Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre are both idiots. But there are a lot of differences between the two of them.

Limbaugh is out of shape. And, has no talent.

I'm not saying that because I don't agree with his views on anything. Even if you're a Republican, you really have to admit, this guy is a windbag. And, his voice. Who can really listen to such an irritating voice? Why is it people have a hard time admitting someone is annoying, when they agree with them politically?

I'm a Democrat, and I have no problem saying Michael Moore is a lying idiot. I'm a Democrat, and I don't think Al Franken is funny. He was a good writer on Saturday Night Live (although his characters on that show were seldom funny). He's a good guest on talk shows. But, he was a horrible radio host.

Even though Dennis Miller is a Republican, and I agree with almost none of his views, he's a pretty good radio host. Same with Bill O'Reily. Now, Sean Hannity...this guy is one of the worst. Stacy Taylor...pretty good. Roger Hedgecock, absolutely horrible.

Republicans love listening to Limbaugh. Why? Just because he feels the same way they do? Who cares. That voice. That syntex. But...I guess he's doing something right. He just signed a $400 million dollar deal, that's paying him something like $38 million a year. Why Clear Channel agreed to pay him that is beyond me. They're going to lose their shirt on the deal. The same way Sirius Satellite did with the deal that brought Howard Stern over from the regular radio airwaves.

But the Stern deal made a little more sense. Satellite radio was a new thing and they wanted to show they could play ball with the big boys.

And, speaking of playing ball with big boys....

Favre has talent. He's one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game. In my 20 years of playing fantasy football, there have been three or four different years, I've had him as my QB (although, a few of those years, I was hurt as a result of having him, I still recognized his greatness). This guy would lose an amazing receiver, like Sharpe, and make the next receiver a stud.

His father would pass away, and he'd go out the next day and throw for five touchdowns.

In the red zone, he got the ball in the end zone.

But for the last few years, he's played this game of saying he'll retire, only to come back and play. And it's gotten ridiculous.

Two years ago, he cried while talking to a female reporter after the last game of the season, hinting it was his final game. His teammates carried him off.

The following season, he was back playing.

If he comes back for another season, it really isn't fair to this QB that was named the starter (can't think of his name right now...maybe it's Aaron Rodgers or something like that). He was highly drafted, and the few times he's played, has done well.

But, the Packers will look like jerks if they say no to Favre. So here's what they should do. Tell him if he wants to play, he's second string. Aaron is their starter. I mean, he's been groomed for the role for three years now. And Favre is in his late 30s, and has had his share of concussions.

I saw on some sports show last night, a few Packers players talking. They kept saying over and over, that Favre told them, "I have the itch." The reporter asked, "So...does that mean he wants to come back for one more season?" The players would then respond, "Well...he just said he has the itch."

This line of questioning went on for about five minutes.

I wish the reporter would've said, "Maybe he got that itch from one of the cheerleaders. He can just go to a doctor and get rid of it."


WT_Effman July 4, 2008 @ 7:15 a.m.

In the sixth paragraph, second line of your article, you made a reference to Rush Limbaugh's "syntex". From the context of the paragraph, one would have to surmise that you meant "syntax".

A simple spell check would have caught that. It's probably considered a good journalistic practice to check your spelling, grammar and yes, even the syntax before you click on the "Publish" button.

This would be particularly true in the case of a story arguing that other persons are "idiots".

Besides, I would suggest that one reason the reporters did not make the crass, boorish and juvenile statement about the cheerleaders giving Favre an itch may be the same reason they know how to spell "syntax": They have been better educated in their profession of choice.

Please don't make Rush Limbaugh seem couth and articulate by comparison to yourself. Strive to improve your craft and your "talent" in whatever endeavor you choose in life, even if it's just crashing parties and typing anything that oozes out of your stream of consciousness.


Josh Board July 4, 2008 @ 10:14 a.m.

Well played, WT.

Please tell me you're just playing devils advocate and aren't actually a Rush fan. You can't possibly think he's a good journalist.

And yeah, it was a typo. I don't use spell check on anything. It's easier to just type and print. I let editors deal with the rest. My boss has asked me to give him a daily blog, so I do. I don't then want to spend hours going over it, using spell check, research, or whatever else. If I was making the kind of money Rush is making though, I would surely check my facts. He clearly doesn't. He'll throw out statistics, which are never accurate.

Regarding the Favre "itch"...upon reflection, I'm in total agreement with you.

My problem was that the reporter/interviewer was going nowhere with the players on the show. So, at least try for humor (which, I guess, my attempt failed). Or at least go in some direction. Say to the players, "I'm sure it's common for a player that retired to have the itch to come back and play. Hell, I bet Dan Marino sits there on Sunday wishing he were out there. As does Y.A. Tittle, and Johnny Unitas, even weeks before he passed away. It doesn't mean it's the safest thing to do. Or the best thing for the team, or for your family. Doesn't he realize that, or consider that?"

( don't know how hard it is for me to refrain from a "Tittle" joke)


Fred Williams July 5, 2008 @ 8:04 a.m.

Professional writers aren't letter perfect spellers and typists. They're idea-mongers, creators of memes, and provocateurs.

A blog amplifies this.

Unblocked by an editor or publisher and with a wider-range of subject matter control, the writer can just go off.

Going off can be impulsive. The next day we all regret some aspect of what we've written. Especially the typos and awkward grammar that detract from the idea, meme, or provocation we present with our words.

Unless they are truly awful, focussing on such trivial mistakes is small-minded. It suggests a puerile "gotcha" mentality.

Instead, as a good commenter, WTF ought to discuss the blog entries. Disagree, or agree, or go off on a tangent.

Nagging on grammar, in comparison, is lame.


WT_Effman July 4, 2008 @ 10:56 a.m.

No, Josh, I can tell you I'm not a Rush fan. Nor do I think he’s a good journalist. My point is that you should rise to a higher standard than those you deride. I’d like to think just about anyone, including you, could do better than that two-faced, multi-chinned blowhard.

What I'm reading in your reply is that you don’t get paid enough to exercise some quality control on your own work. Could it be that you don’t get paid more precisely because of the flippant shoddiness of your work?

Come on, Josh. Professional pride is a virtue that will lead you to a brighter future. Please set a better standard for those who admire your work.

Regarding your restraint on the “Tittle” joke, I empathize yet I must point out that by even mentioning your restraint you failed to restrain yourself. You knew that.

It’s got to be torture for all of you in the broadcasting industry (TV, radio, print, web, etc.) to make sure you don’t stumble into becoming the next Jimmy the Greek. I wonder how long they had to drill the talking heads on ESPN to learn the “proper” pronunciation of “Kosuke Fukudome”. My heart goes out to all of you.


Josh Board July 5, 2008 @ 1:39 a.m.

Well, here's what I can't figure out. I clicked your name. I saw that on the Reader website, you have a total of three posts on this entire site. Two of them are right here. The other, on the beach booze ban (in which I'm in complete agreement with you on, and I'm not even a drinker).

So, I'm curious. What is it that made you get this fired up? I mean, really...the word "syntex"?

We agree on Rush being the double-chin blow hard. Yet, you're that fired up over my use of that one word? None of my other posts did it for you? Not me talking about the Charger guy getting shot?

And that is exactly why "flippant shoddiness" in these blogs. My boss pays me well, and I'm very happy doing this. But, I do them right before bed. I'm not going to spend hours writing them. It's a sort of stream of conscious type of deal. Really, how much time does Andy Rooney put into his little rants? He said a few months back on his piece about watches, he asked his producer to bring in all the old watches he had. So, he doesn't even get his own props!!

Sorry. Got off track a bit there. The point being...let me assume that 100 people read my blogs. Hey, it's my ego. My scenario. Well, of those people I get 2 or 3 that post in them. On occasion I do a the Best Comedians, and maybe get 20 people (a few of which I recognize as people I know). If all that happens is a few people posting responses, I really don't think that warrants me putting in any more time and research into such an endeavor. Do you?

But, when I do a job, I always give 100% (always hated the expression really doesn't make sense if you think about it). When I played on the high school basketball team, one season I got a lot less playing time. I cheered my teammates on from the bench. My coach called me aside one day and said how cool he thought it was that I did that. In the past, he'd have players that had horrible attitudes on the bench, and became a cancer to the team. He was glad I was positive, and still worked hard in practice. Sure, there'd be the occasional time I'd wonder why he put Jim in instead of me, but...

And yes, there are times I type these blogs at 3:00 a.m. and the next morning or a few days later go over them, and think one wasn't as funny as I thought. Or I see a bunch of spelling errors. Sometimes I go in and edit them. Other times, I don't.

But, since you wrote such well-written responses, I have to ask. Why? Why would a person of your intelligence, feel the need to go on with such a battle? Are you someone that submitted something to the Reader once for publication and got turned down? And you're bothered that a writer with such "flippant shoddiness" and bad syntax is published? Are you an ex-girlfriend? What?

Or, are you someone that just doesn't get fired up, unless you aren't allowed to drink on the beach, or a writer misspells a word?

Enquiring minds wanna know.

Good day.


WT_Effman July 5, 2008 @ 9:05 a.m.

Fred, I was actually nagging on spelling, not grammar. More so than that, I was pointing out that it makes Josh look silly to criticize others as "idiots" while not taking particular care in the quality of what he's writing.

Nagging is such a strong word, Fred. I would call it a nudge. I'm actually on Josh's side and would like Josh to hold himself to a higher standard of quality. Surely you don't find that objectionable, do you?

Josh, I meant no offense by encouraging you to rise above the level Fred Williams considers acceptable. I am simply a person that is growing tired of the lack of love people show for the English language. I am not a professional writer, I have a career in another field I'm perfectly happy and satisfied with. I'm not an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend. I have no beef with what you do, I would like to see all of you writers do more for the English language. Think George Carlin, for example. You mention Dennis Miller in your story -- I don't agree with him most of the time, but at least the guy can turn a phrase.

My girlfriend and I are both avid readers and share our appreciation for the craft of writing. We think it's terrible that electronic media seems to be causing a lowering of the standards for the masses.

I read a lot of material on the printed media and online that is truly embarassing. Still, I have never made a comment to anyone about it before Josh. Josh asks a very valid question: what compelled me to do so with him?

When I saw the headline about Rush Limbaugh being an idiot, it reminded me of Al Franken's book, so it caught my eye because I think Al Franken is a great writer. Josh's story is not bad, but I decided to play Devil's advocate and push him to do a better job of skewering Limbaugh, a worthy cause, so that those that believe in that douchebag can't dismiss his point by simply stating "oh yeah, well you can't even spell syntax!"

With regard to Favre, I may add that it's exactly that kind of "itch" that makes elite athletes stand out. The word "quit" is abhorrent to people that really believe they can be the best at what they do. Favre is a shoe-in for the hall of fame just as much for his mental disposition as his physical ability. Besides, his head may still be ringing from the concussions. I don't think he needs the money.

Josh, you can be a total Brett Favre of the publishing industry. Push yourself to run that spell checker and stay up those extra five minutes. Good things will come out of it. Don't let Fred vex you with the siren's song of mediocrity.


WT_Effman July 5, 2008 @ 10:58 a.m.

Josh, I'll throw you an olive branch and admit that I'm making too much of a simple typo. I did like your idea about enrolling the homeless for eating contests, and I mean that sincerely.

In fact, since the first time I read your "Crasher" column, I've always thought you had some good ideas going. The idea of writing about crashing parties on an ongoing basis, for instance, was good enough to sell to the Reader. I remember thinking, "why didn't I think of that first? I spend enough time at parties and would thoroughly enjoy writing about it."

You've done great with the theme. I see that sometimes your stories raise controversy in the Letters section. That's not a bad sign at all. It means you're making people think, or at least react to your stories. So kudos for getting the job done on time and mostly well.

By the way, "Brett" is spelled with two t's.


Josh Board July 5, 2008 @ 10:34 a.m.

Right Said Fred.

Well, WT...this might be the first time you don't make very good points. Because, you claim that you dislike Rush, and the reason for you pointing out the "syntax" thing, is so no other idiotic Rush fan could do that to me. That makes little sense. I doubt a Rush fan would be smart enough. It's almost like Imus claiming he made those statements, so that cops would stop "harassing" black people.

I'm also reminded of how Sean Hannity once cornered Al Franken. He was in his face, because he said how horrible it was for him to call his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." Hannity wouldn't stop about that. Frankin said, "Well, why was it okay for Rush to show a picture of a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, and say 'This is the 'First Dog' in the White House?" Hannity had no answer for that. He eventually came back and said that Rush claimed his producers did that, not him. Which, makes little sense, because if your producers write/produce something you don't like, as the radio host, you can veto it and not read the copy.

So, I'd think a Rush fan would have more to argue with me on why they are a fan, than a misspelling. It's a word I've never had to type out before, honestly.

I try to think of titles that do that very thing. That will make people want to click on the blog and read it. I don't really think Favre is an idiot, but a great competitor, and that is what drove him to being as great as he is. I do think, though, when players don't know when to's a bit insane. Not as much when it's a Willie Mays, who was dropping fly balls...because he was doing it for the money, in a day when athletes didn't always make the money they do now. And, it wasn't as bad when Jordan didn't want to retire. He was a shell of his former self. But, he'd still have the occasional day where he'd score 45 points. And, he was still better than most in the league. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't call him an idiot for one reason -- you don't get concussions, or risk being paralyzied, by playing basketball. If I remember correctly, Favres wife battled some severe cancer. So, keep your health. Spend your millions and millions, and enjoy your life, trying to get rid of the "itch". And with the fans remembering the good times, not with you throwing 3 interceptions a game trying to relieve the glory years. Yes...that doesn't warrant some writer/blogger calling you an "idiot"...but as I said, I did it for a reaction. Much the way Ted Leitner would do things on Channel 8. And many hated him, but he was the first local broadcaster to get signed to make a million dollars a year because of it.


Josh Board July 5, 2008 @ 2:12 p.m.

Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, I do have to give props to my editor. It was his idea to write about parties. Although, we did disagree about how to go about doing it. He ended up letting me do it my way, which is cool.

I wasn't sure about Brett's name. After all, you only see the last name on the jersey! And, I hated Favre having his name spelled that way, instead of "F-a-r-v-e" the way it should be spelled. So I figured if I had it wrong, oh well.

I actually don't mind someone correcting on the typo thing. That actually wasn't a typo, I didn't know the spelling of it.

I have friends always ask me why little things get under my skin, too. For example, the Union-Tribune just wrote a review of some CSI type of show. They had a picture of the actress in it. Let's say her name is Lisa Anderson. It said for the caption: Lisa Anderson plays detective Katie Krime, who has mad surveillance skills.

This bugged me all day long. Now, I have to assume most people that read newspapers, are over the age of 30. And, I have to also assume, that most people over that age, aren't familiar with the slang word "mad" in "That basketball player has 'mad skills'." (it could be spelled 'mad skillz' who knows).

Why in the world would a newspaper editor, let this caption go?

I have to imagine many readers were wondering...why is this detective 'mad' with the skills she has?

Even in the early 70s, when "bad" started to mean "good" paper, or any publication, would've used it that way for a caption.


NachoDaddy July 6, 2008 @ 5:43 p.m.

I love how the condescending will take the smallest point of minutiae and describe it as "so obvious." If you write, you realize how many mistakes you did not make. Pages of snootiness were just spent on a typo?

Just walk it off, buddy. Walk it off.


Josh Board July 7, 2008 @ 1:16 a.m.

Well Nacho, first of all, it wasn't a typo. I admit, I didn't know how to spell the word (a typo is just a slip of the finger). Second, WT made a great point. It's a bit foolish calling someone an idiot, and then you spell the word wrong in which you're using to label them an idiot.

My only point was...I prefer attacks that are more along the line of: If he's an idiot, and you're a genius, why aren't you making the $400 million he is?

Or, as he pointed out later with Brett Favre, to question that. And, I would've gone into more detail (since I didn't in my initial post) about why Favre doing this, is idiotic. Yes, competitiveness is great. It's what makes Jordan, Favre, and the rest of them, better than the everyone in the league.

But, when they make a big production about retiring, then want to come back, it puts everyone in a bind. The 2nd string QB, who waited patiently without complaining, or could've played elsewhere. The team, who if they cut Favre, have a PR nightmare. Or, Favre not realizing he might want to play, and just not retire initially, and just say that he isn't sure what he wants to do.

It's the same way I gave Ricky Williams a hard time, when he retired, a few days before the season started. That team could've drafted a running back, and done a whole lot of things different, had they known that.

So, when a player just does what THEY want, with little regard to the team, I think that's selfish (ie "idiotic"). The fan, who cares. I hate when people say or think that athletes should do things for the fans. Like when they said how great Tony Gwynn was to stay in San Diego for the "fans". The dude liked San Diego, and making $4 million a year playing here. Sure, he could've made $9 mil for the Yankees. But, he'd live in NY. Does that make him a great guy? Or did he do it for the "fans" or for his family? And, there's nothing wrong with "why" he did it. Just don't say it was because of the fans.

I would say, if Gwynn had cared about the fans so much, he would've DEMANDED that the team not have the fire sale they did, when the Padres were getting rid of all their high priced good players at one time.

Others argued, if Gwynn had that competitive drive that Jordan and Favre had...he would've insisted on making the Padres competitive, or going to a team that was, because winning SHOULD be the top priority for a major league athlete.

THOSE are the arguments I'd like to have when I blog. Not a typo, or me not being familiar with a word. I'll freely admit, my knowledge of the English language is lacking. Hell, often times, I can't finish the Reader crossword puzzle (but you should see me at the TV Guide one)


Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader