Flak jacket. Looks kind of medieval, doesn’t it?
One of the outstanding qualities of Rush Limbaugh is that he not only remembers history accurately, he also generously shares that knowledge with his listeners. The brouhaha today about Donald Trump‘s withdrawal from a coming candidate debate illustrates this quality well.
On the other hand, one of the other top news stories today has brought forth casual misrepresentations of history by nameless news readers.
Let me explain.
Granted, Rush has more time to develop his narrative. The news readers get from 10 to 30 seconds per news story – headline reading really – to tell the story. But that just makes their job more difficult, not impossible.
Rush explained who the players in the political drama are, how they interact and interrelate and how he, Rush, fits into the picture. This is all necessary because Rush has taken some serious flak from listeners who thought he should show total unadulterated adoration for their candidate and none for the others.
Fine, but Rush has a long-running show with a successful recipe which he developed after ignoring advice by people who knew better for how to do his own show. He hasn’t budged from that formula. He is still the radio talk King.
Rush said he knows, likes and respects the players: Roger Ailes, Ted Cruz, Megyn Kelly, Donald Trump, and others. Then he explained some history, including Donald’s book, The Art of the Deal, which Rush seems to have read more than once. It’s how Rush, himself, operates! So, he understands.
However, make up your own mind. All I’ll say is that Trump hasn’t just built a brand, he has also constructed, and runs, the current narrative. What other politician has had the brains or courage to do that? Last night, a Trump admirer on the Web, after watching the press briefing, said Trump “has balls of steel!” All caps. I’m still laughing.
Now, on to the other story. “Ammon Bundy, other protesters arrested in Oregon”
I suspect most of my readers have been following this story of ranchers advocating for property rights in Malheur County in the southeastern corner of Oregon. It is a long and complex story relating to federal ownership and leasing of grazing land in the Western U.S. That’s not where I’m going today.
A news reader on the radio this morning referenced, “other anti-government protests like Ruby Ridge and Waco” as he read the story about the arrests. An interesting juxtaposition, don’t you think? How about pro-property rights, pro-religious rights?
Waco was a case of U.S. government agents making an unprovoked attack on followers of a non-mainstream religion after the months-long siege, and subsequent killing and incineration of men, women and children.
US Attorney General at the time, Janet Reno, said “she took full responsibility” for the attack. At first, I cheered, thinking Reno was going to resign, but no such luck. Just what DOES “take full responsibility” mean? Hmm?
Ruby Ridge, according to the excellent 2003 Slate article linked here, was a “1992 stakeout and killings” of some of Randall Weaver’s family and a friend by U.S. Marshalls. Again, an attack by government agents after a siege.
So, the news reader was wrong. The Malheur case is the not the same. Facts to date are not clear. But the killers in all of these cases were government agents.
So, rather than the current meme – anti-government, I’d prefer “anti-middle-aged-white men” (with a few women and kids thrown in for good measure.) The prime target has been middle-aged white men and the “government” turned on them first.
It is white (and colored) men who have been fighting in our (government-sanctioned) wars. It is white (and colored) men who have designed and built our factories, cars, ships, planes, railroads (here ‘colored’ includes Chinese laborers). It is white (and colored) men who have tilled and harvested our fields. Here, ‘colored’ includes Hispanic campesinos.
Guess it all comes down to “control.” Those in government demand utter obedience to their dictates. If they tell you to kill, go kill. If they say, do what I say, do it! At some point, not now, I will address the bleating response some give of “if you don’t like it, then change the law, or vote for somebody else.”
Not now. Now, I mourn the deaths of independent men who dared to stand up to what they saw as a threatening, unlawful, unfair, armed power.