Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat…

[insert pejorative of choice here]

As bizarre and reprehensible as Pat Robertson’s remarks about a spurious “pact with the Devil” being the root cause for Haiti’s latest misfortune, at least the senile old kook urged his viewers to contribute to the CBN’s Disaster Relief Fund to help the suffering victims of the earthquake (which makes no logical sense if they’re supposedly in league with the Devil, but that’s another matter…)

In contrast, Rush Limbaugh followed up his cynically racist remarks about the disaster “playing right into the hands” of the Obama administration that, according to Rush, would use Haiti to get closer to the “light-skinned and dark-skinned black [communities] in this country,” by yesterday urging people not to donate to Haiti relief effort because that country is run by “dictators and communists” and declaring that Americans have already helped Haiti more than enough in the form income taxes.

On last night’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart quipped that he’d figured out the reason for Rush’s recent heart problem — “You don’t have one!”

“Meals on Wheels” Update: You really have to wonder at what point Rush’s legion of dittoheads might possibly become a wee bit embarrassed by the despicable things this hateful clown says every day.

About these ads

9 Comments

Filed under Obama Administration, Wingnuts

9 responses to “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat…

  1. toujoursdan

    No surprise there and his message does resonate with a segment of the population. On my Facebook page I urged Americans to write their Congressperson to support the Jubilee Act, which cancels the debt owed to America from 65 of the world’s poorest country, and people said the same thing Rush did. They’re all corrupt, they are ruled by dictators, they’re completely at fault for being poor, and don’t deserve debt cancellation. One “friend” asserted that if the U.S. forgives Haiti’s debt we should demand recompense from Germany, Japan, Korea and Viet-nam for fighting them in WWII. It’s very bizarre.

    BTW, Canada cancelled Haiti’s debt last year. gc.ca: Canada Cancels All Debt Owed by Haiti

  2. Feyenoord

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/haiti/article/750785–underlying-racism-infects-crisis-response-study?bn=1

    Limbaugh and Robertson are just as dumb as the Toronto Star and some blogger “harper bizzaro”.

    The Star trying to find racism in our relief effort.

    “Harper Bizzaro” trying to accuse Harper of photo opp. Seems he wants Harper to be invisible so he could accuse him of a lack of compassion

    http://harperbizarro.blogspot.com/2010/01/mr-harper-cant-help-himselfbut-you-can.html.

  3. Ti-Guy

    Shorter Feyenoord: “But but but…the liberals!

  4. I don’t know, Feyenoord has a point. There seems to be more than enough opportunistic axe-grinding and exploitation to go around…

  5. Ti-Guy

    There seems to be more than enough opportunistic axe-grinding and exploitation to go around…

    Like Feyenoord making an obviously political point. I don’t know where, in that Star article, is there a suggestion that there’s racism in *our* relief efforts. And Harper is staging meetings and conversations and inviting the media in to record them.

  6. jkg

    Feyenoord’s post is just a bit random and typical partisan fare, given that Chrétien was summarily chastised for his ‘sandbag stunt’ photo-op during the Winnipeg flood. However, people should not scratch their heads when three different media sessions were planned by the PM, one in which no journalist was able to ask questions. I hate to make the obvious statement, but as the old internet saying goes, sometimes it is best not to feed the trolls .

    They’re all corrupt, they are ruled by dictators, they’re completely at fault for being poor, and don’t deserve debt cancellation

    I remember taking an international development course, which dealt with exactly what you were describing. I did not think such thinking came as a byproduct of why it is advantageous for developed governments to maintain the debt hold on places like Haiti. The obvious one is that it allows great leverage when negotiating international agreements, but it is more beneficial when multinationals, the majority of which are based in the U.S., attempt to get cheap business and labour.

    For example, “Export processing zones” or Free trade zones are set up rather commonly in developing countries by multinationals because these zones allow global businesses to operate virtually independent of the indigenous government. Furthermore, it gives foreign corporations even more power when negotiating with the government. It is in these situations where the ruling class of the developing nation are inculcated into this scheme and benefit extremely financially. It is a form of marginalization but an upward kind as the ruling class/government becomes further disconnected from their own people as they are enticed to continue participating in this globalized business model.

    With such an interplay, it is obvious that corruption exists, so those unwilling to cancel are correct but only in that respect as they fail to realize that such a situation is in fact perpetuated to the benefit of foreign involvement, especially to foreign companies. Canada, in contrast, probably has so very little multinational presence in terms of business conglomerates that they are can cancel the debt. It could also be that they can afford to do so. We don’t have a Nike which enjoys the leverage and benefit of keeping developing governments dependent on a self-detrimental economic relationship. I suspect that some of those dead set against debt cancellation probably were, rather unwittingly, physically representing this contradiction with the shoes they are wearing.

  7. toujoursdan

    Actually there are two very good books from two very different perspectives that cover this. They are: the The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachsand Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade by Ha-Joon Chang

    Sachs tilts toward neo-liberalism and advocates that First World countries provide aid and Third World countries open their markets, make their finances more transparent and sell off state run industries.

    On the other hand, Chang says that “open” economies lead to domination by western multinationals. He instead takes his native Korea as an example, advocates a certain level of protectionism until home grown industries develop and once they are competitive then open the economy. He also believes selling off state run industries before effective regulation is in place (including an effective legal system) causes more harm than good.

    Both are very eye opening reads. Corruption is a problem in these countries but both books agree that this problem is overhyped.

    I have provided the Amazon US links because they have more used book for sale and more read comment to read. But Amazon.ca and Chapters also stocks them.

  8. I posted one of Chang’s lectures a while back.

    Sachs is also a breath of fresh air, if an economist can be such a thing…

  9. toujoursdan

    Ah ha! Great.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s