Rahm, Spaceknight?
Cidu Bill on Apr 23rd 2010
Okay, since when is Rahm Emanuel “massive”? And why would Obama want to send him into space?
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, CIDU, Far Left Side, Mike Stanfill, Rahm Emanuel, comic strips, comics, humor, politics | 145 responses so far
Fnord Apr 23rd 2010 at 12:15 am 1
I think it’s a three-part conversation. Rahm speaks the middle line, and the President chastises him. In clarified script form:
Science Guy: “Mister President, blah blah rocket blah massive.”
Rahm Emanuel: “Like Limbaugh?”
Obama: “Rahm. Shut it. We’re trying to work here.”
src666 Apr 23rd 2010 at 12:44 am 2
I think Fnord nailed it. At least that’s how I interpreted it when I first saw it.
Rammy M Apr 23rd 2010 at 01:04 am 3
I concur
mkilby Apr 23rd 2010 at 01:27 am 4
The final balloon would have worked better (for the above interpretation) if the period were simply changed to an ellipsis and/or exclamation point:
Kamino Neko Apr 23rd 2010 at 01:27 am 5
Yep, Fnord’s got it, I think.
It might have been clearer if it hadn’t ended with a period. An exclamation point for a sharp admonishment, or an ellipsis for an exasperated groan would have been my choice.
Kamino Neko Apr 23rd 2010 at 01:27 am 6
Comment synchronicity!
mkilby Apr 23rd 2010 at 01:28 am 7
Nuts, that fourth period was supposed to be a slash.
Singapore Bill Apr 23rd 2010 at 02:02 am 8
Ha ha! That’s so funny! He’s fat! Get it? Limbaugh is fat and that is certainly worthy of mockery! I’m looking forward to the follow-up, where they make fun of Obama for being (kind of)black. Think how funny that will be!
Charlene Apr 23rd 2010 at 02:11 am 9
“Fat” is apparently easier to laugh at than “sociopathic monster”.
furrykef Apr 23rd 2010 at 03:00 am 10
Singapore Bill — skin color is something you’re born with. Being fat, not so much. (Yes, sometimes there are glandular issues and such, but it’s usually the person’s fault.)
And, yes, I am fat.
mitch4 Apr 23rd 2010 at 03:18 am 11
Chicago media are jumping all over some remark of Rahm’s that lets them speculate he could be interested in running for Mayor.
Nicole Apr 23rd 2010 at 07:37 am 12
Singapore Bill 8 — sorry the teabaggers beat him to it.
Jay Apr 23rd 2010 at 07:54 am 13
Singapore Bill: I think this is more making fun of Rahm than Rush. But really… comparing making fun of someone because they’re fat with making fun of someone because they’re black? Really?
Jay Apr 23rd 2010 at 07:59 am 14
Singapore Bill: I think this is more making fun of Rahm than Rush. If it were making fun of Rush, it might go something like:
Science Guy: … designed to launch unusually massive payloads into low earth orbit.
Rahm: Like Limbaugh?
Science Guy: The rocket is powerful, but wouldn’t be able to lift both Rush and his ego.
Jay Apr 23rd 2010 at 08:28 am 15
Odd … that shouldn’t have happened. Maybe I should go with it, though.
Science Guy: … designed to launch unusually massive payloads into low earth orbit.
Rahm: Like Limbaugh?
Science Guy: No, for him we have a rocket whose payload will leave the solar system.
Singapore Bill Apr 23rd 2010 at 09:05 am 16
Furrykef, Obama is half-white and half-black, so it’s a choice to identify him as black.
You also need to do a lot more research on the role of genetics in determining body type.
Jeff Apr 23rd 2010 at 09:07 am 17
FYI,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom_(comics)
padraig Apr 23rd 2010 at 10:27 am 18
This is a variation on one of my favorite jokes, slightly blasphemous:
Jesus comes upon a crowd about to stone an adulteress to death. He stands between the mob and the woman and says, “How dare you judge her! You are all sinners! If you want to stone this woman, then, let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”
The crowd is silent. Suddenly from the middle of the crowd a single rock is thrown, nailing the adulteress in the forehead. Jesus peers into the crowd to see who threw it, gets a pained expression on his face, and says, “Aw, c’mon, Mommm….”
Rainey Apr 23rd 2010 at 10:44 am 19
I’m wondering if the incorrect spelling of certain words on the picket signs is part of the joke. Also, were the words misspelled intentionally by the writers of the signs.
Rainey Apr 23rd 2010 at 10:46 am 20
Pardon my incorrect punctuation. I tried to replace the last period with a question mark before the message was sent but it went through this way anyway.
Keera Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:14 am 21
Rainey, the cartoonist has drawn picket signs seen in real life. They really do spell that way. So in one sense, yes, the misspelling was intentional.
Lord Jubjub Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:44 am 22
The woman who wants people to speak English can’t spell it. “Get a brain, Moran” is an internet meme related to a protest insulting a guy whose actual last name was Moran.
Paperboy Apr 23rd 2010 at 12:36 pm 23
The joke would’ve been funnier with “Gabourey Sidibe”, instead of “Limbaugh”, since she’s MUCH fatter than he is. (there could be a second panel with her in a rocket that doesn’t blast off, just sinks into the ground. LOL!)
DonBoy Apr 23rd 2010 at 02:44 pm 24
Lord Jubjub, I’m looking around for any claim at all that the sign referred to a person named “Moran”, and I’m not seeing it. It’s “morans”, not “moran”, for one thing, which is somewhat less likely as a person’s name.
Lord Jubjub Apr 23rd 2010 at 03:14 pm 25
Donboy, I’ve actaully heard several different tales concerning the picture of the guy holding up the original sign. But nonetheless, the reference in THIS cartoon is a reference to that protest sign.
Winter Wallaby Apr 23rd 2010 at 03:15 pm 26
What Singapore Bill said. Not cool, Stanfill. Not cool.
Molly J Apr 23rd 2010 at 04:18 pm 27
Yes, we should all really be much more careful not to offend Mr. Limbaugh. After all, he is so careful himself about not offending others.
Cidu Bill Apr 23rd 2010 at 04:21 pm 28
Actually, it’s not just that Limbaugh enjoys offending others: he also has no hesitation about insulting people based on their physical appearance.
Winter Wallaby Apr 23rd 2010 at 05:05 pm 29
MollyJ, Cidu Bill, I’d accept that argument if I used Limbaugh as my standard for appropriate behavior. However, I’m a little reluctant to accept that standard.
I’m perfectly happy to offend Limbaugh. But using his weight as an insult isn’t just an insult to Limbaugh, it’s an insult to overweight people.
paperboy Apr 23rd 2010 at 05:22 pm 30
I’m with Winter Wallaby. Rush talks for hours 5 days a week on political topics; should be plenty for humorists to work with, but what’s the main criticism?: He’s fat. Apparently his points are so unassailable, the haters are forced to attack his appearance.
And Cidu Bill#28; I know of the infamous, unforgivable, “White House dog” crack he made during the Clinton years, but who else has he insulted based on physical appearance?
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Apr 23rd 2010 at 05:42 pm 31
Paperboy - after your comment @23 about Gabourey Sidibe, your protest in @30 about making fun of someone because of their appearance doesn’t come off very well…
paperboy Apr 23rd 2010 at 06:14 pm 32
Ted in Fort Lauderdale#31- My #23 comment was satirical, to try to point out the “joke” in the “The Far Left Side” was about fat people, that the joke “works” with ANY large celebrity (John Goodman, Kirstie Allie, Michael Moore) , and that it’s humor value is in direct proportion to how much one likes or dislikes the person named and how much one thinks fat people are funny.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Apr 23rd 2010 at 08:03 pm 33
Paperboy@32 - I initially thought that you were simply trying to be funny, but the fact that clearly there was a political element to the original cartoon (as weak as that cartoon might be), seemed to make your comment disingenuous (in that you were denying that there was a reason Rush might be a target besides his weight). You reiterate that here, when you claim “that the joke “works” with ANY large celebrity”, denying that Limbaugh is clearly not just a “large celebrity”, but a very vocal enemy of the administration, and therefore a reasonable target - the joke being that they obviously wanted to get rid of him all along, but now they finally have a way to. As I said, a weak joke, but your claim of innocence is (IMHO) weaker…
Paperboy Apr 23rd 2010 at 08:32 pm 34
Ted in Fort Lauderdale#33- The joke centers on Rush’s weight, plain and simple. There’s another way to make the same point without the fat joke: “Mr.President, NASA says it has the technology to send a man to Mars.” “Really? Let’s send Limbaugh.” There you go; as weak as the original, but without the insult to all over-weight people. It’s ridiculous to say there’s a “political element” simply because it involves political figures. It’s a fat joke.
furrykef Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:02 pm 35
Furrykef, Obama is half-white and half-black, so it’s a choice to identify him as black.
A choice, perhaps, but not his choice. If he identified as white, people would go “Yeah, OK, whatever.” Perhaps it’s not fair that people identify race that way, but they nonetheless do.
You also need to do a lot more research on the role of genetics in determining body type.
Can you point me to an article or something to get me started? I ask because it’s fully possible for you and me to read the same article and take away different ideas from it, so if I just Google it myself, I wouldn’t necessarily understand where you’re coming from.
Tom Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:10 pm 36
“Get A BRAIN! MORANS”
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm
Tullia Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:21 pm 37
First thing: I read “payload” as a euphemism for “great big load of crap.” You can see it, right? “Jim sure gave us a big payload in that meeting.,” etc. And no, I don’t mean Limbaugh’s physical person being the load of crap, but his professional output with him as the vessel.
Second: If it is a fat joke plain and simple with no leavening, since Limbaugh likes to make fun of everyone else based on appearance, especially women — remember the Chelsea Clinton/”White House Dog” joke? — if you have to make fun of a fat guy, Limbaugh’s the one. Whom has he insulted for their appearance or person? Fat people, people with AIDS, ugly people … black people and other minorities when they reach any prominence and get any sort of recognition or forgiveness (who was the sports figure who was only being called good because he was black, according to Limbaugh?). It doesn’t matter. Limbaugh’s happy to take shots at physical appearance.
While he should be hung out to dry for a million other reasons, and while fat jokes are stupid and mean, 1) this is a political joke in part because it’s a famous political commentator who is critical of all liberals, including presumably the people talking in the cartoon, getting the boot into space and not another fat person; 2) I will shed no tears for Limbaugh,;and 3) I’m tired of conservatives who stagger back in shock, shock! I tell you, when their own cheap, pretty, crass tactics are turned against them after they’ve repeatedly been told to stop. I don’t think liberals or progressives should use fat jokes because it’s wrong, but I’m not going to spend the day flagellating myself for someone making fun of the physical appearance of a man who sneers at the physical appearance of others.
paperboy Apr 23rd 2010 at 11:41 pm 38
Tullia#37- Did you hear or read a direct quote of him insulting “Fat people, people with AIDS, ugly people…”, or were you just told that he did? I know of the Chelsea crack, but what are the others? Give me a quote, not a rumor. way, What I’m trying to get across is that there is plenty of Rush’s material to criticize; you don’t need to make stuff up. I’m just tired of people who hate him for “millions” of reasons, but, somehow, just can’t think of one right now, so they make fun of his weight.
Nicole Apr 24th 2010 at 12:18 am 39
One of Rush’s klassiest moments is when he accuses Michael J. Fox of deliberately exaggerating his Parkinson’s disease or not taking his meds. The high point comes when he imitates Michael’s symptoms
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/000937/
Winter Wallaby Apr 24th 2010 at 01:02 am 40
Tullia, Nicole, my point is that using weight as an insult is an insult not just to Limbaugh, but to overweight people. Pointing out that Limbaugh insults people based on their appearance isn’t really a reasonable defense of this joke, because there’s more people in the world than just Stanfill and Limbaugh.
Louis Farrakhan says racist things, but if I called him a [REDACTED] [REDACTED], would you defend my racist slur on the grounds that Louis Farrakhan also says racist things?
Frank the curmudgeon Apr 24th 2010 at 01:28 am 41
It all boils down to that it OK to be politically incorrect if you are espousing liberal / leftist causes.
It’s OK for SEIU thugs to assault and use racial epithets on a black “tea-bagger”.
Keera Apr 24th 2010 at 04:31 am 42
Furrykef @35, hasn’t Obama himself identified as black (since our societies still insist on grouping us by race and therefore forcing a choice) by marrying a black woman and attending a church with a black congregation?
furrykef Apr 24th 2010 at 05:49 am 43
Keera - yes, my point is that Singapore Bill called it a “choice”, when I don’t think Obama had any choice in the matter. The traditional rule in America is, if you have any black blood, you’re black. Do I think it’s a good rule? No, but I didn’t invent it, and there’s nothing I can do about it.
But imagine if, hypothetically, he did try to identify as white. There would be no benefit because racist white people still wouldn’t treat him as white (in fact, some may treat him more harshly for “pretending” he’s white), and black people would shun him because they would perceive him as shunning them. So the only realistic choice Obama has is to identify as black. Saying he had a choice is silly.
Of course, in reality, race doesn’t even matter. But, sadly, we live in a world where plenty of people think otherwise.
Keera Apr 24th 2010 at 06:03 am 44
Furrykef, [on a philosophical level] Obama still has a choice. It’s just that the consequences of one choice are so difficult it is easier to make the other choice. It takes a lot for one person to buck an entire system.
Nicole Apr 24th 2010 at 09:04 am 45
Winter Wallaby .. I was not so much defending the joke as responding to paperboy’s request for for an example of Rush making fun of someone’s physical appearance. I agree that the “well they do it too” is not a defense for adults to use.
Frank the curmudgeon … it is never OK to use racial epithets. Can you provide a link to more information about the incident you mentioned ?
Detcord Apr 24th 2010 at 11:11 am 46
Nicole (45)
I think Frank the Curmudgeon may be referring to the events recorded on this video. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/seius-attack-video-on-teabaggers/
I couldn’t hear any racial slurs, just a lot of angry shouting, but then my hearing isn’t what it used to be (if it ever was). There are a string of videos from the SIEU referring to teabaggers on this site as well. Of course, most of us know the use of the term “teabagger” is intended to be a slur against the Tea Party movement – except those on the Tea Party movement – which is why they don’t know they’re supposed to be offended.
Tullia Apr 24th 2010 at 01:22 pm 47
Well, here’s a nice little gem from Limbaugh on the ugly:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071509/content/01125107.guest.html
Yeah, I know, he’s making a joke about the liberal love of -isms and causes and movements. Still, he’s mocking the ugly, if not pointedly … except maybe for this:
“If we’re going to look at people and judge them this way there’s always going to be this unfairness so you just gotta ban the ugly from everywhere, at least in daylight. Nighttime, it’s tougher to tell that they’re ugly. […] By the way, the picture accompanying the article of the authorette… Ahem. Well, I’ll employ discipline here and not describe the picture other than to say it fits the theme of the story.”
This is a sort of followup to something he wrote 20 years ago, it seems, and the term “uglo-American” is from one of his books.
And I didn’t even mention chickification!
Molly J Apr 24th 2010 at 04:19 pm 48
Nicole, I wouldn’t say I was defending the comic or justifying attacking Limbaugh’s size and shape in pointing out that Limbaugh has no problem offending others. All I meant to be pointing out is how quick the Right Tighties are to become indignant and offended when it’s one of their own (people, beliefs, values, etc.) being attacked when they’re perfectly fine with offending anyone else (and their beliefs, values, etc.) who doesn’t agree with them.
Badly worded, but I think you can see what I mean. I agree totally that pointing and shouting “He started it!” is childish and unproductive.
zbicyclist Apr 24th 2010 at 06:37 pm 49
Would be funnier with either Joe Biden or Bill Clinton.
Singapore Bill Apr 24th 2010 at 08:39 pm 50
Molly J, I take great offense at you characterizing me as a “Righty Tighty.” That I pointed out the lameness of this fat joke has nothing to do with my opinion of Mr. Limbaugh. I consider him a sophomoric windbag. I think Bill Clinton was a Republican in donkey ears and Obama is a bumbling right-leaning buffoon. I guess you just don’t understand the concept of being principled and holding oneself to the same standard that one holds others.
Winter Wallaby Apr 25th 2010 at 02:10 am 51
Molly J, I’m not offended, but I’m not a “Righty Tighty” either. Obama is far too conservative for my tastes. Maybe paperboy’s the “Righty Tighty”? If not, you’re probably out of luck. This blog is kind of low on conservatives for some reason.
Nicole #45, sorry I had misunderstood your purpose.
Detcord Apr 25th 2010 at 11:49 am 52
I’m not sure what a “Righty Tighty” is, but I agree with Molly J (48) that people who attack others beliefs or values should not become indignant when their own beliefs and values come under scrutiny. Obviously – being in Britain – I don’t receive Rush’s broadcasts but I do understand he espouses strong right-wing views on his radio show. I also understand there are a number of left-wing pundits who espouse strong left-wing views on TV, so that should be no big deal.
The problem seems to be Rush’s comments about Michael J. Fox’s actions in a political broadcast in favour of Senate Democrat Claire McCaskill. Here’s the video I believe Rush was referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
Now I don’t want to put any further links here, so I will simply ask you to view Michael’s actions on the Oprah show, after you’ve seen the McCaskill spot, and compare the difference.
I understand that Rush Limbaugh is a Type II diabetic, which means his condition and his weight are genetically related, just as there is a genetic link to Michal Fox’s Parkinson’s disease. Thus comments about the effects of either condition come under the same rules, because neither individual has any choice in the matter. So, either this cartoon and Rush’s comments are in bad taste, or they are both making legitimate political commentary, under the premise of “fair game”.
So, is the ‘toon funny, or in bad taste? No hypocrites please.
Elyrest Apr 25th 2010 at 12:17 pm 53
Detcord (52) - I didn’t watch the videos so pardon if my assumptions are wrong. I’m assuming that you are saying that Michael J. Fox’s motion and mannerisms are vastly different. I read Fox’s book about this and his “explanation” was that Parkinson’s is a disease that is difficult to control by medication. He has to time the dosage very carefully in order for him to do appearances and filming. Because of the nature of the illness sometimes his body just doesn’t cooperate on a time schedule. All this is part of what Fox is trying to address. Limbaugh and his Type II diabetes is a VERY different condition and I say this as the wife and sister of Type II diabetics.
paperboy Apr 25th 2010 at 04:30 pm 54
Winter Wallaby#51- I can’t be the “Righty Tightie” referred to by Molly J#48, since I wasn’t “indignant and offended when it’s one of their own (people, beliefs, values, etc.) being attacked.”
My complaint was that in trying to attack Rush, it insulted all over-weight people. (If you really want to insult Rush, call him “boring”).
Now compare that lame panel gag with the cover of Al Franken’s book , “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”. Franken juxtaposes that school-yard taunt with a picture of himself as a thoughtful, pipe-clutching professorial type, making the words both funny AND also purports “himself” as a intellectual poser who doesn’t realize using “fat” as a slur tars all the over-weight. That’s how a professional comedian does it.
Detcord Apr 25th 2010 at 04:53 pm 55
Elyrest (53)
In my original submission I purposely made no comment on Mr Fox’s mannerisms because I did not wish to unduly influence others’ perceptions. Yes, my personal observation of his political presentation was that it was much more extreme than the one he demonstrated on Oprah’s own show. You make the point that the presentation of the disease can vary, dependent upon multiple factors. You may be right and I am not a medical expert.
However, Mr. Fox’s broadcast could have been and probably was recorded, just as, I assume, his performance on the Oprah show was recorded. Thus, since he could control the timing, I maintain that he either chose to record his condition in its most extreme state, or he was acting – which is not that great a stretch as he is, in my opinion, an excellent actor. Therefore I believe Rush Limbaugh was making a valid point.
I am not aware of Mr. Limbaugh using his own disease to sway political opinion, but if he did, and over-egged it for political purposes, then I would call him a hypocrite. I maintain that the term should also apply to those who decry judging someone on their height, weight, or colour of skin, but see no problem deriding or laughing at someone who is obese due to a genetic condition, simply because he is of a different political hue. One’s principles should apply to all, or they are not principles.
Elyrest Apr 25th 2010 at 05:06 pm 56
“since he could control the timing”
Detcord - No, he could not control the timing. Just because he can sometimes exert control doesn’t mean he can do it all the time. The point that I am making (and you don’t seem to believe) is that Parkinson’s is a disease that can’t be controlled by just popping a pill. The fact that people saw Michael J. Fox in an extreme state is a reality of the disease that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to believe in. The fact that you and Rush feel he was acting is rather pitiful in that Fox doesn’t need to act that part of his life.
Detcord Apr 25th 2010 at 05:59 pm 57
Elyrest (56)
I think you’re misreading my post. Of course he can control the timing of his recording. It’s a video recording! If he was having a bad day, he could have recorded it later, or taken his meds, or paused for an hour or two. He chose not to.
If his condition always presents in the extreme state, as shown in his political broadcast, then I would agree with you that controlling the recording was pointless. That is why I searched for other broadcast events of Mr. Fox to see if this state was consistent. It was not, as you will see if you view the link and subsequent videos.
I don’t know how Mr. Fox controls the expression of his condition. I do know, from viewing other videos of him, that it varies. I am amazed you are even challenging this point, given your note in line 53 that, “He has to time the dosage very carefully in order for him to do appearances and filming”. So, we both agree he does control it – or did you err when you wrote that line?
I’m not sure where you get the notion that Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t believe in the extreme state of Mr. Fox’s condition. He said, “…he either didn’t take his meds or he was acting”. I take that to mean that Mr. Limbaugh was asserting that Mr. Fox was attempting to manipulate public opinion by allowing the extreme state (or the appearance of an extreme state) of his condition to be broadcast on TV. Since (I understand) embryonic stem cell research is currently an emotive topic in the US, Mr. Limbaugh has every right to attempt to counter Mr. Fox’ political gambit.
Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, I do not fault Mr. Fox for doing this broadcast, just as I do not fault Mr. Limbaugh for challenging it. That’s politics.
mitch4 Apr 25th 2010 at 06:05 pm 58
Golly, Detcord, you seem to be taking an awfully mechanistic idea of how medication works. As well as celebrity schedules.
Elyrest Apr 25th 2010 at 06:06 pm 59
Detcord - Read Fox’s book “Always looking up : the adventures of an incurable optimist” for an understanding of his condition and his ability to control it.
Detcord Apr 25th 2010 at 06:27 pm 60
Mitch4 (58)
I’m not sure I understand you. The “mechanism” we are discussing is a video recorder. As far as the expression of Mr. Fox’s illness is concerned, I see several videos of him in a much better state than in his political broadcast. I assume these are also subject to “schedule” – even more so than a personally recorded pitch. Also, as Elyrest noted, he controls that expression by timing his dosage very carefully.
Thus I conclude that his recorded “extreme” expression of his condition in his political video was either intentional, or acted out (i.e. faked). Mr. Limbaugh is simply calling him out, as one does in political debates.
Tullia Apr 25th 2010 at 06:29 pm 61
@Detcord — Not only what Elyrest said, but this: the most common medication for Parkinson’s, L-DOPA, loses its effectiveness the more you take it. (I thought I had read that taking it could even make your condition worse in the long run, but can’t track that down right now.) All the medications have some side-effects, such as nausea and sleep disruptions and even hallucinations, and they interact badly with many other drugs, including antidepressants. The medications also work better some days than others, as with most diseases of the brain. Every time a Parkinson’s patient takes the drug, he or she is taking a gamble: it might work well, it might work just kind of okay, it might make him or her physically sick, and, if s/he’s taking one of the L-DOPA drugs, it will very slightly decrease its own future effectiveness.
Further, I believe Fox was deliberately showing in that ad what Parkinson’s looks like on a daily basis — for him, right now. Parkinson’s gets a lot worse the longer you have it, often to the point of inability to care for oneself, speak, or even eat without a tube. That was indeed the point, to show what a horrible disease it is. And what of it? Yes, he was using his own disease to make a point about how politics might change people’s lives, and not just his.
If he was acting, why would he act? Would he take a pill to control his condition and then act like that for effect? Or is Parkinson’s not that terrible a disease, so he has to act up and make it look bad? The first seems pretty stupid, and the second is just not true: it is a terrible disease.
Finally, in re: the type II diabetes thing, type II diabetes does have a link to obesity, yes. But it’s no Parkinson’s. You can lose weight, and there are drugs (such as my mother takes) that stimulate insulin production. At at the more extreme end you can also take insulin, just like a type I diabetes patient, to maintain normal blood glucose levels. It’s harder to lose weight, but with exercise and diet and maybe some drugs you can keep a healthy weight. (Insulin production and uptake is a lot more straightforward than brain chemistry, which is why type I diabetics are alive at all: their pancreases don’t make the hormone, so they inject it. Bam! Problem mostly solved. And you don’t ever get immune to insulin.)
Anyway, if Limbaugh suffered from a full-blown disability that way, it would just make mocking Fox that much more reprehensible. Ha, ha! _His_ condition is _stupid_!
Detcord Apr 25th 2010 at 07:21 pm 62
Tullia (61)
I am very familiar with Diabetes, especially with Type I as my wife of many years has had the disease since she was 10. I can’t compare it with Parkinson’s Disease as I only know of that disease from what I’ve read, rather than my extensive research and personal experience w.r.t. Type I Diabetes.
I don’t doubt that Parkinson’s is an awful disease. I know diabetes is, from my personal experience, but I cannot compare the two. Also, as I noted in line 57, “Unlike Mr. Limbaugh I do not fault Mr. Fox for doing this broadcast”.
But Mr. Fox has chosen to enter the political arena by making a personal appeal for support for a senate candidate. He has every right to do so. But in doing so, he, and his supporters have to expect counter arguments from his political opponents. Mr. Limbaugh has done so, and been excoriated in this thread for this. I think Mr. Limbaugh’s counter arguments are both valid and weak, but he has every right to make them. Some on this site seem to disagree, which is why I thought an alternative viewpoint needed to be expressed.
As a side point, I followed your link to his “Ban the Ugly” article. My take was, perhaps, a bit different from yours. That is to say, it appeared very tongue-in-cheek to me. I mean, really, Rush is hardly one of the “beautiful people”. His last paragraph seemed to make that clear – at least to me.
Molly J Apr 26th 2010 at 03:09 am 63
Guys, guys, guys. Who said that when I said “righty tighties” I was talking specifically about anyone here? Take a breath. I have all sorts of encounters with those of the right wing persuasion, both in real life and elsewhere on the web.
Nicole Apr 26th 2010 at 07:26 am 64
Just a note … The issue for me is not that Rush questioned the intensity of M.J. Fox’s illness that day. It was how he did it.
The question before the forum was “Does Rush Limbaugh make fun of people because of their physical appearance. If you watch the video I posted again, and as I said in my original post, the crowning moment is when he ‘imitates’ M.J. Fox. There is little doubt that he is doing it in a way that is meant to mock M. J. Fox’s disease.
Nicole Apr 26th 2010 at 07:39 am 65
Detcord #52
You are right, there are people on in the media that express the views of the left, but I challenge anyone to find a media figure on the left that has the exposure that Limbaugh, Hannity or O’Reilly have, that express those views with the same vitriol that the right media figures use when expressing their views.
paperboy Apr 26th 2010 at 01:59 pm 66
Nicole#64 & 65- I come neither to praise Limbaugh or bury him, but I’m afraid there IS other interpretation, and not “little doubt” that he is “mocking” Fox’s disease. To me, it looks like a demonstration of what he BELIEVES is Fox’s fakery and exaggeration of symptoms in that one video. And, since his medium is radio, the visual aspect would be available only to the select few who enjoy looking at Rush talk.
I hated the “White House dog” crack he made 20 years ago, but if you can find any other instance of Limbaugh making fun of people because of their physical appearance, I’ll bet it’s tongue-in-cheek. I think he knows he’s no prize. It’s a mistake to think he’s deadly serious all the time. (recently he complained that although he lost 60lbs, nobody noticed, but when Jay Leno announced he lost 12lbs, it got attention. “12 pounds??”, he griped “I lose that much just going to the bathroom!”)
You say “vitriol”, others might say “forceful”. I don’t listen to Hannity, or O’Reilly and listen to Rush only when N.P.R. is doing a story on something like composting or a sock museum, but the “exposure” Rush gets is usually mocking and negative. The last I heard of O’Reilly is that he paid the court costs of the father of the dead marine who’s funeral was picketed by anti-gay nuts.
Detcord Apr 26th 2010 at 03:33 pm 67
Nicole (65)
As I am based in Britain, and do not own a TV, your challenge is, well, challenging :-). I do occasionally view a clip posted to the Internet, and – in my opinion – Bill Maher easily meets your challenge. Yes, he can be funny, which is probably why I remember him, but he pays mere lip service to the concept of even-handedness and he seems very left-wing to me.
I was going to ask Molly J for a definition of a “Right Tighty” as I am not at all sure what that means. Here in Britain, my friends think I am on the Right, but when I return home to the States, I am viewed as leaning towards the Left. Possibly both are correct.
I did find an interesting website that you all might find amusing. It’s called The Political Compass and they have taken the Right/Left split and added another dimension, Libertarian/Authoritarian. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index When I took the test I landed smack-dab in the middle of the cross-hairs. According to the authors, this puts me to the left of Britain’s current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Hmmm.
Detcord Apr 26th 2010 at 03:46 pm 68
Nicole (65)
As I am based in Britain, and do not own a TV, your challenge is, well, challenging :-). I do occasionally view a clip posted to the Internet, and – in my opinion – Bill Maher easily meets your challenge. Yes, he can be funny, which is probably why I remember him, but he pays mere lip service to the concept of even-handedness and he seems very left-wing to me.
I was going to ask Molly J for a definition of a “Right Tighty” as I am not at all sure what that means. Here in Britain, my friends think I am on the Right, but when I return home to the States, I am viewed as leaning towards the Left. Possibly both are correct.
I did find an interesting website that you all might find amusing. It’s called Political Compass and they have taken the Right/Left split and added another dimension, Libertarian/Authoritarian. When I took the test I landed smack-dab in the middle of the cross-hairs. According to the authors, this puts me to the left of Britain’s current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Hmmm.
PS: I think I may have violated one of CIDUBill’s rules as my post and second attempt have vanished. I’ve deleted the one link I had included in the hope of eliminating the offending element. I may also simply be unlucky this evening. If you find 3 posts, then I have been really unlucky.
Nicole Apr 26th 2010 at 05:01 pm 69
Detcord #67 — However, the issue in not whether a pundit is ‘fair and balanced’. I have no problem with people presenting their particular view … as long as they don’t pretend to be even handed. I don’t know if Bill Mahr claims to be evenhanded or not — for that matter, I don’t know if Rush does either. In any case being even handed is not the issue, Bill Buckley a famous conservative, presented a conservative point of view, but no one to my knowledge ever accused him of spewing vitriol.
Bill Mahr certainly can be caustic, but he is in fact a comedian., Rush is not. Rush is a news commentator. On his HBO show, Bill always has at least on conservative on his program when discussing the news. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. However, study after study shows that while certainly a left leaning program .. Daily Show viewers are better informed than Fox News watchers
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
No studies have been done comparing Rush listeners to any left leaning news outlet has been done that I know of, but I think it is fairly safe to say that there is much crossover between Fox and Rush watcher/viewers. But again — Stewart is a comedian that presents a left viewpoint and doesn’t pretend to do otherwise
As far as exposure goes, if it is on video it gets exposure — Rush’s Saint Vitus’s dance, is all over the internet, the idea that only a few people have seen it is at best naive.
