|
08 Oct 01 - 03:45 PM (#567583) Subject: Rush Limbaugh Deaf From: Troll Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh -some love him, some dispise him- it's hard to be neutral about the man. That is why I was very distressed today when I, and the world, learned that he has lost his hearing; not just some of it, all of it. Heres the link. troll |
|
08 Oct 01 - 03:56 PM (#567594) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Deda Well, it's too bad for anyone to go through this, but I can't resist saying that listening was never his thing. He's always been deaf to anyone with an opposing perspective on things. Nothing in the Drudge report link indicates that Rush Limbaugh has gained any humility from this experience. That said, I hope he regains the sense of hearing. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 04:02 PM (#567600) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor I have sympathy for his loss, but he does come accross as rather poorly in this article. Limbaugh believes that even though he is now deaf he can still do better that 99% of radio hosts. Well good for him. I am looking forward to the 70% improvement. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 04:22 PM (#567613) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Genie Just as I hated her views, and those of her husband, but was saddened to hear that Barbara Olson had perished on the plane that struck the Pentagon, it gives me no pleasure to hear about Rush's affliction. I do hope he regains it, just as I hope my dad regains his. This does not change my views about his show or his above mentioned unwillingness to listen to opposing views even when he could hear. I tune in the show every once in a while and stay tuned as long as I can take it--just to hear what the other side has to say. My record is about 10 minutes. When I read the title of the thread, the first thought in my mind was: "'B.S.: Rush Limbaugh.' -- Isn't that redundant?" Genie |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:21 PM (#567665) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Rick Fielding That's quite sad, and I feel genuinely sorry for him. No, I haven't suddenly changed my political views 100%. Often it has been Rush's "over the top take" on something, that has indeed confirmed my opposition and strengthened my own position on an issue. Having said that, I've always maintained that keeping abreast of both (all) sides is the best way to be well informed. The mention of the "coclear implant"(sp) is interesting. A good friend of ours had that operation recently and wrote a fascinating book on the subject. Rick |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:28 PM (#567672) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Troll, thanks for posting this. I wasn't aware of it, and I'm sorry to hear about it. Losing one's hearing must be terrible. Just imagine not being able to hear your loved ones speak again, or not to be able to hear music. It's tragic for anyone. DougR |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:33 PM (#567678) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel I helped pioneer the cochlear implant 30 years ago in Roch. NY after I heard a deaf guitarist at NID. As for Rush , I was merely expecting to hear of his 4th divorce. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:41 PM (#567683) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel Perhaps they did not catch his syphillus in time. If there is one prime example that Bush is not merely foolish but in fact 2 slices of bread short of a sandwich is his belief that " Rush is a national treasure " . |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:44 PM (#567685) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Donuel: you're a piece of work, aren't you? Did you take lessons in bad taste, or does it come natural? DougR |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:46 PM (#567689) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Greg F. Someone in another thread a while back ( I wish I could provide proper attribution) said all that needs to be said about Limbaugh, to the effect that "Rush Limbaugh is well paid to be an asshole. And he earns every penny." Its a real shame he didn't lose the power of speech. Best, Greg |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:55 PM (#567697) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: mousethief Thank you, Doug, for putting the personal face on this. It is sad that Limbaugh will never again be able to hear his loved ones. Even people one despises and denigrates are living, breathing humans with feelings and emotions and (almost always) people who love them. For this reason I am sorry for Rush's lost, and hope that surgery (or something) is able to make him hear again. Alex |
|
08 Oct 01 - 05:56 PM (#567699) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor National Treasure.. yes! But you must realize that he is paid to be a clown. He sees it as his role to expouse every reactionary, ill formed controversial opinion as his own. He is paid to be controversial. His job is to stir the pot. That's where his opinions and verbage come from. Telling the ignorant what they want to hear! What a wonderful job that must be! No stress, no education required. Just go into a bar and ask the opinions of the drunkest patrons. Once you have your audience, you don't even have to go to the bar. They will come to you. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:02 PM (#567708) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA What terrible news for any human being, much less one who has depended on his hearing for his livelihood. I have been wondering why Rush's voice has sounded odd recently (in a lower key, as it were, and with less clear enunciation). Now I know. I imagine that the medications he's taking may make him feel – and sound – drowsy, in addition to his inability to hear his own voice in order to modulate it. I wonder what the cause for such rapid hearing loss would be, and why he's unwilling to mention it on the air. Cancer seems the obvious answer, given his smoking habit. Rush says he wants to continue to do what he's been doing. If that means that he wants to keep hosting a radio program (rather than switching to written commentary in newspapers and/or on-line), I'm guessing that he could still take phone calls using the machine that the deaf use to communicate by phone (what is the name of that system?). But if he becomes, as he speculates, 100% deaf, he'll need speech therapy to make himself understood on the air. Can anyone provide a link to info about cochlear implants? |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:05 PM (#567714) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR So. I assume from what several of you have posted, if Rush Limbaugh espoused your political philosophy rather than the one he does, you might feel some sympathy for his losing his hearing. Es so? Yes, Mousethief, I think the important think is the man lost his ability to hear things. I would feel equally sorry were I to hear that Phil Donohue suffered the same loss. DougR |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:06 PM (#567715) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel I would feel just as unsympathetic if Joe McCarthy had lost his "hearing". Doug you may consider Rush a paragon of good taste but that is merely a sad commentary on "taste". Is he disabled ? No. He has a sensory impairment. The cause he is keeping to himself. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:15 PM (#567725) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor SharonA: Did he not say in the link above that the doctors said it was hereditary? That would seem to be the best information we and he have. If he chooses not to believe his doctors....? Please note that Phil Donahue was paid to be controversial as well. It is a slippery slope when we get out political thoughts from "entertainers." |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:17 PM (#567727) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Rush didn't depend on listening for his livelihood. He depended on his mouth and that thumb he kept on the "kill" button. I'm not sure we'll see much difference. Before the flamers get on my case about his personal loss, I'd remind them of what he said about a person who had never harmed him (or anyone else): Chelsea Clinton. The man was simply _mean_. And I don't think he'll change. Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:22 PM (#567730) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DonMeixner I don't emjoy Rush's politics. But I admire him for his self promotion. I can think of enough bad things to say about him that I could fill a page. But I will say that he has one of the largest private collections pf 78's and LP's in the nation and his personal knowlege of American popular music is exceptional. He never touted it much because it was a hobby. My sympathies go to him. Being a person with a 50% hearing loss I can only begin to imagine what his life will be like from now on. Don Meixner |
|
08 Oct 01 - 06:24 PM (#567735) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: catspaw49 Cochlear Implants Spaw |
|
08 Oct 01 - 07:54 PM (#567811) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Jack, I think if you read the thread more carefully, you will see that he said it was not genetic. I don't know about you, Jack, but I sure don't get my political thinking from Donohue. I think you know why I used him as an example. He is as far left as Limbaugh is far right. And Donuel, please point out where I stated that Rush was the paragon of anything. And you may not view deafness as being disabled, but I sure do. DougR
|
|
08 Oct 01 - 08:22 PM (#567841) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody I dislike Rush, personally. I think he is a showman, and a profession shit disturber. I find myself in constant disagreement with his ideas. But, I was shocked to hear about what he was facing. Within months he may very well loose something that most of us take for granted. It is sad, but I do admire his willingness to continue on in radio. I may dissagree with his format, but respect his showmanship. That being said, Donuel.... you are a true ass. Just as horrid as those people that danced when the trade centers were attacked, just as barbaric as those that celebrate the counter assault. You are the same as those you condemn. You have shown your true colors to alot of people in your post. Because he doesn't agree with you, your comments are crude at best. I hope that your family never has to suffer any affliction. Or if they do, that there is no one as cold as yourself waiting in the wings. Like DougR, I wonder if it had been a man that was equally a showman on a liberal side, if the crudeness would be there. I doubt it. Odd... people come out of the woodwork to talk about human compassion, then bash a man that is loosing something that most take for granted. Sadly, it tells me a lot about people. I don't care for him... but at least I have compassion enough to put that aside when talking about loosing his hearing. Disgusted... Just a nobody |
|
08 Oct 01 - 08:54 PM (#567849) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel I do not think he is asking for or needs your sympathy. Challeges befall all of us. I do not think Yes Rush Limbaugh is a public figure who made a career of leaking and spewing lies. He led the extremists into rage and only cooled his jets when the Muir bld. was blown up. Except for any political power he has already joined the ranks of J Edgar Hoover and Joe Mc Carthy in my book. What the man stands for is to simply be taken as jest? I think not. Yes ,I am opposed to what he spews. The man when proven to have lied has never apologized. I am very familiar with the deaf. As I said before I pioneered the cochlear implant and had it perfected at Litton. Courage and compassion are the traits. As for the comments from mr nobody , it is just like you to virtually accuse me of treason. Nor do I celebrate anyones affliction. mr. nobody know full well we have had a death in our family this week and has no right to bring my family into the discussion except to inflict personal pain. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:10 PM (#567858) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel (corrected due to use of <'s) I do not think he is asking for or needs your sympathy. Challeges befall all of us. I do not think is is a very sympathetic character. Yes Rush Limbaugh is in the public domain and made a career of leaking and spewing lies. He led the extremists into rage and only cooled his jets when the Muir bld. was blown up. Except for any political power he has already joined the ranks of J Edgar Hoover and Joe Mc Carthy in my book. What the man stands for is to simply be taken as jest? I think not. Yes ,I am opposed to what he spews. The man when proven to have lied has never apologized. I am very familiar with the deaf. As I said before I pioneered the cochlear implant and had it perfected at Litton. Courage and compassion are the traits of a patriot which I fail to see in Mr. Limbaugh. The Republican party had the sense to exclude him form the inner circle but still benefit from his propaganda. As for the comments from mr nobody , it is just like you to virtually accuse me of treason. Nor do I celebrate anyones affliction. mr. nobody knows full well we have had a death in our family this week and has brought my family into the discussion merely to inflict personal pain. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:15 PM (#567859) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody I made no accusation of treason, only that your political views have skewed your sense of compassion. You hate him politically, so you make jokes about his ailments. Yes, he lies, he is a showman. Does that mean at times I do not think he crosses the line? Sure he does, he is an extremeist... it sells. "Perhaps they did not catch his syphillus in time. " Strikes me as simply cold blooded from those who espouse the virtues of compasion. Donuel, you give me too much credit to paying attention to you. I had no idea you had a loss in your family. Does it change my view, no. I still stand by what I say, that no matter what would happen to you and your family, I am glad that there is none in the wings making the same tasteless comments that you had. Sorry for your loss. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:23 PM (#567865) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel This is the last time I will kindly ask you to leave my family out of the discussion. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:33 PM (#567871) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: John Hardly Donuel I don't know why I am wasting my time posting to a flamer such as yourself, but... I think "nobody's" point was that it was indeed you, not he, who brought your family into the discussion. I wish you had some other porta-jon into which to dump your particular brand of ill-mannered, inhumane shit. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:43 PM (#567875) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel Perhaps guest/nobody forgets I am the one who wrote with personal concern for his 18 month old baby that had an infection. We traded stories regarding anitbiotics. For the Limbaugh lovers; go pile on some other people who see Rush for the far right Falwellesque extremist that he is. It seems some are as devoted to Rush as others are to bin Laden.
|
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:45 PM (#567876) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Lonesome EJ I'm sorry for Mr Limbaugh, not because I sympathize with him or think he's a "National Treasure". I disagree with him most of the time, and find him a demagogue. However, I know he loved music as many of us do, and to lose the ability to hear it is a horrible thing to deal with. I wish him luck with his attempts to deal with this. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:46 PM (#567877) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody Ahh... ok... Donuel... sorry... Now lets see... you hate him because he never appologized because he was in the wrong "in your book"... lets see what kind of man you are, your comments about his condition many (even those that dislike him) were cold, and tactless.... Yet I hear no appology from you. Because he offends your political and moral compass and does not appologize, I guess that makes you no better. You are descent at debate, only by virtue of attack and fogging issues with flamitory comments. Things like, "just like me to accuse you of treason" When did I do that? Or was it just a way to get the preassure off you. I feel offended by the fact that you would lie about what I had posted, or assumed I would know anything of your personal life, and lay it out like I used it to my advantage. Seems you engage in the same games as Rush has. Yet I hear no appology from you.... But I suppose since it is someone other than you, or one who agrees with you, it makes no difference.... sounds like you and Rush have more in common than you want to admit. Just a nobody Sorry about creeping off topic everyone...
|
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:55 PM (#567881) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Benjamin I try not to pay attention to Rush, or his opposision. Both sides in politics bug the crap out of me. But I'm sorry about his hearing loss. As far as cochlear implants go, they're not perfect. They also are not a "fix." Deaf ears are not broken. Though in Rush's case, I'd consider them. I know Deaf people who are part of the Deaf community and use ASL and I know deaf people who have cochlear implants have grown up apart from the Deaf community. The HUGE difference is that the people who recieved cochlear implants all see themselves as imparred (a politically correct way of saying disabled). Those who never got implanted don't see themselves as disabled in any way. There's LOTS of information on the web. You might want to try looking for views from the Deaf Community for some contrast. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 09:56 PM (#567882) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll John, actually, nobody said; " I hope that your family never has to suffer any affliction. " Donuel, there is no excuse for lack of compasion except POSSIBLY because of personal harm suffered from Mr. Limbaugh. Mere disagreement with his style and politics are not good enough reasons. You have indicated no personal contact with him, so I will assume that he has never harmed you personally. Your statements about Mr. Limbaugh, especially to a forum of musicians, were truly insensitive. To lose the ability to enjoy music would be a horiffic prospect for most of us; to hear one of our number say the things you have said is chilling. To think that ANYONE involved with music could be so callous is almost unbelievable. I am disappointed and disgusted by your attitude. I had expected better of you. troll |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:02 PM (#567888) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel mr.nobody said (explitives deleted): "you are just as horrid as those people that danced when the trade centers were attacked, just as barbaric as those that celebrate the counter assault" well nobody, I ask what kind of man would say such inflamatory lies and then ask for my apology ? Perhaps another Rush Limbaugh. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:09 PM (#567893) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Just a nobody I do remember that exchange Donuel. Don't think that just because I think your comments were uncalled for, doesn't mean I forget everything. Yes... he's doing much better... just had the second evaluation of many today. It looks like they are going to avoid medicating him and try instead to put him in autistic classes. Anyway... Rush is not right, any more than his liberal conterparts. But I would not wish them ill, anymore than I would rush. The problem is so many are on a 'side' they forget that it is a human being that they are talking about. A human that has family that also have to endure whatever has befallen their loved ones. That is my point. I repeat, to preach compassion for humans, then crack down on a mans disabilities is hypocritical. I try not to do it. And when I do.... I hope others will call me on it. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:15 PM (#567900) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody Is it bedtime yet... Donuel, I was attempting to show how when you make fun of one persons misfortune, that you become the things you hate.... however... since that was lost on you, and you took it as an accusation of treason... I do appologize... instead... You are no better than the man you have condemned...You also spew your hatred in the same manner. Just as those that now celebrate our attacks condemned those that celebrated the attacks against us. Hopefully you understand that comparison now. If not... well... I won't give up on you.... Just a nobody |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:17 PM (#567902) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel I draw a distiction between the man and what afflictions he suffers. Sometimes the affliction raises their stature to some people . I think Steven Hawking would be a great physicist without his illness but the perseverence of the man is worthy of great respect. When Christopher Reeves was paralyzed we all felt the pathos of his struggle. Some of us re experienced his disappointment when Bush closed the door on stem cell research that could have promised a healing alternative for Mr. Reeves. I have had periods of deafness and have complete sympathy and understanding for anyone facing the challenge. I did previously know of Rush's musical hobby and found that personally sad. But the man himself exists by pushing on the innate inertia of hate until his ratings go up or someone throws a bomb. It is that man I have no sympathy for. The man who is in the process of losing his hearing from some undisclosed ailment I do have sympathy for. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:22 PM (#567907) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody Almost time for bed... but first... Troll and Donuell My original post criticising Donuel I did indeed bring mention of his family in. Not in a way I felt was slanderous however. I would wish no ill on anyone I do not know. I only used it to personalize what Rush's family is going through. had I known Donuell's situation I would not have chosen such an example, for that I do truely appologize. I know that such a personal example could and was taken much more personally than intended. But I hope it is understood, it was not meant to inflict pain, only to show a point. I would not wish anyone harm (over political issue) and worse, a heckler to make the pain worse... I just wanted to clear that up. I honestly try to be a nice guy... Even if I am finding myself to be more conservative than originally thought. Peace, hugs, love, kisses, and beers... It's bedtime for bonzo...
|
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:26 PM (#567908) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll They are one and the same man. Hitler liked animals and Stalin liked small children. Do you mourn the deaths of the animal lover and the man who adored children while damning to the flames of Hell the men who murdered millions? troll |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:33 PM (#567913) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel Mr. nobody, Due to the numerous evaluations for our 5 year old we learned that in the spectrum of autism there is a particular syndrome of barely perceptible autism that presents with numerous infections over the first 3 years. It has a name but the psychiatrist mentioned it only once. If speech is not present by age 2 we found the help of speech therapists invaluable. In the 1st 7 years the brain is so plastic that miraculous changes can come about. It is common for such individuals to graduate from college with honors. eventually another thing to keep in mind is a profound ability to spell and even read at age 2-3 (hyperlexia). No matter what splinter skills are evident I found the learning process similar to a full recovery from a stroke. Slow as a garden grows but eventually full of blooms. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:38 PM (#567917) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST Six of the current eight top threads are B.S.
And people wonder, "what has happened to the DT/MC |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:43 PM (#567925) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC My wish for Rush Limbaugh... I think it would be nice if he would regain his hearing and decide that he would much rather live a long and happy life on a beautiful, isolated island somewhere, out of the public eye (and ear), spending his time blissfully listening to his favorite music in private (where we can't see or hear him), surrounded by his happy, loving family until he dies peacefully in his sleep when he is very old. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:48 PM (#567930) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll Guest, may I suggest if you are unhappy with the way the forum is being run that you go elsewhere and start a forum of your own that conforms to your specifications and expectations. Both you and we will benefit from it. troll |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:51 PM (#567934) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel ooooy goooooey oggams. Carol are you really THAT sweet? |
|
08 Oct 01 - 10:52 PM (#567937) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC (heh heh heh) My take on karma is that I would probably be better off never wishing anything on anyone else that I would not wish on myself. |
|
08 Oct 01 - 11:37 PM (#567954) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor Doug Doug Doug..... You said Jack, I think if you read the thread more carefully, you will see that he said it was not genetic. If you had actually read my post you would have known that I had read the thread carefully. And that I believe his doctors and not his theories. I am familiar with his style of speech. I must say that having read the post, I lost most of my sympathy for the man. He insults his doctors. He insults others. Brags that even deaf he is better than his peers. You know if it was a liberal I think that Rush and Pat and Jerry Falwell would be saying that the affliction was a punishment from God. Shame on any one who gives creedence to the ravings of this sick, twisted man!! Carol is right. I pray for his recovery both physically and mentally and for his retiremant. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:27 AM (#567989) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Boab I think the man is an oaf. Sad he has to lose one of the senses; pity it was his hearing. So, is he about to lose the only job [ by virtue of his own 'way out rightness and his penchant for lies and vituperation,] he was ever considered good enough to hold? |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:43 AM (#568004) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: marty D Good grief, how ugly so many Mudcat threads get so quickly these days. I've had a go at Doug a couple of times here regarding Rush, Jay Leno, Pat Robertson, Letterman etc. but I always thought it was a couple of decent guys with differing political views, sparring. Some of you now make this dynamic impossible. What's the point of talking, when some only know screaming? This could have been an INTERESTING discussion about the cochlear implants, and why there is so much opposition to it. Even more interesting because one of our members claims to be directly connected with it. But why bother, with an attitude like that? Rush (who I couldn't disagree MORE with) sees himself as a comedian and entertainer (his own words) as well as a political commentator, and his many lines like "talent on loan from God" etc. are his way of being funny! Sure it's bombast, but it's his 'schtick', and to take it as serious is silly in my view. I guess if this thread was titled "talk radio guy loses hearing" it might have had less vitriol. marty |
|
09 Oct 01 - 06:20 AM (#568055) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Wolfgang The ebb and flow of BS-threads has not only a seasonal but also a clearly discernible circadian rythm: The BS threads are usually at a daily low when the American Mudcatters are asleep. I know it is not a good and healthy solution for those who detest BS-threads to come here only at the European morning, but just to give you an idea: This morning, just before 6 a.m. Mudcat time, I had to count to 21 before I found the first non-music thread. This will change NOW. Wolfgang |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:09 AM (#568085) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,conservative I'm sorry. I like him. I like his ideas. I generally agree with him, although sometimes I don't. I reject the common view from the left that he promotes hatred, ignorance, racism and the like. I don't hate, except I might pop a cap on a certain fellow hiding in a cave on the other side of the world if given the chance. Have a field day with that one. You can, and no doubt you will, suggest that I am ignorant and/or naive for being of the conservative ilk. So be it. You're not going to change my ideas, and I am obviously not going to change yours. We see the world differently. The beauty of this country is that we can have differing political views without a knock on the door in the middle of the night. Although some of you may prefer that. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:13 AM (#568086) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,conservative Oh, almost forgot, I like playing clawhammer banjo, too. I know what you are thinking -- can old-time music survive with conservatives within its ranks? An interesting question. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:18 AM (#568087) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody Hey, don't appologize because you are a mutant... er.. conservative... No really... I think that left and right, all have extremes and that it is very easy to attack the other. I remain in between. I don't fully agree with either liberal or conservative. I do tend to lean towards conservative views, but I have a good share of traditional liberal views. So, Mr. Conservative, take heart, I don't think anyone will (or should at least) bash you for your political affiliation. If you have ideas that make sense, lay them out. Just be prepared to defend them, or compromise, but that is part of what debate is about. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:31 AM (#568092) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:33 AM (#568093) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:39 AM (#568094) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,just a nobody 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... |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:46 AM (#568100) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel typo corrections: National sythesthesia auditory |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:49 AM (#568104) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: catspaw49 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
|
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:50 AM (#568106) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel argh sythesthiesia |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:53 AM (#568107) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: catspaw49 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 10:03 AM (#568165) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 11:16 AM (#568210) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Steve in Idaho 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM (#568258) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 12:47 PM (#568261) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:10 PM (#568286) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Al Franken 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:15 PM (#568294) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: catspaw49 I liked your book there "Al" but you win the "Idiot" award for that triple post. Spaw |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:24 PM (#568302) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:27 PM (#568304) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor Theres a world of difference between advocating censorship and wishing someone would go away. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 01:51 PM (#568324) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: John Hardly 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:04 PM (#568332) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:36 PM (#568355) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Al Franken 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? |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:38 PM (#568358) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: John Hardly 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:49 PM (#568367) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Art Thieme Well, there's something to be said for karma ! Art Thieme |
|
09 Oct 01 - 02:52 PM (#568368) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 03:13 PM (#568385) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 03:20 PM (#568392) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 03:31 PM (#568396) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 03:31 PM (#568398) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
09 Oct 01 - 04:06 PM (#568427) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: John Hardly 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 04:38 PM (#568447) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 06:03 PM (#568515) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: John Hardly 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). |
|
09 Oct 01 - 06:20 PM (#568521) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 06:30 PM (#568529) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA 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!!!) |
|
09 Oct 01 - 07:14 PM (#568555) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 07:30 PM (#568568) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC Also Ray Suarez. |
|
09 Oct 01 - 07:35 PM (#568571) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: CarolC And Gwen Ifil |
|
09 Oct 01 - 08:02 PM (#568586) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 03:10 AM (#568770) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel I thought Donohue retired 7 years ago. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 04:23 AM (#568802) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: GUEST,Born Again Scouser Who's Rush Limbaugh? |
|
10 Oct 01 - 05:47 AM (#568823) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Banjer In the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh: |
|
10 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM (#568933) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: LoopySanchez 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. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 10:22 AM (#568944) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 10:24 AM (#568947) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA 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. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 10:37 AM (#568958) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: mousethief 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 10:41 AM (#568963) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: JedMarum 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. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 11:09 AM (#568987) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: mousethief 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 11:25 AM (#569002) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 12:41 PM (#569053) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM (#569071) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA 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. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 01:15 PM (#569088) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA 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? |
|
10 Oct 01 - 01:18 PM (#569092) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: mousethief 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 01:26 PM (#569097) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Steve in Idaho 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 02:52 PM (#569165) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR 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 |
|
10 Oct 01 - 03:18 PM (#569177) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Steve in Idaho DougR, I'm going to do my best with this. What, for example, is the moderate's view on the federal budget? Hmmm - you pose some interesting questions DougR. The fed's budget really doesn't come into an area that I am able to have much of an impact on. So as a moderate, and this is a stretch as I am not so sure my assertion was correct about there being a moderate, I'd say that in moderation it is OK. There are aspects of it that I oppose (liberal or conservative?) and some of it I like. I don't like the salaries of our elected leaders - I think they get paid too much at times - but I like the budget for the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs where I receive my health care. So in summation on the first I would have all three views. Or maybe semi oppositional views? On the defense budget? We probably spend too much on defense. But my other hypothesis is that we don't spend it in the right places. So in the latter's sense we don't spend enough. Actually maybe enough in the right places would be better. So again I find myself stuck in all three spots. On universal health care? I believe that all people should have the right to a certain level of health care. But then it is like where I live. There are differing standards of care. My veterinarian is pretty good at what he does, but if you want the super duper experts you need to go about 60 miles to the Equine Center where they can eat up $1000 in a day just on testing. Then 75 miles South of me on the Indian Reservation they'd just shoot the horse. They'd shoot it not because they aren't sensitive to the animals needs - just that there aren't any veterinarians there and unless the problem is simple it is more humane to kill the animal. And the secondary aspect of shooting the animal is that one could shoot coyotes off the carcass and sell the coyote hides for enough to buy another horse. So universal health care is in the eye of the beholder. I am betting that the doctor I see at the VA, and he is a very good doctor, would not draw the same fees as one in private practice in a large city. But then Dr. Kilfoyle, my Doc, loves the population he serves and has a heart bigger than any I know of. And he is quite skilled at getting me to do what I need to do to stay healthy. Again on all aspects of this I waffle depending on my perspective and circumstance. After reading the above - maybe that is the definition of a moderate. One who sees the differing sides of issues and attempts to put them in a non-volotile perspective that makes sense to oneself. And, I would hope, is able to hear other's opinions and not personalize them for the most part. And here I fall back on the right of any human to take a side when it is called for from their perspective. The right to dissent or assent? Makes me almost an extremist moderate - if there is such a thing. Quite a stimulating question you posited Doug! But from where I sit it makes sense to me *BG* Steve
|
|
10 Oct 01 - 03:26 PM (#569182) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Hey, Steve! Interesting! Thanks for replying. DougR |
|
10 Oct 01 - 03:40 PM (#569198) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Jack the Sailor 102 Posts, conversation has drifted way off topic. Are we done or should someone do the clicky thing. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 03:45 PM (#569203) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Steve in Idaho I'd say we done Jack. I almost PMd Doug with the last one. I should have - Thanks for dinging me :-) Steve |
|
10 Oct 01 - 07:45 PM (#569379) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Yes, Norton, I'd say it went off and on the subject from time to time almost since it was posted. DougR |
|
10 Oct 01 - 08:37 PM (#569413) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Donuel BS Rush Limbaugh says it all. |
|
10 Oct 01 - 09:24 PM (#569430) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll Update on Rush.click here troll |
|
11 Oct 01 - 03:01 PM (#569935) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR Thanks for the update, troll. I hope the doctors are right. DougR |
|
11 Oct 01 - 08:37 PM (#570178) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Lepus Rex Damn, so it's NOT syphilis? :( Glad I didn't make that bet, now... ---Lepus Rex |
|
12 Oct 01 - 12:33 AM (#570261) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: Troll No, Lepus. Apparently not. The Doctors feel that they can save at least enough of his hearing to allow him to continue his show. Good news, of course, for his millions of listeners and fans. troll |
|
12 Oct 01 - 01:13 AM (#570272) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: DougR And bad news for his detractors and all liberals in general. :>) DougR |
|
22 Jan 02 - 10:58 AM (#632998) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA *refresh* I see on the news that Rush Limbaugh announced on his program yesterday that his cocclear (sp?) implant is in, and working, and that he has about 80% hearing in one ear (still none in the other). Saw a "Good Morning America" segment this morning in which it was said that the cause of his deafness is an autoimmune disease, treated with steroids such as prednisone where possible but still able to render a person profoundly deaf in a matter of a couple of months. His doctor was interviewed about the implant procedure; apparently it involves having a sort of microphone apparatus attached to one's head behind the ear, which in turn connects to the implant inside the head. What I want to know is: what happens when the implantee showers, or washes his hair? When you detach the microphone from the head, is there a hole? |
|
22 Jan 02 - 11:17 AM (#633017) Subject: RE: BS: Rush Limbaugh From: SharonA Whoops! I didn't realize this thread was so long. Let's take this discussion over to the "part 2" thread: BS: Rush Limbaugh cochlear implant PART2 |