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
Anthony,
You have missed the point. Rush is a satirist. Going back to Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” the job of the satirist is to lampoon a point of view. Those who take the satirist literally miss the point. Satirists suffer from this all the time. They always risk being attacked by those from their own side of the fence who miss the point, as you did, and also from the other side of the fence, who very much get the point. Satire can be a lonely business. Proof that you missed the point is shown in your attempt to show equivalence with the lady that suggested you should lock yourself in your garage with the car running. That was not a satirical suggestion.
I don’t find Rush entertaining or very informing and I find that he tends to spin a 1 minute point into a 1 hour show with teasers and just plain wasted time. So I don’t listen to him. But I wouldn’t criticize him for holding a mirror up to a very ugly idea and coming up with an ugly image.
Some folks here need to look at this:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2138667_identify-literary-satire.html
With emphasis on Step 8.
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t do a gardening, sports or cooking program, but a political commentary show in his own sucessful style using absurdities from time to time. And according to the saying, anything goes in politics.Therefore,I don’t believe an apology is necessary. What seems to happen additionally is *one* apology is never enough.I haven’t heard any apologies from those on the “left” issuing apologies for their extreme comments or deeds.
Since I went to Sunday School in the late ’50’s and early ’60’s, I learned from the nuns that if someone hits you, you turn the other cheek. That being said, if he hits you again, maybe then you can beat the living dayslights out of him.
The skeptics have been turning the other cheek, now it may be the right time to respond in kind.
Rush deals with the political realities.
He knows the average citizen is stupider than a box of nails, can’t follow complex discussions, responds to one liners and can easily be pied pipered over a cliff.
He gets to the point using information that is easy to understand, even for the nails.
Let Rush address the politicans and Watts address the scientists.
Serenity now……..
If Revkin said people should be killed to reduce population, then Rush’s comments were appropriate.
However, if Revkin said people should voluntarily engage in family planning to reduce population, then Rush was over the line.
If Revkin believes in forced sterilization, as some lefties do, that’s kind of a grey area but I’d say Rush’s comments would be justified in this case also.
In Britain at least there is a strong alliance between militant Islamists and activists on the hard left such as the Greens, Socialists, Respect Party, United Against Fascism (aka Eco-Shariah Now!) and the Stop the War Coalition (aka Bring Back The Taliban)- the last three recieving financial support from Pakistan, Syria and Dubai based businessmen and groups.
Or, maybe not just irrelevant, but unlawful.
I’m saddened as I read many of the comments on this thread. It is actually depressing that it has come to this. Pointing out the absurdity of the whole “we need to reduce our population” view is a GOOD THING, not something to apologize for.
The difference is, when I suggest that someone who has never accomplished anything in their lives other than consuming E at raves and vandalizing a power station should take a long walk off a short pier, I’m kidding. When the cAGW fanatics suggest that someone driving too big a vehicle should be herded into a death camp, they’re serious, and they ARE pretty far along the path of making that happen.
Just The Facts Wrote:
Rush should drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts.
Impossible. His three hour show would be reduced to twenty minutes at most.
In the latest rant, Rush says:
“We don’t even have to talk about getting married. We don’t even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean”.
Did Rush just advocate for the dreaded act of abortion?
“So would a man have any way of benefiting from the carbon credit? A man cannot give birth, women can give birth without a man around, many of them prefer to do so, they work in the Obama administration, too, but that’s another thing.
Were there no single mothers in the previous administration? Or is he calling women who work in the Obama administration lesbians?
Anyway, don’t expect an apology from Rush. Even if he did, it would have the qualifier “If I am wrong” inserted somewhere. Rush just wrote a piece in the WSJ complaining that those who attributed a couple of false quotes to him only gave half hearted apologies because they used that qualifier. Of course, it’s only bad if someone else does it.
PS. Why would a skeptic listen to Rush anyway. He provides his voice to advertise Zycam – a junk science product if there ever was one..
Sorry, on this one I agree with Rush.
Andy [Revkin]
Let’s see, 20 years ago he was SCREAMING about the dangers of “genetically modified crops”.
Evidently he never met Norman Borlaug.
Sorry, Andy, my best wish for you would be to be transported back to Ireland, circa 1700’s, to find out how dangerous NON-genetically modified
crops are.
(Whoops, I am saying I might be wishing you’d starve to death. Not that.
I think just a few weeks eating grass to survive, losing a few pounds, and learning to APPRECIATE genetically modified food… might help. But then what next? Strap you on a “short leash” next to an “ice house” on Lake of the Woods in MN, say around Dec. 20th? Give you enough fuel to keep moderately warm for a MONTH..let you fish for your food..and then on Jan 20th, around -45 F, come and talk GLOBAL WARMING to you?)
Hugoson
Anyone who advocates policies to reduce the world population by any means other than voluntary family planing is calling for the killing, by one means or another, of huge numbers of human beings. If Revkin advocates that, no matter how much his words are couched in academic terms, and no matter how polite he may be on a personal basis, then any action needed to prevent such policies from being implemented is legitimate.
I see nothing to criticize in Rush’s words, unless he misstated what Revkin advocates. If Revkin advocates death for people for the sole reason that he thinks there are too many of them (us), then he is calling for mass murder. If that is the case, any offense at anything Rush may have said is grotesquely misplaced.
Anthony, whether Rush is right or wrong, I see no need for you to apologize on his behalf. Why did you feel the need?
Good for ratings. Rush is an entertainer. I bet he voted for Obama simply to make sure he was president so Rush could have more listeners to get all angry like.
As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth.
Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population. I am not advocating killing anyone, but people are going to be dying. That’s just the way it is.
Water should be getting more attention than it does in the media.
Sorry, on this one I agree with Rush.
Andy [Revkin]
Let’s see, 20 years ago he was SCREAMING about the dangers of “genetically modified crops”.
Refeerence / link please.
Sonic Frog
You have a strange way of interpreting what he said in that quote
“We don’t even have to talk about getting married. We don’t even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean”.
He means if a male gets a woman pregnant,he has no say if that baby is born or not.How is that advocating abortion?
A statement from him that I agree with,as I think the father should have a say in whether his child is born or not,I do not agree with his next statement you quoted,that’s his faith talking.Maybe single mothers would be on Revkin’s list for population control,assuming he is a believer in population control.He did quote from a population control article in his blog,so I think he does favour it,just not game enough to say it outright.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=55667
Revkin
“So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin. “And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
Benjamin P. (10:09:49) : ” As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth. Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population. I am not advocating killing anyone, but people are going to be dying. That’s just the way it is. ”
Well excuse me if I don’t See The Light, but finite population (last I checked, approx 7 billion is a finite number), much in the way of untapped resources… We really don’t even need to be talking about slowing down, let alone whittling down.
Fine and alright if that’s what you personally believe and live by, but that right doesn’t extend to anyone the right to pass it off as gosspel, what sets the basis of justified violations of free will. If all the people in the world are robbing you, prove the harm they have caused to you in a court of law. If you’ve no loss to show from all this “overpopulation”, then don’t complain until you do have a suffucient case.
For all the flaws in today’s, you and I and many others… never had it quite so good. One would think you would have cause to celebrate and invite those in the world who must unjustly endure the kick-to-the-groin of “Ahhh!!! the world is overcrowded!!!” over-conservationism to share in the fruits of modern living. But some are never going to be happy enough, I guess. They’d rather policy prevented that rise (like a bunch of whiny ingrates that they are).
And btw, the reduced kid-count from prosperity has little to do with any conscientious decision to save the planet. Kids used to be a way to make sure that…
A) The blood-line survived. The world used to be so much more brutal, especially to kids. Better to have too much than too little, ie, just to be sure.
B) So that parents had enough to rely on in their old age, to have someone to take care of them when they got old.
Economics, you see, not consideration of mathematics that NO ONE can yet be certain of. If it were for the latter reason, people would not have fewer children in their _greater consumption_ and richer lives. They would have remained mired in the pre-industrial ways of life, just with fewer children.
I completely disagree with you. I do not believe that what Rush said was in bad taste, over-the-line, or that an apology is needed. His comment is obvious irony. IF Revkin is going to be consistent, then what Rush said IS precisely what he should do. But was Rush actually encouraging Revkin to commit suicide? Absolutely not. How could you possibly think he was suggesting such a thing? Irony is a core element of good humor. And Rush is a very, very fun (but insightful) man. Keep it up, Rush!
.He did quote from a population control article in his blog,so I think he does favour it,just not game enough to say it outright.
Oh come on. All of us who blog have quoted or provided links from ALL SORTS of sites, from mundane, to the absurd, and have conducted all sorts of thought experiments. Those quotes or links have absolutely NO bearing on what I might ACTUALLY think about a subject. The insinuation that it does is, to me, just as dangerous to free thought as the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine would be to free thought on talk radio, such as it is.
