I like Rush Limbaugh, which is not to say I believe he is always right. This blog has criticizied him on many specific things, while still asserting that the is more worth listening to than ANY of the media (including the unfair and unbaalanced network).
The mainstream media, of course, HATES (i use that word literaly, and pejoratively) Rush Limbaugh. They ONLY quote him negatively, and unfairly (without giving him any real opportunity to make his case, which he RIGHTLY refuses to do by going on their programs and increasing their ratings, or increasing their circulaiton with interviews). The media simply will NOT put on someone like me, willing to DEFEND Limbaugh vigogorusly on most of the things he is attacked uupn. I have already told you Limabugh's MAIN fault: He is too bobviously PATRTISAN. By that, I do NOT meant hat he has a strong pont of view. Taht is what makes him POPULAR. And many of the "outrageous" things he says are really an entertaining way of making hi s pints--again making him POPULAR. However, whhere Limbuagh goes wrong is when he gets off of "issues", and basically becomes very PARTISAN on a directly political and personal level. By that, I mean that Limbuagh sometimes simply attacks people "on the other side" FOR THAT REASON, and is willing to say almost anything he thinks sounds good. That is what happpened, I believe, in that "slut' comment on the Georgetown law student.
Let me be clear. The Georgetown law student INSERTED HERSELF in politicas and did so deliberately. She did so as a PARTISAN matter. However,k calling her a "slut' misses the pont on so may levels. Look at my own article on Friday on CONTRACEPTIOn. I have no problem with saing that the Georgetown law student is un-American, and making a religion out of 'free contraceptioin". But you UNDERMINE that convinicing argument when you reduce it to calling her a "slut'. For Obama, the media and leftists to want to IMPOSE their views on healath care on EVERYONE is WRONG. It is not jsut wrong with contraception. It is wrong with EVERY aspect of healtth care (including the OTHER IMPOSED HEALTH CARE POLICIES (such as the preference for "preventive" care, without ggiving any optiong) . If you don't FEAR the government TELLING you exactly what health insurance covererage yuo will have, and really exactrly what health care you will have, then hou have aproblem. But Limbaugh deflected the argument from that to whether "the pill" promotes promiscuity 9which it may do, but its hardly the issue here, and totally takes away from the main EVIL of ObamaCare).
As stated, I am convinced Limbaugh did this because he gets so carried away with drectly countering the people he regards as his POLITICAL ENEMIES. And he is willing to do it on a very insignificant level. Do you really want to attack a George town law student, or do you want to attack ANDERSON COOPER, BRIAN WILIAMS< WOLF BLITZER and the rest for tring to INFLATE the imortance of a single law student, whilke trying to USE that person to DESTROY FREEDOM in this country? This blog says some harsh things. Hwewever, generallky I only NAME people when I name BIG TARGETS (like Anderson Cooper, Wolf Bitzer and the rest). I actually agree with Limbaugh's "staatemetn", which essentially says that it is amazing Limabugh does nto t make thiskind of obvious mistake more often--when he is on 3 hours a day, vie days a week. And he is making deliberately PROVOCATIVE comments all of those hours.
Do I care whether Rush Limbaugh callss a Georgetown law student a "slut", when she thrust hereself into this to take away MY FRFEEDOM? No, I don't care., in terms of this "scarring" her life. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (or go into it) . But this kind of DEFLECTION away from the real issue is where Limbaugh sometimes goes wrong. This law student is NOT the "issue". It is certainy NOT the issue whether or not she is a "slut" (and, y bey the way, WHAT does that mean these days, when almsot any modern girl would be called a "slut" during the time that Rush Limbaugh and I grew up). Yes, I am sayin gthat the "outrage" here is PUT ON. It is exaggerated. Limbaugh has no business taking on a mere law student with this kind of meanignless insult, and he knows it. He jsut got carried away, and that is what his statement really means.
Rather than clal a woman a "slut", I offer (free) to lLimbaugh my own idea of my 'your are a kook if:" series. See my previous article. First, the series GENERALIZES, so that each item tries to make clear that I am not talkng aobutspecific people, but about IDES and actions that are the domain of KOOKS. Thus, I have called MY MOTHER a KOOK for believing that Obama is a Muslim, AND that he was born in Kenya. But it is not JUST my mother that I called a kook, but AlL of you that eelieve those kooky things. I have called MYSELF a kook for believing that women should never have been given the vote (even if I am right). I have called my oldest daughter a KOIOK for watching TEN realizty shows. I say you are a KOOK if yo uwatch more than 2 reality TV shows, and i think I am baeing generous. I have called the CDC (Center for Disease Congrrol) and the WHO (World Health Organization) KOOKS for devaluing tghe word "pandemic" with regard to the H1N1 flue virues (remember that NORMAL flue virus!!!!). I have caled the people overstating the "case" (no evidence) taht vaccines "casuse" autism as KOOKS. No, I would not name a partilcuar parent looking for answers a "kook", because you can see why a parent under pressure would grasp at straws. But that is the point. If I am willing to call my own family KOOKS for some things, then I feel free to do so with CLASSES of other people It does not look like a personal attack, and it is not. Limbaugh simply needs to avoid being so personally PARTISAN that he forgets that he is supposed to be involved iwwtih ISSUES> Now, with regard to POLITIICANS and MEDIA FIGURES, you can name names. These peple do it all of the time. Piers Morgan jsut called me INSANE, laughing with Bill Maher about it. He didnot, of courese, do so by name, but they made it clear they were talking about me.
