When I was young (and ‘terror birds’ ran the highways plucking off hitchhikers) the sincere apology and acceptance of that apology meant something. Unfortunately, time moves constantly forward and things change. Something has happened to the expression of regret or remorse for one’s actions. For better or worse, the apology has fallen out of fashion like wearing white gloves to lunch or using flatware properly.
I’m glad to see that Rush Limbaugh, the self-described voice of freedom and conservative values, is trying to revive this dying art form.
After a three day on air exploration of the motivations for Sandra Fluke’s testimonal on women’s health and the role of contraception therapies for medical issues other than contraception, the angel voiced Rush has faced a backlash of liberal hate that will imperil the American economy by bullying the sponsors of his program to prematurely pull out – thus spilling the seeds of American profit on barren ground.
Oh a rose by any other name smells just as sweet if we dissect it, so will the well intentioned apology. Let’s vivisect that apology before it dies on the highway, another tragic lost teachable moment smacked down by the 18 wheeler of social media and 24 hour news cycle.
“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.”
This is a great opening for an apology. First he lets everybody know he’s been a working man while she’s been sitting in class or learning to shave her legs. Rush works hard for his money. Like all great Americans he built a home in Costa Rica with his American earnings.
I like how he uses the word “illustrated” because drawing works on radio.
Second, he directly addresses the issue with “in this instance”. Make no mistake; he’s not going to apologize for anything else.
Third, he clearly states that he “chose the wrong words” for his analogy.
I’m actually a little proud that Rush recognized his words as ‘analogous’ to the real situation. The problem with analogy is always paradox. Paradox is where people take issue with calling women sluts and prostitutes to convey anxiety over “taxpayers” covering the cost of contraception not covered in a group’s vision of morality for the individual when the “taxpayers” are paying 100% for his free speech to be heard over American Armed Forces Radio. No one is in the mood for sexy time or moral reflection listening to Rush. Paradox is a mean b*tch; that’s no analogy.
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.
An all male clergy testified before Congress. Sandra Fluke spoke before an unofficial Democrat hearing of applauding women, not Congress. Her testimony was not included in the Congressional record and her expenses for such probably not reimbursed by taxpayer funded petty cash. I think here Rush is protecting this poor woman from listening to the gristled tales of sweaty social activity confessions from the clergy. We know how some of those Catholics are.
I agree that we shouldn’t pay for these men to talk to Congress about their bathtub, hand holding adventures in blue pill popping. I think it was very gentlemanly that Rush wants to shield this poor woman away from that sort of blue talk.
What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow?
Again, Rush is right on the mark. Here the untaxed, poverty stricken clergy wants the taxpayer to pay for their little trip to DC (See CRS-11, paragraph 5) and have legal sway to gently convince employees to practice the same faith as their employer, not the faith of the individual. When individuals are viewed as able to make choices of a moral nature, things always go awry. It is because organizations should have primary moral authority over the moral deliberations of the individual. It’s about true freedom of religion people!
I think that Sandra Fluke’s testimony about using contraceptives to diminish ovarian cysts has no role in the discussion and Rush makes that clear. Rush had a pilondinal cyst that kept him out of the military, but birth control wouldn’t fix that.
I’m very concerned the Congressional hearing didn’t even include anybody from the ChristWire fellowship, which according to some internet reports is larger than the Vatican! Where’s our freedom to gently sway?! Who doesn’t love this stuff! We could have taken up a collection!
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.
With these statements, Rush really highlights how far the rabbit hole can go with this argument. Churches try their best to police their own and not tax the judicial system with criminal charges or interjecting a particular religion on others. Shouldn’t they have a say on how they spend their tax free earnings?
One of the best analogies from the clergy’s arguments was of a deli. The ObamaCare contraception legislation is like requiring Jewish deli to serve ham. This raises the question “Why does management have to hire Jewish doctors in a Christian hospital?” Of course the answer to that is so the Jewish doctors can work in the Christian hospital emergency room on Easter and Christmas. Where do we draw the line? What if the individual is a Rastafarian? This woman had no business in that discussion.
I’m glad Rush reassures everyone that what goes on in the bedroom is no one’s business, and I applaud him for implying that the President Who is Not President Bush is reviewing the citizens’ bedroom habits. Who wouldn’t be so engorged with rage they would lash out at someone with poorly chosen words?
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.”
He finishes strong and with a powerful finale.
I think it is important to understand that behind this whole crazy debate are two people with hopes, dreams and feelings. Sure one of them might be a private citizen/student/activist. But one of the parties in this very public discourse is a businessman that has made gazillions speaking to the hearts of America with dignity and listening to them after careful pre-on-air vetting by his staff. It is about free speech and freedom of religion. He’s really just above the fray.
I think his apology was perfect.