According to Media Matters online outreach director Jay Carmona, who offers an interesting tip: "Just make sure that you take some time to talk about why certain things he says are wrong or messed up with your group, and that can actually be super, super empowering to do that."
Ha ha. Make sure you talk about why what he says is wrong. Did Carmona mean to reveal a fear that if people listen to Rush every day, they might unwittingly end up persuaded?
“Make sure that you also, just in general — if something is freaking you out and you are feeling really bad listening to Rush Limbaugh — take a break. Give yourself the time and the space that you need to listen to the stuff because it can be difficult at times,” she said.It's so dangerous, listening to Rush... especially if you're as much of an emotional wreck as Carmona seems to think you are.
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
"Empowering" is a silly, pathetic notion.
One owns their motives, desires, objectives, and efforts.
One doesn't own anything else.
So the acts and words of another can't empower at all. Your power comes from you alone.
I suspect what they really mean by "empower" in this context is "make you made as hell so that you feel your blood boil."
Not just really empowering--super, super empowering. I'll see your "super, super" and raise you one "insanely."
There are going to be converts..
Resistance is futile!
This "Media Matters" cooperative sounds like a cult directing their followers to think correctly. Enlightenment was never meant to be so regressive.
Heh, that whole "take a break" warning reminds me of those "trigger warnings" that some of the so-called-feminist sites use. You know, the ones where women are really strong and equal but can be reduced to an emotional mess if the wrong thing is discussed around them.
I'm a regular listener to Rush's program and I've seen several posters here say he doesn't understand economics and after today's show I have to agree with them.
For months now he's been struggling to explain why the unemployment rate is falling and he's still getting it wrong.
Then a caller today stated that a consequence of the U.S. debt is that it is driving up the borrowing costs for poor countries seeking to tap into the debt markets. This is an entirely true statement but Rush didn't understand the caller and had him repeat the comment about four times before disagreeing with him and stating that there was "no global currency." Then finally he accused the caller of being an Obama supporter because he claimed the caller's point is reflective of Obama's views that the U.S. has stolen resources from the rest of the world.
I was really disappointed in his failure to understand the caller's point.
Oh...I managed to find a transcript of the call on Rush's site. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/04/open_line_friday_calls_labor_stats_and_chicom_debt
Rush certainly doesn't display an understanding of global economics in this exchange.
===============================
Pete in New Orleans. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: I know you're a great, great economist and what have you. I mean, you have pretty much your pulse on a lot of what's going on in the world. But my question is this: With such a huge deficit that the United States is operating in year after year, isn't this fact draining the world of the funds that would otherwise go to, say, underdeveloped countries? By the fact that the American government is sapping all this money from these international funds...? I don't hear any mention of "struggling economies" in the world having to pay, say, high interest rates because the American government is tapping all these funds and using most of this money for its own use.
RUSH: Well, now, wait, wait, wait. I'm losing you here because, as I'm understanding your question, let's make up a country: San Cordoba. What right does San Cordoba have to our money? What does it matter whether we're running a deficit in San Cordoba unless they're using US dollars in, and they're not. They're using Cuban pesos, which are worthless.
CALLER: No, no. What I'm saying is, we're going to China to borrow funds from China, and we're the biggest borrower of Chinese money. Now, if we weren't in the market borrowing this money from China, China would have to go to, say, Bangladesh or the Congo or Sudan. It could lend their money and these countries could borrow at a much lower rate.
RUSH: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. We are borrowing money from the ChiComs. They're not getting money from us except interest payments as long as we make them. But we are depending on the ChiComs, and it's not... I can see where you think it would be the other way around because we end up owing them big time and if they call the loan all hell could break loose.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You're saying if we were solvent and we didn't need any money from the ChiComs, you're asking who would they then lend it to?
CALLER: Well, they would probably lend to some of these underdeveloped countries who are struggling to run their governments
RUSH: No.
CALLER: You see what I'm saying?
RUSH: No.
CALLER: They would let you borrow at a much cheaper rate than they're able to borrow now since the ChiComs would have this huge market in the United States to lend money to.
RUSH: I don't know... Even with the circumstances that you've said, I don't know what you're asking me.
CALLER: Well, my --
RUSH: Or what problem you think exists because of our debt as it relates to the ChiComs and the Third World. I guess it's the Third World I'm having trouble understanding.
CALLER: That's right, the Third World. Yes. What I'm saying is the Third World, the world economies, are struggling right now to borrow for their own needs. Like Greece and Italy and Spain and all are probably having to pay high interest rates to the Chinese government to borrow. Because China could say, "Well, if you don't borrow, I have a huge market in the United States that is willing to borrow from me at such a rate. If you want me to lend to you, you're gonna have to beat the United States rate of interest." And these countries are probably having trouble financing their own debts because, like I say, of all this money that the United States is using up in the world.
RUSH: Well, see the problem is if we had a global currency where everybody was using the same currency and we were spending it all and borrowing from everybody else and thereby preventing everybody else from borrowing money, I could understand that. But Greece and Spain use the Euro, and they're primarily going to Germany for their financing.
CALLER: They're going to China, too. I've read where the Chinese government was looking to finance some of these deficit spenders in Europe.
RUSH: Ok, so --
CALLER: And my thinking is that if they do finance these debts, they gonna probably finance 'em at the higher rate of interest because the United States is such a big user of Chinese funds.
RUSH: I'm sorry. I'm not able to get my arms around this. I'm not sure... Why don't we try this: Why don't you tell me what you think the problem is that the United States is in? Is that what you're...?
CALLER: Well --
RUSH: Are you trying to tell me that we're in trouble for some reason?
CALLER: No. What I'm saying is the fact that the United States is borrowing so much money is keeping some of these developing countries, Third World countries, from financing their own debt at more reasonable rates.
RUSH: Okay, so if we were more solvent and weren't borrowing money from the Chinese, the Chinese would lend it to other poor countries, and the poor countries wouldn't be as poor?
CALLER: No, they wouldn't have to pay so much for the money, for the borrowing. Their interest rates would probably be a hell of a lot lower.
RUSH: So it's our fault the Third World is the Third World?
CALLER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that... What I'm saying is --
RUSH: But you are saying that. You're saying that we're soaking up all the money because of our irresponsible spending. You sound like Obama to me. I didn't think we had one of those in the audience. That's why I'm having trouble. You sound like Obama. We're responsible for Third World because we're spending a lot money and therefore we're stealing everybody's resources and we are preventing San Cordoba from growing because we're driving the cost of money up so high with our irresponsible borrowing and spending. Therefore the condition of the Third World is our fault because we're so damn selfish.
If that's what you think, then the guy who's primarily responsible for this is Obama.
Because our borrowing has never been higher.
Our printing rate has never been higher.
I've never listened to Limbaugh much; literally never even two minutes continuously and probably less than a 1/2 hour combined. But the biggest impression he ever made on me came via exerpts of his book "The Way Things Ought to Be". Even the exerpts convinced me the caricatures of him are utterly absurd.
My feeling since then has been that if any leftist wrote a similarly book about their vision (I know much more about the left, I mistakely thought I was one back when I believed their public positioning) we'd see a clear and convincing difference which would permanently destroy the left everywhere in western civilization. Even the French have self-respect.
So I agree, the hatred the left dumps on Limbaugh is triggered by fear. The easiest proof is to note the lies and hypocrisy their attacks display. If they could discredit him without the hypocrisy they would.
I've listened to Rush maybe a half-dozen times, but I've always been convinced that much of his genius is pulling in liberal listeners. For some reason the Left just loves to hate the guy, and they'll listen to his radio show just for that opportunity. Same with Fox News. I never watch it, but all my liberal friends can tell me about the latest Fox News Outrage.
The people who were empowered were the Conservatives who heard nothing but the Establishment Media rap and knew it was a lie, but wondered if it was just them or if they were the only ones who saw it.
And, when Rush made his debut, they found the answer to both questions was, "No".
These people are depressed because they have no rebuttal.
I heard the same caller as James, and I agree to a point...I just thought the caller did a bad job explaining himself, and Rush couldn't get past his original idea of what he caller was trying to say. He was hearing what he thought the caller was saying, not actually what the caller was saying.
