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
You should listen to the whole discussion before pronouncing judgement. Limbaugh’s focus wasn’t on bombing, it was on sending other people to do the dirty work.
No. Rush is right.
Revkin helps the crazy eco fascists with his propaganda and lazy journalism. He refuses to scrutinize the catrophist claims and the crazy solutions like the sterilization of whole populations, forced abortions, the deconstruction of irrigation systems and dams, the global abolition of producing meat for consumption, the outlawing of CO2, etc…..
HOLDREN, Obama’s own Science Czar is an Author of a book that advocates this misanthropy…. Where is Revkins outrage on that???
Rush is right. These eco fascists are similar to Jihad radicals and if they do advocate population reduction? Well, why don’t they go be the first ones to remove themselves for the greater good?
Rush is only mirroring the Eco fascist’s misanthropy back at them. Don’t blame him for that Anthony…..
I excuse his Hyperbole. I think it is necessary, because no one else is outing these crazy environmentalists on the claims that they are making. Certainly not Lazy journalists like Revkin.
This outburst from Rush is another sign of the times.
CAGW isn’t a scientific debate, or a political Left vv Right argument, it is a religion. Expect an explosion if Copenhagen is agreed – religious wars are always the worst.
I apologize if someone has already linked to the entire discussion by Limbaugh but it seems as though few have read his entire session in context. Those forming opinions should go here first :
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html
Some excerpts below of what Rush said:
“Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant. Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.”
“Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it. New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled ‘Covering Climate: What’s Population Got To Do With It?’ People who need people they are not. Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, ‘if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn’t there be a carbon value to that?’ 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,’ [the New York Times environmental writer] 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.'” There is a country that has such a policy, the one child policy and vigorously endorses it. That’s the ChiComs. And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Tse-tung her favorite philosopher? ”
And below is Rush’s big question which I interpret as rhetorical, you be the judge. I did not hear it so I cannot comment on the intonation.
” 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? Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left? 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 and Fire, I’m going to bring in Charlie Pride. This is happening. They’re having gigs at the White House. ”
Hope this puts some things in perspective. Note the use of the word “if” in the question.
BTW, although I don’t listen to Rush every day, I suspect he has been more effective at converting people to skeptics than almost anyone. After all he has tons of listeners and he does quote a lot of factual information while entertaining his listeners. And he has some of the best advisors on climate.
Lesson learned from this:
Don’t counter insanity…with COUNTER-insanity.
Its one thing to get angry and passionate. But beware those emotions (Heck I love ’em)….but they will lead you off the track.
Comparing what he terms “environmentalist wackos” with “jihadist terrorists” is an emotional, anti-logical, NONSENSICAL argument.
Meanwhile….when the explosions cease and the dust fades….we all return to more level-headed arguments.
Arguments that discuss radiative forcing and what-not.
MESSAGE TO RUSH: Be careful, that you do not become…the very thing you despise.
And don’t counter insanity…with COUNTER-insanity.
Calm down everyone….and have a good nite.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Still waiting for WUWT to post the rest of the quote from Rush, Anthony.
If you got it from MediaMatters, you probably don’t know the whole story.
Like the MSM.
Anthony ; I really don’t think this needs to be on this site.
Just advice from an old neighbor.
JHansford: “Rush is right. These eco fascists are similar to Jihad radicals and if they do advocate population reduction?”
You think he is right because…you feel those reactive feelings of rage yourself!
And when you do….logic and reason leave the room in fear of their lives.
To make a claim comparing cowards who blow up women and children in a crowded marketplace….to the “environmentalist wackos”, as Rush has been calling them for years and years and years (and to his peril–because there are some decent environmentalists…like me…but he throws that baby out with the bathwater way to often)….but to make a claim comparing terrorists to these people is NONSENSICAL.
So….just paint with your non-scientific broad brush over the nuances here and side with Rush’s mad ravings….or….TAKE A DEEP ****** breath, and really examine the issues here from a non-emotional and scientific tone, and then we can talk.
Anthony is 100% right: Rush crossed the line (and ruined his platform).
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
This old proverb…relevant to the latest Rush soap opera chapter:
TWO blankety-blank wrongs don’t make ONE right!!
Order.
Order in the court…..
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Giga dittos!
In unrelated news: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/20/bill-maher-stirs-crowd-plea-obama-make-limbaugh-explode-bag-meat
“Bill Maher Stirs Crowd With Plea for Obama to Make Limbaugh ‘Explode Like a Bag of Meat’ The death wishes for Rush Limbaugh just never stop . . .”
He dishes it and receives it. I’m not a fan or listener, but most people need to notice that RL has lost at least 85+ lbs lately. The double chin is gone. He might be approaching a normal size.
After taking the time to read both Revkin’s comments that lead to Rush’s comments today and reading Rush’s comments in their entirety, I believe this entire article/thread to be a red herring.
