What happens when you go down the liberal rabbit hole too far? You turn into angry, deranged malcontents like Roger Ebert and John Cusack. Most liberals venture though a few Alice in Wonderland type doorways of progressivism, partake in some weird sexual acts, experiments with drugs, and economic absurdity—enough so, that when they resurface and interact with the real world, they come across as naive-but-well-intentioned public policy clowns.
Roger Ebert? He’s went to the liberal depths of the earth without adequate scuba gear, came up too fast, and the bends did some weird things to his mind. As it stands, he only gets excited for movies like The Woodsman, and heroes like Hit Girl scare him. He also calls it a “crime against America” for radio hosts and pundits to ignore…a non issue:
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh must join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in particular must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he believes the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have evidence, or does he have none? Yes or no.
To do anything less at this troubled time in our history would be a crime against America.
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think Barack Obama is a Muslim. However, it’s completely legitimate to wonder about someone who thinks dialogue is possible with Holocaust denying loons like Ahmadinejad. And it’s very rational to have concerns about a president who essentially goes on an American apology tour to start off his term. Anyone who remembers when President Obama said “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” understands why conservatives question his judgement. American Exceptionalism is REAL, and President Obama openly stated that he doesn’t believe in it. That’s scary.
But back to the point: The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators weren’t flying airlines filled to the brim with jet fuel into large metropolitan areas. The last time I checked they weren’t threatening to kill the creators of South Park or Facebook over the jihad excuse de jour. And the last time I checked they weren’t advocates of stoning.
With that said, there is one group of people who are largely silent when it comes to real, concrete, in-your-face instances of “crimes against America.” If Roger Ebert wants to play that game, I’m more than happy to do so while ignoring the nuances of the real world. If “silence” is now an indictment for conservative talk show hosts who don’t wail and moan and beat themselves with chains, Ashura-style, when Roger Ebert claps his fat, then I suggest applying that logic to all religious communities that have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fans within their ranks.
Roger Ebert may not be a supporter of George Bush, but I am. And always will be. When it came to protecting the United States in the face of danger, he was crystal clear where he stood. He was a man of integrity. You may not agree with George Bush on a number of fronts, but anyone who hasn’t delved too far down the rabbit hole knows he’s a man of conviction.
Roger, if you’re reading this, I’ll let you go. I know you have an appointment to watch The Woodsman again, and perhaps to stew over the state of the world some more.