Hal Turner got arrested for urging his listeners to kill people. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of "Obama's trying to smother free speech," but it's hard to misinterpret this as empty rhetoric:
"If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."
There are, like, twenty things wrong with that sentence. "We" have enough bullets? You planning on taking some people out, Hal?
A civil liberties lawyer might set me straight on this, but I don't think advocating violence is considered protected speech. Incitement to riot is still a chargeable offense, yes?
Looking back on this week's conversations here about various pundits and also the Prez. it seems that thankfully we have many people who appreciate Obama's willingness to acknowledge when issues are complex and his ability to process and manage complexity, but then these same folks seem all too willing to offer adamant opinons about complex subjects that they know very little about , maybe having heard an interview or read a blog/article or taken a related undegrad class at one time, so what, if anything, do we make of this apparent contradiction and how can we proceed with all due humility? thanks
One way to think about the contradiction on this blog is to think socially rather than comment by comment. Compared to many other blogs I read, this one draws people in to think harder about opinions that they feel compelled to vent about at first-- yes, especially they have already vented said comments. So the question is whether this forum improves what would be scattershot ranting by individuals, and whether the non-commenting readership can gain nuance in their own thinking from TNC and the threads. It seems to me to miss the purpose of threads and blogs to think that each and every comment need mirror the complexity of an Obama speech in order for there not to be hypocrisy in appreciating the latter. Imagine a conversation with a friend where you had to engage in the same qualifications and compound phrasing of Obama to discuss any issue. That would be insane-- a good conversation helps each participant air out blunt and overdrawn points and then test them out. It doesn't mean that your friendship was barbaric, or just as inhumane as a Beck rant.
I believe the opinions here on the whole are not goads to worse and worse one-upmanship (again, unlike many other places, left and right), so I think we are doing better together than we would otherwise.
Agreed. The analogue of this blog is a pleasant, usually intelligent, well-policed (TNC does a good job there) kitchen table discussion. I don't expect the seriousness of a position paper presented to a president making policy.
No not adamant, as I said "apparent" contradiction, I appreciate this blog and the conversation which is why I wrote the 1st comment/question but to set the bar as low as improving scatterhot rants and developing more nuance for the non-commentator readership (how would we know if this had been achieved?)seems to sell short the many life-enhancing times when this blog becomes a place where ideas are not just exchanged but also created and perspectives are mutually enriching, which tends to be for me when people are talking about subjects that they know well. Not sure what/who you are addressing with your other comments as they don't seem to be related to what I wrote, except to ask why is it "insane" to limit one's sense of certainty, as opposed to say questions/hypotheses? For me T is a good role model here I think in his willingness to refer to more knowledgeable sources when he is out of his depth and or just acknowledging when he is just starting to work something through. peace
My caveat on this: there is a continuous contributor to these posts, whose handle I will not mention, who is consistently one of my favorites. Why? Because this commenter is blood-thirstingly honest and provides posts that are terse as haikus. The posts cut to the chase and cut to the quick. As someone who is given to long-winded nuanced responses, I am always energized by those posts.
Apropos of nothing. Driving home from errands on the day the POTUS moves to change a decades-long history. Speech to be remembered for decades. Before I get the chance to turn him off, Limbaugh is on. Sucked in to the vortex.
His first three comments are about himself, references to him in the media. Nothing about Cairo. Blowhard is as bloward does. Yet one more time, it's all bout him. Spell now broken by the oh so obvious, switch to NPR, Handel's Sesto aria. thank you thank you thank you gods for not foresaking me.
I caught a bit of Limbaugh today. He spoke plenty about the Cairo speech, as he does every major Obama speech.
When Limbaugh talks about himself it's usually in response to recent comments about him made in the mainstream media. If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil. Limbaugh is a savv enough broadcaster and entrepreneur to understand the upside of being the MSM's designated foil, and he plays it for all it's worth. He responds to some anchor's critique of him, the anchor reports it, and Rush's profile gets elevated further, as, in turn, does his audience, his influence, and his ad revenues.
"If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil." That may be true but I also feel like there are so many uniquely Rush characteristics that draw ire and viewers. #1 His unique take on language, he created the term Femi-Nazi right? #2 His look, it's so much easier to hate a guy you disagree with when he has a physique like Jabba the Hut, Sean Hannity in contrast looks like one of Mitt Romney's cousins. Combine that with the slicked back hair, his flashing super intense eyes, and the fact that he enjoys chomping on big cigars, just so Wall Street/Country Club. #3 His name, can't argue with the impact of an unusual name like Imus or Ta-Nehisi, Rush just sticks in your brain.
The reason why Rush's audience is so big is that Rush is funnier and smarter than pretty much anyone else on the radio. He also tends to be honest to the point of self-deprecation about himself (btw, he's on a diet now and can take off the pounds when he sets his mind to it). A lot of talk radio types, on both the left and right, are mostly angry. That can be a turn off. I give Hannity credit for his work ethic, but he strikes me as being not that bright and also sort of full of crap. An Irish Catholic guy from Long Island who acts like he's the world's biggest country music fan? Come on.
I never saw much of a resemblance between Hannity and Romney. Intellectually, they are on different planets, of course. Romney is a genius -- easily, I think, the smartest person who ran for president last year.
Yeah in my response 1. I was comparing Hannity to Romney looks wise, not intellect wise. A note on Romney though: I`m from MA and as a governor he was just totally meh, and barely in his office to boot. Politically his biggest failure was gay marriage, which he said was going to bring down civilized society. 2. Rush is funny? You mean like that super funny Michael J. Fox impersonation he did? 3. I think its really cute you're defending his looks, dude has been huge for over two decades, unless he gets the surgery I just don't see a slim down happening. My point was not that he's a bad person for being fat, just that if you already disagree with someone its easier to really get on them when they look like the manifestation of excess/greed.
I caught a bit of Limbaugh today. He spoke plenty about the Cairo speech, as he does every major Obama speech.
When Limbaugh talks about himself it's usually in response to recent comments about him made in the mainstream media. If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil. Limbaugh is a savv enough broadcaster and entrepreneur to understand the upside of being the MSM's designated foil, and he plays it for all it's worth. He responds to some anchor's critique of him, the anchor reports it, and Rush's profile gets elevated further, as, in turn, does his audience, his influence, and his ad revenues.
Your last sentence puts it well - the media reports on the media which reports on the media response which reports..... The primary reason I have problems watching Olbermann. Don't really care what attack he launches tonight against Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh.
I agree that, with the dearth of Republican voice, Rush's influence has been elevated recently. But audience and ad revenues? More doubtful. Might be wrong but I believe his audience size, and ergo revenue, has been relatively static for at least 15 years. Even if his audience is 20 million (gawd did you and I both count today?), that means he's less than a 7 percenter. 20 million out of 300 million. A small niche. Point: his elevation to some sort of significance in the media has been way out of proportion to his audience size. Affirming again your point about the MSM creation of him as foil.
"Even if his audience is 20 million (gawd did you and I both count today?), that means he's less than a 7 percenter. 20 million out of 300 million. A small niche."
Rush's audience has grown since Obama's inauguration, if memory serves. Calling Rush's audience a "small niche" is only true if you compare it to the entire population of the country, as you have. Try comparing it to, say, Keith Olberman's audience. Or Fox News's audience. Ten times more people listen to Rush than watch the most popular cable news network during prime time.
And by the way: I don't mind counting. I give Rush props for being a talented and entertaining broadcaster. My father, who was a Democrat and disagreed with Rush on most issues, still enjoyed listening to him. It takes a rare talent to get people who disagree with you to listen to you anyway, and Rush has it.
I have been listening less to Rush this year though since -- because of his opposition to Obama -- he's intent on focusing on the economic clouds. That gets a little depressing.
Interesting parallel family history. My father disagreed with Rush about nearly everything and listened to him every day. His regret was that most of his coffee friends were so rigidly conservative that he didn't want to risk their friendship by engaging them. I admit that I can't listen.
The spin and the misinterpretations are just too outrageous... I recall the last time I listened, months ago, Rush spinning some story about how BHO had 'cost' the world XXX trillions of wealth because world economies had busted since BHO was nominated (nominated!). Dow was around 6500 then. Has Rush credited BHO with the recovery of wealth not that we're back to Dow 8700? That's the kind of nonsense that turns me away.
Whether the size of Limbaugh's audience says something about it or the man who likes to brag that he has half his brain tied behind his back is hard to say. Smart? Cunning, maybe--ah Iago. Funny? I guess if you like someone dropping barbells onto your head.
There's really nothing new about Limbaugh; he's one of a long list of right wing radio talk show guys. There was a guy like him--Joe Pine--blathering out of LA when I was a kid, but in the post McCarthy days he did not fare so well.
Limbaugh simply benefitted from Ronald Reagan's rise to power in the US when it became fashionable to hate the environment (a reaction to Love Canal kinds of legislation that forbade shitting upstream--one of L's most treasured ideas of privilege) and, as a result of the diminishment of men, especially white men in our society, to blame women and non whites for their failing marriages and economic status, and above all participate in the tax-evasion nation mentality that put us the current hole we're in.
He's a sick m***********, and his influence is why conservatism is dying in America, its dittohead (lack of) mentality, it's pitchfork vigilantism, all the while becoming more virulent and rotten.
Your recent posts on Ali-Frasier reminded me of a book of short stories I think you might be interested in, as both a fan of boxing and of great writing: The Pugilist at Rest, by Thom Jones. Next time you're in Barnes & Noble, read the first story and see what you think.
Also, if you can find it somewhere, Thom Jones wrote a great essay for the Village Voice back in the 1990s -- the essay was framed around a big photo of Sonny Liston in the center of the page, for a reason I'll explain in a moment. The Pugilist at Rest was Jones's breakthrough, and, the publisher sort of promoted Jones as first time author who was an instant hit, but in his Village Voice essay, Jones gave the real scoop: that he had an MFA, had written a failed novel before, struggled as a low-level ad copy-writer, etc., before his "instant success".
Jones also mentioned how, before he first met them in person, his publisher or his agents in New York asked him what he looked like. So he asked them how they imagined he looked. I forget the exact description, but they described a tall, dark and handsome white guy, if memory serves. So Jones sent them a head shot of Sonny Liston with something like this written on it, "I'm a little taller and darker than you thought". None of the girls in New York recognized the photo of Liston, so for a while, they all thought that's what Jones looked like.
Finally got to reading yesterday's paper: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried an op-ed from a former GOP state legislator where he pretty much tore Montgomery County High School a new one over the separate proms thing. It was nice to see.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
RIP David Carradine.
Just saw that. RIP
RIP
So sad. RIP, Grasshopper.
Another legend lost to autoerotic asphixiation. Damn you Thailand!
Hal Turner got arrested for urging his listeners to kill people. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of "Obama's trying to smother free speech," but it's hard to misinterpret this as empty rhetoric:
"If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."
There are, like, twenty things wrong with that sentence. "We" have enough bullets? You planning on taking some people out, Hal?
A civil liberties lawyer might set me straight on this, but I don't think advocating violence is considered protected speech. Incitement to riot is still a chargeable offense, yes?
I wonder if Hannity is gonna speak up in defense of his boy.
Probably not, eh?
And RIP Koko Taylor. What a giant talent.
RIP indeed.
Looking back on this week's conversations here about various pundits and also the Prez. it seems that thankfully we have many people who appreciate Obama's willingness to acknowledge when issues are complex and his ability to process and manage complexity, but then these same folks seem all too willing to offer adamant opinons about complex subjects that they know very little about , maybe having heard an interview or read a blog/article or taken a related undegrad class at one time, so what, if anything, do we make of this apparent contradiction and how can we proceed with all due humility? thanks
One thing I make of it is that I am not as wise as our President is, esp. concerning the matters that concern him. Feels good for a change.
Are you adamant about the contradiction?
One way to think about the contradiction on this blog is to think socially rather than comment by comment. Compared to many other blogs I read, this one draws people in to think harder about opinions that they feel compelled to vent about at first-- yes, especially they have already vented said comments. So the question is whether this forum improves what would be scattershot ranting by individuals, and whether the non-commenting readership can gain nuance in their own thinking from TNC and the threads. It seems to me to miss the purpose of threads and blogs to think that each and every comment need mirror the complexity of an Obama speech in order for there not to be hypocrisy in appreciating the latter. Imagine a conversation with a friend where you had to engage in the same qualifications and compound phrasing of Obama to discuss any issue. That would be insane-- a good conversation helps each participant air out blunt and overdrawn points and then test them out. It doesn't mean that your friendship was barbaric, or just as inhumane as a Beck rant.
I believe the opinions here on the whole are not goads to worse and worse one-upmanship (again, unlike many other places, left and right), so I think we are doing better together than we would otherwise.
Agreed. The analogue of this blog is a pleasant, usually intelligent, well-policed (TNC does a good job there) kitchen table discussion. I don't expect the seriousness of a position paper presented to a president making policy.
No not adamant, as I said "apparent" contradiction, I appreciate this blog and the conversation which is why I wrote the 1st comment/question but to set the bar as low as improving scatterhot rants and developing more nuance for the non-commentator readership (how would we know if this had been achieved?)seems to sell short the many life-enhancing times when this blog becomes a place where ideas are not just exchanged but also created and perspectives are mutually enriching, which tends to be for me when people are talking about subjects that they know well. Not sure what/who you are addressing with your other comments as they don't seem to be related to what I wrote, except to ask why is it "insane" to limit one's sense of certainty, as opposed to say questions/hypotheses? For me T is a good role model here I think in his willingness to refer to more knowledgeable sources when he is out of his depth and or just acknowledging when he is just starting to work something through. peace
I say ask more questions than giving opinions.
Are opinions always needed? It doesn't seem to be ok to be unsure. Can we get to a point where we can just wait and see?
I've found myself silent in the past few days just reading and absorbing the issues.
My caveat on this: there is a continuous contributor to these posts, whose handle I will not mention, who is consistently one of my favorites. Why? Because this commenter is blood-thirstingly honest and provides posts that are terse as haikus. The posts cut to the chase and cut to the quick. As someone who is given to long-winded nuanced responses, I am always energized by those posts.
Apropos of nothing. Driving home from errands on the day the POTUS moves to change a decades-long history. Speech to be remembered for decades. Before I get the chance to turn him off, Limbaugh is on. Sucked in to the vortex.
His first three comments are about himself, references to him in the media. Nothing about Cairo. Blowhard is as bloward does. Yet one more time, it's all bout him. Spell now broken by the oh so obvious, switch to NPR, Handel's Sesto aria. thank you thank you thank you gods for not foresaking me.
I caught a bit of Limbaugh today. He spoke plenty about the Cairo speech, as he does every major Obama speech.
When Limbaugh talks about himself it's usually in response to recent comments about him made in the mainstream media. If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil. Limbaugh is a savv enough broadcaster and entrepreneur to understand the upside of being the MSM's designated foil, and he plays it for all it's worth. He responds to some anchor's critique of him, the anchor reports it, and Rush's profile gets elevated further, as, in turn, does his audience, his influence, and his ad revenues.
"If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil." That may be true but I also feel like there are so many uniquely Rush characteristics that draw ire and viewers. #1 His unique take on language, he created the term Femi-Nazi right? #2 His look, it's so much easier to hate a guy you disagree with when he has a physique like Jabba the Hut, Sean Hannity in contrast looks like one of Mitt Romney's cousins. Combine that with the slicked back hair, his flashing super intense eyes, and the fact that he enjoys chomping on big cigars, just so Wall Street/Country Club. #3 His name, can't argue with the impact of an unusual name like Imus or Ta-Nehisi, Rush just sticks in your brain.
The reason why Rush's audience is so big is that Rush is funnier and smarter than pretty much anyone else on the radio. He also tends to be honest to the point of self-deprecation about himself (btw, he's on a diet now and can take off the pounds when he sets his mind to it). A lot of talk radio types, on both the left and right, are mostly angry. That can be a turn off. I give Hannity credit for his work ethic, but he strikes me as being not that bright and also sort of full of crap. An Irish Catholic guy from Long Island who acts like he's the world's biggest country music fan? Come on.
I never saw much of a resemblance between Hannity and Romney. Intellectually, they are on different planets, of course. Romney is a genius -- easily, I think, the smartest person who ran for president last year.
Yeah in my response 1. I was comparing Hannity to Romney looks wise, not intellect wise. A note on Romney though: I`m from MA and as a governor he was just totally meh, and barely in his office to boot. Politically his biggest failure was gay marriage, which he said was going to bring down civilized society. 2. Rush is funny? You mean like that super funny Michael J. Fox impersonation he did? 3. I think its really cute you're defending his looks, dude has been huge for over two decades, unless he gets the surgery I just don't see a slim down happening. My point was not that he's a bad person for being fat, just that if you already disagree with someone its easier to really get on them when they look like the manifestation of excess/greed.
I caught a bit of Limbaugh today. He spoke plenty about the Cairo speech, as he does every major Obama speech.
When Limbaugh talks about himself it's usually in response to recent comments about him made in the mainstream media. If Limbaugh didn't exist, the mainstream media would have to elevate someone else in his place, to have as a foil. Limbaugh is a savv enough broadcaster and entrepreneur to understand the upside of being the MSM's designated foil, and he plays it for all it's worth. He responds to some anchor's critique of him, the anchor reports it, and Rush's profile gets elevated further, as, in turn, does his audience, his influence, and his ad revenues.
Your last sentence puts it well - the media reports on the media which reports on the media response which reports..... The primary reason I have problems watching Olbermann. Don't really care what attack he launches tonight against Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh.
I agree that, with the dearth of Republican voice, Rush's influence has been elevated recently. But audience and ad revenues? More doubtful. Might be wrong but I believe his audience size, and ergo revenue, has been relatively static for at least 15 years. Even if his audience is 20 million (gawd did you and I both count today?), that means he's less than a 7 percenter. 20 million out of 300 million. A small niche. Point: his elevation to some sort of significance in the media has been way out of proportion to his audience size. Affirming again your point about the MSM creation of him as foil.
"Even if his audience is 20 million (gawd did you and I both count today?), that means he's less than a 7 percenter. 20 million out of 300 million. A small niche."
Rush's audience has grown since Obama's inauguration, if memory serves. Calling Rush's audience a "small niche" is only true if you compare it to the entire population of the country, as you have. Try comparing it to, say, Keith Olberman's audience. Or Fox News's audience. Ten times more people listen to Rush than watch the most popular cable news network during prime time.
And by the way: I don't mind counting. I give Rush props for being a talented and entertaining broadcaster. My father, who was a Democrat and disagreed with Rush on most issues, still enjoyed listening to him. It takes a rare talent to get people who disagree with you to listen to you anyway, and Rush has it.
I have been listening less to Rush this year though since -- because of his opposition to Obama -- he's intent on focusing on the economic clouds. That gets a little depressing.
Interesting parallel family history. My father disagreed with Rush about nearly everything and listened to him every day. His regret was that most of his coffee friends were so rigidly conservative that he didn't want to risk their friendship by engaging them. I admit that I can't listen.
The spin and the misinterpretations are just too outrageous... I recall the last time I listened, months ago, Rush spinning some story about how BHO had 'cost' the world XXX trillions of wealth because world economies had busted since BHO was nominated (nominated!). Dow was around 6500 then. Has Rush credited BHO with the recovery of wealth not that we're back to Dow 8700? That's the kind of nonsense that turns me away.
Whether the size of Limbaugh's audience says something about it or the man who likes to brag that he has half his brain tied behind his back is hard to say. Smart? Cunning, maybe--ah Iago. Funny? I guess if you like someone dropping barbells onto your head.
There's really nothing new about Limbaugh; he's one of a long list of right wing radio talk show guys. There was a guy like him--Joe Pine--blathering out of LA when I was a kid, but in the post McCarthy days he did not fare so well.
Limbaugh simply benefitted from Ronald Reagan's rise to power in the US when it became fashionable to hate the environment (a reaction to Love Canal kinds of legislation that forbade shitting upstream--one of L's most treasured ideas of privilege) and, as a result of the diminishment of men, especially white men in our society, to blame women and non whites for their failing marriages and economic status, and above all participate in the tax-evasion nation mentality that put us the current hole we're in.
He's a sick m***********, and his influence is why conservatism is dying in America, its dittohead (lack of) mentality, it's pitchfork vigilantism, all the while becoming more virulent and rotten.
"PRESIDENT SPORTS THIN MOUSTACHE IN EGYPT..."
That was one of the top headlines on Drudge. Not sure what to make of it, but I just wanted to share...
Thanks for visiting Drudge for the rest of us.
The president is becoming John Waters starting mustache first, keep a close eye on this.
Ta-Nehisi,
Your recent posts on Ali-Frasier reminded me of a book of short stories I think you might be interested in, as both a fan of boxing and of great writing: The Pugilist at Rest, by Thom Jones. Next time you're in Barnes & Noble, read the first story and see what you think.
Also, if you can find it somewhere, Thom Jones wrote a great essay for the Village Voice back in the 1990s -- the essay was framed around a big photo of Sonny Liston in the center of the page, for a reason I'll explain in a moment. The Pugilist at Rest was Jones's breakthrough, and, the publisher sort of promoted Jones as first time author who was an instant hit, but in his Village Voice essay, Jones gave the real scoop: that he had an MFA, had written a failed novel before, struggled as a low-level ad copy-writer, etc., before his "instant success".
Jones also mentioned how, before he first met them in person, his publisher or his agents in New York asked him what he looked like. So he asked them how they imagined he looked. I forget the exact description, but they described a tall, dark and handsome white guy, if memory serves. So Jones sent them a head shot of Sonny Liston with something like this written on it, "I'm a little taller and darker than you thought". None of the girls in New York recognized the photo of Liston, so for a while, they all thought that's what Jones looked like.
This is just a side note but whatever happened to MoeLarryandJesus?
Coates, you up on this??
Its an ode to Baltimore...
http://shop.eboy.com/products/baltimore-docks-poster#
Look carefully at the blown-up segments, at the Lego-shaped little people.
Can you spot any Wire references?
Juba that is sooo sick. I might have to get me that to remind me of home
Finally got to reading yesterday's paper: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried an op-ed from a former GOP state legislator where he pretty much tore Montgomery County High School a new one over the separate proms thing. It was nice to see.