Where The Rubber Meets The Road

Recently, as many of you are aware, radio personality and reactionary right figure Rush Limbaugh was part of a consortium who’s intent was to buy the St. Louis Rams.

Unfortunately for Rush, being a polarizing figure did not help him in his quest to become part-owner of one of the worst teams in football. After much protest and public display, the group intending to bid on the Rams decided that Limbaugh was simply too much of a distraction, and cut him loose.

Let me reiterate the facts to date: Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that wanted to buy the Rams. The group refused to do business with him because he is a polarizing figure. Notice I said, “the group refused to do business with him”, and not, say, “the National Football League didn’t want a conservative owner”, or “Rush Limbaugh was banned from ever owning a team”, or, “Rush Limbaugh’s racist remarks caused the group to send him packing”. The reason why I didn’t say any of those other things is because NONE OF THEM ARE TRUE.

I make the above point because Rush Limbaugh and many of his supporters would have you believe that he was banned from the NFL because of allegations of racist remarks, and the tireless work of all the liberals in the NFL. The last bit is particularly hilarious, since the National Football League is easily one of the most conservative organizations in these United States. I mean, you can tell they’re liberal because of all the openly gay players.
Anyway.
Later, “sportswriter” and legendary résumé falsifier Mike Freeman, of cbssports.com wrote an opinion blog mwa-ha-haa-ing Rush’s ousting from the group, calling him a “race-baiter” and “pill-popper”. Freeman, for the record, is black. This will become important later.

Limbaugh’s supporters responded, conflating Freeman’s opinion with CBS policy, alternately denying Limbaugh’s remarks as falsified (despite Limbaugh himself admitting to several, and despite several more being captured in audio clips) and saying the remarks were taken out of context (what context could explain saying to a black caller, “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back” is a mystery to me). Ironically calling Freeman a hypocrite (there was a lot of this, and almost none of the examples understood how to use the word correctly), a racist, a – you know what? I’ll just let them speak for themselves (spelling and punctuation uncorrected, bold print added to display some of my favorite bits):


Freeman is who the “N” word was created for.


Weird I was thinking the same about your brotha in office.


You’re a racist douche just like your brothers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson


Thanks for proving yourself to be the ni**er everyone already knew you were.


Are you a black sheep?


But hey, dem’s yer homies…right, Dawg?


MAke a real point please homely.


I heard that Limbaugh even attended a racist church for 20 years.  No, wait…that was Unqualified Barry!


Watch your mouth!!!   All this reverse-racism is starting to piss me off!  You better be careful, and I better not find a Koran in your house!!


Now go back to destroying your neighborhoods before planning a move to a state with an actual economy before your votes turn it into a socialist hellhole like the rat nest you went running from.


You’re just offended every angry white guy who was afraid of the PC police telling them “No you CAN’T.”  Your heyday is over.  Its going to get ugly.


You and your type, are the people who are putting society back 50 years!


The way it is now the NFL is predominantly black and overrun with DWI’s, murders, club shootings and dog fighting.


a black man calling a white man a pill popper yadda, yadda…


I, (of course me being just another Joe Plumber why would you listen?) think it is high time us white people not pay another dime to watch overpaid useless animals play sports.


And while we are at it, why don’t we just skip town and let you run this country into another African 3rd world country. Give away the wealth of the country to people who can’t earn a living and don’t want to work for it but just sit and complain about how racial it all is. Just find someone to blame for your ills and never once think to work and pull yourself from the pit of agony and frustration.


Gee. I wonder why Rush Limbaugh and his followers have had to deal with accusations of racism?

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Rush Limbaugh is not guaranteed by law the right to the opportunity to own an NFL franchise, nor is he prohibited by law the right to do so. If Limbaugh still wants to own the Rams, all he has to do is come up with the money. And be approved by the other owners. Just like his former partners do.
Unfortunately for them, Limbaugh and many of his flock are incredibly thin-skinned, especially considering how much of the above they dish out. Thus, when their hero is denied an opportunity because he is a polarizing figure, they rant and rave, and so does he, providing yet another example of why he is a polarizing figure with no sense of irony. Limbaugh’s response to the ousting in a Wall Street Journal opinion article dealt almost exclusively with the “false” charges of racist remarks (which he then conflates into a charge of racism), using the very same tactics he accuses his detractors of to bring up the specter/red herring of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Of course, all of the racism talk is completely beside the point. Limbaugh was no longer wanted by his business partners, who did not want the negative attention Limbaugh brings. Al Sharpton did not stop Rush. Nor did Jesse Jackson. Nor did the host of sportswriters, players, or even NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. His former partners did. And instead of examining why, Limbaugh – followed quickly by his flock – immediately changed the subject. Their argument, as I understand it, is as follows:
The Checketts group (Limbaugh’s former partners) were held at gunpoint by the liberal media while Al Sharpton manipulated David Checkett’s jaw and throat and Jesse Jackson worked the tongue to force the words, “You’re out” out of his mouth.
Wait, no, that can’t be it. This is it:
Incensed by Limabugh’s desire to be a minor role-player in the purchasing of a sports team, a conspiracy of NFL players, managers, Commissioner Goodell, a legion of sportswriters, and news commentators, led by infamous supremacists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson fabricated racial quotes, attributed them to Limbaugh, got in a time machine, went back in time to October of 1990 to replace Limbaugh with a brainwashed clone who – in a Newsday article – admitted that (among other things) he told a black caller to “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back” , used state-of-the-art synthesizing equipment to fake Limbaugh’s voice saying a number of racially charged things, then hypnotized millions of television viewers to make them think Limbaugh said that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb’s success was actually just reverse-racism and affirmative action, and when all that failed to make the Checketts group dump Limbaugh, then the Checketts group were held at gunpoint by the liberal media while Al Sharpton manipulated David Checkett’s jaw and throat and Jesse Jackson worked the tongue to force the words, “You’re out” out of his mouth.

It’s either that, or believe the ridiculous idea that his former business partners made up their own minds, and are therefore the only ones who are responsible for Limbaugh’s ousting.

Here, let me make it easy for you Limbaugh fans, and give you the actual question: Are the members of the Checketts group in any way liable for caving in to negative publicity and ousting Rush?
And, because I like to be thorough, I’ll give you the answer, as well: No.

Much as I am loathe to take cues from Bill Maher, he had a point recently that spoke to my last entry regarding the ubiquitous “What’s wrong with making money?” dodge.

Put simply, not everything should make a profit.

The news, for example.

As Ben Bagdikan pointed out in The Media Monopoly, in 1983, over 90% of all media (movies, television, radio, magazines, books, newspapers, the recording industry, photo agencies, etc) was in the hands of about 50 corporations.

As of 2004, that number has dropped. To five. Five multinational corporations controlling what we see, hear, read – information itself. That should be enough to make the point, but just to be sure, let’s take a quick look at what passes for news in 2009.

The current headlines are full to brimming with Michael Jackson, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and an assortment of entertainment and sensationalist stories that have similar weight to the preceding two. What’s going on with health care? Who cares? The real burning question is what was Steve McNair’s girlfriend thinking?
Contrast this with the news from just thirty or so years ago.

When networks ran to the bottom line and sold themselves to “parent” companies (one of my favorite euphemisms), those companies put a stop to news for the sake of news. See, before then, the entertainment divisions of the networks carried the financial burdens of the news, as well as advertising. But the news – in order to remain the news – was beholden to nobody. At least, not financially. Fast forward to the takeovers, and the parent companies demanded that the news make a profit – something unheard of before then, unless you count “yellow journalism” like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. Of course, news for profit changes everything.
The dissemination of information for the purpose of informing is the news. The dissemination of information for money (or other, less overt gain) is propaganda.

The evolution is well documented and easily grasped. The so-called news now has less actual news in it than the average in-house company newsletter. The rest is fluff, sensationalism, “gotcha” stories, and demagoguery.

A simple piece of evidence, then I’m off to enjoy my weekend: A large majority of voters who cast their ballot for George W. Bush believed that he supported the Kyoto Protocol. What’s wrong with making money? That.

I hear it all too often: “What’s wrong with making money?!?”

Of course, this little bit of misdirection is usually delivered in an angry tone by someone who is oblivious to the nonsensical non sequitur it is. Whenever the argument is made that perhaps those who have benefited greatly from the past 30 years of deregulation, massive decrease in taxation, massive public subsidy, criminal refusal to enforce laws protecting labor, the environment, public interest – you get the idea; you’ll be treated to a rousing chorus of that dogmatic propaganda line so inextricably driven into the public consciousness:

“What’s wrong with making money?”

As if (insert any of the following: a national health care plan, tax cuts or subsidies or services or any help whatsoever for the poor, returning taxes on the superwealthy to a minute fraction of their pre-Reaganomics levels, etc) has any effect on the Working Joe who so vigorously defends the very people who keep him poor and wretched – save possibly a positive one.

So, listen, Working Joe: There’s nothing wrong with you making money. But then, you are not a global corporate CEO with a multimillion dollar golden parachute, who feeds off the public trough.

Yes, that’s right, the public trough. You see, we pay taxes, and that money is funneled into research and development in the state/Pentagon system. This R&D eventually produces technological breakthroughs, which then the public again pays private institutions to apply in the marketplace (which, not incidentally, is full of even more subsidies, tax breaks, and protections, all at the expense of guess who), with all the profit channeled back into those private corporations, further enriching the superwealthy.

What’s wrong with making money? The wrong people are making it. You pay in, and someone else gets richer. Isn’t that your whole objection to welfare? Because that’s what it is: welfare for those who couldn’t possibly need it less.

Nobody’s asking for redistribution of wealth, class warfare, or any of the other buzz phrases kicked out by the monumental public “relations” machine that greases the gears of the monumental high-tech feudalism machine. At best, it’s a re-redistribution of wealth, where in the people (that means you) are allowed to reap a tiny measure of benefit for all the money they give to that fragile, teetering-on-the-edge, barely-making-ends-meet class known as The Top 1%.

