From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Unofficial Summary for Wed. April 15, 1992
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:56:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr17.035644.6771
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <=b1j!_n.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
>
>for Wednesday, April 15, 1992
>
>by John Switzer
>

   [And his usual discliamers]

>This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1992 by John  Switzer.

  BTW how does Rush feel about someone claiming a copyright
  on a summary of something which I assume Rush claims a copyright?

>All  Rights Reserved. Distribution of this unofficial summary to
>other electronic forums and bulletin boards is highly encouraged.
>Spelling and other corrections gratefully received.
>
>******************************************************************
>
>April 15, 1992
>
>NEWS
>
  [first item deleted]
  [And I am sure I deleted other things which I didn't mark!!!!]
>

>This is Rush's first double-topic update! First, Rush has made
>the point for some time now that sexual harassment really has a
>political agenda attached to it. It's wrong for conservatives to
>sexually harass women, but when a liberal does it, liberals look
>the other way. This was clearly demonstrated last month when
>Oliver Stone was attending a screening of the movie "Article 99."
>When a female reporter from Us magazine asked Stone for his
>opinion on the movie, Stone pulled at her shirt and said "Why are
>you wearing this? I can't see your breasts." After some photos
>were taken, Stone then asked the reporter "Did you get my
>erection on tape?" The editor at Us magazine ignored the
>harassment by saying "Stone's always been great. He has a
>charismatic personality but nothing offensive." Rush bets that if
>a non-liberal did these same things, liberals would quickly find
>them to be incredibly offensive, but they look the other way when
>one of their stars is guilty.

A boar is a boar.  This is more likely someone afraid of losing good
copy than someone turning a blind eye to a "liberal".  "Good"
business practice maybe?  Is Stone a liberal?  I guess I need a
scorecard to tell the players.
>

>In the second bit of news, a Pittsburgh Press poll reports that
>only a third of the men polled would give up their lifeboat seat
>on the Titanic for women who weren't in their families. This is
>undoubtedly a direct result of feminism, and it should please
>feminists that men are finally telling women to take care of
>themselves. Also, only 8% of men were willing to give up their
>seat for a celebrity such as Madonna. Madonna, however,
>reportedly said that she would give her seat to any man who
>wanted it.
>

This is funny!  I did not hear this broadcast.  Is this John's
interpretation/conclusion or is its Rush's?  If this is Rush's,
is this an example of his famous impish humour?  If it is, it is
rather sophomoric.  Of course someone who is cynical might say
that the opinion expressed in the "poll(?)" mentioned above is
merely an obvious extension of the yuppie me first attitude.  Now
when did we first hear of yuppies?

If this is Rush using only one half of his brain, then he needs
a lot more the the half he claims to be holding behind his back.
I very well assume that I will get e-mail/posts telling me that
I don't listen enough to Rush and that I am taking him out of
context.  Myself I guess that Rush plays very well to the rubes
and dittoheads.

>FIRST HOUR
>
>Item
   [lead paragraph deleted]
>
>What's interesting about the Harris case is that after he killed
>the two boys, he ate their hamburgers. People seem to be more
>bothered by the fact that Harris ate the hamburgers than by the
>fact he killed two human beings. Rush refuses to believe,

Hell this is not so unusual.  I remember reading a short novel
by Camus (very likely spelling) in high school French class,
in 1964 and Camus was already dead, called L'Etranger.  (Well
my French has been leaving me, in English the title is The
Stranger.)  In the novel the protagonist is convicted of the
equivalent of first degree murder, not because he fired the gun
which killed the person, but because after the first shot, he
continued to shoot, emptying the pistol; i.e. acting in cold
blood.  People have always been abhored/fascinated by the events
after the immediate crime.  Someone is at least 40 to 50 years late
in pointing this out.

>however, that this is "more evidence for Jeremy Rifkin."

Although Rifkin has some value in reminding people to be careful,
he is mostly stupid and a modern Ludite.  And can be a very easy
target.  Shooting fish in a barrel?

  [stuff deleted]
>
>For example, if Rush and Kristine were married, Rush would have
>to tell her that one of his life's priorities is to watch NFL
>football on Sunday. He does not want his wife to insist that

Well I am just a Southern redneck (from Virginia transplanted
to New Mexico) who would very much prefer to watch a NASCAR
race on Sunday than watching the NFL.

>being married should change the things he likes to do in his
>spare time. Similarly, if Kristin likes to go skiing, she should
>feel that she can go skiing without him. The wife must remain an

Skiing is a lot of fun.  IF Rush would like to go to Taos, N.M.
I will pay for his lift ticket and ski rentals if he goes up lift 1
with me in the afternoon.  He can take lessons, for free, in the
morning.  (Or for pay for that matter but he will have to pay for
them.)  Taos has a very good learn to ski program.  Skiing teaches
one to first question self abilities, then improve them, then rely
on them, and then challenge them to get better.  This seems to be
a very good conservative philosophy.  Or maybe liberals had it
first?  (BTW you can ski all green trails down from lift 1.)

>
  [more deleted?]
>Brett saw Rush's appearance on the Phil Donahue show, and thinks
>that Rush should be ashamed of taking advantage of Donahue by
>tying only one-half of his brain behind his back. Rush should tie

Donahue is mostly a wimp populist anyway.  He is popular because
he brings up NAUGHTY subjects.  If Rush needed half of his brain
to get the best of Donahue, Rush should be ashamed.

>down at least 75% or more of his brain the next time he meets
>with Donahue so that the confrontation will be "more fair." Rush
>appreciates that advice.
>
>Rush, though, doesn't think that anyone should be surprised that
>Donahue is a liberal. Donahue is pretty upfront about his

Huh?  I guess this is one of those "It is what I says it is."
 [stuff deleted]
>o       Jeremy Rifkin held a press conference yesterday at which
>he announced the start of his "Beyond Beef" agenda. According the

As I said above, Rifkin is mostly stupid.  Another strawman to
pummel it order to impress the dittoheads.
   [more stuff deleted]
>Rod doubts that Bush could have been flown in the SR-71 Blackbird
>because he would have had to pass the same flight clearance
>regulations that astronauts have to meet. Rush once saw an SR-71

I doubt this, i.e. the qualifications.  I have known people who
have qualified to fly high altitude flights in NASA aircraft
(e.g. the Kuiper plane) who did not have to go through astronaut
training/qualifications.

>take off, and the plane is a space vehicle - the space suits have
>to be custom-made, as do the helmets. Also, the SR-71 needs two
>qualified pilots, and there is no space for an extra passenger.

Does it?  One to fly the thing and the other to do what?
Look, I think that the suggestion that Bush flew somewhere in an
SR71 is stupid.  Almost as stupid as this "reason" why he could
not have done so.  Ah the dittoheads!

[and more deleted]
>The SR-71 flies at more than 2000 miles per hour, and can make
>the trip across the coast in 45 minutes. During the last flight
>of these aircraft, when the plane was coming in to land at
>Washington, DC, it made its final approach at Seattle. That's how
>fast the airplane travels.

And this was a publicity stunt.  How credulous is Rush?  It took off
from Edwards in California, flew North to Seatle to start its final
approach?
>
>*BREAK*
[more deleted]
>
>
  [maybe too much deleted.....?]
><<Narrator>> "Somewhere in space at this very moment, hurtling
>towards Earth at roughly 16 miles a second, is the Doomsday Rock,
>a killer asteroid that could wipe out life on Earth as we know
>it. Respected scientists estimate that your risk of death from
>asteroid impact over the next 50 years is one in 6,000!

I guess this is Rush being funny.  But given that he mentions
J. Dan... below, what is he making fun of.  In any Astronomy
department, the above would be tacked up on bullentin boards as
a funny.  (Well maybe not at the ICR "astronomy" department.)
But Teller is looking for a job.

>
>What can you do to help? Support Vice-President Quayle's space
>research programs. Support space research. Show that YOU care."
>
>Rush says that we need SDI to stop these asteroids - the "100th
>monkey" certainly is not going to do anything to stop an asteroid
>from hitting the Earth. An asteroid passed within 200,000 miles
>of the Earth a couple of years ago, which is a "next door" as far
>as the universe is concerned. Thus, nobody can tell Rush that he
>isn't doing enough to save the planet.

So is Rush using J. Dan... in his vaunted whimsical humour?
>
>*BREAK*

And other stuff deleted.  Someone castigated me via e-mail about
not reading all of one of John's summaries when I responded to a
lead paragraph.  (It was not John.)  So I have done a little
sticking my comments in between the lines while going through a
summary.  I have heard Rush a few times on the radio.  He seems to
spend most of the time reminding his listeners about how great he
is and dong a lot of hemming and hawwing while trying to make a
predictable point; given that one has heard Rush before.  Why do
people seem to think that he is so intelligent?  He runs a succesful
radio show but it seems that he is very afraid of one of radio's
major sins, dead air; therefore he babbles alot.

If I have taken anything out of context in my babbling, I do not
think I have done any different from Rush.

>-- 
>John Switzer-Hoek          | "You hear it, you see it, 
>(note yuppy hyphenation)   | you want to turn away, but 
>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | you CAN'T! It's Ren and Stimpy!"
>jrs@netcom.com             | Happy, Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, Joy!

Yeah, I have seen Ren and Stimpy too.  Even have checked the two
alt.* groups.

With apologies to the late Phil Ochs:

I am sure this hasn't interest anybody outside a small circle of friends.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh