March 6, 2005 by s.z.

Physician, Heal Thyself Over at American Street I have a post that deals with Rush Limbaugh's claim that the left is full of rage, as manifested by the fact that the NY Times printed four letters from readers who didn't much appreciate Laura Bush's comedy act.  And courtesy of Powerline Blog and the blogger formerly known as Big Trunk,  I learned that the liberals are dangerously close to murder, as shown by the fact that a student asked Ann an impolite question during the A&A portion of one of her speeches.  Ex-Big Trunk makes fun of the University of St. Thomas administrator who asked the College Republican who introduced Coulter to meet with some of the students who felt that Ann's talk was mean-spirited and disrespectful (hard to believe that somebody would think that, I know).  He then goes on to say:  In Texas the lunatic left's Coulter hysteria reached some kind of a fever pitch last night with the disruption of Coulter's speech by the vulgar fantasies of one Ajaj Raj. Um, ex-Big Trunk, the "disruption" wasn't a vulgar fantasy so much as it was a question about what consensual sexual acts Ann thinks should lead to a loss of one's civil rights.  I mean, if sodomy is wrong, then it's wrong, and couples who practice oral or anal sex shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?  His feelings too were undoubtedly in a state of disrepair as a result of his subjection to the unfettered speech of the unsettling Ms. Coulter. "Unsettling."  "Unsettled."  "Deranged,"  "Psycho,"  Any of them will work as an adjective for Ms. Coulter. Fortunately, we have a doctor in the house and on the case. The estimable Perry Branson, M.D. is the proprietor of ShrinkWrapped. He observes the pattern at work in "Dangerous portents." Well, let's see what Mr. Branson, M.D., psychoanalyst, and LittleGreen Footballs fan, has to say about the matter: There is an ongoing, dangerous escalation of rhetoric taking place in our nation.  It is reminiscent of the tone that existed in the anti-war precincts in the late 1960's.  [...]    The left won the war over Vietnam, won the control of the government (with the Democrats and the liberal agenda an attenuated form of leftism) and the right went to work honing their philosophy and message.The United States retreated from large scale military interventions, and any terrorism that occurred, tended to come from the right. Yes, after the '60s the only terrorism was from the right, and we liked it that way!  And that's why it's so alarming that now there is rhetoric indicating to trained psychiatrists that we might be going from harmless Timothy McVeigh-style antics back to Weathermen-style violence. Once again, we seem to be treading into dangerous territory.  Just as back in the 60's, the MSM, Walter Cronkite, the New York Times, various pundits, gave intellectual cover to the worst excesses of rhetoric and ultimately to violence, the rhetoric is ratcheting upwards into dangerous territory.  Central figures in the MSM, and in the Democratic party, are making charges that legitimize violence.  If Bush lied (a meme that seems to never be far from the surface of the NY Times), if the Republicans "stole" a second consecutive election, if our soldiers, just as charged n Vietnam, are committing atrocities sanctioned by their superiors, logic dictates that some on the extreme left will take this as fact (and, some go much further into more complicated paranoid delusions) and take the step into violence.  Thus far we have been treated to various conservatives being pelted with food when they have appeared on campuses.  It will almost certainly escalate from here. First, Horowitz, Kristol, and Coulter weren't pied (and Buchanon wasn't salad dressinged) because the NY Times said that Bush lied, but because their pelters thought the pundits were worthy targets because of stuff they themselves said.  Second, claiming that there's bound to be an escalation from pies to violence seems a little off-base to me. Was there any escalation following the pieings of Bill Gates, G. Gordon Liddy, Milton Friedman, or Anita Bryant?   And third, I have to wonder about the mental stability of somebody who blames Walter Cronkite for the Weathermen and the Black Panthers -- logic dictates that this kind of faulty thinking could be the precursor to paranoid delusions and full-blown psychosis. Dr. Branson goes on to quote John McCandlish Phillips' column about the unkind things people like Maureen Down and Frank Rich wrote about evangelical Christians. He then says: This is not the only place where the rhetorical excesses are reaching alarming proportions.  Anne Coulter, a conservative entertainer, who uses a rapier wit, liberal doses of sarcasm to skewer her enemies on the ideological spectrum, not only received free food from the protesting leftists who come to her speeches to make sure no one can be contaminated by them, but accuse her of the intolerance and intimidation they themselves are using (another prominent feature of many of the protesters on the left in the good old days of 1969.)  Here are a few examples of Ann's rapier wit from her NY Observer interview from a few months back :  "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning." "Well, he [Bill Clinton] was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten."  "During the gay-marriage debate, these black ministers would come on TV and say things no white conservative would say. ‘Sodomy? You’re going to burn in hell for that!’ And I realized to my delight that if we can get blacks to be conservatives, we have an entire race of Ann Coulters." "Oh, it [Christmas in New York] was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘Fuck you!’ Do you think that that's maybe where Ajaj Raj learned the "f"-word? And of course, you already are familiar with Ann's quip about the need to execute John Walker Lind and physically intimidate liberals so they won't become outright traitors; her remark about her only regret about Timothy McVeigh being that he didn't go into the NY Times building; her bit about how Max Cleland was no hero because he dropped a grenade on himself while partying with his friends; and the line where she indicated that the tenets of Islam are "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed". And here's her position on escalation: if a liberal throws a pie at you, kill him: "I was physically attacked this year. I hear MoveOn.org has a bounty for anyone who throws a pie in my face. Neither of those guys hit me. I think one is still in prison. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. One guy with a broken shoulder and one with a broken nose. And that was when I was traveling totally unprotected. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead." But anyway, back to Dr. Branson's claim that "rhetorical excesses are reaching alarming proportions" (you know, by the people who accuse Ann of intolerance). When your enemies are evil, dangerous fascists who are dedicated to destroying your country, your civil rights, and enslaving and/or killing various innocents, it becomes incumbent on right minded people to act to prevent further horrors.  This is the logic of the left, aided and abetted by large parts of the MSM, Academia, and the Democratic Party.  While they will accuse the Republicans and Bush of doing exactly what I just described, their logic fails when it can not encompass 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq elections, 3/11, the Cedar revolution, and so much more, I guess in Dr. Branson's world, the left can't logically posit a situation where, say, innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed AND there were also elections in Iraq.  Or, where some provisions of the Patriot Act infringe on civil rights AND al Qaedi terrorists flew planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.  This attributing your own black/white, right/wrong thinking on your "enemies" seems to be a sign of some disorder covered in DSM IV -- maybe Dr. Branson could look it up and see which one. ... but much of the left is beyond the touch of reason; will violence follow? I don't know.  The liberals described by Dr. Branson may be poised to escalate their activies from pieing to cupcaking, and then tarting -- but I don't see domestic terrorism and murder being the eventual results.    But just for fun, let's look at a few of the comments left by conservatives in response to Dr. Branson's post -- these remarks can give us an example of the kind of decorum, civility, and mental health we liberals should be striving for: A wave of domestic terrorism - aimed at Christian evangelicals and devout Catholics in particular - is only a matter of time.  Posted by J. Yup. It's only a matter of time before the persecution of people of faith results in actual Christian martrydom --  all because of Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd's snippy columns. Those on the left who're calling for a new civil war may want to remember which side it is that has most of the guns & already knows how to use them properly. They should also realize that the folks they spit on & call baby-killers have assault rifles & worse, and aren't likely to look too kindly on them no matter what KOS says about the military being opposed to the war. Posted by C. Yes, those on the left calling for a new civil war should remember this -- of course they should.  Put down the guns, and we can talk about how you keep seeing conservatives with assault rifles being spat upon and called "baby killers" (Psst, is there a psychotherapist in the house?) Communist sleeper cells are being deployed. The Manchurian Candidate (John McCain) is doing his best to stiffle free speech. The party-of-death is doing its last dance before dying. Cain where is your brother Abel? In Iraq but will soon return. Cain tried but could not kill him. Posted by H. Okay, now I'm really getting scared. Anyway, here's a letter Dr. Branson wrote to the WSJ's "Best of the Web" last year.  It explains a little bit about his descent into wingnuttery: I am a 52-year-old New Yorker who has never missed voting in a major election. I have never voted for a Republican and voted for Gore in 2000. I am an agnostic, but nonetheless, after 9/11, I thank God that Bush won. My wife has never voted for a Republican either. We live in the liberal state of New York, with roots in the liberal elite. I am a psychiatrist who read the New York Times every day until I canceled my subscription one year ago. The fact-checking and real reporting by parts of the blogosphere were instrumental in helping me make the break; Uh oh.  Another weak mind led astray by InstaPundit. the accretion of distortions that the liberal media consider "news" finally tipped me after Jayson Blair, but I was heading in that direction for several years in any event. Yeah, it probably all started when the Times wouldn't publish his letters to the editor. I might add that I find many people who tell me they agree with me on this, though they tend to whisper it since deviating from the liberal, mainstream-media party line is dangerous around here. I have actually heard from one patient, a psychologist herself, that her friends tell her they could never see a therapist who is a Republican. Well, to be fair, they probably didn't want to hurt Dr. Branson's patient's feelings by telling her it was just Branson they objected to.  Personally, I am hoping for a landslide Republican victory, since I think it is the only thing that can save the Democratic Party from its lunatic fringe (just as the Goldwater debacle ultimately saved the Republican Party). When and if the Dems grow up and refind "reason," I will reconsider voting for them. And Doc, if you ever get some help for your various mental health isues and refind "reason," we will reconsider our plan to make you attend an Ann Coulter speech so you can see those "worst excesses of rhetoric" in person. 9:18:44 AM

Swank o' the Day From Pastor Swank's column TIT-FOR-TAT: PELOSI VS. HER OWN DEM ‘DE LAY CLONES’: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was tongue-tied to the maximum last Sunday morning when ABC-TV George Stephanopoulos interviewed her about Pelosi’s own slip-ups regarding ethics reporting. George, like many TV news show hosts, ties his guests' tongues to something as a way of always getting in the last word. House Republicans charge that Pelosi is more concerned about riling up political nerves than actually laying bare real facts. By her last Sunday morning TV verbal tangle, she surely is not the high intelligence politician her cliché-ridden news slips have attempted to make her out to be. She’s exceptionally airy. She’s not focused in on astutely answering questions. She’s adept at pointing the index finger at the interviewer, like a crotchety school marm disciplining an urchin in the back row. It seems to me that many politicians rile up political nerves instead of laying bare real facts (which are the kind of facts most in the need of being stripped and laid). And per the Pastor, Pelosi has shown that she is not the high intelligence politician claimed by her news slips (whatever the hell "news slips" are).  Instead, she is exceptionally airy, like a good souffle -- albeit a souffle that's adept at disciplining urchins by pointing its index finger. Her lack of making sense plus her dramatic verbalizations brought, at one point, a slight smile to Stephanopoulos’ face. Then the smile turned to a look that said, "If you continue on with this lady, I just might have to cut you off at the pass." So, apparently there was some another woman on the program, and whatever Pelosi was doing with her caused George to give Pelosi a look that threatened to cut her off if she continued on with the lady.  I now wish I had seen this program.  But if Pelosi's lack of making sense plus dramatic verbalizations caused George to smile slightly, imagine the grin on his face if he ever encountered Pastor Swank! 6:13:41 AM

From AMERICAN STREET:

Lessons On Mellowness

Guess which program this is supposed to describe?

This is a program about uplifting people, about inspiring people, about motivating people. This is a program about good cheer. This is a program about being better than you can be, being better than you think you can be, and how to accomplish it. This program on balance over the course of many, many years of service to America has been an inspiration to people.

No, it’s not “Touched by an Angel” or “Lamp Unto My Feet.” It’s the Rush Limbaugh show!
Anyway, Rush used that as an intro to discuss how the left is angry, mean, and intolerant, while the conservatives are all sweetness and right. This is demonstrated by the fact that some folks on the left weren’t fans of Laura Bush’s stand-up routine at the White House Correspondents Dinner, while the right (except for some uptight spinsters like Michelle Malkin and the people of faith from the Coalition for Traditional Values) all found it both hilarious and perfectly charming.
Here’s Rush (his site calls this segment “New York Times Reflects Left’s Anger” :

When you read the New York Times Letters to the Editor today, and I’ll tell you, the epicenter of liberal anger is the New York Times and if you want to find out just how angry and mad and disjointed the liberals are, read the New York Times every day.

Rush confides that he doesn’t normally read the NY Times (”The last thing I want to do is read the New York Times. That’s like listening to a liberal talk show that actually has an audience which you can’t find”), but he says that if YOU want to learn about liberal anger and disjointedness, then you should read it every day. Of course, then you might learn about reality and stuff, and wouldn’t be a dittohead anymore — so on second thought, don’t read it every day.
Rush then reads the four letters to the editor the Times published about Laura’s talk.

To the editor: Laura Bush made a room full of self-important media oligarchs twitter at her scripted jokes but not even her soft porn act can reverse her husband’s growing policy failures and his falling poll numbers. James Day, Berkeley, California.
Editor, if the Bushes are not yahoos or religious zealots then their use of religious zealotry to consolidate power is all the more cynical and shameless. Laura Bush may think she’s only being funny but some of us think she’s a hypocrite and even further exposing the true agenda of the Bush administration which is to do harm and apparently enjoy it, signed Jane Smiley, Carmel Valley, California.
Editor, I suggest that Laura Bush wake her husband up around 9:30 p.m. and travel around and look at the folks in the country working the second and third shifts at their second and third jobs in an attempt to make ends meet. The Bushes are so out of touch with reality and the working class, we’re the ones that are desperate, desperate for decent jobs, desperate for affordable health insurance and housing, I don’t think Chippendale’s can help this desperation. Debbie Twyford Morrow, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Editor, desperate White House wife episode one, the ranch hand. How ironic that an attempt to humanize this presidency with some informal humor had to be written by a long time Washington speechwriter and required several days of rehearsal. Ilya Shochter, Princeton, New Jersey.

