisdom. But. Humor is what keeps us grounded. It gives life zest. It also gives another way to look at our world. It gives us permission to laugh at ourselves, to take life a little less seriously, and to temper our grief. Going over the line and making us laugh about serious issues is almost a tradition - especially about our most sacred traditions. To me, I guess it depends on the situation, the context, what is said, how it's said, why it's said, and all the other intangibles that determine whether something is funny or not funny. Ten people can tell the same joke, so why do some people laugh, others smile politely, and others become deeply offended?

I normally don't post other posts or articles in their entirety, but because it is what generated this post, and because it is important to this discussion and important to many discussions taking place today, below is the blog from the Monday 11th TAPPED blog at the American Prospect which you can find here.

WANDA SYKES' OFFENSIVE ROUTINE.

Wanda Sykes' comedy routine at the White House Correspondent's Dinner was really offensive. In it, Sykes suggested that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is supported by Hamas, and that Islamists are "constantly issuing Limbaugh talking points." She joked about terrorists supporting conservatives in general, suggesting that recent violent events in Iraq are attempts by terrorists to swing the upcoming midterm elections in favor of Republicans.

Then she got really personal. She joked that Limbaugh was a racist who doesn't want black people to "escap[e] the underclass." She accused him of being responsible for killing "a million babies a year," and aired her friend's theory that Limbaugh himself was a terrorist attack," a followup to 9/11. She also, most disgustingly, said that if conservatives kept apologizing to Limbaugh, they'd eventually contract "anal poisoning." She wondered when Republicans would finally stop "bending over and grabbing their ankles" for Limbaugh, and finally concluded that Limbaugh was just a "bad guy."

Oh wait. Wanda Sykes didn't say any of these things. These are things Rush Limbaugh has said about Obama or other Democrats in the past year, the kind of statements few reporters found offensive enough to write about, despite the fact that most of them were said with the utmost seriousness. And while Sykes is a mere comedian whose influence on the Democratic Party is negligible, Limbaugh's influence in the party is so great that Republican leaders can't even criticize him without having to issue apologies after the fact.

The difference? Rush Limbaugh wasn't funny when he made those comments. Rush Limbaugh wasn't trying to be funny. Rush Limbaugh was and is deadly serious. Rush Limbaugh may be an entertainer, but he is not a comedian. Rush Limbaugh may be an entertainer, but he has deluded himself and others into believing that he is the head of the Republican Party, that he is an intelligent, important man with intelligent and important things to say. That's why I can be deeply offended when Rush Limbaugh says one thing, and laugh when Wanda Sykes says the same.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k