Posted on 01/12/2004 4:29:11 AM PST by tornado100
Several months have elapsed and I thought it might be interesting to re-examine the plight of radio megastar Rush Limbaugh. In my previous article on Limbaugh's troubles entitled "Limbaugh's Secret Life", I was initially criticized for accepting The National Enquirer's contention that he was addicted to prescription narcotics. Heck, I was also skewered for surmising that the conservative icon was likely to be subject to arrest, pursuant to his drug activities. In hindsight, I think my points were well taken. My article came out about five days before Limbaugh publicly acknowledged his addiction and need for rehabilitation. And now criminal charges against Rush might be unavoidable, if the Palm Beach prosecutor has his way. I have no crystal ball, just plenty of life experience. In fact, I'll be quite happy if I'm wrong about this situation. However, there's no need to fret -- even if Limbaugh takes some type of plea, he's looking at court supervision rather than jail time.
Now for some pertinent background information --The National Enquirer vets its front page exposés of celebrities with a phalanx of attorneys, certainly more thoroughly than anything that you would read on the front page of The New York Times. That's a sad commentary on our modern culture, isn't it? Common sense dictates that the tabloid was not going to place itself at the mercy of Limbaugh and a libel suit. The National Enquirer couldn't afford to be wrong. That said, I rightly judged that the essence of the story - Limbaugh's significant addiction to painkillers - had to be accurate otherwise the publication would not have gone to print with it. But what about those that categorically reject anything published in The National Enquirer, claiming that it's all pure drivel rife with abundant sensationalism? I'll readily concede there's a lot of innuendo and spinning that's intended for pure titillation purposes in The National Enquirer - But the lead stories (such as the Limbaugh piece) often contain significant morsels of truth, which is directly attributable to decent investigative reporting by journalists such as David Wright and oversight by attorneys. To some degree, The National Enquirer and its sister paper, The Star, get a bum rap. Many "junk paper" aficionados point out that the supermarket tabloids sell millions of copies each week precisely because they deliver genuine tidbits to their readership.
Since Limbaugh's return from residential treatment, he's verbally eviscerated the tabloid for relying on the statements of a couple who had "blackmailed" him. His anger toward the tabloid is totally understandable. However, it's important to note that although The National Enquirer didn't get everything right in their article on Limbaugh, it certainly got much of the story right - at least the key elements. As an aside, Limbaugh violated a fundamental precept in life that you should never, ever permit yourself to be blackmailed. And it demonstrates Limbaugh's depths of despair in his attempts to manage a dire, no-win situation. Ultimately, it was really Limbaugh's responsibility to have gone directly to law enforcement authorities if he was being blackmailed, but he chose not to do so. Clearly, he wanted to avoid scrutiny of his own drug involvement.
Despite Limbaugh's shortcomings, his fans have remained profoundly loyal. Rush's audience numbers are peaking at an all-time high due to his incisive political analysis that's the best around.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Matchett-PI: "You are obviously claiming to be able to read his mind.
Lazamataz: "The reason it seems obvious to me that he hasn't gotten the First Step1 yet, is he has not surrendered to his addiction. ..."
Now it only seems obvious because you are sure he hasn't "surrendered to his addiction".
Please explain to me the difference between admitting powerlessness over an addiction and surrendering to an addiction.
First you said That Rush has not yet admitted he is powerless over his addiction (surrendering to his addiction).
I showed you that was false by quoting Rush's own words:
"...I am powerless over this addiction that I have. I used to think I could beat it with force of will. I used to think that I would be different, but I'm not."
"I'm just like anybody else who has an addiction. I'm powerless over it .."
Next you said: "I stand corrected. But I can tell you this, his tone has changed a LOT since those initial days after treatment."
Matchett-PI: "...Since you ...also said that his tone has changed (I, personally, haven't noticed any such change) since those first days when he got back, maybe you would be so kind as to show the rest of us how his thinking (and tone) has changed from what he said the bottom line is when he first got back, here:"
"You can boil it down to one real simple essence: I can't be responsible for anybody's happiness but my own, and if I allow somebody else the power to determine my happiness, then...well...that's something I don't want to do. I can't do [it] any longer. I put myself first. Doesn't mean be rudely selfish. It just means I can't depend on other people to make me happy. I have to do that myself. I'm the only one who has control over that."
