Rush Limbaugh was wrong...to apologize

I really wasn’t going to comment on this, because a) it’s stupid, and b) see a). However, it seems to have the legs to be around for a while longer, so here is my addition to its Google footprint.

The chance that I’ll be listening to Rush Limbaugh on any given day is about 1 in 4. I generally enjoy his show when I listen, but I rarely make any particular effort to catch it. If I’m in the car between 11 and 2, and I don’t feel like listening to the music I have along, then maybe he’ll get the nod.

The chance that I’ll catch a particular moment on Rush’s show is, obviously, even lower. If someone says “Did you hear on Rush when…” to me, my answer is almost always no.

However, by chance, I did hear, live, Rush call Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute. He followed it up with a bit of confusion over who would be the pimp, and who would be the john.

Now, this thing smells pretty bad all the way around. It’s clear to anyone paying attention that she was less than forthright about her identity, her intentions, and so forth. That is not the point of my post, and I’m not going to get into it. I want to talk about this:

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.” – Sandra Fluke

because that’s what Rush responded to. (The $3,000 figure is laughable, but even that isn’t the point.)

Rush was pointing out that what we have here is a woman who wants someone else to pay for her contraceptives. And what does this woman do with contraceptives? She uses them to prevent pregnancy when she engages in sexual intercourse. Transitively, we can say that she wants someone else to pay her to have sex. And what do we call a woman who is paid to have sex? We call her a prostitute.

Is that really so hard to understand? No, of course it isn’t.

Is it tacky? Sure. Guess what? Rush Limbaugh is tacky periodically. Is that news? Guess what else? Rush Limbaugh illustrates absurdity by being absurd. Is that news? (Eh, never mind on that one. I’m sure it is to millions of lockstep liberal drones, who only “know” what their media tell them about Rush.)

The central point here is that there is no more reason to suppose there should be a right to “free” contraceptives as there is to suppose there should be a right to “free” Wild Cherry Life Savers. The bloviation over Rush’s comments is meant to allow such a “right” to settle into the narrative as unobtrusively as possible, at least as much as it’s designed to do anything else.

Of course, we also have Remarkably Selective Outrage, Chapter 4,672 here. Liberal commentators display their seething hatred for women as a matter of course. Shall we ask Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Dana Loesch, Ann Coulter, or any number of other women about that? Does a single day go by that nasty epithets aren’t hurled at them by leftist nitwits? Is it all right because they’re conservatives? Remember the Playboy “hate fuck” list of conservative women? No, of course you don’t, because it wasn’t news then. Anything you know about it, you almost certainly know because of this latest brouhaha. Remember when it led the news for more than a week when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “c*nt”? No, you don’t, because it didn’t. (Etc.) That list is bottomless, so I’ll stop there.

The egregious hypocrisy in liberals complaining about the state of discourse in the country today is what liberal drones have to shut their eyes the tightest for, I think.

I think Rush was right to follow up his comments. I think he should have made his point clearly, perhaps with a gentle reminder of the nature of satire and commentary.

I think he was wrong to apologize.

Rush Limbaugh was wrong…to apologize

You might also like:

1 thought on “Rush Limbaugh was wrong…to apologize”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply