An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Talk Radio Attacks an 11 Year Old
Why bother to even rant about there being “limits” to partisan demonization anymore? THIS is now becoming no news and American politics is becoming about trying to destroy or discredit those who dare state a view with which you disagree or one that you feel undermines your own argument.
But there are some Americans who are getting sick of it. In my own case it’s why when I travel now, I listen to XM satellite radio and tune to CNN, POTUS (Politics of the United States), CSPAN, NPR, and the BBC.
.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Talk Radio Attacks an 11 Year Old”
[...] poor Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice (snicker) is all upset about this, shows his own projection, writes that he refuses to listen to [...]
I've seen this buried at the bottom of a couple of websites. Apparently talk radio has become so disgusting that even behavior this terrible is deemed normal.
I just wish that Limpbaugh could have taken the kids mother to Costa Rica with him when he left. Too late…
When those conservatives speak of the other programs that could have helped that boy's mother, they somehow always neglect to mention that they want to cut or eliminate those programs too.
Limbaugh's “attack” of the 11 year old is wrong. However, the Dem's putting him up to it for political gain is even worse. All of the sob-stories on earth will not make the forced-purchase of healthcare Constitutional.
Seems like they're attacking the exploitation of the 11-year-old more than the kid himself. Still this is an 11 year old kid who lost his mom so Limbaugh, et al should just shut up.
I actually think this is a better example of the failure of the current health care system than the Natoma Canfield case.
Incidents like this are exactly why I no longer associate myself with the right. And I am sure that there are many more people like me than not.
The 11 year old boy is not being attacked. That is spin, and it is horse manure.
The exploitation of the 11 year old boy is being attacked: hiding behind children is being attacked. The grandmother, or possibly another adult relative, could have been the spokesperson.
Sob stories in general, i.e. the substitution of individual story in place of reasoned argument (“she wore her dead sister's dentures!”), is being attacked. America does not oppose Obamacare b/c America is uncaring. Rather, America opposes b/c America believes Obamacare will result in worse healthcare and economic ruin. Dems are losing the argument on substance, and they are responding as if America is heartless and doesn't care enough. Sob stories are an insult to an American populace which is smarter and more clued in than Dems give us credit for.
The premise of the story: that the woman could not get medical care in WA, is also being attacked. At a glance, it appears as if the premise might hold up, and as if attacking the premise is misguided. Yet, it nevertheless ought be pointed out: the premise is being attacked; the 11 year old child is not being attacked.
It is absolutely correct that Harry Reid and Dems used this child as a human shield: they hid behind the child; they used the child to make arguments which they ought have been making (and on substance, not on emotion). The child was brave. Who fails to empathize with the child? No one. Who wishes anything but the best for the child? No one. Who criticizes the child? No one.
The real issue here is that the immaturity and agitation on the Left is coming to boil over this health care vote.
Has everyone forgotten Rush's attacks and insults at a pre-teen girl named Chelsea Clinton? I have not and therefore think that anyone that thinks this is getting “worse” just has a short memory.
You have reminded me of a couple of things.
The first is the Letterman attack on Sarah Palin's daughter, which attack stands as evidence that ungracefulness is not confined to one group of Americans or another.
The second is the Family Guy joke. This joke did bring a child – Trig – into the line of fire.
That was bad, and uncaring – and shameful, actually. However, although Family Guy ought not have brought Trig into the spotlight, it's also true that Family Guy was not insulting Trig and was not making Trig the target of the joke. Here's the joke:
Down Syndrome Girl says: “My father is an accountant, and my mother is the former Governor of Alaska.” What's funny? Do you know?
The joke was targeted at Palin's decision to forgo abortion. To wit: only a Sarah Palin type would be so stupid as to fail to abort a Down Syndrome baby. That's the joke, i.e.
Certain insecure women look at Sarah Palin, know they would not have made her choice to give birth, and feel guilty. The defense against their own feelings of guilt = Sarah Palin is a joke, b/c any woman who would give birth in such a situation is a joke. Family Guy was playing into that.
And do not discount an added little factor of envy: Sarah Palin has a happy sex life with a hot husband. Trig is blatant advertisement of this.
Thus, from the perspective of a certain type of insecure person: Sarah Palin is throwing Trig in the faces of American women who hate her for it. They hate her for making them feel guilty; they hate her for having a happy sex life with an attractive guy when their sex lives were unhappy, are barely existent, and their guys got fat. The bitch. Their only defense: Sarah Palin is a laughable joke; let's laugh at her now.
Was anyone on the left embarrassed by the premise of the Family Guy joke? Hopefully, yes. Mostly, no. Mostly, the left cocoon in their self-unquestioned status as smarter and more virtuous human beings, and in their secure knowledge that the right are too ignorant to understand why the left are smarter and more virtuous.
