Eruantale

Attempt to vilify Rush Limbaugh backfires gloriously

Earlier this month there was a big controversy over conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who’s ever listened to Rush knows that he is very supportive of the military. In fact, he’s been criticized about being ‘blindly’ supportive in the past. But the morons in congress decided to have a field day with a comment he made and attempted to lambaste him, claiming he is unsupportive of the military. Unfortunately, their plan backfired. Big time.

The comment that started it all

On September 26th, 2007, Rush was talking to a caller about people who lie about their military service to give them credibility and then denounce military efforts in Iraq. He was referring to the case of Jesse MacBeth, the man who claimed to be a veteran of the Iraq war and lied to reporters about fictional war crimes his unit had supposedly committed. MacBeth had actually only been in the army for forty-four days before he’d been deemed unfit and subsequently kicked out. Rush referred to such soldiers as “phony soldiers” in this call:

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

Congress throws a hissy fit

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his buddies in congress took this phrase and ran with it, attempting to vilify Rush. Representative Mark Udall introduced a Resolution in the House of Representatives lying about Rush’s comment and condemning him for something he did not say. Here is a quote from the resolution:

Whereas on September 26, 2007, the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are ”phony soldiers’‘…

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Reid and forty other Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Kerry, wrote and signed a letter to the president of Clear Channel, Rush’s syndication partner. Reid apparently lacks the I.Q. to comprehend what Rush was saying as well, judging by this quote from the letter:

Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

Forty-one senators total signed this letter and sent it Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, apparently unaware that Mays is a personal friend of Rush. Mays laughed it off and gave the letter to Rush, who then hatched an ingenious plot to totally pwn the lot of them. Continue reading Attempt to vilify Rush Limbaugh backfires gloriously…

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...

A Book Meme

Someone sent this to me a while back and I just had time to complete it. I’m supposed to tag five people, but I’m lame and don’t have that many friends, so I’m going to tag Linda Belle and Meli and everyone else who wants to do it.

1. Hardback or trade paperback or mass market paperback?

For collecting: hardback. For reading: trade paperback. For the sake of my wallet: mass market paperback.

2. Amazon or brick-and-mortar? (buying online or in a store?)

Though I don’t typically buy from Amazon, I prefer online because it’s generally cheaper and we don’t have any large bookstores here. Also, if I’m looking for a particular book, I can never find it at the bookstore. However I do love browsing sections and finding new books at bookstores.

3. Amazon or the Co-Op Bookstore?

What? Continue reading A Book Meme…

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...

How does this contribute to peace?

The Nobel Foundation announced today that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007:

…is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

This comes as no surprise to me, but I am still a bit… confused. Alfred Nobel, the man whom the award is named after, said that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded, “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

Putting aside my doubts on the subject of global warming, I do not see how Al Gore and the IPCC’s efforts to raise public awareness on this subject contribute to “peace” in any way. Shouting to the world, “Global Warming is coming!” doesn’t really count as promoting fraternity between nations. It doesn’t discourage fraternity, either. The two things are entirely unrelated. Likewise, neither Gore nor IPCC have done anything in particular for the abolition or reduction of standing armies. As for the holding and promotion of peace congresses, as far as I’m aware, that has not been their concern. Continue reading How does this contribute to peace?…

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...