Randi Rhodes & Her Eff’ing Adjectives!

By Road Sage

She pushed the envelope. It was her style.
And it was her personality to get indignant –but mostly about things that mattered. But sometimes her anima would not let things go—once she got her brain’s wires wrapped around it. She just had to follow her dendritic synapses to wherever they led.

And of course she was one who could tell the blatant and unmitigated truth. No mealy-mouther her. No—not Randi Rhodes. But that is why people listened to her—she would often say what other flocks of angels feared not tread. Yeah she had courage and gallantry for a sense of justice—for sure.

That is why she is valuable to a truth-starved society like ours. She could wake people up—that is if she is not upsetting them too much.

But then she called Hillary Clinton a “f**king” whore at a speech event in the Frisco Bay area. It got on the Internet via YouTube and made a splash—daring. So when the stuff it the fan her bosses at Air America suspended her “indefinitely” over the mouthy flap.

Then she quits her radio talk show host job at Air America.

Some rightly protest that Hillary is indeed a whore—so what is the big deal—as they coolly dissect the semantics of “whore” as a person who has sold her soul—not that she went a’whoring for promiscuous sex (although Hillary may have been a “worthy” prostitute in a professional calling?). But now we are to abstract the most general of intuitions about the word “whore” (being such a philosophical culture that we pretend).

Nevertheless, we all pretty much know that the F-word, as a participle, or verbal modifying adjective (verb + -ing), is a major way of condemning the subject. A f**king whore is much more of slam than just the noun. Even lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower, in his esoteric dictionary: “The F Word” (from Random House 1995 @ 232 pages), wrote in the main entry of: ‘F**king adjective’ as: “contemptible or despicable … perhaps taken from opprobrious literal phrase such as f**king whore or f**king bitch …”

Thus the accusation was simply too much in a high stakes game of worldly politics. The ordinary “whore” word is bad enough when speaking of a U.S. Senator—as that noun is a definite demeaning term. But to inflate the insult with that angry guttural, that has a cutting “kick” of a consonant, is too much for nice America. After all, the F-word is not exactly a sensuous word. Rather it is a cutting implosive—all vinegar and no honey.

As importantly: truth hurts. The seeming facts are quite discernable that Clinton compromises too much. But how many public policy whores want to be called such in public? Not many.

Even most professional prostitutes do not go bragging about their profession as something elite—too bad huh? That is too bad prostitution is not once again considered a sacred profession rather than denigrated to the tawdry and philistine mentality of both religious and ideological secular puritans (including some holier than thou feminists)? One has to believe that Xaviera Hollander was, at least at times, a happy hooker—she sure was an intelligent and competently exciting one!

But then there is the delicate issue of attacking Hillary that attacks a family already defensive because her husband once acted a whore. And although he was called many ugly things he was not much called, in the singular standard, “whore”. Nevertheless their family is already on the defense.

Plus anything states as sexual of connotation can bring on all kinds of shame and humiliation thoughts, fears, and feelings. So such high-strung finger-point, for its shock appeal, was bound to reflect at least somewhat badly on its orator. Id est, when criticizing others one tells the world a little something about oneself.

But the sad likelihood is that if Randi Rhodes had to scrutinize scruples about every word or idea she was about to say—we would not have heard the many very worthy things that she spoke that we needed to hear. We need be thankful for the many enlightening things she has taught us as the teacher she has in fact been. But people on the edge often enough eventually do themselves in—like in the dead poets’ society. Call it tragedy.

Still the United States of America needs the likes of Randi Rhodes telling them her truth and her reality—straight up—as much as she sees it in her own peculiar kind of way—as all people are merely human and thus somewhat subjective. Besides, who else out of all talk radio was assigning “reading” chores and discussing politics that others, for the most part, hardly or never breached? Just think about how much more ignorant we would be if we were to rely on mainstream media?

Still Randi needs to be responsible to the greater issues and causes so as not to sabotage her own act and career. She is a critical member of this society.

Fore occasionally she would get too critical for too long rather than letting a dying horse die. And sometimes she would jump to conclusions if she did not understand someone right away or understood something in a subjective way that was in fact more ambiguous—but she seemed to think her interpretation was indeed fact.

Perhaps it is the nature of the beast to be angry about politics and human nature when one is aware of the issues. And when one learns much about human nature, especially in respect to politics, one can become misanthropic and defensive. Or if callers to a talk show, who did not understand as readily as one wished could find curt impatience, etc. Not to mention the turf issue of “who’s” radio show is it anyway?

Also, there is the paranoia issue for talk radio hosts about potential haters and propagandists who try to smear and talk stuff just unacceptable to the host. She had her detractors and people who hate her politics and style.

But while we are collectively soul searching about her leaving Air America under the situation, we might note that we are all, or most of us, compromisers to some extent. We have all acted the prostitute who sold one’s soul (or pieces of the soul) to survive in one form or fashion. Maybe most of us do not make a habit of it, but it is human nature to cheat occasionally—that is to compromise one’s values.

Even Randi Rhodes, when you look at the situation, was not much for criticizing Israel much—if at all. Meanwhile she found ample air time to focus on Saudi Arabia’s down falls (the kind of a Greg Palast trick that pretends to play the rebel outsider sleuth while seeming having likely allied protection within)? But she has rightly and substantially criticized the Neo-cons (as misguided Americans whose allegiance is tied more to Israel). This is as much as one could reasonably expect from the lady of Brooklyn and Air America (whose other talk hosts equally were much mum on Israel’s faults).

Nevertheless, when one spends part of one’s imminent career criticizing the moral failings of others, one can not expect that others will not equally expect more than a kind of empathic vulgarity from a person who does the criticizing—especially when said critic goes to Washington D.C. to interview the high and mighty.

After all, Randi Rhodes does have a sharp tongue. One does not really want to get on her bad side. Still we are all responsible for our actions and social awareness. We all have spiritual lessons to learn in life. When considering the four classic virtues Randi scores very high in courage and justice—but less so in the areas of temperance and prudence.

Equally, humanity can expect too much from the human race. A person can incorporate too much superego idealism in his or her expectations of others, and forget that people are just sophisticated animals trying to survive. So sometimes we have to be willing to do as they do in the East and let go of all preconceived presumptions and judgments that an ego can inspire to be constantly critical of human failing.

Sometimes we need to forgive and forget—including forgiving ourselves so we do not need be so constantly focused on others—who are not yet perfect.

But what is not so amazing is that the mainstream media actually printed the story of Rhodes quitting her job at Air America! Normally the mainstream does not much recognize her. Could it be then that America did in fact get the message about Clinton being a war-mongering prostitute and that this could add to the eventual death knell for Hillary’s campaign?

But even more importantly, Randi Rhodes has passion and commitment—even if sometimes headstrong. Passion, awareness and commitment is something far too lacking in much of mainstream America—which seems non-committed like Camus’ character Meursault in his book The Stranger. It seems that most Americans, in general, are under developed in the potential for being humanely socialized to be aware and human. Some have noted that even saints have at times acted with faults, and although few would claim Randi a saint, at least most could say: “thank you Ms. Randi Rhodes for caring a great deal. And thank you for your imperfect self—at least you are out there fighting for a difference”.