Limbaugh Demonstrates His Developmental Age of 3

 PHOTO: deceiver.com

Lot's of discussion lately about sexuality and Republicans, especially the extremist right wing of the party. Recent polls have suggested that more and more Republicans identify themselves as members of the Teaparty. Rush Limbaugh, the self-elected head of the Republican Party has, once again, demonstrated his psychosexual developmental age of 3. Remaining in the anal stage long into adulthood, Rush's fixation on anal poisoning, degrading women, and all matters sexual are odd - to say the least - when lined up beside the female (Christian) candidates he demands that we vote for.

There are no polls asking how many people actually agree with the particular views held by, for instance, Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio, but approval ratings are a somewhat good indicator. What is clear, however, is that with pundits and talk show entertainers throwing their full support behind any candidate who is not a Democrat or a liberal regardless of their positions (now that the primaries have weeded out many moderates in an effort to "purify" the party), it is an interesting paradox to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh preaching his filth while issuing demands for support and adulation for teabag candidates.

The most extreme of the teabag candidates, O'Donnell and Angle claim God as their campaign manager so it is particularly curious to juxtapose Limbaugh's filth to their supposed morality. I say supposed, as members of the Christian right talk a lot about people who "say" they're Christian (Paul and Angle, for example) but are really not. Unfortunately, I agree with them, however, my yardstick is a little different. When I was growing up, the evangelicals, pentacostalists, and fundamentalists were the "fringies." People who wore their religiosity so loudly and publicly were considered a little "out there," and such concepts as loving thy neighbor as thyself, charity, and social justice were important - even dominant - parts of church doctrine. My, how things change.

Morality then, was how you made your decisions, how you made choices when nobody was looking, and the underlying integrity that guided your life. Church attendance, how much you tithed, and how often you went (or even if you did) to Bible study were secondary. Nobody needed to "be saved" to be a Christian and nobody had to publicly accept Jesus in order to prove anything. Faith was between you and your God, or for Catholics, between you and your priest. Somehow, a few branches of the enormous religion that is Christianity have taken over and try to dictate to everyone else what Christianity is or isn't. That said, I haven't observed anyone in politics or the media spouting their Christian values who actually lives them. Should it be a factor in their political lives? No. Their integrity, yes, but many atheists have more integrity in their little finger than do those banging the drum for returning us to a so-called Christian nation.

Sorry. There was a point to all of this but perhaps a little more than necessary. Anyway.

Rush Limbaugh. Republicans. Certainly there have been Democrats who have done equally bad things (John Edwards, for example). However, you rarely see a Democrat run on a family values platform or tout his or her morality or purity as a reason for deserving your vote. Most Democrats in Congress tend to stay married in fact (how many times has Rush been married?). Republicans, however, seem supremely capable of staring into the tv machine and flat out lying. When caught lying, they express no embarrassment. But seriously. Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Gingrich, and Clinton's impeachment hearing. How many of the House Managers were caught having affairs during the hearings? Two actually, although other prominent politicians calling for the impeachment had less than stellar records themselves. Of immediate interest, the then Majority Leader, Newt Gingrich was also having an affair. So. Moral values anyone? This "purity" test that the Republicans are using to weed out the chaff in the party has nothing to do with purity. To them, purity means taxes. Period. No taxes, pure. Taxes, impure.

As we get closer to the mid-terms, and President Obama embarks on a campaign tour to try to generate voter enthusiasm (where has that man been for the past 20 months?), the talk show entertainers are ramping it up and throwing everything they have at him. Obama's approval ratings though low, are still significantly higher than his disapproval ratings. On issues, only 23% of Americans want abortion banned in all cases although this is a favorite cause of the teabags. Yet, the attacks continue and become more and more personal and more and more vicious. It's not about issues, because they have nothing to say about them. Despite what they say and want to believe, Americans do not want them to overturn healthcare, do away with social security or medicare, or do away with government, but the Democrats are letting the extreme right rant unanswered.

