Re: Rush Limbaugh
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] The other day I was reading an interesting commentary on George W. Bush, where unfortunately I cannot remember. It stated that he has been underestimated by the left and is capable of a wolverine-like intelligence when it comes to the imperial interests of the USA and the privileges of the ruling class--and just as importantly, he *never* doubts himself. That was in Robert Sam Anson's review of a number of books about the Bush presidency in NY Observer, viz.: Remember the good old days, back when the worst anyone could say about George W. Bush was that he was a dope? Remember the fun watching Will Ferrell imitate him on Saturday Night Live? The dazed, deer-in-the-headlights look? The way he said 'stra-teeg-er-ie'? Remember how harmless the smirking frat boy in the cowboy hat seemed? Dubya was the best yuk since Gerry Ford. Well, no ones laughing anymore. Not with Arlington filling up; three million jobs gone phfft; Antarctica melting; the deficit north of half a trillion; Osama and Saddam nowhere to be found; Ronald Reagan fondly remembered as a moderate; and The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire starting to read like a self-help book. You surely know all that. But in the event youve been living in a secure, undisclosed location since his inauguration, these books provide a primer. Theyre chockablock with bone-chilling tidbits (inadvertently, in the case of We Will Prevail and The Faith of George W. Bush); and wading through even the densest of them is infinitely faster than waiting for the press to figure out that 'compassionate conservative' is oxymoronic. For starters, these books make clear that 43rd President is nowhere near as dumb as comfortingly imagined. He may still describe Kim Jong Ils toys as 'nuc-u-lur,' but events have shown him to be possessed of a wolverine intelligence. Hes also wholly unacquainted with self-doubt, a commodity on which liberals maintain the exclusive franchise. That Mr. Bush is thus blessed should come as no surprise: In addition to working out and getting to bed roundabout the time The West Wing is coming on, his daily routine includes talking to God. Whats more, God talks back. ... http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage7.asp By contrast, the left in the USA--at least the academic and mainstream versions such as the Nation Magazine--are filled with self-doubt and second guessing. With much hand-wringing from the likes of Todd Gitlin, we walk around like Hamlet doubting ourselves. Instead of being absolutely convinced of our mission--as is appropriate for the tasks before us--we blame ourselves for things that are utterly beyond our control--like Pol Pot or the Moscow Trials. If the left is to prevail, it will have to recover the kind of Jacobin self-assuredness it once had--or else it is doomed to fail. Hear, hear. Carl _ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: Rush Limbaugh
Carl Remick wrote: From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] The other day I was reading an interesting commentary on George W. Bush, where unfortunately I cannot remember. It stated that he has been underestimated by the left and is capable of a wolverine-like intelligence when it comes to the imperial interests of the USA and the privileges of the ruling class--and just as importantly, he *never* doubts himself. That was in Robert Sam Anson's review of a number of books about the Bush presidency in NY Observer, viz.: Remember the good old days, back when the worst anyone could say about George W. Bush was that he was a dope? Remember the fun watching Will Ferrell imitate him on Saturday Night Live? The dazed, deer-in-the-headlights look? The way he said 'stra-teeg-er-ie'? Remember how harmless the smirking frat boy in the cowboy hat seemed? Dubya was the best yuk since Gerry Ford. I've several times on different lists raised an eyebrow as it were re the focus on GWB's intelligence. I still remember vividly how fooled everyone was in Eisenhower's administration by his genius at mimicking stupidity. I think leftists should simply stay away from estimating _anyone's_ intelligence or absence thereof. Remember Gould's _Mismeasure of Man_ -- and particularly his savaging of the concept of _g_. Focus on what a government _does_ and on the actual content (not the style) of what it says, not on the personel. Carrol
Re: Rush Limbaugh
Carrol writes: I've several times on different lists raised an eyebrow as it were re the focus on GWB's intelligence. I still remember vividly how fooled everyone was in Eisenhower's administration by his genius at mimicking stupidity. I think leftists should simply stay away from estimating _anyone's_ intelligence or absence thereof. Remember Gould's _Mismeasure of Man_ -- and particularly his savaging of the concept of _g_. Focus on what a government _does_ and on the actual content (not the style) of what it says, not on the personel. In addition, it's not the intelligence of W that's importance. It's the intelligence of his team (including
Re: Rush Limbaugh
Devine, James wrote: Carrol writes: I've several times on different lists raised an eyebrow as it were re the focus on GWB's intelligence. I still remember vividly how fooled everyone was in Eisenhower's administration by his genius at mimicking stupidity. I think leftists should simply stay away from estimating _anyone's_ intelligence or absence thereof. Remember Gould's _Mismeasure of Man_ -- and particularly his savaging of the concept of _g_. Focus on what a government _does_ and on the actual content (not the style) of what it says, not on the personel. In addition, it's not the intelligence of W that's importance. Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem with making fun of his enemies. Doug
Re: Rush Limbaugh
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 16:13:28 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: ... Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem with making fun of his enemies. My difficulty with ad hominem is that it is something I can't share in conversations with others who do not share my viewpoint about the behavior of these thugs; and usually the ad hominem is led with, not used as the concluding exclamation point on a set of well-reasoned attacks on someone's behavior. Besides, I'm a provincial ignoramus on any number of fronts myself. Bill
Re: Rush Limbaugh
In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose had every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Bill Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Rush Limbaugh On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 16:13:28 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: ... Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem with making fun of his enemies. My difficulty with ad hominem is that it is something I can't share in conversations with others who do not share my viewpoint about the behavior of these thugs; and usually the ad hominem is led with, not used as the concluding exclamation point on a set of well-reasoned attacks on someone's behavior. Besides, I'm a provincial ignoramus on any number of fronts myself. Bill
Re: Rush Limbaugh
