Rush to judgment is wrong
Rush Limbaugh has stepped in it again.
The question is, will he be able to step out of it? Or were his comments about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke too far outside the realm of what is considered acceptable for him to come back from.
For those who missed it, Limbaugh said Fluke — who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage provided by insurance companies — was a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
As of this writing, El Rushbo has lost no less than seven advertisers for his daily talk show. While he has apologized, it came off as forced and insincere, which it most likely was.
I wanted to write a column in defense of Rush. I really did. After all, he only said what half of the country seems to believe. The problem is, I can’t defend the half of the country that seems so clearly wrong to me.
Somehow we’ve reached a plateau where contraceptives are a dirty word, only taken by women of ill repute and only worn by men of questionable character.
I’m not entirely sure how this came to be, but somewhere in our not-too-distant past, we stumbled upon a place where it’s okay to think (and apparently speak) ill of people for living a different lifestyle than you. Ironically, this is veiled under the guise of “religious freedom.”
The same half of the country that is always crying about abortions seems to believe that anything that might prevent pregnancy — short of abstinence — is immoral and should therefore be banned. In the same breath that they denounce abortion, they also suggest that the thing that best prevents the leading cause of abortion — unwanted pregnancy — should not be used.
I can, therefore, only assume that that half of the country thinks that women should be barefoot and pregnant often (thus making more jobs available to men, I guess). Either that or they’re abstinent.
Actually, the abstinent theory might hold some water. It would explain why they’re so angry all the time.
Limbaugh and his puritan cohorts might have the First Amendment right to say what they believe, including calling law students names, but it certainly doesn’t give them any moral standing, does it?
The Puritan Right has darn near idolized Limbaugh for nearly two decades now. And they have — in fact — put him before God. I find it ironic how hateful some people think God is, prime example being the Westboro Baptist crowd.
As much as I want to defend Limbaugh’s First Amendment right and note the fact that he’s simply saying what half of the country is thinking, I am reminded that there is such a thing as being right. And defending someone who’s so very wrong just because a lot of people believe in what he is saying is definitely not the right thing for me to do.
I don’t expect any real apology from Limbaugh. Or his sycophants. I can only hope that they evolve into a more enlightened state — one in which genuine dialog trumps demagoguery.
The question is, will he be able to step out of it? Or were his comments about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke too far outside the realm of what is considered acceptable for him to come back from.
For those who missed it, Limbaugh said Fluke — who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage provided by insurance companies — was a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
As of this writing, El Rushbo has lost no less than seven advertisers for his daily talk show. While he has apologized, it came off as forced and insincere, which it most likely was.
I wanted to write a column in defense of Rush. I really did. After all, he only said what half of the country seems to believe. The problem is, I can’t defend the half of the country that seems so clearly wrong to me.
Somehow we’ve reached a plateau where contraceptives are a dirty word, only taken by women of ill repute and only worn by men of questionable character.
I’m not entirely sure how this came to be, but somewhere in our not-too-distant past, we stumbled upon a place where it’s okay to think (and apparently speak) ill of people for living a different lifestyle than you. Ironically, this is veiled under the guise of “religious freedom.”
The same half of the country that is always crying about abortions seems to believe that anything that might prevent pregnancy — short of abstinence — is immoral and should therefore be banned. In the same breath that they denounce abortion, they also suggest that the thing that best prevents the leading cause of abortion — unwanted pregnancy — should not be used.
I can, therefore, only assume that that half of the country thinks that women should be barefoot and pregnant often (thus making more jobs available to men, I guess). Either that or they’re abstinent.
Actually, the abstinent theory might hold some water. It would explain why they’re so angry all the time.
Limbaugh and his puritan cohorts might have the First Amendment right to say what they believe, including calling law students names, but it certainly doesn’t give them any moral standing, does it?
The Puritan Right has darn near idolized Limbaugh for nearly two decades now. And they have — in fact — put him before God. I find it ironic how hateful some people think God is, prime example being the Westboro Baptist crowd.
As much as I want to defend Limbaugh’s First Amendment right and note the fact that he’s simply saying what half of the country is thinking, I am reminded that there is such a thing as being right. And defending someone who’s so very wrong just because a lot of people believe in what he is saying is definitely not the right thing for me to do.
I don’t expect any real apology from Limbaugh. Or his sycophants. I can only hope that they evolve into a more enlightened state — one in which genuine dialog trumps demagoguery.
