Apology By Limbaugh – Isn’t!
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh issued an apology for his radio show tirade where he slandered (no other word) a young Georgetown University student by the name of Sandra Fluke. He refers to his attempts at “humor”, and falls back on his gimmick that is based on “absurdity”. Really? So, what is he? Part-time entertainer? Comedian? Pundit? Voice of the right? Full time misogynist?
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Can’t have it both ways, Limbaugh.
Our thoughts on the apology:
“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines absurd as:
- 1ab·surd adj \əb-ˈsərd, -ˈzərd\
- : ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument>
It follows that “ridiculously unreasonable” makes the assumption that one can make a judgement of what IS reasonable, i.e., that Ms. Fluke is not a ‘slut’ or a ‘prostitute’. However, in the purest form, that is not the case. I don’t know Ms. Fluke, nor did millions of Americans prior to her brief appearance before Congress and then as a result of Limbaugh’s rant. So perhaps in some cases, can there not be, if not outright questions, at least the tiniest question in the back of some minds? “She looks way too nice and is far too polite and soft-spoken to be for real..she must be covering up something if she wants to talk about this topic in public…Hm..maybe she is a slut. Why else would he say that?”
In 1993, his ‘absurdity’ went here: “Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?” And up goes a picture of 13-year old Chelsea Clinton. If my middle-aged memory serves as to his radio show, he went on to expound more fully on the physical characteristics of that one 13-year old child, one of which I also had at the time.
The point being that once again, his apology is not. And he knows it.
“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.”
Little hang-up there? “I personally do not agree…” implies that you have the right to disagree. Call me crazy, but does Ms. Fluke not enjoy that same right to disagree? She didn’t make the decision to allow this content to be debated before Congress.
“What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow?”
Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh, indeed. I find it interesting that you have the very best health-care that money can buy because of your use of your Constitutionally-granted freedom of speech. Your extraordinary access to a superior health care plan even supported you during your withdrawal from drugs. Hm… Yet a young female Georgetown University student paying for her own health-care needs cannot obtain the simplest form of female reproductive health care.
“Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?”
“In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”
Oh, jeez, sorry we missed the more subtle points of your argument amid all the salacious name-calling and vicious verbal vomit. No one debates your right to “posit”, but that’s a pretty high-falutin’ 25-cent word to describe hateful rhetoric and sophisticated bullying strategies.
“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”
Humorous? Puh-leez. Translation: “Oh, sorry I caused such a big mess and lost my advertisers. You’re still a slut.”