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
Rush need not apologize, and Anthony I’m disappointed in your post and link to Media Matters for what Rush said.
The whole transcript in context is viewable on the public side of Rush’s website under the article “Cap and Trade for Babies: One Child Policy Coming to USA?”. The discussion was around an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily about a panel Revkin was on regarding population control.
Rush was commenting on how lefty busybodies always force others into what’s “best” for them, but they themselves live by another set of rules.
I guess I’m having trouble understanding when it OK for somebodyn to tell me stridently that I should die because I am a waste of medicine, or because I am killing live, and when it is Ok for me to sah “Lead on, I’ll follow when I see it works.”
Everyone here who thinks Rush should apologize should go and acquire a symbol which signifies their belief and attach it to their outer garments (a five pointed star served well in the Third Reich), then proceed to the local train siding and await the instructions of the Revkin/Obamites.
None so blind as those who will not see.
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?
I don’t follow anyone who tries to tell me anything “stridently”. I will however, investigate the topic of their strident message and decide for myself what I will do, or if I will do anything at all. What I don’t quite get is why people get upset when someone becomes strident. Maybe it’s because I am a mother and teacher. You can’t get your feathers ruffled or be led around by strident children and expect to make it through the day.
Rush usually runs long threads/monologues which when properly digested, make sense. If you try to eat it in 5 seconds or in short transcript snipets, the effect is lost and can appear inflammatory. I DOUBT VERY MUCH HE DID NOT SET THIS SENTENCE UP WITHOUT A LOT OF BACKGROUND.
For people here, I have listened to Rush for years and he was warning us about this eco/climate change crowd long before big business and government equeally were forced to jump on the band, warning how it was really a disguised attempt at marginalizing liberties and expanding social (rather than scientific or moral) agendas. He was warning about this movement, without fear of looking like a dunce, well before this site became popular.
Rush Limbaugh’s instincts and core beliefs are exceedingly accurate.
Half the comments here show me there is little hope in this “debate”. Both sides resort to demonizing the other and the facts get lost in the middle. It makes me sick. Too many people here are sure they are right just as much as the other side does. They think everything is black vs. white. They are just as politicized as the other side and cause just as much harm. I’d much rather have more Roger Pielke Jr.’s around that may believe the government should reduce CO2 emissions, but doesn’t let that stand in the way of performing good, honest science. Unafraid of calling out the bad science and pointing out when the policies from his side are won’t work. Even at the expense of his reputation among the frothers.
Anthony, thank you for actually trying to rise above this and calling out Rush for his stupid comments. Even if it seems like a lost cause amongst the eye for an eye crowd.
Coming up against an organized group of proud bullies does not call for an army of etiquette students with graphing calculators. It calls for a group that can state their case in a way that truly confronts the other person as a person, as long as it uses reasoning skills instead of name calling. Rush did not call this guy a name. He created a scenario in people’s mind, a meme in fact that will stick in people’s mind, so that whenever they read about people being the problem their mind will instantly get a chuckle about it. No amount of polite debate will counter the likes of each year’s headlines and Al Gore quality soundbites.
This isn’t a scientific debate! It’s a war between exactly two opposing armies. One side is evil. One side is good. Evil here is defined as wanting to destroy people’s lives. That they claim noble motives and demonize the other side and use the bullying force of The End of The World as a bludgeon is not a reason to get soft about confronting them. Nobody who looks into how much data is being buried by them can cling to the polite assumption that their motives are anything but utterly corrupt.
It’s fine to maintain a scientific debate outlook when debating a given study, but only if the other side also comes to the table in polite fashion. But not even the academic types on their side will do it! Yet your side falls for their polite act as they withhold and even destroy data?!
You are in an abusive relationship. Your debate partner is passive-aggressive. To your face they politely explain that they lost their data. Behind your back they call for your arrest for treason.
A wake up call is in order for those here who claim Rush’s standard issue twist of ideas mashed up with humor should have been avoided: Americans just voted Obama into office! As you toiled and sweated to present your case with polite logic, the other side womped your ass in the worst way possible. What worse president could you imagine if you based your own vote on climate matters?
Now you strongly call for more of the same.
The debate has become political instead of scientific. And politics is all about demonizing the other side. To hide from this fact is to lose the election! I’m not saying to introduce vitriolic into a forum like this or in comments on other sites. I am saying that the scientific crowd on your side should stop trying to reign in those very few people, specifically Rush and Beck versus literal presidents and vice presidents. They know well what they are doing and what they are doing is adjusting their message to attract the maximum number of people who have no time to decide complex issues for themselves.
