At lunch today while driving in my gas guzzling SUV I still had my radio on the AM station I listen to in the mornings for my commute. I only listen to it for the local news and
sports. By the time I get off work Hannity or O’Reilly or some other super macho tough guy patriot is on there and I either turn on my ipod or talk on my cell. But today at lunch the drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, was on there so I decided to keep it on and give a listen to what he had to say. And I think my IQ dropped at least 5 points in the ten minutes I listened to him.
He was doing some sort of lisp where he was supposedly imitating a “liberal” talking about gun control. Then he would switch to his deep manly patriot voice when he spoke the part of the “conservative” explaining to the “liberal” that because of “liberal” gun laws we have school shootings like the one yesterday at NIU. So according to the drug dealer, liberals cause school shootings. This guy is a freaking genius. No wonder Republicans are finally beginning to ignore him and vote against whoever Limbaugh likes.
I’m all for gun control. I’ve always thought people should use both hands when shooting a gun. But liberals are not to blame for some psychopath. It’s funny to me that Limbaugh is all for people carrying guns but just not for it when the military needed him to go to Vietnam and use a gun there.
10 comments:
That's a funny picture of the chicken in a general's uniform.
But I generally reject "the chicken hawk argument". Before I get into that though, let me talk agree about Limbaugh somewhat. It does strike me as odd sometimes to hear Limbaugh talking about how pro-gun he is. I happened to be listening to some of his commentary today and it struck me that while sometimes he seems to advance all concerns of conservatism with equal vigor, I wonder if he himself believes in some tenets of the conservative movement more than others. I have to imagine that he must. But his own agenda is perhaps slightly different from that of the movement he represents. This goes to the point recently made by Mary Matlin that Limbaugh reflects rather than directs his audience. Yet when I was hearing him spout the party line about guns today, it seemed somewhat incongruous to hear someone so intellectual catering to the more barbaric desire to carry around a firearm and blast holes in stuff. Now don’t get me wrong, I actually study firearms and military history –I’m a big fan of guns and anything related to guns- although on the other hand I’m not particularly drawn to go to the range and carry around a gun and act tough. See, I’m more of a thinker than a fighter.
I have this theory that all people can be broken down into three classifications in the most general sense. You’ve probably heard the saying, “I’m not a fighter, I’m a lover.” I would add a third category to this: thinker. So in my oversimplified world, all people can be classified as lovers, fighters, or thinkers. Now in this set up, no one group is mutually exclusive. Thinkers can still fight and love and fighters love and think and so on. It’s just that one description is the dominant characteristic of each person on earth.
You can take anyone you know or any historic figure and decide which of the three character types applies to them. Most bloggers are thinkers, I would suggest. The world of ideas, concepts, and discourse are most appealing to them. Most general people who work all day at manual labor and populate the earth are probably lovers. Those who don’t enjoy thinking as much and do not have a particularly amorous side are left with the last an arguably most useful type of person in history, fighters. The Jack Nicholson character in “A Few Good Men” was a classic fighter, explaining how it is men like him that protect the rest of us from all of the evil elements in the world.
“And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
-Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan R. Jessep
Of course this quote is bad ass, but ultimately it is wrong. Meaning, I would side with the Tom Cruise character who represented the thinker in this case, the civilian-type who dares to "question the manner" in which he is protected.
It was Winston Churchill who paraphrased George Orwell when he said, “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Here we have an example of a thinker praising the fighters, making a distinction between the different types of people.
Now I ask you, was Churchill a “chicken hawk”? He wasn’t exactly on the front lines in World War 2. Moreover, are all strategists and policy makers chicken hawks? When the civilian leadership or others who advance the agenda of our military propose aggressive action are they to be slandered and considered cowards simply because they themselves are not actually carrying out the actions that they prescribe? I would argue that this notion is absurd. History has proven that no successful war effort was brought about by having the strategists, the brains of the operation, fight and die on the front lines. The fighting arm of the military, the tip of the spear if you will, benefits from the contribution of the thinkers who, behind the scenes, plan what will happen. In war, fighters work with thinkers in order to carry out and plan a winning strategy. And yes, there really is no place for lovers in war. “Make peace not war” the slogan of peace-niks and hippies, comes to mind as a sentiment that would surely lead any nation down a path towards its own demise.
So while I do think that it is odd for Rush to seem so in favor of waving guns around as someone I would classify as a thinker, I suppose he is merely reflecting his audience who are comprised of many fighters as well as thinkers. And the fighters those “rough men who stand ready” would appreciate their right to bear arms protected and preserved. That Limbaugh gives them a voice does not instantly make him a coward even though he himself would probably rather think, or in his case pontificate, than fight.
Now I know you’ll most likely go over everything I’ve written here and anything I’ve ever said in the past with a fine tooth comb in an effort to find any inconsistencies in an attempt to ultimately find fault with my thesis and prove me somehow wrong, but I would ask you on this occasion to ask yourself if what I am proposing here has even the slightest element of truth to it. Is there a way of having a discussion without devolving into a series of rhetorical defenses of previous statements? Maybe you could try to advance the discussion rather than attempt to derail it. After all, discussion (a.k.a. thinking) is more productive than fighting.
Jaz, I will take your last paragraph as a compliment and I will try my hardest not to derail this conversation. There are times, though, that highlighting inconsistencies is very necessary especially in politics. If I deviate from the rules you’ve set this time, I apologize in advance.
I will preface by saying I’m as pro-gun as one can get. I was raised around guns, and I have an AR-15 sitting in my front room floor as I type this. I used to hunt, but since I was 19 I really haven’t hunted that much, other than shooting at some squirrels. I think our Second Amendment is one that really makes us unique from most countries in the world. Though I also think there is no way our Founders could have imagined the weapons we have today. In that regard, I don’t think the Constitution allows for us to own bazookas or hand grenades. The right to bear arms back then was a muzzle that took almost two minutes to load and fire, and cannon that took 5 people to operate. Times have changed and overall I think we’ve done a fairly decent job with our gun restrictions. The most liberal argument one could make is that the government should not interfere with our right to own firearms. However, in today’s world that statement is now seen as a conservative argument. Not only do I think guns are part of Americana, I also think that our understanding of what is liberal and conservative is very skewed. Most of that has to do with the loud mouth on the right, Rush Limbaugh.
Along the lines that maybe Rush doesn’t fully believe in all the conservative elements that he advances with his many platforms, I can agree with that. He obviously is very lax when it comes to drugs and sex, and certainly isn’t a champion of traditional marriage or family values. Nor do I consider him an intellectual either. He’s an entertainer, and entertain is what he does. He’s found a niche and does a very good job of filling it. He is movement conservatism but no, not an intellectual.
I would like to add another saying that I’ve heard many times to the three that you mention: Those who can do, and those who can’t teach. In the world of academia that’s a very common saying. It means some people are just cut out to teach rather than do what it is that they are teaching. That saying is especially true in politics. Nearly every political scientist I have ever met would make a horrible politician or candidate. Though they hesitate none when writing and talking about all the bad decisions the politicians are making. So there is a difference between working in politics and writing about politics-- a very extreme difference.
Along the lines of who is a chickenhawk and who isn’t, Rush Limbaugh most definitely fits that definition. With your comparison of Churchill and others who call for war but don’t fight in it, or those who simply have a noncombat role in the said war, it’s a little out of context for the term chickenhawk. As you can see by enlarging the chicken in a general’s uniform picture, a chickenhawk is someone who is enthusiastic about war, “particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.”
This does not fit Churchill at all. Churchill was an officer in the British Army and saw combat in the Sudan and again in South Africa while serving. He also served on the western front during WWI. There is a huge difference when someone who has seen war and its devastation and calls for the necessity to fight something as evil as Nazi Germany, and someone who evaded the draft during a time of war. Rush Limbaugh had multiple deferments from serving during Vietnam. The one that kept him out of combat was a medical deferment for a zit on his ass. His call for war and insistence that anyone who disagrees with more war is an unpatriotic liberal is indeed undimmed by his personal experience with war- a war that he avoided at all costs. Most emphatically his avoidance of war came in spite of ample opportunities during his youth.
Churchill never waivered at how gruesome war is. If you’ve ever read any of his works, you’ll see very early on his disdain for war. There is a paramount difference between someone who has seen war and someone who ran and hid when it was his time to fight. I’ll side with the person who has seen, cautions against it but believes in it when it’s necessary over a chickenhawk entertainer like Rush Limbaugh any day.
Chickenhawk is not just a term to describe someone who isn’t doing the fighting; it’s much more precise than that. In a larger sense, I disagree also that since Rush Limbaugh is advocating his war stance because his listeners are largely the fighters of the war. To me, that thinking equates Limbaugh with the war effort, thus by some means excluding him from criticism because he’s somehow serving our country by sitting on his lazy ass. It’s sad to think that as bad as a war effort George Bush has led, that a draft dodging entertainer can be included in that effort. Yet that is what the right wing has created. In their eyes Limbaugh is the patriot and by six degrees of separation is dutifully serving his country in its war effort. To me that minimizes if not negates the effort of the thousands of men and women who have so valiantly served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. They and their families are seemingly the only ones who have any claim to the war effort, and sadly George Bush has made it that way.
AR-15 huh? That's pretty sweet. That's the civilian version of the M4, which is the "commando" version of the M-16. (It's better suited for CQB* with its compact carbine size.) Unlike the M4, the AR-15 you have is probably not capable of fully automatic fire, only semi (unless you've illegally modified it). Although, fully automatic is at times over-rated. The "spray and pray" method of firing is far less effective than precise aimed fire or short three round bursts. Oh yeah and what about the college shootings? This physco bought one of his guns legally in Champaign Illinois of all places. Haven't I heard of someone who lives there (other than Brandon Funston)?
So far this is working out well. When you began to talk about the difference between Churchill and Limbaugh I thought you were about to derail but then you made some points about why they are very much different that logic dictates I have to agree with.
It's a good point, that Churchill saw war first hand and Limbaugh "ran and hid" as you put it.
Having said that, I would still then argue that even seeing war first hand should not be a pre-requisite before being allowed to comment on matters of war or set war policy. If I believed that I would be arguing that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Mitt Romney simply because he was a naval aviator and Romney has no first hand experience. It is my position that reasonable men acting prudently are capable of making decisions based upon the facts available and any and all council of those who have seen war and know it intimately. And make no mistake most warriors, or fighter as I previously classified them, are red staters.
That's why you are an interesting case Chris. Compared to Kent and myself you live in middle America yet you're savvy enough to be for Obama rather than Hillary who would seem to be the obvious choice of the more salt of the earth/union Democratic constituency that I imagine populates middle America. You are a gun owner and have problems with the current classifications of liberals and conservatives. You're not an easy person to classify even though you vote in the party that is based upon identity politics.
But seeing as its Saturday and I just cracked a beer (a PBR**), I'm of course getting off track. BTW have you heard this idea that among Dems the wine drinkers like Obama and the beer drinkers like Clinton? Count me in that last group, except take out the part about voting for Hillary (hhha).
Ok where was I? OK right, my thesis here is: seeing war first hand should not be a pre-requisite before being allowed to comment on matters of war or set war policy. Before, I used Churchill as the quickest example because I had just quoted him. But as you gently pointed out, Churchill is basically a flawed example of my thesis.
I think you know where I'm going, because while I am sympathetic to your argument that draft dodgers should really just count their blessings and shut about matters of war, I would still vigorously argue that having not seen war first hand should not preclude one's ability to comment on matter of war.
Maybe that's not the chicken hawk argument, but it is a question I have had to wrestle with as someone who has essentially been pro-war this whole time. Again, I would suggest that that solid reasoning should be the determinative factor rather than simply looking at one's life experience and then deciding which issues you are then qualified to discuss. And as I've defended myself in the past, because I don't seek a career in the military should not disqualify me from discussing matters of war and war policy. It's a left leaning argument that I often encounter which attempts to disqualify a vast number of war advocates from commenting simply because they themselves have not had the pleasure of bullets whizzing past their heads. As is the case with a lot of typical left leaning arguments it seeks to confuse and complicate the issue rather than address it head-on on it's merits.
It's much easier to disqualify and slander the person you disagree with than actually win the debate on its raw merits. So I think you get my point for now but you can go ahead and call me a "chicken hawk" and a "flip flopper" if you prefer not to have a discussion based upon the merits of the situation.
(Hopefully you won't do that:)
* close quarters battle
** Pabst Blue Ribbon
Yeah it's a semi-automatic, but still a sweet gun. It's been shot very little. I see nothing wrong with guns. I'm no gun freak by any means either. I think gun responsibility coincides with personal responsibility. Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That's just how I was raised, but not in Champaign though. I'm from deep south Illinois. Along the border with Kentucky. It's about a 6 hour drive south of Chicago. We're actually the same distance from Chicago as we are Atlanta. Weird I know. I was born in Kentucky but raised in Southern Illinois and us down here really have nothing in common with the rest of the state of Illinois. It's a very southern place. We're farther south than 95% of the state Kentucky and on the same parallel as South Carolina. Sorry for the geography lesson, it's just that Illinois is a long skinny state and most people don't realize it borders Kentucky. Most people just think of Chicago, which is fine because Chi-town is a nice place.
