Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Rush Limbaugh - there but for the Grace of God ...

By pyramid termite in Op-Ed
Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:53:15 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

Today, Rush Limbaugh admitted that he was addicted to painkillers in front of his national audience.

It's not a time for remarks about hypocrisy, although a short perusal of today's posts in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh will uncover many. It's not a time for smart-assed remarks about how Rush has been drug-addled for years and that's why his views make no sense.

There's a deeper and more profound question we should be asking - if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to drug addiction, what of the rest of us? Are we stronger? Wiser? More strict? Or, perhaps, just more fortunate? And what does this suggest our drug policy should be?


I know what my personal answer to that would be - I was pretty damned lucky.

My experience with drugs began in high school in the 70s. As teenagers are wont to do, I experimented with a couple of tokes at the pond across from the high school during lunch break. At the time, it didn't do a thing for me but make me cough. Within a year, I was getting high on a regular basis; and I mean high in the sense that I could feel the basic energy of the universe carousing through the sofa cushions I was too stoned to move off of while Bob Dylan, sounding like the God of the Old Testament, whined about being "Tangled Up In Blue". It sounds impressive and enlightening, doesn't it? I'm afraid it wears off after awhile though and whatever neural pathways I had pioneered through became well-worn and unexciting expressways. What had first seemed to make me feel alive and alert made me numb and slow in a couple of years. I really wasn't enjoying it anymore; I was simply doing it so I didn't have to feel things as sharply.

Drugs, after the first flash of brilliance, are really good for that. Drop out, tune in, turn on.

Turn off.

The 70s and the early 80s were one big party for a lot of us. We smoked weed and drank and did harder drugs if we were "lucky" enough to find any and worked at jobs we hated so we could afford the partying we loved. It was a time of generational irresponsibility for the Late Baby Boomers - it was ridiculously simple to surround oneself with no one but friends that partied with you. There was no dealing with strangers on dark street corners for our drugs - no, we bought them from people we'd gone to high school with, who we knew were "cool" and knew we were "cool". Narcs were totally unknown as we didn't sell to strangers and we weren't trying to make a living from it. We just wanted to keep the party going, you know?

A couple of times, I found myself in Situations. I was walking down the road near my parent's house and a cop pulled over and called me by a name I didn't recognize. He seemed to be very interested in this person and what he had been doing lately. I showed him my driver's license and politely told him that he was mistaken. He accepted this and drove away. This was good, as I had a half ounce of good pot in my pocket and was hoping like hell the plastic baggie wasn't showing.

Another time, I was on the road in Winnemucca, Nevada and due to total unfamiliarity with the town and a van parked so it blocked my view of the stop sign, I failed to stop and ran into a crossing car. Oops. I had a gram of hash in my pocket and I understand that at the time that would have been good for 5 years in prison there. Double oops. I was polite to the officer, admitted that I just hadn't seen the sign and it was my fault and meekly accepted the ticket. No one was hurt except my radiator.

Bob Dylan only had it half right - to be an outlaw, you not only have to live honestly but you have to be polite.

The party got ugly during the mid-80s. Crack hit the streets and the suburbs. Suddenly, it seemed like half the people I knew were doing it, including the girlfriend I was living with. One of the things I had liked about her is that she liked to smoke dope and party. Within a few years, it became something I hated about her, as she and a circle of dedicated friends were busy smoking crack - too busy at times, to go to work or worry about the bills or any of that unfun stuff.

One time, she finally got me to try it. It felt real good at first and then made me feel dizzy and sick to my stomach. I had to lay down for an hour to get over it, and swore to myself that this sure as hell wasn't any fun and I sure wasn't going to do anymore. She claimed that I had swallowed the smoke instead of inhaling it and that I needed to try it the right way.

Time went on - her friends lost jobs, spouses, children, homes and she herself stole $21,000 dollars from her post office job to support a habit that a $45,000 annual salary couldn't pay for. She was fired, arrested and convicted. She got to hang around the house for 6 months with a funny plastic bracelet on her ankle that wouldn't let her go anywhere. I supported us with a lousy gas station job. What a party, eh?

Conclusion? I was lucky. I could have been busted a few times but wasn't. I could have wrapped my car around a tree a few times because I was too drunk to control it, but didn't. I could have liked that first hit of crack too much, like many others did, and gotten myself addicted. And, yeah, after 20 years of smoking pot, I could have found it impossible to quit. I was a snarly bastard for awhile but I managed.

I guess my weaknesses weren't quite weak enough - but they could have been. One never knows ...

So, prohibitionists - do we throw the book at people because they're weak? How do we know that our spouses, our children or ourselves won't have that nice little glass of wine that turns into a nice 20 year journey through alcoholism? Do we throw the book at them because they're in mental or physical pain and either medicate themselves or get medicated by a doctor and end up hooked? How's your back? If you need surgery and they give you Vicodin during your recovery, are you going to be able to stop taking it? I was; it seemed like a rather dull drug and I didn't even finish the bottle. But I feel no sense of moral superiority over that. Again, I was just lucky.

Damn, but people break so damned easily, especially if they're already somewhat cracked. Is that the role of our society - to break them further by throwing them in prison?

I don't think so. It could have been me and it could have been you. Instead it was the wino in the gutter, the crackwhore on the corner and Rush Limbaugh.

There but for the Grace of God, go us.

Drug laws can't fix people. Only people can.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Rush Limbaugh
o Also by pyramid termite


Display: Sort:
Rush Limbaugh - there but for the Grace of God ... | 406 comments (378 topical, 28 editorial, 3 hidden)
strict and demanding sense of morality? (2.25 / 28) (#1)
by Dirty Sanchez on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:09:53 PM EST

oh yeah, as long as it applies people other than rush.

Interesting (2.40 / 22) (#2)
by godix on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:11:52 PM EST

Thanks for linking to a transcript instead of a bare bone 'Rush admitted' news article or, even worse, an editorial. I never respected Rush, although I do find him frequently amusing, but I gotta say that's one of the best ways of announcing a drug addiction I've heard. Of course it took a police investigation to force him into it. If he's still claiming to not be a role model or hero AFTER he kicks the addiction I'll be suprised and actually start respecting Rush, at least for one thing.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
What are your sins? (1.80 / 15) (#5)
by thelizman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:25:14 PM EST

Of course it took a police investigation to force him into it.
If you had a "problem" like this, would you tell 20 million yahoos, or would you prefer to keep it private? Just a question.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Private of course (2.18 / 16) (#8)
by godix on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:39:11 PM EST

I respect how he phrased it but I don't respect the fact that he didn't admit it OR stop it until forced. If he came on his show one day after a month leave and announced to everyones shock that he was addicted and that he was in rehab I'd respect it a lot more.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]
Wow...he's normal (1.94 / 17) (#19)
by thelizman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:17:26 PM EST

According to his statements, he has attempted "rehab" before. The only thing he's being forced to do is publically admit the problem. I think it takes far more integrity to face the public and admit it in your own words, then to just take a month-long vacation and hope your photo doesn't appear in a tabloid, which is what most celebrity's do.

Real quick. Ever hear of Tei-Ko drums?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Yes he is (2.00 / 13) (#35)
by godix on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:52:43 AM EST

and in general I don't respect 'normal' people until they give me a reason to. For being forced into publically admiting it he did a rather respectable job of it though.

Do you mean the japanesse drums? I've heard of them in a very vauge 'I've heard traditional japanesse music before' type of way. If this is related Rush in some way I'm missing it.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

Rush Sans Ear Drums (1.54 / 11) (#105)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:31:19 PM EST

Do you mean the japanesse drums? I've heard of them in a very vauge 'I've heard traditional japanesse music before' type of way. If this is related Rush in some way I'm missing it.
It's not. I turned my mom on the Cirque Du Soleil (the only good thing to come out of France, IMHO). I told her to check out Qui Dame, but she got "Journey of Man" instead. They start out with a Taiko drums, and now she wants to hear more. I've go not idea where to really start on that - i've only ever heard them before twice - the end title of Akira, and on some Ennio Moriconne soundtrack.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Actually, it's Canadian (1.85 / 7) (#159)
by Merc on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:07:55 PM EST

From Quebec in fact.



[ Parent ]
Hot Damn! (1.37 / 8) (#170)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:40:48 PM EST

My hatred for france remains intact...
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Mais non, monsieur! (1.57 / 7) (#207)
by QillerPenguin on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:15:48 AM EST

Since Quebec is full of people whose ancestors came from France, you can't hate the country now. QED and all the bullshit...

"All your Unix are belong to us" - SCO, 2003.
[ Parent ]
Yes I Can (1.44 / 9) (#236)
by thelizman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:56:04 PM EST

Le Quebecoise aren't truly French. Hell, I have some French ancestry, but you won't find me sucking snails, eating buried fungii, and wearing a beret while sitting in some cafe in the middle of Paris smoking a skinny-ass cigarette while ranting about the bourgoise.

Hell, I love Canadians. They have that funny accent, and punctuate every sentence with either "eh" or "you hoser", just like in Strange Brew?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Ah, I see (2.00 / 4) (#189)
by godix on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:03:32 AM EST

Not sure if I could help you out here. Only time I've heard taiko is the Akira soundtrack and occasionally in middle of various anime. Now that I'm thinking about it, you might want to check out the Princess Mononoke soundtrack, I think there was some Taiko on there. Of course it's been 8 or 9 months since I last watched it so I could be wrong.

I'm bored tonight so I just learned that most Akira songs are avalable on Kazaa, searching under Taiko gets half a dozen hits, and you can find quite a few Cirque Du Soleil songs. WinMX seems to be better for Taiko, about 3 dozen hits. A lot of those hits were this group.

Cirque Du Soleil isn't that bad, I'll have to grab some more of them. Thanks.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

Kodo (none / 0) (#355)
by silk on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 01:34:51 AM EST

Try kodo, esp. the CD called "ibuki".

[ Parent ]
Cirque Du Soleil (2.16 / 6) (#211)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:32:36 AM EST

I saw them. I bought and served their food, stocked their trailors and buses, and ran their errands for a couple of days. I used to work backstage here. If I remember correctly, their rider included a few cheeses that were hard to find and a brand of bottled water that was pretty hard to find. All in all, they were pretty cool and hassle free.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

Actually... (1.70 / 10) (#87)
by BJH on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:20:01 AM EST

...it's 'taiko' drums. And taiko effectively just means 'big drum'.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
Any recommendations? [n/t] (1.55 / 9) (#104)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:26:11 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
It's Spamazon, but... (2.00 / 4) (#166)
by BJH on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:25:42 PM EST

...try this list.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
My sins? I feed trolls. (2.05 / 19) (#20)
by felixrayman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:18:35 PM EST

Its no worse than Rush using the excuse of "anal cysts" to get out of having to go to Vietnam and everyone has heard about that one already too. The fucktard is morally bankrupt.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
I'm about as anti-Rush as they come... (2.15 / 13) (#103)
by SvnLyrBrto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:27:18 PM EST

> Its no worse than Rush using the excuse of "anal cysts" to
> get out of having to go to Vietnam and everyone has
> heard about that one already too. The fucktard is morally
> bankrupt.

... but that's one thinng that I not only do not fault Rush for, in fact I applaud him for it.

In this case, it's not Rush who was a morally corrupt fucktard (Although, on OTHER matters I would agree with that description.)  It was the Vietnam war that was an absolutely morally corrupt endeavour, orchestrated by complete fucktards.

Anything and everything that ANYONE did not to support that war, either by avoiding the draft themselves, or by applying political pressure via protest, or boycott of the instututions benefiting from it, by holding those who conducted the war responsible for every crime they committed while they were there, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that ANYONE did to oppose or not support that war; was a wholely good and admirable thing.

And yes, even Rush Limbaugh, hipocrite chickenhawk that he is now, did a GOOD thing then by providing one less cog for the machine.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

The military wouldn't accept him (2.25 / 8) (#210)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:24:09 AM EST

so it's all Rush's fault! It wasn't an excuse, a pilonidal cyst is a disqualifying condition for induction into the military.
The fucktard is morally bankrupt.
I need more evidence of this besides your paranoid rantings.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

On hypocricsy (2.25 / 4) (#268)
by tgibbs on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:12:26 PM EST

Of course, being a hypocrite does not necessarily make one wrong. And one can hardly fault Rush for being reluctant to admit publicly that he had a drug problem (although it is worth noting that he chose to break the law rather than seek treatment). Still, a person who has such a problem should have the good taste to keep a low profile on the subject, and especially to avoid condemning others who share the same problem. You never heard Bill Clinton go on the radio and condemn adulterers, did you?

The fact that Rush failed to do so suggests one of two things:

1. Rush thinks that he is better than the "common man" and the rules that apply to commoners do not apply to him, or

2. Rush doesn't really believe all of that stuff that he spouts on the radio--it's just a line of guff for the rubes.

[ Parent ]

Faulty Reasoning (2.25 / 20) (#3)
by ComradeFork on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:14:33 PM EST

Although your conclusions may be true, you use faulty reasoning. You say:

"Drug laws can't fix people. Only people can."

Can some drug laws (whatever they might be) be beneficial? That is the issue, and you did not address it.

It would seem to me ... (2.41 / 17) (#6)
by pyramid termite on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:26:36 PM EST

... that after years of having drug laws that they would have proven their effectiveness - they haven't. We still have millions of addicts. The fear of going to prison just isn't enough.

If you have some proposals for other drug laws that might work, you're welcome to make them.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Still (2.07 / 13) (#39)
by ComradeFork on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:17:10 AM EST

"... that after years of having drug laws that they would have proven their effectiveness - they haven't. We still have millions of addicts. The fear of going to prison just isn't enough."

Just because we still have millions of addicts does not mean that drug laws have not, and can not have effectiveness. It may be true that they have had no effect, but you didn't show me one single reason why I should believe so.

[ Parent ]

My only answer to that is ... (2.00 / 10) (#40)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:35:59 AM EST

... your expectations of effectiveness are quite a bit lower than mine. If the purpose of drug laws is to fight addiction, then having millions of addicts means that they have failed millions of times.

If that isn't reason enough for you to question the effectiveness of our drug laws, then what is? What do you propose?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Laws (1.90 / 11) (#62)
by ComradeFork on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:16:22 AM EST

I would not expect a law to work 100%. The question is whether the law can have a beneficial effect. You still have not touched on that.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it does (2.58 / 12) (#77)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:08:48 AM EST

For the benefit of those who go straight because of drug laws, one must measure it against the deprivation of liberty of non-addicts who are using drugs recreationally (or for cancer medication), the eroding of our civil liberties, the increase in governmental watchfulness in our private lives, the increase in crime and criminal gangs and the corruption of our foreign policy, our police and our representatives.

The overall effect is not beneficial.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
beneficial effect (none / 0) (#390)
by ckaminski on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 01:21:52 PM EST

Sure.  Absolutely.  Drug laws stop a LOT of people from taking and using drugs, just like 18+ laws stop lots of people from smoking, and 21+ laws stop lots of people from drinking.

The PROBLEM is that it doesn't stop, and CANNOT stop everyone from drinking, smoking or toking.  Just because a thing has a beneficial effect (thalidomide) does not make it a good thing.

[ Parent ]

Number of Crimes Committed != Ineffective (2.00 / 4) (#123)
by dasunt on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:01:07 PM EST

The number of murders in the US is about 15,000 annually.

Murder tends to be a crime taken quite seriously by the US justice system. Two-thirds of all murders result in an arrest.



[ Parent ]
Fixing people (1.81 / 11) (#42)
by opensorcerer on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:38:39 AM EST

Drug laws fix people in the same sense that a law against releasing exploits fixes computer security issues.  Because a flaw remains unattacked does not mean the flaw is "fixed", only quiescent.  To "patch" the flaw in this case requires the intervention of society and humanity, in the author's opinion (if I read this correctly).

Steve Arlo: There aren't evil guys and innocent guys. It's just... It's just... It's just a bunch of guys.
[ Parent ]
Fixing people (2.20 / 5) (#199)
by mikelist on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 08:20:13 AM EST

In order for anyone/anything to fix people's pathologies, a good universal definition of 'fixed', and what latitude one can have in order to remain fixed is necessary. It's easier (but longer, and not at all objective) to define what isn't fixed. Rush has often ranted about drugs and how we should crack down on users and not coddle them (guess he'll find out), he was just doing research, yeah, that's the ticket. Bottom line, he's a junkie.

[ Parent ]
good drug laws (none / 0) (#402)
by knobmaker on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 01:47:11 PM EST

Sure, I can think of some good drug laws. The first truth-in-labeling laws, back in the early 20th century, greatly reduced the number of opiate addicts, who up to that time had been taking lots of laudanum in patent medicines with "secret" formulas. When these citizens (mostly middle class white women) discovered that they were no better than opium-smoking Chinamen, they gave up the patent medicine in droves.

Unfortunately, the government never seems to know when to stop.

[ Parent ]

OMG, Limbaugh IS human afterall? (1.69 / 23) (#4)
by thelizman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:23:34 PM EST

Yeah, well, no shit. Limbaugh is human, with human endocrinology, and is susceptable to addiction to Oxycontin just like millions of other Americans from all other backgrounds. I'm proud of him for admitting it, and I don't think any less of him either. This is not a cause for vindication of America's drug culture - Limbaugh suffered from addiction, he didn't revel in it like many pro-drug American's do.

What this does show is that we need to reexamine how drugs are prescribed and monitor users. Even mild drugs, like prescription strenght otc drugs have harsh side effects. I was on a mild steroid because of my back injury, and I gained back 60 lbs that it took me a year to lose. My mother may have permanant liver and kidney damage from taking medication that is only marginally effective against her type II diabetes. Rush was prescribed a highly addictive series of drugs that were probably way more powerful than he needed for surgery. Now, I hate to sound conspiratorial, but alot of drugs are being overprescribed because they are highly profitable - both for doctors and drug companies - and those profits are highly necessary to fund money-losing medicines and drug r&d. The chains are on the drug industry in the wrong places, and every American pays the price at some point.

+1, btw, because the author headed off the "don't be a fucking tool and berate limbaugh" trolls at the pass.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
berate berate berate (2.31 / 16) (#21)
by felixrayman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:24:07 PM EST

+1, btw, because the author headed off the "don't be a fucking tool and berate limbaugh" trolls at the pass.

The hell he did. Rush Limbaugh's drug use is not the issue here, no one cares about that. Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy is the issue here. No one is arguing the fact that a lot of people get addicted to drugs. Rush's proposed solution to the problem? Throw all those people in jail. Drug addiction, much as right-wing radio listener syndrome, should of course be treated as a public health issue, not a crime.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Aaah, No. (1.50 / 10) (#110)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:53:17 PM EST

When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail"? I don't think he ever did.

Let's ask the oracle. I see here where Limbaugh had no stance on drugs. I did find where he supported legalization of drugs. According to Ellis Hennican of Newsday, Rush editorialized on-air about illegal drug users, and the need to send them to jail. Rush wasn't using crystal meth or weed. His housekeeper was implicated in illegally purchasing legal prescription drugs. I wonder what rush said about drug traffickers and dealers?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
What he said was: (2.62 / 8) (#121)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:53:23 PM EST

"There's nothing good about drug use," he was saying. "We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."


If the accusations against him are correct, he was violating the law by doing drugs, unless you are suggesting that his physician wrote him a prescription for over 4000 doses of "hillbilly heroin" and told him to have his maid pick them up in the parking lot of the local Denny's. So it's simple. The man is a hypocrite, and you are his mealy-mouthed apologist. The argument that Rush was talking about, say, a user of crystal meth, but not a man who illegally obtained prescription amphetamines is simply ridiculous, as you well know.

As far as what he said about drug traffickers, I have no idea but I can certainly imagine that he took a tough stance on them. Which is interesting, because one article I read said that the amount of drugs he is accused of purchasing would have made him a trafficker in the eyes of the law, and the penalty for someone convicted of that crime was something like a ten year mandatory minimum with no parole.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
The quote in question (2.00 / 6) (#124)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:29:00 PM EST

was made in 1995. Rush claims that he didn't become addicted to drugs until 1997 or 1998.

[ Parent ]
Read the question. (2.44 / 9) (#143)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:21:01 PM EST

First of all, the question that was asked, and which I answered was 'When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail"? I don't think he ever did.', not 'When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail" after beginning a hillbilly heroin binge of truly monumental proportions'.

Secondly, I don't see how making such statements 2 years before beginning such a Hunter Thompson-style drug fueled descent into total incomprehensibility is some sort of defense against hypocrisy - he never refuted his statements and claims to be unable to make mistakes, claims in fact that his alleged talent is on loan from god.

The charge stands as made, the man is a junkie hypocrite who deserves to have his standards of justice applied to him.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
IHBT (1.44 / 9) (#147)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:29:10 PM EST

First of all, the question that was asked, and which I answered was 'When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail"? I don't think he ever did.', not 'When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail" after beginning a hillbilly heroin binge of truly monumental proportions'.

Whatever.

Secondly, I don't see how making such statements 2 years before beginning such a Hunter Thompson-style drug fueled descent into total incomprehensibility is some sort of defense against hypocrisy

It's quite simple, because it's not. It's changing your mind. Surely you've done that before, haven't you?

he never refuted his statements

So?

and claims to be unable to make mistakes, claims in fact that his alleged talent is on loan from god.

IHBT. IHL. HAND.



[ Parent ]
Perhaps... (2.37 / 8) (#149)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:51:47 PM EST

you were trolled by Rush, not me. The "talent on loan from god" thing is his slogan - straight from his drooling mouth, not my creation. Apparently his appetite for opiates is on loan from the late William S. Burroughs. If the best you can come up with as an argument to my main point is "Whatever", it's time to give it up.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
answer (2.20 / 5) (#154)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:41:13 PM EST

If the best you can come up with as an argument to my main point is "Whatever", it's time to give it up.

I thought your main point was that Rush is a hypocrite. Your first paragraph was completely irrelevant to that point. That's why I responded with "Whatever."

You have not shown Rush to be a hypocrite. Yes, at one point in his life he made a statement that all illegal drug users should be thrown in jail. But surely his own battle with drug addiction has made him see the error in that thinking. It's hard to empathize with an addict when you haven't been there yourself. That doesn't make Rush a hypocrite, it makes him a human.



[ Parent ]
Prosecution of the case (2.37 / 8) (#160)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:14:26 PM EST

Let's go back to the beginning. thelezman said:

When did Rush say "throw prescription drug addicts in jail"? I don't think he ever did."

I gave him a quote from Rush saying that people who broke the law by using drugs should be thrown in jail. He will try to argue that breaking the law to obtain prescription drugs is somehow morally different than breaking the law to obtain drugs that are not available by prescription (most of which were available by prescription at one time). First of all, he is wrong, secondly Rush's quote is pretty clear. If you break the law to obtain drugs, you need to go to jail according to the old Rush.

Now if you are going to try to claim Rush has made no anti-criminal comments in the last 6 years or so, feel free to make that claim. If he has he's a hypocrite three times over. Once for breaking the law while moralizing against criminals, again for being an incredible dope hog after his earlier opinions of drug users, and the third time for claiming to be a Christian (in fact, claiming as one of his 35 undeniable truths that there is a god, and claiming, in his own words, that he has "talent on loan from god" ) while being unable to empathize with someone such as a drug addict until being a 3-time rehab loser.

In conclusion, the case against Rush is a slam dunk. He is a hypocrite.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
nice try (1.75 / 4) (#163)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:38:39 PM EST

If you break the law to obtain drugs, you need to go to jail according to the old Rush.

I fully agree with that. Of course, I'm not sure of what law Rush broke, but let's assume there's one out there.

Now if you are going to try to claim Rush has made no anti-criminal comments in the last 6 years or so, feel free to make that claim. If he has he's a hypocrite three times over. Once for breaking the law while moralizing against criminals, again for being an incredible dope hog after his earlier opinions of drug users, and the third time for claiming to be a Christian (in fact, claiming as one of his 35 undeniable truths that there is a god, and claiming, in his own words, that he has "talent on loan from god" ) while being unable to empathize with someone such as a drug addict until being a 3-time rehab loser.

You don't seem to understand what the word "hypocrite" means. Only the first of your three statements is an example of hypocrisy.



[ Parent ]
what it means (none / 2) (#169)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:40:30 PM EST

You don't seem to understand what the word "hypocrite" means. Only the first of your three staements is an example of hypocrisy.

Actually, the third is the best example of the lot. Read the KJV of the bible, it will explain it all to you. Rush is a pharisee.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
The third (none / 3) (#173)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:11:46 PM EST

I don't see how. Are you saying that any Christian who believes that drug users should be put in jail is a hypocrite? I don't see how that makes sense.

Hypocrisy is pretending to have beliefs that you don't really have. If Rush professes to be a Christian, and he believes that Jesus came down from heaven to save mankind, then this is not an instance of hypocrisy. All Christians at some point violate some teaching of Christianity. So by your standard, all Christians are therefore hypocrites?



[ Parent ]
Yes, they are (none / 3) (#182)
by pyramid termite on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:08:01 AM EST

All Christians at some point violate some teaching of Christianity. So by your standard, all Christians are therefore hypocrites?

That's pretty much a working assumption in Christian belief - read Romans 7:15-25 for further details. People just don't measure up to their ideals.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
different question (none / 0) (#403)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 03:28:25 PM EST

That's pretty much a working assumption in Christian belief - read Romans 7:15-25 for further details.

I didn't ask if all Christians believed they were hypocrites. I asked if all Christians are hypocrites.

People just don't measure up to their ideals.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with hypocrisy.



[ Parent ]
That *law* thing. (1.40 / 5) (#167)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:36:46 PM EST

I gave him a quote from Rush saying that people who broke the law by using drugs should be thrown in jail.
Theres no law against taking FDC approved prescription drugs. It is illegal to dispense them. The people who broke the laws are the traffickers who sold it to Limbaugh's housekeeper, and his housekeeper who purveyed the drugs on to Limbaugh. I can't believe you had a flame-war trollfest with yourself over that missing bit of reality.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Yes, the law thing (none / 3) (#172)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:05:50 PM EST

Theres no law against taking FDC approved prescription drugs. It is illegal to dispense them.

It's also illegal to buy them without a prescription authorizing you to do so - in fact, it's illegal to posess them if you don't have a prescription for them. All of them, not just the amount you do have a prescription for.

Enforcement is somewhat hit or miss, of course.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Posession, 9/10ths the Law (none / 3) (#187)
by thelizman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 01:54:41 AM EST

It's also illegal to buy them without a prescription authorizing you to do so
I suppose it's useful to note that limbaugh didn't buy them, his housekeeper did. Now, since she was acting as an agent for limbaugh...
in fact, it's illegal to posess them if you don't have a prescription for them.
I happen to know this is false, excepting certain States (CA, AZ, NV). Posession of controlled substances in and of itself is not illegal unles syou are doing something else with them, like transporting them, or distributing them. I've had freinds who took care of elderly patients, and they were schooled heavily in the laws regarding this, since they did have access to significant amounts of powerful stuff which they would posess - not the patient.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Is cocaine possession also legal on your planet? (none / 3) (#213)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:44:55 AM EST

Oxycontin is a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act, as are cocaine and methamphetamine.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
The Controlled Substances Act (none / 3) (#258)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:16:35 PM EST

is federal law. Since Rush was not engaging in interstate commerce, he is not liable under federal law.

[ Parent ]
Idiot. (2.50 / 6) (#175)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:24:23 PM EST

You are such a dumbfuck - do a quick google search for "possession of Oxycontin" and you will find a list of people in need of your brilliant legal advice.

The interesting laws are the Florida ones - Rush is accused of purchasing over 4000 pills in a month and a half by his housekeeper there. Here is the text of the Florida law (893.135) about Morphine derivatives such as Oxycontin:

(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:

a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.

c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.


Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Very Good (1.20 / 5) (#188)
by thelizman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:01:53 AM EST

...you can quote. If only you could read - that statute only defines traffickers and mandatory sentencing for them. It even says "trafficking".

Hey, I can't help your being stupid. But you might learn to shut the fuck up - and be better for it.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Hey (1.80 / 5) (#202)
by The Jews on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 09:52:52 AM EST

What part of "who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone..." do you want explained to you, retard?

You call these bagels?
[ Parent ]
What Part Do YOU Need Explained (1.25 / 4) (#234)
by thelizman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:52:26 PM EST

Limbaugh was not found in actual or constructive posession. The only one they can send to jail here is his housekeeper. Do I need to explain this more? Look up the definition of "actual" and "constructive" forms of possession.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
So I guess his housekeeper took the pills instead? (none / 3) (#238)
by The Jews on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:10:08 PM EST

You can dance around it all you want, but you know that Limbaugh was in possession of the pills as he was fucking taking them. I don't remember him saying "and that's why I'm sorry my housekeeper is addicted to painkillers". He was talking about himself.

You call these bagels?
[ Parent ]
Sort of... (none / 3) (#259)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:21:43 PM EST

I don't remember him saying "and that's why I'm sorry my housekeeper is addicted to painkillers". He was talking about himself.

Well, for the record, he never admitted to taking those painkillers without a prescription. In all probability he was, but I still haven't seen the law which makes possession of less than 4 grams illegal.



[ Parent ]
Explanation (2.40 / 5) (#241)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:31:28 PM EST

The question is not if there is enough evidence to convict Rush in a court of law, other people will decide that. The question is whether it is fair to believe, assuming the accusations of his maid - including tape recordings and email - are true, that Rush Limbaugh broke the law by purchasing over 4300 doses of opiods in a month and a half.

The reason we would investigate such a question is simple, Rush has made his ideas on crime clear. From his 35 Undeniable Truths:

14. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
15. If you commit a crime, you are guilty.
30.Compassion is no substitute for justice.