In Rush's defense, the caller was nervous, and the transcript doesn't convey the jitteryness, false starts, and stutters the caller made. Rush is usually better than that. I'll cut him some slack on 1 phone call. (just don't let it happen again)
And why do these Rush haters listen to Rush? It's because they know he is right, deep in their hearts, but their liberal education won't allow them to admit it. That's why they listen as a group. To quash any dissent from the liberal group think.
As proof I offer this...I. and many of you, listen to Zero's speeches. But he gives one every day. Do you seek them out? No, because you know their tripe.
DAMN
their does not = they're
Make sure that you also, just in general — if something is freaking you out and you are feeling really bad listening to Rush Limbaugh — take a break. Give yourself the time and the space that you need to listen to the stuff because it can be difficult at times...
Yeah, 3 hours is a long time to keep at it.
If only they could condense it down to two minutes a day...
Moralizing and economics are Rush's awful topics.
When he moralizes he loses his only edge, humor in the form of a bigger than life persona, which is in fact self-deprecating humor.
When he does economics, he gets the right answer but for the wrong reason, so it's painful to listen to. I'd guess he knows the conservative answer but mathmatical-like systems are a mystery to him and so he can't explain how to get there.
Imus said, with some truth, Rush is genuinely stupid, which is why he can't deal with callers.
Rush's strength is as a prankster, and simultaneously seeing the clunky strings and seams in the left's MSM power structure.
I've listened to Rush maybe a half-dozen times, but I've always been convinced that much of his genius is pulling in liberal listeners. For some reason the Left just loves to hate the guy, and they'll listen to his radio show just for that opportunity. Same with Fox News. I never watch it, but all my liberal friends can tell me about the latest Fox News Outrage.
Are you getting this, Bloggingheads???
I shut Rush off at the economics question, but
We only borrow from the Chinese dollars that we gave them to pay for stuff that we bought from them.
Third world nations don't figure in.
There's nothing the Chinese can do with a dollar other than using it to tell the US economy what do to next, or investing it in the US economy. They do the latter, via buying Treasuries.
If they sat on the dollars, it would be the same effect because the Fed would just print more to replace them until they went back into circulation again, causing exactly the same effect as the Chinese buying a bond except they'd get no interest payment.
Rush will never ever understand dollars as an economic matter because you have to keep track of the circles they move in. They are not themselves wealth, yet they seem to be. Rush doesn't have that kind of mind.
When did Liberals start hating on Free Speech?
Heck, since 2000, I cannot remember any time Liberals defending the Free Speech rights of any that oppose them.
And regarding NOW, they'd had a better standing on this issue if they went after Bill Maher first.
Lefties have to be very careful listening to Limbaugh lest something he says inadvertently puts a chink (and I don't mean a Chinese person) in there cemented shut minds and, then, they gain an insight. The next thing you know, crash!, an avalanche of actual thought occurs and they're never the same.
Gosh, James, that's really, really impressive. Out of the thousands of hour Limbaugh has broadcast, you found 2-3 minutes where he doesn't meet your standard of an economist.
Instead of saying you're a regular listener, (on behalf of MM I assume), just say you're a tool. We all see that quite readily.
. Give yourself the time and the space that you need to listen to the stuff because it can be difficult at times,” she said.
I just don't get how that's not squirm-inducing to everyone, including those to whom it's directed. Ewww!
"For months now he's been struggling to explain why the unemployment rate is falling and he's still getting it wrong"
You just have to look at the total work force numbers. That is falling just as fast. The Social Security disability numbers are climbing and will put SS out of business sooner than predicted. Just add the SS disability numbers to the unemployment decrease and they add up to a constant.
I didn't listen today so can't comment on your other point. The guy who doesn't understand economics is Bill O'Reilly. And Obama, of course.
"Like Greece and Italy and Spain and all are probably having to pay high interest rates to the Chinese government to borrow. Because China could say, "Well, if you don't borrow, I have a huge market in the United States that is willing to borrow from me at such a rate."
They are paying high rates because the risk of default is high. Our own risk of default is probably higher than most realize but that would be like the end of the Roman Empire and nobody knows what would come after.
I'm not sure he didn't just have trouble understanding the question. Remember, he has hearing problems and is doing this on the fly. I don't know how good his implants are.
"Heck, since 2000, I cannot remember any time Liberals defending the Free Speech rights of any that oppose them.
And regarding NOW, they'd had a better standing on this issue if they went after Bill Maher first."
Hypocrisy is easy to spot.
It took a while to figure out Rush on how unemployment numbers can be going down while the economy is getting worse.
Rush is combining two things he knows.
1. Obama is killing jobs.
2. Unfilled jobs are unemployment.
Number 2 is not right but is pretty amusing as a Gracie Fields type explanation.
Rush explains falling unemployment while things are getting worse as Obama killing the universe of jobs.
Fewer unfilled jobs, less unemployment, from number 2.
Rush says people always write and call to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows he's right.
And it does explain to himself the fact at hand.
What people want him to say is that the universe of job seekers has gone down, which is a matter of discouragement from the killing of jobs.
@DADvocate. yeah, you found me out.
Rush is a good talker but he has to do 15 hours a week. Proverbs 10:19 reminds us that, "...in a multitude of words, sin is not lacking."
But his listeners hang in there with him for the multitude of gems he does come up with.
leslyn... Even remembering that still makes me sick to my stomach. And hurts me in my heart.
That's why I can't listen to Limbaugh.
Now you know how conservatives feel listening to Bill Maher or Rachael Maddow. Cry me a fucking river.
tradguy - what are these mythical Limbaugh gems? I really miss the days of the homeless & animal rights updates.
"Hate the Constitution and the flag??
I had to turn it off."
Leslyn, I tell you the truth. There are people that hate our Constitution and flag. I'm sorry you are hurt by these words.
Alex
You strike me as a perfectly irreverent type - certainly, you understand satire???
I have listened to Rush on and off over the years and heard his dissent from entertainment to a shrill spiller of propaganda and bile.
JSF said...
When did Liberals start hating on Free Speech?
Try WWI.
leslyn said...
It's difficult because he's so unrelentingly vicious.
Translation:
He's got the Lefties' number.
"Rush explains falling unemployment while things are getting worse as Obama killing the universe of jobs.
Fewer unfilled jobs, less unemployment, from number 2."
Fewer unfilled jobs ? You mean that there are unfilled jobs just waiting for some enlightened Obama voter to apply ?
I agree that Obama is killing the universe of jobs. That is why the total workforce is so far down
leslyn, that might be persuasive if I thought the phrase "conservatives hate science, freedom, and brown people" had the same effect upon you. Somehow, I think you are more likely to find it reassuring.
Tell me if I'm wrong, and how.
Wouldn't it be simpler to measure an employment rate rather than an unemployment rate?
And more accurate?
@Leslyn
You said: "It's difficult because he's so unrelentingly vicious. The last one I stumbled on had a caller who opened with, "I'll tell you why liberals hate the Constitution and the flag."
Hate the Constitution and the flag??
I had to turn it off.
Even remembering that still makes me sick to my stomach. And hurts me in my heart.
That's why I can't listen to Limbaugh."
I assume you mistyped? because your statement is that the CALLER was vicious, not Rush. When I did listen to Rush regularly, a decade ago, he was never vicious. Biting, and sarcastic? Yes. Vicious? No.
Imus said, with some truth, Rush is genuinely stupid, which is why he can't deal with callers.
I think just the opposite - his SAT scores were reported to have been cumulatively 1530, and that was before SAT scores were "recentered" a decade or two ago. That translates either into an IQ of either 137 or 147. My guess is the later, based on my own experiences (having taken the SATs I think the year before him),and that the 137 would be for the recentered SATs. In any case, in 1969 or so when he took the SATs, I think that that sort of score would have easily put him in the top 1% of test takers.
I think that his big problem, when it comes to economics, is that he is self taught. And, this isn't where his native expertise is. As someone pointed out above, he gets the right answers for the wrong reasons. Which, for me, is a lot better than most of those who criticize him for his economics, who get the wrong answers for maybe the right reasons (esp. people like Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman).
