November 18, 2003 by s.z.

Rush Back on the Air -- Still a Big Jerk Yes, Rush Limbaugh returned to take up his mic on Monday, after 5 weeks of drug rehab.  While I didn't listen to his triumphant return to radio, I did read the various transcripts at Rush Limbaugh.com, and here's a loose summary of what he said (the direct quotes are in blue): I'm really, really happy to be back on the air, because I obviously have nothing ELSE in my life.  Many people think that when you go to a plush rehab center, the therapists turn you into a "linguini-spined liberal," in that you gain some self-awareness and some understanding of the human condition. This isn't true.  There's "no ideological reference whatsoever in these things."  They didn't try to indoctrinate me at all -- although I do understand now that Hillary would make a GREAT President. I've also learned that I can't be trying to please others all the time, because by being what everyone wanted and giving up my own integrity in the process, my life became a lie.  Um, I'm not talking about the RADIO show, of course. "I've not been phony here. I've not been artificial or any of that on the program. I was all that elsewhere.  I was all that other places, but not here." Here, I'll prove that I'm still the hateful Rush that you know and love: Ted Kennedy is a boozing, adulterous racist who called the judicial nominees ape-men.  Howard Dean is a twit. Hillary is actually quite pretty.  No!  Scratch that last one.  It's just so hard to think without the drugs. Um, the drugs.  See, I can't be as blunt and open about some things as I'd like to, because my lawyer hasn't arranged a deal with the D.A. for me yet.  But someday I will tell you the whole story, and it will be NOTHING like the one in the National Enquirer.  For instance, I wasn't addicted to Oxy-Contin, it was Oxycodone!  Stupid National Enquirer got everything wrong! But I do want you to know that while I was hugely addicted to drugs for the last 7 years or so, it was never the drugs talking here.  I meant all the stupid stuff I said here, and I will stand behind it even though I'm sober now. And some people say that I was a hypocrite, because I told people to live self-reliant, morally upright lives while I was doing drugs, and lying, manipulating others, and breaking the law.  "Okay, if what I was saying to do was the right thing about whatever subject, does the fact that I may not have been doing it myself mean that it's not right to do? My behavior doesn't change right and wrong."  So, I guess I WAS a hypocrite, but you should still listen to me, because I'm always right. "But this business about me being hard on addicts, may I be honest with you? I was a drug addict - well, I still am - was a drug addict from about 1996, 1995, whenever, to just five weeks ago. The truth of the matter is I avoided the subject of drugs on this program for the precise reason that I was keeping a secret. I didn't want to sound as though I had any knowledge of them at all. In fact, there were some people who called here and started talking hydrocodone and oxycodone and I said, "What's that?" Knowing all along what it was." So, I wasn't REALLY a hypocrite, because I never said anything bad about people who use oxycodone. And I DID have back pain.  I've got two herniated disks, and my back hurts when I sit at a computer.  But at the center they gave me some medication for it called Vioxx, which is pretty much like extra-strength ibuprofen.  And THAT's how I'm managing the crippling back pain without opiates.  But someday I probably will need back surgery.  The reason I never had it before is because the surgeons have go down your throat to get to your back, and there's like a 2% chance that something will go wrong when they brush your larnyx, and I just couldn't risk it.  I endured drug addiction rather than take a 2% chance of depriving you, my fans, of my golden voice. But yeah, I did like the drugs.  They were great!  Yes, wonderful, wonderful Oxycodone!  It always understood.  It made me feel so good.  Um, I need to take a break now. Okay, I'm back, and ready to bash some liberals!  Like Ted Kennedy, who accused President Bush of contriving this whole Iraq war to give the GOP a boost.  "I had to laugh at this in light of. . .12 years of Democrat whining that Bush's father didn't 'finish the job' in Iraq. Now it's finished, and they still aren't happy!" "Democrats can't meet us in the arena of ideas, so they call names and make wild charges hoping something will stick. When these people talk about us, when they accuse us of bad behavior - guess what? They're telling us who they are. It's a beautiful thing, my friends. It's a new way of listening to liberals. When they start telling us what rotten SOBs we are, just remember: they're telling us who they are. They don't know who we are; they only think they do. These people are never happy. " So when Ted accuses George Bush of using intelligence selectively in order to justify this war, it means that HE has used intelligence selectively to justify wars.  We can just reply, "I know you are, but what are we."  Or, "We're rubber, you're glue."  I learned this in rehab. But Arnold Schwarzenegger was inaugurated today, and that's a big victory for us because he has an (R) by his name.  He'll probably screw-up royally, but at least he has an (R) by his name, and that means we won! Of course, there was this story in the Washington Times saying that Arnold would "seek balance," which is crock o' bull, if you ask me.  He's not there to seek balance, he's there to rule the state like a king! He picked this wacko, environmentalist tree-hugger to head state's Environmental Protection Agency -- what kind of stupid thing was THAT to do?  