Rush Limbaugh had, for awhile, refrained from one of his more colorful phrases, but no longer. Referring to the President, he said on his radio show Wednesday:

"...he's got a press that's going to die of anal poisoning if he keeps this up. What in the world does Obama have to be disappointed about? He bows to other leaders because in his heart of hearts he thinks he should be bowed to. He's trying to show other people how he should be treated."

From Quizlaw posted here during the 2008 campaign, Limbaugh

"... has suggested that he’d rather see a Democrat blamed for the direction the country is heading toward (thanks G.W.) than vote for McCain. But, yesterday on his radio show, he dropped this little bon mot:

Limbaugh was ranting against Sen. John McCain ... when a caller asked whether he thought McCain would pick Sen. Lindsey Graham as his running mate. Limbaugh doubted it, though he admitted: “I may be wrong … Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning.”

At Rawstory, David Edwards wrote about one of Keith Olbermann's "worst persons" segments on the subject here:

"Keith Olbermann names Rush Limbaugh one of the world’s worst people for saying that an HBO special about President Barack Obama should get “anal poisoning.” In fact, notes Olbermann, Limbaugh has mentioned “anal poisoning” 13 times in the past 2 years. Limbaugh has referenced “men bending over and grabbing their ankles” 19 times. Olbermann suggests that Limbaugh could have a medical condition that lead to his fascination with that region of the body."

 Back in the early days of the Obama presidency, Jason Linkins in Huffington Post, wrote of the LA Times' Andrew Klavan daring people to find instances of hateful or racist speech on Limbaugh's show, only to have Rush come out with his rant against then British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown in which he says:

"...if the British Prime Minister keeps "slobbering" over President Barack Obama, he'll "come down with anal poisoning and may die from it."

Wondering what he means by that term, Linkins opines:

"What does that even mean? Is anal poisoning contagious? Apparently, the term is common on porn websites, ..."

Stephen Colbert provides probably the best definition at Wikiality which says:

Anal Poisoning (rectal problem)

1. an affliction characterized by an abundance of semi-synthetic opiopoid oid analgesics affecting the nether regions. It is highly contagious, but is only deadly to those allergic to the firm buttocks of his fellow man

Synonym: Dominican's Obsession, OxyContin Whirlpool
[edit] See Also

* Santorum *
* tea bagging *

[editor: * Warning: sexually explicit descriptions]

I wrote about this subject back in May 2009 here. What I discovered as I researched that article was that:

"If you were to go to Google and enter the search term "anal poisoning" as I just did, it would return 587,000 hits in 0.82 seconds. To be honest, I did not check every single citation, however, I did a scan through many pages to the end of the list. Every time anal and poisoning were side by side (you know how Google will return results where the 2 search terms appear close together), the reference always includes Rush Limbaugh."

[...]

At the time, I suggested that he was a gift to the Democratic Party with his use of all things anal and his treatment of women:

"Can't they see the theme here? Rush clearly has a fixation on all things anal. In psychology, Freud would have had a field day with him. The progression through the various stages of life is important to understanding the human psyche. We have typically moved beyond the anal stage by the age of 2 or 3 and it is directly related to psychosexual development. Although Freud is now considered passe, his theories of development do inform our understanding of the processes of development. The fact that Rush appears obsessed by race, women, sex, and all things anal combined with his need to be the center of attention suggest someone with some serious issues, which should concern the leadership of the Republican Party if this is the man who is setting their agenda. Personally, I find him mean-spirited and somewhat sad, and an on-going gift to the Democratic agenda."

But, once again, the Democrats are unwilling to use what is given to them and explore what might save them. The teabags are extremists who want to hurt the people most likely to give them their vote. Democrats refuse to advertise that. They, in not wanting to stoop to the level of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, allow his filth to permeate the airwaves unanswered and too many ignorant people still believe the old saw that "where there is smoke, there's fire." Wrong, but there it is.

We need to stay in touch with our leaders and ask that they remind voters of the accomplishments of the Democratic Party, remind people that this administration has accomplished more than any other president has by this time in his first term, and remind people that a vote for a Republican or a teabag, means a return to the circumstances that caused the economic meltdown of 2008. They need to remind progressives that regardless of our disappointments, we cannot afford to stay home on November 10. People need especially, to be instructed on basic economics 101 and how stimulus really works. And we need to continue to compare and contrast the words of Rush Limbaugh and his delightful imagery to the supposed values of the people he supports.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Thurgood Marshall Fund Responds to Limbaugh Hissy Fit About Kagan. CORRECTED

Climbing onto his high horse yet again, Rush Limbaugh is having a hissy fit over the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court claiming, among other reasons, that statements made by the late Justice Thurgood Marshall about the Constitution, whom Limbaugh states that she idolizes, (idolizes? do we all 'idolize' our mentors?) disqualify her.

Limbaugh quotes Marshall as saying that;

"The Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective..."

Limbaugh continues by relating Marshall's comments about how it was only over the course of the next 200 years after the signing of the original Constitution that the people on the Supreme Court had made it worth anything. To Limbaugh, of course, this meant that Marshall was referring only to himself, because that is what he would do as everything is apparently all about him.He is outraged that anyone, particularly a Supreme Court Justice would question the Constitution. Hello? Does anyone want to tell him what the Court is for? Because it is not a perfect document, it needs people to interpret it and apply it to everyday life - thus the Supreme Court.


Has Rush ever actual read the Constitution? Does he understand that in the original, the Founders were referring only to white men, and landowning white men at that? That when they said that, "All men are created equal," they meant exactly that? Women in this country, with the exception of some individual states, were not granted full suffrage by Constitutional right until 1920 with passage of the 19th Amendment.

How about the Bill of Rights, Rush? Not included in the original Constitution. Those 1st through 10th Constitutional rights all the teabaggers get excited about are actually amendments. Including that pesky 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms, and the 10th that you Republicans love so much about states rights.

I know all you Republicans wish some of the more recent Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education (the one Marshall is most famous for, actually), and Roe v Wade had never happened, but you have to admit, if we still had just the original Constitution (which, by the way is amended because the Founders knew they were imperfect human beings and thus allowed in its creation for the amendment process to occur) our country would look very, very different. A lot like an elitist-run, no opportunity country they claim to love. Imagine that.

In a statement released today by the Thurgood Marshall Fund regarding Limbaugh's attacks, they said that;

"The story of Brown vs. The Board of Education is one of hope and courage. May 17, 1954 was a truly historic day for our nation as the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark unanimous decision striking down Plessy v. Ferguson, a holding that, since 1896, made “Separate But Equal” the law of the land and kept our nation’s schools segregated. The Brown decision not only integrated our public schools, but it ultimately opened up so many doors of opportunity wrongfully closed to people just because of the color of their skin. Thurgood Marshall, the lead attorney in the Brown case, became our nation’s first African-American Solicitor General and later the first African-American Supreme Court Justice."

"The Late Justice Marshall challenged America to continue to “Knock down the fences that divide, tear apart the walls that imprison, and reach out, for freedom lies just on the other side...”

Slavery and gender inequality were embedded in our Constitution. The Founders could not have known the changes that would occur in our world in the time since this nation was created, however, they had the vision to understand that without change, this nation would die, and thus produced a living document. A document that has embedded in its foundation that process for change.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

A Short Lesson in Satire. Limbaugh? Not.

satire [sat-ahy ur]
-noun

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

 (definition courtesy of  dictionary.com)


Satire is a device used to point out--by use of sarcasm, ridicule, derision, or other means--the shortcomings of individuals, groups, or governments. It is intended, often with anger added to humor, to reflect a point of view that is in opposition to what is actually portrayed. It is often uncomfortable, and frequently objected to when it hits too close to home. People often laugh at parody until the subject of that parody is something they have experienced, then they begin to object. Although satire is meant to make the viewer/reader laugh and be seen as funny, it is a reflection of the anger or disapproval felt by the creator of the piece. The key word here, is humor.

Given this short lesson in satire, let's review. Rahm Emmanuel referred to a non-specific "they" as "effing retards" behind closed doors. Sarah Palin immediately claimed that he was insensitive and should be fired. Along comes (Republican) Rush Limbaugh who said, over the public airwaves:

"Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards."

When asked, repeatedly, why she did not object to Rush Limbaugh's use of the word retard, Sarah Palin states that his use is "political satire" and therefore okay. Satire? I guess some could try to stretch the above incident to fit within the definition of satire. Rush Limbaugh is definitely a very angry man,and enjoys holding up for ridicule anyone in the Democratic Party--as well as women and minorities. He frames his radio show around politics and politicians, so attacks against them could, I suppose, be considered political satire, but where's the humor? Okay, he is laughable, but he's not trying to be funny, and that's the key. He is deadly serious and his attacks are serious. Any humor that arises out of what he says is unintended. So, some may see political satire, but I see it differently.

I believe that Rush Limbaugh's use of the word retard was a slap at Sarah Palin, and his dig at our "politically correct society" was perhaps a reminder to her that she was overreacting (in this and other situations) and should dial it back if she wanted his support. She has shown over time that she takes offense easily and does not forgive, two qualities that will not serve her well if she pursues a career either in politics or the media. It is clear that her cheerleaders at Fox, and now Rush, are having second thoughts about her ability to learn from her missteps (or even acknowledge that she has made any). It will be fascinating to see how this unfolds over the next weeks and months.

Racist Media Coverage of Haiti Continues. Some History & Taibblog Analyzes Brooks

I've already discussed some of the racism that has occurred in the news coverage of the crisis in Haiti here. There has been a slight amount of push-back against the more virulent words of Limbaugh and others, but what is creeping into the media--tolerated no doubt by the racism that has been rising since the nomination of Barack Obama--is a subtle form of racism couched in terms of economics and caused, as usual, by ignorance.

A google search this morning returned 2 million hits using the keywords Haiti coverage racism, telling me that 1) it is a subject written about at length, and 2) a subject of concern to many. What is unfortunate, is that in 2010, the hits returned listed media from the major broadcast and cable networks, print, and other sources ranked highly enough to appear on the first few pages returned.

Very few Americans know the history of Haiti. They do not know that Haiti is the only country in which the slaves freed themselves, declaring themselves a free nation. At the time, Thomas Jefferson was President and had a secret deal with Napolean, who unknown to Jefferson, planned to establish a French Empire in the "New World" with a base in New Orleans to spread west off the Mississippi. With the loss of Haiti and decimation of his troops, Napolean eventually sold his territories and the "Louisiana Purchase" allowed the United States to double in size and eventually to spread west to the Pacific Ocean and deny France a foothold in the western hemisphere.

Angered at the actions of the Haitian slaves and afraid that the rebellion would move to American slaves, Jefferson embarked on a political and economic embargo that lasted until President Lincoln established diplomatic relations with Haiti forty years later. The murder of their first leader and political infighting within Haiti led to political instability within the new country. This upheaval and the economic chaos caused by the embargo began a pattern of political violence that lasted until recently. The reason for the poverty? The French demanded, and received, reparations for the loss of their sugar plantations after the slaves revolted and freed themselves (never mind such things as wages never paid). Twenty-one billion dollars was paid to France between 1925 and 1946. Troops from Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. ensured that this money was paid and have remained ever since. The power-brokers in Washington maintained connections with the light-skinned elite in Haiti enabling George Bush the Senior and George Bush the Junior both to oust President Jean-Bertrand Aristide both times he was elected by large margins in national elections. His presidency did not suit the Republican agenda in Washington, as it was Aristide that demanded the money be returned by France in reparation for Haiti's poverty.

So, America owes a big debt to Haiti. Even if we did not, this is a country that has just experienced a disaster of a magnitude that has been mentioned as one of the ten greatest since records have been kept. It is still unknown how many people have died and it said that it is not clear that we will ever know.

At Media Matters, their ongoing monitoring of the media shows that on January 13, Fox News top three rated shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck spent a combined total of 7 minutes on earthquake coverage compared to over two hours for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews. 

It was Rush Limbaugh who claimed that President Obama's suggestion that we turn 9/11 into a national day of service was a "left-wing political belief," and has mocked Fox News Shepphard Smith coverage of Hurricane Katrina (Smith being the one reporter on Fox who appears to have some decency left and the ability to occassionally defy his corporate masters).