The option is science vs. religion and its the traditionally religious side that is the only side that can get your message out there. But vitriol vs. vitriol must be accepted as merely being part of the game as long as name calling itself is avoided. Name calling is an art though and in fact one of Rush’s most effective memes was to coin the term “Feminazi”. The question is whether a name can STICK or not. If not then there will be a backlash. Yet even a most appalling slur of the most perverse kind is used every day in the MSM, that is to call Tea Party people ‘Tea Baggers’, which refers to a form of oral sex in which testicles are placed fully in someone’s mouth. That is the *only* meaning that “tea bagging” has.
To break the rules of polite debate is exactly what is required in response to the other side doing it first. Economic studies support a tit-for-tat flexibility in response as the best outcome one. Only when the side that got nasty reforms itself should you, in principle, let your own nasty side take a rest. In debate you are not allowed to question motives. In politics you are not allowed to debate *except* by questioning of motives. Anything else is drowned out in a shouting match of soundbite vs. soundbite.
The *polite* side of the PUBLIC debate comes down to “CO2 is causing warming!” vs. “No it isn’t.” with both showing charts that prove their case. The *emotional* side of the public debate is the impression made on lay listeners. Does anybody here really think the objective and in fact disastrous failure to sway public opinion enough to render the other side impotent has been caused by being too mean as opposed to too nice?
I agree that it is morally undesirable to resort to questioning the motives of the other side of a logical debate, or to call them a hypocrite and thus a fraud. But adopting this as a philosophy that makes you withdraw support from the only two people in the entire world who are getting your message out there is pure folly. Note how the left has never been effective in creating a backlash against Rush except one that used fake quotes and backfired right back with greater force. Unless an edgy and thus *memorable* statement creates true outrage then it is effective!
The art of creating MEMORABLE statements requires that you break the rules of logical debate.
Let’s stick to the science of climate, applying enough politics to make sure it stays a science. That should be more than enough to fill the bandwidth.
All Rush was saying, in a blunt way, was, “You first!”
I sent around some information this morning on “unprecedented” Swine flu activity. Here’s what I got back from one friend:
“When the death toll reaches a few million, I will start worrying. Actually, no I won’t; I’m a Malthusian and I figure we are long overdue for a major population adjustment. I won’t like it if I or my nearest and dearest are among the culled, but if the overall result is a much reduced world population, maybe the chance is worth it.”
and
“Meanwhile the same news outlets who are busy whipping up a frenzy of worry about flu are ignoring the rapid acidification of the oceans due to increased CO2. Change the balance of sea water and you change what lives or can live in it. And on it: what are the coastal dwellers who mainly survive on fish going to live on in 2050 when there are no shallow water fish left?”
That’s what we are up against. I’m with Rush. “You first.”
gt (19:57:18) :Maybe OT, but people, the LEFT and the RIGHT are two faces of of the same coin.
———————–
I’d agree to the extent that the Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right are very similar – the Liberal Left and Liberal Right are more like each other than they are like their Authoritarian counterparts. The Authoritarians, of either stripe, want to force people to do their will, the Liberals of Left or Right basically want people to be left to their own devices – they just disagree on the extent to which there should be safety be safety nets or protections against the complete B******s making everyone else’s life a misery.
Have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org . It makes a lot more sense than simplistic Left/Right definitions.
Rush is right. These people like Revkin sincerely want to control our lives, for no good reason. THEY are the radicals. They need to be strongly rebuffed.
Note, Rush did not say that someone or we or the government should kill Revkin, Rush said that Revkin should kill himself [or kill himself first if he had the conviction of his pontifications].
[snip -this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is an inflammatory statement, please take it elsewhere – Anthony]
Come to think of it, if any of those people DID off themselves to “save the planet”, their estate would probably be awarded “carbon credits” which would then, of course, be taxed at 50%.
I wonder how Rush and the rest of the MSM feel about losing their position of authority on news and information? The blogospher and the Internet are the new authority on news and information. Here we can easily separate fact from fiction, and we are very efficient at it.
Well, Anthony, you sure stirred up a nest of hornets with this one.
I guess we’re not just one big happy family of AGW deniers, all on the same page, after all. Whoda guessed?
In my opinion, Rush eats with his mouth open, but I don’t care if he apologizes or not. I don’t watch Jerry Springer, either.
Don’t much like or listen to old Rush…. listening to Beck channeling Howard Beal gets me riled enough…. at my age I’ve got to worry about heart stuff… but, satire is almost by definition over the top. Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” might get a blast from Anthony. When you want to make the absurdity of a position clear, make it personal: you first! I like Andy Revkin. I want him to live. I want him to get smart.
I am happy to name the group to go after first..environmentalists. They have a death toll greater than 3 times World War 1 and 2 together. They can help the planet by not exhaling.
If Revkin and his ilk want the rest of us to pay (issue a carbon credit) someone for not having a child, would Revkin also eventually award a carbon credit for killing someone? Oh, wait a minute, they definitely would, it is known as abortion.
Oh, good grief. I read this and the first thing that came to mind was Jonathan Swift. (To give responders credit, there were two mentions of his name.) Anthony, I love your stuff, but since when does it make sense to take on obvious satire as if it was real and demand an apology. It just makes one look like a fool.
REPLY: If Rush had said “you first” it would have been effective satire. If he was aiming for satire I think he missed the mark. -A
What Rush said was thought provoking–both suicide bombers and pop. control social engineers are a part of a broader culture of death. I still remember the retarded girl in Iraq they used to blow up a fruit stand. She would have no more value to the eugenicists than she did for the terrorists. I think a man is known by what angers him, and I see something noble in Rush’s anger. Besides, he framed it as a question.
On the other hand, A. Watts prefers to take the high road, be a gentlemen and a scholar, etc. etc., so that is admirable also.
Rush should actually appologize for being a bonehead during the primaries. I’ll be in and out but he can call tomorrow.
Off base?
I don’t know about that.
In the words of Lanny Davis, Where’s the proportionality?
I listen to and read left and right radio and blogs. Relatively speaking this little fopa by Rush isn’t much.
Heck even the regular crap thrown here from RC is that bad or worse every day.
Far worse is the Mike Malloy and other left wingers.
Even Ed Schultz gets out of hand calling Republicans SOBs
Keith Olberman is as vial attack dog as there is. He and Maddow engage in perpetual attacks on Palin and Republicans.
But more than all this talk is the ultimate vicious attacks by public officials and policy makers pushing their contirived agenda upon the masses with insultingly unethical means.
Maintaining some pretense of civil discourse while perpetrating malfeasance is no less offensive than anything Rush has ever said.
Frank, I agree.
Anthony, please forgive me if this stray’s a little off topic, but I think this needs to be said and has been missed lately. Here is my reply to a poster on this same topic on Climate Change Fraud, as he was going off how proud he was of the NFL for blocking Rush’s recent NFL investment attempt. I think it is helpful sometime to put some things into perspective:
BLOG Poster:
To which I replied:
The reason why I post this is to simply illustrate how insignificant this rhetorical back and forth banter really is when you compare to real life consequences.
Rush Limbaugh and Andy Revkin can say anything they wish, and the more they say these things, the less people usually listen. The fact that they CAN say these things however, is perhaps the most important RIGHT we enjoy in this country. Our real problem is not what Revkin or Rush say, our real problem is the fact that there are those in powerful positions (such as our president, his administration, people that surround and support this administration, and more…) that are feverishly working to abolish these rights. In particular, this goes right to the heart of the AGW debate. One of the reasons why we are where we are in this AGW / climate debate, is because of the suppression of our fundamental rights to vocally express ourselves anyway we see fit.
This further feeds into a previous post on here concerning the signing of the Copenhagen Treaty, and the potentially detrimental effects it will have on our personal freedom’s in this country. I would further that, coupled with the current attacks on our 1st Amendment right to free speech, the Copenhagen Treaty has the potential to allow foreign bodies (like the U.N.) to being to control and dictate this fundamental right.
If you don’t like someone’s actions (such as these enviro-nuts), then SPEAK UP! Let everyone know what these nuts are doing not what they are saying. Be loud about it and exercise your freedom of speech! Just be aware, what you say, may be heard, and therefore, you take personal responsibility for those things that you say.
The bottom line is, the foundation of ALL OF THIS, is our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
I disagree with much of what Rush says but the fact that he gives Democrats the vapors is reason enough for me to be glad he is out there. The comparison is lame and actually trivializes terrorism which is far from usual for Rush but when there is a political movement that sees humanity as an evil blight on planet earth and tries everything possible to impart that view to children (David Suzuki told a class of little kids that their Prime Minister hated them), I think civility is not really an issue anymore.
The leftist media should thank Rush for giving them something real to be offended about. It must have been getting dull making up all those quotes about him wanting to own slaves and kill black people to make soylent green for white people.
Hehehe, I was waiting for someone to mention Ed Schultz. I lived in Fargo, North Dakota for 25 years having to put up with Ed Schultz. This guy is so incredibly laughable. I could tell you so many stories about this guy, like how he accidentally shot his dog while taping an outdoor sportsman show. Or how people in Fargo really feel about this guy. He is a joke among jokes. I knew his ex-wife Moreen pretty well. Ask good old Ed about that someday (hint: he was very abusive).
Anyway, thanks for spurring on memories!