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
Well, I surely don’t think that the ultimate moderate opportunist Andy Revkin is the most accurate possible recipient of Rush’s comments – but more generally, I surely do agree with Limbaugh’s comments.
So far, only the psychology, independence, and prestige of the kids is taken hostage in their holy fight against climate change – but that can change and the underlying dynamics is pretty much isomorphic to the Islamic jihad.
In polite society we have books like:
The Population Bomb
In not so polite society we have Rush.
In polite society we have Obama science adviser John Holdren suggesting:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/07/little-science-advice.html
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
In not so polite society we have Rush. Rush’s #1 problem is that he never learned “New Speak”. He needs a visit to a re-education camp.
How sensitive we have all become 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 take offence? No. Do I expect an apology? No. Does anyone really think that Mr. Limbaugh was telling Mr. Revkin to commit suicide?
I think that Mr. Watts, as the host to this most quoted climate realistic website, is right to be careful as to what has been posted but is wrong to take Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks seriously. I note that Mr. Revkin did not!
Note that in this quote Andy Revkin is himself not an endorser of these ideas…
“I wasn’t endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the population-climate intersection, it’d be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA population growth,” wrote Revkin.
Note that in Australia there are financial incentives for having kids (this is done for economical reasons) so a financial incentive for not having kids is to me just the other side of the coin. I remember reading an article about France persuading people to have more French kids over concerns of multiculturalism and how the French culture was being lost. At the end of the day people should be allowed to make up their own minds about how many kids they should be having. I am not exactly in favour of any of these kinds of incentives, in whichever way they’re running.
Merçi for the update.
J H Folsom (17:14:05) : I mean did you post this to “balance” the monckton post that riled up a few here for being extreme right wing rhetoric.
extreme right wing rhetoric? I’m puzzled.
As a British observer I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and Andy Revkin have both said regrettable things.
It would serve them well to sit down together and discuss their differences over a nice cup of tea.
Kevin S – well said!
Anthony,
I’m sorry, I can’t agree with you that Limbaugh should apologize. For what? Confronting a not so indirect attack upon our current way of life and futures?
I’ve said similar things myself. If the Global Warming Alarmists and some environmentalists, and I’ve heard them, say that there are too many people and they ‘know which ones of us should be the first to reduce the population’ this is a direct threat to all who don’t agree with AGW alarmism or human environmental threat to Earth.
Many AGW “Believers” present themselves as serious about the absurd, offensive and/or devastating things they say and/or say they believe and have followed through with proposing (and often passing) nonsensical laws and diverting trillions of dollars, national economies, entire gullible worldwide populations and nations into not only wasting their treasuries on fraudulent AGW or enviro claims, policies and/or laws but are, at least indirectly, guilty of contributing to the loss of lives of those of us who cannot be saved or helped in many needy situations (which are causes of wars) because of consequent loss of money that would allow for life saving aid. Waste may not be just waste, it can be, and often is fatal.
I’m sorry. No I’m not – AGW alarmism isn’t a simple and victimless endeavor, it’s a serious and deadly powerplay.
Anthony, maybe you haven’t had the unfortunate opportunity to be confronted with these folks, I have. There are many AGW and envrio-alarmists who wish me, and you, a very short life, and laugh with glee at the prospect.
No, I’m afraid these matters are not simple academic pursuits, but actual life and death threats in everyday life.
This reminds me of the Dr. Melvin B. Gottlieb, Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in the 1980’s who I was privileged to hear at a seminar and who said that although much hope was being placed in fusion energy that if he was faced with his teams success within a few number of years being responsible for the successful future of the country he would not continue. He well realized the complexity of the project and that the science couldn’t be forced – it had to be achieved.
As with real causes of real climate change agreeable sources of energy have been seriously sought for many years as the science has to be achieved, not because there is an election, convention, treaty signing deadline, etc. Passionate partially-informed concern with unrealistic expectations, such as with AGWers and some enviros, is irrational and can lead to dangerous situations. These situations (the imposition of alarmist dictates upon the general public) must be confronted, sometimes, often directly and in-kind.
The approach of WUWT has been more scientific, and well done. In another vein, political/cultural/social Limbaugh has effectively confronted the more militant AGWers and enviros, etc. somewhat in-kind. This blog can chastise another media for it’s approach, of course, but it does so at risk of losing focus – as well as being wrong.
Joel Shore (17:16:00) says:
“DDT was never banned worldwide and the deaths due to malaria have much more to do with mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT ….. See http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/”
————————–
Please, if you absolutely must read deltoid’s “take” on ddt then also read the official WHO statement which, largely as you expect, is different:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html
Is the indoctrination of children in our schools so very different from what jihadists do to maintain their control ?
There’s a lot of fear in the under 10s nowadays as witness that recent UK government TV ad setting out the imagined consequences of CO2 emissions.
Has democracy lost the plot ?
I agree that Rush’s statement was over the line, but I think that you miss the point he was trying to make.
He was trying to point out that all of these extreme, return us to the stoneage, measures that environmentalists want us to take to fix the world always seem to only apply to us, not to them. Last report I saw Al Gore’s house uses the same amount of electricity as a small town. He flies everywhere in a private check. Yet, he wants me to only use one sheet of toilet paper, drive a cardboard car, and fill my house with mercury time-bombs called CFL’s.
That was the point that Rush was making. The environmentalists are not a lead from the front crowd.
@Grant Hodges (18:10:28) :
I agree with you.
From this point of view ANY arguments against Mr Limbaugh’s statements or intentions are meaningless and pointless. But to say what you said, Mr Hodges, one has to listen Mr Limbaugh for some time and know the U.S.A. from the perspective of politics.
Not for the first time Mr Watts who knows __nothing__ about US politics evinces a bit leftist bias using the same pattern as eco wackos do – taking a topic out of context and making misjudges. In my opinion of course.
Regards
REPLY: I think you are confusing “decorum” with “leftist bias”. – Anthony
The guy gets paid to talk loudly about controversial subjects. He’s a professional bigmouth. He is there to entertain those who get a thrill out of hearing controversial things said through a medium usually careful to mind it’s PC’s and Q’s.
I’d hesitate to call it “infotainment” because Rush doesn’t seem to care about the truth or falsity of what he says.
Not a useful ally to the cause IMO.
It’s time Limbaugh goes back to his pills, again. The man is an utter disgrace for human being and deserved to be either euthanised or at least put away in a secure surrounding.
[let’s avoid the Hitler analogies ~ ctm]
Well said, Rush. It’s called “walking the walk.” At the moment, it seems, we have too much “talking the talk” by those who want others to make a sacrifice. And while Revkin is busy topping himself, Al Gore can pledge to stop flying around the world in his gas-guzzling, co2-spewing, private jet.
First, Andy is a reporter and although he’s concerned about the possibility of ‘9 billion people on a warming planet’ I don’t think he, even in quiet private moments, believes anybody should actually die to ‘save the planet’. He’s much more inclined to worry about people who would die due to the ‘effects of climate change’.
So, I feel Rush should apologize to Andy.
Second, many of his commenters, however, go on and on about exactly what Rush is talking about. And I myself over at dotearth in a comment of my own quoted someone and suggested that that commenter should ‘go first’ and save us the trouble. I may even have done it more than once.
And if someone had asked me to apologize (and I don’t remember anyone did) I would not have.
Anthony
IMHO Rush does not merit any discussion.
David
Lord Monckton’s speech at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. described a number of questionable environmental policies that killed innocents in the third world. Radical environmentalists demanded that DDT be banned in the 1970s and malaria deaths rose to nearly a million children a year. What is more obscene, to accuse environmentalist of murdering children by strapping on bombs like jihad radicals or accuse environmentalist of committing genocide against the poorest of the poor? Mao killed 70,000,000 people in his purges in China, 34 to 49 million under Stalin, and far Rachel Carson has caused the genocide of 40,000,000 children. Environmentalist extremists rank up there with other homicidal maniacs of the twentieth century. It’s time they be called on their horrific crimes against humanity.
U.S. lawmakers have demanded 1/3 of our grain crops to be diverted from food to biofuels in order to save the planet and doubled the price of grain. Affluent consumers of foodstuffs can afford to pay farmers a higher price for their grain, it’s just too bad the poorest of the poor will starve while environmental activists save the planet. Desperately poor residents of Haiti are left to eating mud pies while western doogooders drive their Flex Fueled vehicles to save the planet. New CO2 restrictions on poor countries will prevent them from building coal fired power stations, having electricity and leave poor folk desperate poverty living in huts while they continue breath in the smoke from cooking fires.
Maybe it’s time for more Rush Limbaugh inspired rude comments to shake up the complacent politically correct developed world and challenge the madness.
David L Morris (16:38:48)
“I happen to be a centre leaning, liberal atheistic skeptic. This is pretty reasonable in Australia. Not so much in the USA I gather, where the centre is the left, a liberal is a communist; and an atheist, well I can’t even begin to imagine what Rush and the rest might want to do or say about that.”
David your post should be repeated here, as I’ve done now. For me that would be the quote of the week.
By the way, this is not just true for Australia but also for most of the European countries. The US is pretty unique in this respect.
I think Limbaugh’s analogue is as tasteless as the AGW alarmists’ use of the term “deniers”.
The reason that this blog is the best science blog is because it allows all comments and views to be expressed. It is largely self regulating as to good manners and respect for each other. Anthony is right. Personal attacks are always wrong. Consider this example.
Some years ago in business, my eldest son, had asked for some engineering data from another firm to prove a solution that they were offering. He received a written personal attack and he brought it to me for advice. I simply smiled and advised that he had won the argument. I advised him to reply politely, noting the writer’s comments, and asking for him to answer the original question.
In the end truth will out, it is hard sometimes not to rail against the perceived stupidity of some folk, but stick to the real issues not the messenger.
It’s my fault, actually. I’ve been known to say that some of these enviro-freaks truly do hate mankind and would like to see us wiped off the face of the Earth. And that is a truth, regardless of what crap you want to put on Rush. I would invite them to do themselves in, first. And then, later, we won’t follow them.
So, go ahead and trample my 1st Amendment. The White House is trying to, as well as other parts of the government, such as the FCC. I should change that to the Mao CC.
…. Hoi Polloi (02:29:49) :
It’s time Limbaugh goes back to his pills, again. The man is an utter disgrace for human being and deserved to be either euthanised or at least put away in a secure surrounding. ….
———-
Exhibit A for leftist intolerance. I can’t see too much respect for human life here.
I agree that this issue has gone well past the purely scientific stage, if it was ever there when the IPCC was specifically set up to find a human cause for global warming. Can anyone doubt that the last thing the alarmists are interested in is the science when they use every trick in the book, up to and including outright fraud, to shore up their position and suppress any opposition or even open debate?
Just in my own experience, people have been so inundated by the propaganda that they regurgitate it by rote. When I make a few points about rising CO2 and falling temperatures, normal variability, previous warm periods etc. they generally don’t even make an attempt to refute it. They brush it aside with “but the objective of sustainability and energy efficiency is good” as if we were children being lied to for our own good and that made it all right. No attempt to think it through to its logical conclusion.
Nothing is more important than to get the truth out. Love him or hate him, Rush makes people think.
maybe Rush was a bit over the top, but after listeing an interview to ann ehrlich, i am not too sure
you can find the mp3 of the interview on my server at gianmarco dot dyndns dot org slash varie slash population.mp3
scary stuff.