Then, comes a column by David Brooks in the New York Times. Analyzed by Matt Taibbi here, I cannot even begin to come close to the quality of work Matt has done, so I won't try. As summarized in Taibbi's introduction, the Brooks article illustrates how:

"Not many writers would have the courage to use a tragic event like a 50,000-fatality earthquake to volubly address the problem of nonwhite laziness and why it sometimes makes natural disasters seem timely, but then again, David Brooks isn’t just any writer."

Poverty isn't caused by race, or class, or national origin. Poverty cannot be erased by throwing money at the problem, or building factories (read sweatshops) as was tried in the 1980's and 1990's. When the Haitian people demanded higher wages, saying they could not live on $1 per day, Disney, among others, packed up their factories and moved to China. Poverty ends when those in poverty are given the means to end their situation on their own. 

Yes, money, but also opportunity. Build the factories, but pay decent wages. Help them re-build, but teach them how to build earthquake-safe buildings and provide some of the materials to do so. Educate them in reforestation techniques and send teams to work with them to do so. Don't take over the airport or the rebuilding, but collaborate with them. Instead of saying they have nothing and not government, take what they have and ask what they want and build on it. Don't patronize them as David Brooks has done. Learn the lessons of colonialism and understand that ensure that this rebuilding effort--and that of Iraq and Afghanistan while we're at it--are not perceived as such.

When people such as David Brooks talk about the futility of aid, he ignores the responsibility this country has for creating the situations that caused the poverty in the first place. Their situation has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Their is nothing inherently different about the drive or motivation of one person from another except perhaps that if you live in a home where your parents and their parents and all of your cousins, and neighbors, and classmates go to college and have good jobs and can expect certain things out of life, then you probably have the kind of environment in which you can learn. If you have proper nutrition, good medical care, annual dental visits, a safe place to sleep, time to play and exercise instead of having to work or care for siblings while parents work, or scavenge for food every day, then when you go to school, you are better able to pay attention and learn and retain and recall information. 

Just as an example, a study by Hart and Risely (1995, 1999) found that by the age of 3, parents with a professional background had used over 30 million words when talking to their children, while parents with low-incomes had used on average 10 million words. Other studies have found a definite correlation between high linguistic ability early in life with success in school. From a sociologist's standpoint, we also know that when the parents support learning, when the parents read and have books or magazines in the home and read to their children or even when the children observe their parents reading, it reinforces the behavior which translates to improved performance in school. Translated to 3rd world countries, to Haiti, poverty goes far beyond race. 

And before people bitch too loudly about the money spent on Haiti (which I personally think is too little), according to Kiilu Nyashu at OpEd News,

"...Obama threw a party that cost $50 million more than he's sending to Haiti. Yup! He spent $150 million on his Inaugural Ball. We also learned the following:

Top U.S. Firms are on pace to award $148.85 Billion in payouts for 2009, according to a Wall Street Journal Study. Billions with a B!

You can also buy a Beverly Hills mansion, a yacht, or a painting for more than the relatively meager sum Obama is donating. Obviously, we cannot rely on this government to do the right thing by Haitians in their hour of need. It never has."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k 

Rush Limbaugh Demeans Military. Glenn Beck Piles On.

Digby has a great post about Rush Limbaugh, saying that his comments slamming aid to Haiti are actually demeaning the military and a military mission. Calling their current endeavor "Meals on Wheels" is a great thing for the soldiers to have to listen to on Armed Forces Radio. Great for morale.

Digby also adds that Glenn Beck has chimed in, equating the disaster in Haiti with the Fort Hood shooting. Beck said:

"I also believe this is dividing the nation…to where the nation sees him react so rapidly on Haiti and yet he couldn’t react rapidly on Afghanistan. He couldn’t react rapidly on Ft. Hood. He couldn’t react rapidly on our own airplanes with an underwear bomber…it doesn’t make sense. [...] Three different events and Haiti is the only one. I think personally that it deepens the divide to see him react this rapidly to Haiti."

