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
Maybe OT, but people, the LEFT and the RIGHT are two faces of of the same coin. They pretend there are serious disagreements between them, but deep down they work under the same agenda with one ultimate goal: One-World governance.
A more meaningful way of making the point is to ask the radical environmentalist: “If that’s what you believe, then how do you justify your continued existence?” That forces them to confront the logical extension of their arguments. Not that they’re willing to face it honestly, but it’s less hostile than suggesting someone should kill himself.
REPLY: Well said, let’s all just tuck that retort away for a rainy day. – Anthony
It is really funny how many people who obviously never listen to rush, have these strong opinions of him, apparently fed to them by other people they trust who have obviously deceeved them.
Hold on. Here’s what Rivkin actually said at Wilson per the IBD, and is quoted as part of Limbaugh’s on air comments per his transcript, prompting his remarks:
“””
He went on to say that “probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children.”
“More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” Rivkin has blogged, wondering “whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.”
“””
This differs slightly from the rehash post on Rifkin’s blog so who knows. But given Al Gore jetting from mansion to mansion the President jetting to Olympic press conferences, if the above is accurate – guilt dumping on US families – then Rivkin earned some Limbaugh bombast, even if Limbaugh went out of bounds here.
Link for the IBD quote
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509554
He has achieved his aim,people are discussing the issue,he uses their tactics against them,and they don’t like it.I did not read what he said as wishing death on Revkin,he asked him to put his money where his mouth is.I have read Revkin’s columns and the answers posted,he is not too fussy about what he allows people to say on his blog.He does allow opposing views though.
Argh! No posting without reading glasses…
Once a friend congratulated my wife and I on the news that we were expecting our second child. The next morning he and I went out for coffee. Then he saw big block letters in the newspaper: WORLD POPULATION 6 BILLION
He sniped, “That’s terrible we’re ruining the planet.”
“Well I guess you should take it back?” I asked.
Puzzled, “I’m not following.”
I explained, “Yesterday you toasted to the announcement that my wife is pregnant. Which means we’re part of the problem …”
“Oh … you’re right. I didn’t mean it like that” he said.
I ended it with, “It’d be nice if we could have it both ways.”
I’m not Rush’s keeper. But, how about a citation? For crying out loud we’re not running political commercials with cut and past quotes. How was it set up? What was said before and after? How was it said, tongue in cheek?
Here’s a link to Rush’s site from todays show commenting on Mr, Revkin: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html
Maybe bad taste, but not more so than that which comes from the left aisle. They have been claiming for years that we are overpopulated and there needs to be population control. They have even pushed abortion and mandatory abortion to control populations and even certain segments of the population.
If these leftists think that humans are an evil on this planet, then the only solution is to get rid of humans, right? I recall some even saying that the Earth would be better off without humans on it.
So, Rush is just taking his argument to the next level. If they want us to do something, then let he who casts the first stone….. cast it at himself.
Ummm… in context of the rant I do not believe this warrants an apology.
What is he supposed to say as a n apology? “Never mind, don’t take your own advice and off yourself, continue to be a blight on the world.” Now that is I do believe taking a little to far at his own words. I believe Revkin is calling for people to be more responsible so that we can avert horrible things from happening to the planet as he sees it.
But here is the thing, Rush is talking about things from HIS point of view, He sees Revkin as saying these things and is drawing a logical ( though in my opinion it is non-sequitur) conclusion.
I am interested in truth, and hearing things like what Rush said strike me as simply a logical fallacy that he created for himself. He has to deal with that, not us. I am more interested in getting the hundred senators and hundreds of congress men and women to understand that they have been given faulty data with a political agenda. I am more worried about the people who I cannot get a hold of and even if I did would not listen to me.
I am more worried about people who have a much more closed mind to truth then Rush. Since at the moment they are running this country, not Rush.
My opinion of what I read above is that Limbaugh was saying that the environmentalists, as a group, are blaming humans for all of the world’s problems (both real and imagined problems). And they are always demanding that everyone else make the sacrifice they deem required yet never seem to actually want to make any sacrifice themselves.