There is also little doubt that Rush has political power. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Congressman Phil Gingrey, , Governor Mark Sanford , Congressman Eric Cantor, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Congressional candidate Jim Tedssco all republicans, have all apologized to Rush for calling him out. Not bad for an ‘entertainer’
And in the interest of complete disclosure … I took the Political Compass test as well … and no surprise to me and with some pride I might add … I am eqaully far to the left and libertarian. I don’t know if you will be able to see the chart or not but here is the link
http://XXX.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.38&soc=-7.44
To hopefully avoid breaking the two link rule — I changed the WWW to XXX — I am sure the interested ones among you can figure out what to do.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Apr 26th 2010 at 05:12 pm 70
Detcord@67 - Maher _is_ left-wing (by current US standards, anyway) and it not particularly even-handed, possibly even mean. However, he misses out on one of Nichole’s criteria - he doesn’t come _close_ to having the exposure that Limbaugh, Hannity or O’Reilly have. In general these days, the right-wing US commentators are much more successful (in terms of audience size) than the lefties - whether that is due to the general tenor of the times, the fact that the righties are generally aired by/on more widely distributed carriers, or simply their followers are rather more monolithic (and dare I say fanatical) isn’t obvious to me.
Your appraisal of yourself as left leaning in the US and right leaning in the UK seems reasonable - it’s been observed for a while that the “center” in the US has drifted fairly far right by European (and even British) standards - I then to think of myself as a fairly mild liberal (almost a centrist), but I’m considered pretty far left by people I know who consider themselves mainstream centrist conservatives…
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Apr 26th 2010 at 05:14 pm 71
Sorry Nicole - typing too fast and/or not proofreading well enough again…
Cidu Bill Apr 26th 2010 at 06:18 pm 72
Detcord, your first two messages didn’t just go into the “moderation” folder, they got shunted all the way to “spam.” I have no idea why, especially since your final attempt did make it through. Nicole’s response to you went into the moderation folder apparently for no reason other than that she mentioned your name (in which case why didn’t it go into the spam folder??)
Nothing I can do to override this sort of thing before the fact, since I don’t know what’s triggering it.
I should remind everybody once again, though, that if a comment of yours doesn’t appear, I’ll find it quickly enough and push it through: makes more sense than trying to write the same thing over and over again with minor changes if you’re not sure what the problem is.
Cidu Bill Apr 26th 2010 at 06:23 pm 73
Oh, I see why Nicole’s message actually got held up: it was the “two-link” thing. As far as WordPress is concerned, if you substitute xxx for www, it’s still a link, just a bad one (which I guess makes sense, since you can write out links without using www.
I wonder whether leaving out the http would do the trick, though.
Elyrest Apr 26th 2010 at 06:25 pm 74
“To hopefully avoid breaking the two link rule — I changed the WWW to XXX ”
Nicole - Your strategy didn’t work and I clicked on your link before I read all of your post. If I enter it correctly I can see your chart just fine. It looks almost exactly like mine - I’m half a square to the right of you.
Detcord Apr 26th 2010 at 06:42 pm 75
Nicole (69)
Wow! You know, I tend to test these online assessment tools, just to see how they report on various response themes. If they are poorly designed, these tests can reveal an inherent bias. However, I was not able to produce the level of Left-Libertarian that you reported. I must be getting soft.
Detcord Apr 26th 2010 at 06:57 pm 76
CiduBill (72)
Your reply would seem to confirm my initial analysis (i.e. I was being unlucky). Thanks for catching/deleting my initial repeat – and apologies for my lack of patience. I like your site and the word-play that goes with it, but it seems I can get carried away too – and patience has never been my strong-point. C’est la vie!
paperboy Apr 26th 2010 at 07:32 pm 77
Nicole#69- At the risk of Cidu Bill saying “There ARE political forums for you people to bitch back and forth; GO TO ‘EM!”, I HAVE to ask: if the issue “is not whether a pundit is ‘fair and balanced’”, then what is it? That Rush isn’t nice? Does Rush have to make funny faces and do funny vocal mannerisms like Jon Stewart to be labeled a “comedian”?
I like Bill Maher, and I like that when he feels strongly about a subject he drops the comedy and tells what he feels. (But, then, he’s “caustic”, not “vitriolic”).
As for Bill Buckley, Gore Vidal called him a “Crypto-Nazi” and a “World class American liar”, perhaps not exactly accusing him of “spewing vitriol”, but still, far short of praising him for “even-handed” discussion.
So, again, I ask what is the reason for the Limbaughphobia? Do you fear a bunch of ditto-heads mocking people because of their appearance? What exactly IS your fear?
I’m serious; to me, he’s a former D.J. who needed a new niche once local radio slots dwindled and found one in the syndicated political arena, but is still basically a guy trying to fill up time between commercials.
Cidu Bill Apr 26th 2010 at 07:37 pm 78
paperboy, as long as nobody gets abusive, I have no problem with extreme thread drift: once the discussion of the comic itself has run its course, who’s harmed if the topic turns to why Gore Vidal called Bill Buckley a Crypto-Nazi?
Molly J Apr 26th 2010 at 08:52 pm 79
Bill, do we have a record for number of posts on one thread?
Cidu Bill Apr 26th 2010 at 09:24 pm 80
Molly, this thread might be in the top ten (or at least close to it), but it’s nowhere close to this one
Dave in Boston Apr 26th 2010 at 09:47 pm 81
That two-dimensional political view thing is a standard US Libertarian Party schtick.
It’s not clear to me that if you’re going to have more than one dimension that there’s any particular reason to stop at two.
Nicole Apr 26th 2010 at 11:23 pm 82
Paperboy @77
I don’t expect pundit to be fair and balanced. Pundits are editorialists, they take the news and put their spin on it. I don’t even expect them always to be proper and refined. A little snark goes a long way in making a point (and lord know I have been known to snarktify every one and a while). What I do expect is civility, and In my very humble opinion Rush, and many of the other right wing pundits epically fail in that arena. Cyprto-Nazi he may have been … but Bill Buckely was always civil to the best of my knowledge. If you insist I will be happy to provide you with examples .. they won’t be hard to find.
Just for the record, some of my best friends have been conservative, and we have had heated discussions about issues, but we were always civil.
Nicole Apr 26th 2010 at 11:27 pm 83
Detcord #75
LOL — you weren’t, trying hard enough. Truthfully, I was a little surprised at the libertarian score. I feel very strongly about personal liberties — pretty much . do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone. but when it comes to corporations, I feel that they need to be regulated and watched.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 12:25 am 84
From the artist:
The focus of the joke was President Obama’s on-the-fence position regarding the heavy-lift launch vehicle as he was considering cutting funding. Employing it to hoist Mr. Limbaugh, a notable right-wing fat guy, seemed a good argument to encourage him to keep it flying.
And to those who think I’m picking on poor old racist/hate-monger Limbaugh, let’s not forget how much fun the Right had with President Clinton’s weight for eight years. On the other hand, a man could probably make a good living lampooning all the bonehead statements Mr. Limbaugh has puked-up over the years but that would require having to listen to him daily.
Finally, I intend to replace the period in the president’s balloon with an ellipsis. I thought a clipped admonition was enough but you’ve convinced me that a trailing threat has more inherent humor.
Rain Apr 27th 2010 at 12:36 am 85
@ Tullia #37–
(who was the sports figure who was only being called good because he was black, according to Limbaugh?).
Michael Jordan?!
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 01:44 am 86
Nicole#83- I get you. We disagree that Rush goes too far in snark and uncivility, but your objection is reasonable.
Mike#84- Are you trying to take us back to the beginning? We’ve already been through that! Oh, hell; I’ll bite. (I want to make this thread the record-setter. Let’s beat the global warming thread, only 60 to go!). Okay, give me three “bone-head statements” from Rush. Go!
Winter Wallaby Apr 27th 2010 at 01:45 am 87
Mike, I appreciate that you took the time to drop in and clarify. However, I’m not sure that I can find a single person in this thread who took this view that you’re
“responding” to. The complaint that I, and others, had, is that this is insulting to fat people, generally — not just to Limbaugh.
Yeah, that was wrong too. Your point?
