Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Right are a bunch of phonies, and Rush Limbaugh is beyond redemption.

First off, I just want to repeat here a comment I left on Media Matters earlier today:

Limbaugh is now beyond all redemption in my book. He's called for a memorial for Koresh and he's rationalized, even sympathized with McVeigh. He's now apologizing for psychoaths and terrorists and traitors. These men are not Patriorts and niether is he. If you cannot unequivocably condemn either Koresh or McVeigh, then clearly NOTHING will qualify as "too far" or "too extreme" in your warped view. The man is traitorous, sociopathic scum.


Now, that may sound strange coming on the heals of three posts about censorship, but don't get me wrong.  I wouldn't, for a minute, think of having the Government pull him from the air, or punish him in any way that wouldn't pass full Constitutional muster.  But I can't for the life of me figure out why people continue to listen to this scumbag.  Are there really THAT MANY people who sympathize THAT MUCH with Koresh and McVeigh?

In the words of Gorobei Katayama, "Are you kidding me?"

Now... Aside from Limbaugh it's been just over a year since the Right Wing completely lost their fucking minds.  And as much as I'd love to elaborate on that, I just don't think I could come close to doing as good a job as one of my favorite bloggers, philosophers and authors, Professor Bob Carroll.

Please check that out.  All I can do for this beautiful piece of work is to pay it the highest compliment I can and say "I wish I'd written it!"

6 comments:

  1. That's pretty much what I've been less eloquently writing about the last two days. I most strongly object to the media characterization of militia types and like-minded crackpots as "anti-government extremists." They aren't "anti-government" anything. They're anti-THIS-government. Fascists, by and large, who favor a powerful, intrusive government. The reason such groups, which flourished during the Clinton administration, all but disappeared during Bush is that, during Bush, the fascists were running the government. Now--surprise, surprise--the nuts have taken to the field again.

    In the aftermath of OK City, Limbaugh went to ridiculous lengths to shoot down the notion that McVeigh was inspired by the insane reactionary rhetoric of those years (even said McVeigh wasn't a right-winger). He pretended as though Clinton had blamed him for McVeigh when Clinton had spoken against extremists voices. In other words, he adopted the cause of the crazies, even as he was trying to distance himself from them. That's the same thing that happened when DHS issued their report, last year, on the threat of right-wing extremism. The conservatives said "they're talking about us," and trashed DHS.

    They want it both ways. That's impossible, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "he adopted the cause of the crazies, even as he was trying to distance himself from them"

    This is beautiful. Seriously. This described the Right's attitude toward EVERYTHING. It's how they treat BUSH, it's how the treat the Militias, it's how they treat the Teabaggers... they act like these PEOPLE just HAPPEN to be crazy, but that the policies they scream about are somehow sane.

    Thanks for your comment. (And BTW, please let Prof. Carroll know that you liked his piece. He's usually pretty good about replying to feedack.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This described the Right's attitude toward EVERYTHING. It's how they treat BUSH, it's how the treat the Militias, it's how they treat the Teabaggers... they act like these PEOPLE just HAPPEN to be crazy, but that the policies they scream about are somehow sane."

    It's the same thing Holocaust deniers do--try to separate fascism from its horrors in order to preserve it without their taint.

    As I wrote on my own blog a few days ago, most of the right checked out on legitimate political discourse years ago. They began to refuse to acknowledge there was any such thing as a legitimate difference of opinion. Instead, disagreement with them was transformed into the subversive action of those who hate America and want to destroy it, or some variation. This plays to the craziest, least informed least thoughtful elements of the population, and, at the same time, the conservatives adopted a "no enemies to the right" policy. It's a recipe for dynamite.

    You have, today, a conservatism that spends months and years venomously ranting about how the man in the White House is a Muslim Bolshevik from Kenya who hates America and wants to institute government panels to murder the elderly and infirm, then, at the same time, angrily denies any responsibility whatsoever for anyone who actually takes that rhetoric seriously enough to act upon it.

    If you try to separate the right-wing crazies from the lying right-wing assholes in order to criticize the crazies, the assholes link arms with them and take up their cause. No enemies to the right. A criticism of one is treated as a criticism of all. When DHS warns about the threat of violent right-wing extremists, the "mainstream" right acts as though its an attack on them, and trains their full might toward denouncing it. Clinton just spoke about the dangers of reactionary extremists--again, the right-wing blogosphere circled the wagons and denounced Clinton for saying the teabaggers (whom Clinton, in reality, hadn't mentioned at all) were violent extremists.

    The right makes common cause with their nuttiest, most violent element right up until that element does something horrible, then the right angrily denounces anyone who dares connect them to the horror.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed, 100%.

    The way I describe it, is that you KNOW you've left the realm of reason and legitimacy when you follow an ideology to the point that you can't conceive or artiuclate what would constitute taking it TOO FAR. That's why I occasionally do a piece like "10 Liberals I Don't Like." It shows that I'm still actually thinking, and not just blindly adopting an ideology. Try asking Limbaugh if there's such a thing as "too conservative." What WOULD he call "the extreme Right" anyway? And would he even think they were a bad thing? COULD he actually disagree iwth them on anything?

    For my part, OTOH, I don't have to look very to find an example of what I'd call "too liberal." As much as you and I have in common, for example, on some issues I don't have to look any farther than YOU! LOL. (And I say that assuming that you'd take it WITH PRIDE, rather than as an insult!) ;)

    And that just goes to show: Liberals can disagree with each otehr without getting NASTY. Without throwing out this "in name only" or "traitor" nonsense. And ironically, due directly to the efforts of people like Beck and Limbaugh, "Conservatism" now only has any ROOM for the farthest Right elements. And in doing so they've unintentionally redefined "liberal" to mean ANYONE who thinks for themselves rather than blindly accepting the hardest Right philosophy. The moderate, center-right guy is a Liberal by his own definition. (Yet somehow we're still all a bunch of commies. Haven't quite wrapped my head around that yet, either.)

    It's binary thinking, but with the round-up/round-down threshold set at 90/10 rather than 50/50. It's completely insane and totally divorced from reality and reason.

    Thanks for your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaargh! This blog keeps trying to zap my posts! Fortunately, I was clever this time, and saved it locally. It also ran a bit long, so I broke it into two:

    "The way I describe it, is that you KNOW you've left the realm of reason and legitimacy when you follow an ideology to the point that you can't conceive or artiuclate what would constitute taking it TOO FAR."

    I would put the same matter a little differently. I don't think extreme thoughts are bad in and of themselves. I think the problems arise not when people take something "too far," but when the "thoughts" become disconnected from reality. That can, in a sense, be seen as taking something "too far," so maybe I'm not even disagreeing with you even the little bit I think I am. Science draws inferences from data. Ideally, our politics should work the same way, and we'd just argue over interpretation. When, instead of drawing inferences from data, we're applying preconceived notions to data, we aren't practicing science.

    Today, a large majority of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist, think he's a Muslim, and dabble in birtherism. Their conservatism has led them to ignore reality. That's the problem; their conservatism's lack of grounding in reality (and its outright hostility to reality when reality contradicts a favored notion). That kind of conservatism is a serious problem, and it is the dominant, nearly universal kind in the U.S. today. Theoretically, though, other kinds of conservatism--those with better grounding in reality--wouldn't be so problematic, and could entertain more extreme notions without turning into a carnival act. So it isn't necessarily that that crazies take conservatism too far--it's that their brand of conservatism is something they conceive without reference to the real world, and they never check it against reality. They don't hold an ideology--an ideology holds them.

    That's a fine distinction, I realize, but I think it may be worth making.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And the second part:

    "That's why I occasionally do a piece like '10 Liberals I Don't Like.' It shows that I'm still actually thinking, and not just blindly adopting an ideology."

    I've never felt the need to "prove" myself like that to anyone, but if I started listing liberals and other lefties I didn't like, the list would be quite long, indeed. It would probably be headed by all of those who put an allegiance to the Democratic party ahead of their allegedly liberal beliefs. That's the same sort of sickness I was just describing as existing among conservatives, and exists among Republicans, as well (though to nowhere remotely near the extent it exists among Democrats).

    "Try asking Limbaugh if there's such a thing as 'too conservative.' What WOULD he call 'the extreme Right' anyway? And would he even think they were a bad thing? COULD he actually disagree iwth them on anything?"

    He's a "free trader," and thus disagrees with the "economic nationalists," who, for right-wing reasons, adopt liberal policies on things like trade. People like Pat Buchanan. He doesn't disagree with Buchanan's racism. As usual, he made common cause with Pat on that one, rejecting the "charges" of same as baseless liberal smears, and one suspects his opposition to Buchanan and the other "economic nationalists" is based on the fact that they're advocating the anti-"free-trade" policies of the left.

    Any disagreement at all is exceedingly rare, though.

    If a liberal goes after a conservative, Limbaugh will defend the righty every time, facts be damned. Years ago, when Bob Grant, whom Limbaugh has called a mentor, was fired from his WABC gig for racism, Limbaugh even defended him, saying the charges were an outrageous liberal smear with no basis in reality--Grant was a guy who openly called blacks "sub-humanoids" and "savages," and advocated eugenics.

    Limbaugh is representative of the larger right in that conservatives won't indulge in even a moment of self-reflection or--heaven forbid--self-criticism, but won't, under any circumstances, regard as valid any criticism from outside the conservative bubble, either. Because they're such perfect people, you see.

    "For my part, OTOH, I don't have to look very to find an example of what I'd call 'too liberal.' As much as you and I have in common, for example, on some issues I don't have to look any farther than YOU! LOL."

    If you only knew!

    "(And I say that assuming that you'd take it WITH PRIDE, rather than as an insult!) ;) "

    Neither pride nor certainly not insult--just something that is.

    ReplyDelete