There was an example yesterday with PM Brown in the UK blithering about having only 50 days if “we” are going to “save” the planet. Forget the “we” stuff, what are YOU going to do, Mr. Brown?
They claim that we have too many people and that is killing the planet through energy consumption yet we have the technology available to reduce carbon emissions by probably 80 to 90 percent and they block it. Because it isn’t really about reducing carbon emissions. It is really about using carbon emissions and the control thereof to control and manage what gets done and where. It is using carbon emissions to create a managed economy and a centrally planned state. Simply moving to nuclear power and allowing people to continue their lifestyle without central planning and control is not acceptable to them.
And the bottom line is that if people are the cause of the problem then each of them individually has the power to reduce the planet’s population by one and collectively they have the power to reduce the population by millions but they don’t because it isn’t *really* about reducing the population. It is really about controlling who can and who can not populate the planet. Read the works of our science czar. Their vision is of central planning.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that a centrally planned society means that it is subject to catastrophic mistake. If the central planning does not take into account every single action by every single person and if all decisions are not correct, then they could create a systemic disaster such as we are currently seeing with the consequences of too much government manipulation of housing markets.
In a free market millions of individuals approach problems in millions of different ways. An individual mistake means the individual suffers but does not impact another individual in another state. The entire system is free to “route around” problems and it can be done on a daily basis. One product becomes scarce, its price goes up, people begin buying less of that and more of an alternative. The producer sees more demand for the alternative and increases production. No government study was needed. It happened all by itself. No laws were needed or regulation written. Practically every boom/bust cycle can be traced back to government manipulation. The Great Depression was caused and extended by government intervention.
But the bottom line is that the people who would preach to us about what we need to do to solve their problem are generally only out for their own interests. Fundamentally, they want all of us to suffer so they can realize their goal. They are rarely ever prepared to make a sacrifice themselves.
I believe that is what Limbaugh was getting at. If they sincerely believe the world would be a better place with fewer people in it, then what are they waiting for? The reality is they believe the world would be a better place with less OTHER people in it.
gt
Perhaps you meant Democrat and Republican politicans, if so I agree with you.
I am never sure what the “left” wants, its made of so many groups that all want different things – a consortium of convinence. Real conversatives simply believe that governments are composed of politicans who rarely manage to do anything properly – and therefore government should be as small and powerless as we can afford for it to be, a necessary evil. Oh yeah, i forgot, we want to keep as much of our hard earned money as possible, we can use it so much better than Washington. One world government – no way
I support Rush: no apology necessary. The “do gooders” have assailed us for decades with their hypocritical bushwa, literally telling us (humans) that we are the scourge of the Earth and as such we, as a species, should be exterminated. Remembering Kenny Rogers’ “Coward of the County”, I think it’s high time we closed the doors with “them” inside and “lower ourselves to their level.” Hit back with all the force and frustration meted out by the enviro-wackos for all these years. Leave not a one of them standing!!! Right on Rush!!!
Shame on you, Anthony Watts.
You are guilty of selective quoting, something you routinely condemn in climate alarmists.
Rush Limbaugh was referring to what Mr. Revkin wrote in his NYT blog:
“…..one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to birth control for tens of millions of women around the world who say they desire it…..”
“Birth control” in the Hard Left lexicon used at the New York Times includes free abortions on demand.
Mr. Revkin also jokes about “”baby-avoidance carbon credits.”
Mr. Revkin also writes that the “population-climate question” is acutely important in the USA since our per capita CO2 emissions are the highest in the world, and becuase we have a high “rate of population growth.”
Mr. Revkin suggested that innocent unborn children should be aborted to preserve the Earth he lives on.
Rush Limbaugh has opposed abortion for 30 years, and he called Revkin a coward, nothing more, nothing less.
“… then let he who casts the first stone….. cast it at himself.” captainfish
Thou art a wit, sir! You slay!
I did not hear Rush, but I did hear a recording of Revkin, and I find what Revkin said to be a lot more offensive and disturbing.
Revkin is basically saying that in the name of global warming, we need to reward people for not breeding. That is eugenics, and that is unacceptable.
I think Revkin is the one who owes us all an apology.
And since Rush, and nearly any conservative – and by the way, most skeptics- are told how we need to be dead, or silenced, or ridiculed, I really have no problem with Rush giving a little bit if pay back.
For all those who look to others actions to justify their own, perhaps if we would calm down and realize that we have more in common than we do differences, the world would be a better place. To claim that there is a big conspiracy to deevolve society and eliminate most of the population is no better than to claim that all skeptics are funded by big oil, uneducated, and anti-nature. Is there a massive conspiracy to endorse global warming so a massive redistribution of wealth can occur? Maybe it would be more likely that people are less likely to think critically and more likely to accept that which they believe to be true and then find evidence to support that. Thinking about the glass being half full or empty. Scientific data being that glass we all bring our baggage into our interpretations. This thread has so many people who are not looking for answers but rather to validate what they already feel is true. We should always question ourselves and our motives as much as we question others. Anthony-I appreciate your work and everything you have done to promote intellegent discussion about important issues. I hope people will use your example and seek the truth for what it is and not what they want it to be. Hate leads to hate. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. I am not a warmist or a denier, a conservative or a liberal. I am merely an observer trying to do what is best for myself and others. Thank you Anthony.
Anthony, while overboard and why they call them shock jocks, I disagree with you. Rush needs to keep on doing the outrageous comments. It is quite effective in pointing out the obsurdity of the position. No apology. There is too much rolling over to avoid conflict. People die when no one speaks out and opposes it.
If you want a three-year old to stop throwing a temper tantrum in the store, walk away. If you want someone like Rush to stop saying nasty things, don’t report it. Rush is a troll. While I can’t think of a left-wing radio troll that is as strident as this post makes Rush out to be, I am betting there are some. It takes all kinds of trolls to be a troll. Lefty blog troll, righty blog troll. Lefty radio troll. Righty radio troll. None of them use well-researched and unbiased treatment of news and commentary, if you can call their noisy writing and ranting, news and commentary. Stridency loves overstatements and exaggerations and both sides belly up to that bar. So back to my original statement. Children will stop screaming if you ignore them. And then the rest of us can actually go about the business of making a difference using unbiased reason, dialogue, and investigation.
Rush was pointing out the absurdity of Revkin’s argument and the overall hypocrisy of liberal control freaks. If you listened to the whole monologue, you would have a better appreciation for the manner which it was delivered.
In my opinion, no apology is necessary. However, if Revkin wants to apologize to the millions of people who have been harmed by his AGW religion, I will accept it.
Note that I won’t be holding my breath.
Here’s another link to today’s transcript:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html
Rush is a master of satire. As Jonathan Swift was off base with his ugly suggestion of eating of street children, so Rush is off base.
On one hand, you have a group of people who sincerely believe that people are the problem and we should reduce the number of people on the planet. Is it wrong to ask them to be the first in line?
Rush is off base with his ugly suggestion to Revkin.
Revkin is off base with his ugly suggestion to humanity.
Remember this?
Now nothing quite so extreme was proposed by Revkin, but how great a leap would it be for some minds to go from ‘carbon credits’ for no children to forced abortion to simple extermination?
This kind of ‘reasoning’ has to be combatted from the start. In my view, Rush is to be commended for mincing no words in doing so.
/Mr Lynn
Oops! Link for Pianka quote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1241026508&c=1
/Mr L
DN (17:06:25) :
“When Algore converts his multi-million-dollar mansion to run on solar panels and unicorn flatulence, then he can have my light bulbs. Not before. In the meantime, I’ll visit WUWT for science, and I’ll listen to Rush for fun. ”
Right on DN. I nearly pissed myself when I read this paragraph you wrote. Right on target, yet hilarious. I love it!