I'll be honest with you, I can't understand half of what Rush Limbaugh says. His conversations rely heavily on the listener having a rich background of Limbaugh fandom, which I do not have. Instead of making his case, he relies on his listeners to understand the history behind how Rush feels about, say, Ben Bernanke. Any given Rush statement is peppered with these conversational touchstones, which makes it a little impenetrable to those of us who aren't down with the jingo. However, today I noticed that he has deployed a new phrase into his vocabulary. On his "stack of stuff" page, Rush refers to Obama's "War on Prosperity." He says that "[highly-paid journalists] have watched their savings evaporate as a result of Obama's War on Prosperity." Two things strike me about this sentence. First, his attack against "highly-paid journalists" seems to be both a straw man argument, and secret code for "tools of the liberal press machine." I'm not aware that there ARE any highly-paid journalists, at least not by the American definition of "highly-paid." The average salary for a journalist ranges from $30k to $58k per year, according to PayScale.com. We can safely assume that there are a few outliers - celebrity journalists - who make considerably more. The New Yorker states that "senior correspondents [can earn] as much as a hundred and forty thousand dollars [per year]." Is $140k per year "highly-paid"? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Rush Limbaugh makes $28 million dollars a year - let's ask him! The rest of the sentence is the bit that made me smile. Rush's statement seems to indicate that these reporters have lost the majority of their savings in the last month, since the inauguration. This contradicts such items of evidence as, say, the NYSE charts for the past two years. I'm confused, can someone please help me with this? Did Obama begin his War on Prosperity in January of 2008? And if so, how did he perform such machinations as affecting the stock market a year before he was elected to office? Rush also opens his story about a satellite crash with "You want to hear some irony? You want to hear some comedy? You want to hear some justice?" NASA was attempting to send the satellite into space in order to study how carbon dioxide enters and exits our atmosphere. I don't expect Rush or his audience to be scientifically literate, but I'm surprised that he is gloating about this. For one thing, if the expensive satellite is broken, then our money was wasted. How is that a good thing? For another thing, I should think he would have followed the satellite's data carefully, because surely he would feel that it would back up his own claims (that climate change is a farce perpetuated by the media cabal). Oh wait, sorry. I was thinking that Rush would study the scientific data and come to an intelligent, informed conclusion. You know, like a reasonable, thinking human being. My bad.