Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3441 »

Alkydere: Jun 7, 2010; Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.

Radish posted:

Eh whatever. If it works out for the best, great. I just don't have a lot of faith in this SCOTUS doing the right thing but I guess even they can do something decent once in a while.

File this one under "failure to gently caress up".

# ? Oct 7, 2014 20:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 22:10

anonumos: Jul 14, 2005; Fuck it.

So The Economist put out a "why aren't wages rising" article about how technology isn't solving all our problems. Meanwhile, they missed the point entirely:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better

quote:

IF THERE IS a technological revolution in progress, rich economies could be forgiven for wishing it would go away. Workers in America, Europe and Japan have been through a difficult few decades. In the 1970s the blistering growth after the second world war vanished in both Europe and America. In the early 1990s Japan joined the slump, entering a prolonged period of economic stagnation. Brief spells of faster growth in intervening years quickly petered out. The rich world is still trying to shake off the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. And now the digital economy, far from pushing up wages across the board in response to higher productivity, is keeping them flat for the mass of workers while extravagantly rewarding the most talented ones.

Between 1991 and 2012 the average annual increase in real wages in Britain was 1.5% and in America 1%, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a club of mostly rich countries. That was less than the rate of economic growth over the period and far less than in earlier decades. Other countries fared even worse. Real wage growth in Germany from 1992 to 2012 was just 0.6%; Italy and Japan saw hardly any increase at all. And, critically, those averages conceal plenty of variation. Real pay for most workers remained flat or even fell, whereas for the highest earners it soared.

It seems difficult to square this unhappy experience with the extraordinary technological progress during that period, but the same thing has happened before. Most economic historians reckon there was very little improvement in living standards in Britain in the century after the first Industrial Revolution. And in the early 20th century, as Victorian inventions such as electric lighting came into their own, productivity growth was every bit as slow as it has been in recent decades.

It can't possibly be a failure of politics and ~~"voodoo"~~...oh I'm sorry, trickle-down...economics. It has to be -- drumroll please -- over-education.

quote:

A new paper by Peter Cappelli, of the University of Pennsylvania, concludes that in recent years over-education has been a consistent problem in most developed economies, which do not produce enough suitable jobs to absorb the growing number of college-educated workers. Over the next few decades demand in the top layer of the labour market may well centre on individuals with high abstract reasoning, creative, and interpersonal skills that are beyond most workers, including graduates.

Most rich economies have made a poor job of finding lucrative jobs for workers displaced by technology, and the resulting glut of cheap, underemployed labour has given firms little incentive to make productivity-boosting investments. Until governments solve that problem, the productivity effects of this technological revolution will remain disappointing. The impact on workers, by contrast, is already blindingly clear.

Also, the appeal to governments, lol!

anonumos fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 7, 2014

# ? Oct 7, 2014 20:52

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic?

# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:08

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

Wages have stagnated because people are just too qualified.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:38

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

There was a similar article a month or two ago in the Economist about restarting America's stalled economy. Surprise! It suggested a tax holiday for repatriated foreign cash and more H1-B visas. Oh, and fast-tracking whatever terrible new trade deal is percolating through the system. That ought to fix everything.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:53

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

kik2dagroin posted:

I am kind of disappointed MM didn't capture the whole rant, but this latest one from Master Shake had me giggling http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/10/07/levin-supreme-court-action-on-marriage-equality/201045

Guys, why do we even have a federal government? Or judges. Reagan be praised.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:02

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Ah yes, all the money is accumulating to those who are most "talented".*

*_{Talent not equally distributed across race or sex, talent more common among those born into wealth, talent may consist entirely of threatening America into bailing out your bad gambles on financial instruments or the economy gets it.}

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:15

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

Maybe we could trade merit based pay for teachers for merit based pay for management. Just put them through a Office Space-esque interview for their own job every year or so about what they did to justify a 1%er salary and anyone who sweats gets taxed the gently caress up.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:20

Skex: Feb 22, 2012; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic?

Not intentionally.

# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:23

Moktaro: Aug 3, 2007; I value call my nuts.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Oh Dinesh

Here is the photo he linked

As usual, the answer is this: It's you, Dinesh. You're the worst.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:01

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Oh Dinesh

Here is the photo he linked

What the gently caress this is supposed to mean?

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:05

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

beatlegs posted:

What the gently caress this is supposed to mean?

It's a clever pun. By replacing the E with an O, he makes it sound like Obama. Ho ho, what a jest!

Give the guy a break, it's not easy when your career is staring into the abyss of voluntary martyrdom.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:08

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

My interpretation is that this means that Ebola is going to be God's judgement on Muslims and ~~nig~~welfare queens within another couple of months. I would expect it to be a new dogwhistle. Every case of Ebola that makes it to our shores is going to evidence that Obama is either incompetent, or doing this on purpose. Out of curiosity I checked up on my old conspiracy theory buddies and they are absolutely apoplectic and terrified in a way I can't remember seeing before. They are absolutely convinced that this is it. This is the big one. This is the bio-terror false flag that will bring about world government. They are flipping the gently caress out and Alex Jones et all have somehow managed to find a way to ramp up the fear to new levels. Considering the current growing overlap between the Conspiracy Theorists and Tea Party loons I think Obama importing Ebola may be some new form of Birther poo poo that will persist.

Since Ebola is going to be a problem and in the news for at least the next six months I expect this to start people doing some really really really irrational poo poo. Not necessarily violent, just incomprehensibly weird and irrational. They way they are all talking to each other reminds me of what I saw when actual schizophrenics were having paranoid meltdowns. poo poo is gonna get strange.

Edit: Take this all with a grain of salt.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:16

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

There's also his career of making movies that people go to see out of peer pressure and spite rather than the films actual merits.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:17

Big Beef City: Aug 15, 2013

Levin just put on a fairly interesting show about crazy supreme court justices throughout history which was actually fairly entertaining.

He 'wrapped up' his giant, circuitous route through American history with his point. And his point is, and I quote "The court [by refusing to rule] is causing hostility and balkanization in this country", by voting in a way that makes bigots feel angry about being 'oppressed'.

Literally he couldn't come up with anything other than 'the courts must keep the status quo and therefor the peace.' You're making bigots mad they can't be bigots legally anymore, America. And we're MAD!

# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:32

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Big Beef City posted:

Levin just put on a fairly interesting show about crazy supreme court justices throughout history which was actually fairly entertaining.

He 'wrapped up' his giant, circuitous route through American history with his point. And his point is, and I quote "The court [by refusing to rule] is causing hostility and balkanization in this country", by voting in a way that makes bigots feel angry about being 'oppressed'.

Literally he couldn't come up with anything other than 'the courts must keep the status quo and therefor the peace.' You're making bigots mad they can't be bigots legally anymore, America. And we're MAD!

Levin is insane when it comes to his opinions on the judiciary and squarely in the Bircher/Larouchite/Paulite tradition of magical thinking. Where does he think the Supreme Court went off the rails? Well, only a short time ago in 1794 with the explicit foundation of judicial review.

The hilarity of being opposed to judicial review is amplified even more by the references in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton to judicial review. So this is a man with a huge boner for the founding fathers that quotes the Federalist Papers all the time and says he thinks "he was born in the wrong time, and would have loved to have been a representative debating the constitution in the 18th century," but but somehow... for some reason.. this one key fact seems to elude him.

He's an "originalist," but he believes DOMA is A-Okay. By his logic, I wonder where in the constitution it says that the federal government should be concerned with marriage at all. I can't find that anywhere!

He's David Barton-esque in his ability to pretend his own violently illogical opinions about the judiciary form some form of coherent philosophy, and the right wing media takes him seriously.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:20

Big Beef City: Aug 15, 2013

I tried to look up his opinions on 'court opinions he likes', possibly during the late clinton/bush terms, but he just really seems to hate the judicial branch of the government for some reason.

He seems hell bent on denying the power of the executive and judicial branches, and using state legislatures to elect a national legislature.

A viewpoint I'm sure he see's as 'coalesced democracy' or some such term.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:36

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Big Beef City posted:

I tried to look up his opinions on 'court opinions he likes', possibly during the late clinton/bush terms, but he just really seems to hate the judicial branch of the government for some reason.

He seems hell bent on denying the power of the executive and judicial branches, and using state legislatures to elect a national legislature.

A viewpoint I'm sure he see's as 'coalesced democracy' or some such term.

He wrote an entire book outlining his philosophy on the Supreme Court(which I'm sure he mentioned over and over and over again during that show). Here's a review that outlines all the absurdity: http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2874

He opposes the direct election of senators, and basically just really dislikes democracy in general. He describes his viewpoint as "little-R republicanism." So he appears to believe that the voice of the people should not have the representation it does at the federal level, and that it should be a more direct extension of the popularly elected state governments.

This, by the way, is a far more coherent explanation of his philosophy than he has ever provided.

You're right about him hating the executive and judicial branches. He basically perceives any leeway given to the executive branch in terms of implementation to be an unconstitutional delegation of power by congress. In his philosophy, though, it's unclear what recourse there would even be to these unconstitutional delegations of power since he doesn't believe SCOTUS has the power to declare things unconstitutional.

One of his other proposed fixes to the current system is allowing like 2/3rds or 3/5ths of state legislatures to overturn SCOTUS decisions, and "term-limiting" supreme court justices.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:48

Big Beef City: Aug 15, 2013

That makes sense, actually. During tonight's program he actually flat out said the American voter can't be trusted to know what national politicians are up to, hence why it's better to let state representatives elect them to power.

edit: It's almost like he thinks local politicians who elect state politicians who elect national politicians is the ideal, while raging against the "Chicago Politics" of one Barack Obama. It's so loving weird how that works, isn't it?

Big Beef City fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:55

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

Given their views on democracy, it seems like most conservatives would prefer a soviet-style council system.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:58

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Big Beef City posted:

That makes sense, actually.

Yeah, it's taken me a long loving time listening to Mark Levin to be able to parse any coherent understanding out of his inane ramblings. What am I doing with my life?

Shbobdb posted:

Given their views on democracy, it seems like most conservatives would prefer a soviet-style council system.

The irony that runs through all of this is that his view that "SCOTUS promotes tyranny!" is also a common left wing criticism of past supreme court decisions. He just uses a different handful of cases, and commonly a completely inverted definition of what tyranny is. For example, he thinks Supreme Court decisions upholding the jailing of dissenters during war time are completely fine.

This happens a lot with conservatives. A great example is the recent conservative mantra of, "If you don't work you shouldn't eat," which was one of the founding tenets of Leninism. The difference, again, is the definition of who is lazy is inverted. Modern conservatives use it to excoriate the working class for not working hard enough while socialists directed it at the bourgeoisie getting rich off the backs of the working class.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:04

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution:

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:07

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Big Beef City posted:

That makes sense, actually. During tonight's program he actually flat out said the American voter can't be trusted to know what national politicians are up to, hence why it's better to let state representatives elect them to power.

edit: It's almost like he thinks local politicians who elect state politicians who elect national politicians is the ideal, while raging against the "Chicago Politics" of one Barack Obama. It's so loving weird how that works, isn't it?

Anyone who's worked with or talked to an elected official knows that 95% of the time this would be worse as most elected people can't be bothered to find out if the crazy person who asks them to fire all government staff is correct that the government staff stole 500 girls in ~~Africa~~ an innocent white sub-urb.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:10

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Babylon Astronaut posted:

Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution:

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

He should really just save time and say he wants the articles of confederation reinstated.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:13

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

ErIog posted:

The irony that runs through all of this is that his view that "SCOTUS promotes tyranny!" is also a common left wing criticism of past supreme court decisions. He just uses a different handful of cases, and commonly a completely inverted definition of what tyranny is. For example, he thinks Supreme Court decisions upholding the jailing of dissenters during war time are completely fine.

This happens a lot with conservatives. A great example is the recent conservative mantra of, "If you don't work you shouldn't eat," which was one of the founding tenets of Leninism. The difference, again, is the definition of who is lazy is inverted. Modern conservatives use it to excoriate the working class for not working hard enough while socialists directed it at the bourgeoisie getting rich off the backs of the working class.

Don't forget their love of Centralization.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:00

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

King Metal posted:

I think somebody posted about the Galt's Gulch libertarian paradise in Chile once. Well, I wanted to see if I could go there and touch/smell the poop so I started looking for some news about it. This was the first thing that popped up. I think I'll still drive by and see if it's burned down yet

http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10

I love a good libertarian nation attempt story. They all end hilariously. Like the Republic of Minerva! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva#Republic_of_Minerva

# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:26

Moktaro: Aug 3, 2007; I value call my nuts.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic?

The Economist is better than US right-wing publications (not that it's saying much), but they still revert to "free market uber alles" when the chips are down.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:59

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Babylon Astronaut posted:

Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution:

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

I've been seeing #1 pop up a bunch in libertarian/conservative screeds lately. Why has that become a right-wing thing?

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:10

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Hazo posted:

I've been seeing #1 pop up a bunch in libertarian/conservative screeds lately. Why has that become a right-wing thing?

I think it's just generalized dislike for politicians and corruption. Of course they're convinced the problem is the other side's politicians, not theirs though. It doesn't really strike me as particularly unreasonable or noteworthy, really

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:13

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

I think that legislative term limits have been a thing for right-wing populists for a long time.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:15

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Lycus posted:

I think that legislative term limits have been a thing for right-wing populists for a long time.

This forum here flirted with it a bit until there was a frank discussion about what the practical ramifications were.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:18

N. Senada: May 17, 2011; My kidneys are busted

RuanGacho posted:

This forum here flirted with it a bit until there was a frank discussion about what the practical ramifications were.

humor me, what are they?

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:29

Ninjasaurus: Feb 11, 2014; This is indeed a disturbing universe.

Prester John posted:

My interpretation is that this means that Ebola is going to be God's judgement on Muslims and ~~nig~~welfare queens within another couple of months. I would expect it to be a new dogwhistle. Every case of Ebola that makes it to our shores is going to evidence that Obama is either incompetent, or doing this on purpose. Out of curiosity I checked up on my old conspiracy theory buddies and they are absolutely apoplectic and terrified in a way I can't remember seeing before. They are absolutely convinced that this is it. This is the big one. This is the bio-terror false flag that will bring about world government. They are flipping the gently caress out and Alex Jones et all have somehow managed to find a way to ramp up the fear to new levels. Considering the current growing overlap between the Conspiracy Theorists and Tea Party loons I think Obama importing Ebola may be some new form of Birther poo poo that will persist.

Since Ebola is going to be a problem and in the news for at least the next six months I expect this to start people doing some really really really irrational poo poo. Not necessarily violent, just incomprehensibly weird and irrational. They way they are all talking to each other reminds me of what I saw when actual schizophrenics were having paranoid meltdowns. poo poo is gonna get strange.

Edit: Take this all with a grain of salt.

Despite the caveat at the end of your post, I hope this and the incompetent Secret Service doesn't lead to an attempt on Obama's life.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:33

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

quote:

RUSH: Gary in Roseville, California. Welcome. It's just right up the road from Sacramento. Hello.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet, sir.

CALLER: Hey, I recall a couple of occasions earlier in the year when you had pointed out that actors that studied for a role in a movie for weeks or months and then end up appearing in front of congressional committees preaching about [it] as if they're experts on the subject, and I just wanted to put out two cautions if I could to you in that regard. One is that I'm afraid I may be on the verge of doing that with this Ebola thing since there aren't really any experts out there yet, I don't think, in the lay world that are qualified to kind of give the opinions that you've been giving, and I'm kind of afraid --

RUSH: This is very helpful. What --

CALLER: I'm kind of afraid -- and I can give an example -- that your coverage of the Ebola thing may be going from being informational in a good way, to be kind of fearmongering in a bad way.

RUSH: Can you give me an example of how I am acting as an expert in this? This is very helpful. 'Cause if I am engaging in this behavior, I would like to know. I do not believe I'm an expert on Ebola. I've never had it. I don't know anybody who's got it. I'm relying on what's in the news media and what the experts at the CDC are saying. What have I said to fearmonger it?

CALLER: Well, as far as the fearmongering goes, that's the easiest example, and that would be the young lady that called -- the young mother of three kids that called -- last week. She sounded on the verge of terrified about Ebola, and I got the impression it was because of what she'd been hearing from not just you, but including you, about the subject. As far as you seeming to be discussing the subject as if you are more of an expert than any of us really can claim to be.

RUSH: Well, give me an example of that.

CALLER: Well, I've heard you criticizing when the medicine was to go overseas. I've heard you criticizing bringing back patients from overseas. I've heard you saying that --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a minute. That's not acting as an expert on the disease. You're claiming I'm spreading false information about the disease, that I don't know it. That was a comment on whether or not it was wise to bring back this patient. But that has nothing to do with experts.

CALLER: I don't know that any of us laypeople are qualified to make those judgments, and I heard the other day you said that --

RUSH: You know, this is the problem, Gary. A lot of us had better start speaking up about things or we're gonna get snowballed and we're gonna end up losing our freedom, Gary. I don't know where this, "Well, we must leave it to the experts; we are not qualified to make these comments" comes from. We most certainly the hell are when it comes to using intelligence guided by experience!

So far you can't give me one example where I have stated something medically about Ebola that isn't true or that I have acted as an expert in the spread of the disease, acquiring the disease, eradicating it. I haven't talked about that. I have simply weighed in on what I think may be some haphazard behavior by officials in the way we're dealing with it. I don't like this idea that laypeople are unqualified.

I've been hearing this my whole career. It started, you know, when I was a big proponent of a very healthy and well-funded defense department. People like you would call, "Well, did you ever serve in the military?" "No." "Well, then you're not qualified! You have no right, you have no business talking about the defense budget." Really? Where does that come from?

Where is it written that citizens have to be mute idiots in this country in order to be reasonable and understanding and so forth? Gary, I really think we have a big problem in this country and that is too many people are afraid to say what they really think because of all the hell that descends on 'em when they do. I think there are a lot of people in this country who are scared to death about a lot of things going on who are afraid to say so because they see what happens to others who speak up.

Then that leads to beliefs like yours, that it's more reasonable and simple to leave it to the experts. "Experts" defined how? Is Obama an expert in the Constitution 'cause he taught it, ostensibly, in Chicago? In my view, he's not an expert. He's an expert on why he doesn't like it and would like to transform it, make end runs around it, or get rid of it. But it doesn't mean I should shut up because I wasn't there when it was written. That's absurd!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Tell me, who are the smart people? Politicians? Elected politicians? Elected Democrats? Are they the only experts around qualified to speak? Are they the ones we must stop everything we're doing and listen to? We are too stupid to have reasonable, intelligent opinions ourselves? We're too stupid to function on our own? Too many people are not speaking out. Too many people are not saying what they really think.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'll tell you what, folks. There's another problem that we have in this country, and that is there's way too much dependence on experts presented to us in the media. I'll give you the greatest example of experts who never get it right. Economists! Every month when the unemployment number comes out, I don't care what the number is, experts are surprised.

The experts always say the news is unexpected, no matter what the news is. I don't think they even write these pieces anymore. They're a template and they just copy and paste it and they fill it in the first two paragraphs. "Expert economists said the results this month were unexpected, as experts were expecting" blah, blah, blah, and everybody depends on this. Experts on global warming, experts on economics.

We don't have any experts on anything in this Regime. Obama's not an expert on anything. He's not qualified! Well, that's not altogether true. For what he wants to do, he is qualified. He's an agitator, he's a community organizer, he doesn't like the status quo and he wants to upend the country. He is qualified to do that. He's not qualified as we traditionally examine people who want to everybody is as president.

We look at their qualifications. He hasn't done anything. He has no track record, no resume. The only resume he's got, college transcripts, nobody lets us see. So we don't really know. We have to take the media's word for it, and so we get people who are other experts, like New York Times columnist David Brooks telling us he's qualified because the crease in his slacks. Everybody buys hook, line, and sinker what these experts say.

If they're presented in the media, if they're members of the administration, if they're members of the political class -- if the media says somebody's an expert, if they're a scientist, if they wear a white lab coat -- they are experts, and their credibility is never questioned. We always assume that everybody's smarter than we are. That's another thing that is a real bugaboo of mine, and I'm gonna have trouble expressing this.

It may take me two or three times. Steve Jobs had this as a philosophy, too. I don't remember exactly how he said it, but I do know that when I read the quote, it resonated with me. It's understandable how it happens. It starts when we're very young and we're surrounded by people older than we are, and so it is natural to assume they know more than we do. Now, a lot of people never grow out of that attitude.

They're always assuming somebody else is smarter. If they have more money, they're smarter. If they have a bigger house, they're smarter. It's amazing how people willingly subordinate themselves in order to conform. I admit that it takes guts, gumption, or whatever to really believe in yourself. It takes a lot of effort to do that. Most people don't. It's Standard Human Nature 101.

But everybody, a lot of people fall prey to this notion that everybody is smarter than they are. I don't care if it's in the business they want to go into or if it is in politics or if it's in science, global warming or whatever. All we're dealing with here is people in politics at every level of it. We're not dealing with experts except in politics. Science has been politicized. Everything's been politicized now.

The NFL's on its way to being politicized, for example. But the idea that people will so readily accept the testimony of a Hollywood actor as an expert because they played -- they pretended to be -- somebody in a movie? People have been asking me, and I haven't addressed this, "Hey, Rush, did you see the knock-down, drag-out between Ben Affleck in Bill Maher on Friday night?"

"No. I've seen tape of it now, but I wasn't watching.

"What do you think, Rush? What do you think? I mean, who was right?"

It's a classic illustration. Just because it was on TV, somebody in that had to be right. Why do both of them have to be right or wong? Why can't both of them be totally wrong? Why does one of them have to be right? Affleck clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't think ever. But he looks good, and people wish -- women wish -- they were married to him. So that's covered.

Maher? Agitator, but in this case -- if you want to know the truth -- Bill Maher was closer to being right than Ben Affleck was. Ben Affleck literally is consumed with other needs or desires when expressing his opinion. He's the kind of guy who tells you what he thinks because he's really concerned what you think of him afterwards. A lot of people are that way. A lot of people will tell you what they think not because it's really what they think.

It's 'cause they think it's what you want hear, or what they want to hear, or whatever it is that'll make you seem what you think they demand. Either you're nice or not be troublemaker or smart or agreeing with them or what have you. I just think a lot of assumptions exist and are made and are understandable and it's unfortunate, and you can trace it. It all descends here from this notion that there are experts.

The media routinely gives us experts, and I would contend to you that they're always wrong, by virtue of the reporting. The economic experts are always surprised at whatever the monthly unemployment number is or the economic growth. They're always surprised. Well, an expert wouldn't be surprised! An expert would be confirmed. But every month AP, Reuters, whoever -- and they never name 'em.

"A wide swath of experts expressed shock and surprise over the unemployment numbers today." I just don't think there is enough -- and I'm not talking about insubordination. I don't think there's enough questioning of whatever is said by people who are thought to be experts or smarter. I'm safe, I think, in saying that most people -- not all, of course. Most people think everybody's smarter than they are.

Therefore, they must conform or subordinate themselves to whoever they think is smarter than they are. It's not necessarily the case. It's not a conspiracy of anything. There's nobody making this happen. This is human nature, and I just wish there were a way to spiral out of it. It all gets traced back to how much confidence in yourself you have. It all traces back how much you care, how much passion you have about something or anything.

But we're being done in by experts, and we're being done in by this notion that we have no right to challenge what the experts say, like this guy that called me. "We laypeople, we need to dial it back. We laypeople..." It's a classic example of what I'm talking about. This guy was perfectly willing to assume that everybody knows more than he does, and what that leads to additionally is a feeling of illegitimacy about your own opinion, and illegitimacy about your own existence.

And then if that's the case, then you're always going to end up being subservient or subordinate to somebody. You're always gonna end up granting somebody authority over you. Now, in your job, you have to; everybody has a boss. If you're a lawyer, there's the judge and so forth. But I'm talking about just in everyday life and the way people see themselves.

I think it's directly relatable to how much subservience there is in our country and how much dependence there is on the government or other institutions for your wants and needs. I think a lot of people are selling themselves short; not meeting, realizing their full potential. In many cases, it's because they think they're exercising humility. You know, humility is taught, and it's a good thing to be humble.

Humility is a very good, but it can also be deadly. Not deadly. It can be punitive. False humility, the unnecessarily putting yourself down in order to be seen as polite or whatever. That can hold you back. None of this is to say that people have to be mean or confrontational or whatever. That's not what believing in yourself is. It's a tough subject. As I told you, it may take me a couple of attempts here. (interruption)

Well, you know what I've found in my limited -- 'cause I haven't really spent a whole lot of time researching this. But as we all know, there are a few people out there who don't like me. Not many, but there are a few. Now, I'm not one of these people obsessed with that. If I'm in a room and say, 95, people like me, I don't care about the other five. Somebody like Bill Clinton will focus on the other five, or Obama, in order to switch 'em and make 'em friends or fans.

What I've found, if I've really dug deep, you know what they resent? Is that I'm so sure of myself. That intimidates 'em. Nobody's that sure of themselves. And it leads them to think that I have a confrontational or pugnacious manner or behavioral pattern, and I'm nothing of the sort. Confidence can be assumed to be arrogance or conceit, 'cause nobody is supposed to be that sure of themselves. I can't tell you number of people, "How do you know? How are you so sure?" And I say, "'Cause to me it's obvious."

I don't see the benefit in running around saying before everything I say, "Now, I could be wrong about this." Sometimes I do that, depending on who I'm speaking to 'cause that'll open them up. It's a science. But the routine of putting yourself down to other people in order to not threaten 'em or to whatever, I just don't think, in the long run, serves anybody, particularly the individual who's engaged in that kind of behavior.

And, as such, it leads us to where we are now. We had a guy call, "Don't speak. You have no business. We need to defer to the experts. We laypeople." We don't have enough people speaking up. I think the degree of anger, fright, outrage over what's happening to this country is palpable. I think it's almost incalculable. People are afraid. Even in the privacy of a ballot box people won't vote what they really think for fear somebody's gonna find out. People lie to pollsters for fear somebody's gonna find out.

There's a fear of being found out if your opinions don't meet political correctness or whatever the order of the day is. It's less confrontational that way. It doesn't offend people and doesn't hurt people's feelings and all that. And I've always thought that's their problem.

Anyway, I gotta take a break here, folks.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, folks, let me say it another way. I just happen to think that more people are much smarter than they think they are. It really isn't any more complicated than that. And for whatever reasons they tell themselves they're not. For whatever reasons they defer to others who they think are smarter, because of a whole bunch of different variables and reasons. And I don't think there's anything wrong with believing in yourself. I don't think there's anything wrong with believing in your ideas. There's more than one way to do things.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/07/caller_to_host_you_re_no_expert
:v:

Hey man maybe you should dial down on the doomsaying because you're legitimately freaking the gently caress out of some of your listeners
:bahgawd:

gently caress you! You can't point out one instance of anything I said that was counterfactual! If you were more sure of your opinions they automagically become the truth!

quote:

RUSH: We have our usual roster of news regarding Ebola today, and there are a lot of contradictions going on. The president said some time ago (imitating Obama), "Don't sweat it. It's very hard to get it, very unlikely it's gonna be here." And now that it's here, the president had a meeting last night to discuss protocols. Great timing. After it's here, we're now gonna discuss what to do about it. So it's quite a lengthy roster of sound bites I have on it.

There are some Regime officials very, very concerned about this and media people very concerned for the Regime. The media people are more concerned for the Regime than they are for the citizens with Ebola, because with them it's always, "How is this gonna affect Obama?" And I guarantee you, Obama's not gonna get Ebola, but the media is acting like Ebola's gonna hurt him more than any people that end up contracting it. You'll see what I'm talking about as the program unfolds before your eyes and ears today.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's a case of Ebola that has been discovered in Spain, and everybody's reporting, "First known case outside of Africa." What do we have here? I mean, isn't it kind of a technical point? Yeah, there's an Ebola patient from Africa who is here, Thomas Duncan. But I guess what they mean is the first Ebola case contracted by somebody not in Africa, not who went to Africa. This is somebody in Spain, which, maybe it's a fine point, but why would anybody want the dubious honor. And now the euro weenies, uh, sorry, leaders of the European Union are now scared to death.

They are claiming that an Ebola outbreak all over Europe is unavoidable now. They're making no bones about it. They're taking an entirely different tack with their population in Europe than our government's taking with us. Our government is telling us, "Nothing to see here. Nothing really to worry about. We're working on new protocols, and we're gonna ramp up screening, and we're taking people's temperatures, and we're interviewing them before they get on the airplane. They're filling out questionnaires, so we got it covered. Very hard to contract here. Don't worry about it. We've got it contained."

In Europe they're doing just the exact opposite. They're telling everybody a European-wide outbreak is unavoidable. What is in it for them to create a panic like that? Well, you have the philosophy, never let a good crisis go to waste. And it's axiomatic, as senseless as it is, when things like this happen people the world over turn to their governments for solutions, for answers, for help. And if you happen to be a member of a big, far-reaching tentacles everywhere socialist government, that's music to your ears.

And so, if you wanted to establish a European-wide curfew, if you wanted to establish European-wide restrictions on movement to better control your population, what better way than to scare everybody into thinking that an Ebola outbreak all over Europe is unavoidable. Sorry to be suspicious about this, but I happen to know how statists operate, and I happen to know what they see as opportunities. And it's what you and I see as crises. They see them as opportunities. And statists, socialists and so forth, are all about as much control over their populations as possible. That's how they stay in power, in many regards. Something to be concerned about.

Now, the Regime here has not resorted to that tactic yet. In fact, they're doing just the opposite, trying to say, "There's nothing to see, don't worry about it, got it handled. The guys at CDC are better than anywhere in the world. Our guys at Customs are better than anyplace in the world. Our border agents are better than any in the world. We got it handled, no need to worry. Very hard to get this disease, don't sweat it," seems to be the messaging here.

But that's gonna change. It's gonna change simply by virtue of who it is that's in power here, it has to change. The question is, how long is it going to take? We'll see. I predict it isn't going to be long before the Regime changes its tactics. The problem for them, as is the case with everything they do, is politics. There's an election coming up and they can't and don't want to do anything that will further anger the population at large with the people in charge. The election will always come first. With the media, whatever Obama does, how it will affect him will always come first. Not what the effect of the disease will be on the population, but what will Obama's policies mean to him. And you can see evidence of that already.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/07/the_regime_s_ebola_contradictions

Someone actually in Spain posted:

...
Spanish authorities have said that all the proper protocols and procedures were followed in the care of the two missionaries. But the European Union has asked for an explanation as to how the woman was infected.
European Commission spokesman Frederic Vincent said on Tuesday that "Spain told us all the protocols have been followed, but obviously something wrong happened."
There have been 10 evacuations of Ebola-infected patients from Africa to Europe, eight of those within the European Union, Vincent said -- and it is first time that something like this has happened.