Rush's actions must be evaluated in that light - these are the standards he applies against other people. We know that Oxycontin is a Schedule II drug, like cocaine and methamphetamine. We know that possession of these drugs is illegal. We further know that possession of moderately large ( > 4 grams ) of Oxycontin or related drugs is punishable in Florida as drug trafficking with harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

So the conclusion is pretty simple here. If the testimony of his "agent" as you call her is true, Rush is a big fat fucking hypocrite.

So whine all you want. Blubber like a baby. Ignore the facts you don't like. Post the same repetitive posts that refuse to address the core issues. You've done all of these things in this thread. A pitiful performance, really.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Some points (none / 3) (#247)
by pyramid termite on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:06:26 AM EST

1. You don't know whether he was found in actual possession. You don't even know if the housekeeper was.

2. If testimony alone is sufficient to convict the housekeeper of possession, said testimony might also be sufficient to convict Rush of it.

3. Remember that the original point wasn't whether he was found in actual possession, but whether said possession was illegal. Instead of admitting you were wrong on this point, you're trying to buttress your argument by switching the focus of debate to Rush's actual guilt. Nice switch, but you're not getting away with it.

4. Convicting the housekeeper, who probably supplied this pills to Rush in fear of losing her job, and not convicting Rush would be a GROSS miscarriage of justice.

4. This is all too typical of your blind, dishonest and idol-worshipping mentality. You're so unwilling to admit that your hero may have done something illegal that you are willing to distort the law and then the argument to attempt to make it appear that your opponents are still wrong.

5. This is by far one of the most moronic and bullheaded positions in an argument you've ever taken. In fact, it's identical to something a troll would do.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Aaah, My Trolling Friend (1.60 / 5) (#275)
by thelizman on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 04:07:21 PM EST

You caught me. And, you caught me off guard by bringing up the points I was going to point out after felixrayman here finally had an embolism.

You can see it can't you? He's foaming at the mouth. He's delirious with discontent. The more I troll him, the more acidic he becomes.

Now here's the killer - this is where my trolling ends, and felixrayman has to face his own hypicrosy. There is as much proof that Limbaugh was addicted to painkills which he illegally purchased as there is proof that Saddam Hussein threatened the US with Weapons of Mass Destruction. There, I said it. While felixrayman stares blankly at his monitor, let me do the come-clean part.

Yes, Rush illegally purchased drugs, and was no doubt in posession of them. However, unless we can prove that he was in posession of him (not simply heresay) there is no actionable point - certainly not under the law he dredged up. Yes, there is a degree of hypicrosy in Rush condemning drug addicts and then himself being a drug addict. However, in context there really isn't anything there. His condemnations took place nearly a decade ago. As of late, he actually supported legalization - granted, as a means to taxation and regulation of the drug trade (and he was only half serious).

There is a tremendous distinction to be made here. Becoming addicted to prescription painkillers requires no violation of any law. Millions of people have battled addictions to legal drugs that have been prescribed to them. This is in stark contrast to people who seek out and experiment with illegal drugs, and then become addicted to them. Addicts to drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, X, LSD, and marijuana broke the law in pursuit of their addictions, and are wholly responsible for their conditions. Addicts to prescription drugs are the unfortunate casualties of modern pharmaceutical laxity.

Getting back to that comparison between Rush's drugs and Hussein's WMD's, the point of my trolling is aptly demonstrated. People will ignore as much as they have to in order to hang on to a notion. In my trolling, I was willing to argue technically that Rish has not been connected to any crime. All we have is the accusation of someone who defected from his inner circle, and his own admission. Likewise, the same is true of Saddam Hussein on the issue of WMD's. We have the testimony of several defectors, and Saddam's own threat to use WMD's and confession of having them. Most of all, we have Saddam Hussein's own words, that he would strike out against "the western infidels" (that includes us) and crush them. But wherein the weight of evidence is the same, some folks maintain that Saddam had no WMD's, but Rush did have oxycontin.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Pot. Kettle. Black. (none / 3) (#295)
by felixrayman on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:55:47 PM EST

There is as much proof that Limbaugh was addicted to painkills which he illegally purchased as there is proof that Saddam Hussein threatened the US with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Which was of course why I used phrases like, quoting from my posts, "assuming the accusations of his maid - including tape recordings and email - are true", "If the accusations against him are correct", "Rush is accused of", and "If the testimony of his "agent" as you call her is true". We know Rush is a dope addict. He has admitted this to be true and there is no reason, unlike the case of Saddam, for us to believe that he may be implicating himself falsely. When you say that "Yes, Rush illegally purchased drugs, and was no doubt in posession of them", you commit the infraction you accuse me of - I was careful to point out that we only have as evidence the testimony of one person accusing Rush of illegally purchasing drugs. There is always a "doubt" whether he did so illegally, he may well have gotten a prescription for 4300 pills to be taken over 45 days, and to be picked up by his maid in the parking lot of the local Denny's. The maid may be a complete and total liar. So your accusations here are simply the weasel words of someone trying to back out of a series of very poor arguments. Or the words of a troll.

However, unless we can prove that he was in posession of him (not simply heresay) there is no actionable point

There may or may not be a legally actionable point - the authorities have confirmed there is an investigation underway and have gone after mere users in the past. There is certainly an "actionable point" though. One may choose to stop listening to stations that broadcast Rush's shows, may choose to stop purchasing products from companies that advertise on those shows, and may take the opportunity on internet chat boards to call the man a fat fucking lying dope addicted race baiting hypocritical piece of shit. Plenty of points to take action on here.

Addicts to drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, X, LSD, and marijuana broke the law in pursuit of their addictions, and are wholly responsible for their conditions.

Cocaine and methamphetamine are both Schedule II prescription drugs like Oxycontin. The idea of an LSD "addict" is too funny to even debate.

But wherein the weight of evidence is the same, some folks maintain that Saddam had no WMD's, but Rush did have oxycontin.

The difference being that Rush's guilt, as I mentioned will be left to the authorities to determine - meaning before he could be punished for his alleged crimes, he would be given a fair and impartial trial in a court of law with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him and the right of appeal as well as the right not to be forced to testify against himself.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
You should read it yourself (2.40 / 5) (#206)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:14:40 AM EST

What the statute says, since you clearly did not read it the first time is

Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of

Yes, simple possession of a large enough quantity of these drugs in Florida makes you a trafficker in the eyes of the law. Now, how much do 4300 Oxycontin pills weigh?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
felixRAINMAN is an ignoramus (1.20 / 5) (#233)
by thelizman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:50:42 PM EST

actual posession - You have something on your person, or within immediate control.

constructive posession - You possess the means to manufacture something, including equipment and raw materials.

Please shut up now. Your stupidity is hurting my brain.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
What are you admitting here? (none / 3) (#239)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:14:41 PM EST

actual posession - You have something on your person, or within immediate control.

Which would be the case when you handed someone a cigar box full of cash for a cigar box full of Oxycontin, now wouldn't it? The law clearly makes illegal both types of possession. You make absolutely no sense.

All you are doing now is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are too stupid to read a simple paragraph and comprehend it, and too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Wrong, thelizman. (none / 3) (#281)
by lamont116 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:07:59 PM EST

Constructive possession means possession in which the person does not physically have the property, but though not physically on one's person, he is aware of the presence of the property and is able to exercise intentional control or dominion over it.


[ Parent ]
You're making the accusation, you do the math (1.75 / 4) (#257)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:15:10 PM EST

Now, how much do 4300 Oxycontin pills weigh?

Well, first of all, the question is how much does the drug within the pills weigh, which is much different. Secondly, what makes you think that Rush ever possessed 4300 pills at once? He certainly never admitted to that, and wasn't even ever accused of it.



[ Parent ]
Incorrect. (none / 3) (#280)
by lamont116 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:06:02 PM EST

<i>first of all, the question is how much does the drug within the pills weigh</i><p>Reread the statute.

[ Parent ]
The statute doesn't mention oxycontin... n/t (none / 2) (#284)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:11:23 PM EST



[ Parent ]
My point was... (none / 2) (#287)
by lamont116 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:10:18 PM EST

that drug laws are pretty much always based on the weight of the cut drug, and not on the weight of the pure drug without the filler material. A kilo of heroin is a kilo of heroin, whether it's 80% or 40%. I'd expect that would apply to oxycontin, although you could surprise me by showing that this particular drug is an exception to the general rule.

[ Parent ]
burden of proof? (none / 2) (#289)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:22:50 PM EST

that drug laws are pretty much always based on the weight of the cut drug, and not on the weight of the pure drug without the filler material.

Perhaps so, but it's not true in this case.

I'd expect that would apply to oxycontin, although you could surprise me by showing that this particular drug is an exception to the general rule.

I can't prove to you that something doesn't exist. In fact, I'm not even sure if it does exist or not. All I'm saying is that the particular law quoted does not apply.



[ Parent ]
Oxycodone IS oxycontin (none / 2) (#301)
by lamont116 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 09:21:48 PM EST

So it is listed in section 893.135(1)(c) with the language "or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as 'trafficking in illegal drugs'". See this, for example.

[ Parent ]
What the statue mentions (none / 2) (#290)
by felixrayman on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:27:16 PM EST

The statute mentions oxycodone and all of its derivatives, one of which is the brand name "Oxycontin".

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Exactly n/t (none / 2) (#291)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:36:48 PM EST



[ Parent ]
So you admit you were wrong (none / 1) (#296)
by felixrayman on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:02:57 PM EST

Then the phrase "or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance" should clearly tell you the weight of the mixture was what is being talked about, not the weight of the actual active component of the drug.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Sure, why not (none / 2) (#304)
by dipierro on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:06 PM EST

Then the phrase "or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance" should clearly tell you the weight of the mixture was what is being talked about, not the weight of the actual active component of the drug.

No. Gram is a measure of mass, not of weight.

Not that any of this matters, because there's absolutely no evidence that Rush ever possessed this much oxycontin, either in pill form or in the actual active component of the drug.



[ Parent ]
so what? (2.42 / 7) (#223)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:51:08 AM EST

did you miss the point on purpose, or are you stoned or something?

he held absolutist views on morality, condemning people to horrible conditions, including rape, torture, and a probable death in prison...had his voice supported by similar crazies in high places...and then the world finds out he not only holds this veiw, but has broken his own commandments onto others. i'd love to continue this, but i'm totally late. :(
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Sometimes people change their minds... (1.75 / 4) (#240)
by dipierro on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:28:46 PM EST

I've done it. Haven't you?

[ Parent ]
Sure, and if he does that's fine... (none / 2) (#357)
by noise on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:02:56 AM EST

However, in the meantime he will have to suffer the ranting of many of us. It's only fair as many of us have suffered his ranting for many years. If everyone is quiet and gives him a pas - ahh poor Rush - do you think he is going to change his mind?

[ Parent ]
Maybe he already has... (none / 1) (#362)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 02:59:40 PM EST

I mean, considering that he has done drugs, most likely illegally, he clearly doesn't still believe that all illegal drug users should be imprisoned...

Well, maybe he does, and he plans on turning himself in after his 30 day treatment. But I doubt it.



[ Parent ]
He thinks he's an exception (none / 0) (#386)
by Calieri on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 08:21:32 PM EST

It seems like you are assuming that he couldn't think 'illegal drug users should be imprisoned' but hold himself an exception. People do it all the time.

Rush Limbaugh likes to cast the first stone.

[ Parent ]

It's possible (none / 0) (#392)
by dipierro on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 06:46:29 PM EST

But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent ]
Cocaine is legally used during eye surgery (2.25 / 4) (#267)
by rantweasel on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:09:22 PM EST

Does that mean that crackheads are illegally buying and using legal drugs?  Well, under your logic, yes.  Whether it is morally right or wrong is moot, Rush has admitted that he has been doing something that he has spent years advocating draconian punishments for doing.  I think what Rush (and the general public by his example) should learn from this is that it's not a black and white issue, and that there should be more acceptance towards doctors who actually deal with pain and less of a stigma towards people who are using drugs.  It's a social problem and a medical problem, but it's not a criminal problem.  Of course, years of Rush and years of mandatory minimum lobbying has gotten in the way of that.  If Rush ends up in jail over this (he shouldn't, nobody should be in jail merely for the use or possession of drugs), he'll merely be reaping what he has sown.

[ Parent ]
Meh (none / 2) (#358)
by nanobug on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 08:29:21 AM EST

The differences between OxyContin and Heroin chemically are very small. Legally, they are very large. How convenient that everyone is using this as some sort of excuse for his hypocricy.

[ Parent ]
No, and you humanity an apology for making that (1.40 / 10) (#55)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:50:28 AM EST

comparision.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
you must have had a lot of respect for clinton too (1.92 / 13) (#76)
by speek on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:07:54 AM EST

for admitting to the whole world how he got his dick sucked.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Not Even Comparable (1.38 / 13) (#107)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:39:11 PM EST

Clinton lied about it. He denied it under oath in a court of law. He also denied it in statements to the American people. Clinton did not admit to anything until DNA testing coupled with Lewnisky testimony proved that he spooged on her, and then all he did was admit to an "inappropriate relationship". He didn't do that until after dragging America through the mud with his indescretion and personal pecadillos, costing millions of dollars and his own impeachment.

Had he admitted it up front, I still wouldn't have respected him. He was married, and no matter how frigid Hillary was, he is still morally bound to not fuck anything or anyone but her. He also abused his position and possibly compromised his leadership by fucking a junior employee who is half his age in the oval office - an office of such dignity and esteem that other presidents with more self control didn't even remove their suit jackets in out of reverence.

Just in case you percieve a degree of ambiguity in my statement, I will summarize by saying that Bill Clinton is a vile piece of disgusting lying shit.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
ah, so (2.66 / 12) (#133)
by speek on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:24:31 PM EST

Limbaugh gets the "he's human with an endocrine system" treatment, while Clinton gets an hysterical rant. Do you see how you are?

It is like clockwork the way people apologize for those on "their side" of the political fence, and scorn those on the other side, for the same indiscretions.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

excellent (1.40 / 5) (#142)
by vivelame on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:09:52 PM EST

troll & illustration, at the same time, btw. +1FP :)

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
thank you, thank you (none / 3) (#155)
by speek on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:52:32 PM EST

I'll be here all night.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

-1, Clueless [n/t] (1.44 / 9) (#168)
by thelizman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:40:09 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Morally Bound (2.50 / 4) (#274)
by baron samedi on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:59:06 PM EST

he is still morally bound to not fuck anything or anyone but her

You don't know that. That's your definition of what a marriage should be. There are plenty of married couples that have an "agreement" about dalliances outside of marriage. I'm not saying that that's what was operating in the Clinton's relationship, but who are you to tell someone else about how to run their personal lives?

Other presidents with more self-control... Like who? As if Bill Clinton was the only philanderer elected president. Newt Gingrich was banging a lobbyist half his age while married, but then again, he only lied about it under oath in divorce court.

Clinton is a vile piece of disgusting lying shit. Gee, I've thought that about every president we've had since I've been alive, and that covers six presidents. They're vile for lots of reasons. I though Reagan was vile for allowing Iran-Contra, and Bush I was vile for letting the people who did it off. Nixon, who I'm sure is totally vindicated in your view, was as disgusting as they come.

Anyway, this entire article discussion is about hypocrisy, and I think it reflects poorly on you to have fitted yourself with such blinders as you dismiss it when one set of politicians do it, and you go apoplectic when another set does the exact same thing. If you're as smart as you think you are, you should be able to realize that just because you agree with them politically, they can be, and often are, guilty of the same things you condemn their opposition for. Conservatives are no more or less "moral" than liberals are. Check out the story of Helen Chenoweth, or Bob Packwood is you dispute this.

If you're going to disagree politically, in terms of policies, etc., then do so. When you drown the discussion in pointless discussions of "character" and "lying" and morality/immorality, really all you're doing is giving sophisticated cover to the notion that you think you're better than some people. That's the one thing going on here that I *know* is vile.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 3) (#222)
by /dev/trash on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:48:32 AM EST

They are called controlled substances for a reason.  They need to be administred and prescribed in a controlled situation.

---
Updated 07/20/2003!!
Summer Tour!
[ Parent ]
over-prescribed? (2.75 / 4) (#265)
by tgibbs on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:46 PM EST

Rush was prescribed a highly addictive series of drugs that were probably way more powerful than he needed for surgery. Now, I hate to sound conspiratorial, but alot of drugs are being overprescribed because they are highly profitable - both for doctors and drug companies

Actually, the overwhelming medical consensus is that opiate pain-killers are underprescribed because doctors are excessively worried about additiction, even though it is actually quite rare when these pain-killers are used in a medical context. Perhaps Rush is the exception, and really did pick up a habit that he couldn't break as a result of medical treatment. On the other hand, it is a convenient excuse, and Rush has never been noted for his honesty.

[ Parent ]

That's so much better (none / 1) (#401)
by knobmaker on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 01:39:54 PM EST

Limbaugh suffered from addiction, he didn't revel in it like many pro-drug American's do.

You're right. He reveled in the persecution and destruction of drug users.

That's so much more admirable. Right?

[ Parent ]

Focus on the actual issue and (2.17 / 23) (#7)
by mami on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:29:22 PM EST

not on your personal story, that would be diary material.

The only question I have concerning Limbaugh's addiction to prescription pain killers is this one:

Had the pain killers he took a sedative or stimulative effect. As OxyContin seems to be the main painkiller he is addicted to, the answer to this question might be clear:

First introduced to the public in 1996, OxyContin is a white, odorless, crystalline powder derived from the opium alkaloid. A very strong narcotic, OxyContin is similar in effect to morphine. OxyContin addiction under a qualified physician's care is rare. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, many physicians limit prescribing OxyContin because they believe patients may become addicted to the drug.

Because OxyContin is a time-released drug, taking one or more pills should not produce an effect attractive to drug addicts. When taken correctly, OxyContin does not produce euphoria. When the drug is released all at once, however, broken, crushed or chewed (as is the case with those experiencing OxyContin addiction), OxyContin produces a pleasant, euphoric feeling. OxyContin addiction can also cause overdose and death.

People with OxyContin addiction acquire the drugs in a variety of ways, including forging fraudulent prescriptions, visiting several different doctors for prescriptions or buying the drugs illegally on the street. Because most health insurance companies will cover the costs of OxyContin, abusers can purchase the drugs at pharmacy prices, and then sell the OxyContin for wildly inflated street prices.

As Limbaugh produces hyperactive divicive hate-inciting speech on a daily basis for several hours, he might not only have needed painkillers, who work as sedatives, but rather as euphoria causing stimulants as well.

If Oxycontin had an euphoric effect on him, I wonder, if he needed the drug simply as a stimulant to produce that much of his hate speech. May be he couldn't have produced his radio talk shows in such intensity without the drug.

Some statistics:

From 1990 to 1998, the number of new users of pain relievers increased by 181 percent; the number of individuals who initiated tranquilizer use increased by 132 percent; the number of new sedative users increased by 90 percent; the number of people initiating stimulant use increased by 165 percent.

In 1999, an estimated 4 million people -- almost 2 percent of the population aged 12 and older -- were currently (use in past month) using certain prescription drugs nonmedically: pain relievers (2.6 million users), sedatives and tranquilizers (1.3 million users), and stimulants (0.9 million users).



Oh please... (1.92 / 13) (#10)
by Skywise on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:22:08 PM EST

If large amounts of "hate speech" spur on drug addiction, everybody on K5 must be shooting up.

[ Parent ]
well, may be they do :-) (nt) (1.22 / 9) (#51)
by mami on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:47:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Opiates (2.53 / 15) (#41)
by swr on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:36:38 AM EST

Oxycontin is an opiate. Absorbing it all at once (bypassing the time-release mechanism) would result in a lay-down-and-drool sort of euphoria, not a jump-around-and-babble-incoherently sort of euphoria. The effect would be very similar to heroin (as pointed out in the link you provided); they are very closely related drugs.

If you are trying to find a drug-related explanation for Mr. Limbaugh's attitudes, you might be interested to know that opiates can cause constipation.



[ Parent ]
Well, you might consider this ... (1.80 / 10) (#53)
by mami on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:37:33 AM EST

right now the conservative media outlets fall over themselves with compassion for this terrible tragedy of having gotten addicted due to his back pain he suffered from after surgery.  

He gave a good explanation, but not comprehensive enough for my taste. There are thousands of people, who have pains of that sort, get treated with the same medication and don't get addicted.

So, there is a question, why he might have been more dependent on the effects of the drugs than others. I happen to believe that the highs he got from taking up to over 30 pills of oxycontin a day have helped him to produce day in day out "cutting edge political hate inciting comments" that produce hate in his listeners.

Limbaugh knows that half of his listeners hate him and listen to him, because they can't get away from hating him. He counted to have and keep these listeners, so he produced enough hate inciting comments to keep his alrady hooked listeners.

The other half of Limbaugh's listeners love him, because they ravel in the thought to bash the other half of the people with the same "cutting edge hate speech" he was presenting to them.

He was a role model for a bunch of other conservative radio talk show hosts, who all imitated the same kind hate inciting speech.

For a guy to keep up this kind of role model for years and years, just cries out for a drug to keep him performing.

A lay-down and drool sort of euphoria could very well be enjoyed whilst sitting comfortably in his mansion in front of his studio microphone. Limbaugh doesnt jump around and babbles, he quite precisely formulates his stinging argumentation and hate-inciting comments. So, let's call this a sit-down and intellectual drooling sort of euphoria. I am sure he gets a kick out of his own comments.

He admitted the addiction and checks himself in. Good. I do not believe that he will beat his addiction, even if he goes through all the "right" steps of detoxification and whatever 12-steps programs he might get into afterwards.

There is no chance for him to continue his job and be honest to himself about his fight against the addiction after he has been detoxificated, because he will "play" his role of an addict, who fights the addiction out in the public on radio talk show. This very fact will cause him to lie to himself almost by default and that's the end of fighting it.

You seem to forget that he didn't deliberately admitted his addiction in public or in front of anybody, because he had hit "bottom" on his own and he came to the conclusion that there is no other way to go on in his life other than to go out of the addiction. This is absolutely not what has happened to Limbaugh before he admitted his addiction.

The revelations of his addiction through his housekeeper, who sold the news to a tabloid
forced him into "hitting bottom". After the cat was out of the bag, he had no other option than to admit his addiction.

I suppose we will get another "reborn whatever success story" full of self-betrayal in the future. May be he will become a "reborn liberal". That at least would be fun for a change and certainly gets him a new bunch of loyal listeners.

[ Parent ]

This was all explained on about every show (1.75 / 12) (#70)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:19:34 AM EST

Almost any of the interview shows that had addiction doctors explained some of these things.

He gave a good explanation, but not comprehensive enough for my taste. There are thousands of people, who have pains of that sort, get treated with the same medication and don't get addicted. So, there is a question, why he might have been more dependent on the effects of the drugs than others.
Addiction is different for everybody. Why do some people get addicted to alcohol and others dont. It also depends on time, duration, amount, etc.. Rush's back surgery failed. He was left in with a severe chronic pain. The pills were likely taken for that too.

I happen to believe that the highs he got from taking up to over 30 pills of oxycontin a day have helped him to produce day in day out "cutting edge political hate inciting comments" that produce hate in his listeners.
I have no idea why you would say that. Because you don't agree with him, his views must have been assited by drugs? Exactly how would Oxycotin have helped Rush produce his "hate inciting comments"? This isn't like a coke high. Also, the body gets used to opiates and it needs to take more and more to get the same feeling. The dosage probably rose with his addiction -- his body not getting the same feeling.

He admitted the addiction and checks himself in. Good. I do not believe that he will beat his addiction, even if he goes through all the "right" steps of detoxification and whatever 12-steps programs he might get into afterwards.
He has already been to treatment twice for this. This will be his third time. The recitivism rate for opiates is very high, and it is not uncommon for somebody to go half a dozen times before serious progress finally takes hold. He is probably going into some rapid detox facility that will monitor and council him for a few weeks after detoxing.

You seem to forget that he didn't deliberately admitted his addiction in public or in front of anybody, because he had hit "bottom" on his own and he came to the conclusion that there is no other way to go on in his life other than to go out of the addiction. This is absolutely not what has happened to Limbaugh before he admitted his addiction.
Going to detox twice before does show that he knew he had a problem already and was taking steps to deal with it.

Maybe you need to learn more about what happened before spouting off your hate-filled comments.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

I didn't produce a hate-filled comment (1.85 / 7) (#95)
by mami on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:24:04 AM EST

I think aloud about the probability the drugs being an integral part of his performance on the microphone producing ideological-based propaganda with the intent to incite people's feelings and causing reactions that are divicive and hateful.

It's a business he masters very well and I do believe that on the long run people can't make a living producing hate and face themselves without feeling disgust about themselves.

To supress these "nagging" little thoughts, which for sure creep up in his back of his "moral conscience" about himself, he most probably needs some drugs. It's a mechanism which is very common and nothing special. Constant self-betrayal cause the need to "forget all your lies" and most people can numb themselves only with drugs. That's nothing special. Limbaugh is an ordinary guy like anybody else.

I have all the right to formulate my thoughts about it and it is in no way hate speech from my part. I describe basic mechanism millions of addicts experience.  

I have no respect for any sort of propagandistic exploitation of mass audience's feelings from whomever, left, right, preachers and what have you.

Having no respect for Limbaugh's business model (make money creating diviciveness) to make a living and myself being called a hate-producing speaker because of my lack of respect for Limbaugh's work, is a weak effort to ridicule me.

I predict that Limbaugh will only beat his addiction, if he can beat his addiction to his type of work and I doubt he is able to do that.

I also believe he knows that very well already himself. So, let go off dragging his life into the public discussion. As long as he choses to go off the air and deal with his addiction in private and won't exploit his fight against his addiction just as another subject in his performance on the air, it's ok with me.

According to all other conservative talk show propagandists, he will not lose one listener, but get millions more, because when he comes back on the air, he has a new issue, for which half the people will hate him and the other half will have compassion for.

Well, I think this subject has been exhausted. It's boring and inappropriate to waste one more thought about it here.


[ Parent ]

It's only working on you (2.00 / 4) (#215)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:58:35 AM EST

It's a business he masters very well and I do believe that on the long run people can't make a living producing hate...
You create the hate for Rush, then you blame him. It's only people like you who say that he produces hate. Us conservatives already have contempt for "liberals". We don't need Rush's help.
According to all other conservative talk show propagandists...
A call for morality, values, small government, and lower taxes is propaganda? hahahahahaha

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

propaganda (2.60 / 5) (#225)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:33:28 PM EST

A call for morality and values is propaganda when the person making that call has no morality or values himself. A call for small government is propaganda when the call is made by apologists for the political party that enacted laws greatly increasing the size of the economy that is under government control, when, in fact, the person making that call asserts that the person most responsible for the increase in the size of government is the greatest president of the 20th century. A call for lower taxes is propaganda when there is no corresponding call for spending cuts - you have not cut taxes in that case, you have merely shifted the time at which those taxes must be paid into the future.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
he's a fuckin' hypocrit (2.00 / 4) (#139)
by vivelame on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:04:35 PM EST

like most of his (neo)con followers. Get over it, you're one too.
Did you know he was cheating on his wife at the same time he was bashing Clinton for a blowjob? I'm sure he was getting oral from an intern when he wrote some of his comments on the blue dress/cigar affair.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Opriates for back pain? (none / 3) (#270)
by rantweasel on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:22:49 PM EST

He should've tried pot.  Any either yoga or chiropractic.  They're all way more socially acceptable that opiates, and I think people who think more of him for getting busted growing his own than sending his housekeeper to buy him some pills...

[ Parent ]
It is precisely the time for those comments (2.61 / 52) (#9)
by felixrayman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:21:01 PM EST

It's not a time for remarks about hypocrisy

Actually, it is time for those remarks. I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh getting fucked up on drugs. I have no problem with you getting fucked up on drugs. I have no problem with you deciding you no longer wish to get fucked up on drugs. I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh deciding, after being accused in the media of purchasing thousands of pills a month, that he no longer wishes to be fucked up on drugs.

I have a big problem with Rush Limbaugh thinking he has the right to decide whether or not I can get fucked up on drugs, and you can motherfucking be sure that I have one motherfucking huge ass problem with the piece of shit telling me I shouldn't get fucked up on drugs while HE HIMSELF IS FUCKED UP ON DRUGS. That is the issue here, all the other crap in your article...so what? Is anyone here arguing that no one ever has problems with drug abuse or addiction? I do not see anyone making such an argument.

The moron made a big deal out of calling drug users scum, saying they should all be locked up, on and on. If people use drugs, they should go to jail, he said. The piece of shit asked us to pray for him, so here it is:

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

No it's not... (1.46 / 13) (#13)
by Skywise on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:51:15 PM EST

There's a difference between a man who gets hooked on pain killers due to back surgery and somebody who  gets hooked on drugs for recreational purposes.


[ Parent ]
feel good now (2.14 / 14) (#16)
by felixrayman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:01:18 PM EST

Every drug addict out there has their reasons for what they do. First of all you are taking the word of a known liar as to when he began getting fucked up on drugs. Second of all, I doubt the guy's doctor ever wrote him a prescription for 4000 pills in a month. He's no different than an inner city drug addict sucking dick for crack.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Now THAT'S sig-able (1.40 / 5) (#108)
by Theranthrope on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:41:07 PM EST

He's no different than an inner city drug addict sucking dick for crack. -- <a target=_top href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/user/uid:27974">felixrayman</a> commenting on <a target=_top href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/10/20523/411">Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction</a>

Just put some highlight then [ctrl]+[c] and then some [ctrl]+[v] action on there.
(just remember to take out the @#$%ing target_top's after you preview it)

"Turmeric applied as a suppository will increase intelligence." -- HidingMyName
[
Parent ]

So people don't use heroin to stop their pain? nt (2.25 / 4) (#209)
by spasticfraggle on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:18:43 AM EST



--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
Agreed. (none / 3) (#253)
by sllort on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:23:13 PM EST

And that difference is probably about 40 or 50 grand.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
It's too easy to do (2.10 / 20) (#14)
by pyramid termite on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:55:49 PM EST

Actually, it is time for those remarks.