So, the four letter writers are basically saying that they didn’t find Laura’s act particularly amusing, what with the crummy job her husband is doing as President and all. But Rush interprets this as near homicidal rage.

Now, what is the problem with these people? Why such rage?

Well, like I said, they didn’t seem enraged to me, but as to what their problem is, well, they pretty much outlined it in their letters: they don’t like how President Bush is doing his job. (Rush later describes the letters as “seething, raging, angry New York Times letters to the editor today that are all just mad as hell at Mrs. Bush.” You know, because she was so funny, and they are so humor-empaired.)

You know, if I was attracting this kind of anger, if you people were filled with rage, if everybody in my audience was nothing but a bunch of spitting, seething, raging nincompoop, irrational idiots, I might be mad, too. But as you know, my friends, I’m the happiest and most optimistic figure in American media.

Yeah, Rush’s audience is well known for its mellowness and rationality. And Rush had three marriages fail and became addicted to opiates because he is so happy and optimistic.
(Okay, when pinned down by someone who notes his lapses from truth, Rush claims that he is just an “entertainer” — and since he is obviously lying here, I guess that means that he’s just being “entertaining.” But if he can entertain by bashing liberals, I think I should be allowed to entertain by poking good natured fun at his screwed-up life.)
But on to Rush’s solution for liberal rage:

So I have a suggestion, maybe a possible cure for the editors and these letter writers at the New York Times. Each writer and each editor should be required to read all these letters out loud but substitute the word Clinton for the word Bush. I will illustrate with just one choice.
Hillary Clinton made a room full of self-important media oligarchs twitter at her scripted jokes but not even her soft porn act can reverse her husband’s growing policy failures and Bill Clinton’s falling polling numbers.
Read it out loud, substitute the word Clinton for the word Bush. This is just a little bit of anger management. Seems to me the left has got some anger mismanagement.

Sounds like an idea to me! But to test it out, we’ll use a couple of posts from recent FreeRepublic threads about Hillary (not only because such threads are so easy to find, but because most Freepers seem to be Rush fans, and therefore rational geniuses), and substitute the word Clinton for Bush. (User names changed to avoid embarrassing anybody):

The Bushes are dedicated, evil criminals that are obsessed with political power. They have already proven they will DO ANYTHING TO ANYONE, OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE, AT ANY COST TO THIS COUNTRY, for the sake of political power. But the mindless Kool-Aid drinking populus that keeps voting for these reprobates are only perpetuating their gross existence. Let us hope the Democrats launch an all-out effort to put the last torpedo into this dispicable ship and send it to the bottom. By BeagleUSA
Threads like these tax my ability to comment on Laura Bush. We all know she’s a pimple on the ass of politics. A bolshevik power mad lunatic feminist lesbian librarian ball crushing man hater who reviles her own country and its institutions . By SpaceCase
Laura Braun Bush…she sounds like just what she is, a warmed-over, superannuated 1970s post-adolescent in a state of permanent arrested development. Still shrieking and shrilling, sounding like Hitler on a rant. It difficult to understand what she’s saying, but that doesn’t seem to matter. The mobs swoon. By ArmyGuy.

Yeah, I think will help the readers and editors of FreeRepublic to manage their rage, and may also help them to see that Rush is full of crap when he claims that it’s the left that is full of rage (and most other times too).
Anyway, in the next segment, Rush takes a call from a listener who HAS to be putting him on. This caller claims to have been offended by Laura’s act because (a) Laura made fun of her husband, the President of the United States; and (b) because homosexuals would be turned on by her horse joke. (”He’s touching the genitals of a horse, I mean, come on. That is just sick. And I bet a lot of the homosexuals are getting off on that .”)
Here’s part of the conversation between Rush and the Church Lady:

RUSH: Some people are walking around just hoping to be offended. I mean, they spend their lives wanting to be. I’m not accusing you of that. I think what you have to understand, if it offended you it offended you, but I have a theory about being offended, and it’s a new theory that I —
CALLER: It’s not like anyone said that. That was his wife. Why would his wife do that? That was his wife.
RUSH: Oh, that’s mild. I would love to have had some wives only say that kind of –

Yeah, I’m sure Rush’s former wives said a LOT worse than that about him.
Anyway, Rush then explains his theory that some people walk around hoping to be offended by stuff, and how they should just let things go.

