Oh, Rush Limbaugh; you never cease to amaze me. It’s not really the things you say that intrigue me, but where you get the courage to say them despite the few million people willing to harm you over them.

I imagine that your security staff is comparable to President Obama’s secret service. Ironically, you just might have to deal with them soon enough.

For those of you who did not catch Rush Limbaugh’s radio broadcast, or watch the news for the past week, his latest rant was against first lady Michelle Obama. What started out as a dispute over her anti-obesity campaign quickly shifted to insults against the first lady’s appearance.

Limbaugh, who is generally recognized for his politically incorrect and untamed tongue, made unapologetic claims that Mrs. Obama is a hypocrite for indulging in a rib dinner with her children while on vacation instead of eating healthy as her campaign suggests. On “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” he said, “The problem is, and dare I say this, it doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1,500 calories a serving with 141 grams of fat per serving,”

His first statement does appear to carry a seemingly valid point. After tripping over his words following that sentence, however, he transforms back into the controversial Rush Limbaugh we all know, by saying, “I’m trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you.”

Tisk, tisk Rush. You have done it again. You have provoked millions of women to hate you. Why?

I believe it’s your ploy (as well as many of your colleagues’) to expose the similarities between yourself and most Americans. Although your words are initially harsh, sexist and degrading, the responses from your haters are just as harsh, sexist and degrading against you.

In response to The Huffington Post’s article on Limbaugh’s rant, one reader said, “Like this greasy boil on a pig’s backside is one to talk about [anybody’s] looks. Rush is just a pathetic excuse of a man.”

In the Los Angeles Times’ article on the same topic, one reader posted, “Rush, look at your own burgeoning waistline, drug-addled past and fat cigars before you dare to cast stones. Tool.”

Are we any better than Rush? Responding to characters like this in this way is only of detriment to yourself.

Ultimately, Limbaugh will still get a $50 million yearly salary as long as he has people that love, or hate, to hear him talk. Instead of responding to his blatant ignorance, try ignoring him.

Change the radio station or suppress your urge to click the comment button on articles about him. In fact, don’t even read the articles in the first place.

Indifference is the biggest enemy in the world of broadcasting. If you really want to hit him below the belt, just say, “Rush who?”