Osler's Razor

Question: does Rush know?
 

That's what I've been saying about Ann Coulter for a long time.

However, if you think Rush is "out there," whoo, do I have some websites for you! Take a gander at the daily prayer for the President at Free Republic!

I suppose if Rush goes just far enough to be funny, Free Republic goes so far that it's not even funny anymore. Because while Rush may be doing it for listeners and money (gotta feed that oxy habit!), the freepers are doing it out of sheer craziness.
 

I don't know why. That "prayer" cracks me up. Maybe it's because I've heard it about 4 million times from fundamentalists at school.
 

In re Rush: I support his right to inveigh against a popular president--even when I disagree with him (El Rushbo that is).

Two other random notes:

Another "Political Mayhem Thursday" with no mention of the massive stimulus bill working its way through Congress. After so much internet ink devoted to the financial rescue of 2007, I have not seen any thoughts concerning the trillion dollar spending package. Have I missed it, or is the Razor uncharacteristically silent on this unprecedented government action?

Also, I received Jesus on Death Row yesterday. I look forward to a compelling read.
 

are you sure you're not talking about colbert?
 

Waco Farmer-

Not to worry. I don't like all this spending, either. However, I figure that by next week we should have a better idea of what that spending will be. With TARP, we knew from the outset.
 

Oh, and those of you who have read the book, I encourage you to write a review on Amazon.com, for good or bad.
 

In keeping with the discussion of popular culture, then, shouldn't we view Rushie through the Colbertian lens of "truthiness"? In other words, in your reading he is part and parcel of the broader societal deconstruction of such unifying notions as truth (et al.).

The problem with this -- as was the problem with the (slightly higher brow) New Yorker Obamas-in-muslim/black panther garb -- is that parody has lost its parodic value in the age of infinite reproduction and (returning to it) truthiness. In other words, people don't get it; people think it's real. The fact that the tone of your post is so enthusiastic shows this as his common reception.

So, if his parody is missed by all, is it still parody?

[That was the problem with the New Yorker cartoon too; as some argued, in the era when only New Yorker readers (who would, supposedly, have gotten its parodic value (I should emphasize supposedly)) would have seen the cartoon...fine; with 24-hour immediate news and internet-forwardability, its parodic value was lost.]
 

I agree with Medievalist: does Rush know he's a parody?

I guess I need to listen to him; I haven't in a long time . . . but it's really depressing to think that he and Ann Coulter are stirring up people who really feel that way, and also are heightening the divide between people, just to make money. That's really depressing, and reprehensible, in my mind.

Maybe there are liberals who do that . . . but I can't think of any at the moment.
 

And I agree with Septimus, too . . . was about to write the same thing: "if his parody is missed by all, is it still a parody?""

I'm still not clear on exactly who he's a parody OF. And it's hard to imagine somebody who's been doing his shtick for as long as he's been doing it--15 years or something?--really has parody as his only intention.
 

Prof. Osler: don't wait too long to weigh in on the stimulus. I too have held my fire on the package--but it is very close to crunch time. We need all the small-government liberals we can get in this discussion.

Septimus: I am not sure what you said, exactly (I am in a hurry this morning), but I think I agree with you.

Rush is all about satire and parody--but it is also my sense that he is very serious about some very serious ideas.

My sense is that he is ecstatic with the instrumental role he has played in the communication revolution over the last twenty-five years.
 

You'll probably appreciate this post:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/02/sarcasm_yeah.php
 

Waco Farmer: No no...if you aren't sure what I said, it's 1 part you being in a hurry and 9 parts my horrible, opaque, unclear writing.
 

Septimus:

Reading slower. I get it. I like it. Well said.
 

Septimus,

Could the perversion of parody also come from a lack of context. Sound-byte driven media can turn parody into truth (the afformentioned New Yorker cartoon) or truth into parody (the Daily Show). Can any of us (even Osler) say that we really know the difference anymore? How much does Ann Coulter and Rush really believe, and how much is parody? Can they even tell anymore? What do they tell thier loved ones that they believe? I think it's troubling.

Love,
Matt
 

Waco Farmer, its not the stimulus, its "The Porkulus."

Not sure whether that came from Rush or someplace else. I've only listened to Rush once or twice in my life.

He's an entertainer and a well paid one at that. He figured out a way to be entertaining and to get paid for it. Handsomely.

I listened to yet another liberal commentator on NPR inveigh against Rush today, calling him the "de facto" leader of the GOP. I've seem that theme in a Washington Post article and in a Frank Rich column. The liberal media is trying to make the Republicans look bad by claiming this entertainer speaks for the party.

The message being spouted by people like EJ Dionne, Frank Rich and others is that if you question the President and his proposals, you're disloyal and an obstructionist.

