featherhead comments

The argument which is ALWAYS put forth by some that this will put an end to the poor fishermen's livelihood is utter nonsense. I mean, true, it would put an end to this barbaric and unnecessary slaughter, but so what? If they can fist for dolphins, they can fish for any number of fish. Period. You DON'T keep on doing something just because it's been done for a long time. Were this the case, slavery would still be practiced, which no doubt some depraved persons would probably welcome.

yabusama was correct when he/she asserted:

"But if the fishermen of Taiji are just exercising their rights to preserve and continue their tradition of hunting dolphins and they truly feel they're not doing anything wrong then why all the secrecy and banning of filming of the hunt? It's not like any of them care what the outside world thinks of what they're doing." Unless there is something about their "cultural practice" which they're ashamed of. Sorry, but while I can respect people and cultures to what I think to be a quite large extent, sometimes the cultural arguments need to be flushed. A few eyebrows would no doubt be raised were someone to assert that they should be able to continue keeping slaves because it was okay according to their culture. And this goes for things from my own "culture" as well. Being from the U.S. I often hear the same nonsensical argument being put forward in defense of the long history of the U.S.'s "gun culture". If it's bad, you change the culture. You do NOT keep making excuses to prolong the travesty.

One would get the impression from the "news" that Iraq was a dangerous place. Perhaps even more dangerous that just one city in the U.S. Unfortunately, this would not be the case. In 2008 alone there were 509 murders in Chicago. How many soldiers in all of Iraq, a country at war, of sorts? Answer: 314. Now this number is a little deceiving. It's would be FAR worse were we to add all of the murders in the rest of the U.S., which usually hovers around 20,000 per year. So, why the disconnect between the reality, and the illusion created for public consuption? Well, perhaps that's exactly what it is i.e., "created for public consumption". But the U.S. doesn't really have to worry about deaths during voting because so few vote. Given this fact, I guess we are safer in a way.

"A good way to start the negotiations is by the P.A. acknowledging the existance of an Israeli nation. But of course, that is impossible for the P.A. to do.."

This propaganda has been being regurgitated for years and years now. It's agreat deflection tool which allows for Israel to keep up it's crimes. But then again I guess there are still many "criminal Native Americans" who probably haven't recognized the U.S. either.

It's great to see the media doing what it does best i.e., endless babbling about a story without providing any substance or critical analysis. Let's see....On CNN International the daily chant is how many assassin suspects there are now, why they carried out the assassination in Dubai, how sophisticated Israeli intelligence is, and even interviews with ex-intelligence agents who feel that there's nothing the least bit wrong with assassinations carried out in other countries, and how Israel doesn't discuss their assassinations, etc...What is noticeably missing from the media, and is almost ALWAYS missing from the media, is to do what most first year journalism students all learn, and that is to try and see the story from both sides so as not to bias the story, at least to the least possible extent. Well, let's take a look(sticking to the small list above) Let's imgine that we're living in the occupied territories, or any other country for that matter, and we're watching TV. The journalists sort of casually start talking about how Palestinian intelligence, perhaps 27 or so, managed to assassinate a high ranking Israeli military officer without getting caught. The assassination took place in, say, New York. A few of the assassins are thought to have escaped to Canada, where they're sure to be "safe" from any sort of U.S. reprisal. On Al Jezzera TV there are interviews with ex-Hamas intelligence officers whom proudly boast about there being nothing wrong with it. They also don't feel compelled to discuss what their intelligence agencies are up to, regardless of any sort of international laws which may consider it illegal. I could easily go on, but the picture is quite clear, or at least should be. The western media is an embarrassment to journalism and everyone should let them know.

Elton John has every much right to say he thinks Jesus is gay or anything else as anyone does. Folks who prop themselves up to be experts on such things, when the evidence to support most of their theories is virtualy nonexistent, have no business on claiming the "truth" for themselves. Personally, I'd MUCH prefer were Jesus a flaming drag queen who believed in peace than a macho man who told people that only real people carried guns, and liked to fight. And I have a sneaking suspicion that were Jesus to return today, many of those who claim to 'KNOW' Jesus best would be utterly disappointed when he told them they were WAY off track, and, perhaps, told them to dress in drag as a repentance.

I always find it amusing when someone makes a statement like the one made by Romeo regarding the "liberals" response at "the mention of their messiah's name", when the right are vastly more apt to blindly worship just about anyone Rush tells them to. Vastly more conformity on the right than the left. That's part of the definitional differences between the two groups for the most part. So, romeo, perhaps you shouldn't project what the right does as a matter of policy. Not only that, even were they to worship Obama, which no one does to my knowledge, it would STILL be infinitely better than supporting a dunce like Palin or Bush before her. That the people aren't even embarrassed by supporting such folks is what's sad and pathetic.

Regarding the statement above having to do with the chap's friend who said the NOVA teachers were often much better than the university teachers, I simply must laugh for the reason that most of the time the classes they teach are nothing alike. I teach at two universities where most of my classes have an average of between 45-60 students per class. I don't quite think doing role plays between 4 people is quite the same. That being said, it IS somewhat possible to do role plays even with 60 students, albeit noiser. I DO think there are good teachers all over the place, some whom have degrees, and some of whom have never been to college at all. While it can help to have advanced degrees, it is not a prerequisite.

Secondly, I think part of the problem with the eikaiwa industry is partially the fault of the eikaiwas, and partially the fault of the entire Japanese educational system and what students(and/or parents) expect from education.

1)First, the problem with the eikaiwas can easily be seen in such scam schools as NOVA which I recognized as a scam my first week in Japan. After having taught for years in another non-English speaking country, as well as helping to build several schools there, I was already quite familiar with the way schools worked. My very first question about eikaiwas when arriving in Japan was regarding how much in advance were students required to pay. I heard between two and three years. PING! Scam alert! As ANYONE in the business is FULLY aware of the fact that the vast majority of students do NOT stay for this long, with adults being worst. Yeah, sure, there are the few older dedicated folks who DO actually get their monies worth, but in general most will leave within 6 months to a year. Anyone who claims different is either lying, or they haven't been in the business for more than a year themselves. I consider such depraved business practices as at least dishonest if not boardering on criminal. NOVA managers were WELL aware of this fact and took advantage of it. And when the government changed the policy to refund students who had not utilized all of the hours pre-paid for, they collapsed shortly after. The schools should be honest up front. They should not make fairy tale promises that the students wil be fluent if they only study at 'their' school because they have some magic teaching method that other schools do not. It's nonsense. There are no secret methods. None.("Speed Learning!")No school has a secret or special method. There is ONE method. That is that the students get off their butts and study. Period. This leads to the second problem.

2)Students are often taught English as they are taught other subjects such as math i.e., sit back, take notes, try to memorize the data, and repeat for tests. They often expect to be spoon fed the information and think they don't have to put in effort into learning, other than being forced to attend jukus, etc...Many schools become enablers in this process as well. Many parents of students are clueless to this basic fact as well. They pay the school or teacher, and if their kid doesn't produce results it's the teacher's fault. This may be true in a very few cases, perhaps .00001%, but more often it is NOT the teacher who is at fault, but the parents who are not making their kid study as they would piano, basketball, or anything else which requires participation. This is also why many adults quit so readily. They, too, often expect spoon-feeding, and when confronted with the fact they're going to have to actually study OUTSIDE the class i.e., where 90%+ of their work should be happening, they give up, blame the teacher or school, etc...((And remember, NOVA bosses knew exactly this and used it))

In closing, I think there are probably some differences between teachers, their background knowledge of the subject, their abilities, etc...but MUCH more importantly is that students need to take responsibility for their learning and quit expecting to be spoon-fed. Japan has the lowest English level of perhaps all Asian countries for a reason, and it is NOT because 'they're shy'(cop out). It's primarily because they are either lazy with regards to studying English, or they've been lied to so long that they simply don't now how.

Regarding the gaijin who react with disdain or in an arrogant manner to those who have the audacity to admit to being teachers, well, they should be laughed at with contempt. Many, if not most, of these folks were were teachers, but "graduated" to what they believe are to be bigger and better things(could be), but there's no reason to become an elitist twerp because of it, or actually did come to Japan specifically to work another kind of work. Stiil, one should respond to them as one would in their home country. If you admire and look up to these, what are often pseudo-rich folk wannabes, then go for it. If you find them amusing as a symptom of a socio-cultural disease, as I do, then you shouldn't worry in the slightest, burp at them, and walk away.

Any company attempting to introduce vehicles which use less or no gas are going to have to be extremely careful forthings exactly like this as there millions of dollars, PR, and everything else going into attempting to reduce or get rid of anything which may ween us (in the U.S) off of oil. Has been this way for 50+ years when there were already electric cars on the road. For a good, but unsurprising and predictable, look at such antics, see the film 'Who Killed the Electric Car'. The moral rational folks who desire to replace the always profitable oil with cheap, clean, etc...are going to have to fight tooth and nail. One needs look no further than a recent president to see just who and what sorts of folks drink, bathe, and profit from oil 24/7.

Sorry, Gombei, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Zinn was not a Stalinist in any way, shape, or form, and despised Stalin as much as he did Hitler. Perhaps you were being sarcastic? And even though McCarthy was a thug and criminal, I doubt seriously that Zinn OR his parents felt this to be worse than Stalin. True, he did help bomb Hitler, and felt that getting rid of Hitler was a good thing, to which most folks would agree(perhaps not Bush's grandfather given he was doing lots of business with the Nazis, even AFTER it was illegal in the U.S. to do so), he also felt that there were instances where the bombing of certain German cities was not called for either.

I'm also not sure I would say that Zinn would "blame" the U.S. for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, though it would be completely naive to think that there were not reasons. After all, if one accepts a common U.S. argument regarding "preventive war", there was absoluetly nothing wrong with Japan bombing the U.S. AFter all, this is an exact duplicate of the Bush doctrine in action i.e., Japan was quite certain the U.S. was about to enter the war, and so they "struck first in self defense". I guess it's perhaps wise NOT to make rules which may work against one's self. Absurd thing is is that we, and by we I mean folks like Bush, etc...evidently didn't learn a thing from it.

Funny last line! Though it's sort of sad/funny in the sense that he probably IS much more attuned to the real world than most on the right, even those IN politics full time.

""I honestly believe the American people elected a pathological liar with serious psychological disorders"

NO ( ) person could possibly have supported Bush, and in turn make such a statement against, well, Obama or anyone else for that matter. If you're referring to Obama when making such a ( ) statement, all I'd have to say is that you should change what you "honestly believe". Some naive children also "honestly believe" in Santa as well, but he doesn't exist. Your statement demonstrates exactly what Obama recognizes needs to be repaired. Due to your ( ) to right wing idiot-idealogues like Rush, Hannity, and the other Santa-seeing flat earthers, it has left you in a ( ) state where your perception is ( ), in a similar was as a Scientologist cult follower manages to warp their own perceptions in order to fall for such fairy tale. Perhaps you should break ranks with the average person on the right a learn to ( )."

Yes, it would probably be nice if there was some semblance of civility between the two parties, but most folks on the right aren't even remotely interested in such notion, nor would they know about how to go about participating in bi-partisan anything anyway. In fact, their "cultural leaders"(Rush, Malkin, Hannity, and all the other droolers)do just about everything possible to discourage such relations. But this is actually one of their strengths. The left, or what is left of the left, are too soft and trying to use rationality and intelligence to deal with the morons. Doesn't really work very well. If there is going to be some sort of bipartisan anything it's necessary for BOTH sides to be rational. The right are not for the most part. It's like a scientist trying to debate "creationism" with a glazy-eyed born again Christian, or perhaps trying to have a rational conversation with an indoctrinated Scientologist. Virtually impossible. And while it's admirable that the left seeks to take the higher road, it simply doesn't work most of the time, and, in fact, helps to defeat their own agenda. They need to quit being so nice and start kicking some butt in good old fashion labor strike days i.e., when the left had balls. The movement to the irrational right has gone on too long, and as could EASILY be seen in recent history i.e., with the tragedy of the Bush years, this sort of irrationality is NOT wanted, nor appreciated, much anywhere in the entire world outside a few criminal-minded social Darwinists whom feel they can make buck off it somehow. The left needs to start kicking arse. There lack of doing so is the problem. We need another 60's type movement, though MUCH stronger. Of course we'll have to peel the young droolers away from American Idol long enough to read Chomsky, Zinn, and other moral and rational folks.