Turn Faux News back on and get fed another line of propaganda; yours is getting old.

One of the many reasons why – despite having almost universal conformity with the policies of the left – I refuse to align myself with liberals is this example:

Calling Barack Obama “articulate” is racist.

Really?

Is there perhaps one, small, contextual reason why it might not be racist? Perhaps if you were saying so in relation to – oh, I don’t know, maybe another prominent figure to whom the President will be compared, one who (just clutching at straws, here) wasn’t very articulate?

Acting surprised that a black man is articulate is racist.

Acting relieved that we at last have a President who is articulate might – might – just be something else.

Another fun brain teaser: Is acting surprised that a black man could ascend to the presidency:
1. racist.
Or:
2. a lament regarding the inequality of opportunity in our United States.

I am reminded of a passage from America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction, stating that (paraphrasing) Republicans seek to return the country to a 50′s-style golden age that never existed, while Democrats seek to create a Utopian society so fair and equal that life becomes an unendurable series of apologies.

Lucky us.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition Hate. Okay, Prop 8. Spot the difference if you can. Here, I give you my open letter to those who funded, supported, campaigned and voted for yet another attempt to create a precedent for second-class citizens:

“Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” – Matthew 25:40

Is there something unclear about that passage? Are you so ignorant of the tenets of your own religion that you don’t even know what you’re doing? Or are you just scared shitless?
What is it, exactly, that frightens you so? Pee-pees and hoo-hoos being touched by the wrong gender, out of your sight or any other means of perception? Proof that people who are not like you live just as meaningful, rich, and productive lives as any other?

What you are doing is wrong. There is no argument for it that doesn’t immediately collapse under ten seconds of rational scrutiny. Your behaviors and actions are discredited by reason, science, precedent, history, compassion, and law. So, backed into a corner by all measures of merit and common sense, you cling to your so-called faith (which apparently is so weak that you must denounce the Founding Fathers as godless heathens for keeping church and state separate, and force your very distinct and irretrievably repugnant brand of cultism upon others so that you won’t feel insecure), again and again attempting to sit in judgment of others whom your god alone reserves the right to judge.

“Marriage” has become your latest shield, a threadbare veil to drape over the hate in your hearts. Of course, you tell yourself that you aren’t usurping the one true judge you claim to believe in, arrogantly insisting you know know his mind, and acting without his blessing as his terrible, swift sword; what you’re actually doing is defending “marriage.” A tradition, sacrosanct and pure. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

But your “tradition” of marriage lies at the end of another twisted path through the halls of history, as any historian can tell you that marriage came into being in order to gather wealth. For the umpteenth time, “marriage” is a contract rooted in wealth and property consolidation that was only made a “sacrament” because the clergy wanted more control of wealth and property. In that respect, it was no better than the corrupt and immoral Catholic “indulgences.” Marriage was a contract between two people and the state. Arguing on the basis of your religious beliefs is invalid and cowardly. First, our country was not founded on religious principles. Yes, many of the Founding Fathers were religious. Yes, similar wording can be found in religious texts. But the simple fact is, our country was founded on the principle of rule of law, and that law was deliberately made secular so that the government could not interfere with religious beliefs, and vice versa. Second (as if a second should be needed), as explained above, “marriage” is not the province of any, some, or all religion(s). Never has been; never will be. No religion or group of religions can lay claim to it. It came from Common Law, and to Common Law it will always belong. You have no “tradition” or “sacrament” that predates Common Law’s claim on marriage. You’re wrong. Get over it.

History also teaches us that homosexuality has been, is now, and ever will be, and you don’t “catch” it by being near gay people; thus (for example), the children that they raise will love whomever they desire regardless of their upbringing.

Alas, history and it’s students are just more heathens to add to the ever-growing majority of people who don’t think as you do.

Call it like it is, so-called defenders of “traditional marriage”. You just don’t like gay people. There’s nothing wrong with that. Nobody is going to – or will ever – force you to like another person. That’s your decision to make. And as such, attempts to cloak this dislike by calling on religion is pure and simple cowardice. Anyone who does this is a complete and total pussy. No; fuck you; you’re a pussy. A chickenshit who isn’t man or woman enough to stand up and say, “I just don’t like them, and I don’t want them being equal to me.”

And I know why you don’t do say that. We all do, even you. It’s because you will lose this battle over civil rights if you do. But if you had any guts at all, that’s what you would say.
So what if gay people could marry and adopt? It doesn’t mean you have to like it, or them. In fact, it will have no effect on your life whatsoever. You’ll go right on not liking them, and they’ll go right on living their lives, not giving a shit about you.

No historian, scientist, or gay person has ever invaded your home, forced you to abandon your beliefs, stolen your money, enslaved your children to a lifestyle you find repulsive, burned your dwelling to the ground, spit and hurled curses at you, and/or defiled your holy text(s) because of their “faith”.

Why, then, do you feel you must do unto others as they have never done unto you?
I think your friend Jesus might have said something about that, too.