Limbaugh: Popularity Up, Classiness Down

I really didn't want to write about Rush Limbaugh again so soon, but I missed something he did this Friday that is too insulting to not bring up. It seems most of the media missed this, as the first I heard of it was on Huffington Post today. (Image: Wikipedia) On his show, Rush was criticizing the Obama health care plan and got on the topic of the ailing champion of the health care reform movement, Senator Ted Kennedy. Limbaugh made light of the bill, stating that "[by the time it passes], it will be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill."

Here is an audio clip of the comment via Media Matters:

This comment about Kennedy really is tasteless. Senator Kennedy is among the most respected Democrats in congress and is fighting cancer which caused a nearly fatal brain tumor in the past year. Limbaugh has no respect or regard for anyone but himself -- personifying the Republican brand. If anything this is icing on the cake as to what's wrong with the Republican party. When a man who says things like this is your de-facto leader, that speaks volumes.

In case anyone needs a refresher about Limbaugh, here's an article via the Huffington Post that highlights some of Rush's worst comments including:

• Calling Abu Ghraib abuse an "emotional release"


• Saying America should ship its stupid jobs to Mexico


• Explaining women were "doing quite well in this country before feminism"


• Saying the NFL looks like continuous "game between the Bloods and the Crips"

Go away, Rush.
Read more...

The GOP: A Drunk on the Subway...

This colourful description of the Republican Party comes from self-described Former Evangelist Frank Schaeffer. He relayed this description in an interview with non-other than D.L. Hughley. (Image: YouTube screenshot) It's quite shocking that D.L. Hughley Breaks the News has managed to produce some really good content for the second week in a row. After it's absolutely dreadful start, the guests these last two weeks have really redeemed Hughley's show to me. But let's get to the issue at hand...

Here's a video of the segment feature Frank Schaeffer. I know the segment is relatively long in Internet-time, but there is not a dull minute in it:

His willingness to acknowledge how the Republican party has pandered to religious groups is admirable. This occurs even though religious ideals don't match up with the true Republican agenda. Religion has never been "me first" in practice, but that's exactly what the GOP stands for. The Republicans gained this support by preaching religious values in social issues such as marriage and abortion. But to pose a question with reference to a famous Canadian quote, does the government really belong in the bedrooms of the nation?

If your religion is not encroached upon by these issues, why should it become the government policy that invades the private life of others? I believe these questions are those that Schaeffer is addressing indirectly. Well, he also directly addressed them by saying the religious-right movement has trended towards neo-fascism. Now, I don't think he is drawing comparisons to the Nazi party -- those most frequently associated with the word -- but rather the idea that government power was reaching into all facets of life. Creating one moral code that is stated as the only moral way.

Schaeffer's blogs at the Huffington Post go into more detail, and I would recommend them to anyone who finds this clip interesting. The creation of "Other" discussed in Schaeffer's work is exactly what happens in fear-mongering that the GOP has perfected. Schaeffer calls Obama's election a miracle that can turn the country around; this really is the truth. Obama can deliver a change of direction for the United States, and I hope that he does.

Watch the video when you have the time, it's really worth 8 minutes of your time; the last two minutes especially.
Read more...

Fifteen Reasons Obama is Like Bush (Not)

When reading over DailyKos today, I came across a little article by contributor Jed Lewison. In this piece she satires the story published in the Washington Post that claimed Obama is just like Bush. (Image: CNN) Though clearly written for comedic purposes, Lewison's post on DailyKos is quite blatantly straight-shooting. The editorial in the Washington Post is laughable at best -- does anyone really think Barack Obama is like George W.? Check out the post after the jump...

Here are Lewison's fifteen reasons Obama is like Bush (I added bold):

Obama is like Bush because: Obama's first move is always to reach out to everybody willing to participate in the process, no matter what party they belong to.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama gives the political opposition every opportunity imaginable to avoid self-destruction.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama made concessions to the GOP in the stimulus on taxes (42% of the bill was tax cuts) even though almost no Republicans supported the bill.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and is ending the war now that he is president.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy from the beginning and is rolling them back now that he is president.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports stem cell research.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports national health care reform including universal health care.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports regulating the mortgage market that ran amok during the Bush years.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports massive public investments in our national infrastucture and energy economy.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports reproductive freedom.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports transparency in government.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama wants to restore the very constitution that has been torn to shreds over the past eight years.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama's dad wasn't President.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama can speak in complete sentences, indeed paragraphs.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama isn't an oil guy, and his boss isn't Dick Cheney, another oil guy.

What do you all think? I think this is one of the best things published on Kos for weeks. It might even be the highlight of this week in the blogosphere. Some quality media satire here.
Read more...

A Week in Review: Drama in the Grand Old Party

Who would have thought D.L. Hughley had the political clout to start up a big battle within the Republican party? It all started a week ago Friday, when Michael Steele appeared on CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks the News. (Image: CNN) During Steele's interview on D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, Hughley made a joke about Rush Limbaugh being the de-facto leader of the GOP. Being the elected chairman of the party, Steele took exception to this and called Rush merely an entertainer.

Steele didn't stop there; he went on to dismiss much of Rush's brand of entertainment as incendiary and ugly. Before, during, and after these comments, Steele was relatively tame considering his recent style. Here's a video of his entire appearance, but the comments in question were made 6 minutes into the video:



Clearly Limbaugh would be none-too-happy about these comments regarding his acceptance speech for his Defender of the Constitution award. In this speech, Rush fired up the Republican base by restarting, what the media has called, the angry white man movement. Here's a highlight:



I wish I could share more highlights, but, for time sake, let's just assess this in the larger context. Rush makes divisive comments, Steele calls him on it; so then what happens? Limbaugh goes on his radio show the Monday after Steele's appearance and questions him on his loyalty to the GOP. That's right, Rush responds to the Chairman of the Republican part attacking him by questioning his loyalty to the party.