Nonsense. Rush doesn't speak for the GOP or individuals in the GOP. He speaks for himself. Yes, he's got a big audience, but there are plenty of other Republicans with audiences too. Or potential audiences. A lot of Republicans are busy right now, however, and not wasting their time worrying about what Rush has to say.

If you don't like Rush, don't listen to him.
 

If anyone's at all interested, I recommend looking up the late social theorist/philosopher Baudrillard and his notion of hyperreality, a concept created during the first Gulf War that applies now.

In a nutshell, the idea is that our information about the world outside our own extreme, personal locale is so filtered and subjectivized by commentary that we don't exist in the "real" world but rather a world of opinion haphazardly heaped on top of the real, a hyperreal world.

In this world, where people are so credulous, it's difficult to achieve something like Swiftian satire because people are unable to deal with levels of meaning. I think it raises novel ethical questions: does the satirist, knowing she will be taken at first face by a majority of her viewers, incur a duty to in some way let them in on the joke?

We may question whether Rush's descriptions of "the Porkulus" are correct. We may question whether Rush's bloviating about it really is obstructing its passage. Other talking heads seem to think so. But ultimately, our own conceptions of these things, so far removed from their actuality as we are, are all so filtered and chopped and spun that reality is a very loose concept.

So if it seems like some people you talk to are living in another world, they probably are. Their sources of information might be just a little more, er, colorful, than yours.
 

Wait: You mean wrestling is fake????

How could it be fake? I mean I am not not a fan of it.. but its really FAKE?

I was wondering if they are trying to be like real athletes why all the costumes????
 

What a surprise. I agree with IPLG.

Absolutely, the stimulus is embarrassing and potentially an unconscionable missed opportunity during a time of real crisis. I keep waiting for the miracle in the Upper Chamber, when the President "goes bipartisan" and brings it all together. But that moment has not arrived. Will it arrive? If it doesn't, this is very bad for an American who wants to see a successful Obama presidency and a secure national future.

On Rush: He is an entertainer. He is also a self-taught political philosopher and party organizer.

He is right on some things--totally off on others. He is not an original thinker. He is not the brains behind the GOP or conservatism. He is merely a popularizer. This means he is wide but not deep (no pun intended).

I will give him this, however. For a man who talks for three hours a day, five days a week, for twenty years on the radio, he is hard to "catch."

Most of the Rush controversies over the years (this current one included) are "ginned up" and out of context.
 

Like Archie Bunker? Swissgirl makes an interesting point, however, I do think a life can become a parody without the participant being "in" on the joke. But how much does he know about what he is? How much does Bill O'Reilly (or Nancy Grace, groan)?

To be in that talking head for one minute, wow.
 

Swissgirl:

Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow. Bill Maher. I think those are just three examples of liberals that do the exact same thing that Rush does but from the left. The idea that the right is the only side that has blowhards is simply not true.

IPLG:

This is one of my favorite things about the Age of Obama so far. All I've heard for 6 years is how dissent is the highest form of patriotism. How dissent is a moral imperative for every American. Yet now, when it is there guy, any level of dissent is considered disloyal, obstructionist, and partisanship. What a joke.

I agree with Osler. Rush is funny. Can't take him too seriously, if at all.
 

RRL, I will give you Keith Olbermann, yes. I can't take him either.

I would argue that Bill Maher is a pretty equal-opportunity critic . . . I have seen him lay into Ralph Nader, with Nader sitting right there. He seems pretty good at spotting hypocrisy wherever he sees it, although yes, he's inclined to the liberal side of issues.

RAchel MAddow . . . yes, is partisan, although when I have seen her she has seemed to be well-reasoned and well-informed. I wouldn't go so far as to call her a blowhard or someone who tries more to entertain than to make a serious point.

I will make a promise to listen to Rush Limbaugh once so I fully know the phenomenon that Osler is talking about. But I have a problem with anybody, conservative or liberal, who is intentionally stirring up discord just to entertain, and in the process fan the flames of partisan discord, without trying to make a sincere, accurately informed and well-reasoned point.
 

I'm with you, Schweizerin. Maddow doesn't strike me as given to the histrionics of a Limbaugh or Olbermann, and Maher is as annoying to me as most people. While I enjoyed some of the themes of his latest movie, more of it came off as uncomfortably smug and self-assured.
 

RRL makes a lot of sense--as usual.

My two cents:

Maddow and Limbaugh are pretty comparable. Olberman is as crazy as Michael Savage.
 

Hmmm. Vitrolic commentary does not necessarily equal parody.
Making fun of Michael Fox's Parkinson's Disease is parody?
True, both Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter make outrageous statements to attract more attention, but there is something VERY mean-spirited about their remarks.
(And Ann Coulter's prominently displayed cross says a lot about her brand of "Christianity.")
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. . . Same goes for the pig wearing lipstick.
 