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 02:03 am 88
WW, I don’t like to make fat jokes but I love to make fat jokes when it comes to pompous, vitriolic, high-profile asses like Limbaugh. I’ve made fun of his drug habits, I’ve made fun of his questionable statements. This one time I made fun of the porky swine he is. End of story.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 02:13 am 89
Paperboy:
Only three stupid Limbaugh statements? How about a whole page full:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/rushlimbaugh/a/limbaughquotes.htm
Here’s my favorite:
“Too many whites are getting away with drug use…Too many whites are getting away with drug sales…The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too.” –in 1995
“I am addicted to prescription pain medication.” –in 2003
BWAH-HAhahahahahahahahha!
Winter Wallaby Apr 27th 2010 at 02:45 am 90
Was my previous comment unclear? Again, you’re not just insulting Limbaugh, you’re insulting fat people, generally.
Look, if I use “fag” as an insult, I’m saying that it’s bad to be homosexual, and that’s insulting to people who are gay - whether the person I’m attacking is a jerk, or has it coming, is entirely irrelevant to the fact that I’m insulting gay people generally. If I call Farrakhan a [REDACTED], I’m making a racial slur that insults other people than just Farrakhan - pointing out that Farrakhan says racist things, is again, entirely irrelevant to the fact that I’ve just insulted black people generally. If I use “fat” as an insult, I’m saying that it’s bad to be fat, and that’s insulting to people who are fat - whether the person I’m attacking says similarly wretched things is irrelevant.
So, yes, Limbaugh is a “pompous, vitriolic, high-profile ass.” That’s correct. it’s just irrelevant as a defense of a decision to insult fat people generally.
Winter Wallaby Apr 27th 2010 at 02:56 am 91
*#!&* moderation rules - I redacted my racial slur, but not my homophobic one. Ah well, live and learn.
Paperboy #86, you want some really bone-headed Limbaugh quotes? He’s said that global warming isn’t real, despite the fact that the evidence for it is overwhelming. Oh, and he claims there’s a “War on Christmas.” How stupid is that?
There, maybe that will help.
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 09:23 am 92
One of my favorite bonehead statements by Rush was when he said he hopes Obama fails.
I can understand not wanting his policies to be enacted, that is perfectly reasonable. But for a president to fail, that implies that the country has been damaged in some way. So in effect Rush was hoping harm to America
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 12:34 pm 93
Nicole (91)
I’m sorry Nicole, but your argument is a Non Sequitur. If a President is doing something that a citizen believes will harm the country, then it does not follow that said citizen is wishing harm to his/her country - just the opposite really. A lot of citizens wished President Bush harm. Were they wishing the US would fail?
Elyrest Apr 27th 2010 at 12:42 pm 94
Detcord (92) There is a big difference in wishing a president harm and wanting a president to fail. If a president fails it means the country fails. The harm was aimed at the personal Bush (not good I agree), but that is vastly different than wishing a failure on all of us. Which is what Limbaugh was doing.
Cidu Bill Apr 27th 2010 at 12:49 pm 95
Detcord, it’s one thing to say you’re opposed to a major economic policy before it’s in place, or to say after it’s in place that you think it was a bad idea and you think it will fail; but saying you want it to fail means you’d like millions of Americans to suffer just so you can have the satisfaction of proving the President wrong.
The analogous situation would be opposing the Iraqi war both before and after we began it, and hoping that massive numbers of our soldiers die because that will show everybody that Bush was wrong.
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 12:54 pm 96
Mike (88)
I applaud your reticence toward making fat jokes. I would respect it even more if you were consistent. To say “I don’t like to make fat jokes” … except for him, and her and that chubby buddy down the street, well, then I must conclude you actually like making fat jokes – when it suits you.
Now, I’ve pointed out previously in this thread that Mr. Limbaugh is a Type II diabetic, which is a genetically-related illness. One of the diseases’ characteristics is obesity. So Rush’s size is equivalent to my height, and your eye colour, and Nicole’s gender.
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that such characteristics should be beyond criticism and ridicule. By all means call him a, well, whatever you said, but drop the “fat” part. Going back to the beginning of this thread, I think that was the main point of criticism of the original cartoon.
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 12:57 pm 97
Detcord #91
I almost agree with you. Lets see if I can explain my point a different way.
A president places a policy in effect
If that policy succeeds .. the country prospers
If that policy fails … the country suffers.
To wish a president to fail is to wish his policies fail.
Wishing a presidents policies to fail is the same as wishing your country to fail.
People wished Bush harm long after he made the mess we are still trying to get out of. Rush made his ‘hopes the president fails’ statement shortly after Obama took office before he even tried to implement any policies. He was not even willing to give him a chance… Rush wasn’t even interested in what his policies were … he just wanted him to fail. This especially rankles after eight years of being called anything from unpatriotic to a terrorist supporter if you had the temerity to disagree with any of the Bush policies.
And while I understand that you are in the UK and without TV, again, I would be willing to bet that you could not find a commentator on the left who has the audience similar to that of Rush’s, who made a similar comment so early into the Bush years.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 01:00 pm 98
Elyrest (93) George W. Bush failed miserably as a leader the USA. It was clear early on that his policies were going to leave this country in the mess it finds itself. Did Mr. Limbaugh think Bush should fail during all that time? Hell, no. That’s because all the friends of Bush were making out like bandits for eight years. And some were evidently watching porn the whole time.
The adults are in charge of the government again but the inmates still cling tightly to their matches in their media tinderboxes.
Elyrest Apr 27th 2010 at 01:02 pm 99
Detcord - Having Type II diabetes doesn’t make you fat/obese although being fat/obese may lead to diabetes. There is a genetic link to diabetes, but that doesn’t mean that you will get it. So saying that Limbaugh’s body size is equivalent to your height isn’t a valid comparison.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 01:08 pm 100
Detcord (95) you say Rush is a Type II diabetic? That’s funny as one of the first things doctor’s recommend is weight loss to control it. In fact, Type II diabetes is often accompanied by unexplained weight loss.
So he’s a swine, even in the face of his disease, and I’m not just referring to diabetes.
Elyrest Apr 27th 2010 at 01:09 pm 101
Mike (97) I agree that Bush failed. I also agree with Nicole’s point (96) that there were none on the left that were rooting for Bush to fail early in his presidency - especially after 9/11. I didn’t vote for Bush and was appalled when he won, but I’ve always hoped that all our presidents are successful. I want to live in a country of good people and (even against all evidence) I want to believe that anyone who holds a high office wants the best for our country, it’s people and the world at large.
Keera Apr 27th 2010 at 01:17 pm 102
Nicole @96, not quite. I wished dearly for Bush’s plan to go to war in Iraq to fail because I believed and still believe that the premise for the war was wrong. Like many, I feared a new Vietnam. Wishing a president’s plan will fail is not the same as wishing the nation to fail. The nation tends to be far sturdier than any one president and his policies, anyway.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 01:26 pm 103
Mike#89- The 1995 quote IS bone-headed, and not aligned with the fight for freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. But, okay; you don’t like fat people or “bone-headed” people. But why particularly Rush? Aren’t there many other fat, dumb, pompous people? Did he bully you as a kid? Did he run over your dog? Jealousy? what’s your beef?
Nicole#91- Of course he was talking about his policies; what else would it be? Learning to bowl? If a president fails to enact a harmful law, the country is saved, not harmed. (Of course, whether it IS harmful or not is arguable.)
And everyone makes bone-head statements. After the health care bill passed, Obama says “After I signed the bill, I looked around. I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. I looked at the ground to see if cracks had opened up in the Earth. And, y’know? It turned out it was a pretty nice day.” That’s a stupid thing to say about a bill that won’t go fully into effect for years and which, by some estimates, will cause a critical deficit in ten years, and too snarky for a president.
Elyrest#93- Rush said it was his policies that were harmful. How do you know Rush was “wishing failure on all of us”? Were you able to get inside his mind? (even if I could, I wouldn’t do it; one would get lost in the vastness and complexity.)