I mean, somebody who cares about the environment in a sensitive position like this was just plain idiotic.  But Arnold is a foreigner, so what do you expect? "Now, in fairness, he has named Stephen Moore to his economic team. Stephen Moore is not interested in balancing everybody. Stephen Moore is interested in wiping them out. That's good."  But I hear Stephen Moore got wiped out himself on that National Review Cruise.  What's up with that? "It's going to take the force of Arnold's personality and the force of the staff he puts together to not try and get along with these Democrats but once again to overpower and defeat them. Remember, this is the political arena of ideas. We're not trying to establish intimacy with these people, folks. We want to crush them. " Crush them like slugs.  And then dance on their graves.  And eat their . . . Say, do you people really like it when I say this kind of crap?  I mean, this goes against everything I learned in rehap.  We shouldn't define ourselves in terms of hate and violence, we should . . .wait, my producer says that our time is up and it's time for me to sign off.  I'll be back tomorrow with more of the kind of blather you've come to expect from me, even though I am now drug free.  Thanks again for all the support.  You guys are my only friends!  Did I mention that my real life is a sham of a mockery of a sham?  Damn, I need some drugs.  Anybody got any? That was more or less what he said today, if you read between the lines a little bit. And to answer his question, I think the National Review Cruise of Death will probably conclude tomorrow.  Be prepared for shocking horror, and lots more killing!  5:12:16 AM

John Derbyshire And the Women Who Are Obsessed With Him John's latest NRO piece is about how America is The Last Christian Nation.  He bases this conclusion largely on an Economist survey which showed that way more Americans said that religion played an important role in their lives than those scummy Europeans did.  And to John, this explains why the Brits are organizing those big protests against George Bush: they hate him because he's pious.  And because they think that "Britain is being dragged along in a moralistic crusade led by a dimwitted religious nut bent on converting the heathen at sword point."  Silly Brits, with their ridiculous secular ideas! Besides protesting our President, the English further reveal their degeneracy in their tabloids: Britain is in a state of utter moral squalor.  A few days ago, planning to write something about the royal family, I went browsing in the online versions of the British tabloids. It was a very depressing experience. Burning issues of the day: Is Prince Charles bisexual? Why did Britney Spears decline to discuss masturbation in a TV interview? Is Kylie Minogue's arse sexy or not? The entire atmosphere of these papers is one of infantile hedonism. Which makes the President's choice of The Sun as an interview forum rather odd, but maybe he just considered it missionary work. John fairmindedly adds: The picture is not all monochrome, of course. There are pockets of traditional morality, even of Christianity, in Britain. The flap about Prince Charles and what he may or may not have done with one of his menservants illustrates that the destruction of old values is not yet quite complete. If it were, who would care what he did? So, only the people who are fixated on whether Charles was massaged "down there" by another male have some morality left?  Well, yes, that's how it works in John's world.  We are pretty sure that the story about the royal family he was planning to write (the one that required him to read all those tawdry, disgusting tabloids) was about Prince Charles and gay sex at the palace.  John just seems to have an unholy interest in the topic of gay sex. He ends his piece with the following note: * It is considered more polite to say "Judeo-Christian," and I am fine with that. Since only around 4 percent of the U.S. population identifies themselves as Jewish, though, and only some lesser number are actually religious Jews, "Christian" is a good first approximation, and more apt for the theme I am exploring. Outside the tiny circle of obsessive Derbophobes, and that strange cohort of people for whom the taking of offense forms their main purpose in life, I can't imagine that anyone would take offense at what I am saying here. Certainly no offense to anyone is intended. But instead of listing all the people who might be offended by John's comments, let's move on to the subject of those obsessive Derbophobes alluded to in the link.  John discusses them further in The Corner: it seems that Michael Bailey, a psychology professor whom John knows slightly, wrote a book about homosexuality and transexuality titled The Man Who Would Be Queen: Now, the last part of Michael's book deals with male transsexuals--men who wish to become women. In it, he subscribes to the theory (which did not originate with him) that there are two quite distinct types of male transsexual. The first type is pretty straightforward, just a particularly effeminate kind of homosexual, who wants to be a woman in order to attract male sex partners--heterosexual ones for preference. The second type, however, is much stranger. This is the "autogynephile"--a masculine, basically heterosexual man, whose erotic attention is fixated on the image of himself as a woman. Now, this is all psychological theory. It may be wrong--though on the evidence Michael presents, in his book and elsewhere, it seems to this non-specialist that he has a pretty good case. This theory, however, is pure poison to those autogynephiles who, like Lynn Conway, have had sex-reassignment surgery. They take very strong exception to the implication that they are fundamentally males--and heterosexual males at that! WE ARE WOMEN! They scream. FULLY FEMININE WOMEN! To say that they take strong exception to Michael's work is, in fact, to understate the situation. They are spitting furious with Bailey, and have launched a huge campaign against him and anyone associated with him. Since John gave a favorable review to Bailey's book, has the same publisher as Bailey, they share the same agent, John is on an email list with Bailey, and appeared at the same BookExpo as Bailey, "Lynn Conway and her pals" think that John Derbyshire is part of a right-wing, anti-gay conspiracy or something!  Well, actually, per the info at the linked site, they think that Bailey and his publisher are trying to use Derbyshire to promote the book, and that John is promoting Bailey's book to "help him instigate controversy about transsexualism in right-wing circles and thus support an escalation of his railings about 'effeminate men' - by giving him 'science' with which to better defame them." When you visit the site, you find that the Derbophobes (or rather Lynn Conway, the website's author and a few friends) do seem rather obsessive.  However, the obsession centers on Michael Bailey rather than Derbyshire.  Lynn has one page on John, which includes a bio (which mistakenly and hilariously gives him credit for writing a book about yachting, and then mixes up the resume of this John Derbyshire -- a former gym teacher - -with OUR John's).  She tells of the links between John and Bailey (which undoubtedly are overstated, but not by a whole lot).  And then she provides a list of (and excerpts from) his various pieces which deal with homosexuality.  That's it.  Not exactly a full-fledged obsession on Mr. Derbyshire, in my estimation.  However, looking through John's various writings about homosexuality IS rather unsettling, and brings to mind the words "obsession," and "creepy."  His piece about "buggery," which include remarks like "There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated"and "Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness," is especially distasteful.  Reading this material, you can't help but conclude that Derbyshire has an unwholesome preoccupation with homosexuality in general, and the mechanics of gay sex specifically. But remember, it's not John who has the problem, its Lynn Conway! Not to put too fine a point on it, Lynn Conway is nuts. She and her pals have money, though, and energy, and a big cheering section in the "gay rights" crowd, so I shall probably end up in jail for some kind of "hate crime" before they are through with me. OK, it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup. It does illustrate, though, the savagery of the "gender issues" and "gay rights" campaigners. These people are pure totalitarians, intent on shutting up and destroying anyone who goes against their party line--even someone as generally sympathetic as Bailey. They are absolutely unscrupulous, very well funded, and have powerful friends in Congress and the judiciary--it is they who are driving this new "hate crimes" legislation. Um, okay.  You wouldn't want to site any proof for these claims, would you, John?  In conclusion, while I don't know enough about the "Michael Bailey Controversy" to have an informed opinion about it, I do know that if I were John Derbyshire, I wouldn't be directing people to a page detailing my preocupation wtih homosexuality; I would be more careful about making potentially slanderous statements; and before saying that other people were "nuts", I would recall that saying about glass houses and stones. 3:40:41 AM

Bill O'Reilly Hangs with the Folks Growing up in Nassau County, Bill O'Reilly dreamed of achieving the fame that has followed "The O'Reilly Factor," his news show on Fox News Channel. And he made himself a promise. "If I ever get power, I'm not going to go uptown, I'm going to hang with the folks," O'Reilly said he thought to himself back then. And so he kept that promise by having a book signing in Long Island.  Of course, "the folks" had to buy a copy of his book if they wanted to hang with Bill, but it was all for a good cause: to help Bill beat Hillary Clinton in book sales.  (But as of last week, his sales were still lagging behind hers; and SHE got more people at her signing at this Long Island book store than Bill did.  Some Clinton-hating billionaire should buy up several thousand copies and pulp them, to help Bill achieve his dream.) But Bill still has his fans: Mike Rodden, 52, of Greenlawn, was delighted with the chance to rub shoulders with O'Reilly, whom he considers a kindred spirit. "He says what I've been saying!" Rodden said. "I walk around my house, ranting and raving. My kids think I'm crazy. My wife tells me to shut up. Then they listen to him. At least if I'm crazy, I'm not alone." Um, right.  This is why Bill has captured the all-important "ranting old crazy guy" demographics, and why his show is such a powerful force in this country. One man suggested O'Reilly run for office. "I have more power on television than as a congressman or a senator," said O'Reilly, who didn't completely rule out a run. " ... If I leave, who is going to take my place as a watchdog?" Yes, whatever would we "folks" do without Bill looking out for us?  But you know, I'm willing to give him up, for the greater good.  As he points out, he is way more important than a common senator or a garden-variety congessman, but being President would probably be a lateral movie, power-wise.  So, Bill O'Reilly for President in 2004.  President of some country that needs him even more than we do.  Say, maybe, Iraq. 1:15:49 AM