I wouldn't say I derail arguments, but I do argue my points. If that means derailing then I might agree with that ;)
I don't argue, though, that seeing war firsthand is a prereq for being able "to comment on matters of war or set war policy." I don't even make that argument at all. By all means if Rush Limbaugh wants to keep flapping his jaws and people want to keep believing that he's doing the nation a great service by being a chickenhawk and sitting on his fat ass, then that's fine with me. Anyone can comment on the war or the war policy, it doesn't matter to me. All I'm saying is that Rush Limbaugh is the very definition of a chickenhawk and he has nothing to do with the war effort. At least nothing productive. Those are my beliefs and I don't see myself changing them.
Even with that said, having first hand experience with war does add much more validity to their argument than someone who sits in a comfy armchair all day and never even comes close to combat like many on the right. It's similar to saying, "yeah I've seen the grand canyon in some pictures it's really not that big and I could probably dig it with a shovel." Rather than someone who says, "I've been there firsthand and that thing is huge, we should probably do everything we can to not dig this with a shovel and make sure we do it right."
Bad examples, maybe. But I too am drinking a Miller Lite and getting ready to watch some basketball this evening. I haven't heard the wine/beer Hillary/Obama notion either. I'm much more of a beer drinker than a wine. But sometimes going to a winery is a blast. I drink the good union made Miller Lite. Beer and country music, that's me in a nutshell.
Stay safe Jaz
Please allow me to 'derail' this conversation.
Great analysis about 'lovers, thinkers and fighters.' I agree. But I think we all as human beings exhibit elements of all three characteristics.
I do have to disagree about the contention that most bloggers are 'thinkers.' A great percentage of political blogs are complete crap.
Certainly, I would describe the three of us as 'thinkers.' (Sidebar: I'm a 'lover,' too.)
Re: The Chickenhawk thread... Am I too a Chickenhawk? I'm physically (some would argue mentally) handicapped, and thus unable to serve in the military, but I'm an advocate for an overly aggressive foreign policy.
Re: Gun control is unconstitutional and I oppose it. But, of course, Liberals favor disarming good, law-abiding citizens so they cannot protect themselves against gun-toting criminals.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Okay, that's enough 'derailment.'
Pabst? Jaz, you're from Beantown. You should at least be drinking Sam Adams.
Miller Lite? Christoper? Not only is it terrible beer, but Miller Brewing supports illegal immigration.
You guys are killing me.
Here at RFL, we only drink good beer, including, but not limited to the following:
Newcastle
Negra Modelo
Red Tail Ale
Blue Heron Ale
Both of you guys need to come to California, hang out with me and do some beer tasting.
And San Miquel
And an occasional Bud Light for my waistline.
Harpoon IPA would probably me my 'desert island beer'. Either that or Sam lager.
Sometimes I switch around between 'suds' for purposes stinginess. If you drink as much beer as I do, you can't buy the primo stuff every time. Also, if I drink more than 5 or so hearty premium beers I get sleepy, but If I pound 10 Natty Lights I get excited. Depending on whether I want to fall asleep or get pumped for a Pats game or something sometimes determines which route I will go.
I do try to keep up the Miller boycott. That and Miller lite tastes like milk sometimes. A good 'suds' shouldn't have much of a taste.
A lot of times if there's too much going on on the pallet that means the beer is skunked or not particularly fresh. Like Heineken for example. If you go to Holland and drink it, it's probably fresh but most batches here in the states are skunked and people think it's supposed to taste like that. Even the mini-keg thing is not right somehow, although the technology is fascinating. Amstel Light usually tastes terrible as well.
Only morons drink either of those beers in my not so humble opinion.
So endeth my beer lecture for the moment.
I avoid beer in green bottles. Period. Nothing worse than a beer with premature skunkiness.
Kent, you would not be considered a chickenhawk because your mental handicap doesn't fit the definition of a chickenhawk. If you click the definition and enlarge it, you'll see that it states "in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth." For you there was no ample opportunity. But for Limbaugh, and many, many others on the right there was plenty of opportunity and no handicap holding them back.
Miller Lite is awesome beer!!! My favorite is Samuel Smith, and my second favorite is Sam Adams. I used to drink a lot of Keystone back in high school and college, since it is so cheap.
Post a Comment