How long's it been since we had a Limbaugh link?

May 21, 2001 3:34 AM

How long's it been since we had a Limbaugh link? He's preaching to the other church's choir as he's stating "50" of the needless to say "things" "environmental wackos" can do to save the Earth. Are the conservatives losing their punch?
posted by crasspastor (51 comments total)

They read, as though any of it's some sort of a hilarious joke:

1) Bury your car.
2) Become a total vegetarian.
3) Grow your own vegetables.
4) Have your power lines disconnected.
5) Don't have children.
6) Restrict the population of motor vehicles.
7) Don't build cars.
8) Stop building roads.
9) Replace roads with homes, parks, and gardens.
10) Halt weapons production and exports.
11) Stop the sale, distribution, and export of cigarettes.
12) Send an amount of money to Brazil to provide urban
jobs for impoverished workers now forced into the rain forests.
13) Blockade a lumber truck carrying old-growth trees.
14) Spend a month tree-sitting.
15) Try to live, if you can, to within the world average income
($1,250 a year) for 1 month.
16) Cut up your credit cards.
17) Unplug your television.
18) Undertake a Conservation Sabbath:
one day a week without consuming electricity or fuel.
19) Fast a day each week, send the money saved on food to help feed the hungry.
20) Adopt a homeless person.
21) Raise the minimum wage to a survival income.
22) Enact a maximum wage law.
23) Tie politicians' salaries to the average working wage.
24) Replace majority rule with proportional representation.
25) Replace the Electoral College with direct democratic elections.
26) Abolish the CIA and the National Security Act of 1949.
27) Pass a nature amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
28) Oust presidential adviser John Sununu.
29) Plant one new tree every day.
30) Go to jail for something you believe in.
31) Don't own pets.
32) Allow all beef-producing domestic cattle to become extinct.
33) Redirect the military budget to restoration work; convert weapons
factories to peaceful research; retrain soldiers for ecological restoration.
34) Remove US Forest Service from under the Agriculture Department;
place USFS, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service under the EPA.
35) Consume only products produced within your bioregion.
36) Don't eat anything that comes in a package.
37) Don't buy anything that comes in a box.
38) Require operators & owners of nuclear plants to live within a mile of the site.
39) Mandate federal recycling and institute a refuse tax on solid waste.
40) Pipe polluted water back into the water supplies of the companies that do the polluting.
41) Don't own anything that runs on batteries.
42) Hand over excess packaging to store manager on visits to the grocery.
43) Travel by bus, never by air.
44) Stop using toilet paper and Kleenex; use washable cloth.
45) Extend the life of your wardrobe by learning to make and mend your own clothes.
46) Give money to every single panhandler you meet.
47) Democratize your workplace; start a union or a collective.
48) Learn to farm.
49) Liberate a zoo.
50) Ask your boss if you can take a day off to work on healing the planet ... with pay!

I forgot to laugh.
posted by crasspastor at 3:36 AM on May 21, 2001

Huh? Maybe it's because it's early in the morning for me, but I find this posting to be confusing and hard to comprehend. What or who exactly is "the other church's choir" and what does "They read, as though any of it's some sort of a hilarious joke" mean? Is the list a joke or not?
posted by gyc at 3:53 AM on May 21, 2001

Uhhh. . .check the link. . .that's what Metafilter's about. Links.

"They read"= intransitive verb. Or for example:

I love chocolate. Read: I'm a fatso.
posted by crasspastor at 4:04 AM on May 21, 2001

"The other church's choir"

You've never heard the cliche of one "Preaching to the choir"?
posted by crasspastor at 4:12 AM on May 21, 2001

I don't get this either (even with the further explanatory posts) ... and crasspastor, just an FYI, your retort sounds rude.
posted by internook at 4:16 AM on May 21, 2001

# 8 Stop building roads
#43 Travel by bus, never by air
Hmm, that would be the all wheel drive monster bus travelling over rough terrain pummeling nature due to the lack of roads.

Guess they put some real thought into this list.

#44 Stop using toilet paper.

HAHAHAHAHA

Stay the F$%K away from me you smelly bastards !!!
posted by a3matrix at 4:28 AM on May 21, 2001

crasspastor: So if you preach to the other church's choir, are you still preaching to someone who agrees with you or not? For example, if you preach to a Baptist choir, but go to another Baptist church, would you not be preaching to another choir which also agrees with you?

Second, I wanted to clarify whether in the statement ""They read, as though any of it's some sort of a hilarious joke" if you were being sarcastic or not.

You don't have to be an ass about it.
posted by gyc at 4:39 AM on May 21, 2001

This is what made me laugh:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we've been talking about the environment on this program since the EIB Network was born thirteen years ago. If you've read either of my books, you know that this has been a principle issue of mine, because I'm an anti-communist, pro-freedom and pro-liberty - and I believe that the modern home of communism is the environmental wacko movement."

He had me going up to that "principle issue of mine" bit -- I thought he was going to say something surprisingly sensible about environmentalism being important -- and then he went the commies-under-the-futon route.

By the way, I hadn't seen a picture of that fucker in years. Did he get his stomach stapled or something?
posted by pracowity at 5:59 AM on May 21, 2001

Crasspastor, instead of bashing Limbaugh for being a "fatso" (which he obviously isn't anymore) why don't you stick to the topic that you yourself instigated, namely the list which he posted on his site.

To be sure, the list contains some laughably naive ideas that would've done the most strident of Luddites proud. However, does anybody truly believe that this represents the views of the vast majority of environmentalists? I don't. Most of the people I know who hold green views are nowhere near this fanatical and simply want clean air, clean water, and a fair amount of nature preserved instead of overrun with tract houses and mini-malls.

The problem with Limbaugh (and his opponents too) has always been his tendency to oversimplify complex problems, demonize the opposition, and adopt an annoyingly self-righteous attitude with regard to his own views.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:05 AM on May 21, 2001

the list is pretty extremist, and pointless. I mean, the "50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save The Earth" was realistic. This is not. Not buy anything that comes in a box? Whatever happened to just recycling?

But then the question is, would anyone with half a brain by this stuff? If I saw something like this up, I'd probably blame Mindy, the same person who bought the whole Assata Shakur-20th-century-escaped-slave thing (who also voted for George W. Bush. She's not a left-wing extremist, she's just extremely gullible and brainless). It's trying to paint the environmentalist movement with an extremist brush.
posted by dagnyscott at 6:07 AM on May 21, 2001

However, does anybody truly believe that this represents the views of the vast majority of environmentalists?

I believe that was crasspastor's point. The choir to whom Limbaugh normally preaches really seem to believe that this list does represent the intent of those they write off, en masse, as "environmental wackos". At least, that's the way the Rush fans I've encountered (about half of my extended family, among others) seem to react.
posted by harmful at 6:16 AM on May 21, 2001

Conservatives aren't losing their punch. Liberals are just getting so weird that the right doesn't have to do much to discredit them.
posted by TacoConsumer at 6:44 AM on May 21, 2001

[Conservatives aren't losing their punch. Liberals are just getting so weird that the right doesn't have to do much to discredit them.]

The problem is that the national dialogue has become a mudslinging battle between wackos on either end of each issue rather than honest intellectual debate.
posted by revbrian at 6:57 AM on May 21, 2001

The Critic.

Jay tries to sit down, but falls into the floor, breaking it, and landing a story down.

:Sherman, You need to loose weight.

J: Or maybe you need to fix your cheap floors.

: Rush Limbaugh is three stories up above us, and he's fine.

(Rush falls, on Sherman, sending them a couple of floors down)

J: I'll race you to the ground level!

Rush: You're on, you liberal cream puff!

Rush: Mmmm... liberal cream puff.
posted by tiaka at 6:58 AM on May 21, 2001

Limbaugh deserves no credibility until he allows a guest on his show.
posted by brucec at 7:07 AM on May 21, 2001

"dozens of possible mentions" = "dozens of POSITIVE mentions." Bleh.
posted by aaron at 7:14 AM on May 21, 2001

There are tons of environmental wackos out there. There's also no lack of conservative windbags who'd like to rape the earth in exchange for a quick buck.

None of this changes the fact that Limbaugh is an idiot.
posted by owillis at 7:32 AM on May 21, 2001

I thought this list was humor till aaron pointed out its source, what a bunch of maroons.

crass, praco, the attacks on limbaugh's weight...classic. Are you excited about moving on to Jr. High next year with all the big boys?
posted by Mick at 7:40 AM on May 21, 2001

Aaron, only if you self-link it on the front page.

Owillis is pretty fair on the subject, though there seem to be a lot more of the first than the later, especially on mefi. Which would explain why no one bothered to read the first few paragraphs and go blame Rush's weight.
posted by tiaka at 7:45 AM on May 21, 2001

all the time that limbaugh spends in making fun of liberals demonstrates, to me, his irrelevance as a social critic. let's see, one clip of rush i'd seen is where he says, "feminists? a bunch of fat cows." he's the politically-conservative equivalent of a middle-life crisis.
posted by moz at 7:48 AM on May 21, 2001

the few supporters of rush, complaining about those making personal attacks on rush on the thread, are hysterical. keep it coming, guys. the irony's about waist high.
posted by moz at 7:50 AM on May 21, 2001

Thank you crasspastor for posting. Pay no attention to the dittoheads flaming you. That's what they do best. Free Republic must be missing some members this morning.

As I see it, if Rush can call Chelsea a dog then his being a fatass is fair game. Don't start childish name calling and then go tell teacher when you get similar treatment.

"Actually, anyone who listens to Rush on even a semi-regular basis"
Who here wants to vote on whether Aaron listens to Rush on more than a semi-regular basis? :)
posted by nofundy at 8:00 AM on May 21, 2001

I don't think anyone's pointed this out. The name of the list is the following:

50 difficult things you can do to save the earth.

This accounts for it's more extreme take. Heck, if I made a list that was named

"50 difficult things you can do to make a more capitalist society"...

I could make #1 "kill all environmentalists", or "burn the rainforests for make room for nuclear power plants".

There might be a handful of capitalist pigs (heh) that believe those two ideas, but overall, it's a "wacko" view, just like such of the things on this environmentalist list.
posted by jragon at 8:26 AM on May 21, 2001

None of this changes the fact that Limbaugh is an idiot

Is he? I certainly don't agree with the man's views and I think he's a polarizing extremist, but I don't think he's stupid by a long shot. I find it amusing that his critics seem to feel that taking ad hominem potshots at him will somehow accomplish anything other than lowering them down to his level.

Is this is the level that American political discourse has sunk to...schoolyard taunts?

"You're fat!"
"Well, you're ugly!"
"You're an idiot!"
"I know you are, but what am I?"

Sheesh...
posted by MrBaliHai at 8:29 AM on May 21, 2001

Actually most of us leftists here at MeFi are guilty of the same crime we're accusing Limbaugh of here -- that is, attacking the extreme viewpoint and falsely representing it as mainstream.

This list is a rich mine of cognitive dissonance and braindead "thinking." If some leftists talk-show host (as if there were such a thing anymore) were to criticize the list top to bottom I'd probably be fine with that.

Not that Limbaugh isn't a purveyor of cretinous thinking -- an utter gasbag. He is. I'd just rather expose him on class issues (direct quote to follow):

The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples. The poor feed off the largesse of this government and they give nothing back. Nothing. They're the ones who get all the benefits in this country. They're the ones who are always pandered to.
posted by argybarg at 8:32 AM on May 21, 2001

Whenever I read anything by Rush, I come back to the same general conclusion: anyone who buys the entire party line; EITHER PARTY, is a gullible moron. I cannot fathom how anyone but the most sheep-like sycophant could possibly agree with everything that any one person says. I love Molly Ivins, but I recognize that she has been wrong, dead wrong, about many issues. Rush is obviously, demonstrably wrong much of the time as well. Can anyone think for themselves anymore?
posted by norm at 8:34 AM on May 21, 2001

aaron, what you're saying sounds just plain weird. Who are these "liberals"? What gives them a common identity? Is there some sort of liberals'-club, with a common creed and a code of ethics? How do you spot one? And who is this "we" you're addressing? Whatever it is you believe, I don't think I share your opinion - does that make me a "liberal"? Is there anything more to this "liberal" thing than "not me and mine, and not like us, either"?