Yes, Limbaugh's mistake was bringing this down to a personal level, rather than keeping ti at an 'issue" level, and at the levl of Limbaugh himself. Limbaigh simply DIMINISHES himself by taking on a Georgetwon law sutident PERSONALLY, and he knows it. He jsut got carried away.
Noep. Despite the dishonest and hypocritical media, this has NO political implications, or political meaning. It does NOT "discredit" the GOP. IT does not "overshadow" the GOP (desptie the attempts byt he eemdia to MAKE that happen). It does not even "hrut' Limbaugh on any kind of permanent basis. As I said, what MEANING does it even have to call a woman a "slut" in today's world? It is jsut an INSULT, and that is why Limbuahg justly apologized. He had no business making that kind of insult. I would think better of him if he said it about someone FAMOUS, who could take him o9n (and be takne on) on something of a level playing field. Iknow. On this, the playing field is tilted AGAINST LIMBAUGH. Taht is because the law student can be portrayed as a "victime", when the INTENT here is to make LIMBAUGH tghe vitimm of a SMER campaign by the media. As I have said before, the essence of a SMER campaing (like whether the governor of South Carolina is a "slut", as was raised int he campaign against her) is not a matter of whether that is "true". It is a SMER. Similarly, it does nto matter that it is true taht Limbuagh made a mistake to use the word "slut", or even to be putting emphaisis on this individual t all, but the exaggerated attacks are a SMEAR. The LIE here is that this one verbal slip by Limbuagh is IMPORTANT. If Limbuagh were running for office, it might have some importance, or if Limbbaugh was in office. Even then, it is hardly the end of the world. I think Obama said a WORSE thing when he talked about small town Christians "clinging to their guns and their rellition", or wheen he accused doctors of DELIBERATELY prefeerring amputations to preventive care. This is jsut Limbaugh letting his mouth get away from him, and hardly very importatn.
My mother--limited to CNN and realizing that I do listen to LImmbaugh more than to any other media figure these days, which will not change--tried to "gig" me about this "controversy. This shows you just how far CNN is willing to go to OVERPLAY this. For CNN, as stated, this is a SMEAR (even as the facts are clear, and the actual Limbaugh "slip" indefnsible in the sense of being something he should not have said).
Hmmmmm. I am not Limbuagh. Is there a way I can get away with saying that modern women (not any specific woman) have gotten in touch with their "inner slut"? Nah. I better not go thre. I have laready, and repeatedly, called modern women "vicious creatures". ONe of my borthers has already RUINED my main fantasy (the only kind of relationship I have with women) by saying that if Angelina Jolie shows up at my dorr asking for sex, I should RUN LIKE HELL. My borther insists it will meaan that women have decided, finally, to TAKE ME OUT.
Meanhwhile, I suggest taht Liimbaugh get a little bit away from considering very political opponent, no matter how far below him, as assubject to a very PARTISAN, pesonal attack. Again, I could recommend something like my 'you are a kook if:" series, where Limbaugh even calls himself a kook on someting. Hey, that is an idea. Could Limbaigh call HIMSELF a "slut" and work himself out of this? I now the word has traditionally applied only to women, but the days of a "double standard" oare over. I am rfelatively sure, without knowing, that Rush Limbauhg is a SLUT (using the word as eqaullay aplicable to men) by the standards used when both of us were growing up. Well, I may have to take that back. When we were growing up, the double standard DID sitill exist, and women were "sluts' if they had sex with a FEW men (maybe even only one, outside of marriage). It was jsut a thought.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight),. I wonder: Should I have used he title: "Rush Limbaugh is a Slut.?" I am not sure. Wehn I was 18, by the way, I had a ltter pubished in a science fiction magazine where I made this CORRECT assertin (to the attempt by the editor to use "prude" and "Victorian" as PEJORATIVE words): "'Victorian' is a word without any objective meaning. It is jsut jused as an INSULT, like the work "rude", to assert that a person has an 'unreasonable' aversion to sex." The same, of coure, aapplies to "slut". The word has NO objective meaning. It is jsut a meaningless insult. Most people understand that as to the modern use of a word like "slut". Waht they often do NOT understand is that the SAME criticism can be made of the use of "prude" or "Victorian". They are the same kind of insult, and that has been true for LONGER than has been true with regard to "slut". "Slut" once hasd soemting of an objective meaning, since it was almsot used to aply to ANY sex outside of marriage, with the pssible exception of when you went ahead and married the same boy/man. The real "crime" Limbaugh has committted here is against the IDEA that this whole "free" contraception "issue" is about FREEDOM, and FORCE (not tto mentin th eConstitution), and not about "sex" or birth control itself.