It's always time for those remarks. I'm sure I've made quite a few in the past. Take a person we disagree with, find an Achilles' heel of inconsistency or hypocrisy and discredit anything he says or does from that moment on. The conservatives did it with Clinton, the liberals do it with Bush, and now it's Rush's turn.

Soon, every leader we have or might have had will be revealed as rank two-faced bastards in an Armageddon of Sleaze and then what will we do? Who will be qualified to lead us then? Will anyone in their right mind who's got skeletons in their closet, even if they're mice skeletons, even if they're the mere appearance of mice skeletons, want to subject themselves to the Grand Inquisition of The American Media?

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

Indeed - expect perfection in lawfulness from your leaders and they will expect it from you. Measure every politician's soul according to impossible to meet moral standards and you are effectively demanding when we finally find some that do, that they should measure us according to those standards.

Have you ever smoked dope? Pinched someone's ass? Taken an extra snack out of the snack machine because it fell along with the one you purchased? Preached against something, anything, and later changed your mind and did it?

Should you be fired for it, even if you're doing the job you were hired for? It's amazing how Puritanism is able to morph through generation after generation ...

Our media and ourselves have been doing this for decades now. Do we have a better, more moral country for it? Or more corrosive cynicism? More "They're all crooks and bastards, it doesn't matter" kind of thinking?

It would be a great way for an elite to manipulate the public into not giving a damn.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Hold on a minute. (2.30 / 20) (#17)
by kitten on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:08:44 PM EST

Soon, every leader we have or might have had will be revealed as rank two-faced bastards in an Armageddon of Sleaze and then what will we do?

Rush isn't a leader. He isn't even a politician. Rush is a political pundit with a big mouth.

Does he influence people? Probably. But he isn't a politician.

The point here is that conservatives and even some liberals are flocking to laud Rush for being strong in the face of this. Sean Hannity (ugh) spent a good two hours today blathering about how it isn't Rush's fault, it could happen to anyone, it's an addiction, yadda yadda.

The thing is, I don't disagree. Yes, it could happen to anyone. Yes, it is an addiction. So is heroin.

Yet we lock up the heroin addict and laud the Vidocain addict. Both are abusing controlled substances for the same reason - addiction. It's a double standard, and it's wrong.


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Uh.. hello... hello... (1.88 / 9) (#80)
by Heinrich L Beefeater on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:47:03 AM EST

Rush isn't a leader. He isn't even a politician. Rush is a political pundit with a big mouth.

Rush is an entertainer. He gets paid to sell soap and other sundry products because he has the ability to get people to tune into his radio show. The fact that he has tapped into an arena (bashing anyone who isn't a republican) and do very well at it really has nothing to do with politics. No more than Oprah or Jay Leno or Howard Stern or anyone else who has achieved a level of success in the Entertainment industry. I feel sorry for anyone who has ever listened to him without realizing this.

Just so you know.

--------------------------------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former --
Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]

That's debatable. (2.12 / 8) (#106)
by kitten on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:34:01 PM EST

I see what you're saying, but you're looking at it from the marketing side. Most people think that a broadcast network's product is the programs on the air. In fact it is closer to what you're saying: The network is selling advertising space. The programs are a "hook" as it were, to get people to tune in, so that a few times an hour (or more) they will see the real product the network is selling: commercials.

However there can be overlap. Rush's network is selling advertising space, and the network views Rush as a useful tool to entice companies to purchase that space.

But his listeners tune in because they want to hear what he has to say. To his listeners, he is a political pundit (not a politician, mind you). They tune in because they feel his words are important, and many of them are so brainwashed / feeble-minded that they agree with anything he says.

To act like Rush has no political power at all is foolhardy. If Rush supports a candidate for election, you can bet that most of his listeners will, too, because they respect or admire Rush's opinions and are too lazy to make decisions for themselves.

So I stand by what I said. Rush is not a politician and he is not a leader. But he does wield power in the sense that he commands a large audience, and he has the power to shape their opinions and views. Unfortunately.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Well (2.40 / 5) (#158)
by Heinrich L Beefeater on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:59:00 PM EST

I won't disagree that Rush probably has influence over some of the people who listen to him, but my point is that Rush says things because they get ratings, not because they deal with what he really thinks (although after reaching the level of success he has I wouldn't be surprised if his personal beliefs haven't merged with his radio schtick) but you can bet that if nobody listened he would be spouting on about something different.

The name of the game of talk radio is to be controversial and to get people stirred up so they listen and tell their pals about you, it doesn't matter if they talk about you because they love you or hate you, as long as they listen to you and feel compelled to "get involved" in some manner. That's why you'll never have intelligent, balanced, open minded hosts reach any level of success yet people like Rush and Howard Stern do. They have to "troll" in the old-school definition of trolling and Rush, based upon the level of success he has reached, is a pretty good troll.

Thusly, I stand behind my point that Rush is all about selling soap and is no more of a political pundit than William Shatner is a starship captian.

That anyone would "follow" him and be influenced by his show is simply a sad comment on the state of the human nature. People tend to be sheep, on the whole.

--------------------------------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former --
Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]

People agree with Rush (2.20 / 5) (#200)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 09:33:09 AM EST

They tune in because they feel his words are important, and many of them are so brainwashed / feeble-minded that they agree with anything he says.
I would hesitate to call most of Rush's listeners brainwashed or feeble-minded. A good many of them are well educated middle upper class well thought out people.
But he does wield power in the sense that he commands a large audience, and he has the power to shape their opinions and views. Unfortunately.
What is so unfortunate?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

Easy, and fun, and the right thing to do (2.60 / 23) (#18)
by felixrayman on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:12:32 PM EST

Preached against something, anything, and later changed your mind and did it?

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about preaching against other people doing something at the same time you are doing it yourself. If Rush had said "you know, I made some anti-drug comments in the past, but I've recently tried drugs, and you know what? I like them! I'm fucking high as John Denver right now, I've been taking a pill every 10 minutes all week! They should let all those crackheads out of prison, those guys are on to something!" it would be a completely different story.

So your charge of "puritanism" here is 100% bullshit. I do not care if politicians or other public figures take drugs except when they have made it clear that they disapprove of me taking drugs. I am not saying I've never pinched anyone's ass, you of all people should know better, sweet cheeks. The moral standard I am advocating here is that we do not tolerate people telling us to behave one way while they themselves are behaving quite the opposite. That is hardly too much to ask.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Focus on the issues (1.50 / 12) (#26)
by pyramid termite on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:44:48 PM EST

So your charge of "puritanism" here is 100% bullshit.

Then why the hue and cry over Clinton's not inhaling and getting a blow job? Why the protest that Bush didn't give a straight answer about his alleged cocaine use? Why pillory Bill Bennett for gambling? Rush for popping pills? Arnie for pinching asses?

The moral standard I am advocating here is that we do not tolerate people telling us to behave one way while they themselves are behaving quite the opposite. That is hardly too much to ask.

Is that the opposite once, or many times? Doesn't our media, by their relentless burrowing into whether so and so smoked dope in the 70s practically invite the hypocrisy of lying? Do any of the reporters who gleefully report on these hypocrisies indulge themselves, but condemn other people when they do so?

What is the purpose of this "moral standard" of non-hypocrisy you demand? Is it to get people to be honest about themselves or is it just to get them out of office or off the air or discredit everything else they happen to say? Because that's what it's being used for - one long, sorry parade of ad hominem arguments by sensationalists who can't or won't argue issues directly. And, as I asked you before, is it actually making us a better country?

Personally, I'm getting quite sick of it. If people want to argue against drug laws, well and good, but make arguments - don't skulk through the bushes hoping to catch an anti-drug proponent popping a Vicodin and don't interview all his high school classmates trying to find out if he ever inhaled. One does not solve social issues with tabloid demogoguery and mud slinging.

You should care that politicians stand against your beliefs and freedoms no matter what they're doing in their private lives? If they were perfect, does that make them less oppressive?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Yes you should (2.25 / 20) (#38)
by felixrayman on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:09:58 AM EST

Clinton as governor presided over a government that put a large number of people in jail for posession of marijuana, same thing with Bush and cocaine. Bill Bennet's gambling is an issue because he has made an issue out of high moral standards. We already explained why Rush's admitted dope fiendishness is an issue - it is because he made it an issue. Arnold ran as a member of the 'family values' party, sexual harassment is not a family value. There is no puritanism here - these are all instances of people saying one thing and doing another. These are all instances where one rule is good for the ruler, another rule is good for the ruled. Fuck that. This is America - we all live under the same laws. If Clinton can smoke dope, so can I. If Bush can allegedly snort coke, so can I. If Bush can drive drunk, so can I. If Bill Bennet can gamble, so can I. If Rush can get take 4000 downers a month, so can I. You have made my case for me better than I could make it myself.

Doesn't our media, by their relentless burrowing into whether so and so smoked dope in the 70s practically invite the hypocrisy of lying?

No.

Do any of the reporters who gleefully report on these hypocrisies indulge themselves, but condemn other people when they do so?

I missed the part where the reporters "condemned" any of the people listed above. They certainly reported information that was quite interesting to me. Maybe I should have been listening to the "reporters" on the Rush Limbaugh show for the actual condemnations.

What is the purpose of this "moral standard" of non-hypocrisy you demand?

It is not a moral standard. It is common sense. Don't like a particular behavior? Perhaps you should stop partaking in that behavior before condemning others for it.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Add yourself to the list (1.80 / 10) (#89)
by curien on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:27:23 AM EST

You said that you had no problem with people changing their minds. Was Clinton still doing pot while governor of Arkansas? Was Bush still doing cocaine during his political career? I won't comment on Bill Bennett -- I'm ignorant on that matter.

And the argument against Arnie is just ridiculous. It's clear that he isn't a family-values Republican, and if you haven't realized it you're not paying attention. The man's pro-choice fercryinoutloud!

Sounds to me like you can add yourself to that list.

--
Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
[ Parent ]

But what about Limbaugh? (2.57 / 7) (#120)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:52:58 PM EST

Was Clinton still doing pot while governor of Arkansas? Was Bush still doing cocaine during his political career?

Was Limbaugh doing drugs while saying that drug users should be locked up? According to this story, "Limbaugh said his addiction began 'five or six' years ago"

The only quote I can find of Limbaugh condemning drug users was from 1995.



[ Parent ]
Interesting (2.16 / 6) (#132)
by curien on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:16:50 PM EST

I'm skeptical, but I suppose it's possible he went for five years without bashing anyone for using drugs.

--
Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
[ Parent ]
Did you read the whole article? (2.60 / 5) (#204)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:09:22 AM EST

But in a 1998 radio broadcast, he changed tacks.

"It seems to me that what is missing in the drug fight is legalization," he told a caller. "If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs . . . get control of the price and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky-high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs."

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

Uh-oh (none / 0) (#343)
by PurpleBob on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:49:27 PM EST

Wait a second. I agree with Rush Limbaugh. I agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Egad.

[ Parent ]

Uh-oh (none / 2) (#344)
by PurpleBob on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:56:21 PM EST

Wait a second. I agree with Rush Limbaugh. I agree with Rush Limbaugh.

I feel unclean.

[ Parent ]

Thje hypocracy is still there (2.60 / 5) (#150)
by pyro9 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:58:53 PM EST

Notice that Clinton and Bush (Jr.) both continued to maintain that all drug users should make restitution to society by going to jail, but neither was in a big hurry to lock themselves up. The hypocracy is still there though since they would have us write it all off as youthful indescretion, except that they're not prepared to do that for the youthful.

They are claiming loud and clear that any drug use is so detrimental to a person that they'd be better off in jail, knowing fully well that it didn't do much to harm them.

We expect people who make a mistake in their lives to be sympathetic and understanding towards others who make the same mistake.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
They stopped partaking in the behavior (2.50 / 4) (#203)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 09:59:20 AM EST

It is not a moral standard. It is common sense. Don't like a particular behavior? Perhaps you should stop partaking in that behavior before condemning others for it.
In most of the instances you mentioned: Clinton smoking weed, Bush doing coke, Bush drunk driving, Arnold's alleged sexual harassment, Rush taking OCs; they aren't being hypocritical when they condemn those behaviors. Clinton wasn't smoking weed while he was condemning it. Bush isn't doing coke or drinking and driving now; there's nothing hypocritical if he condemns those behaviors. Arnold's alleged sexual harassment happened many years ago. He can be an honest family man today. Rush wasn't condemning drug users while he was one; probably because he realized that he made a mistake.

There's nothing hypocritical about an ex-smoker who tells a kid not to start smoking. Are you going to forever hold people against past behaviors and mistakes? What about a parent who makes mistakes? Are they allowed to tell their children not to make the same mistakes that they did? Or would that also fall under hypocritical?

Roe vs Wade was the 1973 court decision that legalized abortion in America. See what "Jane Roe" has to say about it now. I wouldn't call her a hypocrite.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

that's fascinating (2.50 / 4) (#224)
by speek on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:18:02 PM EST

More fuel to the theory that some people are susceptible to extreme movements , regardless of the actual beliefs espoused by the movement leaders. Such people are attracted to the feeling of involvment and purpose beyond themselves, and her switch from radical abortion-rights activist to baptized-convert to Christian fundamentalism probably is a function of Christian fundamentalism providing better for those feelings of involvement, community, and higher purpose than abortion-rights activism.

But then, I'm a cynic.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Roe wasn't an activist (none / 2) (#314)
by baron samedi on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:18:50 AM EST

Jane Roe was never an abortion rights activist. Her case was just the one that made it a 4th amendment issue, ergo: privacy.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
hmmm (none / 2) (#323)
by speek on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:16:01 AM EST

That's really not the impression the article gives. She worked at clinics. Spoke publicly at them for abortion rights, "hurled insults at [anti-abortion] protestors". That makes you an activist in my book.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Yup (2.60 / 5) (#227)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:58:05 PM EST

Are you going to forever hold people against past behaviors and mistakes?

If the people in question run a business that makes its profits by pointing out, in quite a loud fashion , the behaviors and mistakes of others, then yes. Yes I am. When Clinton was president, did Rush ever say "Well, that happened over 5 years ago. It has no relationship to what sort of person Clinton is now."? Or did Rush bring up every past behavior and mistake that Clinton ever made in an attempt to discredit him? Paybacks are a bitch.

I will repeat what I have said many times here, we should hold our leaders, be they politicians, journalists, or populist radio personalities, to at least as high of a standard as they hold us.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
you're going too far (2.00 / 9) (#74)
by speek on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:41:50 AM EST

You are assuming it's a hopeless endeavor to find a public figure who's not so blatantly hypocritical. But if we stop looking for people who spout absolute moralisms all day, they're actually quite numerous. Why don't you expect the same rationality from your leaders that you apparently expect from yourself? Would you ever be in favor of jail sentences for dope smokers?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Everybody does do it (2.00 / 6) (#185)
by jjayson on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:28:19 AM EST

Everybody does spout some sort of moral absolutes. Nobody really holds a morally relative position (murder is something that everybody is against). Saying that somebody else's moral absolutes are bad because they are different from your is in itself a form of absolutist judgement and hence hypocritical.

There exists nobody on the face of this Earth that is not a hypocrit. On a daily basis, everybody does something that they know is wrong and are against. If you look at yourself and cannot find at least one hypocritical action you took, then you are just fooling yourself.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

Except (2.80 / 5) (#205)
by spasticfraggle on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:13:59 AM EST

Some (many) utilitarianists aren't always against murder, although they probably are as a general position.

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
yeah, I don't argue that (2.75 / 4) (#226)
by speek on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:41:49 PM EST

I'm sure everyone does do things they wish they didn't, or that they believe are bad or wrong choices. But I'm not sure about everyone spouting moral absolutes. I don't believe in morality at all, for instance. So, when I argue against something, like murder, it's on a practical basis that acknowledges my purely subjective viewpoint (I don't like living with people who might murder me or my family/friends). I don't care to get into a moral argument about it - if you do argue with me about murder, and try to demonstrate your views on me, I'll just shoot you myself and move on with hopefully one fewer person in the world who might violate my desire to live with people who won't kill me. Morality's got nothing to do with it.

However, most people would describe the same exact things with moralistic terminology, and I would too at times, just to be understood. But I maintain that I hold no moral opinion about anything.

I do, however, do things I explicitly don't want to do, out of habit and/or weakness/addiction, or from faulty reasoning that I become aware of later. Hypocrisy is hardly the worst sin there is, and I don't hold that against Rush that much - not nearly as much as I hold it against him his views and rhetoric that I feel do substantial damage to my environment. Whether or not he does drugs himself, I will always have anger for him if he supports the current drug war.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

"Against murder" is circular (none / 2) (#331)
by error 404 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:45:12 PM EST

Murder is defined, in general, as killing a human being without the permission of your tribe.

Most people are in favor of killing people when it is with the permission of the tribe. Capital punishment, euthanasia, war, self-defense, lawful police response to dangerous criminal actions, etc etc etc. A very few moral absolutists are not.

It is the "without permission" that makes it murder. So if it is a killing that people approve of, it is, by definition, not murder. A position against murder is thus circular.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Almost. (none / 0) (#336)
by sllort on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:46:46 PM EST

It is the "without permission" that makes it murder. So if it is a killing that people approve of, it is, by definition, not murder. A position against murder is thus circular.

If you are, individually, against murder, then you are stating that you are against killings that society is against, which is a noncircular individual opinion (you agree with society), as opposed to an individual who is in favor of murder. However a society being against murder is truly circular, because a society against murder is a society which disapproves of killings it disapproves of.

Oh my god, anal alert.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Hypocrisy (none / 3) (#219)
by yooden on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:15:20 AM EST

Have you ever smoked dope? Pinched someone's ass? Taken an extra snack out of the snack machine because it fell along with the one you purchased? Preached against something, anything, and later changed your mind and did it?

Have I claimed not to?

[ Parent ]
No (3.00 / 5) (#292)
by epepke on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:46:30 PM EST

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

Indeed - expect perfection in lawfulness from your leaders and they will expect it from you.

No. Limbaugh deserves to be judged according to his own standards. I'm not going to judge just anybody by "impossibly perfect" standards. I know I'm far from perfect, so I don't make moral judgements. (Except in the case of programming and user interface design, in which case I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.) Hey, I've groped women. I've even had sex with a few dozen. I'm not about to come down on someone else for having done that.

But when someone has made a career and millions of dollars out of being supercilious, then when the fickle finger of fate comes back to point at him, he doesn't deserve apologia.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
About Rush Limbaugh (1.80 / 20) (#11)
by cronian on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:24:35 PM EST

if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to drug addiction, what of the rest of us? Are we stronger? Wiser? More strict? Or, perhaps, just more fortunate? And what does this suggest our drug policy should be?

Why do you think Rush is either moral or intelligent?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
There's a difference between ... (2.40 / 15) (#12)
by pyramid termite on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:34:12 PM EST

... having a sense of morality and being moral, isn't there? Or perhaps it would be better to say that I don't share his views on what is morally or politically right.

As far as intelligence goes, I don't think a person can talk for 15 hours a week on national radio for years and be stupid. Cunning, prone to intellectual short-cuts and willing to shape issues for his allies' benefit, but not stupid.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Qualifications (1.71 / 7) (#85)
by domovoi on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:09:36 AM EST

I'll essentially agree with you, but I'd adjust the diction to point to the difference between moral and moralizing.


------------------------------
This is not my signature line.
[ Parent ]
O brother not another drug troll. (1.25 / 12) (#15)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:56:37 PM EST

I wish "people" - and I use the term advisedly referring to trolls and moralists and those too poor to afford good shit or must work for a living - I wish they would stop making sweeping generalizations about drugs as if drugs affected everyone the same. They don't - by their very nature they can't. Failing meaningful agreement on their effect on particular minds drugs cannot be discussed intelligently - the result of trying is your article: an attempt to stir emotions in random directions suspending mental images before the fantasies of drunks and excited trolls and authoritarian personalities the likes of Rusty. Take for example your calling druggies "weak." What is that supposed to mean? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Drug users are not "weak" - NO - they are "people who use drugs." Believe Mr Hogan it is entirely possible to lead a long and healthy life - productive even if that's your thing - shooting smack and smoking crack morning noon and night - AND MILLIONS OF PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS DO IT! All the money we squander on the primitive Peoples of the Sand - 89 billion in this fiscal quarter alone - we should hand it out to the boys and girls hustling in the ghetto! I dare anyone prove we shouldn't.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.

a minor correction (1.85 / 7) (#23)
by khallow on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:32:34 PM EST

Believe Mr Hogan it is entirely possible to lead a long and healthy life - productive even if that's your thing - shooting smack and smoking crack morning noon and night - AND MILLIONS OF PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS DO IT!

Such suberb trolling material shouldn't go unmentioned. Why in the world do you think lawyers and doctors are productive just because they draw a paycheck? I wager that drug dealers are more productive than lawyers, and many doctors are just state-sanctioned drug dealers. It's well known that law is just the largest state-sponsered parasite. And medicine has little connection to productivity since even in the US, competition is regulated out of existence. But maybe your idea of "productivity" is how much blood can a worker suck out of their fellows?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

i totally disagree with you about drug laws (1.22 / 18) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:26:24 PM EST

but +1 fp from me, for this is the best of kuro5hin: a heartfelt honest paean

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Editorial comment (2.00 / 11) (#69)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:06:24 AM EST

Next time change that little drop down box to read editorial. I promise it will not hurt.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
I'm very amused. (+1S) (1.94 / 17) (#24)
by Kasreyn on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:32:35 PM EST

First off by the assumption that the revelation that Limbaugh was seriously fucked up and a hypocrite was any surprise even BEFORE this news;

and secondly by this line: "Bob Dylan, sounding like the God of the Old Testament, whined about being 'Tangled Up In Blue'."

LMAO, I'm trying to imagine Dylan's reedy altotenor converting to a lordly, commanding baritone, and just thoroughly failing. ^_^ You must have been FUCKED UP.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Everybody is a hypocrit (1.50 / 14) (#30)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:19:51 AM EST

Rush is, I am, and even you are. It should be no surprise that anybody is one.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
Few are so loud about it (1.62 / 8) (#90)
by curien on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:37:37 AM EST

It's a matter of degrees. Someone who is quietly a hypocrite draws much less attention -- and hence much less ire -- than someone being a raucous, loudmouth braggart and a hypocrite to boot.

Elsethread, you made a comment that expressed your view that Rush's abuse of prescription drugs was somehow better than a street addict. I somewhat agree with you, and I ask only that you apply the same reasoning to Rush's hypocrisy. If hypocrisy were a drug, Rush would be a toothless, bony crack-whore living in a cardboard box, selling his body for his next fix.

--
Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
[ Parent ]

what? (2.14 / 7) (#119)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:31:42 PM EST

Elsethread, you made a comment that expressed your view that Rush's abuse of prescription drugs was somehow better than a street addict.
I didn't say that. Maybe you have me confused with some other poster?
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
Sorry, it was Thelizman (2.20 / 5) (#122)
by curien on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:58:01 PM EST

Please accept my apology for the mix-up.

--
Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
[ Parent ]
nice (2.25 / 4) (#125)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:42:09 PM EST

Have thelizman and me become indistinguishable?
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
Indistinguishable? No (2.16 / 6) (#131)
by curien on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:15:00 PM EST

But it's not hard to confuse you, I think. You're probably the best proponents/apologists for conservatives on this site, and you both frequently post many times in a discussion. I'd read all the posts before replying to any of them, so I guess I had forgotten which of you had written it by the time I wrote that post.

--
Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
[ Parent ]
It was just a joke, don't worry about it. (1.87 / 8) (#162)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:29:34 PM EST

However, I am curious why truth or death would try to hide that comment where I say it wasn't me.

Truth or death, maybe you should just change your name to "death" since you don't seem to care about the truth.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

That is ironic (1.80 / 5) (#201)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 09:42:27 AM EST

I noticed that you have ti dave giving you all zeroes too. What's the matter? Did you piss his immature ass off at the HuSi site?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

No (2.20 / 5) (#232)
by jjayson on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:40:59 PM EST

I don't post at HuSi. I don't know why ti dave started with that. *shrug* As long as posts in stories don't start getting hidden, I really don't care either.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
you better check out HuSi jjayson (1.50 / 4) (#298)
by partykidd on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:21:13 PM EST

Somebody posted with your name and claimed it was you. It was around the September 11th date. I read the posts and didn't think it was you because it didn't read like something you would write. This is why I signed up there only to take my name.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

I played Black Sabbath at 78 and saw God (1.37 / 8) (#31)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:20:38 AM EST

LMAO, I'm trying to imagine Dylan's reedy altotenor converting to a lordly, commanding baritone, and just thoroughly failing. ^_^ You must have been FUCKED UP.

Yeah - it's a damned good thing they didn't play Hawkwind or Amon Duul 2. My fragile mind would have never recovered. You've got to work up to stuff like that.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I thought Hootie said 'Tangled up in Blue'. (1.28 / 7) (#32)
by lazloToth on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:38:38 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Lay Lady Lay (1.55 / 9) (#84)
by localroger on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:07:43 AM EST

LMAO, I'm trying to imagine Dylan's reedy altotenor converting to a lordly, commanding baritone, and just thoroughly failing.

When he stopped smoking, his voice got a lot deeper and less reedy. This is the voice in which he recorded Lay Lady Lay and it doesn't sound like you'd expect a Bob Dylan song to sound at all.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]

Rush Limbaugh: Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1.62 / 43) (#28)
by rmg on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:56:44 PM EST

The Rush Limbaugh boogey man has been a feature of the Liberal Media machine for nearly ten years. We hear the reports and sound bytes of this supposed madman daily basis. Some of us even listen to "his" NPR radio talk show -- for the enquiring reader, this should be the first sign that something is amiss. After all, how many times has talk radio falsely announced the death of Loca Lroger's favorite author Steven King's untimely death in his Maine apartment? Do we honestly believe NPR, home of Godless Communists, Martha Stewart, and Islamicist terrorist extremists? Surely not.

It is easy to see what is going on here. NPR has invented this "Rush Limbaugh" character to discredit right thinking Americans everywhere, much the way Bill Clinton invented Saddam Hussein.

After having tremendous success fooling the general public for some eight years, NPR finally decided to kick it up a notch by cooking up a story about drug abuse, the klan, and Colombian druglords and drop the their conservative strawman right in the mix.

Well, clever I suppose, but did they really think they would get away with it? What sort of fools do they take us for? I don't know anyone who has ever even seen this "Rush Limbaugh" nor does anyone I know! I think it is time that we see this whole scenario for what it is: the Liberal Media's new take on the Wag the Dog theme.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks

Two easy options here (1.63 / 11) (#83)
by domovoi on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:05:44 AM EST

You are either trolling or utterly insensate. You and Grover Norquist should get together, toss back a few, and exchange fever dreams about fighting off the "librul, unMurrikan hordes" with a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a cocktail fork.


------------------------------
This is not my signature line.
[ Parent ]
Oh, That will be the day! (2.14 / 7) (#99)
by rmg on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:34:42 AM EST

That Nurquist nutjob is soft on Libertarianism. If he had his way, he would repeal the death penalty, legalize prostitution, and turn Memphis into the Casino Royale. The only way I'll "get together" with Nurquist is to beat his pinko ass.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

oh dude (2.00 / 4) (#252)
by tps12 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:37:56 AM EST

Loca Lroger's favorite author Steven King
That's cold, yo, but LMAO.

[ Parent ]
Excellent! (none / 1) (#352)
by frooby on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:03:40 PM EST

I especially liked the informative links.

[ Parent ]
Eric Berne wrote about this 40 years ago (2.73 / 42) (#29)
by epepke on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:08:19 AM EST

There's a deeper and more profound question we should be asking - if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to drug addiction, what of the rest of us?

"Strict and demanding" senses of morality are excellent predictors of addictive personalities. As Berne pointed out with the game "Alcoholic," the true payoff to "Alcoholic" is not drinking, which is only an incidental pleasure. The payoff is the hangover, with the swearing of "Never Again" which appeals to the person's moralistic nature.

For the person with a strong moral sense, there is little more deliciously tempting than violating it, and there is little that feeds the moral sense better than, once having been sated, to swear never to do it again.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


Yes, good point (2.45 / 20) (#36)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:56:54 AM EST

I've also noticed how people with addictive personalities sometimes turn to severe forms of religion, and how those raised in severe forms of religion sometimes turn out to be addicts. Sometimes, they flip back and forth like a fish.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
hmm (2.00 / 19) (#64)
by reklaw on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:19:19 AM EST

maybe religion is an addiction, then.
-
[ Parent ]
sir (1.41 / 17) (#130)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:12:38 PM EST

Mr Termite had something interesting to say, but you don't.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Maybe ... (none / 0) (#397)
by sergej on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 09:24:13 PM EST

Religion is an apathy of a stubborn pessimist. That's what Holden Caufield says in me, with my own words, of course. There might be a connection between addiction and stubborness ...

[ Parent ]
5 [nt] (1.42 / 7) (#220)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:17:14 AM EST


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
OK. I cry foul at this point. (2.00 / 6) (#229)
by SPYvSPY on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 01:48:53 PM EST

The way your story presents the question, it is as if you are saying "If as devout and pious and diligent a man as Rush Limbaugh can't stay off drugs, what hope is there for the rest of us?!"