About the Earth Island Institute:
These people are practically mainstream, and there are millions of people who buy into their statements.

Maybe all those millions of people see something you don't. Who's to say? A little humility would make you seem a lot less like a raging fanatic.

As it happens, I don't know anything about this "Earth Island Institute", and have no idea whether, in fact, there are millions of people who agree with their point of view. Your cocksure confidence in their utter wrongness distresses; nothing is ever that certain.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:50 AM on May 21, 2001

*cough* I kind of like the list. Particularly replacing "first past the post" with proportional representation, and the "Conservation Sabbath", which would be nice for a number of reasons. Others, here in their extreme form, toned down a bit, make plenty of sense. Such as: not buying anything that comes in a box becomes "when shopping, only use bags when you absolutely have to"--do you realize how many people carry single items from stores in a bag? It's silly. But I'm meandering.
posted by claxton6 at 8:59 AM on May 21, 2001

Who here wants to vote on whether Nofundy is so obsessed with Aaron that he continually follows him around from thread to thread to harass him and post personal attacks?
posted by aaron at 9:09 AM on May 21, 2001

Have we fallen through a time warp to 1993, where people actually payed attention to Rush Limbaugh? My god, everything old is new again.
posted by solistrato at 9:25 AM on May 21, 2001

> the attacks on limbaugh's weight...classic

Chris: If anything, that was a compliment on his weight. I was shocked to see how relatively skinny he has become since last I saw him, which was several pleasant years ago.

> Who here wants to vote on whether Nofundy ...

I haven't exactly made a study of it, but I suspect you and he just share interests from opposite sides. You can't keep out of anything that always leads to a Republicans-vs-Democratics debate. If nofundy is always in the same places for similar reasons, he isn't necessarily following you. Equally it could be that aaron is obsessed with nofundy or even that aaron is obsessed with aaron.
posted by pracowity at 9:26 AM on May 21, 2001

I know the Earth Island Institute. Their literature has always been the source of many fine debate cards, or did back when I was finding evidence.
posted by norm at 9:36 AM on May 21, 2001

An amusing thread to be certain. Makes a Monday more tolerable.

"Whenever I read anything by Rush, I come back to the same general conclusion: anyone who buys the entire party line; EITHER PARTY, is a gullible moron"

I absolutely agree with that statement. Far too many people are no longer capable of original thought.

As for Rush? Grain of salt theory I think would be appropriate.
posted by a3matrix at 9:47 AM on May 21, 2001

Limbaugh is actually slightly TO THE LEFT of the current adimistration -- I mean, he probably never said things like "let's abolish the corporate income tax" as the Secretary of the Treasury did last week.
So Limbaugh's becoming more and more irrelevant -- give the man a break, he's still looking for communists under the bed.
posted by matteo at 10:06 AM on May 21, 2001

I certainly don't agree with the man's views and I think he's a polarizing extremist, but I don't think he's stupid by a long shot.

Didn't say he was stupid, I said he was an idiot. Webster's says an idiot is "an uneducated, ignorant, ill-informed person". Limbaugh isn't uneducated, but he fits the other two descriptions to a tee.

I will give him this though, the man is an excellent broadcaster and is great at spreading his message. I really wish there was someone on the left that was a third as good as he is (and no, that idiot Alan Colmes on Fox doesn't count).
posted by owillis at 10:27 AM on May 21, 2001

Left, Right, left, right, hup 2,3,4.

How about voters who are registered independents?
I love the freedom of choice, as opposed to voting down the party line.

I do agree with owillis. The guy is an idiot. He never has a problem identifying a problem, hell anyone can do that, but what are his solutions? Realistic solutions he never seems to have.

I think people should focus less on the whole left/right thing and try to address the real issues and how to deal with them.

ALL politicians regardless of left/right, are still politicians. Imbeciles like Rush Limbaugh don't exist to have answers, only to stir the pot for the huddled masses. Give them something to rally around. Both left and right are guilty of that.

The list he rags on strictly because the folks that wrote it make such an easy target. How could you not rip them a new one?

I am rambling now. I apologize.

a3
posted by a3matrix at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2001

Left, Right, left, right, hup 2,3,4.

How about voters who are registered independents?
I love the freedom of choice, as opposed to voting down the party line.

I do agree with owillis. The guy is an idiot. He never has a problem identifying a problem, hell anyone can do that, but what are his solutions? Realistic solutions he never seems to have.

I think people should focus less on the whole left/right thing and try to address the real issues and how to deal with them.

ALL politicians regardless of left/right, are still politicians. Imbeciles like Rush Limbaugh don't exist to have answers, only to stir the pot for the huddled masses. Give them something to rally around. Both left and right are guilty of that.

The list he rags on strictly because the folks that wrote it make such an easy target. How could you not rip them a new one?

I am rambling now. I apologize.

a3
posted by a3matrix at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2001

Whoa there guys!

crass, praco, the attacks on limbaugh's weight...classic. Are you excited about moving on to Jr. High next year with all the big boys?

Thank you too for also missing my point Mick. Speaking of Jr. High, you might find a reading comprehension class there too.

I wrote:
"They read"= intransitive verb. Or for example:

I love chocolate. Read: I'm a fatso.

You'll notice that I didn't foreshadow nor follow up on this if it were to be a sophomoric rip on Limbaugh's former "weight". It was simply an example I pulled out of the air. Fairly slipping of the Freudian type I agree, looking back on it now.

As far as "preaching to the other church's choir". It's only a twist on the term. So I'll try my "read as intransitive verb" again:

Preaching to the other church's choir.

Read:

Isn't Limbaugh stating the obvious on two thirds of his list if in fact you were one to take environmental stewardship seriously? As none of it was particularly insulting. It's like calling someone a moron to which they reply, "Thanks I call myself a moron too."

Or (to other church's choir)"You're such a liberal . Gah!"

Reply (other church's choir):

"Thank you. I know I am."
posted by crasspastor at 11:10 AM on May 21, 2001

Number of guests on the rush limbaugh show with an opposing viewpoint

0
posted by brucec at 11:14 AM on May 21, 2001

Number of guests on the rush limbaugh show with an opposing viewpoint

0
posted by brucec at 11:15 AM on May 21, 2001

So what? It's not a political debate show. Though he does take phone calls from those with opposing viewpoints all the time.
posted by aaron at 5:07 PM on May 21, 2001

Yes, and that's how Rush has defended it on his show - its just his choice of format.

It's his choice not to be challenged. Because he wouldn't be able to make some of the statements he makes and get away with it if you had a Bill Press, an Alan Colmes, a Sam Greenfield or someone else pointing out how ridiculous a comment was, asking him for source material on his statements, or answering his rhetorical questions.

as far as opposing phone calls, "rarely" is more like it. He will often take a call from someone who is MORE conservative than him, or argue about fine points, but in phone callers are dittoheads. I don't fault him for phone calls, that's the audience and he cant control it. But he can control his format, and he has chosen a one-sided one.
posted by brucec at 6:12 PM on May 21, 2001

Limbaugh deserves no credibility until he allows a guest on his show.

and

Number of guests on the rush limbaugh show with an opposing viewpoint

0

Wrong.
I've heard V.P. Cheney and Chris Matthews call into his show. AFAIK Chris Matthews is a Democratic talkshow host and certainly doesn't have the same viewpoint.
posted by gyc at 7:34 PM on May 21, 2001

I think Howard Stern (who I almost never agree with) said it best when he called Limbaugh a 'fat, bastard, pumkinheaded piece of shit'. This was about eight years ago, so maybe he's not so fat now. The other stuff still applies.

Maybe you'd prefer Al Franken's opinion.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 7:42 PM on May 21, 2001

Yes, Howard Stern and Al Franken are both voices of reason we should all respect. So how many of the people bashing Rush here has actually listened to his show for any amount of time?
posted by gyc at 7:53 PM on May 21, 2001

None, gyc, you can be sure of it. But they reread Franken's and FAIR's totally nonbiased attacks on him at least once every two weeks to keep their anger fresh, even though the FAIR piece is now almost eight years old.