Lead by example. That’s the principle painfully absent from those foisting elite liberal agendas. Does Al Gore ever do just ‘one thing’ to lower his ‘carbon footprint’? Of course not; he’s an elitist who believes that he was ordained to be exempt from from following his own advice. With Leona Helmsley arrogance he demands that we ‘little people’ have to cut CO2 – not him, (cuz he sells carbon credits to himself!).
Senator Inhofe challenged Al Gore to pledge to just lower his energy use to that of an average US citizen, (still quite a bit by world standards); Gore refuses to do it. Should Inhofe apologize to Gore for suggesting that Gore should ‘suffer’ by leading by example and lowering his standard of living? Not any more than Rush should apologize to Revkin for suggesting that Revkin lead by example which is at the core of Rush’s whole point – THEY NEVER DO.
“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 think that’s great, and just the kind of derisible response one would want to elicit from the other camp. CO2 is the thing to be feared from tailpipe emissions – what a maroon!
Look, this is a street fight, not a friendly sparring match. Play by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and you will lose.
Raven (00:21:19) :
J. Peden (00:14:35) asks:
“What’s the problem?”
The problem is Revkin is least biased of MSM journalists out there and he is the most willing to let sceptics express their views. He is not a AGW dogmatist like many other journalists and that makes Rush’s characterization of Revkin unfair.
If he had gone after a more deserving target like Krugman then I would see your point.
Well as for me, I wouldn’t waste my time on Krugman. He’s already a bona fide gonner. On the other hand, I see challenging Revkin to follow his own rules as only fair – to Revkin, especially since he has indeed been rather tolerant. But if it turns out that Revkin can’t fathom even these simple points, I think it’s fair for me to conclude that his blog is not worth reading, and that his only use will probably be as an example of how not to proceed in life, just like Krugman is.
Let me retreat a little. Not you. This site would find hyperbolic rhetoric on the part of the proprietors counterproductive. But, Limbaugh has a niche, which is more than compensated on the other side, and his rhetoric is suited for his milieu.
“Play by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and you will lose.”
I beg to differ. This entire AGW fiasco is going to have to go through all of the necessary phases for a fad or fashion to die. This process cannot be hastened, least of all by invective and insults.
It is incumbent upon those who do not believe in the basic tenets of the AGW theories to rise above the name-calling and ad hominem criticisms used by their opponents. The ladies and gentlemen (and those titles encompass all of the expected ‘civilised’ behaviours of those so called) of the “denier” camp must, at all costs, refuse to lower their standards to those whom they oppose.
It is only by retaining and displaying polite, courteous and civil behaviour combined with a determination to retain the basic, unshakeable tenets of real scientific discourse that the so-called “deniers” are going to win the day.
It is nice to see that WUWT is leading the way in this regard.
Anthony, I praise your regard for the maintenance of civilised and scientific discourse.
@Przemysław Pawełczyk (02:20:45) :
(…)
REPLY: I think you are confusing “decorum” with “leftist bias”. – Anthony
Mr. Watts
Maybe. I warned you how easy it is to lose a focus nowadays. I addressed this issue in my comments to your posts:
1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/28/met-office-supercomputer-a-megawatt-here-a-megawatt-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-real-carbon-pollution/
2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/
I wrote my words before reading Messes Kevin S (00:03:08) : and paullm (01:22:21) : It seams to me that it is you who stepped over the line. Sad.
Best Regards
Perhaps, in addition to “Wattsupwiththat”, you need a companion blog, entitled, “Wattsupwiththem“…
Anthony, love ya. Keep doing what you’re doing here and ignore the politics involved. It serves no useful purpose to get into the mud. Either it’s so or it isn’t. Stay on topic- either the planet is heating up or not, period.
Let’s keep this blog on AGW, and when that’s defeated we can go on to beat the commies on other subjects, and in detail.
Right now, there is a serious effort from some on the left to shut down Rush (and other conservative commentators). Some folks in the mainstream media have even recently spread around a made-up quote falsely attributed to Rush. Their effort endangers freedom of speech, and could ultimately endanger WUWT. So while I think Rush’s comments may have been over the top, I don’t think it serves WUWT’s purposes to add fuel to the “hush Rush” fires. I know you were not advocating Rush be shut down. However, since he’s already under fire, it would be better to leave Rush alone.