Instead of answering, you added another one of your perceptions to the mix:
Lazamataz: "But when he begins blaming all sorts of people around him -- which you cannot deny he has been doing lately -- for various predicaments he finds himself in, he has not surrendered. ..."
Once again you are making claims about what you perceive him to be doing or not doing, providing no actual in-context quotes with dates to back up your assertions as you appear to be mixing apples and oranges, and then flat-out tell me that I can't deny it???
You have to be kidding.
Lazamataz: "..I'm going to apply my life-lessons to assess where I speculate he is at. .."
So we went from what is "obvious", to what "seems obvious" to what is "speculation".
You're a reeeeal piece of work. Now you've changed the subject to *me*.
Which catagory do your statements belong in this time?:
[1] "These things are obvious to me",
[2] "These things seem obvious to me", or
[3] "These things are really just my speculations".
Seek help. Seriously.
The passage of time seems to befuddle you.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you:
T H I N G S
C H A N G E
O V E R
T I M E.
Let me know if you need me to repeat this tricky and difficult-to-grasp concept.
You seem to have a real Rush Fetish. "Don't you DARE say ANYTHING about *MY RUSH*," you sputter incoherently, flecks of spittle flying.
Ah, the heck with ya. Frankly, you can have your little fantasy. You won't convince me that Rush is in a good place right now. As a long-time recognizer of bullshit, I see it right now -- coming out of Rush and only pertaining to his disease -- and I won't call bullshit a ham-sandwich no matter how many lines you put in bold font.
I've been listening to Rush without collecting quotes, so I've heard what I've heard but gosh golly, no I just can't come up with a quote right now. Wanna know why? Because I am a normal human being who just listens to the show. All I can tell you is my impression. I'll be sure to listen to the show with a more forensic ear from now on and/or go scouring for some quotes when I have time I can blow on a wee little lad such as yourself. Then perhaps I can pop a blood vessel of yours for real. :o)
I suspected as much. The legal case against Rush is a total sham. It is meant strictly to damage him.
But he had to suspect they were going to do this to him if he was caught, right? So in a way, this is a consequence of his using. He had to know enemies of his would be unfair in every way in this matter.
I just hope Rush stays clean. Heck, he probably lost his hearing over using. He's got a serious addiction working -- the next consequence could be overdose and death, and I sure don't want that for him!
I agree. And those who have never been there, who insist on trumpeting their ignorance so loudly, well.... I correct them for lurkers, only. I know full well that willful ignorance cannot be cured.
I was making a pun.
No no, no, not a pun. Wot's that thing that goes the same backwards as forwards. A palindrome.
Does rare mean it cannot happen? Your calling this lost hearing a myth implies that you are asserting that the loss of his hearing CANNOT be attributed to opiate intake. That is incorrect: According to the 2003 edition of the Physicians' Desk Reference, one of the adverse reactions listed for this class of drugs is hearing loss.
And think what you are putting forth here: It is rare that hearing loss happens due to excessive opiate intake, therefore his case a myth.
By the same logic, his success in radio is rare, therefore his success in radio is a myth.
Rush already has spoken on the issue of going to the authorities. Being an addict may not be illegal, but addiction would be used as an excuse by democrats who want to use Rush to boost their carreers. Do Piranah's coordinate their attack?
I'm not as concerned about his legal problems as I am about the addiction. The legal problems will work out, Rush will continue broadcast, and he will continue to stuff it in the faces of liberals -- to my immense satisfaction.
However, if his addiction resurfaces in the form of a relapse -- well, his drug of choice is damned dangerous. He could die. That would not be acceptable to me.
Touche - been there a few times in my life - pain ain't fun ...
You know what? I fully expected a flame from you when I saw you'd replied to my comment. I am so glad to know that you have this sympathy with others, even though you had to acquire it the hard way. I sincerely hope that your health is much better these days.
_Jim can be an okay guy sometimes.
When he's not advocating firing at fleeing criminals from helicopters with .50 caliber machine guns. ;^)
EASE DOWN, _Jim, ease down. It was a good natured barb! :o)
_Jim can be an okay guy sometimes.
When he's not advocating firing at fleeing criminals from helicopters with .50 caliber machine guns. ;^)
EASE DOWN, _Jim, ease down. It was a good natured barb! :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.