The point is that people like Rush are the weakest links in the chain of society, once you've been able to see through their invisible clothes. Based on your story above, I doubt you've actually seen through Rush's clothes.

Now, with this statement: "I've also noticed how people with addictive personalities sometimes turn to severe forms of religion, and how those raised in severe forms of religion sometimes turn out to be addicts."

You're playing both sides of the fence here.

I mean, the very notion that you would open your story by setting aside the opportunity to criticize Rush says it all. You are a dittohead, and it shows.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

That's an interesting connection (none / 0) (#351)
by frooby on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:00:50 PM EST

and one I have seen before. Let me ask you this: What is it that the addict is seeking that is similar to what the spiritual or religious person is seeking?

[ Parent ]
Similar things (none / 1) (#369)
by epepke on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:51:29 PM EST

Triggering of endorphine receptors (oxycontin or heroin versus charismatic role-playing or self-flagellation), triggering of adrenaline receptors (amphetamines versus the excitement of an AME church), serotonin activity (mescaline and hallucinogenic mushrooms versus fasting).

I wouldn't go so far as Pyramid Termite in saying that religion might be or is an addiction, but it certainly can be used as part of an addiction in much the way drugs can. So can politics, business, athletics, and a whole bunch of other things.

Hundreds of millions of people seem to be capable of using religion responsibly. However, I do think that joining AA is largely a matter of addiction transfer rather than getting rid of addictions. You may occasionally find a non-smoking AA group, but lotsa luck finding one without a big ol' pot of coffee. The precepts of AA are straight from the Oxford groups program for combatting sin, and the feeling of surrender to a "higher power" is a nice analogue for the hangover. It's probably healthier in a physical sense than using alcohol, but I don't think the learned helplessness they teach is particularly healthy mentally.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
As my comment history indicates... (2.80 / 5) (#264)
by killmepleez on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:43:26 PM EST

...I've got a nice background in moral extremism, and I couldn't agree more with your connecting of moralism with addiction. I once said these words to myself, "Oh my god, that was awful! Nothing and I mean NOTHING other than Kleenex will ever go up my nose again!" Within three days, I realized that I had been lying.

__
"...if there isn't a delivery mechanism, it's not a weapon of mass destruction, it's a paperweight of mass destruction."
--Parent ]
Thanks (2.75 / 4) (#306)
by epepke on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:13:07 AM EST

I hope you have managed to get more control over your behavior. If you did, I bet it's because of a more relaxed attitude.

One of the things I truly hate about AA is how they program you so that if you have a drink, according to them, you gotta drink the whole bottle.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Online? (none / 1) (#370)
by epepke on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:59:28 PM EST

I don't know of any references online, but certainly it's easy to get his books. You might want to start with the Wikipedia article.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
We've seen this movie before. (2.48 / 31) (#33)
by lazloToth on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:42:15 AM EST

What Rush does next is cleans up, 'finds God', or re-finds him, or whatever you do if you already played religious guy, then starts some sort of half-assed ministry or another, and coasts on the administrative costs, heh heh, of running Rush Limbaugh Ministries for the rest of his life, thanks to legions of loyal mouth-breathers willing to set aside a couple bucks to not use to play the lottery.

None of this has happened yet, but already it bores me.

Changes (1.91 / 12) (#48)
by kraant on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:27:47 AM EST

What I wonder is if this will force Rush to re-examine his views on the world and change him.

What I read on the transcript was a lot braver than what I expected.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...

Yeah... (1.88 / 9) (#52)
by Elendale on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:24:01 AM EST

I got that feeling from him too. I mean, it sounded both somewhat humble and somewhat genuine, which is more in both respects than i feel Limbaugh usually is. I'm hoping he'll get over this just as a person, but i hope his political views will undergo a re-working because of this as well. Time will tell, though.
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
they could do (1.87 / 8) (#63)
by reklaw on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:17:29 AM EST

A bit like far-right politicians who block anti-gay legislation because one of their daughters is gay... or mayors who decide to give more funding to hospitals because of their experiences with cancer.

It does happen. Sometimes.
-
[ Parent ]

prayer to afflict the blessed (none / 3) (#273)
by ceannlaidir on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:51:13 PM EST

there was a concept i saw a while back (and of course i can't find a citation for now) that was a prayer to afflict the blessed - that is, visit hardships upon those who have none so that they gain more sympathy for others. dick cheney's opposition to any legislation that would restrict his lesbian daughter's civil liberties is one of the outcomes of such a thing.

personally, i'd like to see limbaugh afflicted into oblivion - nothing could be a more fitting end to someone who has built his entire life on being a bullhorn for hard core right wing beliefs than to have his audience turn on him as a hypocrit. but his request to have people pray for him will pretty much guarantee continued support and love from that community. apparently conservatives have personal problems that require people to leave them alone and pray for their recovery while liberals have problems that are destroying the nation and deserve to be strung up for their failings.

anyone else see a problem here?

[ Parent ]

Third trip (1.42 / 7) (#68)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:02:14 AM EST

This will be his third trip to rehab for this addiction. He should be humbled after not quite keeping off twice already. Some of the doctors on the shows today said that it is not uncommon for someone addicted to opiates to go through treatment half a dozen times before they finally get over it.

He was originally prescribed the pills for back surgery that would up failing.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

Maybe... (2.50 / 6) (#117)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:26:59 PM EST

But the speech seemed contrived to me. "I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes. They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem." It sounds to me like he's just parroting back what he learned in rehab. Like someone else said, he was caught first, then he admitted it. Doesn't seem very brave to me. Smart from a public relations standpoint, but not brave. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. Only Rush knows for sure.



[ Parent ]
Doubt it (2.50 / 4) (#191)
by applespank on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 04:20:37 AM EST

I've already seen Limbaugh's ditto-heads remark that his addiction is different because he was prescribed his drug of choice, rather than experimented with something illegal.  That's all the rationalization he (the radio personality, anyway) needs.

That said, he doesn't deserve jail time anymore than a crack whore.  I hope he beats this, despite the fact that he's a racist, misogynist, hypocrite.

[ Parent ]

You know what would be cool? (1.57 / 14) (#56)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:55:05 AM EST

If Ministry did a remake of "Just One Fix" with sound bytes of Rush Limbaugh.


While they're at it, they could redo "A New World Order" with sound bytes of Bush Jr.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

No, that's a stupid idea. (1.25 / 4) (#152)
by Kax on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:21:14 PM EST

.

[ Parent ]
Rush Limbaugh eats everything (1.93 / 15) (#65)
by itsbruce on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:56:02 AM EST

Not just pills


--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.

That was awesome! nt (1.44 / 9) (#100)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:54:14 AM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
no. /nt (1.50 / 8) (#128)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:02:49 PM EST


--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Yes. /nt (1.50 / 8) (#134)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:27:04 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
no, it was lame (1.71 / 7) (#164)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:58:22 PM EST

Just some cartoonist venting steam for an audience he's sure will agree with him. Nothing interesting to say, no insight - meh.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Yes, it was awesome (1.75 / 4) (#237)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:08:58 PM EST

It's not just some cartoonist venting steam for an audience he's sure will agree with him.  Something interesting to say,  insight - wow.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Glass Houses (2.50 / 22) (#66)
by What It Is on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:47:32 AM EST

I am an Independant, but I would be judged as a Republican by many k5ers. Today I listened to the standard right-wing radio shows, like Hannity and Medved. "Poor Rush, what a great man." They all were in heavy denial of Rush's drug use. I have never respected Rush. He has a history of very nasty partisan attack radio commentary. Live by the sword, die by the sword is my outlook. I still remember how he attacked Chelsea Clinton as being an ugly little girl. That was about as petty and cruel as it comes. Rush deserves zero sympathy. If any Democrat had been in a simular situation, Rush would have ripped his throat out. I say, Rush is a fucking hypocrit. I would sympathize with most any drug user, but Rush seems to be in a different category.

Hypocrisy breeds... (1.72 / 11) (#114)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:08:26 PM EST

I say, Rush is a fucking hypocrit. I would sympathize with most any drug user, but Rush seems to be in a different category.

Doesn't that make you a fucking hypocrite too?



[ Parent ]
No one "deserves" sympathy (2.50 / 8) (#192)
by applespank on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 04:33:36 AM EST

Or, to put it another way, everyone does.

No one should have to go through what Rush is going through, not even Rush.

Rush is a misogynist, a hypocrite, a filthy fucking racist, and a coward.  I hope he goes to hell.  I just hope he goes there clean and sober.  I hope he gets the help he needs, just like I hope the heroin addict down the street gets the same help.

I also hope that this teaches him a lesson about how drug addiction happens to anyone and how being an addict does not deserve a jail sentence.  I'm a realist in that sense, though.

Also, I think Chelsea's kinda hot, if you ignore the face.

[ Parent ]

You must have different definitions applespank (1.83 / 6) (#198)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 07:34:49 AM EST

"Rush is...a filthy fucking racist..."

What makes Rush racist?

"I hope he goes to hell."

That's very big of you.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

Rush's racist comments (2.00 / 4) (#228)
by felixrayman on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 01:00:47 PM EST

He has certainly made racist comments, although I am not going to get into a debate about how many racist comments it takes to make one a racist.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
A possibility (1.80 / 15) (#72)
by theElectron on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:27:44 AM EST

I think we should examine the possibility that Rush isn't a successful conservative thinker despite his use of narcotics, but maybe because of it. I think Mr. Limbaugh is showing the world that the controlled use of prescription narcotics can a usher in a new era of oxycontin-inspired enlightened conservative political and social thought, much as Timothy Leary tried to with LSD in the 1960s.

--
Join the NRA!
Rush and the Twelve Step Program (2.73 / 41) (#75)
by localroger on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:04:44 AM EST

I for one would dearly love to be present as Rush attempts to complete certain parts of the 12-step regimen...

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God.

By implication, this would require him to admit that so far his will and his life has not been in the care of God -- especially in the form of having his "talent on loan" from said Higher Power.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

This could be problematic. I tend to agree with the DU poster who observed that all those opiates must do a pretty good job of knocking back a bothersome conscience in the morning.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Again, this could be a major project in Rush's case. However, I do have a suggestion for him: He can start by apologizing to Chelsea Clinton for the incident with the dog photo.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

I'm not sure if even Rush has enough money to fund such a project.

While pyramid termite's point is valid, that Rush is a fallible person just as we all are fallible, there is a point at which one exhausts the capital one acquires simply by being a member of the human race.

For nearly twenty years Rush has held himself up as something better than the rest of us. He has savagely attacked anybody who dares disagree with him, a sin which is compounded by his admittedly great talent. He has in particular savagely attacked people for doing the very thing he was doing, the very definition of hypocrisy.

Al Franken once remarked that he almost called his first book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Lying Hypocrite, but he stopped at Liar because "there was no reason to get personal." Now we know the truth is that Franken's other title would have been more accurate. But the difference between the two men is that Al Franken has a sense of scale that Limbaugh lacks. If Limbaugh had a little girl, I could not imagine Franken "accidentally" putting her name beneath a picture of a dog.

I happened to catch the first hour of Limbaugh's Friday show. The highlight was his "a tiger is a tiger" rant, where he ridicules Siegfried's theory that the tiger Montecore was not meaning to attack Roy Horn when it nearly killed him. (Of course Siegfried and Roy have been working with these cats thirty years, they live with these cats, so naturally Rush knows more about these cats than Siegfried and Roy do.) Then, without missing a beat, Rush applies his metaphor to criminals -- a bad person is a bad person, "if you meet them later they're probably still going to be bad."

Rush quickly backpedaled ("that's not to say that we shouldn't try to help them since they're people") but the implication hung in the air, as he no doubt intended: It would be so much simpler just to shoot all those pesky criminals. After all they deserve it, "a tiger is a tiger" and you can't change what a thing is. The Great Man said so himself.

Well I have another observation from Rush's own playbook: A junkie is a junkie, and a hatemongering junkie is a worthless individual who gets no sympathy from me. Let us not forget that Rush coined the phrase "compassion Mafia" to ridicule those who would have too much sympathy for people like him.

Rush does indeed need to clean up his act, but the act he needs to clean up first has nothing to do with pills. He has spent almost twenty years ridiculing the very spirit of compassion, forgiveness, and humility which allows us to give a person like him a second chance. Until he gets a little of that spirit himself I will show him the coldness he has shown people like me for his entire career.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min

Amen. (nt) (1.40 / 10) (#97)
by mami on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:27:51 AM EST



[ Parent ]
WHERE IS THE LOVE! (1.27 / 11) (#116)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:23:05 PM EST

Local Roger you bleat and cavil endlessly at trolls while all the time you vandalize compassion the absence of which is soulless robots mining space rocks. Just look how you made false through the message of your sulfurous sentences mami's nurturing instincts. You are an unscrupulous hypocrite your comments a malignant cancer!

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

huh? (1.44 / 9) (#127)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:02:01 PM EST

soulless robots mining space rocks

What's wrong with that?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

IT IS A LOT OF PORN FOR SCIENTITS!! (1.30 / 10) (#140)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:07:28 PM EST


--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

how many oxycotins did you take today? (nt) (1.33 / 9) (#144)
by mami on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:31:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
What bogus junk (1.20 / 5) (#303)
by rho on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 10:30:43 PM EST

One thing I've really enjoyed is the child-like glee with which zany lefties have exhibited since the Great Rush Pill Drop of 2003 came to media attention. It's more telling of how successful Rush has been in skewering libs than anything else. Those who like Rush have circled the wagons true enough; but those who felt his sting have gotten exceedingly childish and waspish. And it's a funny thing to see.

Now it's time to guess on which set of bleachers localroger has planted his ass.

For nearly twenty years Rush has held himself up as something better than the rest of us. He has savagely attacked anybody who dares disagree with him, a sin which is compounded by his admittedly great talent. He has in particular savagely attacked people for doing the very thing he was doing, the very definition of hypocrisy.

That's about as big a load of crap as I've ever read. "Held himself up as something better"? You don't listen to him, you listen to other people's interpretation of him--people who don't like him very much. Come on, you can admit it. We won't respect you in the morning anyway.

Since I have listened to him for many years (almost since the beginning), I know that you're full of shit. Rush has gone out of his way many, many times to speak directly to his audience, to thank them for making him what he is--not berated them for not living up to his standards. He's humble, gracious, and (to be honest) quite harmless. He layers that with equal parts humor, bombast and cleverness, which is what makes him so entertaining to listen to. One thing he has never done is held himself up to be a role model for anything, except maybe as an example of how America is special country where your only limitation is yourself. Interesting advice coming from a guy who's been fired as many times as he has been, and too bitter a pill for the Dependancy Hustlers (Howard Dean in 2004!) to swallow without getting huffy. Like you.

If Limbaugh had a little girl, I could not imagine Franken "accidentally" putting her name beneath a picture of a dog.

No, Franken just had to mooch on Limbaugh's name like a remora in order to sell his limp book. Which is appropriate, because Franken looks like one. Har har, Franken's ugly. I can't believe some of you dummies: if Rush is so dumb as to make intentional cruel fun of a teenage girl's unfortunate looks, especially considering that girl also happened to be the daughter of the President of the United States, why on earth do you lefties care so much about him that you write brow-furrowing articles and books to refute his positions? That's the kind of stunt Howard Stern pulls, and nobody takes anything Howard Stern says seriously enough to get exercised over it. Unless, of course, you're only using what is (at worst) his TV show staff getting rude, or (most likely) a really unfortunate screw-up to gin up a charge against the man. Gee, you wouldn't do that.

Tell me, do you write long, tedious posts (irony alert) on how terrible Robin Williams was for his "dog" jabs at Lynda Bird Johnson in Good Morning, Vietnam? Doubtful, you hypocrit. The very definition thereof, methinks.

Of course Siegfried and Roy have been working with these cats thirty years, they live with these cats, so naturally Rush knows more about these cats than Siegfried and Roy do.
I heard some of that show as well. And I believe the context of his words--you know, context, the thing you libs like to take Rush's words out of in order to make him seem like some kind of Republican Party-sponsored baby-eating homunculus--was that some people associated with the S&R show (and the hotel) were passing this off as the tiger trying to protect Roy, while animal experts (not Rush) were saying that was a bunch of hokum. Now, whether the animal experts were right, or whether S&R are right is a matter of debate. What isn't up for debate is that that Rush never positioned himself as an animal expert--he was relying on the expertise of others that coincided with his worldview, while dismissing S&R's equally biased interpretation. Your assertion that he did smells like the sole of a cowboy's boot on horse-puckey duty.
Rush applies his metaphor to criminals -- a bad person is a bad person, "if you meet them later they're probably still going to be bad." Rush quickly backpedaled ("that's not to say that we shouldn't try to help them since they're people") but the implication hung in the air, as he no doubt intended: It would be so much simpler just to shoot all those pesky criminals.

You applied faulty logic, wild assertions and ass-flavored opinions to state that Rush is an evil, mean-spirited demon. You quickly backpedaled, but the implication hung heavy in the air, as you no doubt intended: Rush kicks puppies for chuckles.

He has spent almost twenty years ridiculing the very spirit of compassion, forgiveness, and humility which allows us to give a person like him a second chance.

Since we've determined that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about ("20 years of somebody else's warped opinions on Rush that you've regurgitated"), I shouldn't have to rebut this as well. But I'm feeling generous because I can sense weakness.

Rush has always been a champion of compassion and charity and humility on his show. His broadcasts during fundraisers for the Pediatric AIDS foundation have been record-breakers, and he always kicks it off with a healthy donation from himself. However, he doesn't believe in forced charity, which is what most governmental wealth-redistribution schemes really are, and has remained consistant in this belief over the years.

You've obviously gotten out of Rush what you wanted to get out of Rush--or at least what other people have told you about Rush's show. I'm in line with more of his beliefs than not--and oddly enough, his stand on the Drug War is one of my disagreements with him--and so I get out of Rush something completely different. But, at least I actually listen to the man and derived my own opinions on the matter. You either swiped your opinions about him from, say, Al Franken; or you have a serious problem with listening comprehension. I'll let you choose--dissembling demogogue or retard.


"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw
[ Parent ]

You're a god damned idiot. (2.00 / 5) (#324)
by sllort on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:47:33 AM EST

And the K5 comment rating system shall prove me correct.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
kinda wrong... (none / 0) (#373)
by bmovies on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:01:18 AM EST

I could not imagine Franken "accidentally" putting her name beneath a picture of a dog.

Can't imagine Limbaugh doiing it either. Oh, thats right. He never did (no names were put below anyones picture).

Partial transcript from lexis nexis (Rush was doing a segment about the In/Out lists that were coming out in magazines, newspapers by the dozens at the time. Rush was trying to demonstrate the bias of these lists.):
Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
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...

[ Parent ]

Wow you're right (none / 1) (#381)
by sllort on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 01:38:16 PM EST

I cannot imagine Limbaugh                                                            
putting a dog's name next
to Chelsea's picture!                                                            
       |                                                     
        `------------All he did was                                        
                     say he couldn't tell                                        
                     her picture apart from
       ,-------------a picture of a dog!
Hardly an insult.
It should be considered
a compliment!
        `------------Trust me, I should know.
                     I live in my Mom's 
                     basement, and she
                    /says I have great canines.
       ,      ,    /    
          /(.-""-.)\                                           
      |\  \/      \/  /|  
      | \ / =.  .= \ / |  
      \( \   o\/o   / )/  
       \_, '-/  \-' ,_/   
         /   \__/   \                                          
         \ \__/\__/ /       
       ___\ \|--|/ /___    
     /`    \      /    `\   
    /       '----'       \  
           

--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1.81 / 43) (#79)
by Heinrich L Beefeater on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:38:14 AM EST

if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh.. oh... oh boy... that's a good one!!

--------------------------------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former --
Albert Einstein

I wish I could rate yourcomment Strongly Encourage (1.69 / 13) (#94)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:19:20 AM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Evil. (1.90 / 10) (#82)
by Akshay on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:03:56 AM EST

.. if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to $EVIL_DEED, what of the rest of us?
I won't comment on this Limbaugh guy, never heard of him, but to answer that question in a general sense, you'll be surprised.

Peaceniks can turn into Nazis within two days. (quote + summary)

Heh (1.62 / 8) (#88)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:23:55 AM EST

but to answer that question in a general sense, you'll be surprised.

Not really - I was familiar with that. Good point.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Complement ... (none / 3) (#195)
by suquux on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 06:40:17 AM EST

though I have some difficulties to relate Zimbardo to the context this film might be of interest for those who do not share these ...

The Wave

CC.
All that we C or Scheme ...
[ Parent ]

I'm all for compassion (1.56 / 16) (#92)
by celeriac on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:43:17 AM EST

but compassion doen't mean we have to go soft in our drug enforcement.

See, if a guy like Rush can fall prey to a dangerous addiction even when the drugs are provided responsibly by a medical professional, isn't it far too dangerous to society for drugs to be available to anyone who wants them?

If taking drugs merely to mitigate pain is so dangerous, why should we allow people to take drugs in pursuit of pleasure?

If we were tougher with our enforcement of drug laws, there might not have been a dealer for Rush to get his fix from when his subscription ran out.

If we regulated addictive drugs more closely, Rush's doctor might not have prescribed him OxyContin in the first place.

If a man of such high standing can be brought down by drugs, isn't it a societal imperative that we need to do whatever we can to keep drugs from destroying the lives of ordinary people?

This incident just proves that narcotics are a menace that must be stopped. We must step up enforcement and pursue victory in the war on drugs.

Dangerous (2.63 / 11) (#93)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:59:32 AM EST

If a man of such high standing can be brought down by drugs, isn't it a societal imperative that we need to do whatever we can to keep drugs from destroying the lives of ordinary people?

What is a societal imperative and what should a society be prepared to do to fulfill it? If we can demonstrate an overwhelming good for society by eliminating or controlling something, does that make it a societal imperative? Why stop at illegal drugs?

I can imagine a totalitarian state that could be built upon the principle of preventing everything that is dangerous or harmful to society. Goodbye, tobacco. Citizen, drop that hamburger now! Oh, and since you're unmarried, we will require you to wear this chasity belt so no accidents or diseases happen ... it's for your own and society's good.

Can there be freedom without the freedom to fuck up?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
jth, truth versus death, burger king, drduck, and (1.40 / 5) (#197)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 07:27:14 AM EST

drtexan: you are not supposed to rate a double post twice. It was obviously a mistake, so just pick one post and rate it. Check the FAQ, it talks about this kind of thing.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 1) (#308)
by aphrael on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:31:47 AM EST

why not rate a double post on both posts?

[ Parent ]
*chomp* (none / 3) (#246)
by theperfectelement on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:05:25 AM EST

Addiction is a property of the user, not the drug.

[ Parent ]
Nice troll (none / 0) (#400)
by knobmaker on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 01:29:00 PM EST

See, if a guy like Rush can fall prey to a dangerous addiction even when the drugs are provided responsibly by a medical professional, isn't it far too dangerous to society for drugs to be available to anyone who wants them?

Nice troll, but I fear our more literal minded-readers won't realize that it's a troll. For them, I will provide this News Flash: drugs are already available to anyone who wants them. Thank goodness the drug war has made them much more expensive, much more dangerous, and available in every schoolyard.

[ Parent ]

Lies! All lies! (2.27 / 18) (#102)
by IHCOYC on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:56:27 AM EST

At the present time, the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete. So I will only say that the stories you have read and heard contain inaccuracies and distortions, which I will clear up when I am free to speak about them.
This is what got him kicked off the football show. Rush Limbaugh's basic thought patterns involve conspiracies. He made an ass of himself as a sports commentator, if only because football is a pure, physical meritocracy. No team is going to play a loser quarterback for the sake of racial balance, but the world looks like a very different place from the gridiron than it does in the fantasyland of right wing talk radio. It's easier to score points against affirmative action than to score touchdowns. Everybody else out there is a liar, and only folks like Rush and those who buy the party line 100% are telling the truth.

Yes, there is a relationship between Limbaugh's drug of choice and his political blatherskite. There's nothing like (true) narcotics to instil a sense of complacency. Do some Demerol, and God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. Opiates give you an Olympian sense of inner peace and distance from the world of strife. This is how they control pain; they don't reduce inflammation, or even make the pain "go away;" they make you no longer give a damn. True narcotics chemically induce conservative values.

I realize the feigned religious conversion and 12-step malarkey is the done thing in the USA. It would still be nice to hear Rush's real thoughts. After all, the acceptance of police spies and agents provocateurs is far more corrosive of the public moral fibre than mere drugs are. Every day, your government insinuates itself into social circles, creates false confidences, lies, cheats, and proposes criminal transactions in the hopes of finding someone else who will go along. Morally, we'd be better off legalizing OxyContin than sponsoring this cabal of official cheats and spies. If a right-wing hero can fall victim to police spies and secret informers, doesn't this underline that the whole corrupt apparatus needs to be abolished?
 --
The person who burns with an inner fire is already damned.

The Law Sez... (1.50 / 12) (#109)
by Xoder on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:49:20 PM EST

... it is illegal for people involved in an ongoing investigation to make public comments regarding that investigation.

I mean, come on, haven't you ever seen a cop TV show where the guy's like, "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation," and he tells this to the witness dude as well?

Lately I've been hearing that god's on our side But rumor has it, there's one on their side too So what I'd like to know is, when it comes down to it, can my god kick their god's ass or what?
[ Parent ]

The law . . . (2.60 / 10) (#113)
by IHCOYC on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:57:42 PM EST

Technically, this applies to police and prosecutors, not defendants or people under investigation. Their lawyers may well advise them to shut up -- "anything you say can be used against you &c." -- but this is different from being illegal. Moreover, the police and prosecutors who break this rule and issue public statements are not "breaking the law," so much as they are feeding defense attorneys grounds for motions to move the trial or dismiss the charges on the grounds of prejudicial publicity. Because of this, law enforcement organisations usually order their members to remain silent.

The First Amendment would trump any attempt to force a defendant not to speak publicly about pending charges. It may be unwise, but is very unlikely to be a crime. There are specific rules that apply to grand jury testimony, but not to public statements generally.

I don't watch cop TV shows.
 --
Luce extincta, periculum minus: adsumus, oblectemur!
Stultus me sentio ac pestifer: adsumus, oblectemur!

[ Parent ]

He was asked not to. (2.60 / 5) (#181)
by jjayson on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:03:49 AM EST

The Limbaugh story was a leak. The operation was trying to go after the dealers, but some tabloid ran the story, even when they shouldn't have. The investigators have asked Rush to not give any information for the rest of the investigation.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
It also applies to informants. (2.20 / 5) (#196)
by partykidd on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 07:17:54 AM EST

I'm not saying that Rush is an informant because we don't know. But he might have some information that the police have asked that he not indulge.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

At least accuse him of the correct thing.. (2.76 / 13) (#145)
by atomicokc on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:18:15 PM EST

At NO point did Rush accuse a team of playing a mediocre black quarterback for the sake of having a black player...

What he said was that there is a desire among the media that a black athlete succeeds, so sometimes a black athlete is considered BETTER than they really are by the PRESS.

I know I personally really root for black athletes in sports to both be extremely successfull and strong role models.

Now you can disagree with his statement, but at least get it right.

[ Parent ]

What the hell drtexan? (1.62 / 8) (#148)
by atomicokc on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:34:15 PM EST

If you disagree post, but rating it a 0, when my comment is a factual correction, and not a flame, attack or opinion statement?

But hey, why have facts to cloud your judgement, ass...


[ Parent ]

drtexan (2.00 / 7) (#180)
by jjayson on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:59:55 PM EST

drtexan is a play on everybody's least favorite modbomber, drduck. It is an account that goes around and rates 98% of the posts as 0. There will probably be more to follow until rusty grows a pair and delete the drduck account.

Nothing person, I would think.

There is also a growing number of people that have taken to 0ing anything or anybody that doesn't push their ideology. People like truth or death, burger king, etc. have turned the system binary. You get a 3 if they like you and a 0 if they don't. For these people, it is a personal acction.

Take your pick of explanation.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

drduck (none / 2) (#307)
by aphrael on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:27:53 AM EST

drduck is a real person who reads and rates a lot. drtexan, as far as i can tell, is a script. either way, he's way more annoying.

[ Parent ]
Some thoughts on this. (2.30 / 20) (#111)
by jd on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:54:02 PM EST

First, I agree that laws can't help people. Well, at least to the degree that is often supposed. I'd argue that it is both natural and entirely human to test the limits and to push those limits as far as possible.

Every explorer, every racing driver, every cutting-edge scientist, and yes, every addict, is a product of this facet of human nature. If there was no inclination to push to the limits, then you'd have absolutely no inclination to break any rules, question any assumptions, or do anything other than what society dictated was acceptable.

This is the first problem. You can't eliminate the underlying reason for the limited effectiveness for laws. At least, not without eliminating society in the process. Although society is founded on laws and relies on those laws for existance, it also relies on the fact that people will break those laws. Society can be treated as a living organism. As such, it needs to grow. It needs to adapt. Without people pushing the limits, there would be no adaptation. Many, if not all, of the extinct cultures that litter history were draconian, authoritarian and absolutist. By suppressing the urge to challange, they eventually suppressed themselves out of existance.

However, it's not quite as simple as that. There's another important factor in drug abuse - it's often accompanied by an inability to cope with something. When our coping mechanisms fail, we have a natural tendancy to turn to something external to cling onto. To make things worse, we develop an "addictive personality" - we can actually make something addictive, even if it normally has no addictive property. We can also make addictive substances a thousand times more potent.

In Rush's case, the stressor would seem to be some combination of the spine operation (which failed), poor medical advice, a reluctance to undergo surgery twice, and extreme pain.

