BS: Rush Limbaugh

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Troll
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:31 AM

Had I had ANY idea that this thread was going to generate the vituperative diatribes that comprised many of its posts, I would NEVER have started it in the first place.
I won't make THAT mistake again.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:33 AM

The story of the Cochlear Implant has many twists and turns. Hanging out at the Natinal Institute for the Deaf at a party I heard a deaf guitarist that was quite good. As a cellist with many peak experiences from orchestra I wondered how he could hear what he was playing.

Understanding the nature of turning acoustic sound into the electric biologic signals the "ear" sends to the brain and how they do not cross over as with vision (they are processed on the same hemisphere as the particular ear involved) I first theorized an external inducer , sort of like wearing a stocking cap with tiny electrodes on the sides.

It worked but did not work. In other words it produced a synthesia or confusion between senses. Sort of like seeing a smell or seeing a sound or hearing a touch. There had to be much more precision as to the placement to the existing suditory nerves.

This idea went from a research team (of all places) Kodak to Litton Industries to a myriad of other medical research industries before they got it right over the next 10 years. Even at its very best it is about 10% of what the true texture that normal hearing can provide.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:39 AM

Troll,

I do appologize for my part in pulling this thread in the direction it went. Still.... thank you for making it. It may not have turned out like you thought it would. But, when do they ever...

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:46 AM

typo corrections: National sythesthesia auditory

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:49 AM

Actually, I don't think that Troll expected anything else on this thread besides the replies he got.........The very first line of his post reads:

"Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh -some love him, some dispise him- it's hard to be neutral about the man."

And that is about what you've seen here isn't it? People willing to espouse extreme views in either direction have a galvanic effect on most of us and as Rick said quite early on, listening to the guy has often gotten him off the fence. I am, like Marty, a bit surprised that more wasn't discussed about Cochlear Implants because there is so much controversy surrounding this procedure, but then again, most are not too familiar with the deaf community and their feelings on the subject (brief summation here--good site overall). A co-worker of Karen's is in the midst of this fight right now. She has decided on the Cochlear option and is getting great flak from her friends.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:50 AM

argh

sythesthiesia

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:53 AM

Sorry Troll, I was typing and we cross posted.....Maybe you DIDN'T expect the replies!!! Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 10:03 AM

There are few people I would attack as I have Rush Limbaugh but that type of attack is his reason for being is it not? Limbaugh is an admitted comedian and buffoon. Where do you take him seriously where not. I would say it is unwise to take one's political point of view from this man. Anyone care to dissagree? I am politically conservative especially economically. I will tell you that he in no way represents my point of view.

Wolfgang: There are lots of Eurocentric threads I don't read. Plenty of talk of British politics. But more talk, especially since 09/11 of US politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 11:16 AM

Hmmmm - bit of a correction here. The "Politically correct" wording for folks with problems is "Challenged." Since I am so dang challenged most of the time I'll try to be succinct.

I only heard Mr. Limbaugh speak once and that was about women and their place not being an equal one. It was about this time that several of us were working on a forum for battered women at the university I was attending. So it is interesting to hear the variety, and intensity, of the debate!

Anyone - I said anyone - who struggles with the challenges the majority of us take for granted is to be empathized with.

But no sympathy - sympathy is between shit and syphillus in the dictionary where it ought to be. To empathize is to provide acknowledgement of the condition with support for the recovery. To sympathize is to feel sorry for - a pity pot - and Mr. Limbaugh does not appear to want sympathy. Good for him I say!

America needs all Her heros - left and right of the center - so my hopes are for a recovery. And if not I am sure Mr. Limbaugh will find a way past the challenges to continue his course in American History. I just wish people would stop beating each other up.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM

People who listen to radios enjoy the same option that people have who tune in to the Mudcat. If they don't like what they hear, and they don't like what they read, turn the radio off. If they don't like what is available to read, don't read it.

Carol, I cannot understand why you are so opposed to Limbaugh earning his living as a talk-show host. People who find him offensive don't have to listen to him! If he has as many listeners as the press reports that he has, quite a few people do enjoy listening to him. Several million evidently. Why should they not be permitted to listen to whatever they want to?

Isn't that a bit like favoring censorship?