I guess he is the de-facto leader. But, if you're not convinced, by Tuesday Steele was apologizing and taking back his words. So it would seem that Rush Limbaugh is indeed the de-facto leader. What is the GOP coming to?

I almost forgot to mention, Steele is back to his old ways already. He describes his relationship with Limbaugh as "all good" before adding that he never meant to question Rush's influence or "leadership" in the party.
Read more...

U.S. Policies That Matter to Everyone: Net Neutrality

An ongoing debate for lawmakers everywhere around the world is whether or not they can regulate their citizens' activities on the web. There is not only the question of how, but also whether it is anyone's place to regulate the global network. (Image: New York Times) Information obtained by the Wall Street Journal indicates that President Barack Obama plans to appoint Julius Genachowski to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is critical in setting the agenda for media regulation; its decisions can influence the global media landscape due to the number of American power-player corporations that it monitors.

Genachowski, Obama's technology adviser, has been a vocal supporter of Net Neutrality and other progressive regulation choices. As I explained in my introduction, Net Neutrality is an extremely important issue that could have big effects on current and future Internet use. Essentially, Net Neutrality is trying to keep the Internet free of regulation. Regulating the Internet could take several forms, which you can investigate in depth if it interests you; but, here are some highlights:

• Increased Digital Copy Protection


• Creating Solidified Standards


• Limitations on Free Speech

Digital Rights Management (DRM) of any kind typically has side-effects that hinder the freedom of paying customers. Copy protection may be a worthy cause, but regulation of the Internet to embed copy protection into every aspect of what we do could be seriously limiting and also invade privacy. Likewise, creating solidified standards through regulation may help developers work with a more reliable system, but limits the collaborative evolution that has propelled the Internet forward.

The threat to free-speech is the most clear threat from governments destroying net neutrality. Existing statues that allow censorship by service providers could apply to the Internet if regulations are placed on it. This means that if Rogers, Bell, Comcast or whoever your service provider is, doesn't like what you're saying, they could potentially use existing laws to censor you. This depends on the Internet being defined into regulations, which could either protect free speech or limit it.

The point is, as soon as regulations on the Internet begin to occur in major countries like the United States, it would be a slippery slope toward a highly-regulated experience. The Internet is often viewed as a democratic medium; whether you agree with that sentiment or not, regulating the Internet will eliminate any hope left for it.
Read more...

A Top 5: So, Who Likes Earmarks?

DailyKos recently assembled a list of the top 20 earmark-getters. With all the rhetoric we've come across from the Grand Old Party over the campaign and as of late, the results may surprise you. (Image: stock.xchng) During the presidential campaign, John McCain implied that earmarking was a problem caused by "liberal democrats" who are looking to spend tax payer money. I won't villainize the earmark concept too much, but it has been abused by many. Ironically this list shows who are the main people abusing it...

I narrowed the list to the top five since it seems to accurately reflect the pattern of the top 20. Here are the top five earmarkers by dollar:

1. Cochran (Republican-MS) $471 million


2. Wicker (Republican-MS) $390 million


3. Landrieu (Democrat-LA) $332 million


4. Harkin (Democrat-IA) $292 million


5. Vitter (Republican-LA) $249 million

It's amazing that the Republicans from Mississippi are demanding so much money. The one thing Kos was quick to point out was that the Democrats on the list are arguably the worst of the bunch. They are exploiting their position as swing voters to make demands.

I think they need to create a new process for states getting money. The projects earmarkers get money for are not big enough for their own legislation on the federal level, but the state level doesn't have the money to do it alone. The problem is that earmarks become negotiating points for votes; in effect, the congress becomes a massive bribing movement. Perhaps it's time to create a congressional budget for state projects; somehow earmarking needs to be controlled.
Read more...

Diving into Web 2.0

Recently I watched a video by anthropologist Michael Wesch, which discusses YouTube as a cultural phenomenon. Is YouTube part of a surge of democratic media or a wasteland of disorder? That is the question. (Image: YouTube) The video by Michael Wesch is a relatively simple capture from a live presentation at the Library of Congress. However, the fact that we can access this video speaks to the power of YouTube as a platform. Before YouTube, finding a video of a specific presentation would have been nearly impossible. Now almost everything is on YouTube or similar services.

The most important point to take from the discussion of YouTube as a cultural item is that it depends on its users to create and (sometimes) filter content. Wesch describes in detail how social sites like Digg and Delicious represent a new level of user control over their portal to the internet. Digg displays user-filtering, while Delicious shows user-organization. Both of these functions work to create a communal browsing experience that depends on users not just for content, like YouTube, but also to define the collective browsing experience.

The Internet user-generated movement has outpaced growth of any other movement; dwarfing the amount of TV content produced by networks over their entire life. In some ways it seems like we isolate ourselves more and more behind screens, but, as Wesch points out, there is a type of networked individualism that emerges. We are creating an individual experience, but we share it and take-in the experiences of others.

The YouTube culture is one of paradoxes. We are isolated, yet part of a community. We are talking to no one, but talking to everyone. We "pirate" content, yet create new things. Our individual experiences turn into collectively embraced internet phenomena. Everyone has an identity, but it might not be rooted in reality. These uncertainties make YouTube a cultural community that serves a different purpose to all of its participants. With either serious or playful motives, everyone seems to enjoy YouTube.

Here's his video for anyone interested:

Read more...