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 ...
Rush spoke of these reeeeeally, reeeeeally "concerned" people at the end of his program on 10-10-03. He didn't mention them in his published statement that day, but I just happen to have his on-air references to them on audiotape. He wasn't, and isn't fooled into believing that everyone who expressed/expresses "concern" for him has his best interests at heart.
See below (especially my transcript):
10-10-03 - Rush Limbaugh issued the following statement on his web site [excerpts]:
"...I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery.
Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs.
I am still experiencing that pain.
Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive. ...
"I am not making any excuses. ....I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.
"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. ..." [End excerpts from published statement]
Begin transcription from my personal audio tape at end of his ON-AIR statement [excerpted]:
"...the overwhelming support that you have expressed to me -- extended to me ... it literally has sustained me.
"But it doesn't fool me. It is what it is, and I take it for what it is..."
"But now I want to ask for your prayers --- because when this is all over with, I look forward ... and it, actually, it's never gonna be all over with, that's something I know, but nevertheless...."
End of RL show Friday, 10-10-03
It seems that there was a kid (I'll call him Johnny) who constantly made fun of some of the other kids in class. The kids who were on the receiving end decided to fight fire with fire I guess and started teasing Johnny about his weight. Johnny gets his feelings hurt and tells his momma (who is also a heavy person). She come up to school raising holy heck about her poor baby being mistreated. They question the kids and the story comes out about Johnny starting the whole affair.
His mothers response was classic and it reminds me of rushes most ardent supporters......Johnny was just teasing but these other kids are just plain mean brats.
She saw nothing wrong with her baby huey sized kid bullying and terrorizing the other kids only how mean they were for picking on her kid.
Moral of story...If you can dish it out ya better be able to take it.
Or are promoting a hidden agenda.
Either way, they'd be happier in the DemocRAT party since the base of that party is made up of such mentalities:
[1] Useful idiots (Sincere/Naive types like Alan Colmes)
[2] Cynical opportunists (Major league criminal mentalities)
[3] Useful idiot-cynical opportunists (Insincere, clueless dufus / petty-ante criminal mentalities)
Weekends on NPR?
:^)
Rush could cut a few "get out the vote" PSAs, too.
I know the feminized males (metrosexuals, et.al.) and the air-head females that feminize them post their feelings on forums like DU -- whining about how Rush is just a big mean bully who likes to terrorize his victims, so I'm kind of embarrassed for you when you make such comments in front of so many emotionally mature men and women here on FR.
Correct, and there is little evidence that is available to kibitzers such as we that Maharushi has indeed hit bottom-or even come close.
I'm very worried about him.
Sir, I may respect whatever else you say on this forum, but it is clear you have no knowledge or comprehension of addiction. There is EVERYTHING wrong with his addiction. It will kill him, or send him to an institution, or it will put him in jail. Period.
Secondly, he can NEVER do ANY drug EVER again, or it will release his addiction. He cannot take pain medication. If he does, he will eventually -- and probably rapidly -- die.
Third, while the media and his enemies will use this to humiliate him, the treatment and recovery people he associates with will only try to help him recover. That is where his focus needs to be.
Not everybody reacts to addiction that way. There is no reason to overreact this way. Doctors regularly give people enough painkillers to get addicted, better that than unbearable pain. Most people who get the painkiller have no problem withdrawing from the drug. The only thing this overreacting does is to convince people who could use the painkiller that it is too dangerous to use.
Here is another place where perhaps you need to research before you assert.
A quick Google on the net gave me, as my first result, your answer:
The Talmud (Shevuot 35a-b) makes it clear that this prohibition applies only to seven Biblical names of G-d and not to other names or attributes of G-d, which may be freely written. The prohibition was later codified by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah 6:1-2). The practice of writing "G-d" is supported in Shut Achiezer, 3:32, end, where it is endorsed and accepted as the prevailing custom. Rambam cites Deut. 12-03:04, which states "and you shall destroy the names of pagan gods from their places. You shall not do similarly to G-d your Lord."
I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS RACIEST TO SUGGEST THAT THE MEDIA IS RACIEST!
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
They savaged Elizabeth Smart's family unfairly, and had to settle a case with Gary Condit's wife.
Can I please ask what your credentials are in this field? Are you a doctor, or have you ever been in treatment for addiction? Are you an addiction therapist?
There is no reason to overreact this way.
If someone is addicted to pain killers, they may never use them again in most cases. Trust me, I have an idea what I'm talking about.
Most people who get the painkiller have no problem withdrawing from the drug.
Those people are not yet addicted.
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.