RUSH: Well, I think, look, if it offended you it offended you. I have this whole theory about being offended, and it’s something that I have evolved over the years. And it comes from this. We have a whole group of people in this country who are walking around now professing to be offended, and that’s fine, be offended all you want but keep it to yourself. What is happening is The Offended, capital T, capital O, are now attempting to silence anybody who says or does anything that offends them and that’s not the role. If you are offended your role is to avoid it or to not be affected by it, put up a boundary.

Yes, per Rush, if you are offended by something, then you should just avoid it, or not be affected by it.
And here’s an example of Rush practicing what he preaches. (This recap of Rush’s remarks is taken from a Frank Rich column from a few months back):

Rush Limbaugh, taking a break from the legal deliberations of his drug rap and third divorce, set the hysterical tone. “I was stunned!” he told his listeners. “I literally could not believe what I had seen. … At various places on the Net you can see the video of this, and she’s buck naked, folks. I mean when they dropped the towel she’s naked. You see enough of her back and rear end to know that she was naked. There’s no frontal nudity in the thing, but I mean you don’t need that. …I mean, there are some guys with their kids that sit down to watch ‘Monday Night Football.’ ”

Of course, Ms. Sheridan wasn’t buck naked in that promo for “Desperate Housewives” (all you saw in the ad was her bare upper back). Did Rush urge his listeners to complain to the FCC about the shocking ad which featured a buck naked woman, or did he counsel them to just put up a boundry so they wouldn’t be affected by it?
Since I can’t find a transcript of the program, I don’t know — but I kinda doubt that his theory about not keeping offense to yourself applies to the things that his hardcore audience is offended by.

By S. Z.   2:30 am     Comedy & Satire

1. nax Says:
   May 6th, 2005 at 5:44 am
   I have this whole theory about being offended too, and it�€™s something that I have evolved over the minutes, but it was a few years ago. And it comes from this. We have a whole group of people in this country who are walking around now making a literal profession of being offended.
   I’m not accusing Rush of that, but, you know, it is how he makes a living.
2. FlipYrWhig Says:
   May 6th, 2005 at 10:54 am
   We have a whole group of people in this country who are walking around now professing to be offended, and that�€™s fine, be offended all you want but keep it to yourself. What is happening is The Offended, capital T, capital O, are now attempting to silence anybody who says or does anything that offends them and that�€™s not the role.
   I call these people “the Christian right.”
3. merlallen Says:
   May 6th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
   Yeah, the poor picked on persecuted Christian Right.
4. Scott C. Says:
   May 6th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
   Well, it’s official. The Right has not only moved the goalposts again, they’ve moved them out of the stadium, down the highway, and across the river. In fact, they’re this close to a Mann Act violation (defined as “the transportation of goalposts across state lines for immoral purposes”).
   During the Clinton Administration, the bar was set fairly high for seething rhetoric. It required red-faced, vein-popping, spittle-flecked accusations that the President was a murderous, drug-drealing serial rapist. And it required that your denunciations have no proof to support them, lest they be confused with passionate but legitimate criticism, without which the give and take of democratic self-governance cannot flourish.
   But naturally, with a new party in power, new rules apply. Under the current standard, any untoward and tactless reference to factual and documented instances of Administration bungling, deceit, or venality is hate speech.
   Actual hate speech (e.g., scurrilolus insinuations that George Bush is a serial horse-masturbator) is prima facie evidence of insanity.
5. D. Sidhe Says:
   May 6th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
   Okay, I admit it. I’m one of those humorless liberals who didn’t laugh at the routine. On the other hand, I’m laughing at Rush and Malkin and a few others.
   If the First Lady wants to tell a joke that makes her husband look like a bit of a dim perv, I’m bang alongside that. But, and here’s why I didn’t laugh, I’ve been hearing the “milking a stallion” joke since I was about five, and it’s, you know, just not that funny anymore. And I grew up in the suburbs, for pity’s sake.
   And Rush thought this was funny? Our Red State Champion of the Common Man had never heard this one before? Michelle Malkin *didn’t get it*?
   Now, that’s funny. The joke itself isn’t, after about the eighth time you hear your uncles tell it, with appropriate hand gestures. Though the version Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show offered was hysterical.
   (But, okay, I’ll cop to it. Listening to the privileged First Lady explain that she’s a desperate housewife did actually make me angry. Of course, I’ve only seen the show once, and they didn’t strike me as especially desperate, either. They seem to have food on the table, shoes on the kids, and free time. Puts them one up on an awful lot of people. That probably makes me a humorless liberal, so, okay, Rush is right. Had to happen once.)