Rusty Humphries: New favorite wingnut
Published by Mike Stark March 8th, 2006 in Podcast, Rusty HumphriesHe couldn’t bring himself to say that it was wrong for Rachel Corrie to be run over by a bulldozer.
Ya know… I wish I had thought of it, but China didn’t run over that student in Tiananmen Square - you remember, the one that wouldn’t let the tank pass…
Want a good cry? If you haven’t yet, read Rachel’s letters home…
RIP Rachel… I still think of you.
Rachel Corrie
4/10/79 - 3/16/03
32 Responses to “Rusty Humphries: New favorite wingnut”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
You can donate through PayPal in two ways:
Make a one-time donation for the amount entered below and you're billed once, that's it.
Make a recurring monthly donation that bills you monthly for the amount entered below.
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Go Mike, Go
If it’s insane, it’s gotta be on the right! Way to go mike, you drove off a few of his listeners, I’m sure of it.
Damn, I wanna call that retarded mutherfucker…
Where is he?
he just went off the air, but you can find his number and an internet stream to listen to him on in the “Wingnut Directory” linked near the top of this page.
That guy is a spaz, when he said you should check yourself in to a hospital and get an injection of ‘reality’, you should have said “only if you go first”
I don’t think you made a very good argument with the guy. The Rachel Corrie thing was stupid, because you have no proof that it was done on purpose. If it was an accident, then it was not morally “wrong.” And if it was done on purpose, then it was an act of murder committed by one individual without authority to committ that act. It’s not like Ariel Sharon ordered the death of Rachel Corrie. There were many conflicting accounts of what happened.
Plus, if you believe that America should stay out of the affairs of the Middle East and the Muslim world, then that should include people like Rachel Corrie.
It was also very naive of you to assume that if we left the Muslim world alone that we would have no issues with them. I didn’t hear the full context of the conversation, but the cartoon controversy has nothing to do with American foreign policy, but has to do with fundamelists who believe that if you have their religion that they have the right to retaliate with violence.
typo - offend their religion
They are proud that she died. They think she deserved it. That’s why they won’t say it was wrong to run her over with a bulldozer.
Of course, had she been pregnant, I can only imagine the screams and cries and gnashing of teeth.
Culture of life my ass.
Mike, you are right on money. It is essentially a political conflict that protects interests of elites. Religion and ethnicity is being used to box us into black and white thinking. Right wingers love to use middle east religous zealosts as straw man to knock down whole region but are always apologist for people like Pat Robertson. Like liberal democratic Middle East with emancipation of women would not oppose outsiders meddling in their affairs and controling their land and resources.
Rachel Corrie was an angel.
These nuts would be knocking down Jesus if he ressurected and opposed their policies.
Rachel Corrie was an innocent wraped up in something that she truly did not understand.
Please note that shortly after corrie’s death, the idf raided one of ism’s offices to arrest Shadi Sukiya, an Islamic Jihad terrorist, who was in hiding there.
The ISM has been known to harbor terrorists, and therefore alligning oneself with that organization is not the brightest thing to do.
Why dont any of her letters talk about her work with the palestinians to stop the suicide bombers? dont they kill innocents too?
Guys, im a lib….but the mideast conflict is much more complex than saying, “israel is wrong and evil”
Funny how Rachel noted the Israeli policy of not running over “white” people.
My brother in law is Israeli….hes not white…if you saw him, he could easily pass for someone of arab descent, as his family is originally from Morocco.
Please take a look at this photo essay alledgedly of Rachel’s death, and ask yourself a few questions.
http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/1248
If indeed these are pics of the death of Rachel Corrie, why skip the most important pic? where are the pics of the bulldozer running over Corrie?
Rachel Corrie’s death was tragic. But she played a dangerous game.
Kids, dont try this one at home.
MSNBC alludes to Bill’s threatening rant in their promo for Olbermann’s show. They refer to “kieth Obermann” as the two words Bill O’rielly fears and wants to ban from the airwaves. haha
Wow, great site man, I drive for a shuttle company and wind up listening to these right-wing tools all the time, so it’s nice to see a bit of reality poke thru the slimey veneer that tends to cover most conservative talk radio. One question. Is it illegal for you to tape the conversations w/ the screeners? Though having someone get cut off w/out getting on the air would reach less people, I can’t tell you how valuable a tape of somebody w/ reasonable points getting basically banned from a program would be in convincing people that take these shows as “real” of the true nature of these shows, and just how controlled and, well, disingenuous, they really are.
Re: recording screeners…
would be legal for me since I’m in NY, but I jsut don’t have the technology
If wingnuts believe we should be interferring with affairs of the Middle East, then they should not have a problem with Rachel being there.
If we were not putting ourselves in the middle of Middle East politics, most of those people would not even know who we are. The only reason they know who we are and hate us is because their religious leaders are all pissed off at us for interferring, so they renounce us and out actions.
Mike, you are just too close to see this properly… in other words, you are just plain wrong. Humphries does say it is wrong that RC was run over by a bulldozer, just not in the exact words that you seem to require. He said in response to you, “no one wants to see anyone die,” and then (reasonably) tried to clarify whether rc’s being run over was intentional AND if that was the actual thrust of your question.
Just because you are are convinced that her death was an intentional act of murder does not make it so, nor does it justify characterizing Humphries as you do. BTW, for responsible treatments of the death of Ms. Corrie, I would refer you to Mother Jones magazine or Wikipedia.
Eric:
Agree and disagree. Agree that Wikipedia has good info on Rachel.
Disagree with your sentiments regarding Humphries. When I asked him to hear, just once, a winger condemn the death of Rachel - for which there was no excuse - he clearly said “Not me.”
People aren’t run over by a bulldozer by accident. Even if you don’t accept the fact that she was “run over” - if, perhaps, you believe that she was hit by falling debris (as per Israeli claim), it was still wrong. They knew she was blocking the bulldozer - she was standing in front of it with a megaphone, I believe…
If you know you have protestors in a dangerous construction area, you have choices. You can arrest them. Disperse them with tear gas. What you don’t do is kill a young woman with a bulldozer. Just no fucking excuse. Accidents like that don’t happen. At best, it’s gross negligence.
Mike,
You are running a “When did you stop beating your wife?” rhetorical game. Your framing of the question is simply loaded with additional assumptions. As clearly as RH refused to agree to your characterization, he also clearly replied that “no one wants to see anyone die,” as already pointed out.
As far as “People aren’t run over by a bulldozer by accident,” this is merely a silly assertion, one that flies in the face of the actual dangers that the circumstances in question clearly invited… and are possible even in a tightly controlled construction site.
So let us assume it is negligence, in that case, must one “condemn” her death, or may one simply regret all unneccessary deaths (as Mr. Humphries did), without dragging in the propaganda agenda of one side or the other?
Eric:
I guess we both have our own versions of reality. In my version, when a crew is aware of protestors in the area and doesn’t clear them out before operating a bulldozer, they are at fault.
I won’t attempt to speak for what color the sky is in your world…
And it is clear to everyone that heard the show that Rusty’s regrets for an accident came only after he blamed the victim and was backed into a corner - after I suggested that they could have cleared the ocnstruction zone with tear gas…. Only then did he show any regret for her death. Until that point, he rather proudly, declined to say that there was anything wrong.
Your defense of this guy is really beyond my ability to comprehend.
Mike,
As far as I know, the sky above me is blue, and I would guess that yours is too; it is your inability to comprehend things that is the problem.
First, I must let you know that I regularly seethe with anger and righteous indignation when I listen to a Limbaugh or Wilkow or Hannity or whomever spout thier never-ending stream of lies and distortions… so in the larger view of talk radio, we are on the same side. Just in this case, I don’t think you are close to ready for a victory dance. Instead, it seems to me that you are engaging in your own uncritical left oriented groupthink in perfect symmetry to the right wing version.
If you think that there are simple or obvious protocols in place for bulldozer operators operating in the unstable rubble of a war zone, surrounded by all manner of protestors - Europeans, Americans and Palestinians, than you are selling yourself a bill of goods. The Israelis have shown, that despite their supposed “military superiority,” that they are capable of making every kind of mistake on the ground, particularly when dealing with new situations.
By the way, in the Mother Jones account ( http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_497_01.html - and this is a venerable hard left magazine) the IDF DID fire tear gas, warning shots and even stun grenades in an attempt to remove Rachel and her fellow members of the ISM.
And as far as “blaming the victim,” it should be acknowledged that sometimes the “victims” do contribute to their own victimization. In matters of attributing blame, declaring victory, and debating generally, one is best to approach arguments dispassionately, without loaded language, or insult.
Eric S makes some very good points, Mike. Which is why as much as I would love to see someone on the left rip into Humphries, I don’t think you did a good job. You shouldn’t fight rightwing bullshit with leftwing bullshit. You should fight their bullshit with absolute, objective truth.
In addition, if the bulldozer operator was “at best” grossly negligent, then so was Rachel Corrie. She knew what she was doing and the risks that she was taking. She had a good heart, but she was blinded by ideology and youth. If I remember correctly, she knew very little about the conflict before she went there. She went there on a whim. I also find it disturbing that in one of her last letters home, she seemed to be justifying suicide bombings. She was no longer there for peace. She chose a side. The photograph of her burning a paper American flag in Gaza is very sad. It does nothing to bring peace. It helps inflame the rage.
