House of Eratosthenes

At a time when we are definitely split between “right” and “left” but there is so little agreement on what it means to be “right” or “left,” it’s always interesting to dissect what happens when one side declares victory. This post over on DailyKos says halfway down “just to clear some things up here…” and by the time the things are cleared up, things are more confused than they were to begin with.

It all started when Rush sniffed out a scammer on his show in the middle of a call.

Rush: To Oceanside, California. Jack, glad you called sir. Glad to have you on the EIB network.

Jack: Rush, John Kerry said about Vietnam, “No one wants to be the last one to die for a mistake”. Incidents like Haditha will make it impossible to achieve the goal of creating a democracy in Iraq that is friendly to the United States. Rush, are you now willing to admit that Iraq is a disaster, a mistake and it is time to bring the troops home? Unless you in your arrogance are willing to send more of young men and women to their death…

Rush: (talking over Jack) Hey Jack, Jack Hey Jack! Jack! (deadens Jack’s mic) Tell us all your real name, will ya? And tell us where you really live… Tell us who you really are Jack… give us your real name. And, also… you might want to tell us when you’re gonna be in Las Vegas – that’s coming up soon isn’t it?

Jack: (bewildered) What? What’s that? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Rush: Yes you do. Tell us you’re real name. You are an imposter. You make a habit of calling programs and reading prepared speeches like this gibberish that you’ve just shared with us making demands of me. So tell us who you really are Jack, I want to know you’re real name.

Jack: Well you know, you’re just displaying to your audience that you can’t answer my question.

Rush: No. What I’m displaying to my audience is that I don’t put up with liars and frauds on this program. You don’t have to lie to get on this program, and when you do, your time is cut short. Why should I give credence, why should I respond and descend to your level to answer your silly, non-sensical, biased, agenda-oriented questions? I’m not going to waste my time. Just tell us who you are Jack and tell us where you really live.

Jack: Well, uh, you know… I think you’ve lost your marbles.

Rush: uh, no Jack… I’m in full possession of all three of my marbles…

Jack: I have no idea what you are talking about. You need to address what I just said.

Rush: No, I don’t need to address a damned thing that you just said, Jack

[crosstalk]

Rush: You are a fraud and I don’t have to address anything. I will address things on my own time in my own way, but I am not going to allow some low-life to put me on the defensive and make me assume the position of defending a position tha I don’t even know is true based on just your simple assertion. I’ve given you three chances now to come clean, to be honest and tell us who you really are… uh… I happen to know who you are Jack and if you try this one more time I’m going to blow you’re cover so that everybody else knows who you are and ruin your little scam that you’ve got going out there.

My question is, who exactly has lost their marbles? Who is suffering from delusions of grandeur? The guy who wrote the post, Mike Stark, says “Rush thought Jack was me.” There is much in the post to indicate Mr. Stark has been making a habit of calling talk radio shows under false pretenses…nothing, nothing whatsoever, to indicate Rush thought Stark was the guy calling. Stark says “Jack was really Jack,” but there’s nothing to indicate that either — and furthermore, what Stark says is “some great comedy” depends on Jack being a scammer, and thus, presumably, not really being Jack.

I just find it interesting what goes on right before someone on the left-wing declares victory. Deception is a common theme — someone is always deceived. Michael Moore makes persuasive arguments that depend on the audience not taking the time to research what he’s talking about; Bill Clinton says he didn’t have sex with a woman he did, in fact, have sex with; liberal spammers call Rush’s show pretending to be someone else. Jon Stewart takes some incoherent babbling of the President out of context and plays it on his own show.

The pattern seems to hold that whenever liberals exchange high-fives and pats on the back, a presentation has just been made of something, with a crucial disparity between what was displayed and what really was.

What events culminate in “conservatives” idolizing one of their own? I notice it has to do with being a stalwart. Nobody held Reagan up to worship — or vindication — because our fortieth president found creative and ingenious ways to present things and make them look like something they weren’t. Reagan is remembered, by those who approve of him, as someone who confronted political resistance over his ideas, and faced down the resistance with a minimum of compromise. Ditto for Newt Gingrich. He said what he was going to do, he got in, and he got 90% of it done. Now, some think the remaining 10% is all-important, and others don’t like what was done. But deception had nothing to do with Gingrich’s claim-to-fame — it was about overcoming obstacles and staying true to an agenda previously defined.

This Mike Stark guy seems to have an interest, which is shared among most liberals, in eschewing reality. And you can see how it hurts him, because he himself doesn’t know what he’s writing. Is Jack from Oceanside really Jack from Oceanside, or is he a spammer? Mr. Stark, at some places in the post, says the former, and at other places he says the latter. Who achieved this victory over Rush, is it Jack from Oceanside, or Mike Stark? The first half of Mr. Stark’s post seems to indicate this is Jack’s victory and Jack’s alone; the second half is a rigorous exercise in self-glorification and gratification, that more spamming is on the way because Stark is “not hidin’ and not quittin’.” Oops? I thought when Jack called Rush, you were looking for a place in Charlottesville?

Mike Stark doesn’t seem to know what he’s saying anymore. There’s a lesson here: Sow the seeds of un-reality, and thus shall you reap.

You can also get sued. Michael Moore, who has become a hero of sorts to the left for putting stuff on film that appears to be different from what it really is, has been sued for $85 million by a double-amputee vet. The content of the film appears to indicate the vet is opposed to the War on Terror, when actually Sgt. Peter Damon agrees with and supports the war effort.

The National Guardsman lost both his arms when a tyre on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and a colleague were servicing the aircraft on the ground in Iraq. Another soldier was killed in the explosion.

In Moore’s documentary, Sgt Damon is shown lying on a stretcher with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels like he is “being crushed in a vise”.

The clip is screened shortly after US Congressman Jim McDermott is seen speaking about the Bush administration: “You know, they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind”.

The sergeant, from Middleborough, Massachusetts, claims that by putting the news clip of him immediately after the Congressman’s comments, director Moore made Sgt Damon appear as if he felt “left behind” by the military and the Bush administration.

Sgt Damon maintains he was complaining about “the excruciating type of pain” that he was suffering as a result of his wounds.

The National Guardsman stated in case papers that he “agrees with and supports the President and the United States’ war effort, and he was not left behind”.

This is probably a publicity lawsuit; I have little reason to think Mr. Moore will actually have to part with $85 mil over this. But it helps to highlight what just about everyone, privately, already knows, easy as it may be to forget in public. Moore is a talented illusionist, not a maker of documentaries. What makes Michael Moore famous? What makes him popular? His stuff appears to be something different than what it really is. This is what showcases his talent. If he was good at putting films together, but the films comported perfectly with reality, we’d have no clue who the guy was.

Being a liberal, say the liberals, is supposed to be about “speaking truth to power.” But whenever it’s time for party balloons and champagne and kazoos in liberal-land, it seems the previous events that called for the celebration have very little to do with “truth.” The people who call themselves liberals, are placed in a state of euphoria when something has been presented in a way that finds favor with them. And the substance contradicts the presentation.

Always, there is the sense of urgency in the celebration. Drink up. Wait too long, and reality is sure to tug on that presentation the way gravity tugs on a house of cards.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Deception Is The Common ThemeThursday, June 1st, 2006

Deception Is The Common Theme
Thursday, June 1st, 2006