Matt -- I think you've nailed the angst of postmodernism (to follow Lane's Baudrillard reference) pretty right on.

AWFarmer -- thanks. I think it was still pretty poorly written, but I'm glad the idea was at least in there somewhere!

The one strand on here I'm feeling full political mayhem-ish about is the idea that the Obama administration, or even Congressional Dems, have intimated that dissent is problematic all of a sudden. Cite it.

What has been taken issue with was the simple-minded, party-line vote in the House. That doesn't show independent-mindedness, or even appropriate representation of one's district. Fortunately, it seems like it's just going to backfire for those Repubs who (ostensibly) represent more centrist districts.

tydwbleach -- Shhh...wrestling IS real. My Uncle Baudrillard told me it is.
 

Yay I haven't been called a pomo in some time, not since I left undergrad.
 

Wrestling cannot be real, now that I think about it. Not with those outfits.

I loathe Michael Savage. I think he is a pig.
 

Septimus:

First, I didn't claim that it was necessarily the administration or Democrats in congress making these claims, but more generally left-wing commentators and writers (E.J. Dionne was mentioned specifically). However, Harry Reid has taken to calling the Republicans the "Grand Obstructionist Party", which seems to be the equivalent of saying, "if you stand in our way and oppose our agenda in any fashion then you're wrong."

I also think you're wrong about the House vote. The stimulus bill is a joke. I'm proud that conservative Republicans took control of the party in the House and didn't get bullied by the press into giving Obama a bipartisan victory on a huge pork barrel spending project that won't do anything other than stimulate Nancy Pelosi's ego and Democrat's voting base. Since they refused to just sign off on the bill popular support for the stimulus has dwindled (down below 40% now) and the press has continued running stories about all of the wasteful and unnecessary spending in the bill. Bully for those guys.
 

Oh so much to read and maybe comment on. These are my sound bites...

Harry Reid is a wimp. The Dem's need a stronger person in this role. Harry is wishie-washie - go back top Utah. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand needs to chill a bit (perhaps go back to CA and sample some vino and hang out with Maria and Arnold).

Rush is a drug addict who sent his hispanic maid out to purchase for him. Despicable human being. If he were caught in the act would he benefit from the Spear's decision? Whether he is parody or not is not relevant. The paraody is lost with media sound bites. I turn him on occassionally because I need to know what crap my parents listen to when they are out driving around during the day. They know wrestling is fake, but they don't shake their heads in disbelief listening to the nonsense he spews most of the time.

Olberman and Matthews are incredibly annoying. Olberman always has been even when he was a sportscaster. Matthews is like O'Reilly - he likes to hear himself talk and to cut off his guests when they are trying to respond. There is vitrually nothing news worthy on his show ~ just hot air. Maddow is still a little refreshing and can be extremely FUNNY (last Friday night was one of those times.) She is not taking herself too seriously yet but she has a lot of layers (liberal, leftwing, lesbian, feminist).

As an Agnostic I'll take a pass on the 'Daily Prayer for the President'. Micah - I feel for you!

Stimulus package - can't wait for that topic!

Lane - I don't get philosophy, but your 11:39 post made a lot of sense.

Still waiting for Amazon to deliver my book.

Happy Haiku Friday.
Anyone have a good recipe for Strawberry Jam?
 

I agree, Anonymous 4:43. I think Coulter and Limbaugh are just plain mean-spirited, and that does not equal parody. Being mean bothers me no matter who does it.

And that includes Chris Matthews, for cutting people off and always needing to have the last word.
 

So, I know nobody will read this post because it is like number 32 or something, but I'm watching Maddow right now. She currently has something called the "Stimulometer" on the screen, which basically is used to show that every time a Republican opposes the stimulus bill it will lead to soup lines (I'm not making that up - soup lines people) and then every time some Democrat talks it moves over to the "paychecks" side of the "Stimulometer" and she points out that this will prevent soup lines.

You're right. She is all about high minded debate.

I think her show is fine, mostly I just think she is a moron. But, the idea that she is any better than Rush just doesn't pan out when you watch her show.

Oh, and since we are talking about radio, there is a story on the front page of the Drudge Report that quotes a Democratic senator saying she wants to bring back the fairness doctrine or something like it. Apparently "yes we can" should be amended to read "yes we can control the media, limit political speech, and attempt to eliminate voices of dissent."
 

RRL
I did read post #32 - ha (this morning). I'm trying not to watch or listen to any off the talking heads right now. In my post I said she had a sense of humor. At least with a visual you know it is a parody?
 

RRL:

Just so you know, I hear you.

On Political Mayhem Thursday, I generally read all the way down the comments page.

Now that it's just the two of us, and nobody else is listening, let me say definitively: you are absolutely right on Maddow. It gets back to the old question of "who's ox is getting gored."