Winter Wallaby#90- Please do not bring up global warming; it would taint the record. (53 to go)
Cidu Bill Apr 27th 2010 at 01:32 pm 104
On the other hand, paperboy, if some natural disaster had occurred that day, Pat Robertson would have attributed it to the signing of the health care bill. And, you know, women’s sufferage.
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 01:35 pm 105
Keera @101
I was one of the thousands who marched in protest of the war (and were ignored) . I did not want his war policy to be implimented, but once we were there, I did not want Bush to fail … as Bill pointed out, failure at that point meant many lives lost needlessly. So while I disagreed with the policy and didn’t think it would work, I did not want him to fail.
Suppose when Bush stood upon the aircraft carrier with the infamous “Misson Accomplished” behind him, the mission had truly been accomplished. That is to say his policy suceeded, thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi would have been spared. Sad to say, the mission had not been accomplished and thousands upon thousands died because of it. Do I wish he succeeded … yes.
Keera Apr 27th 2010 at 01:37 pm 106
Nicole @104, but you got my point that wanting a policy to fail cannot automatically be construed to mean wanting a nation (and its people) to fail, yes?
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 01:44 pm 107
Paperboy (102) My beef with Limbaugh is that he fights for the powerful, not the disenfranchised. He’s a literal cancer on society.
As for Obama’s jest that the Earth didn’t open up and swallow us all upon the signing of the health care reform bill, you’re coming perilously close to proving the notion that conservative’s have no sense of humor.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 01:56 pm 108
Cidu Bill#103- Robertson missed an opportunity to plead for donations to stop the disasters with some heavy-duty praying.
(speaking of women’s suffrage; you know we had a vote on the right of women to vote. How’d we lose that one?)
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 02:11 pm 109
paperboy @102
Hoping that a president fails to implement his policies is very different from hoping his policies fail. I hoped most, if not all of Bush’s policies would fail to be implemented and once implemented I wanted them recinded. But once in place I never wished they would fail.
However, if we assume that a president implements policies with the intent of benefitting the nation, then failure must, by default harm the nation.
Does anyone thing that a president implements policies with the intent of harming the nation ?
So Keera @104 .. I am sorry … I still believe wishing a president’s implemented policies to fail is tantamount to wishing harm on America
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 02:22 pm 110
Mike (99)
Yep, weight control has long been prescribed as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes, but with very mixed results that scientists are hard-pressed to explain. This recent news release http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214201007.htm may explain why, but I accept that there is still much more to learn about the illness and its causes. All I can say is, swine is fine buy fat is nat, er… not, but that doesn’t rhyme. Sigh.
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 02:22 pm 111
err, but not buy.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 02:29 pm 112
Mike#107- What does it mean to fight for the “disenfranchised”? (I assuming that means “poor people”; if not, please elaborate) Does that mean giving them someone else’s money? Setting up quotas? Creating an economy that provides jobs to all? Rush has the skewed view of a winner who overcame set-backs, true, but he seems to think that “disenfranchised” don’t need to be fought for, just let loose, just given opportunities. Yes, he’s stupid to think that everyone can do well, but does that foolish optimism deserve such hate?
As for Obama’s “jest”, my objection is it’s timing. A contentious bill squeeked through and Obama couldn’t resist gloating instead of trying to soothe the opposition. He’s the president; it’s his job to keep trying to win over opposition, not to make stupid jokes. I mean, if he said now “The Arizona Immigration Law was passed yesterday. I looked around. No asteroids falling. The earth didn’t open up. Looked like a nice day” would that be funny, too? (It reminds me how Mayor Newsom helped screw up gay marriage by braying like a jackass about making it legal in San Francisco.)
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 02:43 pm 113
Nicole (109)
I think Keera and paperboy have argued the Non Sequitur issue very well. As a further example that I think refutes your point, may I offer the introduction of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution (i.e. Prohibition). I’ll bet there were some who were hoping that President Wilson would fail to implement that amendment. It certainly harmed the country as its repeal, 14 years later, confirmed.
I take Cidu Bill’s point that, once implemented, one can only hope an action succeeds in helping the country. I too took a breath and hoped President Bush knew what he was doing in Iraq as I had friends and family in that war and certainly did not want to see them fail – with “all” the implications failure would imply.
The only point I would argue with Cidu Bill is, if one believes an enacted policy will harm the country, then their “hope” that it will fail is understandable. That they should TRY to make it fail is another matter altogether.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 02:43 pm 114
Paperboy (112)
Sorry, I must have confused you with someone capable of rational thought.
Better luck next life.
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 02:47 pm 115
Mike (114)
I think you should look up the definition of the word “literal” before you label someone incapable of rational thought.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 02:57 pm 116
I said “literal” and I meant “literal”. Literally.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 03:00 pm 117
Nicole#109- “Hoping that a president fails to implement his policies is very different from hoping his policies fail.” True, but it was my understanding that Rush WAS referring to the passage of his policies.
Do I think any president intends to harm the nation with their policies? I don’t think intent matters, just consequence. When it comes to economic matters, the harm can be years coming. The president, any president, isn’t always right. We don’t elect the smartest guy in the world, just the one that seems the best out of a handful of candidates.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 03:04 pm 118
Mike#114- I accept your admission of defeat. Is recess over?
(And thanks for not calling me “fatso”.)
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 03:06 pm 119
Detcord #113
Please reread my comment at 109. How is this significanlty different from Bill’s point that you at least parially agree with.
If you believe a policy that has already been enacted will harm the country, I suppose you might hope it fails, but I would think that you would equally hope you were wrong.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 03:11 pm 120
Paperboy (119)
You’re embarrassing yourself. Are there no flies left to de-wing in your mother’s basement?
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 03:13 pm 121
Mike (116)
Had you looked it up, you would have found that this is cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer. Note it is not a person. In light of this, your persistence in the use of the term “literal” is not rational (i.e. the state of having good sense and sound judgment).
Allow me to introduce you to the term, Metaphorical (i.e. a figure of speech concisely expressed by comparing two things, saying that one is the other). Now, carry on with your epithets.
Nicole Apr 27th 2010 at 03:18 pm 122
Paperboy #117
Here is the text of the ‘hope he fails’ . I am not sure how this can be construde to be refering to the passage of his policies, it reads to me that he hopes he fails as a president … and to me that means his policies fail .. to think a president would get none of his policies enacted in four years is naive.
Limbaugh: I’m happy to be the last man standing. I’m honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I’m the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn’t, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I’m now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts.
I’m serious about this. Why in the world, it’s what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn’t going to assuage anybody’s victim status, and the race industry isn’t going to go away, and the fact that America’s original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it’s not going to happen. Just isn’t, folks. It’s too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I’m fired up about this.
Limbaugh: I’m happy to be the last man standing. I’m honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I’m the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn’t, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I’m now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts.
paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 03:30 pm 123
Mike#120- Wow, you still haven’t called me “fat”! That takes self-control. Do the same with your bowels and you’ll be out of those diapers before you know it.
Detcord Apr 27th 2010 at 03:45 pm 124
Nicole (119)
I concede we may be discussing nuance here, but after rereading your 109 post I still think there is a point to make.
A new President with a platform has only won Round One. Congress has a charge and a duty to assess and review a President’s proposals, and reject them if they deem them unsound. Indeed Washington justified the proposed role of the Senate to Thomas Jefferson as an additional means to “cool” new legislation. Likewise, Congress has a duty to consider the opinions of its constituents prior to enacting legislation. At least, I think it’s a duty, rather than just the employment of simple good sense.
So, even after a Presidential election has been completed, the fight, so to speak, goes on.
I agreed with Cidu Bill that, after such a Bill has been voted upon and enacted, and signed into law – efforts to impede the law should stop. I confess I may have been a bit hasty there, as there is another party in this fight.
The Supreme Court has a duty to ensure that any law passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President does not violate the strict constraints of the Constitution. Thus those who believe the law is unconstitutional have a right, I would even say a duty, to get said law struck down, which I presume means actively working against it (within the confines of the law).
Cidu Bill Apr 27th 2010 at 06:12 pm 125
Mike and paperboy, it ends now.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 06:20 pm 126
Detcord (121) Limbaugh performs the same function in our society as a metastasized cell does in the body. He spreads his rot to other cells until the system dies. The American democratic system is dying due to him and his pals at Fox. This is not metaphorical, this is literal.
Mike Apr 27th 2010 at 06:28 pm 127
CIDU (125)
Sorry, that’s why I usually don’t get involved in these sort of discussions. There’s never a winner and a whole bunch of losers.
I’ll go back to drawing quietly now. (Imagines Rush Limbaugh as a giant cancer cell)
Cidu Bill Apr 27th 2010 at 06:45 pm 128
Does anybody want to place bets on whether the next Far Left Side cartoon will, in fact, feature Rush Limbaugh as a giant cancer cell?
Paperboy Apr 27th 2010 at 07:36 pm 129
Sorry, Cidu Bill; I thought we could have a discussion, but when it got personal I sank to the challenge. (if I was a gambling man, I would take that bet AND bet we never see a fat joke again,too)
Lola Apr 27th 2010 at 08:48 pm 130
hahahahah.
Well, Rush does serve one purpose. After suffering through his toxic blathering, you really appreciate thoughtful, rational, considered opinions. Even so, I wouldn’t have him muzzled … any more than I’d want to be.
Nicole Apr 28th 2010 at 07:36 am 131
Detcord #124
I do believe we agree on every thing you have written. I think it is perfectly legitimate to try to reverse policies that you disagree with. Please don’t misunderstand my position to say that you have to support everything the president does. Certainly I did not over the eight years of the Bush adminstration.
But I do believe this to be very different from wishing he fails. Perhaps if I speak to a specific policy, my point will become clearer.
There are many people who disagree with the recently passed health care legislation. Presumably they believe it will harm the country, and they are working toward repeal … all well and good. However, regardless of whether you think the plan will work, its intent IS to lower costs and provide insurance to the uninsured. To hope this plan fails means at best there will be no change in the health care situation in this country, at worst costs continue to rise and fewer and fewer people are insured. But even if the bill was ineffectual, we would still be harming the nation as we would be pouring money into a useless plan.
So … I have no problem with disagreeing with the president, trying to reverse policies that you disagree with. I see nothing wrong in hoping a president fails to enact a policy - The point I am trying to make is that to wish an enacted policy to fail is to wish harm upon the country.
Nicole Apr 28th 2010 at 07:42 am 132
Paperboy # 129
I would take that bet … I have no doubt that Mike would do another fat joke if he felt it served a point he was trying to make.
Since we have slipped back to Fat Jokes …. how hard do you think it is to find other fat joke comics … not just on the web, but in newspapers ? Doesn’t Beetle Bailey often make jokes at the expense of Sarge’s eating habits and size ? I’ll bet that with a little effort we could come up with others. Are they as egregious as this Far Left Side ?
Keepin’ the thread … and the dream alive
Nicole Apr 28th 2010 at 10:21 am 133
Cidu Bill #128
From your keyboard to Mike’s ears
http://www.farleftside.com/2010/4-28-2010.gif
Cidu Bill Apr 28th 2010 at 11:56 am 134
Nicole, this is probably the first time a cartoonist has argued to justify a comic before writing it.
Keera Apr 28th 2010 at 12:00 pm 135
Nicole @133, that comic actually made me laugh. Nice to have been in on the joke before it was drawn.
Cidu Bill Apr 28th 2010 at 12:02 pm 136
I don’t know, Keera, do we really want to be in on the creation of a joke? “Sausage,” you know…
Keera Apr 28th 2010 at 12:07 pm 137
If we’re what goes into the sausage, then I’d say it’s the world’s best.
And one thing’s for sure: This joke isn’t a CIDU!
paperboy Apr 28th 2010 at 01:35 pm 138
Nicole#132- “Keepin’ the thread … and the dream alive”. You’re right. We’ve come so far… endured so much. To stop now would mean the Global Warming thread wins. Onward… to victory!
To me, there’s a mitigating factor in such comics as Beetle Bailey, which is that the joke (or attempt at one) derives FROM Sarge’s weight, not in mockery OF it. Mike’s joke of Rahm wanting to send Rush into orbit seemed to have the “fat” aspect added on, just because, well, fat people are “ridiculous”. (as I said in #34, you can get the same point without the “fat Joke”.)
Why would Mike need to use a fat joke to “serve a point”?
In 1988, I did a series of cartoons for the “amusement” (and to needle the Republicans) of my co-workers. In each, I substituted the word “$h!t” with “George [H.W.] Bush” ( In one, a farmer says to a couple of hikers: “Sure, you can cross my field; just be careful you don’t step in the George Bush”), things like that. Part of the joke was on myself; that it was so bone-headed, so lacking in cleverness or insight, just juvenile glee at expressing my dislike.
Elyrest Apr 28th 2010 at 02:12 pm 139
There are many comics that make fun of fat people. It’s a constant refrain in Shoe. Belittling the overweight is common in daily life also. There have been many article lately about the airlines charging for tickets by the pound and there was Kevin Smith kicked off a Southwest flight because of his weight. When I look at the reader comments they mock, belittle and insult anyone who is overweight. People do this because society allows it. Everyone has faults and/or diseases, but the overweight are one group that can’t hide their problems - they are right out there in front/behind for everyone to see.
Detcord Apr 28th 2010 at 02:25 pm 140
Wow. I know I haven’t been around here long, but that is the first time I have encountered a cartoonist defending [sort of] his own ‘toon. Does this happen often?
Elyrest Apr 28th 2010 at 02:32 pm 141
Detcord (140) - No it doesn’t happen very often as Cidu Bill usually frowns upon it. He has stated that cartoonists have had their chance to make their point when they do the comic. This forum is here for us readers.
Nicole Apr 28th 2010 at 02:36 pm 142
Am I the only one to notice that the cancer cell Rush is rather obese.
Paperboy #138 — To be honest Beetle Baily is a throw away comic to me, I pretty much forget it right after I read it. So I can’t really say if there are jokes that make fun of Sarge’s weight or are because of it.
I disagree that the ‘fat’ aspect of it is added because “fat people are ridiculous” … I see this directed at Rush and Rush alone who is not, lets face it svelt. If the joke had read something like this :
We have a new ray that will cure people of their drug addiction
Like Limbaugh ?
Rham!!!
Would you say it was making fun of all drug addicts or just Rush ? Admittedly my version doesn’t have the bite that the cartoon has, but you get the point.
paperboy Apr 28th 2010 at 06:05 pm 143
Nicole#142- I don’t see how you can mock a person for a quality (fat) because of another quality (meanness), without both qualities being thought of as inherently unacceptable, and thus mocking all who share these characteristics.
Well, yes, it IS directed at Rush and Rush alone, but his fat has no will of it’s own, no political thought; it’s not right-wing fat. It’s the same fat as Gabourey Sidibe’s; as John Goodman’s; as Michael Moore’s. (And we ARE talking the fat aspect only; insulting Rush doesn’t bother me. A joke like “Mr. President, the committee is here to discuss storing dangerous wastes in the Yucca Flats”. “Like Limbaugh?”. “Rahm!” is fine with me.)
paperboy Apr 28th 2010 at 10:15 pm 144
Nicole. I’m going to throw in the towel. So close to the record, but I think we’ve exhausted this thread. And even if this one did beat the Global Warming thread, it would probably be the Mark McGwire of threads. This one took 4 days to get to number 66; “First, Tell No Lies” did it in one (and the Arizona Immigration Law has been mentioned); I think that thread will go beyond 150 posts.
“We triumph not in conquest, but in holding true in the struggle. The victories of our lives will not be measured in distance or number but in the intensity of our spirit. No matter our place at the end, we must emerge the better for it; competition must not forge ferocity, but create camaraderie. No tears, my fellows: you have done well.”
We tried.
Elyrest Apr 28th 2010 at 11:56 pm 145
“This one took 4 days to get to number 66; “First, Tell No Lies” did it in one (and the Arizona Immigration Law has been mentioned); I think that thread will go beyond 150 posts.”
I don’t know about that paperboy. I for one am all talked out on that one and I don’t care to start up on immigration.