"The hospitals where the patients are being taken are supposed to be equipped and ready to deal with Ebola patients," he said.
"If protocols are being followed, it's highly unlikely that an outbreak could happen in the EU. But again, zero risk doesn't exist, particularly in a hospital, where staff deal with sick people.
...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/world/europe/ebola-spain/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

quote:

RUSH: "Neighbors of the Ebola patient in..." Have you heard this? I was wondering how long this was gonna take, and it's happened. The Reverend Jackson is on his way to Dallas. Grab audio sound bite number 14. Roger Staubach's daughter is a member of the Dallas City Council. Now, Dallas City Council elections are officially nonpartisan, but the neighbors of the Ebola patient feel discriminated against.

That's the magic word: Discrimination. They feel discriminated against. That is sending up a flare. It's the equivalent of sending up a flare to the Monochrome Coalition and a request for the Reverend Jackson to arrive on the scene. They are discriminated against. "Residents in the Vickery Meadow neighborhood of Dallas are living near the epicenter of the Ebola scare in North Texas.

"Now, they say they're facing a different challenge -- discrimination. Thomas Duncan stayed at an apartment in the community before being diagnosed with Ebola and admitted into Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital for treatment." Just wait 'til the people living near the Duncan family's new undisclosed residence find out who their neighbors are. That's gonna be a whole new set of fireworks.

"Dallas City Council member Jennifer Staubach Gates says that she met with over 30 community leaders on Monday, trying to assess the needs of the residents." These are all illegal aliens -- well, I don't know about all, but quite a few of them are living on visas that have expired. She said she went there... Well, she's down there try to assess the needs of these discriminated-against residents.

"Most are concerned about the possible stigma of living near the apartment building." Thirty community organizers in this one neighborhood. Now, "'Unfortunately, they are feeling discriminated against,' said Gates. 'We still have some that have been turned away from jobs. Some that have been turned away at retail locations. We�re getting them in touch with legal aid and any resources necessary.'"
...
RUSH: On the phones we go to Maitland, Florida, this is Alise, and great to have you on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. Good morning, Rush. How are you today?

RUSH: I'm okay. Good to have you here.

CALLER: Well, thank you very much. I know the answer to this, but I think it needs to be asked. I don't remember reading about this. Who is paying for all the medical bills for the patient in Dallas, the Ebola patient who evidently is not a citizen of the United States? Who's paying for all that?

RUSH: I always thought that he was.

CALLER: Uh-huh.

RUSH: Is that not right? I just assumed people paid their own, 'cause he doesn't have health insurance.

CALLER: Well, I would assume he doesn't. I mean, he's not a citizen, so technically he shouldn't have health insurance here, right?

RUSH: I know he doesn't have health insurance. He's a citizen of Liberia. I don't think Obamacare's spread there yet. So I just assumed he was paying for it himself.

CALLER: Well, I'm sure you're right. Probably the people that -- in Dallas, too, that need the legal aid, because they're being discriminated against, they're probably paying for that themselves, too, right?

RUSH: Well, I don't understand that. I really don't. They say they're being discriminated against. They don't even live in the same apartment complex that this guy lived in. Let me get this straight now. They live in the Ivy Apartments. That's where the fiancee of the Ebola patient lived. This is a whole different neighborhood that's claiming that they're being discriminated against.

CALLER: Wow. Well, I bet you they're paying for their own legal bills, though, don't you think?

RUSH: Right, yeah, that's what I assumed. I assumed if they didn't have Obamacare they'd be paying for their -- no, I'm being facetious, obviously, folks. It's gotta be Medicaid. It has to be Medicaid. Medicaid is health care for the poor. It's got to be, which means that you and I, the taxpayers, will pay for it. The taxpayers are on the hook either way, be it for the legal aid or for the medical treatment for Ebola.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/07/ebola_discrimination_shakedown_begins_in_dallas
Man he is all over those Liberian people being illegal immigrants. He is just so sure of it that it has to be true!

kik2dagroin fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:44

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

N. Senada posted:

humor me, what are they?

I think that the thought of endless streams of freshman congressmen is probably number 1 on the 'what lobbyists have wet dreams of', for one.

For another can you imagine anything worse than a lame duck lawmaker? Like, presidents can coast because who gives a poo poo he doesn't have any actual power, but these people actually have power.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:48

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

N. Senada posted:

humor me, what are they?

This, exactly. Like icantfindaname, I don't see why it's particularly unreasonable or rightist to be fond of the idea, especially in places like the South where the same horrible politicians get elected over and over because no one else can get an edge.

edit: should have refreshed:

Tatum Girlparts posted:

I think that the thought of endless streams of freshman congressmen is probably number 1 on the 'what lobbyists have wet dreams of', for one.

For another can you imagine anything worse than a lame duck lawmaker? Like, presidents can coast because who gives a poo poo he doesn't have any actual power, but these people actually have power.

I mean yeah, this is a potential problem but I'm still not seeing how it'd be significantly worse than the current system of favoritism and nepotism for lobbyists and congressmen. Plus it's not like lame duck presidents have never tried to push through legislation on their way out.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:26

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Hazo posted:

This, exactly. Like icantfindaname, I don't see why it's particularly unreasonable or rightist to be fond of the idea

Because it's been in place for decades on end in multiple jurisdictions, none of them showing any benefit from doing so.

You know what they say about the definition of insanity?

Hazo posted:

I mean yeah, this is a potential problem but I'm still not seeing how it'd be significantly worse than the current system of favoritism and nepotism for lobbyists and congressmen.

See any jurisdiction with them: http://ballotpedia.org/State_legislatures_with_term_limits

Or maybe more importantly, see how the states that had them but have since repealed them have suffered no ill effects from the repeal?

You should ask yourself, if you can't find a reason it would actually improve the situation, why do it?

# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:39

Venusian Weasel: Nov 18, 2011

N. Senada posted:

humor me, what are they?

This actually came up in the USPol thread a few days ago.

A few good posts from that discussion:

Mo_Steel posted:

Why would we need term limits? If the answer is to prevent politicians from being entrenched and unremovable, then why not vote them out? If the answer to that is we can't because of gerrymandering, then the real problem is with our electoral process and not the length of terms; if we can't because of massive monied influence protecting them, then the real problem is with our campaign finance laws and not the length of terms; if we can't because they make good votes that the people support then there's no problem.

Basically term limits don't seem to really address systemic electoral and political problems while punishing people who actually do good work and are supported by the will of the people. At least from my cursory look at them.

Biffmotron posted:

From California Crackup, term limits are a disaster. Legislators aren't just perpetually running for their own jobs, they're perpetually running for some other job in the devil's own game of musical chairs. There's no institutional knowledge, no incentive to compromise, no reward for long term thinking, and the actual power goes to lobbyists (who metastasized in Sacramento after term limits were introduced) and unelected Party officials. Shittastic as Congress is right now, term limits would somehow make it even worse.

Pope Guilty posted:

The key line is

quote:
The entire motivation [from tea partiers] for a legislative term limit is to prevent careers in politics from being desirable, which term limits could do very well. In these schools of thought a career in politics is inherently crooked (because, you know, the government obviously feeds on created wealth while creating nothing) and keeping a person from stewing in one for too long is a worthy goal in and of itself.

Thing is, a career in politics isn't just about being in office, it's about being involved in the political parties and machinery. In a world where term limits are in effect, careers in politics are still entirely viable, but the ones that are desirable are the unaccountable, unelected one, like high-level party functionaries and lobbyists. Term limits push the power in government away from elected positions- and thus away from the people who vote for those offices- and toward the party bosses and lobbyists.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:49

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Exactly the sort of information I was looking for. Thanks for the links and quotes; I'm still not sold on why it's such a horrible idea but I'll be interested in reading more.

# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 22:10

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

To add, from longer ago discussions, with the way the Senate and House are otherwise structured right now, you end up with all the committees being as effective and knowledgeable about subjects as their high school counterparts. You get increased instances of idiots like Lamar Smith being in charge of things they have no place being anywhere near.
You lose all ability for congress to resist outside pressure (as alluded to by other posters) and you basically invite a lot of headaches and incompetence you'd never see suggested as a good idea to strive for in the private sector.

The thing to remember is that the problem is probably too much elected influence in the machinery of government, at the local level you get governments that will give staff direction to enact a plan and then, because of someone bloviating on the national level, gets swept out of power and you now have a whole new set of bosses who don't understand how anything works at all but gosh darn it they were elected for a reason!

Now tax payers have just had their staff resources wasted for the past 18 months as the new government throws out everything the previous one did because of principles, as their constituents have been screaming at them "Why did my property taxes go up 26% in the past year?!" (Well a school bond passed and your property value has gained 35% in the past year). These inexperienced elected officials then say things in public like "I don't understand why reducing staff means a reduction in services." or "The Government is wasteful and too big" never mind that only the insane and uneducated would assert that a private business was running staff at 10-15% extra capacity just because it can. All of this, how staff actually functions at every size of government requires some institutional knowledge and cycling politicians out does very little except remove said knowledge from the system.

I may be mistaken but I think most liberal leaning people would prefer competence and technocratic behavior in their governments rather than inefficiency and incompetence. Despite what others may protest otherwise. So if the issue is that they're all bums, throw them out you're not really addressing the issues. When people call for term limits they're thinking of people like Diane Feinstein and other congressional institutions, but the problem isn't that she's been in office too long, the problem is she was never suited to office in the first place and the Democrats, unless someone actually primaries her successfully (ha) are never going to unseat her and we're back to playing this idiotic game of who controls the Senate by who has enough of their team in the seats. Pretty much any issue you can think of that term limits would fix, has other causes and wouldn't be fixed effectively enough to be worth any tangible benefit you may want to name and it will have repercussions you may not have considered.

RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Oct 8, 2014

# ? Oct 8, 2014 07:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3441 »