Anthony, your moral outrage is misdirected. If you read all the way through the transcript (which you, out of character, failed to link to) Rush’s larger point was on the sanctity of human life (some of you will scoff – after all, you’ll point out, he just called for someone to kill himself, but bear with me) and our God given right to individual liberty. Revkin, has more or less called for less human beings to exist; for other life forms (his fellow humans) to ignore one of their fundamental biological instincts and functions as a means to saving the planet. The ‘planet’, which in this case is more of an ideology of how things should be than a tangible object, is being elevated to the same/higher level than an individual’s right to exist and gives the State and avenue of power to supplant the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It judges an individual not on their merits and their minds, nor does it acknowledge their rights to existence and self-determination. Rather, it views them as units that are expendable depending on the statistical analysis of their impact on a conceptual ‘planet’. If allowed to succeed, it strips future generations of their free will to think for themselves and make their own determinations about how to live their lives. This runs counter to everything this country was founded on and is an affront logic, reason, science, and basic humanity.
What makes such an idea ever more worse is the nonchalant fashion in which it is proposed. Revkin and others like him don’t name anyone specific and tell them to stand aside for the good of the planet. If they did, I would expect the outrage to look an awful lot like the article and the posts above (at least I would hope). Instead, they do something far, far worse: they go after those that do not yet have the ability to speak for and defend themselves. Whereas most of us look to future and hope that we leave the world a better place than we found it for those that will follow us, they look to the future and think it better that some or all of those that follow us should never come into existance in the first place. Good intentions aside, I find it wholly sinister. The misguided often accomplish more inhumanity and suffering than the down right evil.
This is where Rush’s genius in all of this comes into play. By putting Revkin’s face on the mass of those who should perish for the good of the planet, he not only draws out Revkin’s hypocrisy, but also the hypocrisy of those who failed to condemn those that put forth the idea in the first place. Sadly, Anthony, but in this case, that means you. Revkin is suggesting that others make the ultimate sacrifice for his ideology. If that is what he believes, there is nothing wrong with asking (which is Rush did and not demanding as the this seems to be portrayed by both you and Revkin) that he lead by example rather than put the burden on those that cannot speak for themselves. Rush’s choice of words in calling him out puts the whole issue front and center. In the shock of Rush asking Revkin directly why he doesn’t kill himself for what he believes, Rush uncloaks the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of the environmentalist’s solution and how it oddly never applies to them, just everyone else.. It doesn’t apply to them, just those that follow. You may not like how Rush said it, but as Rush himself often points out, sometimes you must demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.
Unfortunately, your demand for an apology for his phrasing shields Revkin and his ilk from further critical examination. You are standing up to defend the public discourse from Rush but failing to stand up and defend the public, without which there would be no discourse, from Revkin (at least in this particular case – this rest of this website speaks loudly for your defense of the public from bad science and policy). In this case, though, you denounce Rush for telling Revkin ‘you first’ while passing no judgement on Revkin’s idea to deprive untold numbers more the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
All that being said, you have done a terrific job creating a site that fosters free and open discussions such as this. While I disagree with you strongly enough on this point to write a response, I have the utmost respect for what you’ve done here and with your surface stations project. You have done more for free and open inquiry for the truth than whole graduating classes of journalists and I hope this site continues to be at the forefront of defending science and truth.
REPLY: Just an FYI, I checked earlier in the day for a transcript on Rush’s site and found none. Transcripts sometimes take awhile to be posted. Later a commenter pointed out it was online and I did in fact ad a link to it in the story. – Anthony
SInce this is my first post here, let me first thank you for all you do here – I look forward to checking out your site every day. You are, quite literally, a hero among men – an island of sanity among the madness.
Perhaps that’s why it disturbs me to see you join the crowd who are constantly harping “Rush Limbaugh (or other prominent conservative voice) said x today, and wasn’t it horrible?” Allow me to humbly join the ranks of those respectfully urging that you “just not go there”. The people normally doing that are usually intentionally trying to create hysteria where none is called for in order to sidetrack the debate.
I thought Grant Hodges, and others, above, analyzed the whole thing rather well. This was just a melodramatic way of pointing out the hypocracy in Revkin’s own words by taking them to THEIR OWN logical – albeit extreme – conclusion. The fact that Limbaugh prefaces what he says with “if he really thinks that” proves the point. This was obviously not a serious call for suicide – although Revkin disingenuously pretends he’s not 100% sure about that.
Ironically, isn’t the writing by guys like Revkin – who clearly feel that the Earth would be a far better place if most of its inhabitants (well, the HUMAN ones, anyway) did not exist – far more offensive than anything Limbaugh has to say? Aren’t they essentially saying the equivalent of “I wish you were dead” to practically everyone? Unlike Limbaugh, these guys aren’t being hyperbolic and satirical when they say what they do – they’re perfectly serious, and shamelessly open about it.
I’m vehemently opposed to Limbaugh on several issues, but on AGW I think he had served as a voice that has loudly and clearly exposed the politics of the AGW crowd. He’s going to have to say a lot worse before I, personally, would get excited about it.
Anyway – to end on a positive note – thanks again for everything you do. There’s a lot of money and power at stake with the AGW movement – you must have to put up with a lot!