Perhaps those of you who wish to have him silenced approve of censorship if it is something you do not approve of? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Troll
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 12:47 PM

Thanks, Steve.
'Spaw,I expected some nasty posts but not the degree of vituperation that was generated. So much for the idea that people are gracious to those in adversity even if they don't agree with them.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: GUEST,Al Franken
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:10 PM

Limbaugh should only be viewed in terms of entertainment value. It is virtually impossible to keep tally of his factual errors, faulty logic, and sheer misinterpretation of things. For documentation on this, see my book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. Even most rational conservatives take him with a grain of salt.

p.s. Before you criticize the book title, look up Big, Fat, and Idiot in the dictionary. One can make a good case for the accuracy of all three.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:15 PM

I liked your book there "Al" but you win the "Idiot" award for that triple post.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:24 PM

DougR, I find him to be a profoundly destructive human being. There are many people who believe whatever he says, just because he says it. Even if it can be proved that what he is saying is false. He uses personal attacks and innuendo rather than factual information as often as not. I have heard people spewing extremely vitriolic and hateful things that were inspired not only by what Limbaugh said, but also by the way he said them.

Having been on the recieving end of the kinds of character assasination that he employs, I can tell you that it can have a profound effect on one's life.

I don't wish to censor him. I would never seek to have him taken off the air. But I think the world would probably be a slightly better place if he would stop what he is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:27 PM

Theres a world of difference between advocating censorship and wishing someone would go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:51 PM

I guess I'm just curious what falls into the category of "lies" as opposed to a simple differing perspective.

I was among those who knew something was wrong with him. I could tell from his voice and delivery that something drastic had changed this year. I somewhat assumed it was the depression that he has from time to time battled. I also thought it may have been a throat problem except that he showed a decidedly different manner toward his callers this summer.

I also thought that it may have been a depression he felt from finding himself in a position of feeling it necessary to defend the presidency of GWB----a president with little common philosophy with Rush, but still a Republican.

As a fellow with a bit more libertarian leanings than Rush, I found that, though I could often agree with him, I was aware of his use of arguement that skewed logic to his advantage------though no worse in a "news reporting" accuracy than, say, Jim Leherer or Peter Jennings etc.

I think there's a tendency to attribute Rush's inaccuracies to his ideology because he is upfront about his beliefs and doesn't try to hide behind an illusion of objectivity.

When newscasters are inaccurate it is generally percieved as in the "mistake" category----because their ideology is kept under wraps (and assumed by most to play no part in the reporters rendering of the news)

I warned friends 7-8 years ago to not take too much comfort in Rush's success. I felt that his "unholy marriage" of entertainment with news commentary, while gratifying to those of us who had for so long taken it on the chin with the one-two punch of a left-leaning press and an even more left-leaning entertainment industry.

It felt good to be percieved as fun-loving folk with a sense of humor---counter to the way we had been cast for so long. Unfortunately, the payback is hell, and when your strength is supposed to be accuracy, logic and truth.....Rush's compromises in order to be entertaining, are too costly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:04 PM

John Hardly, I'm guessing that you don't watch the "News Hour With Jim Lehrer". If so, thay may be why you think his show uses inaccurate news reporting. The "News Hour" gives equal time to both sides of the Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal, or any other debate. Lerher's show uses panels that have an equal number of people on both sides of any debate, and it gives them equal time to answer the same questions. I don't believe Limbaugh's show does that.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: GUEST,Al Franken
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:36 PM

Limbaugh openly brags about using pre-screened callers in order to make himself look good. If a critic who is speaking from a solid logical position actually makes it thru, Limbaugh cuts them off since he can rarely effectively engage them. His practice of taking quotes entirely out of context in order to misrepresent someone is well beyond anything remotely resembling legitimate journalism. Spaw. I am sorry about the triple post. However, I hardly think that an honest mistake merits your comment. Are you having a bad day?

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:38 PM

Carol,
Actually, I've watched it off and on (more on than off) since it was McNeil/Lehrer (though I still don't know how to spell McNeil or Lehrer! LOL). And I still find it to be most non-objective. I feel that both sides are carefully controlled. I guess I feel a higher degree of squirm factor when watching it because my point of veiw is almost, but not quite ever characterized properly. This, and the stories themselves are from a left perspective, with only the courtesy of allowed response afforded the right.

The least squirm factor I feel is usually with the "This Week" show. This mostly because, though the left is still allowed the position of "correct by default", George Will is my spokesman of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:49 PM

Well, there's something to be said for karma !

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:52 PM

John Hardly, on which network is "This Week" aired, and when would I be most likely to be able to catch it? I'll check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:13 PM

ABC on Sunday mornings with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. Right in your own backyard, so to speak, Carol.

You might try Hennity and Combs (not sure of the spelling here either) on the the Fox News network probably around 8 or 9pm your time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:20 PM

Ok. I watch that show when I can catch it. I like it. (The one with Sam and Cokie.) As for the other one, I don't get the Fox News network.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:31 PM

A fellow entertainer is losing his hearing in a big way. It is unfortunate. Some of you obviously think he asked for it by being a jerk. That too is unfortunate.

I have always looked at Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern, as contrary people. They push the envelope. They make you question what you think. And you should question what you think, at least once a day. I have heard it said that if you haven't changed a major opinion in the last five years, you better check your pulse, because you're probably dead.

Anyway, whether you like someone or not, it ain't very nice to make light of their misfortunes. Y'all be sweet now.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:31 PM

Gee, that's too bad, Carol. I think you'd like the Fox News Channel. Their motto is reporting the news fair and impartially. They do have one show you would love to hate though. "The O'Reilly Factor," with Bill O'Reilly. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 04:06 PM

Carol,

I thought of a better contrast to express the discomfort I feel when watching "Lehrer".

I understand the concept--that they claim to offer balance. But to get the feeling that I as a "conservative" feel watching Lehrer would be something like expecting you as a "liberal" (if you are one) to accept that, because he has a two-per-side discussion format, that McGlaughlin is balanced.

I envision that a liberal views WWin Review with Gwen Iffil(sp) as a very enlightened, balanced discussion of the weeks events----even though they don't even claim to balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 04:38 PM

John Hardly, I watch McGlaughlin. I don't think that's an accurate comparison. He does not give each of his panel members an equal amount of time to answer the same questions. To me, that's critical for a show to be able to claim to be balanced.

I watch WWin Review, also. I don't know if that show could be considered balanced or not. The difference between that show and the News Hour is that with shows like McGlaughlin and WWin Review, there are panels made up of essentially the same people for each show. On McGlaughlin, you pretty much know what the political leanings of each panel member are. On WWin Review, I have no idea of what the panel members' political leanings are.

Where the News Hour differs from these two shows is that, although they have a few regulars who appear on most shows, each show usually has at least one panel that is made up of people who are on the show just to address one particular news story on that particular day. These panels are made up of an equal number of people on all sides of the debate, each panel member is asked the same questions (most of the time), and each panel member has the same amount of time to answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:03 PM

Carol,

I agree that the News Hour does it better.....the problem I am addressing however is that the power position of the panel is not in its balance right to left, or even in how much time each has to answer, or even in how civil the debate is--it's in who gets to frame and ask the questions.

There's another flaw I've noticed in the notion of "objective reporting" and news as it is done today. The notion that a person can offer up a point of view that is objectively wrong, the reporter knows it, and yet, in the name of "objectivity" fails to point it out. Sure, sometimes a liar just comes across as silly, but most often, this type of "objectivity" actually lends credibility to things that the reporter knows to be untrue----the reporter actually becomes complicitous in the lie.

I don't know how you feel about the adaquecy of those who are suppose to be answering for your side of the debate (on the news hour), but I am usually quite dissatisfied with who they choose to represent mine. I think that is often because they feel the need to be civil and are usually always caught off guard (though after all this time they shouldn't be) at the way the questions are framed. The only example I can think of off the top of my head to illustrate just what I mean came during the budget debates of '95. All questions were framed in a manner that accepted the nomenclature(I know that's the wrong word but I can't think of the right one right now) "budget cuts", even though, objectively speaking, 1. this gave the emotional arguement to the democrats, and 2.It was objectively wrong use of language--there were no cuts---not one budget item was to be less than the previous year, even if adjusted for inflation. Still, this was how the questioniing was always framed.

I don't know if you saw the thread a week or so ago that had that questionaire that purported to be able to place you on a scale of conservative/liberal authoritarian/i-forget-what. It was the point I made there---the questions seemed to be framed from the liberal's understanding of how they thought a conservative believed, not how we actually believe. That made the questions very difficult to answer. I think the same thing happens on the News Hour.

On the other hand, I believe that the other thing that makes conservatives uncomfortable in many of the News Hours type of questions is that, though the conservatives may believe that their concepts and policies are objectively better, they know that it is human nature to be liberal---heck, it's genetic, and they know before answering, that they are going to have to answer in a very unpopular way-----and they're generally too weak to do so (just my observation).

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:20 PM

Well, Jim Lehrer poses the questions for Shields and whomever is representing the other side of the regular panel at any given time. You may think you know Mr. Lehrer's political leanings, but I would be hard pressed to tell you what they are. I don't believe he has ever said, himself.

And I believe it's Margaret Warner who asks the questions of the temporary panel members. Again, I haven't the slightest idea what her political leanings are, and I don't believe she has said, either. I think any attempt to say what the political positions of these two are would be pure speculation on anyone's part.

As far as watering down what is said by the two regular panel members is concerned, yes, Mark Shields does it too. I think they both make some concessions for the sake of keeping civility on that segment of the show.

Re: your example of the use of the term "budget cuts"... panel members arguing for your side of the debate could have stated an objection to the use of that term, and I feel pretty confident that it would have been at least noted. I've seen people on both sides do that before.

Re: your complaint about the adequacy of the people chosen to represent one or the other side of the debate... sometimes I'm satisfied, sometimes I'm not, and sometimes I don't feel qualified to form an opinion. But someone else who generally has the same political ideas as mine may not even agree with me about whom is adequate and who is not. I think that one is highly subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:30 PM

I listen occasionally to Rush Limbaugh and, like some others here, I take his words with a grain of salt (sometimes with the whole shaker!). He is an entertainer, and I find him much more entertaining and less offensive than I find Howard Stern. Still, some of Rush's views do offend me... but you know what they say: "Know your enemies." His words give me an insight I wouldn't have if I only listened to words I agree with (and when I hear people echoing his words, at least I know that those people aren't thinking for themselves and I can react accordingly!).

I also watch "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher", with greater frequency than I listen to Rush. Maher can be annoying and offensive, too, and he disgusts plenty of people (like my brother, who refuses to watch the show. His loss!). Frankly, I'd hate to see either Limbaugh or Bill Maher silenced. We need them, and all the other political pundits mentioned, and even Howard Stern and Larry King and Phil Donahue and all the rest, because they are willing to say what they think. They are willing to risk being hated, threatened, verbally attacked and even physically harmed, just to exercise their right to speak freely. I admire them all for that, even as I abhor some of the things they say.

225 years ago, Thomas Paine did the same thing, and he took absolutely no pains to make himself well-liked. All he did was write and speak (to my recollection, he never held office, nor was he directly involved with drafting the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution), yet today we call him one of the Founding Fathers of the US.

What a pity he's gone; I'd love to see HIM on the panel of "Politically Incorrect"! I suppose we won't see Rush on there, either, now that his hearing's all but gone; did Rush ever appear on the program? (If so, I'm sorry to have missed THAT!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 07:14 PM

I forgot to mention Elizabeth Farnsworth as one who poses questions on the News Hour in my 6:03 PM post. I have no idea what her political leanings are either.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 07:30 PM

Also Ray Suarez.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 07:35 PM

And Gwen Ifil

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:02 PM

Susan: I agree with you. I know of no famous personality I agree less with than Donohue, but I don't think he should be silenced. The others you mentioned either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 03:10 AM

I thought Donohue retired 7 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: GUEST,Born Again Scouser
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 04:23 AM

Who's Rush Limbaugh?

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Banjer
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 05:47 AM

In the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh:

HUH??

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM

It really is sad when a person loses the one thing he needs to do his job. I can only hope that Rush can have a successful cochlear implant in the near future and continue broadcasting with a fresh perspective on life.

That being said, I'm conservative in many areas, but even I've gotten a little tired of Rush over the past few years. It wasn't that I disagreed with any point in particular (though there are some I think he makes using flawed statistics and without thinking things through), it was really just that my time was too valuable to listen to him heap praise on himself, name-drop, and brag about expensive cigars during the two hours it would take for him to make a point.

But can you blame him? That's what worked for him. That's what got him a $250,000,000 syndication contract last year. And you can attack him for being a conservative all you want to, but I'll merely attribute it to the fact that his conservative views are actually popular enough to make a radio show profitable, while all liberals who have tried similar endeavors have failed miserably. In fact, the only nationwide liberal talk show forum I'm aware of is NPR, which is funded by me and the rest of America's taxpayers. So say what you will about Rush, but he never took a single tax dollar to get his message out. Then again, it would pretty tough to sell advertising on a radio show whose host ranted and raved about there NOT being ENOUGH government in the lives of everyday Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:22 AM

Why would one label oneself as a Liberal or a Conservative? Why would you think the two are incompatible.

Many Americans who consider themselves conservative are unbelieveably liberal about gun ownership!

In reality John, NO one is representing your side in a debate unless they have asked you directly. Most politicians choose sides fairly arbitrarily then move with the polls and opportunities. People like Limbaugh and Bill Maher exaggerate their points of view to stir arguements and to be laughed at. Why would you want to be identified with them? Its like taking a Jeff Foxworthy Character, or Archie Bunker, or Al Bundy as a role model for men.

A reporter is being objective when he/she answers the questions who what when where and why. Everthing else is entertainment and gossip. Who are the most entertaining entertainers and gossips? the borderline lunatics with extreem points of view. So who cares if they get equal time. Cut them off before they get boring!! This stuff is not news. As Joe Friday would say... Just the facts ma'am.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:24 AM

Donuel: I saw Phil Donahue ranting angrily on ABC's "Good Morning America" just a couple of days ago, so he's still getting media exposure even if he no longer hosts a talk show.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:37 AM

Speaking of objectivity, nobody pretends that NPR isn't left-of-center, but the ONE TIME I heard abortion talked about even-handedly, it was on NPR. Terry Gross interviewed the head of NARAL and the head of the national right-to-life group (I forget the exact acronym). She asked intelligent and pointed questions of each, and was respectful and patient with each. Near as I could tell, she gave both sides equal time and equal consideration. (I was listening with a very prejudiced ear, and certainly was not expecting this!)

Then again when you think about it, giving the other side a chance to air their ideas is more a "liberal" than a "conservative" thing to do....

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: JedMarum
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:41 AM

I watch the PBS news pretty regularly. I enjoy watching McLaughlin occasionally (he's so obnoxious I love him!), sometimes I listen to Limbaugh and on Sundays I flip between the AM network news shows (I love Tim, hate Sam - love George Will and think Steffy smirks too much).

Jim Lehrer, may well have 'left' leanings (he's a personal friend of Gore) but he is more successful then most reporters at presenting an unbiased approach to news. The program is far more left leading when he is absent. Mark Sheilds is one of PBS's best opinion people, and a strong leftie - and Gigot was a perfect foil for him; equally eloquent and strongly middle-of-the-road conservative. The News Hour really lost big when Paul moved on to the Editor's role at the Journal.

The News Hour is the only regular TV news show I can watch - I recognize its leanings, but they work hard to provide balance. They do, as John Hardly says above, typically assume one side of the arguement and start most interviews by asking the spokesperson from the opposite side to defend their position. This is typical news industry strategy.

It is true that most journalists go into the field because they wish to have a positive influence in the world. They have a vision of how the world should behave and they seek out ways to prove their point/s. It is equally true that the majority of American news media are self described 'liberals' (a recent poll showed that 80% said they typically voted for liberal Democrats). I believe that some try openly to push their beliefs rather then news, but I believe we have a tradition of news that attempts to be unbiased. Tim Russert is a god example of a journalist who is pretty successful at being unbiased - though he is a personally strongly attached to one side.

Limbaugh, of course makes no attempt to be unbiased. He is an entertainer who knows what the conservatives in America want to hear, and he is very very good at saying it. I am not always convinced he is genuine.

I am sorry for his loss, and wish him the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 11:09 AM

I'm still curious about the contention, made above, that deaf people are not "handicapped" or "impaired" in any way.

This strikes me as political correctness taken to absurd lengths. Completely deaf people lack something the vast majority of humans have, viz., a sense of hearing. I can imagine persons born deaf never missing it (what would they compare it to?), and that's cool. But then again they've never heard Beethoven, or Roll Over, Beethoven, or any music at all. I know some (maybe even most) people don't have the same nearly-physical NEED for music that I do, or that I would guess many or most of my fellow musicians do. And I know the word "normal" is very loaded and susceptible to being abused, or used to brow-beat people with.

But still -- isn't the lack of one of the "normal" human senses, and one capable of giving such intense pleasure, a real lack?

Imagine a very smart and well-read 10-year-old boy. You try to explain to him that he is lacking or missing something because he hasn't gone through puberty yet. Not puberty, nobody likes that. I mean the whole wonderful panoply of emotions and sensations that make up human sexuality (when properly used and not abused etc etc). He says, "I dont' feel any lack." Of course he doesn't. But you know that in 10 years he'll look back at his 10-year-old self and say, "I just didn't know!" Unfortunately for most of the congenitally deaf you can't just wait for them to grow the ability to hear. But the real lack is still there, even though they don't feel it in the least.

I'm not saying that a congenitally deaf person can't and doesn't lead a fully enriching, fully human life. Nor am I saying that they are less than completely human, or should be discriminated against in any way.

I'm just bothered by the level of political correctness which would re-define "ability" so as to make the ability to hear irrelevant and unimportant.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Troll
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 11:25 AM

Alex, they are not trying to make anything irrelevant and unimportant. They are just trying to make our use of the language so inoffinsively bland as to be a parody of itself.
Either that or they are actually writing a book with all the PC newspeak terms in it and plan to get rich when we all buy it so we'll know how to speak.
Of course, by then they'll have found more words that offend so a new, revised edition ($29.95+ shiping and handling) will be necessary.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:41 PM

Sounds like a great way to earn enough money to retire, troll! :>)

Alex: your post at 10:37 A.M., the last sentence ...I question that. The Mudcat is an excellent example, I think. I don't find liberals on this forum to be any more tolerant of the views of others than conservatives are.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM

Alex says: "Unfortunately for most of the congenitally deaf you can't just wait for them to grow the ability to hear. But the real lack is still there, even though they don't feel it in the least."

They may not "feel" the lack (in that they may not "miss" a song they've never heard anyway), but I have to think that they feel excluded from conversations between hearing people, and excluded by the hearing population in general. So, at the very least, I think they must feel a lack of human contact, a lack of acceptance.

In "P.C." terms, we think of a "handicap" or "disability" as being a physical or mental condition that affects one's ability to function in everyday life as would someone without that condition. Obviously, deafness fits that definition. There are occupations that would be challenging for a deaf person that would not be for a hearing person, and a deaf person would require special equipment to hold certain jobs if they could be held by him at all. For instance, I'm guessing that a deaf person applying to be a translator of speech into sign language would face a challenge (even a lip-reader doesn't always read lips accurately!). So how can it not be "P.C." to say that a deaf person is handicapped, challenged or disabled... unless the issue is that the deaf community doesn't wish to have that "label" stuck on them?

It does seem as if at least some in the deaf community want others to consider them as simply speaking a foreign language (ASL or other sign language) and as having a different culture. The thing is, they're not immigrants bringing their culture with them; they're people of different cultures thrown together by their sensory loss and by their isolation from the elements of all cultures (music, storytelling, etc.) that the hearing share.

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 01:15 PM

I have to wonder: How do the congenitally deaf react to people such as Limbaugh who were part of the hearing world until they lost the ability to hear? Does the deaf community accept them, or is there discrimination? Does the deaf community experience segregation between the congenitally deaf and the former-hearers?

When I was in college, I dated a young man whose brother-in-law had lost his hearing as an adult. This deaf man refused to learn sign language, and communicated by lip-reading and by writing what he wanted to say. He wished to remain as much a part of the hearing community as possible, and seemed to have no interest in communing with the deaf. Was he in denial? Refusing to "give in" to his "disability"? Or just choosing the group he wanted to hang with?

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 01:18 PM

I know, Doug, that's why I put "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes. I meant it was more "liberal" in the dictionary-sense, not in the current American political sense. Almost like a pun, only different. Sorry this wasn't clear. No disrespect intended.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 01:26 PM

I'm wondering here - instead of liberal or conservative - how about tolerant and intolerant? Someone (too lazy to scroll up to see who) made the comment, was that you DougR?, about this being endemic on both sides. I could certainly agree with that in some instances.

I suppose for me the moderate sector would fit me a bit better. Moderate meaning I can get conservative or liberal on narrow topics but tend towards moderation in most things. That make sense?

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 01 - 02:52 PM

Steve: not really to me. I'm not really sure what the definition of a moderate position is. To me, it's a bit like being half pregnant. On most issues, I believe most people take an either, or, position ...or else they really don't care one way or the other.

I do believe that the words, "conservative" and "liberal" might mean different things to different people. Someone described in Great Britain or Germany as being a conservative, or a liberal, might not describe that person as we use those terms in the U. S.

I also believe that a person who describes himself/herself as a conservative can supports social security, healthcare for those who cannot afford it, and many other social issues without losing his/her conservative identity. The same for liberals. I think that a liberal might side with conservatives on some issues. Not many, maybe, but some.

Maybe Steve, you can explain it to me. What, for example, is the moderate's view on the federal budget? On the defense budget? On universal health care?

I'd be interested to know.

Thanks,

DougR