He isn't the only one who had exceptionally high SATs, and didn't finish college. Think people like Bill Gates, Jr. (1590 - which was most likely 800 math and 790 verbal). Reminds me a bit of my bridge partner in college. SATs somewhere between Limbaugh and Gates, but didn't graduate from college until he was maybe 40 (and had skipped graduation from HS because he had already been accepted in college). He was bored silly as an undergrad, and didn't go to enough classes to stay in school, but was scary good as a bridge player.
Carmona? I thought the dude's name was Roberto Hernandez Heredia!
Rush is no better than the network news on getting facts straight, but he is more entertaining.
I've never heard him be vicious, like some dumbass said up-tread. That's just lefty hate. Leftys always seem to need to hate thoroughly, even it requires a lot of exaggeration.
... that can actually be super, super empowering to do that.
Do these people actually talk like this?
Wow.
The problem with discussing economics is you have to to know the numbers and the real life facts to do it well.
Which is difficult to do verbally and is quite dull. So, people constantly generalize and talk economic "philosophy" with the same same fits all approach to real world problems.
And yes, IMUS may have a higher IQ than Rush, but IMUS is also an ignorant fool who spent years as a drunk and cocaine addict. Not to mention putting his nappy hoes in his mouth.
So what did the live chatters think about Rush showcasing Half Breed today? I thought it was pretty funny.
leslyn:
I doubt I can persuade you of anything, since you are already disposed to disbelieve me. But I do find hating on freedom and people of color repulsive. In fact, I find the whole notion of some sort of entitlement for hating people repulsive, and a detriment to our nation.
Artful. My mind is made up, but you still can't bear to say that casting Conservatives as a class as bigots and fascists is inherently wrong.
Closed minds are a detriment to our nation. Tribalism is a detriment to our nation. I don't hate you or liberals in general; most of my friends are deeply in the same echo chamber you're in, but my friends tolerate me because they aren't, in fact, hateful, and because I can more than keep up in an argument. I tolerate them because they can actually entertain the thought that they might be wrong. Show me I'm wrong.
"It is best if you put together a Rush Limbaugh listening kit. This kit should include things like chamomile tea, a damp rag for one's forehead, a cat, an over-sized afghan, gluten free cookies, and maybe a picture of Barack Obama. All things that are calming. Be ready to soothe yourself in those hard moments. Also, allow yourself to cry. Why not have tissues at hand? Be prepared."
"If you have access, Xanax makes a nice kit addition."
Imus calling someone else dumb? Now, that is funny. Imus thinks he is an intellectual because he mkaes his interns read a besteller and prepare a book synopsis for IMUS so Imus he can gab about the book on the air.
The left hates Rush Limbaugh and wants him off the air so people can't listen to him. They don't want non-leftists to be heard in the media.
That's the hate.
Leslyn, if the only reason you listen to something is to degenerate the content and bond with others over the denigration, well....
Actually, that works with MST3K, so it's not an inherently bad model.
But still, it's a sad and pathetic thing to do on a daily basis with politics.
And you still won't say casting Conservatives as bigots and fascists is inherently wrong. Your nausea is definitely selective.
The whole thing is about how to close your mind and mingle/bond with like-close-minded people.
How much is this like the worst cult-church paradigm you've ever encountered?
Is it somewhat less than sane to make a hobby of listening to someone you don't like listening to?
They better be careful. If they listen too long, Rush will start making sense. Or maybe even worse, once they are exposed to the alternative perspective, maybe they will start experiencing things among their own peers that start to grate on them and begin to seem somewhat juvenile.
Or maybe they listen in groups because they are afraid what might happen if they listen individually, without guidance and someone to pull them back if they start to slip over to the "other side".
I don't listen to Rush. Not so much because I disagree with him- I don't, very much- but because I know what he'll say.
I like reading people who will say things I'd never think of myself.
So funny, this "really empowering" ritual of listening to Rush "as a group". With the warning that you "take a break" if you start "freaking out" or "feeling really bad"-- because this is indeed a "difficult" and dangerous ordeal. But, supported by the group, you can face your nausea and fear and come out on the other side-- "super, super empowered."
Reminds me of nothing so much as group rituals like walking on coals or attending a sweat lodge. Within the safety of the group (even better if they're chanting the right words as you do it), you too can walk through the red-hot fire of Rush's words-- invulnerable, without being burned!
Or make it through the sweat lodge ceremony: it's a grueling, sometimes nauseating ordeal, listening to Rush's show, but you can sweat it out. But sometimes it gets so bad you feel like you're going to pass out. If it gets really bad, be sure to take a break. Don't want to push yourself beyond your safe limits. Don't want to end up like those people who died in Arizona. Or what comes to the same: don't want to cross over to the "other side."
Rush Limbaugh is like a Rorschach test for liberals.
Yeah, OK, whatever.
And if you want to know why I endorse this vid, then think twice again.
Tell you what, there are two of us here, post shedding, who given the option, didn't choose the government tit, however risky that was in not choosing it.
My bad, in not vociferously pointing out that sooner, I guess, here. Whatever.
Also: Pfouie.
"Tell you what, there are two of us here, post shedding, who given the option, didn't choose the government tit, however risky that was in not choosing it."
So let me understand. Choosing the gov't teat, in your opinion, reduces risk?
I do not see it that way, au contraire.
Supplication to anything less than your God given freedom and the liberty to make what you want out of your life is a cop-out.
I guess the gov't teat is for those that are just too lazy to even care about themselves, aside from the mentally ill and disabled. I can't conclude anything else.
I'm not sure he didn't just have trouble understanding the question. Remember, he has hearing problems and is doing this on the fly. I don't know how good his implants are.
He doesn't listen to the caller. His implants aren't good enough.Something to do with the electronic voice, I think. There is someone actually transcibing the callers words onto a monitor so that he can read them. Once you know that you can see why he gets tripped up sometimes.
I listen to both NPR and Rush and I have to say that Rush is more entertaining. NPR is what you listen to if you want to nap at the wheel.
Rush's caller is incorrect. What he's trying to say is that there is a limited amount of loanable funds, and if the US borrows a lot of them, it drives up interest rates for everyone.
You can split the rate that Greece pays into two parts: (i) the rate that Greece would pay if it were as safe as lending to the US, and (ii) a risk premium due to the fact that it is not.
What the caller is saying is that (i) is high. But it isn't. Long term US Treasury rates are quite low, both in real and nominal terms.
I've had roughly the same brief discussion with three people recently:
"Rush Limbaugh is horrible."
"Have you listened to his show? He's really a very astute political analyst."
"He's awful!"
"How much of his show have you listened to? Maybe ten minutes?"
"Maybe."
leslyn: I don't care about science as much because I was very bad at it in school.
Science is hard.
The whole notion of hating people...
Reading, too.
...it's how I feel.
And that's the important thing, isn't it?
leslyn: Did you have a point?
Yes.
Give yourself the time and the space that you need to listen to the stuff because it can be difficult at times,” she said.
I just don't get how that's not squirm-inducing to everyone, including those to whom it's directed. Ewww!
It's called humility
Many people spell it "descent". Would think a philosopher like you wouldn't make this mistake.
Depends if you count people that give up looking.
"According to Media Matters..."
According to dogs, cats should be exterminated.
So let me understand. Choosing the gov't teat, in your opinion, reduces risk
So let me give you to understand.
Given the options, despite both
of us having been riffed at some points since 2008, we have not in any way, shape or form chosen subsidy. Not even unemployment payments. Not even health insurance thingies. And we feed, heat, clothe all of ourselves. Etc. Etc. Etc. We still pull not only our own weight,but even that of others.
Don't Tread 2012:
My thought is that you're not worthy of taking on me or much less my husband, you pisseur de copie, you. You spew, but without imagination (among other things). And that is why the likes of you are of no use to us, who are likely more independent than you ever will be, you--from what I can tell--shallow, narrow, unimaginative person, you.
Also, Don't Tread 2012: You're lazy.
F* off.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा