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.

If you haven’t seen the movie 9, do yourself a favor.

Animated in the hyper-real style of modern CGI, it’s tone, both in theme and lighting, is dark, muted, gray. It is exactly the kind of film that blurs the line between kids’ movie and just plain good. Especially since the makers of the film (for once) knew to quit while they were ahead, and the result, while clocking in at a seemingly scant 79 minutes, is satisfying. Even at the $6.50 price of a Wednesday matinee.

Lately, here has been a rash of films with the same theme that 9 explores, the deplorable Wall-E being a particularly silly example. Ostensibly about the power of love and redemption, Wall-E is another attempt by our benevolent snake-oil salesmen of toon-based merchandising to turn aside the growing unease with which the American populace beholds what we have become. Or, more to the point, what will become of us.
Thus, post-apocalyptic redemption has been a recurring theme. From The Day After Tomorrow to Knowing, this minefield of cinematic horse apples has largely basted the brains of it’s viewers, probably in preparation for the inevitable brain-eating apocalypse coming soon to your living room. But I digress from my digression. Back to why Wall-E was such a piece of shit.
The aforementioned suckfest might have been entertaining if not for it’s lead-heavy-handed clubbing of the audience with the “point”, and the fact that even the “point” isn’t really the point. Ideally, we’re all supposed to sing along to humanity’s recall from the brink of both extinction and near-comatose, sedentary ways, all while cheering the two anthropomorphic robots as they fall in love and save the day.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the point of the movie. The point of Wall-E is that we should all just relax and stop trying to make things better:
“See? Look how bad humankind was in Wall-E! They’d destroyed their planet, grown lazy, morbidly obese, and stupid, and were utterly incapable of saving themselves. But don’t worry, the deus ex machina awaits us all! Shop! Pollute! Eat that Twinkie™! And above all, keep deregulating! No matter what we do, or fail to do, it’ll all work out in the end. With absolutely no effort on our parts.”

Many of the apocalyptic movies of late share this same it’s-okay-to-behave-like-ignorant-gluttons-because-we’ll-be-reborn-through-divine-intervention theme, which, if you haven’t already guessed, has a certain Fundamentalist Christian cum Rapture odor.

***SPOILER ALERT!!!!!***

9 does not do this.

The rebirth is not of humanity, but of life, though it is partly seeded by one human soul. The film wastes little time letting you know that humankind is no more, and will be no more. We fucked up, and we’re finished.
But there is a chance that life on Earth may not have to be dragged into the toilet and flushed away with it’s most odious malefactors. And that’s where the movie starts. The rest is an action-adventure/mystery set in the ruins of one city, between protagonists and antagonists who, while also anthropomorphic, bear little in common with the once-masters of the realm (save one, very direct connection).
At no point is there any sermonizing, anvil-heavy hints about what you should feel about all this, or product placement.
In the end, the viewer is left to decide on her or his own what it all means, but accompanied by a feeling of completion, of having seen story from beginning to end. It’s refreshing to sit through even just 79 minutes of film without being scolded, sold to, preached at, clumsily manipulated, condescended to, or insulted.
I give 9 an eight. Enjoy.

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.

I give Green Day their due. Corny, post-punk pop rock they may be, but they stuck their necks out when they didn’t have to. An already successful band with millions of fans and dollars, they released American Idiot, an album that took several serious (if lukewarm) shots at the Bush/Cheney Administration. Mind you, they were sandwiched into an obtuse, silly, and amateurish storyline, but they were there.
Green Day was a band with nothing to gain by taking these shots, and everything to lose. In fact, fans of their earlier material (largely a safe catharsis for the angsty teen crowd, a loud, angry, pointless exercise in self-serving nihilism – if that sounds redundant, so was the music) were turned off by the political material. Probably because the material was about someone besides themselves.

Well.

Apparently, success has a downside. And for Green Day, that downside is production. Also, not understanding what resonated so well with American Idiot. 21st Century Breakdown, their follow-up to American Idiot, is a muddled, gutless, overproduced mish-mash of Styx-style theater-rock.
To be fair, I should point out that apart from this blog, 21st Century Breakdown has received rave reviews. I humbly submit that they are wrong. It is a piece of chrome-plated, Drakkar Noir-scented shit. Shiny, perfumed, and stripped of anything remotely resembling passion. Taking all the wrong lessons from the previous effort, they decided to take the concept/storyline album and run right off a cliff with it. To do this, they tapped Butch Vig of Garbage fame, with disastrous results. Garbage is known for their slick, modern, syth/metal/dance sound, and Green Day is known for their simplistic, reductionist, raw, three-piece sound. When the two collide, it is an epic turd of Blink 182 proportions.

Don’t believe the hype. It’s terrible. 21st Century Breakdown is Green Day’s Kilroy Was Here; a botched boob job intended to make the band sexier, but ultimately making them a none-too-funny joke. Don’t bother with this shit.