Sunday, September 18, 2005

Rush Limbaugh Parody – Hurricane Katrina

There is no better Conservative Radio show host than Rush Limbaugh. For seventeen years now, MahaRushie has been fighting the good fight and winning. His parodies are as enlightening as they are funny. Here is the latest example...

Don't forget to visit Rush Limbaugh's online, 24/7, website to enjoy his daily dose of common sense. Enjoy.


At 3:34 p.m., Blogger Michael said...

If you go through the comments section of other articles on my blog, you will quickly realize that I allow people to express different points of view, no matter how much I obviously disagree. Comments that include fowl language or comments that are overly personal are deleted.

If you cannot express your point of view without doing those two things, you should consider making your own blog for people to visit. Then you can call people names until your heart is content.

At 6:34 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't you think that sincere effort would direct itself to assuaging the plight of those affected by this hurricane and not, as Limbaugh does, to parody it? Is this the level of insouciance on the right that even a disaster of this magnitude does not elicit any compassion? In other words, are you so duped by ideology that you cannot even lend a helping and to a brother in need?

At 10:51 a.m., Blogger Michael said...

Yes, I do agree that ‘sincere effort’ would help those affected by the twin hurricanes. But, when you are sincere in wanting to help people in a disaster zone, you don’t do what Sean Penn did, which is to hire a publicist, a historian and a cameraman to follow you around as you put on a big show with complete devastation in the background.

The prejudice that shines through in your comment is that we on the right have no compassion. This is a complete lie. Just because we do not announce our good deeds from the tree tops, or pay a cameraman to follow us around chronicling our every good deed the way the hypocrites do, does not mean we turn a blind eye to people in need. The majority of people that make up the most effective faith based charities in our society are Conservatives. The Salvation Army is a wonderful example of a charity that helps the poorest among us.

They are the unsung heroes. They are the ones that volunteer a few hours a week every week, not just when the need is on the 6 o’clock news, but all year long. They are the ones that tithe a percentage of their pay to the needy from every pay cheque, unlike the divas that write one big fat cheque before doing a Larry King interview to tell the world how generous they are.

The bible spells this out perfectly in Mathew Chapter 6. It reads,

“Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth; they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

This is the big distinction between those of us on the right and those of you on the left. We do things to be effective and get the job done. We do not worry about what self-righteous liberals think about us, or what our reward will be in this life.

Liberals, on the other hand, do everything with appearance in mind. A liberal is only concerned with how caring and compassionate and big hearted he will appear to others. A liberal also uses their good deeds as an excuse to wag their fingers at everyone else and try to make them feel guilty for not doing enough, or even do as you did, which is to accuse the right of doing nothing at all.

The Rush Limbaugh parody simply spells this out in the clearest possible terms, by drawing the biggest possible distinction and doing it in the funniest possible way.

At 6:31 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate your response, especially the citation from the Book of Matthew, but your argument is crucially and essentially flawed: you are assuming Sean Penn, and Hollywood types like him, speak for the left; you are assuming Sean Penn and people like him "claim" to speak for the left; and you are illogically generalizing from the actions of vain, self-serving people like Sean Penn the motivations of those you call 'liberals'. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, who does claim to speak for the right, who claims to represent the majority of conservatives' views on various issues, and whose actions are generally lauded and condoned by what you all like to call yourselves, that is, "Ditto Heads", Sean Penn has not represented himself as a mouthpiece or a mascot for Liberals. If he thinks of himself this way, it's news to me, and most likely is news to Sean Penn as well. So, when you generalize from the pathetic posing of this one person to say that all "self-righteous liberals do everything with only appearance in mind", I know your powers of reasoning are seriously blighted.

As I recall, from having read both of Rush's books, and having listened to his show for years, even calling it a few times, Rush's entire raison d'etre on talk-radio is for appearance: He screens calls as he admits himself, so that the host always looks good, he regularly jokes about how he is the 'all-knowing, all-seeing, all-feeling maha-rushie'. If this is not self-promotion, then I don't know what is. Conservatives are definitely not above tooting their own horn. I could give you more examples from Hannity, North, Gingrich and numerous others, but you get the point.

There is another glaring flaw in your reasoning: you assert that conservatives do not act hypocritically, because they do not publicize their charity, and then you proceed to do just that: you publicize the charity of conservatives. What's more, you talk about volunteers, anonymous volunteers, and you assume they are all conservatives. 'The Unsung Heroes', you call them. Let me ask you this, if they are indeed anonymous, as you claim, then how do you claim to know their political persuasion? If they are not anonymous and you know them to be conservatives, then your assertion is false and you are lying on both counts: that is, your volunteers are neither anonymous nor unconcerned to publicize their good works. These people you cite as examples of conservative heroism may not be conservatives at all. Has it occurred to you these volunteers may be liberal? That they are anonymous to begin with corroborates the notion that they may be either conservative or liberal.

But it is interesting that you just assume they are conservative, and you base your flawed and specious assumption on the logic that Sean Penn and people like him speak for all of those on the left, which we have already proved to be false.

In making your sham distinction between "those of us on the right and those of you on the left", you do precisely what you accuse the left of doing -- you point the finger and you resort to glib, smug, and egregious generalizations.

It seems to me your difficulty lies with Hollywood, and actors, and people in the entertainment industry, but there are many of these people on the right as well. What you cannot know, clearly, are the millions of nameless activists out there who bring compassion and succour to their fellows in need. You assume they all all on the right, but that is completely unwarranted. But it does belie your bias and your blinding prejudice.

That Rush Limbaugh disseminates parodies at a time when many thousands of people are suffering, just to make cheap shots at clowns like Sean Penn, is the height of callousness and brutality. Here are people who have lost everything and a smug, corpulent glutton like Rush Limbaugh can poke fun at their expense. This is inexcusable, not funny, and serves no useful purpose. I just fail to see how, in your words, this is "effective and gets the job done". It does nothing more than advance an already perilous and bankrupt propanganda. If the disaster in New Orleans only serves as an occasion to draw facile distinctions between phantoms like Liberal and Conservative, then it should be consigned to the refuse heap where it belongs.

Finally, the fact of the matter is the Right failed miserably in New Orleans: From Bush right down to Chertoff and Brown, the entire administration failed, and there is nothing redeemable about their dilatory efforts to recover lost-face. For all your biblical fervor, and all your great industry and commercial elan, you on the right lost and you have betrayed the very principles you claim to honor and believe. You are the hypocrites and you know it, and this is why you try to distract, as you always do, from the real issues by engaging in your chronic silliness, your little name-calling games, and your parodies. Limbuagh doesn't give a two-penny damn about the plight of poor people anywhere, let alone in New Orleans, as far as he is concerned it is their own fault that they are poor, and it is their fault that a category 5 hurricane erased their entire worldly possessions from the face of the earth.

You don't know me, or what I have done. How do you know I am not from New Orleans? How do you know whether I may have lost everything in this storm? How do you know whether I have been shot at as I wade through toxic sludge to rescue an elderly lady on my block. You know nothing, but you're definitely having a good laugh at my expense, from your perch on dry land, where you listen to compassionate conservatives on talk-radio. You don't even know my politics, do you, but you think you do, because your programmed mind has triggered you to respond in exactly your way everytime somebody criticizes something you write or say.

Thank you again for your biblical lesson, but you won't mind if I don't heed it because I'm very weary of taking religious instruction from people like you, and Pat Robertson, who call for the assassination of people as you pillory poor people, calling us looters and criminals.

Really, your idelogy serves you very poorly if you mistake a person like me for a Sean Penn,or a Jane Fonda, or a Michael Moore!

At 7:25 p.m., Blogger Michael said...

Well, if you won't take religeous instruction than consider the words of another wise man. He once said, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

It is obvious that your fear of us on the right and your anger of us pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hollywood left explains all the hate you keep spewing about those suffering in New Orleans.

I hope you feel better having gotten all that off your chest. Hugs from Winnipeg. :)

At 6:12 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Michael,

I've read your exchange with this person and I'd like to weigh in with afew remarks, if that's O.K.

First off, I think you're being very unfair to your visitor by trying to lump him with silly people like Penn, especially when he expressly repudiates what Penn stands for.

Secondly, I don't think you can make any assumptions about your debater, least of all that he is either a liberal or a conservative. I kind of liked that he remained anonymous 'cause this goes to your own point: that the real unsung heroes are those who do not make their good deeds known. And your guest may be a genuine good samaratan, for all we know. Really, we can't know so we cannot judge.

Lastly, I think you're being grossly unfair to say that he is being hateful for pointing out the impropriety of Limbaugh's comments, wich I haven't heard. I agree that when our brothers in Christ are suffering, we are duty-bound as christians to help them. I don't believe it's very christian to poke fun at poor people, even if somebody like Sean Penn deserves our opprobrium.

Thanks for your time, and keep up the good dialogue. Oh yea, there was a lot in that person's comments you didn't touch on. Why?

Best Wishes,

Margorie Evans

At 7:20 p.m., Blogger Michael said...

Thank you for writing Margorie.

I am certainly not being "grossly unfair to say that he is being hateful". The person who wrote the anonymous comment wrote three other comments which were just laced with profanity and name calling, which I had to delete.

Having read the other comments, it was obvious this person missed the whole point of the parody and was simply commenting out of hatred for all things Conservative.

The parody in no way pokes fun at poor people. This is something both you and anonymous have mistakinly injected into the comments section of this post. Once you understand that this parody is not about the victims of the hurricane at all, but rather, it is about 4 self-righteous celebrities, then none of what anonymous said has much relevance. Therefore, commenting on it is pointless.

The parody, if you listen to it, takes a jab at 4 of the most self-righteous celebrity liberals that have used the hurricane disasters as an excuse to wag their fingers at everyone else, while pretending that they alone are the compasionate ones. Those 4 celebrities were: Sean Penn, Celine Dion, Opera and Dr. Phil.

In order to understand the parody properly, you really have to know what each of those celebrities did in response to the disaster.


Post a Comment

<< Home