Rush Limbaugh wants to bounce off a theory, whatever that means

Rush Limbaugh has titled a portion of a recent radio show "ChiCom envy at the New York Times".  This appears to be an insinuation that the New York Times has expressed some sort of jealousy at the powers of Chinese Communists, which makes sense if by "sense" you mean "absolutely zero sense of any kind at all ever".  Rush, explain yourself!

RUSH: You know, the theory -- and I'm not espousing it, I just want to bounce off of it.  The theory that Adam Lanza somehow had been convinced the world was gonna end Friday and he was discombobulated by it. His mother was a prepper and a survivalist and showed him guns and he went in there and did what he did to either deal with the pressure of it or maybe save people from the end, who knows what.

It's pretty offensive to just look at a bad thing that happened and start making shit up about what you think might have caused it, which is pretty much what Rush seems to be doing here.  He cleverly avoids actually saying that he thinks this is true with the "I just want to bounce off of it" and then goes on to strongly imply that it is true.  Interestingly enough, many of Rush's advertisers seem to encourage the same kind of survivalist tendencies that he seems to be decrying here--lots of them would love if concerned survivalists wanted to stock up on home security, firearms, and gold, and Rush has been known to promote survivalist viewpoints himself.

It happened in China, is the point.  Some doomsayer in China -- we had the story earlier in the week, and I didn't get to it, I neglected to mention it. But some doomsayer went crazy last week and attacked his mother, and then went into a school and stabbed 26 or so kids.  He didn't have a gun.  But he had a knife, and he stabbed 26 or so kids.  It was an AP story. 

Alright, Rush.  So it's disrespectful to politicize the tragedy in Newtown if you're pushing gun control, but if you just want to compare it to an almost certainly unrelated event in China, that's okay?  Your entire basis for this theory that a survivalist tendency might have to do with Newtown is that another thing happened in an entirely different place and it was similarly tragic.  Also, where are you going with this point?

And today the ChiComs "have arrested more than 500 doomsayers for spreading rumors about the end of the world on Friday."  Don't you think Obama's salivating -- uh, sorry.  Sorry.  That's the old Rush.

Yeah, the old Rush would claim that Obama would love to have authoritarian powers and be able to arrest dissidents.  The new Rush apparently does the same thing, except then he walks it back and pretends like he didn't really say it because he called backsies and that totally makes it not count that he said it, you guys.

That's the threatening, making-people-nervous Rush. 

Totally different than the new Rush!

The new Rush is all about welcoming, friendship, and easing anxiety.

But I do know Thomas L. Friedman's salivating over it, New York Times.  Oh, that kind of power, wouldn't that be great?  If government could just shut up wackos like that.  Wouldn't it?  You know Thomas L. Friedman, the communist of the New York Times, has ChiCom envy.  A number of these guys wish that Obama would simply seize power like the ChiComs have.  Good, decent, smarter than everybody else people.  So when you have a problem like this, 500 doomsayers running around spreading rumors about the end of the world you just go grab 'em and lock 'em up.  You arrest them.

Yes.  Thomas Friedman, a newspaper writer, and the New York Times, a newspaper, who rely on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution about as much as any other individual or organization in the country, would just love it if Obama gave himself power to arrest anyone he pleases, the way it is in communist China.  That seems completely logical.  On another note, Rush Limbaugh himself has in the past expressed frustration that we can't lock people up for speaking freely.  Maybe he should write for the New York Times, that well-known communist rag.

By the way, just to be clear, there's only one person that I know of who is saying that Adam Lanza's mother was a prepper, and that's the ex-sister-in-law.  She's the only source for that.  Have you heard any more?  I don't know of anybody other than the ex-sister-in-law who says that she was a survivalist or a prepper. And again, folks, I have to remind you that everything that was reported on this for three hours on Friday was wrong, and a lot probably still is.  It's getting to the point I don't really believe anything that I see or hear, and the things that I'm told are true and the things I'm told to believe, it's becoming a bit much.

So, you personally acknowledge that you have no faith in the entire premise of your argument here.  Was it that urgent to find a way to compare this to something that happened in China that you couldn't wait, say, 24 hours to clear up the facts?  I suppose if the premise turned out to be demonstrably false, you couldn't spin hypothetical scenarios relying on what appear to be fake facts.  One of the reasons that we can't believe all these things we see and hear from the media is people doing the same fucking thing you're doing right now--everyone wants to be the first with a story or theory and can't be bothered to check if it's actually based on something resembling the real world.  It's becoming a bit much.

It seems truth is a huge casualty in our country.  Right and wrong don't exist anymore.  It's far worse than I think any of us thought it was gonna be.  We've been making jokes about it over the course of the 25 years, how we've been in outcome based education, awarding people who think two plus two is five for trying and refusing to tell 'em that they're wrong 'cause it would hurt their feelings and humiliate them.

Everything you said that preceded this paragraph was a classic example of having a two and another two and trying to tell everyone how they might equal five if something you heard of one time is true and also somehow relevant to the equation, as opposed to being irrelevant and wrong.  I award you nothing for trying, and I am absolutely willing to tell you that you are wrong regardless of subsequent hurt feelings.