The medicine he was given was addictive, which wasn't the wisest choice in the world, but Rush then very likely clung onto it, making it many times more addictive than it should have been. In consequence, his silence and his attempts to buy the drug through other people's prescriptions is very understandable. It was inevitable, given the combination of substance and stressor.

Why talk now? I'm inclined to believe the opinion of the talk-show host "Lionol", who is an ex-prosecutor. He argued that it's likely to be part of a strategy to get leniency. Certainly, I see no real evidence that Rush is particularly remorseful. A 30-day detox is utterly inadequate to resolve the problem. He's been through the process twice already, and both times it has failed. If you keep doing the same things, you'll keep getting the same results.

So what would I suggest? If he's serious about recovery, then he needs some combination of detox AND a recovery organization of some kind, for a minimum of 90 days. Personally, I'm inclined to throw in some form of daily councelling/therapy for that time, as well, as this is a complex situation.

After that time, I'd say 3-4 sessions a week with a recovery organization, and 2-3 sessions a week with a skilled councellor/therapist, for at least a year.

My suggestion won't "cure" the addiction - addictions often change the brain's chemistry permanently. What it would do is give him alternatives to deal with the pain, and to cope with his craving for an external cure. It's possible it might give him the courage to get the surgery corrected, thus eliminating the pain.

Before anyone says that that would be impossible after such a long time, it really isn't. It's just a little harder, requires a better surgeon, demands more imagination, and will likely involve a considerable amount of money.

Even a non-surgeon can see possibilities - remove the bone(s) that are causing a problem and replace them with synthetic alternatives. Or, if the spine functions just fine, then just cut the nerves that are in that area. You can't feel pain if there's nothing to feel the pain with.

Options exist, but no addict in the world is going to face them after a mere 30 days detox. Most are painful, many are frightening, and some are both the above plus horrifyingly expensive.

Addicts have a brain chemistry issue, but that doesn't make them stupid, evil, or anything normally attributed to addicts. It means that they haven't been willing enough to go through their addiction into a saner state of mind. And that's not because they like the addiction, it's because their screwed-up brain chemistry makes it mentally impossible to face the alternatives.

As I said at the start, this is an incurable problem. Or, if you do cure it, you'll eliminate the cured. Anyone who grows, mentally, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, or in any other way, is using the same mechanism as any alchoholic or drug addict. There is no difference in the mechanism.

If you talk to those who live, or have lived, in any extreme, to push the limits further, you can hear the same brain chemistry. It's in their voice. They live to grow, they grow to live. And without that spirit of adventure, there would be no life at all, for anyone.

We have all got some addictive element, then. The very act of being alive requires it. We've all got that same mechanism, and we've all got the choice on how to utilize it.

Rush will always have a severe addiction problem. The brain changes are, as I've said, irreversible. But he does have the choice on what to do with the mechanism. He can go back to drugs (which have already destroyed much of his hearing, and will continue to rapidly degenerate his brain), or he can explore the other uses for this mental function.

Addiction is a tool. It's a particuarly dangerous tool, and 99% of those who use it will end up severely burned by it. Of those, most die from the addiction and the remainder work hard to exorcise it from their life. The 1% who figure it out often become cultural heros and significant figures in history.

Rush has three choices, then. Die from his disease, work hard for the rest of his life to counter it, or figure a way to use his addiction positively. The danger of the third option is that one mistake will result in worse consequences than anything the addiction as it stands could possibly do.

The dangers are the big reason most recovery groups advocate the safer path - counter the addiction and eliminate it as best you can. The success rate for those who try this is about 60%. (The founders of AA claimed that, with rigorous honesty, a campaign of non-addiction, and following a solid program of recovery, you shouldn't be able to fail at all. This was changed to "rarely...fail", to sound a bit more realistic.)

The reason we have millions of addicts, but maybe only single-figure or double-figure "heros", in any given generation, is that utilizing our addictive natures is hard. Worse, we are taught to hate that side of ourselves. Those who learn too quickly at school are often treated harshly by their teachers as "disruptive". These are also the first people companies will fire, as they don't play the game of "work ethics". They're too busy doing stuff that's real.

Society without drug laws, without these particular ethics-based rules, would be a disaster. With no limits to push against, the adventurer will fall apart, and non-addicts (because they really -are- addicts underneath) will become addicted to brain-destroying chemicals.

This kind of society will also rapidly become extinct. Society requires pressure. Pressure requires defined, finite boundaries. Simple physics.

So, what do we need? We need better education, at an early age. Not a "just say no" campaign, but an education in the mechanisms involved; how to use them productively, and the risks involved if they get out of control.

We need a society in which exploration is encouraged, where the intelligent don't have to hide in fear of persecution, and where those who would have become drug addicts are instead inspired to use that craving on something them - and possibly others - some good.

The craving will always be there, in everyone, to some degree or other. Drugs are an irrelevent part of the equation - only of consequence because that's the only way most people can handle those cravings. They're not taught any other way.

The answer is not to change the law, but to make the law irrelevent. Work not on legalizing the harmful. There's no point. Put your efforts into learning about the mechanisms involved. Research how to use them profitably. Understand how to turn the mechanism's focus from self-harm to self-gain. Work on getting this useful information into schools, into rehab centers, into anywhere that people might gain from turning their troubles into something they can use.

As those of us from the North of England know, all too well at times, "Where there's muck, there's brass".

Here, you can turn the muck into brass, and possibly into solid gold.

If Rush is sincere about recovery, that's what he must do. That is true of all other addicts, whatever their addiction. It's potential profit, all you have to do is turn it the right way.

"Throwing the book at people" (1.54 / 11) (#115)
by gibichung on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:17:02 PM EST

If you're going to spend that long getting around to actually saying something, it probably shouldn't be an obvious straw man.

I don't think anyone enjoys punishing non-proselytizing drug users. That's why the enforcement of drug laws is focued on the supply side.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

I don't agree with that (2.85 / 7) (#151)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:10:05 PM EST

People love it when politicans say, "I'm tough on crime!"  You can go to jail for like twenty years over pot.  Why is this law there?  Because people get a certain pleasure in seeing the dregs of society get "their due."


I think a lot of people like the idea of being tough on criminals even lowly users.  They don't admit it to themselves but it is really a sadistic impulse.


Users are thrown in jail, especially if they're from the wrong side of the tracks or mother nature spray painted them the wrong color.


And let's not forget that privatized prisons are a big industry.  They don't care whose punished as long as there's lots and lots of them.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Is this why prison rape is okay? (2.42 / 7) (#177)
by losthalo on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:45:16 PM EST

The general public seems to find it okay (funny, even) that people who go to prison (and mental institution, for that matter) often suffer rape and other humiliating, mind-changing, cruel treatment.

Is this because they honestly are sadistic, criminals are dehumanized to them, and people feel right in throwing them to the 'tender mercies' of the prison rapists and such?

Or is it that people are far, far too afraid of what might befall them if by some chance they ended up behind bars, and so they have to laugh it away?

Perhaps, too, it is in some cases the 'I can't bare to think of such atrocity, so an hysterical laugh is called for to ease my stress levels'.

There seem to be many reasons why we allow such things to happen, and why we react the way we do when they are brought up. Few if any of these reasons seem to say good things about us or our motivations as a society. I think sadism is selling it short.

(Losthalo)

"Yes, but you already know that and we don't care, so where's the surprise?"
(Mike)

[ Parent ]
i imagine you're just misinformed (2.71 / 7) (#156)
by stuph on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:53:19 PM EST

While it's true that the government would love to capture and punish all of the drug suppliers in this country, those are not the majority of people in jail right now. Those people are the ones at the personal-use or lowest-echelon dealing levels.. The ounce or less of weed, 8-ball or less of coke, 5 rocks or less of crack category.. those are the people that are in jail for their crimes 75% or more of the time, and those are oftentimes the ones with familes, jobs, etc.. who just like to do a few drugs from time to time.. so you can wrap yourself up in your beliefs that I don't think anyone enjoys punishing non-proselytizing drug users. That's why the enforcement of drug laws is focued on the supply side., but it's rather untrue
--Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
[ Parent ]
I think you are very confused. (2.83 / 6) (#178)
by losthalo on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:54:26 PM EST

I don't think anyone enjoys punishing non-proselytizing drug users. That's why the enforcement of drug laws is focued on the supply side.

It isn't focused on the supply side.

People who don't use drugs or publicly pretend they don't use drugs do enjoy, some of them, punishing non-proselytizing drug users.

There is all sorts of behavior in this world that you are apparently unaware of, go do some research. Start with the number of people in prison for multiple possession charges and/or selling insignificant amounts of drugs because they bought as a group to keep the price cheap. (For Christ's sake, watch COPS for a week!)

Drug arrests are easy statistic boosts for a department, and the police need popularity boosts just like any other government departments competing for funding (and let's not forget that the belt is a bit tighter this year).

(Losthalo)

"Just a little brainwashing..."

"Lather, rinse, repeat..."

[ Parent ]
your point applies (2.00 / 8) (#126)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:55:18 PM EST

Both to people who say 'hang 'em high' and to people who say 'drugs are just the Man keeping you down.' On this site, there are a lot more of the latter than the former.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
if pro-drug activists were clever and had humor (2.54 / 22) (#136)
by speek on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:54:55 PM EST

They'd start a new slogan. Something like:

"Show Limbaugh mercy, no more drug war!"
"Let Rush have his drugs."
"Free Rush!"
"No jail for back pain!"
etc.

And yes, I know Limbaugh will never go to jail for drug use, but I think it would be a clever bit of irony to pretend, as a stoner, that you were too stupid to know that, yet you were very worried on Rush's behalf, as a fellow stoner himself, of course.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

Really, really good article. (1.71 / 14) (#137)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:58:00 PM EST

Thanks.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


Alternative viewpoint (1.72 / 11) (#138)
by omghax on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:01:42 PM EST

Drugs have been used for thousands of years to improve vision, creativity, spiritual awareness, etc. Perhaps Limbaugh's drugs are what inspire him to be so brilliant.

Or maybe the whole drug addiction thing is nothing but a character attack, and whether or not you take painkillers has nothing to do with how smart or not-smart you are.

Spiritual Awareness? (1.75 / 4) (#242)
by gmol on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:37:19 PM EST

WTF is that?

[ Parent ]
What's good for the gander (2.54 / 33) (#146)
by fluxrad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:28:24 PM EST

Rush on drugs:

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Game. Set. Match. Throw his fat ass in prison.

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
His opinion changed (none / 2) (#300)
by harryh on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:55:07 PM EST

That was in 1995.  In 1998 he said:

"What is missing in the drug fight," he said, "is legalization. If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs. Legalize the manufacture of drugs.  License the Cali cartel. Make them taxpayers and then sue them. Sue them left and right and then get control of the price and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs."


[ Parent ]

I told me so (none / 1) (#337)
by sllort on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:51:31 PM EST

If "Rush is Right", then we must now ask When! I believe that, were Rush's original comments on drug abuse to come into contact with his most recent comments on drug abuse, we would witness the first contact between two indusputably correct diametrically opposed statements. The ensuing reaction might create a helical disruption in the space-time con

FUCK

Nevermind.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

"raise the price sky high" (none / 1) (#341)
by Burning Straw Man on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:48:49 PM EST

If crack was legal, and cost $X where X is "sky high", there would still be a HUGE black market for illegal crack which cost less than $X. There would still be a huge drug-related crime problem due to this black market. People smuggle cigarettes into New York to avoid a few dollars per pack tax. Imagine if heroin was legal but cost $X. There would be a huge black market for heroin at the existing prices, probably even larger than the current market for heroin.

On a different topic and as a parting shot, legalising drugs and then leveraging the users' addiction to those drugs to milk money from those users is just about as evil a thing as all of capitalism could invent, isn't it?
--
your straw man is on fire...
[ Parent ]

I just wonder... (2.75 / 24) (#161)
by Entendre Entendre on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:24:38 PM EST

The time is ripe for accusations of hypocrisy and drug-induced stupidity. I don't have an accusations though, I just have a question.

Does Rush wish to be given like republicans want to give criminals, a mandatory minimum sentence... or does Rush wish to be given what liberals want to give criminals, which is to say, care and treatment instead of punishment?

Tell me, Rush, where do you stand on this issue now?

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.

Either way, he'll have to admit that he's a witch. (2.66 / 18) (#165)
by composer777 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:07:56 PM EST

Rush has a few options:
1.  He can admit that he is mistaken, and do jail time.
2.  He can admit that not only was his drug abuse was a mistake, but that his beliefs were wrong, and begin to fight against the drugs laws.
3.  He can admit that he is mistaken, but that he deserves special treatment and no jail time.

I have had the displeasure of listening to Rush on a few occasions, and reading transcripts on a few others.  I can't stand his views.  I think the guy is rigid, and has no compassion for the failings of others.  However, I also got the impression that for him, his beliefs are not an act, but that he honestly believes that he is saying is the right thing.  So, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Rush voluntarily did the jail time or community service, which, let's face it, will probably be a slap on the wrist, and then say,"See, I practiced what I preached."  Changing his views, in my opinion, would be worse to Rush than jail time.  I'm serious, I think having his world turned upside down by questioning his own views would be worse for him than spending time in jail.  He would have a ton of backlash as well.  The third option, which is to be hypocrite, is also an option for him.  I'm not sure that he would do this, but he wouldn't be the first hypocrite in politics.  I also don't think it would be the first time he was a hypocrite.

What we need to ask, is not what Rush does, because it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he willingly turns himself in, confesses to everything and says, "hit me with the book."  After all, such a move would likely increase his popularity and esteem.  What we need to ask is how WE feel about this.  Who cares what Rush does if we feel that his beliefs are wrong?  Rush could come out and say that people should be put to death for jaywalking, then the next day he goes and gets caught jaywalking and martyrs himself to the cause.  But, should that matter?  If what he is arguing for is wrong, then we shouldn't allow his honest application of those beliefs to himself to sway us.  After all, the one thing that is conveniently overlooked, is that Rush is not likely to suffer the full brunt of the law enforcement system.  He is likely to get a slap on the wrist.  And, even if he does get a stiff jail sentence, should we tolerate a set of laws that mainly targets impoverished people and African Americans?  

[ Parent ]

You misunderstand Rush's beliefs. (2.50 / 6) (#278)
by sllort on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 04:56:50 PM EST

Rush is not what he would call a "drug addict". "Never do crack son, that's a ghetto drug". Remember, drugs fuel terrorism, and Rush is all about wiping out terror. So is using crack - a ghetto-terror drug - the extent of Rush's description of a drug addict? Well, no, because Noelle Bush smokes crack, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to see her in Levenworth for life. Let's take a look at what Rush does think a drug addict is:

"Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentleman, I just--he was a worthless shred of human debris..."
(TV show, 4/11/94)

source.

Kurt Kobain was rich and smoked crack just like Noelle Bush. So what's the distinguishing factor? What differentiates Rush Limbaugh, the National Truth Detector with Talent on Loan From a Higher Power, from worthless shreds of human debris like Kurt?

It's the suit, people. If you wear a suit, you're a victim.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

wondering (2.20 / 5) (#276)
by Brandybuck on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 04:18:40 PM EST

First off, I am an advocate for full and complete narcotics legalization. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

While Rush may be for mandatory minimum sentences for drug users, he has never been for the criminalization of aspirin, lotrimin or any other legal drug. He is against illegal narcotics, not against legal prescription drugs. (He may have jokingly suggested it for Prozac, but that's another story).

What a lot of people posting here fail to realize is that Rush got addicted to some drugs that were legally prescribed to him. I was on morphine while in the hospital last year, and while I did not get addicted to it, I certainly can see how easy it would be to fall into that pit. Heck, my physician even berated me for not pushing the magic morphine
button often enough.

Another thing some people may not realize, is that Rush was not "outed" on this issue. The press's discovery was that Rush was seeking HELP for his addiction. That he was trying to keep his private affairs private should be understandable, and not portrayed as gross hypocrisy.

[ Parent ]

You're right (except for being utterly wrong) (2.66 / 6) (#279)
by sllort on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:03:16 PM EST

Buying 4,000 prescription narcotics pills from someone in a parking lot without a prescription is illegal.

"While Rush may be for mandatory minimum sentences for drug users"

Incorrect. Technically a "drug user" is someone who ingests caffeine, but you probably meant "controlled substance abuser", and even that is wrong. Rush is for mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. Those are people who, like him, have violated this nation's drug control laws. And if you'd tried to illegally obtain more morphine, he would have had you locked up with glee.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

People are foolish (2.75 / 8) (#171)
by Matt Oneiros on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:53:26 PM EST

they will think that they are above addiction, I've known many people each with their own drug of choice and early on they all say "naw, I only do it in the evening" or "it's only a weekend thing," ultimately "I'm too smart."

The truth is, if you want to do drugs you have to look at addiction like a parasite that destroys your ability to analytically decide if you are infected. Have your friends watch you and watch your friends, and have close friends that don't do drugs and have them watch you too. Even then, never believe you are safe from the white wolf of addiction.

If you ever let the thought that you're too smart, too well educated, too anything to get addicted you will surely find yourself addicted; you must be honest at all times and in all respects.

no one is above addiction, and to a certain extent (albeit an exaggeration) one must always believe it is a possibility for themself.

I do use drugs, as for any potential addiction status, ask my friends and associates.

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real

fascinating. (1.83 / 6) (#217)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:11:32 AM EST

perhaps, my existance of having no real friends, and one where i keep close to no one... in addition to working at a bar (free/cheap alchohol...) where every drug i've ever heard of and a few new ones are trafficked in high volume nightly...and an open mind could in all be a road to addiction? i know my grandma was a drunk, and my mother and father would most definitely have gone completely to drugs if not for me(as in, my birth and my older brother's birth (my older brother died at birth) prompted them to seriously reconsider their lives)... this is scary. especially when some of the few friends i do have have a vested interest in making me a hopeless drunk.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Indeed (2.60 / 5) (#244)
by Matt Oneiros on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 05:23:12 PM EST

I would say you are most definitely "at risk."

Maybe get some new/more friends? Loneliness never did do anyone any good anyhow.

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real
[ Parent ]

What do you mean? (1.88 / 9) (#174)
by losang on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:13:09 PM EST

strict and demanding sense of morality

I disagree with this. You probably don't have a definition of morality.

agreed --- neither strict nor demanding (1.87 / 8) (#176)
by vinayd on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:44:10 PM EST

rush is a shill; he's a fake, a front-man, a show-man. you give him too much credit.


One can be silent and sit still only when one has bow and arrow: else one chatters and quarrels. - Nietzsche
[ Parent ]
All i know is is that the right are insane... (2.33 / 6) (#179)
by ylikone on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:57:38 PM EST

i mean, check out this website of a rightist that defends Rush... http://www.rightpoint.org/ These people are whacked!

Whats the deal here? (1.40 / 10) (#183)
by MuteWinter on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:14:23 AM EST

Can someone tell me why the highest rated comment isn't over 3? Am I missing something? Are all these comments *that* bad?

Changes (2.66 / 6) (#190)
by godix on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:51:08 AM EST

You might want to keep up on site news.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]
Just what I deserve (none / 1) (#230)
by MuteWinter on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:26:54 PM EST

Thats what I get when I only log onto kuro5hin when I can barely keep my eyes open!

[ Parent ]
Hypocrisy and the Playboy Interview (2.65 / 20) (#184)
by epepke on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:20:47 AM EST

<begin rant;

I know what your're trying to say, and I know what you mean by saying that this is not the time to point out hypocrisy, but for me, this is like a circle closing itself.

I've been generally aware of Rush Limbaugh and have always considered him the kind of newsclown that, like the poor, is always with us. I've listened to his radio show in the car on long trips, because it keeps me pissed off just enough to keep me awake.

The only time I've ever become livid about him was when I read the Playboy interview of him many years back. In that interview he recounts a tale of how he tried to get some medical treatment, and they wanted insurance. According to him, he wanted to pay cash, but they wouldn't let him. And that, he said, was an example of what was so wrong with liberals.

The think is that I knew that to be completely bogus. I knew and know that you can get health care to any degree you want anywhere in the United States and pay for it directly. Hell, I don't know of a single ER in the country that will not accept Visa and MasterCard.

But, oh, I hear the dittoheads cry, but you can't prove that he didn't have this experience. I don't know. Maybe Rush Limbaugh stumbled into the one doctor's office in the country that wouldn't take a check. In that case, though, it's even worse, and I think that's what made me so angry. Even if you take the benefit-of-the-doubt field that surrounds Rush Limbaugh as well as cats and China totally seriously and assume that he was telling the truth, the fact remains that Limbaugh, who certainly hasn't held back on beating the bongos for Free Enterprise, either was just too fucking stupid to find a doctor who would let him pay with a check or card or just couldn't be arsed. Makes a nice, smug little story, though.

But, oh, I hear the dittoheads cry again, Limbaugh isn't a doctor, so he can't possibly have known about this. Well, fast-forward to the present. Even if the reports of Limbaugh's oxycontin usage are off by an order of magnitude, there is just no way that you can get that much oxycontin, apart from buying it on the street, except by knowing in consummate detail how to work the medical profession.

So, now, is he going to retract his comments in the Playboy Interview? Yeah, right. No, the hundreds of thousands of people who practically have their tongues glued to his anus will turn him into some sort of paragon of Christian fallability.

Most of the people here don't remember Robert Downey, but he had a big-toothed, chain-smoking, ultraconservative shouting television show in the early 1980's that in many ways paved the way for Rush Limbaugh. After losing a lung to cancer, at least he seemed to have mellowed out a bit. So far we've only seen damage control from Limbaugh.

What is the point of this rant? Well, as Limbaugh has apparently been so used to lying to people, it isn't surprising that he lied to himself and so became addicted. He likes rock and roll soundtracks on his radio show. Might I suggest Lynard Skynard's "That Smell"?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


Um.. (2.66 / 6) (#212)
by AnimalChin on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:44:09 AM EST

You mean Morton Downey Jr. Right?

Have you seen him?
[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 3) (#235)
by epepke on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:54:15 PM EST

It was so long ago that even I didn't remember too well. Thanks!


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Self-medicating (2.67 / 28) (#186)
by mikepence on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:30:56 AM EST

Full disclosure: I used to be a Rush Limbaugh fan and a conservative Christian. I am now a secular socialist rastafarian and ornamental buddhist. I also am currently in an intensive outpatient drug rehabilitation program.

One thing that I learned in rehab counselling is that, in an overwhelmingly high percentage of cases, chronic drug users are self-medicating, unknown to themselves, to deal with some other mental health issue, most often depression. It is not uncommon for those who suffer from depression, myself included, to cover their feelings of worthlessness with false bravado and arrogance. These very attributes are Mr. Limbaugh's hallmarks.

So, I think that the point being missed here is that Rush's drug use is a confirmation of what is obvious to many, that he is mentally ill and delusional in his thinking. Given time, appropriate treatment, maybe a little Zoloft and Xanax, and he will be writing for The Nation.

writing for the NATION ? (1.83 / 6) (#221)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:35:30 AM EST

wtf is that supposed to mean?

perhaps there is a deeper issue at stake here -- that life itself has nothing going for it beyond the bullshit that we try to sell ourselves collectively as time slowly ticks by...and trying to ignore this only causes more mental illness, and a greater fall to fall from once the average person realizes this.
writing for the NATION as in, "we should feed you CHOSEN_DRUG_X type so that you can fill a place in our society as %T because that is what's important...having a good job".

i'm not sure whether or not to tell you what to do with your life. i think as a philosophy minor, it's at least my job in some theories for me to live a good/better life or to know what this life is. and i could be wrong, in any of this. but i assure you, that saying what a person should be doing with their life/mind...tends to hit something in me to yell out and oppose you saying "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!!". perhaps there is something wrong here. perhaps life is hard, cruel, and painful, with little really to counteract, and really to inspire us to go through the hoops of everyday existance, nevermind anything else, beyond physical countermeasures hardwired into us, especially useful in people with a mind, people who can think, people who have thought about existance and have found the truth---that life is not worth living...for these people the physical countermeasures are tripped, and fear reigns them in, keeping them afraid of death, or keeping them doing ACTIVITY_Y until they eventually die on our species terms (usually murder, or an accident for people in my age group.).

i wouldn't put any sort of drug, on anyone except the possibly the criminal fringe (ie rapists, etc...i mean, i'd probably kill them given the chance so i don't think messing with their reality via drugs will really matter...). Xoloft or xanax, pot or provigil, coffee or cigarettes - if you are not wanting to do drug x, as in, if you haven't yet actively said "i have been reading on people using CHOSEN_DRUG_X, and i want to try it"...i would not try to push a drug on them. Zoloft included. drug pushers are annoying. especially when they get big budgets.
this is ignoring even my standard drug argument, which is slightly irrelevant here.

mabye there is nothing important in life---or that is...nothing in life important enough to live for. perhaps drug use is a hard-wiring of ones self to allow ones self to not have to consider this fact. to escape the horror of existance. i mean think---do you think i would chose to have my government consider me a terrorist? do you think i would want my favorite musicians to be owned by societies of lawyers and beaurocrats who make their livings ripping people like me, and my favorite musicians off? do you think i like having a job, where i make my living by ripping people off? do you think any of us do? or
perhaps
it is the system which is sick. it may be necessarily sick, but it is sick. we don't need rush to be put on different drugs.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
I think he means... (none / 3) (#286)
by The Alien on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:55:14 PM EST

Writing for The Nation.

Much as one might say "...writing for Time." or "...writing for the The Economist.".

Not as in "writing as a service for the nation".

[ Parent ]

that's what i meant, too [nt] (none / 0) (#374)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:47:47 AM EST

i think the context he uses the phrase in, is pretty straightforward.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Um wait a minute... (2.68 / 22) (#193)
by SleepDirt on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 04:59:30 AM EST

There's a deeper and more profound question we should be asking - if an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to drug addiction, what of the rest of us?

Um what? Rush is a loud mouth radio talk show host who plays a character on the air that is meant to appeal to republicans. He's no different from Howard Stern or any other contrived character on the radio. You're confusing his on-air personality with his real life. What you should have said was:

There's a deeper and more profound question we should be asking - if a fictional radio character who pretends to have a strict and demanding sense of morality can fall prey to drug addiction, what of the rest of us?



"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." - Hunter S. Thompson
or perhaps (2.50 / 4) (#218)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:15:20 AM EST

it was his strictness as regards to himself which caused his fall?
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
What a fortuitous name. (2.30 / 13) (#194)
by trejkaz on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 06:19:24 AM EST

'Rush,' oh man. I bet the cosmos' greatest team of punmasters had meetings for hours before determining to make that guy a drug addict.

5 [nt] (1.50 / 4) (#216)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:04:05 AM EST


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Nor should they (2.45 / 11) (#208)
by drix on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:17:49 AM EST

Drug laws can't fix people.

I agree with you completely, but it think it misses the point. Yes, the war on drugs is pointlessly Evil in more ways than can be counted. (This was made abundantly clear to me after living in Europe, where social and legal tolerance for drug use is much higher and yet shockingly, for an American, the pillars of society do not come crashing down as a lifetime spent in this country would lead you to believe.)

But more importantly, drug laws shouldn't fix people. People-fixing is a business no government should be in at all. (Note I distinguish people-fixing--in which said people are force-fed a morality regimen--from people helping, which is voluntary drug treatment, health care, job training, food stamps, etc.) I'm not a huge K5 reader, but I know there are enough libertarians here that it's pointless to repeat the "Do no harm unto others" criterion of acceptable social behaviour.

Obviously intelligent? (2.50 / 10) (#243)
by proles on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:46:39 PM EST

First, let me preface this by saying that I am not just some Rush-basher.  I honestly visit his site (although just the guest sections, and now what with this issue it looks like the whole site is member only now) and try to keep up on his issues and stances because he's a great barometer for the current ultra-conservative memes that are floating about.  And indeed he is charismatic and capable, and I suppose in some ways intelligent (he's able to generally craft words in a very smug and self serving sort of wit, at least).

But "obviously intelligent"?  What of all the obvious logical fallacies?  It's hard to get through a single Rush Limbaugh article without hitting multiple occurrences of ad hominem, correlation vs. causation, appeal to authority, and the list goes on... I'm sorry, but an "obviously intelligent" individual does *not* do that.  Such people aren't perfect, but they are generally more logical than Rush.

Rush, and his army of "dittoheads", are incredibly capable of conveniently ignoring facts that disrupt their world view, and that is *not* a sign of intelligence in my book.  Certainly everybody is guilty of this on some level, but it seems to me at least that extremists (be they lefty or righty or whatever else) are particularly prone to this, and Rush is certainly a bit on the extreme side.
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

Dont you think (3.00 / 6) (#248)
by Frequanaut on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:43:20 AM EST

 that Rush knows this?

His army of ditto heads may not, but I'd be willing to wager a paycheck that he knows all about ad hominem, correlation vs. causation, appeal to authority etc. He just uses them as any effective demagogue will.


[ Parent ]

I don't know (none / 3) (#256)
by proles on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:02:02 PM EST

Obviously it's impossible for either of us to say for sure what Rush knows or doesn't know.  To me, though, Rush comes off as somebody who has largely bought into his own rhetoric.  After all, in his world view he is always entirely completely dogmatically perfectly correct, and it must feel good to think that way.  Read any of his pieces where he tries to be "funny" and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'll certainly admit that it's possible that Rush knows of at least some of his logical fallacies and is purposely making them, but I'm a tad skeptical that that is really the case.  But as I said, we're both just guessing here as there's really no way for either of us to say for sure unless you or I happen to be Rush Limbaugh (what a scary proposition that is...).
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
[ Parent ]

Addiction (2.18 / 11) (#245)
by cooldev on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:35:27 AM EST

I think it all boils down to two things:  intelligence and willpower. Intelligence is not starting in the first place, regardless of peer pressure. Willpower is stopping after you've started; this is much, much harder.

People like Rush (no, I'm not a fan, and I'm not defending him) got into an interesting situation where they didn't have that critical first choice.

Personally, I've never done any drugs (other than alchohol) even though in college I was constantly pressured try it.  Why didn't I?  It's not because I thought a mere one or two hits of LSD or smoking marajuana a couple of times was the end of the world, it's because I was smart enough to recognize that I may not have the willpower to stop.


Recovery...... (2.60 / 5) (#249)
by deanoh on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:10:36 AM EST

....from any additiction (whether alchohol, drugs, food, gambling, whatever) is **never** ever ever about either intelligence or willpower. The single best thing I learned during my own inpatient treatment (in 1981....treatment that has set the stage for continuous sobriety since) was from a counselor who told me: "I've met plenty of people too smart to get sober, but never met anybody too stupid to." For the truely addicted, recovery is about acceptance (of your addiction) and humility (about what you need to do to recover). Once those things have eased out "intillegence" and "willpower" in your toolbox, you might have a chance. Oh yeah: that, and don't use (drink, whatever) even if you ass falls off. And never forget that whatever personal or professional problem you are facing: drinking or using is only going to make it worse.

[ Parent ]
Explain something to me. (2.75 / 4) (#297)
by waxmop on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:02:59 PM EST

What is it that separates the people that get cleaned up and move on in life from the people that keep going down the path even when they know they're killing themselves? The author of this story suggests it's divine providence.

That's pretty shitty then; God chooses some to live, and others are designated to be examples for the rest of us. Bleagh.

And here's something else I don't understand about your post. You deny that willpower has anything to do with getting sober/staying clean, but at the end of your post, you tell the guy "just don't use, even if your ass falls off." Well, if his willpower is useless, that means it's not really his choice if he relapses, right? Or is it not willpower when you choose to stay clean? And if it's not willpower, what is it?
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

From my point of view.... (none / 0) (#405)
by deanoh on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 06:39:26 PM EST

No matter how you slice and dice it, it's not about willpower. Willpower allows me to make compromises like..I won't get drunk...except on weekends. What separates those who recover from those who don't is indeed intangible. Here's what has worked for me for 20+ years: The steadfast realization that no matter what is going bad in my life can only be made worse by drinking or using (and that whatever is going good is instantly jeapordized). Be glad you don't get it....and grateful you don't need to.

[ Parent ]
One more thing..on the God part (none / 0) (#406)
by deanoh on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 06:42:10 PM EST

Most people who believe in "God" also understand that God grants us free will. And whether God is part of your spiritual structure on not, exercising free will carries with it the burden of accepting responsibility for your actions.

[ Parent ]
Intelligent is not the opposite of stupid (none / 2) (#327)
by error 404 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:24:08 PM EST

Intelligence is no match for the self-destructive urge.

In many situations, intelligence beyond a certain point does no further good. Hard thing for some of us (me included) to accept, but true.

Intelligence allows you to develope a mental model of potential outcomes. In the case of drug use, the potential outcomes are very easily derived. The threshold at which more intelligence does not lead to practical improvements in the model is very low.

I have a daughter, far more intelligent than I am (and I'm smaaarter than the ave-rage bear, BooBoo) who somehow doesn't get the concept that a convicted serial child rapist isn't a suitable partner for a young mother. The fact that she's intelligent enough to get a full scholarship at a very good university doesn't prevent her from being unbeleivably stupid.
..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Reenactment of Practical Morality 101 (2.65 / 41) (#250)
by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:30:41 AM EST

Boo!  Drug user!
 |                   Let he who is without sin
 |  Burn the witch!  cast the first stone.
                       /
\O/  O/             O
 |  <|             V| 
 \   \              |
//  / \            / \


Hmm, I guess he has a point.

|    That sounds like the sort of thing a 
|    guilty person would say.  You'd better
|    start running before I find another rock.
      \              _
 O      O_   .    /_/   *WHACK*
<|>    <|          _\/   Aiee!
 |      \         / O 
/ \    //         


dude you rule (2.00 / 4) (#282)
by triddle on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:26:17 PM EST

that's some awesome stuff =)

[ Parent ]
You're back! (none / 2) (#312)
by ogilvy on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:48:49 AM EST

great!

[ Parent ]
A modest suggestion (1.88 / 9) (#251)
by Bill Melater on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:37:40 AM EST

Rush will be out of rehab in a month or so, and presumably back on the air. A hard-core opiate addiction is arguably the hardest thing to quit. It certainly can't be done in a month. Might I suggest that caring members of his audience send him a couple dozen Oxycontin or Hydrocodone tablets?

Kind of a "welcome back" gesture ...

Highschool was... interesting with him (1.05 / 17) (#254)
by asueekim on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:25:07 PM EST

I knew rush in highschool. Ole rush. Yea he was smart but... he didnt have any real skills to show the local pizzhut/computer club.

I always though of him as a bit of a circle jerker. He never had a woman or girl back then, although none of us did, feminism was all the rouge so there was really no point in trying to snag a date. I mean girls are in theory great, but when one kicks you in the balls and is all self ritious about it... well you usually beat the shit out of them with your back hand, back in the day you got thanked for holding the door... but in HS with feminazism being pumped into the girls hearts... millitant shit.

Anyway we almost always outfoxed him in Assembly, and plain new C (snuck into the UNI sometimes to play with the PDPs :D... unfortunatly it was next to the womens studies office which we trashed, alot.

The Rush case is a wee bit different... (2.20 / 15) (#255)
by Rahyl on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:36:38 PM EST

Most of the comments I'm reading are missing one very important aspect of this whole case.  Before I go into that, let me see a show of hands:  How many of you have ever suffered through the chronic, debilitating agony that requires opiates to relieve?

Rush wasn't partying up.  He was doing what it took to stay functional.  What choice would you make were you in his shoes?  Those of you that have experienced chronic pain know exactly which choice to make.  Addiction to opiates pales in comparison to chronic pain, the kind of pain that makes every movement, every breath, and every sleepless hour worse than the one before it.

Here's an article by a couple of doctors about this situation.  It says it much better than I can :)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/10/205929.shtml

Granted (none / 3) (#260)
by SlashDread on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:40:46 PM EST

Rushes addiction may be a different order then say, a pot habit.
Still, the article also points out the implications of the silly war on drugs, which I believe is exactly this articles point.

"/Dread"

[ Parent ]

The Article Misses One Big Point... (2.71 / 7) (#262)
by hansel on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:25:47 PM EST

That Rush was a loud proponent of the Drug War they're blaming for getting Rush in trouble.

The article says that the War on Drugs is damaging the medical establishment's ability to treat chronic pain.  Rush was an uncritical supporter of every battle attempted in that war, and he himself ignored the article's side of it in order to caricature junkies as homeless potheads.  The difference the OP is trying to observe is one Rush ignored himself.

Thus, the delicious irony of Rush's admission.  I feel a lot of sympathy for the addicted man (as I know someone who struggles with a cocaine addiction), but for the pompous, self-righteous blowhard commentator, nothing but contempt.

[ Parent ]

legitimate need for pain-killers (2.66 / 9) (#263)
by tgibbs on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:37:41 PM EST

Rush is quite wealthy. If he was really in the kind of severe pain that requires chronic use of opiate pain killers, he would have had no difficulty in finding a physician who would legally prescribe them for him. At some point, Rush made the decision to disregard the advice of his physicians, and to obtain drugs illegally.

[ Parent ]
I call bogus on this (2.75 / 12) (#272)
by epepke on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:28:54 PM EST

One of the things that is so bogus about the War on Drugs is how it has declared drugs with perfectly legitimate medical drugs as "street drugs" for reasons of pure stupid politics.

We don't even need to get into valid medical uses of marijuana, a schedule I drug declared by the Feds to have no medical uses. (Why? Because they say so.) Consider Quaaludes. Perfectly legitimate pain killers, now unavailable. Rohypnol is just another damn benzodiazepine, but it had the misfortune to become approved in Europe before the U.S., so in the minds of micropublicans it magically becomes the Date Rape Drug. Yet there are way stronger and quicker acting benzos that are not targeted. Ketamine used to be what they gave kids in the ER because it is so safe. Now it's the Animal Tranquilizer that's Destroying Our Youth. Even Oxycontin, the drug in question, is Redneck Heroin.

Rush Limbaugh was self-medicating for a real medical condition? Well, so do a large percentage of addicts, who in a country where it is easier to get medical attention without being thrown in the slammer would simply be treated for their conditions.

These are some of the reasons I oppose the current War on Drugs. We don't have to make everything legal, just go back to the way it once was. Sure, go after the pushers as an ordinary consequent of law enforcement. But micropublican thought disorder is right out.

Seeing as Rush Limbaugh has beaten the bongos for the War on Drugs for more than a decade, ignoring these serious problems, with a big, implicit fuck you for anyone who found themselves in exactly his position but didn't have a lot of money or a radio talk show, I don't think that he's entitled to have people pull an "oh, this is different" card out of their asses just because irony has been restored to the universe.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Stupidity abounds (3.00 / 6) (#309)
by dn on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:32:33 AM EST

We don't even need to get into valid medical uses of marijuana, a schedule I drug declared by the Feds to have no medical uses.
However self-titrated Marinol (dronabinol — delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is Schedule III and legal. And lucrative as hell for the drug companies.
Rohypnol is just another damn benzodiazepine, but it had the misfortune to become approved in Europe before the U.S., so in the minds of micropublicans it magically becomes the Date Rape Drug. Yet there are way stronger and quicker acting benzos that are not targeted.
And so it goes. You can buy a .50 BMG and enough ammo to punch through a bank vault, but a crappy Chinese rifle with a scary-looking pistol grip is verboten. Dinky model rocket engines are unshippable, but you can buy as much ammonium nitrate as you can carry. Scientists were so freaked about being blamed they destroyed valuable collections of pathogenic bacteria after the anthrax attacks, but most cities treat their water supply so inadequately that a bunch of terrorists could infect themselves with cryptosporidium and shit into the reservoir and bring the city to its knees.

The sole purpose of regulatory bureaucracy is to create more regulatory bureaucracy. Think about that the next time you hear about the EPA "saving" us from something.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

30,000 Pills in the Parking Lot (none / 0) (#399)
by knobmaker on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 01:13:17 PM EST

Come back to the real world, please. Rush sent his maid to buy drugs from pushers. How is this part of any legitimate pain management regimen?

[ Parent ]
"obviously intelligent"? (1.54 / 11) (#261)
by gr00vey on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:12:07 PM EST

My ass he is intelligent... I hope he falls off the wagon again and OD's.... Legalize it!

Rascist bogoted prick (1.37 / 8) (#266)
by gr00vey on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:52:49 PM EST

http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html he is....

What Rush believes (2.15 / 20) (#271)
by da of cog on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:23:28 PM EST

As someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh on a pseudo-regular basis, I humbly submit that I may understand him a little better than a good many of the people reading this article.  (Remember kids, don't dislike someone who you don't know much about;  instead, take the time to learn more about them so you can find a thousand legitimate reasons to like him/her even less.  ;-) )

First and foremost, quite frankly he's just a radio show guy, a person who's there to entertain.  He's not out there as a manipulative servant of the right, trying to insiduate the ignorant masses with his twisted views, nor is he an angel of light trying to enlighten all who listen to him.  He's just a guy who's trying to entertain the people who listen to him.  Yes, I know that he claims to be 'Talent on Loan from God", etc., etc., but that's all part of the show.  Would he be more entertaining if he had a less aggressive personality?  It's not like he's the only entertainer out there who proudly proclaims his greatness as part of the show.  Also, I suspect that if you were to meet him in person that he would be much more humble than you were expecting.

Second, his worldview is not what a lot of people think it is.  He is an optimist who believes that people are accomplishing a lot, often a lot more than they think they are capable of.  What he is absolutely against is the belief that one is not capable of succeeding in life if one applies one's self.  For example, he is against affirmative action because he believes that it is sending the message to "minorities" that they are less capable than everyone else.  He criticizes smokers for believing that they cannot kick the habit because he thinks they can.  The reason he criticizes "liberals" is because he believes that these people are, among other things, promoting a sense of "I am an incapable victim, therefore I might as well not try and instead accept hand-outs from somebody else."

He believes that great things come fundamentally from the struggles of individuals.  Thus, he criticizes that which he believes interferes with individual's efforts to build successful lives, such as overly high taxes, overly burdensome environmental regulations, etc.

He has a number of beliefs on a number of other issues which I won't go into here, but they generally tend to fit into the above themes.

He has never claimed to be a saint.  What he does claim is that all of his beliefs are correct -- but there's nothing per se wrong in having confidence in one's views.  His critics, for example, happen to strongly believe that they are right and Rush is wrong.  :-)

His addiction to drugs is in no way hypocritical.  He has never claimed to be a saint, only to be right in the things he believes.  According to his beliefs, his addiction is his own fault and something that he is capable of fixing.  Surely enough, he says he is going to try to do just that.  What would have been hypocritical would have been if he had claimed that he was, say, incapable of breaking the addiction, but he never said that.

I'm not trying to defend him.  He's done something stupid (though completely understandable) and he's suffering the consequences from it.  I just believe that many people have a very uninformed and ignorant opinion of who he is, and although I know that those of you who are mocking him are simply engaging in the fun and often harmless pasttime of finding people you don't like and then trying to bring them down, I feel that this information should be put out there to give you a different perspective should it ever actually matter.

Have a nice day!  :-)

A few points (2.91 / 12) (#283)
by proles on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:52:33 PM EST

He is being hypocritical.
"...too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

Yet I his rules don't apply to him, as he goes to rehab rather than jail. He has constantly taken this moralistic high ground, strongly condemning drug use, yet when he does it it's an understandable problem (you say so yourself, in fact) and something we should pray for him and support him on so he can get through it. That is hypocritical, period.

Now there's the "entertainment" issue... I will make it clear that I do honestly visit his site and read his writings pretty frequently, so I'm not simply providing blind criticism here. Now yes, I certainly agree that his bravado makes him more popular, but I don't know that it is as excusable as you make it sound. People may see him as part entertainment, but they still take him quite seriously (and he certainly takes himself seriously too, or at least that's the image he projects).

His "humor" is just a grandiose, smug, and self-serving superiority complex. He thinks it's funny to nickname Dean (the Democratic presidential candidate) "Nikita" (after Kruschev), for example, even though there's no justifiable reason for doing so. It may be "humor" but it's also taken very seriously at the same time and is a tool he uses to get his point across and to sway his listeners/readers. In essence, he's much like folks who act like assholes on internet forums and then follow it up with "oh I was just kidding".

His actual views have prominent flaws too: logic is not Limbaugh's strong suit. He seems to think that calling his opponents names makes him right (ad hominem), he constantly generalizes (as you pointed out by portraying "liberals" as folks who just like free government handouts), and he seems to have a poor grasp of the difference between correlation and causation.

Similarly, he is quite adept at providing a partial picture of a situation as it suits him: his site (which now seems to be member only) often declares towards the bottom (from the "advanced institute of conservative studies" or whatever "entertaining" hogwash he labels it as) that the top 1% of earners pay 34% of the taxes, as if this is an egregious outrage. What his "institute" fails to note is how much these top 1% of earners actually earn: if they earn about 34% of the money, then it seems to make sense for them to pay 34% of the taxes (and I would wager they likely earn *more* than 34% of the money and save taxes with loopholes and such).

Anyway, the bottom line is Limbaugh straddles this "entertainment" thing but really uses it as a shield to most definitely push an agenda of political import. He only succeeded after the FCC stopped requiring equal time for alternate views (e.g. he doesn't have to give people he disagree with the same amount of time he gets), and his views smack of doublethink and arrogance. He has very often taken the moral high ground in the past, which is why he is very much being hypocritical for expecting the world to be "understanding" of his drug problem now. He wouldn't be "understanding" if Hillary Clinton came out as a oxycontin addict or something.

I do not take pleasure in these events that look like they could likely be Limbaugh's downfall, but I must admit I hope that it will perhaps bring a bit more balance to talk radio (which is incredibly right leaning at the moment). We'll see...


If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
[ Parent ]
A few counterpoints (1.66 / 6) (#311)
by da of cog on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:36:14 AM EST

You have already quoted Rush Limbaugh,

"...too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

...so I shall add a little more from the same news site you referenced:

There's nothing good about drug use.  We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

Yup, no doubt about it, he believes that drugs are bad and we ought to get rid of them and there ought be consquences for people who use them.  I'm certainly not contesting you there.  More on this in a moment.

Yet I his rules don't apply to him, as he goes to rehab rather than jail. He has constantly taken this moralistic high ground, strongly condemning drug use, yet when he does it it's an understandable problem (you say so yourself, in fact) and something we should pray for him and support him on so he can get through it. That is hypocritical, period.

You seem to confuse the concepts of  "understandable" and "excusable".  To "understand" a person's choice is to understand where they are coming from and why they did what they did.  To "excuse" a person is to say that they were not capable of making a better choice.  You can understand a person without excusing them.

Now, returning to the quotes above.  You think that the point he was making in the quotes above was that drug users are evil and thus should be punished, when what he really was saying was that drug use is evil and should not be tolerated.  Whether it is ended by rehab or by jail is not as important as that the drug use not be tolerated.  (This is my interpretation of the quotes based on experiences in listening to him.  I really wish I could have found the transcript for the whole monologue so I could have seen it in its full context, if there was one.)  Thus, if, say, he were presented with another person who was going into rehab to kick a drug habit, I bet his first reaction would be "I hope he makes it",  not, "Not good enough!!!!  Punish him some more!"  What he does not like seeing is,  "This guy refuses to get rid of his drug habit and/or believes he is incapable of doing so, so we are going to just let it go," because again his worldview is fundamentally optimistic in that he believes that people are capable of a lot.

You're right, he has condemned drug use, and it is likely he is very disappointed in himself.  He has not asked to be excused from the consequences of this choice, nor will he.  In this way, he is not being hypocritical at all.  I'm sure he would very much like to be understood, but as I discussed earlier that is a very different beast from being excused.


Now there's the "entertainment" issue... I will make it clear that I do honestly visit his site and read his writings pretty frequently, so I'm not simply providing blind criticism here. Now yes, I certainly agree that his bravado makes him more popular, but I don't know that it is as excusable as you make it sound. People may see him as part entertainment, but they still take him quite seriously (and he certainly takes himself seriously too, or at least that's the image he projects).

His "humor" is just a grandiose, smug, and self-serving superiority complex. He thinks it's funny to nickname Dean (the Democratic presidential candidate) "Nikita" (after Kruschev), for example, even though there's no justifiable reason for doing so. It may be "humor" but it's also taken very seriously at the same time and is a tool he uses to get his point across and to sway his listeners/readers. In essence, he's much like folks who act like assholes on internet forums and then follow it up with "oh I was just kidding".

Okay, you've made you're point:  you don't think he's funny.  Admittedly, Rush Limbaugh is something of an acquired taste so even though I think he's amusing to listen to I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that.  Oh, and I agree that he often uses humour and caricatures to get his points across -- especially when criticizing other people.  On the other hand, though, other people do the same to him, so I figure it all cancels out in the long run.  ;-)


His actual views have prominent flaws too: logic is not Limbaugh's strong suit. He seems to think that calling his opponents names makes him right (ad hominem), he constantly generalizes (as you pointed out by portraying "liberals" as folks who just like free government handouts), and he seems to have a poor grasp of the difference between correlation and causation.

Hmm... I agree it is true that he often generalizes people into groups such as "liberals" and "environmentalist wackos" and the like, and in so doing often misattributes motivation, such as claiming that all "liberals" are really acting out of a desire for power, as are all "environmentalist wackos", etc.

As for the other flaws in his logic, I simply don't see a lot of what you are listing.  When he calls someone a "liberal", he does so because he sees in that person behaviours that matches a certain pattern.  You might look at the same person and say, "I do not see such a pattern", and you may be right, but that does not mean that Rush has fallen into a logical fallacy.  An "ad hominem" line of argument is, essentially, I'm right because he's disagreeing with me and he's the kind of person who gets this kind of thing wrong.  I won't claim that he never does this, but I will say that if you think that a significant portion of his arguments rest on an "ad hominem" then I believe you are extremely ignorant.

As for misunderstanding the difference between causation and correlation...  I believe he has criticized other people for making this mistake (though not exactly in those words), such as scientists whose conclusions he disagrees with, so it is likely he does understand the concept.  What I presume you mean, though, is that he looks at historical trends and from them reads causes that may not actually exist.  All I have to say is that anyone who attempts to use history to make a point will be forced to do the same, so in that sense he is no different from anyone else who quotes historical trends or examples to make their argument;  often these people can make quite convincing arguments, in fact, so it can presumably be done well.  If this is not what you meant then perhaps you might like to clarify with examples--perhaps ones you have come up with yourself rather than those pulled from someone else's book.


Similarly, he is quite adept at providing a partial picture of a situation as it suits him: his site (which now seems to be member only) often declares towards the bottom (from the "advanced institute of conservative studies" or whatever "entertaining" hogwash he labels it as) that the top 1% of earners pay 34% of the taxes, as if this is an egregious outrage. What his "institute" fails to note is how much these top 1% of earners actually earn: if they earn about 34% of the money, then it seems to make sense for them to pay 34% of the taxes (and I would wager they likely earn more than 34% of the money and save taxes with loopholes and such).

Well, if one believes that the cost of government should be distributed so that everyone pays about an equal share, then really that extra information you've provided is irrelevant since how much a person makes should not impact how much they contribute.  This seems very obvious to me, so since you didn't mention it as a possibility I can only conclude that you are deliberatly providing only a "partial picture" of the situation.


Anyway, the bottom line is Limbaugh straddles this "entertainment" thing but really uses it as a shield to most definitely push an agenda of political import.

Erm, you've made the point that you don't think he's funny and that furthermore you think he is wrong.  You seem to believe that this latest point should follow somehow in an obvious manner, but I don't see how it does.  All I can say is that I disagree with your supposed conspiracy theory.  He does have opinions which he believes are right and he does try to spread them.  But his job, first and foremost, is to entertain, because it is what he loves to do, and it is what he had dreamed of doing his whole life.  I simply do not see the malice that you do.

He only succeeded after the FCC stopped requiring equal time for alternate views

And the fact that large numbers of people apparantly wanted to listen to his show had nothing to do with it at all, did it?

(e.g. he doesn't have to give people he disagree with the same amount of time he gets),

Good thing, too.  The show would be so much less interesting to his audience if he were forced to do something silly like that.  There are talk shows which are designed to be forums like that, but his is not one of them.

and his views smack of doublethink and arrogance.

Your reply hasn't suggested that you have tried particularly hard to understand his views or where they come from.

He has very often taken the moral high ground in the past, which is why he is very much being hypocritical for expecting the world to be "understanding" of his drug problem now. He wouldn't be "understanding" if Hillary Clinton came out as a oxycontin addict or something.

Again, there is a difference between "understanding" and "excusing".  He would not excuse her in the least, but nor does he ask to be excused himself.  I'm getting tired so I'm not going to go into more detail.  :-)

I do not take pleasure in these events that look like they could likely be Limbaugh's downfall, but I must admit I hope that it will perhaps bring a bit more balance to talk radio (which is incredibly right leaning at the moment). We'll see...

It would be really sad if the only way to bring balence to talk radio were if Rush Limbaugh were to fall, because that would imply that there was no one on the left capable of doing talk as good as he does.  C'mon, isn't there a left-winger out there who can manage to be more entertaining than he?  I'd welcome it!  :-)  That would provide balence.

BTW, you really ought to have more confidence in your argument.  It can speak for itself without requiring that you give a low moderation to the person you are arguing against.

[ Parent ]

Yet more counterpoints (none / 2) (#348)
by proles on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:30:24 PM EST

First off I'll deal with the tail end:

BTW, you really ought to have more confidence in your argument.  It can speak for itself without requiring that you give a low moderation to the person you are arguing against.

My confidence in my argument is not the issue: my rating the comment negatively was a sign of my opinion of the comment itself (e.g. the fact that it glossed over a number of important facts and such).  In fact, I rated it first and then followed up with a reply, which is something I tend to do.  If I rate somebody down, I figure I owe them an explanation.

You seem to confuse the concepts of  "understandable" and "excusable".  To "understand" a person's choice is to understand where they are coming from and why they did what they did.  To "excuse" a person is to say that they were not capable of making a better choice.  You can understand a person without excusing them.

Clever way to avoid the crux of the issue, and that is the fact that Rush neither excused nor understood other drug users.  As my hypothetical example went, I very much doubt Rush would be terribly understanding if Hillary Clinton or some other icon of the left came out as a drug addict.  In fact, he'd likely use it as yet another reason why the entire left is flawed, as we all know from reading his site that any single sin of any single left-leaning individual reflects the entirety of liberalism (e.g. he generalizes, a lot, if I may be ironically general about it).

Now, returning to the quotes above.  You think that the point he was making in the quotes above was that drug users are evil and thus should be punished, when what he really was saying was that drug use is evil and should not be tolerated.  Whether it is ended by rehab or by jail is not as important as that the drug use not be tolerated.

Mmhmm, so "sending somebody up the river" can be interpreted as rehab?  I must call bull on that, I'm afraid.  I'm sorry, Rush has been consistently anti-drug and pro-severe punishments.  After all, that is the standard conservative stance, and Rush is nothing if not conservative.  And now, in asking for people to be "understanding" and to even "pray for him" (and even though he's not just asking for an excuse he is essentially being excused by all his "dittoheads"... I even heard one propose an argument that Rush's coming out like this apparently shows his strength of character or something), he is definitely being hypocritical.  Period.

Even if the "excusable" issue is dropped entirely and we are left with "understanding" he is still being hypocritical, because he certainly never advocated "understanding" drug use before he came out as an addict.  He advocated quite the opposite, in fact.

Thus, if, say, he were presented with another person who was going into rehab to kick a drug habit, I bet his first reaction would be "I hope he makes it",  not, "Not good enough!!!!  Punish him some more!"

Mmmhmm, sure.  This is the same caring and understanding Rush Limbaugh who thinks that cigarete smokers are just weak-willed, right?

You're right, he has condemned drug use, and it is likely he is very disappointed in himself.  He has not asked to be excused from the consequences of this choice, nor will he.  In this way, he is not being hypocritical at all.  I'm sure he would very much like to be understood, but as I discussed earlier that is a very different beast from being excused.

You're right, it is a very different beast, but it is still hypocritical of him.  As I have explained, he has always stood on this perfect pedestal of morality, and has certainly not been terribly understanding of the transgressions of those he condemns (be they drug users or whoever else).  Now he asks the world to understand him: that is hypocrisy, the "excusing" issue aside.  I would argue that he's also likely hoping that we excuse him, although he's smart enough to not say it in those words exactly.

Okay, you've made you're point:  you don't think he's funny.  Admittedly, Rush Limbaugh is something of an acquired taste so even though I think he's amusing to listen to I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that.  Oh, and I agree that he often uses humour and caricatures to get his points across -- especially when criticizing other people.  On the other hand, though, other people do the same to him, so I figure it all cancels out in the long run.  ;-)

No, that's not my point at all, although your responsible is wonderfully typical.

His humor is not "acquired": it is something that is only funny if you dogmatically agree with him (which most of his listeners do, of course, so they find him hilarious).  As I explained, it is an incredibly smug and self-serving variety of humor.  It's not that it's "unfunny": it's that he uses it both as a sort of dirty weapon and a shield, and I think that's dangerous as people really do take him seriously, even if he's also an "entertainer".

I compared him to denizens of online forums who act like assholes but then say they were "just kidding" when people get upset.  I still think that's a quite apt comparison, and I encourage you to think about it a bit more to see if you get what I'm getting at.  I'm neither saying he's unfunny, and I'm not even saying he's wrong (that comes later in my argument): I'm simply saying that his "humor" is just a barely disguised tool he uses to manipulate and persuade.  He tells many many half-truths while "joking", because after all he's "being funny".  Of course, the "dittoheads" laugh and think he's uproarious, but at the same time they take him seriously, and therein lies the danger...

And you're right, people use similar tactics against him, and I'm not justifying them in the least.  I'll be the first to admit there are ignorant and dogmatic assholes of all ideologies.  Limbaugh is a terrific example of a rightist like that, and in the world of radio at least the "right" tends to have more sway than other ideologies.  Still, certainly there are Limbaugh critics who have flaws just like Limbaugh himself, but that is not what I am arguing.  My main point in all of this is that Limbaugh is most definitely being hypocritical in asking to be "understood" in his drug addiction.

Hmm... I agree it is true that he often generalizes people into groups such as "liberals" and "environmentalist wackos" and the like, and in so doing often misattributes motivation, such as claiming that all "liberals" are really acting out of a desire for power, as are all "environmentalist wackos", etc.

I'd just like to point out here that you seem to be conceding my point exactly here (that is, Rush is guilty of generalizing a lot) yet then moving on as if it doesn't matter at all.  Honestly, even if this was the only thing wrong with Rush it'd be enough of a reason not to listen to him.  Making generalizations like this is one step away from outright bigotry, and at the level of groupthink that it exists in the "dittoheads" it is incredibly scary.  It's memes like these that started things like the Holocaust.

As for the other flaws in his logic, I simply don't see a lot of what you are listing.  When he calls someone a "liberal", he does so because he sees in that person behaviours that matches a certain pattern.  You might look at the same person and say, "I do not see such a pattern", and you may be right, but that does not mean that Rush has fallen into a logical fallacy.

