there's a new sheriff in town and it aint you
Posted on 02/07/2003 12:38:34 PM PST by county sheriff
Most of those who disagree with Neal and Rush are sent into such paroxysms by listening to them that their responses tend toward, "big fat idiot," "billious pig-faced bigot," and the like. Neal and Rush are extremely effective and powerful communicators. They change the way people think. They deserve real criticism.
Neal and Rush are guilty of a monstrous sin of omission. They tell a whole lot of truth, and, contrary to the knee-jerk critics, they tell it with a high degree of accuracy. The problem is that they tell selective truths. And, while appealing to the best in people with one hand, they appeal to the worst in us all with the other.
Neal and Rush know that most people are capable of making choices about their own destinies. And they know that free will is often mitigated by forces which the individual cannot control. They are intelligent adults and they have enough sense to know that many people are too sick and too broken to be able to choose their own destinies. It is wrong for Neal and Rush to teach only the truths which imply, over and over and over again, that these least ones among us are to be disregarded, and even disdained, for having made poor choices.
Neal and Rush tell a lot of truth about the ways liberal economic policies make things worse for everyone, including the poor. Yes, they offer cogent economic teachings and exhortations to individual perseverance and achievement. But from the other side of their mouths Rush refers to the homeless as "human debris;" and Neal refers to homeless persons frozen to death on winter nights as "bumsicles."
Yes, Neal, you are right-there are at least a few people in Atlanta who are homeless because they have failed to use their able minds and bodies to good ends. But Neal, what do you think becomes of the chronically mentally ill in America? Does the fact that they drink in the midst of their abandonment and degradation make them responsible for the genetics of their brain chemistry? Does the fact that they stink and grovel in the midst of their hopelessness make them responsible for the vicious cycle in which abuse is heaped upon the broken by the strong? Does the fact that somewhere you may be able to find a guy who froze to death out of laziness make it okay to laugh at all of the men and women who froze to death as the culmination of a life in which they never knew a moment's peace?
For an intelligent, mature adult to refer to the corpse of a schizophrenic as a bumsicle is evidence of pathological confusion.
Neal and Rush feel quite safe from criticisms of their "bumsicle," and "human debris", terminology. They cloak themselves in the righteousness of their cause of rugged individualism. Neal, Rush, just how rugged is it to induce in yourself and others a perverse state of blindness to so much of the human experience? Would not a truly rugged individual become strong enough to face the face of despair in our midst and make the tough choices about when, how, and whom to help?
Neither Rush nor Neal nor anyone else has ever achieved anything without receiving a lot of help along the way. Do they fail to see that such help is not distributed equally in this world?
The bizarre irony is that even though they do not care about the disenfranchised, they are often right about the failings in the economic policies of those who do care. Neal and Rush are correct about the inherent corruption found in the institutions and individuals who promise to redistribute the wealth.
But the masses of people, who do care in their guts about what happens to the needy, can't be expected to grasp the awesome irony of the fact that selfish, greedy capitalists like Neal and Rush are often right about what economic policies are best for the poor. The masses will listen, and reject what they hear on the basis of the essential absence of compassion. And Neal and Rush will continue to be bewildered as to why so many people can't grasp the basic truths in what they teach.
Neal, Rush, listen up--America doesn't care if you have your facts right--as long as what you promulgate is premised in selfishness, then it simply won't satisfy, and most of America will look elsewhere.
Bumsicle ? That is the funniest darn thing I've heard in a long time. Not that I'm not compassionate and all.
The welfare system, OTOH, is an out and out forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers at large, to people who for the most part aren't interested in working.
Except for periods of extended high unemployment (such as currently) the unemployment systems isn't funded by taxpayers at all, though employers are compelled by law to participate and fund it. Also, the rates paid by employers are related to how many employees the firm has laid off: firms that lay-off the fewest employees pay the lowest rates... those which frequently lay-off lots of employees pay the highest rates.
The laid-off employee who collects is merely accepting the benefits of a insurance policy funded by his employer (much like health-care benefits). I don't see a moral dilemma for the laid-off employee. The person who has a legitimate gripe is the employer who is COMPELLED by law to fund the unemployment insurance. In a perfect world, unemployment insurance would be optionally offered by employers as a benefit to lure and keep employees, or purchased privately by the employee themselves.
PLEASE, WHAT IS A ZOT?
And how did the poster get banned already? Doesn't FR welcome differing opinions? (Even if it's only to poke fun at them?)
Thanks. ~~arasina~~
In other words, Communism is great on paper, it's just the imperfect implementation that's the problem.
Point: They do, and Limbaugh does as well, but Limbaugh is diverting conservatives from issues they should be concerned about.
Interesting that you should appoint yourself to be the arbiter of what conservatives should "be concerned about".
Abolishing the DoE (a Carter creation) was a pillar of Reagan's 1980 platform. Rush venerates Reagan on almost a daily basis. But blowing it off would be political suicide, as the present political thinking goes. So, Rush doesn't go there.
Considering that Reagan was actually president for eight years and the DoE is still around, using your wafer-thin "logic", Reagan wasn't conservative.
But DoE is stunting the minds of our most precious assets. Care to stand by and let that happen, simply because it is politically expedient? I don't think so. But Rush does.
And so did Reagan. It's called "pick your fights". But I still fail to see how his isn't "conservative" because he doesn't champion your issue.
Our friend farouk is wrong. Rush does talk about the waste in washington, but he doesn't spend hours railing about getting rid of the DoE because he knows (as did Reagan), that it is a political impossibility at this time. Better to start with tax cuts and work your way backwards.
That's called theft
It's one thing to argue a point. It's quite another to put an emotional rant into the guise of an argument. That latter is hard to do and you are doing it very badly.
Rush is an entertainer. I don't think anyone disputes that with you.
But there is a huge difference (or is that hugh) between insurance and welfare. If you pay several hundered dollars a month in homeowners insurance, and it burns down after 5 months giving you a loss payout of $100,000, you are not stealing. You held up your end of the contract and the insurance company held up theirs. That's how insurance works.
It's OK if you dislike Rush. But do so with dignity.
Shalom.
That's a quote for the record books. Very well said.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.