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
Revkin? Revkin?? Rush, you’re losing it. Apologize and go to your room. Revkin is not the problem. He’s positively rational compared to…ha-ha, you thought I was going to say…well, I’m not.
Pay no attention to this unjustified attack, Andy. There are better things to look at. Like Keith Briffa’s lack of transparency, for one.
Anthony,
When you start suggesting that people kill themselves by carbon monoxide poisoning, I hope you realize that the natural reaction will be “you first”. Of course, you don’t go around suggesting that there are too many people.
Rush is an entertainer much like Cramer and Kudlow on stocks. Notoriety is part of the carnival show. Step right up folks see the woman with three heads, in the next tent is the snake boy, he slithers, withers, and dithers. Never mind that he is president, just enjoy the show and listen to ELP KarnEvil.
America is wonderful in that allows all points of view to be expressed, even those that are contradictory to its well being. Rush is one of those who gets off on exploiting those who seek easy answers to complex and emotional issues. He gets peoples attention by riling up their feelings and working them into a frenzy. This is the same as Fox News. By using their authority and influence they seek to gather support and listenership in portraying issues as threats. This is the same tactic used by many of the environmental extremists. The only way to get at the truth is to take out our emotions and look at things logically. Emotions cloud judgement and bias our feelings. If the science points to warming or cooling that is the answer, not what we wish it to be. I used to be an avid warmist till I realized that I had never looking into the science I was pushing on others. When I started looking into the studies and researching late into the night, I found that much of what I thought was solid proof was only speculation and extrapolation. I come to this blog multiple times a day to read what others have to say and research the issues in further detail. While I enjoy reading all of the comments, quite often I find that many readers seem to be way too emotionally involved and seem to suffer the same biases they detest in others. Emotions can be dangerous weapons and lead to more deaths than climate change ever could. I would like to thank Anthony for this Blog which helped me to find the answers to questions we should all be asking.
You are too kind to environmentalists Anthony. They have been suggesting extreme forms of population control for years. Yes, if pushed, they will confess that they want to see large and rapid reductions in the global population, which can only be achieved by death.
And they have gotten their wish in some nations by demonizing modern farming, genetically engineered crops, and all forms of energy production and industry. All of these steps have been designed to limit growth in living standards and life expectancy in the poorest of nations because, in their minds, if those nations become like America or Europe it will doom the Earth.
As we have this nice little debate about Rush, they are drafting plans to limit life expectancy in the industrialized nations and squeeze us back to a poorer, shorter, more primitive existence. Make no mistake about it, capping energy is capping life expectancy, life quality, and population size.
Why is it “crossing the line” for Rush to highlight their hypocrisy and suggest that they lead by example? I struggle to think of a single spokesperson for the religion, er, movement who doesn’t live life as large as possible with mansions, jets, “conferences” in exotic locations, all along with gross displays of both material consumption and energy use.
Al Gore and Hansen can have my light bulbs and car when I see them living in tents, eating scraps of organic food and traveling by horse and buggy.
Yep, this sort of commentary is not helpful. It is just that — ugly. Ugly and completely unnecessary.
That said, Limbaugh’s call for Revkin’s death is far less ugly than the millions (mostly children) who have died in Africa since the banning of DDT pushed by environmentalists of Revkin’s stripe.
Moreover, Limbaugh’s crass remarks are certainly no less ugly than the actions of Revkin’s peers who gave sustained and vigorous applause when Dr. Eric R. Pianka enthusiastically advocated the mass death of 90% of the human population and, in particular, championed the excruciating death from airborne Ebola because it is highly lethal and kills in days.
Limbaugh’s remarks, while ugly, cannot compare with ugliness of death on a scale brought about by environmentalists and the death on a scale they enthusiastically anticipate and approve of. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler pale in comparison to the efforts and desires of environmentalists like Revkin, much less those of Mr. Limbaugh.
On one hand we have irrefutable proof that Mankind is killing the Planet. On the other hand we have irrefutable proof that Mankind is not killing the Planet.
My interpretation is that the Science is not settled however much the opinions have ossified.
The saddest part of the story is, for me, how much otherwise reasonable people, have lost their reason.
Anthony,
The job you do, the purpose you serve, and that which you have accomplished with this web site is to be commended. But, to paraphrase a comment Lloyd Benson made to Dan Quale, “Mr. Watts, you’re no Rush Limbaugh.”
The world that Limbaugh lives in is far from the realm of this web site. It is politics to a degree that you may not understand and may not choose to understand. It is a world of philosophical fundamentals that are not appropriate to this web site unless you choose to corrupt what you have achieved. To understand why an apology is not in order you would have to know that behind Ann Coulter’s statement regarding apologies. I would suggest there is a choice to be made: Either open this discussion to a far wider venue and purpose than it has been or keep with the science. That is certainly your right of choice, but it is also tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box unless you are willing, as Bruce Canton entitled one of his volumes, “Never call Retreat.”
This is not a criticism – it is simply that to immerse this web site into politics is not appropriate. For clarification: I am conservative – extremely so. I am very much involved in politics. I have also had the very good fortune of 45 years as a participating physicist in interesting areas of research. I have found that politics and science do not mix. Philosophically they are are at odds. One seeks truth and the other avoids it.
I wish you luck and good fortune with your choice.
Jim,
You said it all.
Rush is just pushing the concept to the point of absurdity so everyone could see it. Rush is being HONEST, though personal, I admit. And some greenie teenyboppers ARE committing suicide, to eliminate their carbon footprint.
Look at the UN’s Agenda 21.
I don’t think Rush has anything to apologise for. It was an “If/Then” reality he was pointing out.
Perhaps the political discussion doesn’t belong here. But I truly believe if we don’t dislodge this absurd global panic somehow, enviro terrorists will be culling populations at will.
Nature takes care of excess populations. We are part of nature. I guess that should entitle us to kill off those we think are breeding too fast? Rush is just trying to point out a reality.
Aside to Moderator — please edit out much less those of Mr. Limbaugh in my previous submission. It does not fit and confuses what I am trying to say.
REPLY: Too confusing – deleted – resubmit
“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 opponent.”
Rush wasn’t wishing death on his opponent, and if you think he was you don’t know him. He was illustrating his opponent’s hypocrisy.
Unlike Hansen or Gore who couldn’t care less if your life were cut short as a result of carbon cap and trade.
Don’t ever kid yourself about who would really wish death upon their opponents given the chance.
We are talking about Rush because he has fire in his belly, and he told the guy what he thought of his ideas and the horse they are mounted on.
The message was “Practice what you preach”.
He’s oft rude, he’s sometimes crude, but if you pick a fight with the right, you’ll get it.
The WH and others have been picking a fight , and don’t think Rush is going to let it slide.
“tis the world we inhabit.
One way to measure how effective you are at getting your message out is to monitor the responses of your opponents–especially the level of vituperation they direct towards you. Using this measure, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are two of the most effective “AGW is unproven” messengers; and Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism. Since I believe socialism is as deadly an enemy to this country as exists today, at this point in time I’ll not only tolerate, I”ll applaud any legal action that fights that evil. Since I also believe the socialist movement has adopted AGW as a means to its ends, IMO Rush has nothing to apologize for–in fact, his position should be applauded.
Rush Limbaugh is a CFR indoctrinated divide and conker control agent, just as virtually everyone in main stream media is a member of the same CFR club pushing the same NWO agenda, the only difference is, some do it in different ways than others. You must treat what you here coming out of their mouths in the same way you treat comments in the blogospher, with a modicum of skepticism until further analysis. The nice thing about the blogosphere is you get to challenge the comments in real time, the MSM you don’t get to challenge at all. I prefer living in the BSM. (Blog Stream Media)
Rush is rarely right…about anything….
I am totally behind you Andy – keep the high moral ground, and the moderate, rational people will see you as the voice of reason.
If we all drop to the level of the AGW and Rush types then it pays to remember the old addage:
“Never argue with an idiot… they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I’m a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal).
I don’t think a Science site should get into the fray regarding “verbiage” used by “shock jocks” on their “opinion/entertainment shows”. One can comment on their science, but not verbiage.
Why? Well, “shocking verbiage” is what “shock jocks” are all about. Might as well try to empty the ocean with a bucket as ask them to stop. But, by asking only one (of many) to stop, one appears to be condemning the message of the one criticized. Better to critique the Science or say nothing, I think. FWIW.
BTW, I hate some of the verbiage I hear. Sometimes I literally cringe. But, I try to understand the message — rather than the form in which it is delivered.
Re: Anthony’s reply to JT
Your reply to JT might help me better make the point of my earlier comment.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude Rush was not literally wishing death upon his opponent if he really was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. In missing this I believe you misunderstand him. This statement of his is unlike the experience of yours to which you compare it.
PS> Was there a thread on the Levitt & Dubner book that I missed? I thought that one was more worthy of debate than the Rush comment. At least they are approaching the CC debate from a rational economic perspective. The outrage at their chapter on CC has been comical to say the least. I posted on Climate Progress but needless to say that was moderated into the bit bucket.
Sorry, I’m not too familiar with the target of Rush’s remarks. Any quotes out there where he suggests the population should be reduced to fix AGW? If so, Rush is on target and shouldn’t apologize to anyone for anything.
Having said that, one mustn’t try to justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad, even worse, behavior. Still, I have seen quotes of Hansen, et al that are hateful, ignorant raving, plain and simple. And He is supposed to be the adult in all this. Why not an apology from Him?
At one time, there was a concept of loyal opposition. It was accompanied by genteel behavior as those involved realized that (1) their opponents shared the same core values; and (2) the alternative was worse.
In his Science Fiction Story, “Podkayne of Mars,” Robert Heinlein wrote, “Politics is just a name for the way get things done … without fighting. We dicker and compromise and everybody thinks he has received a raw deal, but somehow after a tedious amount of talk we come up with some jury-rigged way to do it without getting anybody’s head bashed in. That’s politics. The only other way to settle a dispute is by bashing a few heads in … and that is what happens when one or both sides is no longer willing to dicker. That’s why I say politics is good even when it is bad … because the only alternative is force—and somebody gets hurt.”
Resorting to ad hominem attacks, lying, fraud, etc., is at best counter-productive and at worst, the opening salvo in head bashing.
What I find scary is that the MSM has encouraged a significant portion of the population to think solely with their emotions.
“… and Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism.” Reed
Sorry. Until Rush takes on the government backed banking cartel how can he claim to be against socialism? It does not compute. Socialism came to the US AFTER the banking cartel ruined the economy in the 1920’s to 1930’s.
Rush is right. We need to learn from the left who acts like pack of pit bulls if you say anything that they agree with. They want to force every one to follow there path way to personal poverty and sadness. Its is time to fight back. Or we will be all be slaves to the state.
Rush responded to this article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55667
and this video:
http://www.icecap.us/index.php
And this was the “note” from icecap.us:
Icecap Note: Andy has two sons. ICECAP endorses the use of condoms and no children for elitists and alarmists.
That’s a more appropriate respons.
If you don’t listen regularly to Limbaugh, then you are way out of line for criticizing him; i.e., you are shooting from the hip — just like the drive-by news media. Limbaugh is one of the few outspoken critics of AGW and Cap & Trade in the media, and he has circa 20 million regular listeners. He regularly consults Roy Spencer at Alabama! His program is the most informative news critique in the country. Many of his comments and discussions are cloaked in sarcasm, and if you are not a regular listener, you could easily misunderstand his intent.
Apologize???? You must be kidding! Have you heard any apologies from the left-wingers for FABRICATING the racist comments attributed to Limbaugh during the recent NFL purchase negotiations????
The New York Times is a leftist newspaper, and Limbaugh regularly features the disgusting media coverage and bias that surface in it. The only way the New York Times would find its way into my home would be if I ran out of toilet paper.