Generalizing is a huge logical fallacy.  I won't instruct you on logic here, suffice it to say that it's not that Rush calls single people "liberals": it's that he blames all of liberalism for all sins of any purported liberal anywhere ever, as if "liberalism" is some coherent, cohesive, rational and thoroughly evil thing that acts as a single unit.  That is generalizing, and that is definitely a logical fallacy.  In fact, I'd say it's the most common and severe logical fallacy of Rush and folks like him (on all "sides").

An "ad hominem" line of argument is, essentially, I'm right because he's disagreeing with me and he's the kind of person who gets this kind of thing wrong.  I won't claim that he never does this, but I will say that if you think that a significant portion of his arguments rest on an "ad hominem" then I believe you are extremely ignorant.

You're welcome to entertain that belief, as my ego thankfully doesn't depend on the opinions of pseudonymous folks I meet online.  I must admit it's somewhat ironic that you feel it is necessary to accuse me of being ignorant when we are arguing about "ad hominem", though.

Anyway, perhaps it isn't in all of his arguments, but "ad hominem" features pretty prominently in Rush's logic, at least whenever he deigns to talk about "liberals".  He refers to all of the Democratic presidential candidates as "dwarves" and has derogatory nicknames for all of them.  He has similar derogatory nicknames for pretty much every prominent "liberal" out there, a particularly famous one being Algore (e.g. "he's a robot").  Whenever he talks about "the other side" he depends very heavily on negatively characterizing them, but when one actually looks for substance in his arguments against them it is often hard to find.

At least, that is what I've noticed, and I have certainly read my share of Rush.  You're welcome to still think me ignorant, though, ironic as that is.

As for misunderstanding the difference between causation and correlation...  I believe he has criticized other people for making this mistake (though not exactly in those words), such as scientists whose conclusions he disagrees with, so it is likely he does understand the concept.  What I presume you mean, though, is that he looks at historical trends and from them reads causes that may not actually exist.  All I have to say is that anyone who attempts to use history to make a point will be forced to do the same, so in that sense he is no different from anyone else who quotes historical trends or examples to make their argument;  often these people can make quite convincing arguments, in fact, so it can presumably be done well.  If this is not what you meant then perhaps you might like to clarify with examples--perhaps ones you have come up with yourself rather than those pulled from someone else's book.

Getting a bit snippy, eh?  I linked to that book just because I thought it was amusing, I never actually read the thing.  Anyway, I'm not going to dig for an example right now because his site is member-only during this period it appears, and as such I can't pore through "Rush's stack of stuff".  Oh well, I'll survive, and you seem to agree that Rush is somewhat guilty of this even without me having to dig for an example.

Anyway, I actually largely agree with you on this one: he does notice correlation-causation in the opinions of others (e.g. those he disagrees with), but then he proceeds to make similar errors himself whenever he tries to infer a "historical trend".  And really, that's exactly the issue and you hit it right on the nose: both Rush and many of his opponents are guilty of this error, and I'm not saying that the "left" is right and the "right" is wrong.

But Rush and his followers are apt to forgive, overlook, or generally gloss over flaws like this in their own reasoning (that is, if a historical trend supports their stance they'll buy into it even if they can't show a strict causal relationship), and vice-versa for the "other side".  In fact, this is remarkably similar to the issue of Rush's drug use (e.g. Rush and his followers severely condemn drug use, unless of course it's Rush in which case it's something that we should understand him about and support him through).

Well, if one believes that the cost of government should be distributed so that everyone pays about an equal share, then really that extra information you've provided is irrelevant since how much a person makes should not impact how much they contribute.  This seems very obvious to me, so since you didn't mention it as a possibility I can only conclude that you are deliberatly providing only a "partial picture" of the situation.

Heh, nice try.  Too bad a pure flat tax (e.g. everybody just pays $X/year) just doesn't work, as the limit would have to be set by the poorest and as such it would be extremely low and the government just wouldn't have enough money to function.  It's not practical, period: look at history, look at the US pre-income tax and study about how and why it was instituted.

Anyway, I believe that a flat percentage tax (e.g. everybody pays %10 or something) could be both fair and feasible, assuming the current loopholes and such in the tax system could be gotten rid of.  And under such a system the amount that the top 1% make is certainly significant: that is, if they make 34% of the money then it makes sense for them to pay 34% of the taxes.  And such a flat tax, as I am proposing, makes much more practical sense than your plan, and illustrates how Rush is being deceptive in his use of tax statistics.

Erm, you've made the point that you don't think he's funny and that furthermore you think he is wrong.  You seem to believe that this latest point should follow somehow in an obvious manner, but I don't see how it does.  All I can say is that I disagree with your supposed conspiracy theory.  He does have opinions which he believes are right and he does try to spread them.  But his job, first and foremost, is to entertain, because it is what he loves to do, and it is what he had dreamed of doing his whole life.  I simply do not see the malice that you do.

As I explained earlier, you've misunderstood my point.  Scroll up and reread as necessary.

I am not accusing him of malice, though: I am accusing him of advancing an agenda.  He seems to honestly buy into it, of course, and think that what he is doing is for the best, so he's not being malicious.  He is definitely doing more than just being "funny", though.

And the fact that large numbers of people apparantly wanted to listen to his show had nothing to do with it at all, did it?

Straw man.  Thank you.  Certainly he succeeds because people want to listen to him, but that doesn't change the simple fact I stated: his success started only after the FCC lifted their rebuttal time rule.

Good thing, too.  The show would be so much less interesting to his audience if he were forced to do something silly like that.  There are talk shows which are designed to be forums like that, but his is not one of them.

Which is part of the danger I'm trying to illustrate: it is sold as "entertainment" but has a much more serious agenda.  Yes, I know that "academic" and "fair" debates are "boring" to most people, but perhaps that's because they actually give serious and open inquiry to issues rather than depending on bravado.

Anyway, I'm a supporter of free speech and am not saying that Rush should be censored, and in fact I agree with the FCC repealing that rule.  I'm simply pointing out that it has been a critical element of his success.

Your reply hasn't suggested that you have tried particularly hard to understand his views or where they come from.

Again, my ego does not depend on pseudonymous online individuals.  I assure you that I have spent a fair amount of time reading his writings and even talking to some "dittoheads".  I suppose you'll have to take my word for it if you feel my comments here aren't adequate evidence for it, although I have tried to sprinkle in specific references here and there to illustrate that I'm really not making this stuff up.  Still, if you think I am, so be it.

Again, there is a difference between "understanding" and "excusing".  He would not excuse her in the least, but nor does he ask to be excused himself.  I'm getting tired so I'm not going to go into more detail.  :-)

Again, I already dealt with this: even excusing the excusing issue, Rush wouldn't even be understanding if somebody like Hillary Clinton came out for the very same thing he did.  And that is hypocrisy, to the letter.

It would be really sad if the only way to bring balence to talk radio were if Rush Limbaugh were to fall, because that would imply that there was no one on the left capable of doing talk as good as he does.  C'mon, isn't there a left-winger out there who can manage to be more entertaining than he?  I'd welcome it!  :-)  That would provide balence.

That's the problem, I think, but I've dealt with it pretty voluminously already.  Limbaugh sells himself as an "entertainer", and really the only left-winger who is that similar to that is Al Franken (who is pretty successful, although not as a radio host).

To my understanding, part of the reason radio shows tend to be right leaning is just because of the political demeanor of the companies that dominate radio.  Other mediums tend to be more balanced or even left-leaning (although I do believe that the whole "liberal media" thing is largely a myth, most major US media is just sensationalist and talk about what sells, not partisan).

Anyway, I will make it clear that I am in no way trying to defend or vindicate the "left" here.  I think you're jumping to a bit of a conclusion by suggesting that the reason there isn't balance in talk radio is because there simply aren't leftists who are as capable as Rush (there are other factors, such as who owns the networks as I mentioned), but I would definitely agree that there are plenty of leftists guilty of all of the same logical fallacies and so forth of Rush and his "dittoheads".

So yeah.
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
[ Parent ]

The Hitler Rule (none / 3) (#350)
by frooby on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:57:29 PM EST

"It's memes like these that started things like the Holocaust."

You're dangerously close to having the argument shut down due to the Hitler rule. Judges?

[ Parent ]

It's not called the "Hitler rule" (none / 1) (#353)
by proles on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:09:30 PM EST

It's called "Godwin's law", of Usenet lore, and talks about bringing up nazis (e.g. comparing whoever you're debating to nazis or something like that), not specifically the Holocaust.  Just figured I'd clarify.

In any case, I figure my horrible verbosity likely killed off this argument anyway, which is usually what happens.
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
[ Parent ]

Unless he goes to jail, he's a hypocrite (none / 1) (#398)
by knobmaker on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 01:09:51 PM EST

You think that the point he was making in the quotes above was that drug users are evil and thus should be punished, when what he really was saying was that drug use is evil and should not be tolerated.

To someone sitting in jail, this is a meaningless distinction. Rush may be advocating punishing drug use when he urges us to send drug users to jail, but to the victim of this policy, it seems an awful lot like he himself is being punished.

Rush's well-established viewpoint is that jailing drug users is the optimal response to drug use. No amount of sophistry can change this. Until he goes down to the cop shop, confesses his sins, pleads guilty, and accepts imprisonment, he will be a hypocrite, because until he does this, he is demonstrating in undeniable terms that he thinks what is good for other drug users is not good for Rush. This is a perfectly functional definition of hypocrisy.

[ Parent ]

hypocrisy found (none / 2) (#347)
by ghosty on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:12:38 PM EST

First and foremost, quite frankly he's just a radio show guy, a person who's there to entertain. He's not out there as a manipulative servant of the right, trying to insiduate the ignorant masses with his twisted views,...

It's not a mutually exclusive situation. He can be "radio show guy" AND a manipulative servant of the right. I'd suggest he *is* both. Given the way Gingrich (among others) kowtowed to him, I must not be alone in that opinion.

That said, here's a quote from the man about drug users:

"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." - Rush Limbaugh, circa 1995

When is going to turn himself in to be locked up? *That* is where the hypocrisy comes in.



[ Parent ]

I don't get this (1.50 / 10) (#277)
by signal15 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 04:23:10 PM EST

I don't get why seemingly intelligent, successful people can do things like this. Whether you agree with Rush or not, he's obviously not retarded, and he's successful. Usually, you see poor people getting into things like this. Rush's case is a bit different though, as he was likely prescribed the pain killers and got hooked on them. I just saw a 50-something, successful financial broker completely destroy his life because he got hooked on crack. How in the world someone in their 50's gets to the point where they decide to do crack, I will never know. He was making a nice 6 figure salary, lived in a very nice, very expensive condo, and had it all going for him. Then he called one of my friends who had known him for some time, and he sounded all weird on the phone. She called him back the next day, and some young sounding black girl answered and she was quite standoffish and didn't want to let her talk to the guy. So someone my friend knew found out where he lived and went over there, he had just moved. Turns out his crack habit cost him his job of like 20 years, he sold most of his fine art and furniture, and the owners of his building had kicked him out. Most of his savings and retirement, gone. After seeing this whole thing unfold from 10 feet away, it's the best anti-drug propaganda I've ever seen. You see the stuff in commercials, but that's all made up, this is real. Anyone who says we should legalize all drugs is an idiot, people in our society obviously cannot control themselves. This guy was a well known person in his community and now no one wants anything to do with him, except for his drug dealer friends that hang out on the street corners and in his apartment getting high with him.

Well (none / 1) (#299)
by kraant on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:49:38 PM EST

At least he's happy :)
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Prohibition failed again... (3.00 / 5) (#310)
by taiwanjohn on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:46:50 AM EST

Explain to me how exactly the prohibition of crack helped your rich pal to stay free of it.

In fact, the proliferation of crack was driven by the War On Drugs, just as alcohol's Prohibition fueled increased consumption of hard liquor over weaker forms such as beer and wine.

If cocaine and/or crack were legal, and the price not artificially inflated by the black market, your rich pal could easily have sustained his habit without selling off all his property. Sure, he would still have been horribly addicted, but at least within a legal framework he would have found it much easier to seek help without fear of incarceration.

No matter how "bad" the drug itself may be, prohibition ONLY makes the problem worse.

--jrd



[ Parent ]
Prohibition does other not-so-great things (none / 1) (#342)
by Burning Straw Man on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:48:46 PM EST

No matter how "bad" the drug itself may be, prohibition ONLY makes the problem worse.

Drug prohibition not only proliferates drugs, it also does wonders for imprisoning minorities and enriching the builders of prisons. I'm not saying that those who fought for drug prohibition intended for these things to happen, but I would say that I doubt that they are terribly disappointed.
--
your straw man is on fire...
[ Parent ]

You can't legalize crack (none / 2) (#375)
by blakdogg on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 08:11:54 AM EST

Anyone who has seen the impact crack cocaine has on someone's mental and physical state would not propose legalizing this drug. This is a very addictive and dangerous drug. Aside from the impact on the user, there is the impact on society. As the crackheads mental and physical state deteriorates, he becomes a danger and burden to society.

For society to not take a position against such likelihoods would be silly.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

Typical fear/loathing reaction... (none / 3) (#388)
by taiwanjohn on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 06:14:29 AM EST

Anyone who has seen the impact crack cocaine has on someone's mental and physical state would not propose legalizing this drug.

You are just plain wrong. There are plenty of people who've seen the worst crack can do and still advocate legalization (though an even greater number favor decriminalization only).

Furthermore, there is a whole range of options available, from mere decriminalization of possession (but not sale) to full-blown legalization. Don't assume the same policy will be applied to all drugs in all situations.

For society to not take a position against such likelihoods would be silly.

See, here you go again with that all-or-nothing thinking. We, as a society, take a very strong collective position against tobacco, even though we do not impose criminal sanctions for it's production, sale or use. Ever seen a person whose life is "deteriorating" (ie: being eaten out from the inside by cancer) due to smoking? Surely you've heard about the financial burden tobacco users put on the rest of society, haven't you?

Get a fricking clue, mate! We're not saying that crack is good, or that it's not bad. We're saying that making it illegal makes it WORSE.

Your "crack ruins lives" knee-jerk reaction is a typical ball-less, spine-less, head-in-the-sand denial of the user's responsibility. It's so much easier to just blame the drug, isn't it. It's so easy to just say "There oughta be a law!" and wash your hands of the problem.

Well, we've been trying your prohibition strategy for decades already, and despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, it has gotten us nowhere. Meanwhile, the skyrocketing profits your prohibition laws artificially generate (from what ought to be cheap agricultural commodities) attract an endless stream of criminals to produce and distribute the goods. They corrupt our legal system, and fund an entire illicit infrastructure of international smuggling which can be used to facilitate terrorist activities and to undermine entire governments.

Your prohibition strategy sucks hundreds of billions of dollars out of our economy each year in lost wages of offenders, stolen goods (which raises insurance rates for everyone), prison building and maintenance, etc...

And we pay all these costs, year after year, simply because pinheads like you can't see past the brainwashing and acknowledge the role of prohibition in exacerbating the ills associated with drugs, and the responsibility of users for their own sorry lot.

--jrd

PS: Sorry about the "pinhead"... that was uncalled for. ;-)

[ Parent ]

I see your point (none / 0) (#409)
by blakdogg on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 11:21:57 PM EST

While I am certain that cocaine and its derivatives are very destructive, I must admit the 'drug war' is much more destructive. The major problems caused by usage of illegal drugs are due to their illegality and profitability.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
poor people? (none / 4) (#335)
by gr00vey on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:45:01 PM EST

"Usually, you see poor people getting into things like this." I don't think so, perhaps you should ask an actuary or read some stats.

[ Parent ]
Here's an idea.... (none / 5) (#366)
by bheerssen on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:00:20 PM EST

Had drugs been legal, perhaps he would not have had to hide his problem from his friends and family. Perhaps they could have tried to help him sooner. Perhaps he could have sought counseling without fear of repercussions. (Drug addicts do not think clearly; many are afraid to seek help for fear of being busted or otherwise confined. (Actually, that's a valid concern, if shortsighted.))

Perhaps, had drugs been legal, your friend could have avoided all the bad people he inevitably had to deal with in pursuit of his drug of choice. People that didn't care if he lived or died so long as his wallet was open. If he had been able to buy his drug at Walmart, maybe someone could have refused him when he had had enough - like they do with alcohol.

Finally, had drugs been legal, perhaps your friend could have partaken in his addiction without fear of many of the bad things that can happen due to lack of controls. Things like catching hepititis or AIDS from a shared needle, or overdosing because the current fix is much more powerful than the last or secretly contains a different, more powerful drug.

The point is that making drugs illegal does not fix the problem of drug addiction. It can only make it worse. It drives the problem underground where it festers and becomes a intractable disease, one that affects all of society.

[ Parent ]

drugs don't expand your consciousness (1.37 / 8) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:20:49 PM EST

they shrink it

don't believe me? ask a spider:

http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Judging from your evidence ... (2.50 / 4) (#288)
by pyramid termite on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:21:47 PM EST

... I really shouldn't be drinking a Diet Coke right now.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
And programmers should take acid...(n/t) (none / 2) (#315)
by baron samedi on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:20:57 AM EST


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
LOVE the caffeine web (2.75 / 4) (#319)
by starX on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:33:27 AM EST

It's nice to see that my recreational drug of choice produces the most bizarre web of them all.  Back in high school, I knew a few folks who dropped acid from time to time, and they though it was mind altering, but now I feel as if a divine mission to show these images to everyone in the world has been layed upon my head.... caffeine is the answer!

I guess you could go you entire life making those cookie cutter spider webs that every other aracgnid makes, and I guess if you want ot make retarded webs you could take some other drug, but to make a truly artistically deformed web, caffeine is the answer!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!  My life has a new purpose!  Caffeine is the answer!

In case you can't tell, I'm a little, shall we say, motivated by it right now.  Ah the joys of working late.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

Are you a spider? (none / 4) (#339)
by valar on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:21:09 PM EST

Are you a spider? If so, this should concern you. If not (for example, many members of the k5 community are not arachnids, but rather -- shockingly -- primates), then this provides no real evidence of anything, other than perhaps the effects of illegal 'drugs' on one particular kind of spider, in regards to its web weaving ability. What was it that you were trying to prove again?

[ Parent ]
no shit sherlock, get a fucking sense of humor (none / 2) (#360)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 01:34:00 PM EST

jesus you're a humorless little nub, aincha?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Pain drugs (2.42 / 7) (#293)
by JamesThiele on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:52:56 PM EST

Now that Limbaugh has said that he illegally purchased drugs to relieve his physical pain will he support medical marijuana laws to help others in physical pain?

Treatment programs aren't science. (2.66 / 15) (#294)
by waxmop on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:53:53 PM EST

First off, let me say I'm happy for everyone that has used AA and its spinoff programs to get control of their lives. With that said, I'm amazed that The AMA and the psychotherapy community in general have all accepted the addiction treatment ideas put out by Alcoholics Anonymous. It's all a bunch of voodoo religious nonsense. Just about every treatment program out there boils down to:
  • addicts need to develop a spiritual outlook;
  • the addict must share personal secrets with his sponsor, his group, his counselor, or whoever else wants to know as a way to break down his pride.
Bill Wilson cooked it all up during a hallucinatory episode that he attributed to a religious experience. Then he started AA. The 12-step program is evangelical Christianity in disguise1. All the elements are there: confession of sins, surrender of will to God, even an analog to the great commission.
But for the grace of God go I.
Forget that. Scam artists have been pushing religion as a cure for what ails you since we were banging rocks together to make fire. This mantra is encapsulates everything bad about AA. The individual is taught that life will soon end in jails, institutions, or death. Furthermore, you can't trust your own judgement, but must rely on a power greater than yourself, and not just in matters of addiction. A person truly in recovery surrenders completely to the program. Serving that higher power involves letting other people how to tell you how to live your life.

This is exactly what Nietzsche meant about slave morality.

Here's my advice to people with an alcohol/drug-abuse/other addictions: take it seriously. Smarter people than you have been destroyed by it. You probably need to abstain from it, and there's better stuff to do with your life anyway. After that, keep an eye on your wallet. There are lots of people that want to take your money, your time, or more importantly, your belief in yourself, in the name of helping you "get sober."

[1]If you disagree, read the stories in the second half of the Big Book; it's fat-packed with references to Jesus. Bill Wilson often compared the alcoholic's moment of clarity to Jesus's time in the Garden of Gethsemane. The "God as we understand him" was an afterthought that has turned out to be a very useful marketing tool. Also explain to me why it is that AA meetings frequently end with everyone holding hands and reciting the Lords Prayer. And then go look up where the third step prayer comes from.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

Positivity is the key to all (2.70 / 10) (#302)
by Perianwyr on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 10:11:28 PM EST

I don't disagree with your connection-making skills. I just disagree with your conclusion.

Breaking an addiction takes humility. Nothing else will do it. A recovering addict (and believe me, you've never fully recovered even until the day you die- you're always "recovering") needs to get away from the "I SHALL DO BATTLE WITH THE TERRIBLE DRUG DRAGON AND SLAY IT HEAD ON" mindset, because as Nietzsche says, staring into the abyss means that it's looking right back at you. The way to win is to yield the field and sneak in where your enemy doesn't expect it- your "resolve" has already been beaten by the "iron will" approach, that's why you are in the mess you are in. AA is all about changing your tactics.

Here's my advice to people with an alcohol/drug-abuse/other addictions: take it seriously. Smarter people than you have been destroyed by it. You probably need to abstain from it, and there's better stuff to do with your life anyway. After that, keep an eye on your wallet. There are lots of people that want to take your money, your time, or more importantly, your belief in yourself, in the name of helping you "get sober."

This is fine advice in a way- no one can fix you but you, and all the help groups and interventions and shit like that will get you nowhere without the desire to be healed. But in telling people to mistrust anyone who puts out a hand, you're asking a man to cross the desert without water. One man may make it, but he'll have a terrible time tripping over the uncounted bones of all others who failed. Is this an ideal outcome?

Oh, and as a side note, you aren't charged to go to an AA meeting. The "big book" is available at cost, and if you can't afford it they won't sweat it. You can donate money, in fact, to defray the costs of these things.

I am as much of a free-thinker as anyone you'll find- I just prefer to demolish the negative consequences of religion rather than the positive ones.

AA is also about creating social consequences- if you make friends with people that are committed to dropping their addictions, you're going to feel pretty bad about not doing the same. I would tentatively say that when the shame of fucking up in front of your friends outweighs the desire to simply get fucked up, you are on the right track. This is where that slippery term "values" comes in. Hang out with drunks and they won't care what you're doing. Hang out with people who want to fix themselves and you might get fixed.

I also tend to think that if someone believes there is a big guy in the sky pulling for them, there absolutely is one for them and to say otherwise when the outcomes are undeniably positive is to be a dipshit.

That's the long and short of it.

[ Parent ]

As one who does not accept a higher power (2.75 / 4) (#313)
by baron samedi on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:04:33 AM EST

I concur with much of what you say, specifically as it regards to the way that AA and similar organizations work. I don't think that individual groups necessarily perpetuate the Christian Temperance roots of the 12 step philosphy.

That being said, I don't know what 12-steppers mean by a "higher power". I refuse to accept this, as I believe it in my soul that there is no higher power, at least not one that accepts personal appeals.

However, as one who has experienced the negative results of substance abuse, who am I to deride someone else for what works for them. In other words: if someone believes there is a big guy in the sky pulling for them, there absolutely is one for them and to say otherwise when the outcomes are undeniably positive is to be a dipshit. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't think that it would have worked for those that I have already lost due to addiction, specifically a friend of mine who passed away not too long ago.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Soul? (none / 1) (#334)
by taiwanjohn on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:36:42 PM EST

I'm intrigued by your use of the phrase "believe it in my soul that there is no higher power." Was that just a figure of speech (I tend to use "in my bones" or "in my gut", etc), or do you believe in one supernatural phenomenon (your soul) but not another (a higher power)?

I agree 100%, whatever works for the person who's overcoming an addiction is fine by me. But the "higher power" thing has always been a turn-off for me. I left the church a long time ago, not because I don't like Jesus (I do), or don't like the church (I had lots of good times there), but because I simply do not believe in supernatural phenomena, and I couldn't bring myself to recite the Nicean Creed every week. It was a simple matter of honesty and integrity. (Note: I also don't believe that supernatural phenomena are impossible, I've just never encountered one. I'm agnostic.)

In general, I think we could all use more help (coaching, mentoring, tutoring, whatever you want to call it) in a lot of areas: How to recognize addiction, and avoid it; How to stick with an exercise regime; How to deal better with the opposite sex; How to find a career you really love; How to visualize your dreams in enough detail to realize them... in short, how to feel good about oneself and one's life.

I suppose a lot of people get all of these from religion, but it's not the solution for everyone. It wasn't for me.

I believe the majority of addicts are self-medicating for some sort of pain, either physical (as in Limbaugh's case) or emotional. The 12-step approach works pretty well for most folks to control substance abuse, but I don't think (in many cases) it's actually fixing the problem that gives rise to the pain, it's just replacing one crutch (drugs) with another one (higher power).

For me, the answers ultimately came from science, especially from the last 30 years or so of neurological and psychological research.

If you wanna get theological... I'm not afraid of death per se, death is just nothingness. But I am afraid of dying, and I'm especially afraid of dying before I make my mark in the world. Addiction interferes with one's ability to accomplish one's goals. What more incentive does one need?

--jrd

[ Parent ]

An explanation (none / 1) (#338)
by pyramid termite on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:09:40 PM EST

That being said, I don't know what 12-steppers mean by a "higher power".

It doesn't have to be God. It could be the ideal of one's rational mind or just the ideal of sobriety. It could be the AA program (NOT the organization or members!) itself. The reason for this is to try to take the horrendous psychological pressure of the addiction off the addict's will, which has already proven to be insufficient, and onto an abstraction the addict can use to resist and hide from the addiciton. It works for a lot of people.

Part of the problem is that an addict has a higher power in his life already - the substance he is addicted to. If you take that away and don't replace it with anything, there's going to be a vaccuum that a person with an addictive personality is going to want to fill. And naturally, the first thing to come to mind may well be that bottle.

The 12 step program of submitting to a higher power and vowing that at least, today, one will not take that drink, etc., isn't appropriate for everyone who has had problems. But a hard core addict really has little choice; they have been so seriously weakened by their addiction that they have to have something to prop them up and that's what programs like AA do. It's a desperate move to subject oneself like that, of course, but then these are people who ARE desperate.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
It doesn't have to be God? (none / 1) (#340)
by waxmop on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:33:40 PM EST

AAers say that you don't have to believe in God to "work the program" and they say stuff like you can believe in a light bulb, or in the AA group instead. This is a clever lie they tell you at the beginning.

AA is all about God: the third step is about turning your will over to God, the 11th step is all about monitoring yourself for ungodly behavior, and the 12th step is right out of Jesus's "go forth and preach the gospel" commission. Go listen in any meeting, and people will be talking about how much better their lives are now thanks to God. Read the literature. It advocates daily prayers and uses old Catholic devotionals. There's a chapter in the AA book called "To the agnostic" which argues that the only way a person can stay sober is through belief in a higher power.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

OK, so you're down on AA.... (none / 0) (#407)
by deanoh on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 06:46:13 PM EST

Don't go. But why the rush to denigrate it before others???

[ Parent ]
There is no dragon. (none / 3) (#318)
by Nursie on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:57:40 AM EST

A recovering addict ... needs to get away from the "I SHALL DO BATTLE WITH THE TERRIBLE DRUG DRAGON AND SLAY IT HEAD ON" mindset

I disagree. You can get a tremedous amount of satisfaction and confidence by doing it that way.
I quit cigarettes recently, and whilst they only ruin your health and your wallet, rather than your reputation and freedom (no prison for smoking - yet), I did it by just stopping. No steps, no support groups. And definitely no higher power.
All I did was decide that I didn't smoke. Sure it was difficult at times, and to some extent still is, but I had made my decision. Every day that you keep off the addiction you grow stronger, not only because you're flushing the chemicals out of your body, but because you know that:

MY WILL OVERCAME

And that is a tremendous feeling.
The answer is surely to see that there is no dragon, only a behaviour that you can stop.

Disclaimer: I'm actually quite pro-drugs, but addiction is always bad. Pot on the other hand is a wonderful thing :o)
Disclaimer 2: I don't claim to be strong willed, I'm not. Sometimes though you have to make a stand in your own head.


Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Aleister Crowley (none / 2) (#330)
by Perianwyr on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:35:33 PM EST

The big issue with the thelemic route is that you're provided with the power of infinite justification. There's no accountability, so pretty much everyone is just going to fall off and quit when things get difficult (why do you think that the concept of a magical lodge came about, anyway?)

The negative effects of quitting smoking are nowhere near the direct pleasure-center damage that dropping off of a hardcore opiate inflicts on you.

A better exercise would be to do another Crowley ritual- spend a while thinking about what your absolute favorite thing in the world is, then give it up, cold turkey, for a year. Quitting cigarettes is hardly being an ascetic.

[ Parent ]

Aleister Crowley and the temple of the lemur..... (none / 1) (#376)
by Nursie on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:21 AM EST

Quitting cigarettes is hardly being an ascetic.

No, but it is considered one of the hardest things to do. More so than opiates for instance. And god did I love smoking. I quit because I knew it was bad for me, not because it was actually making me suffer (it wasn't), or I got ill (I didn't), or I had anyone telling me to quit (I didn't, nor do I have anyone supporting me now) or anything like that. It wasn't just an addiction it was my favourite passtime.
Plus I'm not trying to show how much of an ascetic I am, just that it is possible to stop an addiction by will alone and head on battle.

I've never heard of willpower being called "thelemic" before. Interesting angle though. Too much hocus pocus and magic associated with that in my opinion though. There is nothing magical in me, I merely decided something. That's not magic. It's simply a case of not giving in immediately to animal impulse. Now if I was dancing in the woods praying to Hecate for power to quit, or invoking my own ego, then that might be "magic". Load of old BS though in my opinion........

Just out of interest - Why would I want to do your Crowley ritual? I didn't give up smoking for fun, or empathy with other addicts, and neither am I magically inclined (atheists are allowed will power too you know).

Also what do you mean by the "power of infinite justification"? (I am actually interested in a response here, I'm not just posturing)
If you mean that I only have to justify my actions to myself, or that no-one is going to punish me if I fail, so I only have to justify starting again to myself, then I guess you're right. But this is not new information. I didn't stop for anyone else.........



Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Willpower == Magick (none / 0) (#384)
by Erisian Pope on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 05:37:24 PM EST

Do What Thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law.

The core belief of thelema is the only thing that exists is the result of true will. The reason you would want to deny yourself something you love is to free yourself from your ego-consciousness and enter "knowledge and conversation with you Holy Gaurdian Angel", which is a fancy way to say align your consciousness with the universal will... assume "God Head" etc.

As for the "power of infinite justification" I can only assume "Perianwyr" was referring to the difficulty of staying the course without peer preasure. Of course the best source for Crowley's view on all this is Crowley himself. His book "Diary of a Drug Fiend" covers this stuff, but I confess I've yet to read my copy.

BTW: Thelema is actually just a bunch of people into butt sex. Everything else is just a red herring.

Love is the Law. Love under Will.

--Erisian Pope (True Outer Head of the OTO ;-)



[ Parent ]
Thyanks, but...... (none / 1) (#389)
by Nursie on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 08:58:51 AM EST

Thanks for the clarification there, but this still assumes that I have some sort of magical belief.

Mr Crowley said that willpower==magic. I contend that it is simply control of your own actions, and thus is mundane, not supernatural. Unless good old Al was referring to external power i.e. will power could be manifest in ways other than within ones own mind.
If he wasn't talking about effects external to ones own person then he simply defines something as something else. I could say that slices of bread are fairies. I see fairies every day and when ever people ask to see them I will point them to the supermarket. This is clearly crass.
If he was, then it's faith based bunkum and not what I was driving at at all. Guardian angels indeed.........I didn't put faith in any higher power, or even in my own ego in some magical way, I just quit! Straight out like that. Because I decided to. Making to a decision and sticking to it is not magic, though someone should tell that to my boss........

Now I sound like some bigot who thinks opiate addicts are pathetic and should just quit 'cos it's easy. That's not what I meant to do either. Simply illustrate that sometimes addiction is well tackled head on. Oh well.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
What about "nudge from the judge"? (none / 3) (#325)
by waxmop on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:48:54 AM EST

Oh, and as a side note, you aren't charged to go to an AA meeting.
Plenty of people are compelled to participate in treatment programs and go to AA meetings as part of their punishments when they get arrested for drunk driving, drug possession, etc.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]
Treatment or jail (none / 2) (#328)
by Perianwyr on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:30:23 PM EST

I was under the impression that this was generally offered as an option to avoid jail time.

[ Parent ]
Jail Alternative (none / 1) (#349)
by frooby on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:46:53 PM EST

Thank you. You are correct. Choosing to go to 12 step meetings in lieu of other punishment is still a choice. I doubt the efficacy; I know many that were "forced" into treatment or 12 step programs by the courts and they generally relapse during that period or just after. Still, at least they are exposed to AA or NA, and know there is somewhere to go. Just being forced to go and associate with those scumbags might be enough to get someone to straighten themselves out. =)

I have a friend who is a Public Defender, and he recently had to convince his client that going to 2 meetings a week was preferable to jail time and a record. Luckily, in our area is a club that holds meetings. All his client needed to do was be in the meeting room for the begining and end of the meeting, so he could turn in and retrieve his court card. In between, he could play pool, play pinball and video, watch TV, drink coffee, or jack off in the washroom.

Still, it's a choice, and probably a good one. If you're not a hopeless addict or alcoholic, it can be that wake up call.

[ Parent ]

Compelled to participate... (none / 2) (#329)
by taiwanjohn on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:33:28 PM EST

I reckon Perianwyr meant you aren't charged a fee to go to an AA meeting, but I also read it first as "charged" in the sense of an obligation. That's where the "higher power" thing gets sketchy for me, when the court compels you to go and participate in AA, it's getting close to the line of separation between church and state.

OTOH, they let you choose anything you want to be your higher power, whether it's Yahweh, a Harley Davidson, a tree, or whatever.

Still, it's not my style. I'm more comfortable with the "willpower" approach described in Nursie's comment to this thread.

I guess the real question is, should the government have the power to compel you to attend any program, 12-step or otherwise, simply because you've been arrested for possession?

Except for nicotine, the addiction rates for all other popular drugs are well below 50% (eg: heroin's is about 30%), which means the vast majority of all drug users are not addicted, and probably (maybe?) never will be. Assuming that all use is abuse sends people to "therapy" -- for a dose of "higher power" no less! -- who arguably do not need it.

Bottom line: when we have a zero tolerance policy, people who use drugs responsibly and safely have little input, as they are forced to keep themselves invisible to avoid incarceration. While it is certainly useful to have recovering addicts share their experience, theirs is not the only useful experience we can learn from.

--jrd

[ Parent ]

AA (2.60 / 5) (#317)
by chrisjowell on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:55:36 AM EST

Been there, seen it, decided to die early, painfully and drunk rather than live one day in the life they wanted me live. That was 15 years ago. I can not say I've been happy every day since, but who has!

[ Parent ]
You're right about AA (none / 4) (#346)
by realalaskan on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:45:01 PM EST

The 12-step program is evangelical Christianity in disguise.

That's true. I'm an evangelical Christian, and AA certainly looks familiar. So, you'd better stay drunk[1]. You're already all messed up on drugs; you wouldn't want to get all messed up on Jesus.

Of course, I've never met any ex-drunk or ex-junkie who didn't think that Jesus was a lot better than the drugs, but don't make the mistake of learning from the experiences of others. You're a big boy, and you can make your own mistakes.

I drove night time taxi for three years (late 80's, when Alaska was having its depression), and I got to know a lot of drunks, and stoners, and junkies. I saw some of them clean up their lives, and I think that every one who did had to turn to God to accomplish it. If will power could help them, they wouldn't be in that mess in the first place.

[1] Yes, I know that the post I'm replying to isn't from an addict. I'm trying to make the point that the addicts need help, and folks who don't yet feel the need for that kind of help shouldn't try to dissuade them from trying something which is known to work. Even if AA does offend the sensibilities of the atheists.

[ Parent ]

AA (none / 1) (#368)
by epepke on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:32:15 PM EST

Even if AA does offend the sensibilities of the atheists.

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that I've seen study after study that shows that, if anything, rescidivism is more common amongst AA members than amongst people who use other means to excape addition. (I think I know why this is, but that would be a separate thread.) Yet people continue to believe, as you do, that it is "known to work." Well, sorting a list by random perturbation is also "known to work," but that doesn't help. You also have to count the times it failed. Sure, as a cabbie, you had to deal with the scum of the Earth, and it isn't surprising that some of them may have worked their way out of it. But that isn't the complete picture. You'd need what happens to them five, ten years down the road, which you don't get to see. You'd also need to see the converse, formerly functional people who descended into scummery. (Maybe if you'd worked as a limo driver?)

Unfortunately, in the past few years, the only popular alternative to AA (Rational Recovery) has descended into idiotic pseudoscience. Or maybe there's a bigger lesson here.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Yep, AA doesn't work. (none / 1) (#371)
by waxmop on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 07:50:42 PM EST

Not even half the people that go to AA meetings to try to get sober stay sober. In AA parlance, they hand out a lot more "desire" chips than 1-year chips.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]
Interesting article but basically a whitewash (2.60 / 5) (#305)
by CoolName on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 11:32:55 PM EST

You say 'an obviously intelligent man with a strict and demanding sense of morality'. There is no evidence of this at all for Limbaugh. Absent the lying on addiction Rush's history is one of the grossest examples of immorality in American media.

"What does your conscience say? -- 'You shall become the person you are.'" Friedrich Nietzsche


Hear hear, God is the answer (1.11 / 26) (#316)
by sellison on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:26:34 AM EST

as I found and as our wonderful president found, God is the answer to the drug problem. This is the reason the current system doesn't work: we're only getting it partly right.

Of course we should arrest and lock up drug users, for theirs is not just a personal sin, it destroyes families, causes accidents, robberies, and murders. But we make the mistake of not adequatly providing the spiritual teaching that will heal the addicts in jail!

Jail for drug users should consist of Christian teachings, and no drug user should be let out until they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and have replaced their secular lust for drugs with a true love for God!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Strict Morality (none / 3) (#320)
by Craevenwulfe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:54:20 AM EST

It could of course be his strict moral sense of self that has caused him to meander so far down the path of addiction.

If he begins to do something unwittingly counter to his ideals then it takes a lot to face this problem and even more of an issue to seek help from others.

For you (none / 3) (#321)
by auraslip on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:03:52 AM EST

'What had first seemed to make me feel alive and alert made me numb and slow in a couple of years.'

That maybe true for you, but not for everyone. You see my life was slow and numb for me for the longest time. Only after I did drugs did I realise how alive I was. I don't need them to feel this way...I guess I only needed them to show me what hell I had been living in.
___-___

the end (none / 3) (#322)
by auraslip on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:33:02 AM EST

"Don't get me wrong, I love weed. It's just that I love pussy more."
___-___
Talent on loan from Hillbilly Heroin <n/t> (2.25 / 4) (#326)
by fractal on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:52:22 AM EST


"Towering mastodons of destruction - grotesque, weird horrendous, many stories high appear from the bowels of the Earth, from the black depths of outer space, from the murky deep."
Um (1.71 / 7) (#345)
by trhurler on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:16:24 PM EST

The guy is a former football player rapidly passing middle age. OF COURSE he's addicted to pain killers. Think, people. His spine is probably a useless mess, and he's lucky if all his joints still work properly; it is a lock that he's got arthritis or will soon.

The question is, who cares? I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but all the "hypocrisy" and so on is pretty pointless talk, since the people gleefully spouting it have as their role models people like Bill Clinton and the Kennedys, and even this talk about "the larger meaning" is useless; drug prohibition is every bit as staunchly supported by Rush's opponents as by his friends - the fact is, our society is fucked up, and this man's problem is not interesting or relevant; all it is is sad.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Yes! (none / 3) (#354)
by sellison on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 11:42:38 PM EST

And in fact (though he would never say it) Rush's problem is indicative of the moral decay our society wallows in!

Even a moral and righteous man such as Mr. Limbaugh cannot handle the temptation that faces every American.

The flesh is weak, which is why our society needs to be restructured along moral, Christian lines. And I say restructured, as we need to return to the moral fiber we once had.

Mr. Bennet and Mr. Limbaugh, and other moral people are constantly bombarded with evil temptation, the very sort temptation the left wants to teach our little children in our schools, tolerance for drug pushers, sex education, tolerance for reverse racism, for religions that we know are wrong headed, for outright cults of nihilsm and humanism.

If such upright pillars of moral strenght as Rush Limbaugh can't stand against this constant barrage of sex and drugs, how can we expect ordinary citizens, especially children, to remain moral in it's face?

No, its time we recognized the moral terrorists in our midst, its time Mr. Ashcroft apply his powers under the PATRIOT act to prosecute these moral terrorists of the left who are collapsing the towers of our civilzation around us as surely as the evil barbarians of 9/11!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Careful or someone might take you seriously. -NT (none / 0) (#396)
by ph0rk on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 01:11:29 PM EST


[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 1) (#367)
by gbd on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:13:09 PM EST

...all the "hypocrisy" and so on is pretty pointless talk, since the people gleefully spouting it have as their role models people like Bill Clinton and the Kennedys...

While Bill Clinton and the Kennedys have certainly had their own personal failings, it's a bit disingenuous to compare them to Limbaugh. Clinton did not spend years illegally abusing drugs, all the while lashing out at and ridiculing drug addicts on his nationwide radio program. It's not difficult to find some of Limbaugh's comments on drug addicts; he has said that they should be "accused, convicted, and sent up." He has said that drug addicts should go to Holland where they belong. He has ridiculed the idea that addicts can't help themselves ("yeah, like that line of cocaine just happened to march into the hotel, go up to the athlete's room and put itself right there in front of him on the blotter.")

I must admit that if this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is hypocrisy.

Having said that, I find nothing particularly humorous about Limbaugh's situation, nor do I derive any "glee" from it. Drug abuse and addiction is a serious thing, and if this whole episode demonstrates nothing else, it demonstrates that it can happen to anybody.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

Er... (none / 0) (#385)
by trhurler on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 05:38:29 PM EST

I think there is a bit of difference between the moral stature of someone who becomes addicted to a substance he took for a good reason and of someone who becomes addicted to a substance he took because it felt good. Unlike Rush, I'm not ready to condemn the latter wholesale, but pretending there's no difference between the two suggests you're either a hopeless ideologue or a moron.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
SEND RUSH TO JAIL! (none / 2) (#356)
by noise on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 03:27:59 AM EST

Maybe then, he will rethink his stance. Although as far a I know Rush hasn't really spoken on the illegal use of drugs in years his base certainly supports the War on America and he rests his ass on that base. If you are a fan, know that so am I. I agree with much of what he has to say and I really don't care about his addiction. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. I mean, this guy was so addicted it possibly affected his hearing??? He kept on taking it? That's weak. He should have chosen something safe like weed. The Republicans are either: 1) disowning him 2) trying to convince everyone that somehow if you are in pain and take drugs it's not immoral to become addicted. However, if you have glaucoma they say - fuck you. Tommy Chong is in jail for selling bongs. They can send Rush to jail. Maybe while he is in he will realize the problem with his morality.

No, they can't send him to jail (none / 2) (#365)
by bheerssen on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:33:31 PM EST

You have to be caught and arrested while in possession of illegal drugs before you can be tried, convicted and sent to jail over it. As far as I know, Rush never got caught by the police, which means he is merely lucky. I may not like the guy, but I don't want to see him go to prison over something as stupid as pain killers. People with serious drug habits need help, not prison sentences.

Despite having words such as "Rehabilitation" in most prisons' charters, prisons are not about rehabilitation at all. They are about removing people from society so that they may be punished for whatever wrong they committed, and so that society will no longer at risk from those individuals. It's a horrible existence that I wouldn't wish on anybody that does not truly need to be removed from society. I classify the many thousands of people incarcerated in jails or prisons for non-violent drug offenses as those who do not need to be removed from society. These people need society to embrace them more closely, not shove them in society's closet where they cannot be seen. Futhermore, society is better served by embracing these people and helping them to recover as much of their former capacity as possible so that they may continue to be of value.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: The War on Drugs is not a war on drugs, but a war on the American People. It is specifically designed to keep large numbers of people silent about their condition in life for fear of being arrested for a crime. Along the way, many people are benifiting (immorally, IMO) from the fight. These people include politicians (first and foremost), private prison systems and their owners, police departments, drug testing companies and a whole host of other industries that have grown up around the War on Drugs. Obviously, these people and organizations will fight for what is in their own best interest, which is a continuation and escalation of the War on Drugs. Lest you think that this is a good thing because of the jobs it provides or other such nonsense, I must point out that it is highly counter-productive to engage a large segment of society in repressing another large segment. Such activities do not generate positive results because what these companies contribute is far outweighed by the loss of productivity incurred by having so many people in prison, and by the cost incurred by the same.

[ Parent ]

*knock* *knock* (none / 3) (#359)
by Merovingian on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 11:02:11 AM EST

Who is it?

It's me -- Rush.  Open up, I got the stuff.

Who?

It's Rush, man.  I think the DNC saw me come in here.  Open up, I got the stuff.

Who?

Rush, man.  Open up, I got the stuff.

Rush?

Yeah, Rush, man.

Rush's not here.

I listened to Rush years ago (none / 4) (#361)
by xirdneh on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 02:35:39 PM EST

but when i saw the incident about the "new dog" and Chelsea Clinton on his TV show it was obvious this guy was just a pathetic jerk.

Wrong. (none / 0) (#372)
by bmovies on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:58:27 AM EST

"but when i saw the incident about the "new dog" and Chelsea Clinton on his TV show it was obvious this guy was just a pathetic jerk."

You saw nothing. Amazing how many people claimed to have seen that particular program, and then get the descroiption of events all wrong.

Partial transcript from lexis nexis (Rush was doing a segment about the In/Out lists that were coming out in magazines, newspapers by the dozens at the time. Rush was trying to demonstrate the bias of these lists.):
Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
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...

[ Parent ]

My memory may be slipping but (none / 0) (#380)
by xirdneh on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 12:25:00 PM EST

I remember watching the 11:00 news clip that showed the incident. Maybe it was all a dream? Searching the net turns up many accounts of this incident. I have not seen one account that disputes the incident. The incident seems to have occurred in 1993 not 1992. Possibly January or October. Sure would like to get to the bottom of this.

[ Parent ]
Your memory IS slipping.... (none / 0) (#408)
by tucobad on Thu Nov 06, 2003 at 03:08:58 PM EST

"I remember watching the 11:00 news clip that showed the incident. Maybe it was all a dream?" You'd be amazed at the number of people I've seen (mostly anti-limbaugh liberals) who claim to have heard him say certain things on his radio show (or seen on his now gone tv show) when in fact he never did the things they say he did, and when one confronts them with the evidence (including transcripts), the more insistent they are about having seen or heard the evidence themselves. One sometimes wonders if they're lying. But as one presses them with the contradictory evidence, they become even more insistent. It becomes clear that SOME of them are not lying. They actually think, they actually believe, they've seen or heard the (false) things they claimed Limbaugh did. This phenomenon is not limited to liberals. You didnt hear it. You think you heard it. It HAS been awhile. "Searching the net turns up many accounts of this incident." Just like an urban legend. You'll find hundreds or even thousands of people writing about the same account, but very few debunking it with the truth. "I have not seen one account that disputes the incident." Yes you did. You saw the transcript of the true events, provided by bmovies. "The incident seems to have occurred in 1993 not 1992. Possibly January or October. Sure would like to get to the bottom of this." It occured November 92. But hey, if bmovies is wrong, then go to lexis nexis and get the transcript to the correct show. You wont be able to because your description of events simply does not exist.

[ Parent ]
Oh my your insight is astounding. (none / 1) (#383)
by sllort on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:41:12 PM EST

I cannot imagine Limbaugh                                                            
putting a dog's name next
to Chelsea's picture!                                                            
       |                                                     
        `------------All he did was                                        
                     say he couldn't tell                                        
                     her picture apart from
       ,-------------a picture of a dog!
Hardly an insult.
It should be considered
a compliment!
        `------------Trust me, I should know.
                     I live in my Mom's 
                     basement, and she
                    /says I have great canines.
       ,      ,    /    
          /(.-""-.)\                                           
      |\  \/      \/  /|  
      | \ / =.  .= \ / |  
      \( \   o\/o   / )/  
       \_, '-/  \-' ,_/   
         /   \__/   \                                          
         \ \__/\__/ /       
       ___\ \|--|/ /___    
     /`    \      /    `\   
    /       '----'       \  
           

--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
OK here we go (3.00 / 8) (#363)
by Burning Straw Man on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 03:59:07 PM EST

My own drug experience, and I'm not too ashamed to post it since I actually answered those probing questions honestly on my job applications and still was hired.

I was as straight-laced in high school as you can imagine. Not a single beer, not a single cigarette. Straight A's, etc. 1480 SAT. I got to college without any idea of most of the world, having grown up on a farm in a small midwest town.

Naturally once at college I started drinking quite often, probably every other weekend or so. Illegal at my age then, but then again so was most of the parking I did on campus. My sophomore year, an acquaintance of mine shot his counselor and then himself in his dorm room a couple of floors overhead, over cocaine charges.

The summer after my sophomore year I spent a few weekends getting high, hiding like hell in the woods carrying little zip-lok bags and a throw-away pipe in absolute paranoia about what would happen if I were caught, but not caring because I wanted to try it anyway. Eventually I decided hey, it wasn't for me, and I've never really looked back. If it were legal I would probably have a toke now and again, as long as I kept the family-size Spaghetti-Os locked somewhere I couldn't get to them.

What is ridiculous is that if I was caught smoking a pipe of marijuana I would probably have been in some serious trouble, kicked out of school, possibly in jail, instead of going on to get my degree and find a productive place in "society".

I hate the drug war, mostly because of having seen the poverty, death, and just waste of life. These are not caused by smoking a little weed, but by locking 17-year olds in jail for smoking a little weed.

The only real question I can ask is: Which is worse, burning a leaf and inhaling the smoke, or putting people in prison for carrying around dried leaves?
--
your straw man is on fire...

counselor killing (none / 0) (#364)
by qrbi on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:24:52 PM EST

Was that a counselor in Tarkington Hall?

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#378)
by Burning Straw Man on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:47:04 AM EST

I lived in Wiley SW2. The night before the shooting I was in that room, on that leather couch. I didn't know the guy at all other than having seen him a couple of times, but I can say without doubt that if it were not for drug prohibition, both he and the counselor would be alive.
--
your straw man is on fire...
[ Parent ]
Not hypocrisy...hubris (none / 2) (#379)
by bwcbwc on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:54:53 AM EST

I can't knock RL down for being a hypocrite. I don't believe he is one. Or if he is one, it has nothing to do with his drug addiction, and more to do with his use of an artificial on-air personality (right-wing ideologue) to boost his ratings.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he truly is a right wing ideologue, and that the views he expresses on the air are his true, deeply held beliefs, the drug addiction is just his karma. I don't know if he thought he was better than all of the liberals and social "dregs" he always denigrates, but he certainly thought he was different. Obviously, he's not as different as he thoought.

One item that has always been missing from Rush's message is compassion. Initially, the conservative's tough love was a legitimate reaction to the "forgive anything" attitudes of the 1970's. Now, instead of "make government lean", it's just "make government mean".

This is the beginning of the end for this cycle of the conservative movement. White-collar suburbanites are not going to continue supporting globalization, corporatization and loose-cannon foreign policy as their jobs move to Asia and their kids come home in body bags. The baby-boomers have always been the most self-centered and coddled generation in American history, and have always reacted strongly (even violently) when their life-style was threatened.


my take on it all (none / 0) (#387)
by horny smurf on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:02:36 PM EST

Rush always struck me as a capital-R Republican than a conservative. I listened to his show a couple times. It was nice when Walter Williams was guest host, but Limbaugh seemed to spend most of the show stroking his ego, talking about his golf game, etc.

I think there is a difference between getting hooked on prescription painkillers that a legitimate doctor prescribed vs siffing glue when you're bored. But that difference doesn't matter as much once you realize you're addicted and fail to do anything about it.

[ Parent ]

Exclusiveness (none / 2) (#382)
by truckaxle on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:33:09 PM EST

strict and demanding sense of morality

You cannot be moral and a hypocrite at the same time - they are mutually exclusive...

You could rightly say that he has a "strict and demanding sense of morality" when it concerns on how others should behave.


Some like it hot Mozilla Users get an automatic %5 Discount . . .
hypocrisy (none / 0) (#391)
by codejack on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 04:56:48 PM EST

no, no, no! this is just what you liberal wackos keep on misunderstanding; hypocrisy is essential to morality. To be moral, you must be either perfect, or a hypocrite, and who here is perfect, hmm? Rush Limbaugh has merely proven that he is moral and mortal by making a mistake, and his hypocrisy means that he is trying to better himself. now, what i want to know is; why isn't he in jail?!?! the man broke the law, they should lock him up and throw away the key!


Please read before posting.

Hi, Hysteria! Meet Reality! (none / 0) (#393)
by SacredSalt on Sat Oct 18, 2003 at 05:12:05 AM EST

I find myself wondering if this is all blown up way more than it needs to be.  Rush had a back operation that wasn't fully successful; I have to imagine that he is still in pain from this.

I know plenty of people who have had back and neck operations, and most of them didn't get a whole lot better. The lucky ones were able to use things like VAX-D and correct it that way without surgery. The unlucky ones tended to spend a ton on surgery, not get relief, go on to get steroid, lidocaine, and other kinds of injections that often lead to scaring and make the problem worse.  Almost everyone who had the surgery is still on pain management of some kind, and most of them aren't being treated as well as they should be with the safest drugs of choice because of hysteria over pain killers.

The odds of becoming addicted to pain killers when legitimately prescribed for pain are roughly 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000 depending on which continent you want to look at in the world.

Despite these long odds, a few people do indeed become addicted as they are prescribed safely and effectively to hundreds of millions every year worldwide. This is not the same as dependence or tolerance to opioids. Most long-term chronic pain users will become tolerant and need moderate dosage increases over time, but they eventually stabilize at a level you can maintain them and still get effective relief. Those that are on high doses for long periods of time may become physically dependant, but they rarely have problems getting off of them once the source of the pain has been corrected.  These are very safe drugs, they are effective, and the most dangerous thing about them is often what they are compounded with.

Rush's hearing loss does bother me. It leads me to believe he was taking (either prescribed or otherwise) high doses of compounded opioids. High doses of aspirin can do all kinds of damage by breaking blood vessels, in particular those in the ear. Tylenol is more deadly gram per gram than pure uranium and will have serious health effects (including death, liver & kidney failure...) at even 3-4 grams per day over a prolonged period of time.  It makes me wonder whether the medical care he received was even marginally adequate.  It's obvious his surgeon couldn't fix the problem. It's also obvious that they put him on compounded drugs after.  Had Rush been on non-compounded opioids, he would more than likely (baring physical accident or disease) still have his hearing today.  

Unfortunately for Rush, he has been declared 'addicted', when there is a very real possibility he was simply maltreated & all of this could have been avoided by giving him better pain management to begin with.  At the end of this he may find himself still in pain, out several thousand dollars, and unable to get pain management.  Think about that before you condemn him for what could happen to you.  

I do not dismiss the possibility he is simply addicted and no longer in serious pain, but given the life experiences of those I know it's long odds for that to be all of it.  He may well be 'hooked', which is very little to do with physical addiction and mostly to do with outlook.  All the same, he will find it impossible if he is in pain to get treatment after.  Now imagine how you would feel if your doctor were to deny you the treatment you needed to function and be pain free after becoming addicted through improper pain management and a few bad decisions? (The first bad one being not getting a different doctor!)

I also do not discount that it's entirely possible he tried them for pain, found out he liked them, and brought it all on himself. They do bring on a sense of serenity that people have enjoyed for thousands of years. I have a feeling that the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of those possibilities.  

I'm in no rush to send him (or anyone else) off to prison for any of those. Mostly I worry that doctors will use this as yet another excuse to maltreat those who truly need good pain management.  When I see someone taking 10 vicodin a day, I know they aren't getting proper treatment. The same as I see the person suffering with only enough to last him or him through 10 days of the month.  Good pain management gives people back their lives. Denying it makes them appear more like an addict and less able to function.

Depends who you are, and who you know... (none / 1) (#394)
by skyknight on Sat Oct 18, 2003 at 11:41:32 AM EST

If you're a broke nobody, then simple drug charges can be about on par with a death sentence. If you go to prison, you can pretty much forget about having a normal life. Even if you survive the psychological trauma, the bacteriological assault on your body will wreck you. There's probably nothing more hazardous to your health and well being than to have your life run by minimum wage prison guards.

Of course, if you're, say, Jeb Bush's daughter, then it is naught but a "private family matter", none of the public's business. How can politicians be in favor of the war on drugs, but yet so willing to grant exceptions for those that they love? It's simple: the "tough love" stance is all find and good if you're trying to get yourself elected, but doesn't seem like such a hot idea when it's your friend or family member being devoured by the system.

The whole drug war is just hypocrisy and mindless paternalism. Never mind that it creates a profitable black market that sucks in disenfranchised youths with its siren's call. I have never used any illegal drugs, nor do I have any particular desire to do so, irrespective of laws, but I find the drug war to be one of the most appalling attributes of American authoritarianism.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Chronic Pain (none / 0) (#395)
by n8f8 on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 09:12:35 AM EST

Rush started takign pain killers to aleviate chronic back pain. Apparently not for recreational use Once hooked on the prescription drugs the rest was just a matter of access I'm sure.

Maybe we should look at the reasons doctors would rather give patients lame pain killers (ibuprofin, motrin, etc) that do little to aleviate pain instead of perscribing morphine based painkillers that are effective and relativly cheap.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

Addiction and the Reality Of It ! (none / 0) (#404)
by Seven Towers of Serendipity on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 04:54:33 PM EST

First off , Regarding Addiction , This country need's to get rid of the stigma attactched to addiction and the false beliefs with it . Unless this begins to take place nothing will be accomplished in the way of progress .. The War on Drugs is a joke and will never work , anybody with any clarity and depth will see this from the outset ! That said , Addiction entails far more deeper issues than is being addressed , one of the most key elements here being that of neurology ! Neurology has been ignored or shall I say not been looked into with vigor until a short few years ago ! Both mental condition and brain chemistry go hand in hand .. One effects the other .. Niether hold sway or is more important than the other and both need to be taken into account .. While we have come very far with therapy and rehabs ect.. there is the physical aspect of this problem that needs to be addressed with all the time and technology that we can muster .. It is not about will power or moral defect ! wish it were that easy ! It is more complicated than fixing a picture on wall that is off center , Move it a bit to the right or left to find it's perfect position . This problem is of many many layers and is deep and profound .. It involves both mental work as well as nuero ! Wake up america ! Stop flushing money down a drain with useless tactics .. Spend money where you can get result and stop viewing addiction from one point of view and start seeing it as the multi - layered thing that it is ! Reality is never simplistic , It is the make up of many things at once and there are no extremes !

Rush Limbaugh - there but for the Grace of God ... | 406 comments (378 topical, 28 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!