Allahpundit may be an oddball but he’s our oddball, damn it!

CarolynM on March 6, 2009 at 7:28 AM

“the guys at Powerline”–how many guys manage that show?

“some oddballs”–the plural applies

But Allahpundit can reference AGAIN that Limbaugh shows ample and confident respect and appreciation for Malkin’s abilities.

So much for “some oddballs” who can’t see in front of their collective nose that Limbaugh is an equal opportunity thinker with the good sense to tap into what’s happening and recognize the big picture, seeing through masks and through charades to name things as they are. Real people mature in that way. Fakes and frauds don’t.

Limbaugh’s “highbrow” critics (not all highbrows are his critics, remember) are the sophisticate elitists who hate being called out for playing the scabs promoting “Socialism In Our Time”. Their anger intensifies all the more as what they deem as their right to their superiority complex dissolves under the heat.

I maintain that among Limbaugh’s innate gifts are an accurate sense for the Zeitgeist and the drive to hammer the implications home on a daily basis while interacting with his audience that includes critics.

Those highbrow critics envy both Limbaugh’s perception and his endurance, and take it upon themselves to muzzle ANY OPPOSITION. They muzzle through restraint on free movement or expression, through censorship, and through the forward, discharging end of their weapon armed with overt or covert presumed elitist privilege.

maverick muse on March 6, 2009 at 8:50 AM

morons, “scab”

‘No more fit for use than a wax-work image would be for a gas-stoker’: ‘Scabs’ and the cultural politics of late Nineteenth-Century Australian labourism

By Nick Dyrenfurth

Writing in the Sydney Worker during the bitter Shearers’ Strike of 1894, Henry Lawson declared:

It is a great pity that the word ’scab’ ever dirtied the pages of a workman’s newspaper. It is a filthy term in its present meaning – objectionable every way you look at it. It should never be used by one man in reference to another, no matter how bad the other may be … It does no good – you can’t convert a man by using that word behind his back … It is a low, filthy, evil-working, ignorant, cowardly, and brutal term, and belongs to the slang of the brainless, apish larrikins and drunken prostitutes of the city press….

Lawson’s terse reproach of the peculiar antipodean deployment (given its rural relation to scabby, flyblown sheep) of the late nineteenth-century workplace ’scab’ is interesting on a number of levels. As Graeme Davison has notably described, the Bulletin and writers such as Lawson were refracting an imagined set of national values or character onto an idyllic Australian bush setting, counterpoising this with the allegedly corrupting effects of modernist city life. Lawson self-consciously sought to distance labour discourse from the ’slang’ of ‘larrikins and drunken prostitutes of the city press’. Lawson’s claim evinces the recurrent dovetailing of labourite critiques of capitalism and wider modernist anxieties. Such public men were also expressing a masculinist politics: Lawson, much like fellow propagandist, William Lane, was principally concerned with the (supra-class) relations between men.

maverick muse on March 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Interesting, and disappointing, I didn’t realize you posted to be controversial, I was hoping you posted to be truthful.–right2bright

But he has the best of intentions; traffic.

Regardless of how clever one is, a saboteur is still a saboteur.

How long he feigns Peter Pan is his and Wendy’s concern.

maverick muse on March 6, 2009 at 9:15 AM

I can cite one specific criticism I have of Rush

My gripe applies to all media: repetition of a point for hours at a time. But I understand the requirement to catch the coming and going channel changers up to speed after each break.

This past year, perhaps because the damned POTUS campaign lasted longer than ever, perhaps because there’s more to cover now, I have noticed more recently that Rush covers a lot more agenda per program than what I noticed before. I may simply be giving more attention now than in years previous. Then again, that sense may be based upon my having realized that I appreciate Rush now more than before.

maverick muse on March 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM