thoughts from an empty head

random thunderstorms from the grey area between my ears

Channeling Your Inner Jackass

Comments

captain oxycontin (by silas216)

DISCLAIMER: This post might end up a bit profane, so if that sort of thing bothers you, feel free to skip ahead. I don’t use profanity much, as I feel that it is the sign of an underdeveloped mind, but sometimes, it’s called for. And believe me, for this subject, it’s called for.

Lately, I’ve been shying away from getting all ranty about the stupidity that is endemic with following political pundits. I mean, what’s the point? Douchebag X says something that’s offensive to anyone with half-a-brain, I and others like me get mad about it, blog about their asshattery, and wait for the next round of stupidity to commence. Sure, outfits like Media Matters are necessary evils for keeping up with all the muck – after all, when some clueless person asks why I wouldn’t listen to Douchebag X even after they came down from Mount Sinai with two hand-carved stone tablets, I can whip out a handy list of reasons why any sensible person would question Douchebag’s sanity – but for someone like me, I can think of better ways to spend my time.

The Bush years were a good time for such asshattery, too. I couldn’t turn on the tube or sit down at my keyboard without being verbally pied in the face by some Douchebag. And there certainly were a plethora to choose from: Hannity with his chest-thumping mealy-mouthed bravado, Coulter with her beady-eyed viciousness, O’Reilly with his loud-drunk-and-groping act, Beck with his commentary style so reminiscent of a 13-year-old kid lighting his farts on fire, Malkin with her screechy self-hatred – the list goes on and on. And for invading my mind and laying their foul eggs of stupidity, I could gladly relegate them to oblivion and never speak of them again for all eternity, content in the knowledge that their repugnant ways will never again darken my personal space.

But one dickhead stands alone among all dickheads. One pathetic worm of a demagogue can always be counted on for statements even more egregious than the last mental farts he provided. He’s been around for what seems like an interminable length of time, spewing his bile, and were he not more proficient in his craft, I might also relegate him to the pile of slain undead wingnuts who shall be named nevermore.

Rush Limbaugh, however, is a special case.

Rush is not the first demagogue to make use of the mass media cesspool that is AM radio. Look back further into the history of this country, and learn the name of Charles Edward Coughlin, should you wish to see just how far back the blight of mass skullfuckery runs in these good ol’ United States of America. He is, however, one of the most effective. In my brief life, I can’t remember a time when Rush wasn’t spewing his repugnant bile, whether on his short-lived TV show or hearing his bloated, self-important tones on a coworker’s radio. I even sat through a few of shows from start to finish to ensure that my initial reaction was correct; sadly, I was only too correct in my impression of this fatuous gasbag.

Recently, I’ve posted a few items in my new second home, FriendFeed, concerning Rush Limbaugh, none of them flattering. Doing such a thing almost always guarantees that a few will come out of the woodwork to comment negatively on my commentaries and views on their hero, and in this venue, such was also the case. Invariably, the question always returns to why such people would use the demented ravings of a divorced drug-addict for moral stability. Many theories are given. Some believe that he is sincere, which, if this is the case, speaks more to the notion of collective dementia than is comfortable to think about. Some believe Rush to be a comedian, usually in the context of “he can’t be serious” or “he tries to be funny”, but after seeing Rush and Ann Coulter on the late, unlamented Half-Hour News Hour, … well, see for yourself.

Mind you, that was supposed to be funny.

I have my own theory as to the secret of Rush Limbaugh’s longevity. I think I know the reason why such a horrible scrap of a person still is held up as the beacon of truth in a dark world. And it says more about us than we feel comfortable admitting, but it needs to be said.

Rush is not an entertainer. He is not a comedian. He is not a font of wisdom or truth.

Rush Limbaugh is a master at making you feel good about being an asshole.

Look, everyone has asshole tendencies, regardless of your political stripe. That little rush you feel when you cut someone off in traffic? Asshole. That little bit of glee you get when you manage to pull one over on the boss? Asshole. That small bit of joy that envelops you when you get more than you paid for, usually at the expense of someone else? Ass. Hole. For the most part, we tend to justify our asshole tendencies to small matters, figuring, “Hey, everyone does it, right? Might as well get mine.”

That’s what Rush Limbaugh provides, three hours a day, five days a week – the right to feel good about being an asshole, especially in big things. Hate black people? Well, those welfare queens and pimps deserve it. Hate Mexicans? Well, they need to stay in their own country. Hate lippy women? Stupid feminazis need to learn their place and realize that sometimes a little grab-ass is fun. Universal health care? Civil rights for everyone? Clean water and food that doesn’t cause health problems? What are you, some kind of hippie? After all, why should your good tax money support THOSE PEOPLE? Why can’t they just get a job?

And Rush doesn’t just stop at telling his masses who is to blame, either. He gives them the Bizarro logic they need to push back at the ones who call them on their bullshit. Just parrot back these easy-to-understand talking points and you’ll shut those stupid moonbats up, but good. Just tell ‘em Rush sent you, and watch their little heads explode. After all, why think about all the bad things that happen around you? Just let good ol’ Rush tell you who’s to blame for today’s mess, and you’ll never figure out that the guys who use people like Limbaugh to keep you from asking hard questions have been gaming you all along.

