|
Did The ACLU Really Defend Rush
Limbaugh?
I have had a number of emails sent to me
that refer to the ACLU supposedly “defending” Rush Limbaugh. I found
that there are several places online that speak of such also.
Back in January 2004, the ACLU published
the following page, “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:”
Click
Here.
The title of
the above online page looks quite impressive:
"ACLU Asks Court to
Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records
(1/12/2004)”
At first glance, one may think that the
ACLU was working for Rush Limbaugh during his case. Seriously, read
the article. The ACLU makes them self out to be Rush’s knight in
shining armor. If one did not know better, one may actually be
impressed. But some of us know better.
Some of us are well aware of how the ACLU
operates. We know that the ACLU purposes them self to get involved
in situations that get them attention and make them look
“good.”
Many of us were also taught a simple
little lesson as children; we were taught to never take candy
from a stranger. Many of us are not fooled by grannies with huge
teeth and bulging eyes, either.
Power of Persuasive
Thought
Manipulative measures are nothing new.
Getting on board a catastrophe to make oneself look good is nothing
new. Giving unsolicited “help” to seek indebtedness from another
person is nothing new. And we all know that boasting of a “good
deed” after the deed is done is nothing new.
I believe that the ACLU has a very clever
way of putting things to the general public. They have a way of
using the power of persuasive thought.
Check out this
article that I found on “persuasive thought” that tells how to win
people over to one’s way of thinking: Click
Here
Some highlights:
"Demonstrate
your sense of fair play."
"Speak expressly in terms of the truth of
what happened and the fair and just resolution of the dispute. By
speaking of truth and fairness as shared values, you reinforce in
your listener's mind your own adherence to these values."
"Be honest. For purposes of persuasion,
it is the perception of integrity that matters. It is possible to
create that perception without a basis in fact, but doing so is much
harder and more uncertain."
One thing I notice that the ACLU does is
that they often take something that they have done and
make it
sound good when it was bad. In the same way, they take an action by
them of little or no
worth and make it sound of great
worth.
Thought
Inuendoes
It is the way in which they present it to
the public. For instance, some of you may recall a
documentary
on the ACLU site. The documentary paints the founder of the ACLU as
some kind of hero for refusing to defend our nation in WWI. The
ACLU, by way of innuendo over-tones, portrays Roger Baldwin as a
hero. (Click
Here)
If I tell you something bad, but I tell
you it in a good way, you will think that which is bad, is good.
And if I boast of my actions in a
situation, which were really nothing great, but I word things to
make my actions sound great, you will think I did something great.
People have a natural tendency to just
believe, that which is said with a positive innuendo over-tone,
often never checking things out.
Friend-of-the-court
brief
The following is an excerpt from the
(1/12/2004) ACLU write-up of what they “did” for Rush
Limbaugh:
“The ACLU's request to submit a
‘friend-of-the-court’ brief on behalf of Limbaugh was filed today
with the Fourth District Court of Appeal.”
On the surface this looks like the ACLU
was part of the case. But when one seeks answers, as to just what a
“’friend-of-the-court’ brief” actually is; one will find the
following:
Amicus curić
Amicus curi'span (Latin for
friend of the court; plural amici curi'span>) briefs are legal
documents filed by non-litigants in appellate court cases, which
include additional information or arguments that those outside
parties wish to have considered in that particular case. (www.reference.com)
Conclusion
Someone, who is not party to a case,
files a "friend-of-the-court" brief. In other words, the ACLU was
not directly involved in Rush Limbaugh's case. The ACLU was an
outside party.
Some people would see the ACLU going to
bat for Rush Limbaugh in any way as a kind and fair act. But what
those people may not realize is that such an act is actually quite a
strategic move. It is like letting someone take your castle in the
game of chess because you know such a move will set you up to get
his queen.
Also, such an effortless tossing of
crumbs on the part of the ACLU tends to gain support from onlookers,
hence, getting more people into the ACLU corner.
One last thought: There is an
interesting thing about the game of chess. There is no rule saying
that a player has to take his opponents piece.
Debra
J.M. Smith
© Copyright 2006 July 9,
2006 | 