More on (Moron?) Rush Limbaugh

One of my YouTube subscriptions is to the channel of the watchdog outlet Media Matters for America. Every week (usually Thursday) I get a nice little video in my subscriptions tab called the Week In Review. This week’s archival of opinion on both ends of the media spectrum (non-partisan and biased) was as varied and haphazard as ones of weeks past, and offered looks into stories serious and light-hearted, viewpoints crazy and sane, guests left and right. But one (actually two; I’ve got a little aside first) thing in particular caught my eye (or rather, my ear).

It was the voice of Rush Limbaugh, putting his two cents on Michael Jackson’s death on July 1. Unfortunately, us Chicagolanders have to put up with this blowhard every day from 11 to 2 on WLS 890. Anyway, I think Limbaugh needs to go to the post hoc ergo propter hoc office and mail a letter, because the words he stated on his 1 July broadcast exemplify why rational people all around the world bash their heads on heir desks when they hear such fallacy. His words are as follows.

“I have an observation about this whole Michael Jackson thing. He flourished under Reagan, he languished under Clinton/Bush and died under Obama.”

Following this quip, Media Matters cut to two absolutely dumbfounded MSNBC anchors, with the male saying “That’s wrong on so many levels,” and the female following with “On so many levels. That’s just….” Her sentence trails off. She lets out a shock laugh, and the male segues into another story. Let me just repeat this one again: He thinks that celebrities’ creative output is a result of federal policy.

Aye.

But seriously, on a sliding scale of stupidity, this rivals only Michele Bachmann’s (unfounded) implication that swine flu outbreaks were caused by Democratic Presidents. Although, to Rush Limbaugh’s defense, (read: get off my back, Taylor) I’m sure that Michele Bachmann has said some more idiotic things the past few years (Geithner abandoning the dollar for the Amero, anyone?)

On to my main point, and one of the most disturbing and idiotic things I’ve ever heard (he manages to top himself on a near-weekly basis, though). Well, I didn’t think of the Ditto Master to be a touter of conspiracy theories (man, when’s that Occam guy get back? I need to use his razor) in the way that Glenn Beck or Michael Savage would. At the same time, I’d never put such a thing beneath him, taking a look back at such travesties as “Barack the Magic Negro,” and when he flat out said he hopes Obama fails.

But he manages to not only fail a 7th grade American Government unit, but also manage to inoculate his sheeple with a new strain of super-drug-resistant stupid. I quote his 30 June broadcast, where he lets this sucker loose:

“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment [federal imposition of a 2-term limit on the Presidency and Vice-Presidency]. And I wouldn’t put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016. Anybody who thinks that he intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that’s what all this ACORN stuff is all about!”

Oy. Keith Olbermann gave an epic retort to the tune of “Thanks for conceding the 2012 election. Big bag full of mashed up jackass right there.”

I can’t decide whether I want to take down the failure at civics in this statement, the little given that he left out, or just how CRAZY he sounds with these wording leaving his fat, porcine lips. Let’s just take them in order.

Rush is giving Obama too much power as a President. Obama can’t just say “poof, 22nd Amendment’s gone;” for a Constitutional Amendment to be repealed, there has to be another amendment put forth in the form of a proposal ratified by three-fourths (or 38) of the states, or a convention held and agreed upon by the same number of states. Interestingly enough, only one of the 27 Amendments we have on the Constitution was ratified by the latter method, and that one was the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, which prohibited alcohol (prohibition). So, precedent dictates that if there were to be a repeal on the 22nd Amendment, it would probably occur by that method.

On a different note, (but equally relevant) I can’t help but draw a similarity to the conspiracy videos in 2007 and 2008 (I follow this very closely on YouTube, thank you very much) where an equally unfounded conjecture was placed saying President Bush was to cancel the 2008 elections. I tried looking for these videos on YouTube, but just like the reaction after a failed prediction of apocalypse (waiting patiently for 2012….) they ran away with their tails in between their legs, as they should rightfully be doing. Logic and reason win again.

But the main point I’m trying to make here is that Rush Limbaugh, a man whose audience spans in the millions, is touting off wacky conspiracies. He’s giving millions of listeners talking points based off of conspiracy.

That’s scary.