Monday, January 17

NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY with Sean Hannity

From the fingernails-scraping-across-a-blackboard department:

If you've never listened to Sean Hannity, you probably haven't heard his usual greeting to callers: When they greet him (as they usually do) not with "Hi, Sean, thanks for taking my call" but with "Hi, Sean, you're a great American," Hannity responds with "Thanks, my friend, you're a great American."

Presumably Sean doesn't know anything about the character about his multitude of callers, so his only means of judging their patriotism is their opinion of him. That, evidently, is all he needs to know.

In Sean Hannity's world, if you think HE's a great American, he returns the favor. With these bozos, their egos know no bounds.

Today, Sean was abusing a poor lady (I came in late, so can't identify her) who must be associated with the "Not One Damn Dime Day" protest. His main charge, which he leveled repeatedly until she was obviously disoriented, was that liberals don't give a flip about the little people who will be economically adversely affected by the boycott: waitstaff, fast food workers, etc. "You liberals pretend to care but you don't give them a thought when you're planning such an irresponsible, pointless protest" was his theme. As if the wingers give a darn about such people.

It's the same old argument right-wingers have used for nearly a century to oppose unions: the poor union members are betrayed by their leaders, who insist on strikes that cause their members economic hardship. The fact that the strike is all about the FUTURE and that workers are persuaded that their current sacrifice for a common cause will bring them future benefits, is exactly the argument the Repugs want you to overlook. Instead, their position is, "Those poor people are suffering because the liberals are trying to make a point!" As if the masters could be trusted to do the right thing without suffering some economic hardship themselves. The lady asserted that anyone affected has already been victimized far more by the Bush agenda, to Sean's indignance. Poor people, indeed. As if they care. Sean betrayed his real agenda when he asked the lady if she thought the 10% of the wealthiest Americans are paying too much taxes when they "pay 70% of federal income taxes." THAT's who he cares about. (Incidentally, Sean stated that 50% of his income goes to taxes; I'd love to see that documented.)

Sean's against the boycott (big surprise! if it were the Dixie Chicks it would be a different matter) and has predicted its utter futility. That's reason enough for me to support it. It's not as if I expect BushCo to correct its course as a result; sometimes protests are just that, PROTESTS, an opportunity for the voiceless to speak. If it gets media attention when millions of anti-war protestors couldn't get decent coverage pre-Iraq invasion, it will have fulfilled its purpose, that of expressing opposition to Bush's policies. When our Democratic leaders are too often too cowed by whatever forces to call a Republican outrage an outrage, the people have to speak for themselves.

There are better ways than admiration for Sean Hannity to earn the soubriquet, "a great American."


Post a Comment

<< Home