And whether you want to admit it or not, Rush takes OPPOSING calls on a regular basis. As in REAL LIVE LIBERALS, who often get pretty tough on him. Probably not more than 2 or 3 a week, but hey, most people who call in never get on at all, no matter how much of a blindly worshipping dittohead they might be.

Hell, it's not even really a call-in show anyway. He takes calls when he feels like it, and doesn't when he doesn't. The show is about him and his opinions. Everyone who listens regularly as a fan understands this. They listen because it's fun.

(Which, BTW, is a big part of the reason there has been no successful liberal equivalent of Rush on the radio. The few that have tried simply have not been anywhere near as entertaining to listen to, regardless of ideology. No other conservative has even gotten anywhere near Rush's level of success.)
posted by aaron at 9:05 PM on May 21, 2001

Which leads us to ask the following question:

Why would somebody as underinformed scientifically, sociologically, and yes, politically ever make it to the big time, EIB style? How is it that such an otherwise vacuous man, yet in charge of his vocabulary and ability to focus "benign" hate and distrust of intellectualism to a gerrymandered (by way of corporate control of media outlets) audience?

I submit, it's that he does the burden of thought, perusal of current events, reasoning of going topics, sensationalizing and dis-aggrandizing the efforts of his "enemies" (enemies who also care and fight for a planet the he too can live on). His callers are often obsequious and groupie-like, ostensibly hand picked by his screeners to add to his popular appeal. Increase of ratings. What a bombshell that a conservative soothsayer, reality tenderfoot, would be a capitalistic money monger, in merely the business to serve himself. Anybody have the figures on the exponential difference between his salary and his flock?

Oh! But how much money anybody makes "doesn't matter", "shouldn't matter". Unless you don't have enough of it. Therefore, you loathly subscribe yourself to the Limbaugh brand of snake-oil , hoping eventually your ignorant, dutiful brazenness will pan out to put the fucking above-ground pool in your backyard. When in fact, you could all be joining a union, fighting for that which is stolen from your hard work by the mani-pedi-cured also underinformed executive who determines your fate who's not too idealogically much unlike the likes of Limbaugh himself.

Nothing more can come from laissez-faire capitalism than financial success and happiness for the single digit percentages of our population. Indeed, it is they who have the best bomb shelters too. And can afford a ride into space. It is Limbaugh who benightedly claims and whirls the dervish into believing they, his audience, can do it all too, when they cannot. All this, just by listening to Limbaugh's empty promises and injurious hype.

Flinstone vitamins will make you strong!
posted by crasspastor at 10:02 PM on May 21, 2001

Most of the people I know who hold green views are nowhere near this fanatical and simply want clean air, clean water, and a fair amount of nature preserved instead of overrun with tract houses and mini-malls.


By some random chance, I happened to hear the Rush show the other day on the radio when he was introducing this very list, and what you're saying is kind of his POINT. He DOES distinguish between environmentalists and environmentalist "wackos". His frustration, apparently, is that the 'wackos' have been legitamized when they are such an extreme minoriity.
posted by glenwood at 5:57 AM on May 22, 2001

His frustration, apparently, is that the 'wackos' have been legitamized when they are such an extreme minoriity.

Pot, meet kettle.

As for the curious phenomenon of right-wing demagogues... Alf Garnett comes to mind. (And a few charismatic European leaders from the 1930s, but Godwin knows if it matters.)
posted by holgate at 8:48 AM on May 22, 2001

Uh...yea...what crasspastor said 3 posts above. Geez, I wish I could express myself as well.

As for you Aaron, I read MF for a long time before joining and your arrogant, self-righteous, all-knowing attitude totally pisses me off. Therefore, I occasionally poke some fun in your direction. But whatever I say or do I'm sure you will never be influenced by anything less than your universally superior intellect. Like Rush says, he has the smartest, best educated audience in the world. And you dittos believe him!!! What a bunch of maroons!

I apologize for my attitude in this post but I get this way when I smell hypocrisy.

Rush stinks and if there could ever be a lefty equivalent they would stink also. Why take the trouble to defend such a gasbag? Is it because you'd love to believe what he tells you is true? Fat chance. :)
posted by nofundy at 12:44 PM on May 22, 2001