But Letterman is not a political talker nor in the political sphere in anyway, he is an entertainer that had been unwisely poked and much as he had throughout his history he went for the throat. Family Guy is the lefts version of South Park and yes both are vile offensive and disgusting and I find both of them pretty funny most of the time though I have missed the episode you are speaking of(knowing their history though my guess is that you missed the joke since a joke about why a child should have been aborted would be a first on US TV and not even Family Guy and South Park tend to go that far, instead it was likely part of the Family Guy cluster of cultural “guess who I am mocking” that fills every episode).
So are we now moving to including all media in this discussion, if so we need to admit that since at least the early 80's we as a nation have become pretty vile in a bipartisan manner. Attacks on Carter and his family, Reagan and his, I do not remember anything similar during Bush I but Clinton Bush II and Obama and all that ran against them got the same treatment. Once you are famous, politically or otherwise, the media builds you up to destroy you…see Brittany Spear's and all like her.
As for Palin she deserves no pity, she uses her child as a political football herself. She correctly attacks Rahm for using the R word and then defends Rush for doing the same at which point she lost what shred of credibility she had left. Palin much like Rush is Sharpton for the right. They can hang themselves on crosses all they want and those like you that wish to see them as victims can but behind the curtain it is they themselves that are driving the nails into the cross, not their enemies and call me silly but I fail to see a need to defend something on the right that disgusts me about the left.
Also has the news of Palin's affair with Todd's ex-business partner been debunked? I know it was dropped when she lost the election but being named as an adulterer in divorce proceedings is not exactly a quality I look for in those I deem to have a happy and healthy marriage. I find your explanation pretty insulting, in fact it sounds like something thought up to tell a pretty girl “they are all just jealous” which having spent some time trying that trick on pretty girls let me tell you it is almost always bs but its bs that makes them like you
, sometimes they even touch you(bonus!!).
Are you equally embarrassed and ashamed of all things coming out of the mouths of those that generally vote GOP? I ask that way because that is the straw man you have built here, Letterman and Seth may vote to the left(they equally may vote Green or Libertarian for all I know) but that hardly makes them political figures nor political commentators like are addressed in the article. I would also note through your entire posting you never noted any discomfort for the insults hurled at the Clinton's daughter, why is that? If you were not upset by it and you want people to take your side on the Palin issue is it something you think you should take another look at or is it only a problem when done to the GOP?
A better example would have been Andrew Sullivan for your later use.
Here is a Video to show the ” fruit ” of the political sock jocks. . . . 51 seconds. . .do watch. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXsRH73Cnw8&feat…
For another possible way out of this insanity and inhumanity please consider. . . 50 min.
Google talk with Jeremy Rifkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVXo3qYSt0
No, the joke was the rumors of adultery by Sarah Palin, but if you want to keep beating that Evil Liberal (TM) strawman then go right on ahead.
And yes, MSF is absolutely right. Sarah Palin has been using Trig as a political prop, since day one. It is disgusting and exploitive.
JD, the Democrats did not “put him up to it.” He wanted to advocate for the passage of this health care reform bill because his mother died as the result of the lack of same. Give an 11-year-old credit for some independent understanding. He's ELEVEN, not two years old, or even four years old, or even six years old.
re your: Palin uses her child as a political football
I have empathy with your opinion, and have flip-flopped back and forth in my opinion about Palin bringing her kids with her onstage and on camera. Currently, my thinking is:
1) let the kids come onstage. It's America, people want to see her kids, and she wants her kids to be part of the experience, and media and culture ought allow that while still allowing her kids to retain privacy
2) keep the kids away from microphones and away from personal interviews or quotations on any profiles which go on TV shows. Allowing the kids to individually speak, to be individually publicized on TV, could easily damage/spoil/put pressure on the kids, and it also crosses a line of propriety. After the Family Guy episode, Palin publicly quoted her 15 year old daughter's opinion about the incident. Mistake. Big mistake. Keep the personal thoughts of all children far offstage.
I agree that Palin's responses to Rahm and to Limbaugh were inconsistent. I said at the time, including here at TMV, that I didn't like Palin's response to Rahm. Calling for resignation was a rhetorical bridge too far. I would have preferred: It was an insensitive and hurtful statement, and I appreciate that Mr. Emmanuel has apologized.
Asking for resignation was trying to run up the score: was trying to get her name out there as a fighter and as a leader.
It was a political mistake for herself, as she lost the high ground.
It was a political mistake vis a vis conservatives: the right cannot win an ongoing back and forth contest of pc accusation with the left, and it's silly to try.
Most importantly: it's simply wrong to embrace a political correctness which is antithetical to American values and is significantly damaging America. Rahm Emmanuel offended some people, and chose to apologize. Rahm Emmanuel gets to say what his words meant. Speech must not be chilled via pulling out a guillotine in response to inevitable human gaffes. Such damages our culture and our nation.
re Palin and Limbaugh as victims
Hmmm. I do think they are consistently hit with widespread wackadoodle mischaracterizations. However, it's hard to think of them as victims, b/c they have such power to get their messages out. Which is not to say I won't defend them when such is appropriate. I will. But they can handle things themselves.
I note your comparison to Sharpton, and disagree.
I know of no significant info re an affair.
I'm in favor of pretty girls.
I do remember hearing Limbaugh make references to Chelsea Clinton which were out of bounds and shameful. Not good. About the worst things I've personally heard Limbaugh say. He went too far.
I don't like Repubs too much. I don't feel shame when they say/do stupid stuff. I feel disdain. Or anger. And I don't feel embarrassed about what Repub voters say or do, or conservatives or whoever. I don't hold the same opinion as they do about the particular thing, so I don't feel embarrassed. I guess, sometimes, I feel embarrassed for them – that they don't realize they are publicly embarrassing themselves.
When I said: “Was anyone on the left embarrassed by the premise of the Family Guy joke?”, I was trying to get at this: did anyone on the left initially laugh at the Family Guy joke, then realize their laughter was premised on ridiculing Palin for giving birth, then feel embarrassed about their own personal laughter?
Maybe my question was silly, but that's where I was coming from.
“JD, the Democrats did not “put him up to it.” He wanted to advocate for the passage of this health care reform “…
Kat… I'm not doubting the 11 year old's sincerity. I'm sure he DOES want HCR to pass for his own reasons.
But if you think an 11 year old can make it to Washington DC from WASHINGTON STATE by himself with no help from others, then that's a bit naive. How does an 11 year old afford a $1300 airfare? Does an 11 year old make a hotel reservation on his own credit card?
My main point was that his trip was funded by someone, and it was not his family.
Who was it, Kat? I'll give you one guess.
My main point was that his trip was funded by someone, and it was not his family.
And you know that… how?
I do not really think that political correctness destroys anything but it is annoying whether it be the left whining about using the term African American or the right crying to use the term homicide bomber or death tax in the end it is almost always a stupid game.
Sharpton race baits by edging up to the line of what is acceptable and then calling the other sides racists when they react in such a way. Rush/Palin act as classic racist baiters by edging up to the line of what is acceptable public behavior stepping a toe across the line and then when accused of racism they accuse the other side of being race baiters and racists themselves. Palin has a side sexist baiter schtick that Rush does not but this is how they are alike. Give them 30 -40 years and you will see them defending the rights of the sole white student at an inner city school, how do I know that?
Why did Palin quit her job as Gov? Oh yea the media and the dems ran her out, which makes her…a victim.
Rush cant buy a football team…because of the media and the left…because he is a victim.
The media will not cover this because they are biased who cares if it is a lie and has been debunked???(another classic Rush victimhood cry)
They attack me because only I speak the truth and that is why they hate me!!(the one that usually comes out when he is caught in a lie or say using his maid to buy illegal drugs for him)
All of these classics are also used in one form or another by Sharpton and in smaller doses in the past by Jesse Jackson and all that try to incite our “outrage”, and they are outraged outraged I tell you that we have yet to buy their book!
I note all your points, and enjoyed reading them, and disagree, basically, with everything you said about Palin and Limbaugh, and with every premise you asserted about them. I'll only ask about one specific: what has Palin ever done which amounts to provocatively sticking a toe over a racist line? At this moment, I can't think of what you are referencing. Other than that, I'll let everything stand without specific rebuttal, as you probably already have a decent idea of my opinions.
Re “they are outraged outraged I tell you that we have yet to buy their book!” LOL That made me laugh. They are outraged outraged.
The marxist thing, it is based off an attempt to link Obama to late 60's black marxist groups which allows you to hate and say its not race based but any attempt to paint someone of another race in the classic psychological “other” role is dangerous, for evidence see history of the US pre-1960 when it was a common strategy.
reposted as a reply
Thanks for explaining where you were coming from.
B/c I respect your opinion and your knowledge of events, therefore my interest about your thinking is further piqued. I'm interested if you are familiar or unfamiliar with some information. If you are familiar with it, do you consider the information to be true or false? As for myself, I believe all these statements to be correct, but it's okay with me if you disagree. The statements:
Barack Obama's grandfather was Marxist, his mother was Marxist, his father was Marxist, his step-father Soetero was Marxist, his surrogate father Davis was Marxist, his second surrogate father Rev. Wright is Marxist, William Ayers is Marxist, Alice Palmer is Marxist. At Occidental, Barack promoted Marxism. The Marxist “New Party” supported Barack's initial political candidacy. His church's Black Liberation Theology amounts to a melding of Marxism and religion.
Thanks for your consideration.
So is every white politician in the south in the KKK because everyone of their relatives were when they were growing up?
Also how do you define Marxism? Are sociologists Marxists since a large portion of the discipline is based off of his work? Are you a Marxist if you believe in gov backed health care? Are you Marxist if you give tax cuts without cutting gov spending that primarily benefit a minority of Americans, because those Americans are spending the money of our children and grandchildren. Are you Marxist if you believe tax levels should be at the levels they were under Reagan? See Marx was not a Marxist, his works were largely meant as a warning of the likely future due to the intolerable cruelty of the newly emerging class of capitalists in the 19th century. Marx did not understand technology nor its future though.
If you work in the IT industry and own a computer you own the means of your production and you are therefore a Marxist. Due to his era he was unable to see anything short of gigantic industry but technology is opening a world where we can all own professional grade equipment and manufacture for ourselves on a relatively level playing field which is Marxism.
Now when people say Marxism they often mean Socialism which is often considered a middle ground to communism but communism is also misunderstood. Communism is a stateless system in which people communally attend to the communities needs. Communism has never been attempted though much like true libertarianism and anarchism likely due to their lack of trust in authority figures and therefore belief in the dissolution of or minimizing of gov interference and power since power corrupts. Russia was a totalitarian state that used communism as a promise and ideal much like we use liberty but similarly what they had was very different.
Even if we look at Bush it would be uncomfortable to look into his past, his grandfather funded the Nazi's and tried to stage a coup against FDR. Nixon was his hand chosen successor who then gave Bush's son appt's who then later made his way onto a presidential race and a political dynasty was born.
How about Palin, stories of problems at first college due to racial incidence and surrounded by secessionists in her and her husbands background not to mention their particular stripe of Christianity which is a tad colorful. Don't get me wrong some Hawaiian holidays are racist towards whites and I could see how a reaction to that could get misconstrued but again thats a colorful past to paint a picture from dont ya think? Thats what I think about Obama's background, like everyone elses thats within grasp of power its pretty dark and ugly in there but I dont think he is really special in that regard. One of the cleanest I can think of is Clinton and thats hilarious but at least he doesn't have multiple generations of well documented issues. And the church he belonged to was the power church of the area that launched his political career, it was a professional not a spiritual decision. If he would have been from another church he would not have gained the confidence of the elders of the area that he needed to win.
You make a bunch of good points, and for once I am happy to agree with some of your opinions about Marx, Socialism, Communism, everyone having a colorful background, and Obama joining a power church.
Here was my point, which I did not explicitly assert, as I did not want to appear incessantly combative, and I figured this thread was winding down, and I really just wondered what you knew and what you thought about what you knew – anyway, here's my point: given Pres. Obama's background, it makes sense that Palin or anyone might speculate about Marxist sympathies without intending to ring the Black Panther racist bell.
Now, is it fair to say: Pres. Obama is a Marxist! I will say it's unfair. Someone could, however, make that (imo) unfair statement w/o intending it as racist code language. That someone might easily and truly believe the statement to be correct and fair.
Also, I have a nuanced view about this. I think it fair to characterize a specific Obama policy or belief as a Marxist policy or belief. Such is different from asserting that Obama himself is Marxist. If someone says: “Redistributing wealth is a Marxist concept (or 'a Marxist inspired concept')”, then I will agree with them.
Thanks for responding. I have enjoyed the conversation.
“My main point was that his trip was funded by someone, and it was not his family”….” And you know that… how?
Can 11 year olds have credit cards, Kat?
No.
Do 11 year olds fly alone and plan 2500 mile trips by themselves?
No.
The child would have to have had some sort of “help”, don't ya think?
You did not answer my question. I'll ask it again.
“My main point was that his trip was funded by someone, and it was not his family”….” And you know that… how?
“I'll ask it again. “My main point was that his trip was funded by someone, and it was not his family”….” And you know that… how?”
I have not talked to the child, Kathy. Do you know how a 11 year old got to DC ON HIS OWN?
I have not talked to the child, Kathy.
You haven't? Then how do you know he got to DC on his own?
Do you know how a 11 year old got to DC ON HIS OWN?
Of course not. I don't even know IF he got to DC on his own. I have not talked to the child.
“Of course not. I don't even know IF he got to DC on his own. I have not talked to the child.”
That was my point exactly, Kat.
One could DEDUCE that, in a typical situation, that 11 year olds generally do not get on planes and fly 2500 miles without help. The most likely scenario is that SOMEONE or some group helped him. That is most likely the case. Simple deductive reasoning.
If I go outside and see the ground wet, I can deduce that it has rained. In this case, a valid deduction is that the 11 year old had help getting 2500 miles from home. Most airlines require some sort of adult sign-off prior to flight.