Excellent bhw, just the right tone and a very fair analysis of what he is saying now vs. his stance in the past. Imagine him reacting to any of this if it had been anyone else: "touchy feely psychobabble."

And by the way, people overcome addictions on their own every single day of the week. Rush just must be weak.

i think both of the views of addiction which Rush has spouted (the one before he was found out, and the one after) are too generalised.
What about the people who enjoy drugs, who don't want out? (you can argue that this is an affect of the drugs but given the number of people ni the world and the varying tastes thereor, i think there are bound to be people who enjoy it anyway)
What about people that enjoy the very occasional joint, or binge drink, but don't actually get addicted? (i.e. they stop and not suffer any adverse affects)
There are probably more different states i can't think of right now, but my point is that really is too wide-ranging a subject to generalise like that, in either direction. theer are some addicts for whom prison would be the best hope of detox, equally there are those for whom a caring, supportive detox program is a far better idea.

Well, there's a difference between addicts and recreational users. Recreational users don't need treatment because the drugs haven't taken over their lives.

As for different treatment for different people, I agree with you in principle, that some people might do better in one environment than another. But how do you know that up front and determine who gets to go to the cushy treatment center and who gets locked up in not-so-cushy prison.

I think we should decriminalize drugs and let addicted people get help and not sent to prison.

how does a rush limbaugh turn things over to a "higher power" when he thinks that he is the highest power? he is such a big wuss and gives drugs a bad name. he will probably end up back in rehab...or in prison. in prison, he may find what he has been looking for his entire life.

how about the poor folks that were in the rehab with him? how could they possibly work through their issues with mr. rush and his diarrhea spewing judgmental mouth? they should ask for their money back.


jack e. jett
the jack e. jett show

It's obvious who your next guest should be, Jack!

THIS IS HILARIOUS. Please - we need more Blogs like this.

No, this is NOT hilarious. It's not even mildly funny. It has no joke, no punch lines, nothing but schadenfreude. Shame on you.

Sorry, Al, but I feel no shame. I just turned Rush's words back around on him. If another celebrity or a liberal of any stripe had called themselves powerless and had said they learned they can't try to make other people happy and that others can't make him happy -- all in the context of discussing treatment for an opiate addiction -- Rush would have verbally done to them what I did to him. But worse.

I'm just holding him to the same standard he sets for everyone else.

I thought it was funny and not any more malicious than necessary

Eric, I think you just coined my new tag line!

BHW, no more malicious than necessary.

LOL!

Well at least we can agree that this spitefully written blog is malicious. The necessity of being malicious to any degree though, seems questionable. Maybe the angry malignant tone of the blog is necessary in the sense that this is what the writer does to, as he says, "like myself".

I certainly didn't see anything "funny" about it, but I guess humor is subjective.

Eric, by the way, the truth about Rush's hearing problem is out. According to the Doctor treating him, the drugs had nothing to do with it.

That's good to hear about the hearing - I'm glad. However, I don't see anything malicious or spiteful about this post, which rather closely and carefully follows the events and the statements, puts them together and comes up with keen observations. And yes, humor is subjective.

There doesn't seem to be neutral ground here; fans think it's all swell, everyone else sees, um, contradictions.

Eric you might have characterized it different. Instead of, "fans think it's all swell, everyone else sees, um, contradictions." How about; critics too eagerly enjoy any hint of moral failing in an idealogical opponnent, everyone else just wonders why they don't realize their ass is showing. I know, too many adjectives. :)

Adjectives aside, it really is his style that bothers me more than his politics. I agree with him on some key things, most notably the war on terror. So I am not out to get him for what he says, just pretty forcibly stricken by the way he says things, and how that meshes with his current situation. It very much feels like Bill Bennett - unfounded smugness really rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

How about; critics too eagerly enjoy any hint of moral failing in an idealogical opponnent,

Rush isn't merely an ideological opponent. There are many conservatives, some who I know personally and some who are public figures but whom I don't know, that I respect, even though I disagree with their political point of view.

Rush, however, is an ideological opponent who has made a career of skewering other people -- most notably *his* ideological opponents -- for their moral failings. Now we learn that he's human, too, and yet we hear no mea culpa for casting aspersions on others when he was doing the same sorts of things.

*That's* why I used such a sarcastic tone in my piece. I was turning Rush's own attitude around on him. That seems to be lost on many Rush fans. For some mysterious reason, they only hear an attack when it's made at Rush and not by Rush.

everyone else just wonders why they don't realize their ass is showing.

I checked. Mine is covered. Rush's, however, has been mooning all of us for the past six years.

Maybe the angry malignant tone of the blog is necessary in the sense that this is what the writer does to, as he says, "like myself".

I like myself pretty much all the time, whether I'm being malignant or benign.

From what I've read over this past week, Eric is right about the reaction to Rush. Rush fans think he's being treated unfairly by critics. Non-fans think he's being treated quite fairly, since he's been dishing it out for a long time.

BTW, I know many conservatives who don't like Rush. So I'd also have to agree with Eric that ideology alone is not the reason people like him or are defending him now.

"For some mysterious reason, they only hear an attack when it's made at Rush and not by Rush."

Let "Revvum Jackson," the "feminazis" and "environmentalist wackos," as Limbaugh calls 'em, say, "Amen."

Let "Revvum Jackson," the "feminazis" and "environmentalist wackos," as Limbaugh calls 'em, say, "Amen."

Natalie, you've clarified something for me. These heroes of the fringe left live day to day lives of such hypocricy, an attack on them is like shooting fish in a barrell. It is only fitting that their devotee's relish an opportunity, however dubious, to bring down a big fish on the other side.

As a person who only hears an attack made at Rush and not by Rush, I henceforth vow to stand still and appreciate having the spec removed from my eye by persons with planks in theirs.

"Rush's, however, has been mooning all of us for the past six years."

Perfect. Direct hit, dude.

Dan, you can't admit that attacks have been made on both sides? Sad. During Gulf War Part I, Bush the Elder couldn't hear the voices of those who disagreed with him either.

No Natalie, I can "admit" attacks from both sides. The thing I find fascinating, and sad, is how gleefully glass house dwellers sling stones, and how off target they are.

Can't speak for Bush the Elder, but in Gulf War Part I more voices agreed with him than disagreed. Or so I thought.

Rush is critical of leftists and not known to suffer fools gladly, but he is not malicious. He's like HL Mencken in that regard. He doesn't say things with a desire to cause people pain, as bhw does here.

Al, this is hilarious. I'm malicious but Rush isn't? Come ON.

Again, I ask, what about the time he asked on his TV show, shortly after Clinton was inaugurated the first time, "Do you know the White House has a new dog?" and then showed a picture of Chelsea Clinton?

Please, tell me how that's not malicious. Why was 13-year-old Chelsea a fool not to be suffered gladly? Do you think he caused her any pain?

The Chelsea Clinton example was beyond the pale, but it's not the only example of his maliciousness.

How about his making fun of Robert Reich for his height [of course, while Rush himself was quite overweight]? Reich had a medical condition that affected his growth. Were those attacks not meant to cause pain?

Oh, wait. I'm probably being a touchy-feely liberal now who can't take a joke, aren't I?

Unbelievable double standard.

Again, boo frickin' hoo with the Chelsea thing. Let it go. I believe Rush has said that that picture of Chelsea in that context was an accident, but so what if it wasn't?

Making a few passing cracks about Reich being short? Oh, I am Deeply Offended.

No, this was not intended to hurt Reich's itty bitty feelings.

No, that's not the same as kicking a man while he's down.

Al, thank you for clarifying your double standard.

"Can't speak for Bush the Elder, but in Gulf War Part I more voices agreed with him than disagreed. Or so I thought."

BFD. As president, it's his job to listen to all voices, including those in the minority. He made a point of saying he could not hear dissenting voices: "Can't hear ya."

"Again, I ask, what about the time he asked on his TV show, shortly after Clinton was inaugurated the first time, "Do you know the White House has a new dog?" and then showed a picture of Chelsea Clinton?"

What about it? It didnt happen. (and no, the alleged incident didnt happen after the clinton inauguration. It happened before):

Transcript from lexis nexis (Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists that were coming out by the dozens at the time, and how they were biased):

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...