Rush Limbaugh stepped over a line of bad taste today during his radio broadcast.
While I don’t often agree with Andy Revkin, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of an ugly suggestion like what Rush uttered today, transcript below:
I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we’re gonna strap explosives on there, and then we’re going to send you on a bus, or we’re going to send you to a shopping center, and we’re gonna tell you when to pull the trigger, and you’re gonna blow up, and you’re gonna blow up everybody around you, and you’re gonna head up to wherever you’re going, 73 virgins are gonna be there. The little 3- or 4-year-old doesn’t have the presence of mind, so what about you? If it’s so great up there, why don’t you go? Why don’t you strap explosives on you — and their parents don’t have the guts to tell the jihad guys, “You do it! Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?” The jihad guys will just shoot ’em, ’cause the jihad guys have to maintain control.
The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?
UPDATE: You can read it in entirety here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html
At least Revkin takes it in stride in his column:
I’d like to think that Rush Limbaugh was floating a thought experiment, and not seriously proposing something, when he told millions of listeners the following: “Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself, and help the planet by dying.”
Rush should apologize, IMHO. We don’t need this sort of thing in any discussion. Disagree, argue, cite studies, yell if need be, but do not say this sort of ugly thing.
===
UPDATE: I posted this in comments, and I’m moving it here so that people can read it before jumping top the comment form.
With 188 over 270 comments, I think most everybody has had their say. Some say I was wrong to criticize, others supportive. It is about what I expected.
Having been on the receiving end of “why don’t you just kill yourself” suggestions myself, I don’t like to see it repeated by anyone, no matter the stature or situation. I was once told by a local eco-person that I should “study CO2 by locking myself in my garage with my SUV with the motor running”. While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponents.
I simply think Rush could have chosen better words to voice the outrage, such as “if you really think this way, then you first, Mr. Revkin.” which would be humorous satire.
In Rush’s defense, doing live radio (or television) is tough when you ad lib everything. Eventually everyone who broadcasts this way will let loose a zinger for which they’ll take flak.
The only thing I can do is to stick to my principles. I try to keep the discourse civil here on WUWT. My dislike of the Limbaugh comment is a reflection of that. While I strongly disagree with Mr. Revkin on many, many, climate related issues, he has always been civil and respectful to me, and Rush probably does not have the first hand experience with him that I do in that regard.
Make of it what you will, but taking the high road in keeping discussions civil has been my choice and one that I do not regret.
Hopefully some good will come of the discussion. Let’s move on. There are more important issues. -Anthony
No apology is required. The constant demands from (primarily) the left of the political spectrum for “apologies” are nothing more than a bully tactic that is used when they are losing an argument.
I suspect that Rush was suggesting to Mr. Revkin that if he is so concerned about population, he should offer to remove himself from the game. Which contradicts his analogy to Jihadists who convince kids to carry their bombs.
Don’t forget, Rush acknowledges he’s merely an entertainer operating with fully “Half my brain tied behind my back. Just to make it fair.”
To really understand what Rush and other bloggers on the right and left are doing you have to understand the role of agonism in public discourse. Deborah Tannen has a lot to say on the subject of agonism. See The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to Dialogue. by Deborah Tannen
Anthony Watts stepped over the line by going after Rush!
BTW, in doing a quick google on Watts Up… 10.8M results!
Don S. (20:51:31) :
We have a president (and 32 Czars) who are intently destroying a nation of laws and establishing a nation of cults, and this blog still counsels civil discourse. By what law will you enforce your intent.
My position also. How do you debate with an irrational fanatic?
Hoo boy, saying rush limblah is in bad taste is a waste of breath. The fact that such worthlessness continues to get nationally syndicated airtime exposes the true problem facing America. I pity (wholeheartedly) the ignorance that allows his type (hype) to continue. And continue they will, for the masses have lost all ability to discern for the themselves the difference between truth and lies. The lies will continue.
For the record, I despise all things “liberal” in the modern definition. You will find no “left” nor “right” stains upon me. I hate all lies equally! This whole left/right nonsense is at the root of the entire problem.
Reductio ad absurdum is completely valid rhetoric. Rush is not wishing death upon Revkin.
Don’t be commenting on what you do not understand, or interfering in arguments that do not concern you. Revkin is an adult and does not need your protection. Getting involved in this dispute drags this website significantly away from its science mission.
While I agree that we need less hostility in the world (today, especially), I see nothing wrong with telling a lethal philosophy to either come clean or take a short walk off a long pier. That is comepletely within the bounds of rationality, along the lines of telling a (s)nazi that if what they believe is so right… why not kill yourself, go before God and demand your reward? And they would probably sneer and shoot you rather than themselves.
My point is, Rush (for the record, I’m not a fan of his) was just challenging their faith and the fallout from this will only prove what the whole greenie movement is all about. It’s not “stooping to their level”. It’s stirring them up, to further reveal themselves for what they are. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes. If debate makes them madder, then what harm can ruffling their feathers do?
That said, I would most certainly rather have the hard-core greens just come clean and the soft greens listen to the other side. It would just be soooo much better that way, for eveyone. Heck, I’d even forgive Al Gore for all the deceit and propagand and the resulting harms such things have caused, if he were to just come clean. But until they wake up from their stupor or give up their hard-line stance… I cannot value that which refuses to value itself.
There ARE enviros who think humans are a virus on the planet’s surface and should die. Everyone except themselves or like-minded people.
Anthony Watt, the host of this blog, regularly censors personal attacks and extreme language. His criticism of Rush Limbaugh is consistent with that long standing and well known policy.
WUWT has been and will be popular while it sticks to polite discussion of the facts. Off base theories are welcome, off base jibes distract.
Oh the humanity!
I love this site for its unmatched scientific analysis. But I really believe folks here seem to be REALLY a bit too thin skinned.
As a listener of Rush for 20 years this was not anything to be taken at face value. Rush likes to point our absurdity by being absurd. He says this himself time and again.
Rush has done more than any other outlet….(INCLUDING Wattsupwiththat) to unmask to hoax of AGW and its cult like following.
If anyone is offended by a comical perspective on the absurdity of AGW and its followers then you have a problem with perspective and insight.
To feign outrage or moral indignation about a point made in a humorous way says more about this site than it does Rush.
Which leads me to a larger point. I sometimes have my words snipped here because they are deemed offensive. Fine.
But really, what power do I have to affect any of your lives? I cannot tax your industry out of business. I cannot ruin your livelyhood. No, only the government can do that.
Today we find that our government is lying to us about the most simplest of things….the tempurature.
The government and others are caught cooking the climate books and perverting science. And they use these lies to justify an economy killing regime of lowering carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The government is one senate vote away from taxing us based on a LIE.
The government is one senate vote away from the proposition that higher taxes = lower planet tempurature. And everyone involed in this scheme knows it is a lie. That is what is really offensive.
So excuse rational individuals like Rush & myself who call a liar a liar. Folks on this site should be challenged when their positions are shown to be lies.
And don’t give me this crap that we should all be gentile little lambs and to curb our animosity to lies when we are being led to slaughter based on these lies. That is what I find truely offensive. The hoax and lies of AGW are what is offensive to the sensibilities of anyone even remotely interested in the truth.
If the NYTs Revkin posts something absurd then whats up with not calling him out on it? These are not merely technical dissagreements anymore.
There is a cult like big government pool of people, (no smarter than you or I,) seeking to enslave us to higher taxes and a ruinous energy strategy BASED ON LIES that WILL BE enforced by the point of a government gun.
But Rush was “mean” to Revkin….Oh! The Humanity!
phhhhhhft!
I object to ill-informed gobshites of any political stripe, and Limbaugh is an egregious example. Drawing comparisons between Andy Revkin and suicide bomber recruiters is not only crass, it’s plain nuts (as was Hansen’s death train rant).
Anthony is entirely correct to express his distaste.
Anthony,
IMO The person would gave you advice on how you should study CO2 owes you an apology. Obviously that was pure low class. Limbaugh on the other hand never suggested that in his opinion Revkin should kill himself, he only pointed out the irony of Revkin’s opinion, that since the planet would be better off with less people, what about him personally? I hope that Revkin comprehended the concept, and gives the whole population control issue a second thought.
We all agree that in a perfect world, the whole AGW issue should be settled by reasoned debate and scientific facts, but it’s not likely to play out that way. I personally believe that many of the alarmists don’t care about the science, AGW is simply a vehicle to more government control and less personal freedom. A step on the path to socialism (or worse). At the international level, Copenhagen is about promoting the status of the UN, heading toward one world government. It’s awfully important that we are right about the science, but that’s not the real fight taking place.
It’s a little like the classic western movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”. In this analogy, you are in the role played by Jimmy Stewert, Rush is in role played by John Wayne. You are absolutely right about the way things ought to be, but sadly, right and wrong don’t mean much when it comes down to a fight.
This whole AGW issue is a fight that must be won, principles are great, but are no excuse for letting the “bad” guys win.
Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying??
As a Psych, I defend Rush. He is NOT telling some one to harm Revkin. He is asking a question. If the planet ranks so high for Revkin, would he sacrifice his life to make it better. I am a pacifist. I served my country as a CO consciencious objector.
Our country asks men if they are willing to die for freedom and Rush asks if he is willing to sacrifice life for the clean planet.
When I ask a Marine “why don’t you go sacrifice your life for America?” I do not take it as a death wish. It can be interpreted by code pink as one.
“TomLama (07:29:13) :
Oh the humanity! ”
I wouldn’t say Rush has done more, he just has a louder voice.
Watts up
IceCap
Climate Audit
many more………….. Have done incredible work debunking AGW
“J.K. (07:23:46) :
There ARE enviros who think humans are a virus on the planet’s surface and should die. Everyone except themselves or like-minded people.”
That’s the real point Rush was making.
Envriomental wakcos………… “Do as I say, not as I do.”
IMHO, Rush’s age has been showing.
You’re right Anthony.
No apology required. Rush is on the money as usual. This is always firmly evidenced by the pitch of liberal screaming, the more they squeal the truer Rush’s aim.
Like so many others who have commented, I find Rush’s statements well deserved, even though Revkin is one of the least offensive environmentalists in print.
Anthony, you seem to be suggesting that it is okay to advocate policy that will cause great misery and death, as long as you don’t suggest that anyone in particular should suffer or die. If, however, you suggest that a specific person advocating such policies should voluntarily take on the consequences (death), then we are ‘crossing the line’.
There is a scientific battle that needs to be fought with decorum, but there is a cultural battle where decorum is perceived as a weakness. Rush is fighting the cultural battle and is using logic in the process. I can not fault him.
A little bad taste yes, but I can see a point here. I saw the other day a photo of greenpeace or some other bunch of far left anti Climate Change protesters, holding a banner up that read sommething along the lines of “Save the Planet – Kill yourself”. Not exactly endeering me to vote with them. I’ll try & hunt this down.
Revkin’s premise – although he won’t spell it out in so many words – is that the fewer people there are, the healthier the planet will be. Rush did an effective job of bringing this premise out into the light of day by illustrating absurdity. IF it’s true that the world would somehow be “better” with fewer people, then mass suicide would be a logical and altruistic thing to do.
However, Rush disagrees with both the premise AND that morbid solution. As a conservative, he doesn’t think that people harm the planet, and he would prefer seeing lots of happy, prosperous people.
You also left out some rather important text that immediately followed the inflammatory quote, where Rush was pointing out the elitist hypocrisy that environmentalist leaders tend to display:
“See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they’re always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I’m going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I’m going to bring in Earth, Wind & Fire, I’m going to bring in Charlie Pride … and he’s still living high on the hog with $100-a-pound Kobe beef, throwing all these parties, flying off to Paris, New York, London, for dates with Michelle.”
OK…..so Rush takes on Revkin. And your sensibilities are upset.
Judging by the diversity of the 240+ comments, the Skeptics’ world would be better off avoiding other bones of contention periphery to the climate debate…or boneheads of contention.
I don’t see why this is news. Population culling is a recurring theme amongst some choice posters at Revkin’s Dot Earth, for at least a couple of years. Andy does not snip these comments, or even (if I remember accurately) berate them. Some think 1B is the right number, while others think 100M is ‘sustainable’, whatever that means. Rush has simply reminded the general public of what is being passed off as intelligent discussion about solutions to the CAGW specter.
The amazing thing about this is that, in an older post, Andy Revkin linked to a short presentation on global population trends that basically concludes the best way to reduce population growth is to improve living conditions (sanitation, energy, food, education, security, medicines). The reductions in family size almost always follow. Prof. Hans Rosling beautifully shows trends in national populations to demonstrate the conclusion. The link is here-
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
I have not seen or heard of anyone who promotes population reduction in the name of CAGW, provide leadership by example.
This is generally the end result of most of the extreme environmental activism, the death of thousands and sometimes millions. Whether it be from lack of DDT, socialized medicine, depleting our abilty to produce electricity, or driving up prices through tariffs and trade restrictions. Follow the money and you find people dying if not in this country then in the third world. Rush is right. No apology needed.