Whatever you feel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the IDF does not purposely target innocents (I’m sure there are a few exceptions by rogue actors), but suicide bombers look to kill as many civilians as possible. They uses bombs filled with nails doused in rat poison. Israel tries to minimize civilian deaths, because it causes them problems with the international community and feeds anti-Israel propaganda. If the Israelis wanted to commit a genocide against the Palestinians (which Rachel Corrie believed), they could do so very easily.
I agree with Mike’s larger point. Our blind support of Israel is harmful to all sides. A good friend would not help someone go down a very self destructive path. If Ms. Corrie was a U.S. protester with cameras and she was STILL run over by a bulldozer then what of the reports of houses collapsing on Palestinian families?
I just read the entire Mother Jones peice. My views are even more firmly entrenched. The peice confirms that even though they supposedly used tear gas and shock grenades to disperse the protestors, they knew the protestors remained.
The conflict is undoubtedly a messy one, but Israel is doing an awful lot to bring terror on themselves. If my family was treated the way they treat the Palistinians, I’d be more than a little tempted to exact my pound of flesh. Sure, the peacemaking Ghandi route is the way to go, but it’s kinda hard to ask an entire abused population to be Ghandis.
Burning the American flag was an unfortunate happenstance. All that does, however, is make her a less sympathetic figure because we have a visceral reaction to that picture.
That set of circumstances says nothing about the circumstances of Rachel’s death.
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t more unity on this issue… She was there for peace. And she was killed. And some of you make excuses for it.
I don’t mean to insult when I talk about the color of the skies in our respective worlds… but there is just no way - especially after reading the MJ article - that I could ever say that htis was anything but a crime (and probably done with criminal intent - not a crime of negligence).
Mike you said “Israel is doing an awful lot to bring terror on themselves. If my family was treated the way they treat the Palistinians, I’d be more than a little tempted to exact my pound of flesh.” Well, doesn’t the same go for the Israelis. If your kid was blown to pieces while eating at a pizzeria, you probably wouldn’t care about making peace with the Palestinians or how they are treated. Or about when they set off a suicide bomb and then when ambulances arrive, they set off a second bomb to kill the EMT’s. That’s far more than a reaction to oppression. Keep in mind that the people who organize these bombings, Hamas and others, do not want a peace deal. Some of the Palestinians want to negotiate a fair deal. Others will not give up until they have everything and they are willing to wait hundreds of years to make it happen. And they will do whatever they can to stop moderate Palestinians from negotiating peace. Arafat knew that if he ever finally agreed to give up the “Right to Return” for refugees, that he was a dead man.
This is a conflict that will never end, because extremists on both sides will always sabotage any agreement. Both sides are victims of circumstances.
I agree with just about everything you said Jesse… the only thing that I would point out is that, right now, Israel has the powerful upper hand. They have the ability to utterly destroy the day to day lives of tens of thousands of people… As such, I think they might have a greater burden to act responsibly…
But as far as this thing going on forever… I blame the Muslim world for that. Too many people that want peace will never have it because some stubborn fundamentalist just won’t let Israel have any peace.
This is a tar-baby issue. Every attempt to engage it just leaves you more soiled than before…
Mike,
I am not surprised that your views are intractable, and this is possibly your gravest rhetorical weakness. I have read the same piece and I am comfortable understanding the exact causes of RCs death may never be known. At the same time, I can easily accept that the small Israeli crew had a job to do whether or not protestors remained, and made a decision which proved to have tragic consequences. Perhaps you have never worked on a construction site, or in a war zone, or surrounded by screaming protestors, or as the responsible party within a military chain of command on field operations. One should consider all these conditions simultaneously (as well as others) before being so hardened in what is no more than speculation on your part.
If you could somehow receive the hardwired truth from the very bulldozer operator, and it indicated to you that this event was entirely unintended, would that change your mind in any way? I would hope so; and yet you are committed to avoiding even considering that possibility. That’s a page from the wingnut playbook, as Jesse has already pointed out.
With respect to your comments that Israel is doing an awful lot to bringing terror upon itself, you seem to be entirely comfortable here in “blaming the victim,” yourself. And without going into a long song and dance on the history of the conflict, I will point out (with respect to victimization) that the Palestinians had an entirely different circumstance prior to their own initiation of the second intifada. I am not sure that the worst enemy of the Palestinian peoples might not turn out to be the PLO, or their Arab neighbors. These notions, as well as many others, must be considered before one can claim with any authority that the Israelis are the responsible party for the current state of Palestine.
This time, Eric, I will agree with much of what you’ve written…
But my views with regards to Rachels death will not change. (Nor, it seems, will yours. Perhaps we are wingnuts with diff’t stripes?) It was needless and criminal. I have spent 4 years in the Marine Corps… Never in such a high pressure situation, to be sure, but that’s quite irrelevant.
There was clearly no “critical” mission that had to be accomplished in this case… and the article states quite clearly that they new protestors were in the area.
After reading about the 3 ISM kids that were subsequently shot, and after witnessing a child shot in his fathers arms, I have no love for the IDI…
I’d like to ask your background - because I have a feeling that you are more than a dispassionate observer… I’m sure we agree on much more than we disagree, but this issue is usually intractable for a reason…
I would like to point out that Rachel Corrie was engaged in the exact kind of non-violent protest that the Israeli’s would have Palestine embrace instead of suicide bombers. Of course, I’m sure Israel would rather that Palestine just defer to them in every instance with nary a protest, but Rachel WAS being responsible. She was trying to change the situation WITHOUT resorting to violence.
And, FWIW, I agree with Mike. If they could not safely remove the danger of the situation through tear gas or through physical removal of the protestors, then those bulldozers had exactly ZERO business continuing to operate. Why? Because it risked human life.
Rachel was risking her life. Not only in the face of the bulldozer’s, but also the danger implicit in professed reason for the bulldozer’s existence: hidden bombs and explosives. The guy in the bulldozer was protected by armor. Rachel had nothing but her jacket.
She was a non-violent actor trying to change the situation in an incredibly violent area. She was the very definition of courage and yet the right wing loves to devalue her and her death. Blame her for making the poor IDF kill her. It is despicable.
Mike,
I appreciate what you are doing.
I would also ask other commenters on this string to focus on the larger goal:
Developing logical and rational responses to right wing talking points and exposing their inherent fallacies.
Criticism is tough. But criticism refines argument. That being said, if we are all on the same team then we need to (gently) point out when we could be more clear or persuasive.
What you are doing is very difficult. You are trying to argue, live, with people trained to debate.
So, for everyone who wants Mike to succeed, let’s take it easy on him. Also, Mike, when people disagree with you on particular points they may still agree with your larger position: right wing radio is harmful and without accountability.
Mike, keep up the good fight. Others, let’s keep the criticism constructive and be mindful that Mike is trying the best he can.
Ken
Ken,
I don’t think you need to worry about Mike. Think about it.
Mike’s been calling wingnuts for quite awhile. He’s undoubtedly got one of the thickest hides around. I doubt a little criticism from friendly guests OR trolling winguts is going to phase him in the slightest.
manyoso,
Yes, I’m sure he’s got a thick hide. But I just didn’t want this site to turn into shouting match between folks on the same team.
I really think Mike is on to something. These talk shows are not a good thing. And, to be honest, I don’t think the left’s versions (i.e. Air America) are a good thing either.
But this site can serve to coordinate and refine arguments, and I don’t want the larger purpose to be lost.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this site really took off… It could be a C&L but with a direct influence on the media presented (rather than passively reporting it alongside commentary).
Ken
Mike,
“I have a feeling that you are more than a dispassionate observer…” You are right, I am a passionate observer. And certainly, we agree more than we disagree, but I feel very strongly that the left (of which I consider myself a part, in part) has lost its way on a number of issues, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the most significant.
My background? Short and most relevant answer: I am an American Jewish filmmaker in a mixed marriage with two kids. I have no connections to any organized political groups excepting a 30 year membership in the Democratic party. I have had the benefit of a superior education, extensive travel and even more extensive reading. Finally, I live not too far from you, near Monticello, New York, after almost 50 years in NYC.
“After reading about the 3 ISM kids that were subsequently shot, and after witnessing a child shot in his fathers arms, I have no love for the IDI…”
Who can “love” an armed force (unless one is a member and even then….)? But the IDF is probably among the most responsible and civil armed forces in the world… if not the most. Do not confuse and “army” with the policies it is obliged to carry out. The IDF is a multi-ethnic, two gender force (with its reserves that make up a significant percentage of its personel) that include the bulk of Israeli citizens. It is not an uneducated group of mercenaries or a bunch of wild-eyed ideologues, but a true citizen’s defense force manned by people who genuinely believe that their country is worth defending.
And if by “…witnessing a child shot in his fathers arms,” you mean Mohammed al-Dura, the famous video of whose death was a significant part of the ramping up of the second intifada - I have some news for you… news that you are sorely late in hearing. Al-Dura was not killed by the IDF, and no responsible party is currently in a position to claim this. In fact, it appears likely that he was shot by his own, particularly since the Palestinian stringer who videotaped him for French television, Talal Abu Rahme, has recanted his original story. There has been much credible reportage on this matter since the original controversy has died down, but it has gotten only the smallest fraction of attention… fancy that. Bottom line, the left has been repeatedly lied to and systematically fooled in Palestine, largely with their own complicity.
That’s enough for now.
-Eric