Why are you still babbling about neo-Marxism when you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about Marxism in the first place. Now, which of Zinn's books did you said you've read?

helter, firstly, you haven't shown that I have "proved your point" about anything. Your point was to imply that the 60's were somehow bad. My point was that on the contrary, they were one of the best times in U.S. history. And folks who try and reduce all of the activism of the 60s down to Haight-Ashbury simply haven't a clue, not that there was anything much wrong with Haight beyond the predictable excesses which often accompany breaking the chains of indoctrination and the joy which accompanies it. The Haight hippies account for, I'd say, about .0000001% of the movement, though often a loud part, thank God. YOU seem to have missed MY main point with relation to cultural and intellectual improvements i.e., all of the various movements which were launched, and which you, unappreciatively, benefit from nowadays. Probably wouldn't hurt for you to study a little history so that you might know how. And you are probably NOT going to find such TRUTHFUL history by many folks from the right i.e., those whom are dedicated to creating nice sounding, feel-good, fairy tales about history which insulate the folks like you from ACTUAL, often uncomfortable history, which, I'm sorry to say, really DOES include some not so nice instances. Most on the left are more committed to acknowledging our shortcomings and those of our country, instead of, like many on the right wish to remain blissfully ignorant of, and prefer to wallow around in denial, all the while mistakenly believing themselves to be patriots of some sort. By the way, which of Zinn's books did you say you had read? ;)

You got THAT right, Gombei!

Thanks yabits!

Yes, it really does take much more courage to tell the truth than it does to lie simply to excuse some of your own teams misbehaviors. And there's one surefire way of determining just who the pseudo-patiots are. They're usually the ones who would hear such honesty, the type Zinn, Chomsky, Said, and others have to offer, and interpret what they say as "anti-American".

Anyway....Moving on.....

Simple-minded quote of the day:

"No, they're for the Marxist retreads who are clinging onto their 1960's glory days."helter skelter

Firstly, still haven't demonstrated that you have any conception of what Marxism is. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated Zinn to be a Marxist. Thirdly, you seem to be implying, perhaps sarcastically, not to mention VERY incorrectly, that there was something wrong with the 1960's i.e., one of the most significant periods of the entire history of the U.S., as far as making advancements both culturally and intellectually. Of course there were the droolers attempting to impede progress then, as there always are, but for the most part they failed. Thanks to the moral majority, e.g. most all of the left i.e.,those who fought for civil rights(slightly earlier), women's rights, minority rights, animal rights, environmentalism, solidarity movenments, anti-war movements, and all of those other "horrors"(in the blind eyes of the right that is), the U.S. 'almost' began to become somewhat civil. Still lagging far behind many European countries in many repsects e.g., unions, free education, healthcare, and other such basics which any, even remotely, civil society would have, but still pulled us out of the antics of the racist right, etc...Yeah, those 60's were sure a "low point". I mean, just look at the list I left above of what those damn hippies started. Just horrible! They even had the nerve to make questioning authority seem reasonable. Jeez!

Personally, I prefer the Realism of The Pentagon Papers to the fiction written by the enemies of truth and history, in which attempts are made to create nice sounding fairy tales for its citizens to consume and unquestioningly believe. I simply find non-fiction much more interesting than fiction. Also, it's much more entertaining to watch the resposnses of those encountering reality, perhaps for the first time, when folks like Zinn simply observe very simple and basic historical facts. Facts which often clash with the internalized fairy tales of the pseudo-patriots. That being said, Marx in Soho is good, too.

And what does a Marxist criticism of capitalism have to do with one being a Marxist. Anyone can make a Marxist critique of any system, but it helps to know what the critique is first. Marx wrote primarily about capitalism, and anyone whom even has a cursory knowledge of his work, or most any Marx scholars, says that he would probably not have found what has been done in his name repulsive. One must wonder how, where, and why anyone would have gotten any other impression.

"We need more Marxists? I don't think so."

Two responsese to such comment. First, is that he was not a Marxist. Secondly, folks whom usually offer this charge know neither Zinn's work, NOR Marx's work. There are usually several easy ways to determine where they fall on the naivete scale. They attempt to offer arguments saying that places like China, Cuba, etc...are examples of what Marxism leads to, regardless of the fact that Marx would have despised most of these for the most part. Secondly, they have usually never read more than a phrase or two of Zinn's, an then incorrectly deduce that they know his positions. They don't. It's easy to demonstrate as well. However, I have actually met three people in the past 10 years, folks from the right, whom did read him (and Chomsky) after being challenged. Two of the three changed their positions and admitted their prior position as being incorrect. So, I guess there are actually a few folks on the right who aren't so thoroughly indoctrinated that they are unable to actually read and understand a book or two.

I agree with fromeurope. Blair is being "grilled", though not much will probably happen. But given the U.S. has never committed a crime in its entire history, the notion of a grilling, trail, much less hanging, don't even make sense to the well indoctrinated pseudo-patriots. BUSH, started the crime, and he did so long before he was even in office. 9/11 was a Godsend for him and offered him a pretext (the fairy tale link between Osama and Iraq) to start his illegal invasion. Bottom line is that either the U.S. and its leaders be held accountable to international law like everyone else, or the U.S. should be booted out of the U.N. and any other civil organization, and should be boycotted by all civilized countries which DO wish to be civil and participate, lawfully, in the world community.

tmarie, your statement reminds me of another odd aspect to the culture I'd be curious to know if anyone here has experienced. Upon meeting a new lady of whom I've become involved, she doesn't seem to understand why I'm so attached to my son even though I've divorced, and she has remarried. She thought my son now had a new father and wondered why I was still concerned about him. I've had to repeatedly remind her that I am his father, and will always be his father, regardless of the fact that his mother now sleeps with another guy(though she's divorcing again) She seems to think that I should just forget about it/him now that my ex is remarried. It isn't like she militant about it, but rather that she just thought this was normal in such relationships in Japan. Has anyone here heard or expereinced this before?

I agree with sabiwabi 100%. He represents exactly those aspects of the U.S.(or humanity in general)which, if utilized, are greatest i.e., honesty, regardless of whether or not this incriminates his "own team", activism, which he demonstrated does work when committed, fearlessness, in spite of the fact that many of his racist critics and ignorant detractors are always trying to pull things backwards, and on and on....His accomplishments are too numerous to mention here, at least to those who know them, and should NOT be forgotten. I've seen him speak, and corresponded with him on several occasions, and he was always pleasant and willing to talk to "the average folk". He was NOT even close to being one of the "ivory tower" intellectuals, which, unfortunately, some slip into. He encouraged citizens to participate in their democratic system, honored it, and participated in it. He WILL be missed.

Japan needs to bring itself into at least the 20th century regarding this issue. I, too, have had to endure having my child being taken away and told by three lawyers that I basically have NO rights, regardless of the fact that my ex-wife was the reason for our divorce(and her mother even supported ME in this case), regardless that she had promised to adhere to a list of things I wanted for my son which I believed to be in his best interest(before I'd agree to a divorce), but immediately tossed as soon as the divorce was complete, and much more. In the states I would have custody, full custody, in a heartbeat. And, on top of having my child stolen, I'm also compelled to pay her 50,000 yen per month, which I don't mind as long as I know that it's ALL going to my son, which I'm almost positive less than half is, otherwise she will yank what meager visitation I have. Basically it's blackmail for visitation, which, incidentally I was promised would beat least 3 or 4 times a week, but upon the papers coming through, she tried to change to twice a month. I responded that there was no way in hell I'd settle for that. And, I absolutely would have taken my son, regardless of whether or not I was arrested. I would have made as huge an incident out of this as possible. She finally agreed to once a week. Still a far cry fro the 3-4 per week initially agreed to.

So, in conclusion, these antiquated custody laws need to change. I mean, given the number of women I see driving with their children between them and the steering wheel, or behind their backs, or allowing them to stand up in the seats and windows, or leave them in the car to go play pachinko, or shop, or whatever, I hardly think the blanket "rule" that the wife automatically gets custody needs to change. TODAY!

Oh, and Branded, what "democracy is all about" is for the government which they've voted into office to inform its citizens what their up to i.e., in THEIR, the citizens, name. In this case, that would be informing the citizens that they've been supporting Saddam for 30 years, and in turn Ali, before, during, and after he committed his and Ali's crimes.

The people should have known about this from the time Saddam was ushered into power with the assistance of the CIA during his tenure as an assassin. The public should have been being informed the entire time he was in power of the crimes he committed. The people should have known everything about Saddam since their money was going to supporting him.

So, my question for you is why they didn't? Why, to this day, to we STILL have people whining that "Saddam gassed his own people" as a justification for the U.S.'s illegal and criminal invasion? Where is the rest of the story? Why, in their mind, do they not seem to be willing of such basics? And why do they respond so irrationally when informed of the basics?

sarge said:

"OK, featherhead, rather than getting into an argument which is sure to go nowhere fast, let's just keep it simple for starters. Can you admit that you were wrong about Rush getting his "documents" from the National Enquirer?"

Actually, no, I will not admit I was wrong because my comment was obvious facitious in order to stress a point. His sources usually are crap, or he takes real sources out of context or misreads them(if he understood them in the first place), and on and on...Now, back to MY more important question, the question which depending on your answer will demonstrate whether or not you'd know were he using the Enquirer or not. Have you read Franken's book, or any other book which shows the lies and distortions of Rush. A VERY simple question. Yes or no will do. I'm STILL waiting.

Okay, Sarge, rather than getting into an argument which is sure to go nowhere fast, let's just keep it simple for starters. Have you read Franken's book about Rush, or ANY other materials written by critics which attempt to prove Rush a buffoon? If so, please give the sources. I'll be waiting.

The Marion said:

"Rush Limbaugh documents every thing he reports"

Yeah, with "documents" which are worthless. For example, if I do a study of the earth's orbit around the sun and I use mounds of scientific journals, studies, etc...to support my arguments, and Rush gets his documents which purport to demonstrate that the sun goes around the earth from the sources like The National Enquirer or it's sister paper The National Review, The Flat Earth Society Journal of Wannabe' Scientists, and My Science is Whatever I Want It To Be: A Journal for Fat, White, Angry Men, I'm sorry to say that his "documents" just don't really mean much. Obviously you haven't read Frnken's book. But this is keeping in line with the typical person who would listen to Rush in the first place. DON'T READ!! And especially DON'T READ ANYTHING, firsthand, from the other side, or ANY other side for that matter. Rush is right about issues, sometimes, like what the weather happens to be that day, assuming the fog he thinks he sees isn'T really just the hazy glaze over his eyes from his drugs, probably mixed with a little viagra.

"on and I would remind you that he is always right in the long run."

You can "remind" me all you want. It means squat until you can demonstrate something.

"Obama is constantly striving to make himself look good"

He doesn't need to strive. Perhaps you're angry because Bush needed to strive to complete a functional three word sentence?

"but he is consistently dropping in the ratings."

I agree with this. And the prmimary reason is that he's becoming to centrist as many on the left feared would happen. He isn't NEARLY as tough as he should be. He isn't going NEARLY as far to the left as he should be. Basically, he's demonstrating that he's too far to the right.

"I did not vote for Obama and I feel it is a dhame we have to wait four years to get rid of him."

And be replaced with whom? Ole' what'shername from Alaska?

"Strange, but daily I get requests from groups I have heard of "to give money for the Haiti problem." I do not trust any of them......."

Yeah, be a good right boy and don't give to poor folks. Give to folks like Madhoff, CEOs, and the people who REALLY need it.

"Nice try but not logical. "The folks who listen to his blather" are actually very many people. And they comprise more than just "5th graders"."

The number of people whom listen to him, and whether or not they comprise more than 5th graders, has nothing to do with my assertion being logical or illogical. And, yes, I'm aware that more than only 5th graders listen to Rush. Perhaps some 4th graders, or folks whom are older, but are still sort of in this realm. Still irrelevant, and has nothing to do with my assertion.

"Your opinion (while valid) does not mean others are invalid just because you have a different opinion."

Why would you think I would assume that? The primary difference being that what I've asserted about Rush being a buffoon who appeals to may folks who know less than he isn't simply an opinion based on nothing. That's more of a right wing way of dealing with things i.e., confusing facts with opinion. If I assert that The earth orbits the sun, and you assert that you think the sun orbits the earth, there IS a difference, and it is NOT simply a difference of opinion. Rush HAS been demonstrated to be a liar and buffoon on countless occasions. And I agree 100% that Rush is pretty effective at what he sets out to do i.e., take money from naive listeners. However, this has nothing to do with him being a buffoon and idiot, which is quite easy to demonstrate, as has been done e.g. in the Franken book. ONE of many examples. What's not logical is to confuse his ability to scam the unsuspecting and naive as a sign that he knows what he's talking about. That would be like saying L. Ron Hubbard knew what he was talking about when creating his sci-fi cult scientology simply because people fell for it. Simply because he was "clever" enough to scam money from folks has nothing to do with what his saying being bunk from top to bottom. Sebastian and many others here have it right.

Overall, Rush is pretty effective at what he sets out to do. See post of Jan. 21st @ 2:43am

"But people make the mistake of thinking he is stupid. He is very clever and he knows exactly what he is doing."

Actually, no, he is NOT clever. He's simply slightly more clever than the folks whom listen to his blather. Many 2nd graders probably think that 5th graders sound intelligent, too. It hardly means they are.