I’ve given Rush’s rhetorical suggestion to Mr Revkin a lot of thought this afternoon. Then I read the whole monologue and I have to say that while I don’t like language like this generally and wish Rush had kept it non-personal, sometimes it is just so infuriating to have these Leftist intellectuals so cavalierly talk about preventing human birth as the Nazis talked about the Final Solution. It’s very close in logic and when you consider how civilized Germans ended up committing horrible crimes against humanity, it really is not that far away with that kind of talk. And the Left always wants to get into everyone else’s business. They want “them” to do this or that but think that they themselves are too enlightened and needed by the masses to take their own advice: Yes, tax them up the yin-yang for the good of all, but count me out. Let’s reduce the population, but let them do it; it doesn’t involve my little world. Babies? Heck, let’s prevent them from even getting here and ruining the planet which I enjoy so much. What sickos. I don’t thing we have to get coarse and personal — might just cut off communication –but I could be wrong. Maybe those who propose the prevention of human life need a wake up call.
This kind of stuff gets google searched a lot. Good call Anthony.
While knowing that Limbaugh is far right, I cannot help but think that you are overreacting Antony. I know we are all supposed to be polite to each other, but both you and Revkin choose to be deliberately obtuse by ignoring the point made by Limbaugh and just concentrating on the (actually) logical solution.
“If you hate CO2 so much – stop exhaling it !” is actually quite funny and imho makes a relevant point.
With 188 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
It seems that was is not understood is that the time for Harvard/Oxford style debates are over. That time never happened. By the time us skeptics actually got the facts and figures to show that the AGWer’s were full of it too many governments had already bought the bill of goods. The First Climate War is over. We lost it. But that doesn’t mean all is lost. Fotrunately the enemy was unable to enact complete victory and with the science now catching up to what we all believed to be true, there is a chance to turn the tide. But that tide will not turn by “civil” debate alone since the enemy has no desire to engage in such. No, we skeptics also need to have those who are willing to fight in the trenches. Now I know not everyone is not capable of getting knee deep in the mud to fight the enemy, and you don’t need to, just feed us the ammo, in this case the scientific data, and let us get down and dirty and fight the enemy. Taking the high road is useless if all it leads to is a cliff.
To quote Sean Connery in “The Untouchables”: “If he brings a knife, you bring a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That is how you get to Capone, that is the Chicago way.” And with the White House controlled by the Chicago Connection(Obama, Emmanuel, etc.), those of us willing to get muddy need the support those who are masterful at obtaining and breaking down the “evidence” of the AGW drinkers.
As far as Anthony’s reading of the quote, I think you misunderstood it. You seemed to have implied more than what it was. Rush wasn’t telling Revkin to actually kill himself, he was telling him time for the AGWer’s to man up and live according to their own beliefs, otherwise STFU and drop the whole AGW issue. Hence the connection to those who recruit, train, and send others’ children to be suicide killers. When it comes to knowing what Rush is saying, best to know his style intimately. No need for any apology, for nothing to apoligize for. And for my last movie quote, this from John Wayne in “The Shootist”: “I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
One last thing, you really should not delve into this arena Anthony. Really not part of what your blog has come to be. Leave the hardcore politcs to those who live, eat, and breathe it.
Thank you, Anthony, for your decency and hard work.
The dirty secret of the extreme enviro movement is that their agenda requires 90% of the human race to die. Who decides? Why not insist the nutjobs who believe in this garbage be first in line to walk the walk?
I’ve listened to Limbaugh from the time he first went national, initially thought he was somewhat deranged, but continued listening throughout Bush #1 when I nearly totally disagreed with his support of Bush, and happened to hear his discussion about Revkin live as he delivered it.
Here Limbaugh is totally correct, imo: if the “Revkins”, and worse, of the World are going to make such draconian rules concerning what is apparently a path toward achieving their own meaning in life, surely they should be among the first to follow their own rules.
What’s the problem?
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.
Personal attacks are a sign of incompetence.
But Alinsky Rules work.
And let me add that the death of millions (billions?) for the cause has been a feature (in theory and practice) of the left for the whole of the 20th century.
Stalin had his Kulacks. Mao was down on intellectuals. And a certain German was looking for some unpopulated land near his home country.
What has Rush done to one of these social engineers? He just said “put your money where your mouth is” or “you first”.
Genocide always begins with making the object of the genocide “them” or “non-people” or “those standing in the way of progress”.
I think Rush has done a service. Make the genociders live up to their own principles.
I have written about how the genocide machine works in a different context:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/how-to-put-end-to-drug-users.html
And just to keep it all even handed the context is a genocide proposed by the American right.
How sensitive we have all beocme in this politically correct age. When a friend tells me to “go to hell” does he mean it?. I hope not. But even if he does do I expect an apology? N
wattsupwiththat (23:47:50) :
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.
All that I can say to that is that it is a good thing that you weren’t involved with the creation of our country. No one ever said Liberty was pretty.