 Let's see.  Afghanistan. Obama did exactly what he said during his campaign that he was going to do. He took time to deliberate his options and weigh the ramifications of the various courses of action presented to him. The GOPhers got upset because 1) Obama is a Democrat, 2) he did not instantly do what the generals wanted, and 3) he considered the costs of what was being asked of him. Unlike Bush, Obama actually include war spending in his budget which is why his budget figures looked so bad. General McCrystal verged on insubordination by releasing a confidential report as a way to force Obama to give him what he wanted, but what the GOPhers forget, is that Obama has to think about 2 wars, recruitment, other hot spots in the world, and all the other ways the military is used (disaster relief anyone?). McCrystal is concerned only with Afghanistan. That was made abundantly clear.

Fort Hood. I seem to recall hearing from the White House pretty quickly. I don't think I turned on my stopwatch, but who cares? I know that if Obama is sitting in a classroom reading to a class and someone flies a plane into a building, he probably won't continue reading the story, nor allow his wife to sit in the Situation Room and participate in the decision making while he flies off to an undisclosed location (Cheney).  I know that it took  Bush 6 days to respond to Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber which is the equivalent situation to the Christmas Day Bomber.

Now, a truly equivalent situation for comparison? How about Hurricane Katrina? Remember "Good job, Brownie?" Remember how long it took for Bush to take action? Remember how long it took for New Orleans to be rebuilt? What was that? Oh right. We're still waiting.

Of course, Beck is the man who called the 9/11 families and the Katrina survivors scumbags. Very compassionate. We all know that there is no comparison, no equivalency. If Obama had an (R) after his name, he would be hailed as a savior for his actions in Haiti. It does not matter what he does or does not do. Limbaugh and Beck will only attack and smear.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

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.

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.

It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.

Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.

But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.

All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.

As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k

George Will Tells Cheney He Should Have Dithered

I don't normally have much use for what George Will has to say, although his breaking ranks and saying that it was time to leave Afghanistan was much appreciated, but this morning on ABC's "This Week" he said: [emphasis added]

A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Unfortunately, regardless of the esteem in which he is normally held by the right-wing, George Will I am sure will now come under attack by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the others in the right-wing hate machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Did Hate Speech Kill Stephen Tyrone Johns?

In April of this year, the Department of Homeland Security produced a report, leaked to the media, that detailed home-grown, terrorist threat assessments of right-wing extremists. A report on threats coming from left-wing extremists had been released in January. It should be noted that these reports had been commissioned and data collected during the Bush Administration.

The report says that conditions similar to that leading to the militia movements of the 1990's - and the Oklahoma City bombing - are occurring now. Joan Walsh in Salon quotes Susan Page from an interview on MSNBC today, saying that, "... based on history: They include a prolonged economic downturn, the demonization of immigrants, the election of the first black president, fears about losing the right to own guns, a banking crisis inciting age-old paranoia about "Jewish cabals" and the return of many veterans to the States suffering from PTSD and other conditions while getting insufficient care."

When this report on potential threats by right-wing extremists was leaked, conservative talking heads immediately took offense, somehow believing that they were being personally attacked. I'm not sure how they felt linked to extremism, but hey, if the shoe fits ....

Rush Limbaugh insisted that right-wing groups had never done anything violent (!), while Michelle Malkin, who led the charge, called the report a "piece of crap" and said it was released at this time to smear those participating in the upcoming "tea parties." Columnist Bill Kristol called it "juvenile" and Rep. Michelle Bachman said, "To me, it looks like the extremists are those running the DHS." Continuing in this vein, Newt Gingrich demanded that the person who wrote this "outrageous" memo "smearing veterans" should be fired, and Rep. John Boehner said Napolitano herself had a lot of explaining to do. Rep. Peter Burgess said that Napolitano should step down.

I wonder how many of them regret those remarks today? I wonder, after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the murder of the guard at the Holocaust Museum today by a white-supremacist how many of them regret those remarks today?

Words have power. In our society, there is a price to be paid for free speech. We have a violent history and we know, based on our history, that there are people in our society who walk on the edge. People who are willing to pick up a gun, willing to make a bomb, and willing to die for a cause. When our talking heads are allowed to refer to legally practicing doctors as "baby killers," and say that our President should fail, that he is worse than al Qaeda. When torture is considered okay some of the time, and the law only applies to some of the people, then it's easy to see how someone can pick up a gun and shoot up a factory, or a church, or a museum.

Did this hate speech on our televisions cause von Brunn to murder Stephen Tyrone Johns today at the Holocaust Museum? I don't know. But it certainly didn't do anything to prevent it.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Ricci Was NOT Reverse Discrimination

One of the issues that is rising to the top as the issue that Sonia Sotomayor will have to address is a comment she made about how being a Latina woman will help her on the bench. She is being accused of being activist by some, racist by others because of this. The seminal case appears to be Ricci, a Title VII case in which she decided against white firefighters in a reverse discrimination suit in New Haven.

Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Hiring based on race alone is obviously illegal, but less obviously, so is hiring based on a process that has a disparate impact, or limits access by one group or another for reasons that have nothing to do with the job itself. In the Ricci case, the results of a firefighters promotional exam clearly showed a disparate impact - albeit unintentional - so the results had to be thrown out, resulting in the highest scoring candidate, Ricci, losing out on a promotional opportunity. He claimed reverse discrimination by the City of New Haven.

Employers are free to establish requirements for a job, as long as the requirements truly apply to the job. For example, regardless of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), an airline can disqualify persons with some disabilities from consideration for positions as airline pilots - personally, I prefer the person flying the plane I'm on to be able to see - however, they cannot refuse to consider persons with vision limitations from positions in which sight is not an essential function of the job.

The law on disparate impact, then, is designed to uncover hidden discrimination whether intentional or not. An employer could say "No women need apply" which is intentional and obvious discrimination, and would likely only be tried by Rip Van Winkle. Another employer might institute a weightlifting test as a condition of employment as most women have less upper body strength than do most men, thus creating a condition in which women are less likely to meet the conditions for employment. If there is no legitimate reason for upper body strength for the position, the requirement creates a disparate impact and thus discriminates against a group (women) in a subtle manner. Any employment screening process that tends to screen out an entire group is very likely discriminatory and must be examined to ensure that it is not. Any qualifications must be reconsidered to ensure that they truly are essential to the job and that the screening process addresses only those tasks considered essential to the position.

Judge Sotomayor was - by all legal accounts (or at least, by the accounts of many legal minds whose opinions I greatly respect) - correct in her decision in the Ricci case. I am not an attorney so cannot comment on the validity of her opinion, however, I am - professionally - an expert on the ADA and analyzing job descriptions to determine essential and nonessential functions. Although discrimination by reason of disability is different than discrimination by reason of race, they are similar enough that many of the same arguments can be made, so I personally believe Judge Sotomayor's ruling will be upheld.

There are two ways an employer can discriminate according to Title VII. He or she can intentionally discriminate by making race a factor in employment decisions—choosing a black candidate over a white candidate because he is black. Frank Ricci claims the city intentionally discriminated when it threw out the exam results because most of the people who scored high were white. An employer can also discriminate by using a selection process that has a disparate impact—in other words, that screens out a particular group for no good reason.

So, back to the issue at hand.

As a Latina woman, Judge Sotomayor then is accused of being unable to serve on the Supreme Court because of this background. Such illustrious names as Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and Stuart Taylor of the National Review who writes quite crudely of "identity politics" in reference to Sotomayor, beat the drum against her without actually bothering to review her record. Listening to Pat Buchanan debate Joan Walsh of Salon this morning on Hardball with Chris Matthews was illustrative of the extreme right. Typically, Pat Buchanan was unable to let Joan - a woman - complete her responses as he repeatedly interrupted her. Even Chris Matthews spent most of the segment pontificating with Pat as Joan tried repeatedly to get a word in and finally had to complete her point on her website.

Have you ever noticed that the chattering classes of the far right typically do not let liberals, and especially liberal women, actually finish a statement? Probably why we all write so well (grin).

Anyhoo. The right-wing consensus appears to be that regardless of the fact that we all bring our history along with us, and view the world through the lens of our own experiences, here is someone who says out loud that she will do just that. Because President Obama has said that this is exactly what he is looking for in a Supreme Court Judge, and because this is exactly what he has found in Sonia Sotomayor (not to mention more Federal Judicial experience ever entering the Supreme Court), the right-wing cannot tolerate her expressing something that they have said all along. The only difference? She's a woman, and she's Latina.

Here's Justice Alito at his confirmation hearings several years ago.

"I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things...

Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant - and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases - I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother." They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me. And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing - the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person."

Hmmmm. Just insert Judge Sotomayor's name and you'd get a firestorm of angry (white) men shouting "empathy! empathy!" "Activism from the bench!" Yet at the time, because Judge Alito was Italian-American his diversity was valued.

Justice Alito stated quite clearly that his experience being poor, his immigrant parents, his understanding (empathy?) of the urban, poor, immigrant experience and knowledge of persons with disability would inform his decisions.

Can we all spell hypocrisy?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Rush Limbaugh and his Anal Fixation

If you were to go to Google and enter the search term "anal poisoning" as I just did, it would return 587,000 hits in 0.82 seconds. To be honest, I did not check every single citation, however, I did a scan through many pages to the end of the list. Every time anal and poisoning were side by side (you know how Google will return results where the 2 search terms appear close together), the reference always includes Rush Limbaugh.

Interestingly, Rush was able to avoid Vietnam because of an anal cyst. He frequently references the risk of anal poisoning, suggesting Senator Lindsey Graham was at risk by associating with John McCain, that past DNC Chair Terry McCauliff was in danger of catching it because of his closeness to Hillary Clinton, and more recently, that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, by -- I don't know, kissing Obama's ass? -- was also at risk. More interestingly, there really is no such thing as anal poisoning per se.

Other favorite phrases Rush uses include calling people -- including women -- "butt boy," or if they do something right, saying they have avoided becoming a "butt boy," and frequently refers to women by their posterior view. Grabbing ones ankles is seen as the natural capitulation to someone else's ideas in Rushworld and that supporting someone -- especially an African-American -- means you have bent over and grabbed your ankles. He frequently states that he is afraid to bend over, especially in New York City, and along with his coining the term "Feminazi," he enjoys (too much) stories about anal rape. During one show, he played segments of victim testimony from a trial about an anal rape, and laughed, as he said "I'm trying not to laugh..."

What a guy. This week when he "resigned" as the titular head of the Republican Party, he had just realized that Michael Steele and Dick Cheney were getting a little too much attention this past week. You don't really think he was stepping down, do you? Yesterday, he demanded that MSNBC not say his name or show video of him for 30 days -- that they try to maintain their ratings without him -- somehow believing that he gets to call the shots, that he was that important to their ratings. He has been successful in forcing Republican legislators to back down and retract negative statements about him, but somehow doesn't seem to understand that his vicious and malicious comments are news, but not in the way that he wants. He demands purity in the Republican Party and tells Colin Powell and John McCain to leave, yet ignores the fact that with 20% membership and falling, the party of Rush is becoming a marginalized fringe group.

This man is a gift to President Obama and the Democratic Party. Every positive move that the Republican leadership makes to repudiate him and move the party forward is immediately retracted as soon as Rush gets on the air and demands it -- stating that whomever is at risk of anal poisoning, that they have bent over and grabbed their ankles in service to the Democrats. What is astonishing, is that they do. Immediately.

Can't they see the theme here? Rush clearly has a fixation on all things anal. In psychology, Freud would have had a field day with him. The progression through the various stages of life is important to understanding the human psyche. We have typically moved beyond the anal stage by the age of 2 or 3 and it is directly related to psychosexual development. Although Freud is now considered passe, his theories of development do inform our understanding of the processes of development. The fact that Rush appears obsessed by race, women, sex, and all things anal combined with his need to be the center of attention suggest someone with some serious issues, which should concern the leadership of the Republican Party if this is the man who is setting their agenda. Personally, I find him mean-spirited and somewhat sad, and an on-going gift to the Democratic agenda.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

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