In the same way, Princeon helped makea red out of me. My reaction to my smug, dumb, self-assuredly-entitled classmates was, What makes THESE assholes think they have a God-given right to run the world? Which (a) they were certain they had, and (b) in fact exercised whether they had it or not. jks --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose had every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Bill Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Rush Limbaugh On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 16:13:28 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: ... Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem with making fun of his enemies. My difficulty with ad hominem is that it is something I can't share in conversations with others who do not share my viewpoint about the behavior of these thugs; and usually the ad hominem is led with, not used as the concluding exclamation point on a set of well-reasoned attacks on someone's behavior. Besides, I'm a provincial ignoramus on any number of fronts myself. Bill __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Rush Limbaugh
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 13:31:29 (-0700) Devine, James writes: In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose had every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster. I disagree. Very nearly the same is true of Bill Clinton, Rhodes scholar and the opposite in every intellectual sense of George Bush. The fact that Bush is stupid, or ignorant on any number of fronts, or privileged, tells us nothing about his priorities and policies. There are plenty of people that I know who are arrogant, but they also happen to be honest and generous. However, these attacks --- with which I don't have a substantive disagreement --- may play well with the chorus, but I don't think they help convince anyone else. Bill
Re: Rush Limbaugh
I wrote: In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose had every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster. Bill writes: I disagree. Very nearly the same is true of Bill Clinton, Rhodes scholar and the opposite in every intellectual sense of George Bush. The fact that Bush is stupid, or ignorant on any number of fronts, or privileged, tells us nothing about his priorities and policies. There are plenty of people that I know who are arrogant, but they also happen to be honest and generous. However, these attacks --- with which I don't have a substantive disagreement --- may play well with the chorus, but I don't think they help convince anyone else. I wasn't trying to convince anyone. My point is that some attention to the personnel involved helps us _understand_ what's going on. My feeling is that Clinton's arrogance is different. He started out pretty poor and his rise to the top didn't come because his friends and relatives handed him advantages. Instead, it was his personal charm and the like that allowed him to succeed, by pleasing such interests as Tyson Chicken in Arkansas. He has some understanding of what it's like to be poor, while the top-down benevolence of the similarly-gifted as being the main way to help the poor. Jim
Re: Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh's cousin was a deputy sherrif here in Butte County. Here is a clop from Tim's defunct paper: LIMBAUGH, you'll recall, is the cousin of talk radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh, and retired from the Butte County Sheriff's Department last summer amid allegations that he was involved in a domestic violence incident involving his wife, and that the incident resulted with a service revolver turning up missing. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rush Limbaugh
Doug Henwood wrote: Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem with making fun of his enemies. Ignoramus is not the same as unintelligent. I had lots of ignorant students who were by no means unintelligent. Jan worked with many ignoramuses in the post office who were by no means unintelligent. If he is inherently unintelligent, then he's not to blame for it, and it's not the proper focus for making fun of him. When we think judge someone to be ignorant what we're apt to be saying is that they don't have the same knowledge _we_ do (and we may not be competent to judge them in the areas where they are _not_ ignorant. Is Tony Soprano an ignoramus? Marx Engels make fun of Duhring for his arrogance more than for his lack of brain power. And we are all pretty ignorant of where brain power itself comes from. (Unless we happen to be one of the authors of The Bell Curve.) Carrol Doug
Re: Rush Limbaugh
From the perspective of the working class and other dominated groups, it's likely true that The crimes of the Bush administration aren't substantially different than those of the Great Liberal Humanitarian, Jimmy Carter (It's hard to make these kinds of comparisons, though.) But in terms of contention amongst different fractions of the ruling class, i.e., in terms of special interests within the capitalist class vs. their class interest, I think Bush is different from Carter. Carter was more of the enlightened leader who tried to think of the long-term interests of the class he was working for, being more unilateralist (among the rich powers), etc. Bush seems to combine short-term interests of the class with the narrow focus of one fraction or coalition (oil, the military, etc.) The Bushwackers seem to see themselves as the capitalists' Marxist-Leninist Party,[*] saving the capitalists via a policy revolution (by all means necessary) while feathering their own nests and increasing their own group's power. The latter competition may not be relevant in the end, but in the immediate future, contention within the ruling class produces most of the political process that we see (especially when non-ruling groups are so weak, as currently). [*] I'm here referring to the Party as perceived by self-styled Marxist-Leninists. Of course, they saw themselves as having a different class stand. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 14:03:47 (-0700) Devine, James writes: ... I wasn't trying to convince anyone. ... I didn't say you were. My point is that some attention to the personnel involved helps us _understand_ what's going on. I disagree. Bush is a dolt and he's arrogant, but so what? The crimes of the Bush administration aren't substantially different than those of the Great Liberal Humanitarian, Jimmy Carter, who helped to butcher countless thousands of innocents, nor of any other President in recent memory. His personality is no better guide to understanding what's going on than are sun-spots, karma, or astrological signs. It may make you and those who agree with you feel better to vent your rage by calling someone names (ad hominem --- against the man, remember?), but it doesn't help understanding one jot. Bill
Re: Rush Limbaugh and Marxist Theory: Corrected
Dear MP, An excellent observation bringing together two otherwise separate phenomena. Thanks! I left this off my earlier message by accident. I always enjoyed the section of Marx on the working day and where he describes the gathering of small pieces of time in order to get more work out of the employees. This piece in the New York Times describes how radio stations get rid of the empty spaces in the radio shows in order to clear up more time for commercials. Kuczynski, Alex. 2000. "Radio Squeezes Empty Air Space for Profit." New York Times (6 January).
