Even culinary maestros Julia Child and James Beard could admit a certain admiration, professionally and comestibly, for the restaurant empire Ray Kroc had built upon the least common denominator. Should it be too much to expect more than oddly frequent, fickle remarks about Rush Limbaugh from James Lileks? Certainly, it's to be expected that contemporaries would have opinions on one another that are occasionally overcritical; imagine Faulkner's heart as he wrote, mortified, a letter of apology to Hemingway for comments that found their way into a newspaper. But for one of two pundits on the same broad side of the ideological fence to toss left-handed compliments at the other, more established fellow whenever his name pops up in the news? I raise my eyebrows.
I'll never forget watching one of the Hannity and Colmes with Rush as a guest. Now, Alan Colmes is a liberal like the left-most of them and can hiss like a Berkeley snake when he wants to; but end the debate, and he seems like a reasonable, regular joe. Nonetheless, I about dropped my jaw watching him blanket Rush with compliments and professional questions on air throughout the entire segment. It was both embarrassing and teary-eyed charming. Grown men, yet you knew which suit was "the guy who wrote the book on talk radio" and which was trying to get his copy autographed. That's professional admiration, matched by many more.
What strikes me about Lileks' comments about Limbaugh that have popped up every now and then over the last few months is the slight resentment that shows. As to the chef analogy, I can see why a man who is more refined but lesser known takes a bit of offense at the calculator-busting ubiquity of his rough-and-tumble, hip-shooting contemporary. Is it necessary? Yes, they're light knocks, but they're knocks; and yes, Lileks was discussing an article's thumbs-down on weblogs based on Limbaugh's popularity in a different medium, but he responded as if Limbaugh himself wrote (or even regarded) the article.
You'd just have to know me and my impatience for the internecine darts that fly back and forth as those "sparks fly upward," I suppose. What's the point? If it be comedy, Lileks is Groucho, Limbaugh is Gleason. Both have their audiences, both will be remembered for their best. Leave it at that.
UPDATE: Rush did reference the article later in his program on Friday. It all seems to lead back to the weblog - and which side of your bread is buttered. Glenn Reynolds offers a good roundup of reactions to Rush's aloof, somewhat dismissive reaction to blogging. One is indignant, another is spot-on magnanimous. Remember, Rush is an industry leader and he's not about to become instantly enamored with or flustered by a new medium - you won't find that vulnerability in anyone who's stayed at the top for as long as he has. When it comes to "cutting edge," a guy like Rush - age 55, no less - will defer to the test of time and might simply guffaw in the interim. Where he'll prove his worth is finding the distinction between cool-headedness and reactionism. What's interesting is that both Rush and Glenn are acting, well, defensive. Of course, that's to be expected, too.
Blogging too much about blogging is like rapping endlessly about rapping, or even playing utterly rock-song-aware rock songs. No need to explain why. I had disagreed with talk of this having become a slow week for news a few days ago - what with the slightly comical irritability factor rising in this discussion, I'm now beginning to rethink.