And so, millions of Americans, their backs broken by the shithouse they’ve let this country, and this world, become before their eyes, take their cues from a four-time-divorced, pill-popping, draft-dodging, dead-president-worshipping, bottle-of-Viagara-in-the-Dominican-Republic-not-his asshole. Over and over, day after day, the pusherman gives the unwashed masses the benediction they feel they are due. After all, aren’t they the princes of the universe? Aren’t they REAL Americans? MY COUNTRY, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. And every day, their world contracts more and more upon itself – unemployment, bad food, no security, war without end.

And they love him for it. Irony, thy name is Limbaugh.

So, no, I don’t feel one ounce of sorrow or regret at exposing this asshole for what he is. He has been a bane upon the collective intellect of this country for as long as I can remember. And maybe, just maybe, enough people will realize the truth about this clown and come around to a similar conclusion, thus pushing Limbaugh into the early retirement and banishment to oblivion he so richly deserves.

One less asshole to worry about.



Share on FriendFeed

Written by Steven Perez

January 31st, 2009 at 8:17 am

View blog reactions
  • Steve, you've nailed it. I couldn't agree more and have nothing to add. Well said.
  • I heard Limbaugh's whole interview with Hannity...I heard him saying the four word "I hope he fails". I read the DCCC "petition to express your outrage" I do not share any of his views. I believe he was wrong in what he said and the he is pathetic. Having stated that, I am also aware that it is a free country and anybody can express their opinion....even the opinions that are completely opposite to ours. I have also read that president Obama is against the "fairness doctrine"(censorship)..and I believe that he will continue in that position. If democrats are the majority now, the true spirit of democracy is to protect the voices of the minorities... In fact the best thing to do is to ignore him. Doing this petition is actually putting him in an undeserved spotlight!
  • Mariana,

    I believe I have already adequately answered the "why don't I ignore him" argument in the FriendFeed comments below.

    Steven
  • he is fine, a lightworker, working on one side of the polarity .. it is part of the larger picture, because we all have to learn how to stop being defined by what we are not ..

    that goes for countries, systems, individuals, religions, cultures ... genders too ...

    intelligence is only rarely used in service of the larger whole .. pointing out what is bad does very little to bring about what is good and useful ..
blog comments powered by Disqus
  • 31 January 2009 at 3:20 pm Steven Perez
    A bit deep for a Saturday morning, but this subject has been kicking around in my head all week.
  • 31 January 2009 at 3:27 pm Mattb4rd
    I guess it's ok to make fun of someone's addiction if they hail from the political right. Personally, I'd rather make fun of that tie.
  • 31 January 2009 at 3:33 pm Steven Perez
    Hypocrisy: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrisy So, yeah, after hearing some of Rush's brain farts on drug users and moral "lapses", I call him on his own bovine scatology.
  • 31 January 2009 at 3:52 pm Mattb4rd
    There's no such thing as bad publicity in show business. Rush doesn't have a beaver that he can flash getting out of a limo, so he engages in sensationalism. In my opinion, by blogging about Rush, you are participating in the propagation of his popularity. Free speech; I am fond of it.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:02 pm Steven Perez
    Maybe. But he's still an asshole.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:11 pm Mattb4rd
    Perhaps, but by exercising your right to free speech (even if you're pointing out what may be obvious to most people) you are engaging in the very thing that you are castigating Rush for; hate. It's seemingly justifiable because Rush is someone that people love to hate, but like our mamas taught us; two wrongs don't make a right. Want to quiet Rush and people like him? Ignore him.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:14 pm Steven Perez
    Your argument is circular. By ignoring Limbaugh, all this has done is create a host of clones who've leached out any intelligence in their arguments and supplemented viciousness in its place. Exposure is what the Limbaugh's of the world truly fear, for once they are exposed, whatever sway they held is reduced to nil. And hate against a fallacy is not hate speech.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:21 pm Mattb4rd
    A rose by any other name... I'm simply stating that by pointing out the splinter in Rush's eye, you may be ignoring the plank in your own. Rush, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and all of the clones as you call them can say what they will. Tactical, intelligent response is fine but reaction is the very fuel that feeds the fire of the extreme right.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:22 pm Steven Perez
    In other words: First rule of Rush Limbaugh - we don't talk about Rush Limbaugh.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:28 pm Mattb4rd
    Not at all; I just think it would be far more substantive and therefore more effective to point out flaws in his socio-political ideologies, not his personal shortcomings. Sure, he does it, but surely there are smart people with contrasting points of view that don't have to resort to Rush's brand of crap.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:30 pm Steven Perez
    That's kinda the problem, though. His entire ideology can best be summed up in one sentence: "It's all the Democrat's fault." How can you not hold up such a ridiculous belief structure to scorn and ridicule? I'm all for smart debate, but by not pointing out the ringleaders of the dumbing down of our national intellect, we do ourselves a disservice.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:35 pm MikeAmundsen
    question: why is it easy to love/hate people like Rush/Couter? why is it rare to find people go "meh/whatever/who cares" when Rush speaks?
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:36 pm Steven Perez
    Mike: I answered this in the post. Believe me, if this was a simple hit piece on Rush et al, I wouldn't have bothered.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:38 pm Mattb4rd
    We do ourselves a disservice by taking the easy road and engaging in the silliness of our ideological opponents. Publishing an image like the one above and crafting a post like yours is akin to chunking stones in a glass house. It's much much more difficult to drill down in to individual issues than it is to make statements that appeal to your target audience's emotions rather than their intellect. Sensationalism sells. You made a sensational post. In that sense, you are what you claim you hate.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:40 pm MikeAmundsen
    @Steven: i read the thread and maybe missed a subtlety in your comments. asking it another way, "why do some people defend Rush?"
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:41 pm Steven Perez
    Mike: short version - because Rush Limbaugh makes us feel good about engaging our asshole tendencies. I go on at some length, but that's the gist of it.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:42 pm Steven Perez
    I'm sorry you see it that way, Matt. My intent was to drill down into the reasons why anyone would take Rush seriously, given that he adds little save invective to the political debate.
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:50 pm MikeAmundsen
    @Steven: LOL, i was too lazy to read the *entire* post. ok, here's my primary comment. while, we all have inner assholes (IA), and it's a solid strat to tweak the IA for effect, i find it curious that there seem to be more IA-tweakers using right-based rhetoric than left. more radio, more TV, more print. and it seems to sell much better (AirAmerica fizzled quickly). am i wrong on that?
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:51 pm Steven Perez
    MIke: Wait, you actually ***read*** the post? How un-FriendFeed of you! XD
  • 31 January 2009 at 4:56 pm MikeAmundsen
    @Steven: ROFLMAO!
  • 1 February 2009 at 3:51 am Steven Perez
    Mike: no, you're not wrong. (Sorry, just re-read your comment.)
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:02 am MikeAmundsen
    @Steven: this tendency of radical righties to enjoy media success while radical lefties usually do not really intrigues me.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:03 am Steven Perez
    I would attribute this to a greater level of narcissism in righties in the media. Case in point: the subject of the conversation. Can you think of a media type more in love with the sound of his voice?
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:06 am MikeAmundsen
    but success requires lots of consumers. this rightie stuff sells.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:06 am Mark VandenBerg
    Anderson Cooper?
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:07 am Steven Perez
    Mike: sure does.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:07 am Steven Perez
    Mark: Not so much. I can't see Rush visiting the Gulf Coast during a hurricane, no matter how much his face gets plastered all over the tube.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:08 am MikeAmundsen
    @Mark: i don't see him selling at the same rate as Coulter, Rush, Bill-O, etc. hell, pretty sure Franken sells much more than Cooper.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:10 am MikeAmundsen
    does olbermann or maddow sell like these folks? there's no 'tour;' like Hannity does. i bet Liddy is more popular than the lefties i named, too.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:11 am Steven Perez
    Olbermann, maybe, but only because of his Special Comments. Maddow, no way. She had to earn her spot. A lefty and a lesbian?
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:12 am Mark VandenBerg
    It was the first name that popped in to my head. How about Bill Mahre?
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:12 am Steven Perez
    Bill Maher was already a comedian, so he had that going for him before he got his show on HBO.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:13 am MikeAmundsen
    yeah, bill is a solid name. no radio, but HBO and movie.books? don't think so.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:14 am Steven Perez
    Yeah, comedians tend to be a pretty tight bunch, I've noticed, until one of their own goes off the rails. ex: Dennis Miller.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:16 am Mark VandenBerg
    I suppose I'd be better at this if I watched TV, listened to radio or actually gave a crap...
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:17 am Steven Perez
    Yeah, I know more about who's anchoring BBC World News now than who's in the chair at CNN/MSNBC/Fox. A casualty of throwing up my hands at what passes for journalism these days.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:24 am MikeAmundsen
    IMO, this all about money. Rush, Maher, Maddow, Hannity. i assert these are not people powered by principle but by sales. and i have the same opinion of primary media in the US. and that's why the news media is so weak, easily cowed. corporate goals far out-power any journalistic prinicples. and, if my suspicion is right, there's more money selling the radical right.
  • 1 February 2009 at 4:25 am Steven Perez
    You're probably right.
  • 2 February 2009 at 7:17 pm Ontario Emperor
    I'm also intrigued by the greater success of the right on radio as opposed to the left. One could argue that the right has better corporate backing, thus better promotion. I don't think it's a difference in tactics; Al Franken is not necessarily sweet and cuddly (although Ron Reagan Jr isn't the shouting type).
  • 2 February 2009 at 7:20 pm Cecily
    I think the reason right-based radio and media do better than left-based is that people on the right are mostly motivated by fear, and as such, they have a bunker mentality. When you're circling your wagons, you interact less with people. You need *something* to keep you entertained and engaged when you're living in a hole.
  • 2 February 2009 at 7:20 pm Steven Perez
    Demagoguery always sells better than thoughful analysis. If it didn't, NPR would have sky-high ratings and Rush would be on shortwave. This is not a political analysis so much as a corporate one.

Add a comment on FriendFeed