Motley Moose – Archive

Here ’tis in full:

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.

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. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? 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.

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.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da…

Now, let’s take his jackweedery point by point.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.

I’m positive that RL here intends to say that he uses absurd statements to illustrate the absurdity of others.  But, in fact, he illustrates his own absurdity with…his absurdity.  The reductio ad absurdum has a long and august history in western rhetoric, one that Rush cowardly hides behind.  He doesn’t reveal absurdity.  He regularly primes the pump of American divisiveness, civic hatred, and primal resentments.  Mr. Limbaugh, I have studied and know the art of the reductio ad absurdum.  You are no reducer to the absurd.

In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

Oops.  How could we have missed your analogy?  You were suggesting that Fluke’s arguments about contraceptives made her into a “slut” and a “prostitute.”  Obviously, given that this argument had nothing to do with sex, you were using derogatory terms for sexually active women to describe her opinions about…taxes?  Or Iran?  Or pancreatic cancer?  Or habeus corpus?  And given that your overindulgence in the absurd led you to demand that she film herself having sex and post it on the internet for your enjoyment was meant to illustrate a principle, we weren’t meant to interpret it as an attack on her person.  Sure.  Fine.  So here’s my clear analogic and non-personal understanding of your attack on Fluke: You are a degraded, malicious, disgusting dirty old man who no one should allow anywhere near human beings of the female sex.  But this isn’t meant personally.  It’s an analogy.  And it’s meant to illustrate your absurdity with absurdity.  But I still cringe when I think of you interacting with any woman without armed supervision.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.

AHA!  I agree.  Yes folks, I agree with Rush Limbaugh.  But then why isn’t he telling his own partisans, the ones who decided that this should be debated right now, to shut up.  I don’t recall anyone on the left suggesting that this is the time to be debating an issue around which there is broad consensus.  Talk to your friends Newt, Rick, Roy, Marco etc.  Then let’s move on to talking about jobs and Iran.

I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

Here we disagree.  I believe in a single-payer, tax funded health care system that covers basic health needs for all Americans.  BUT, that’s not what is being debated here.  What we are debating is whether employers and private insurance companies should be required to offer contraception coverage within their plans, should employees choose to use it.  It has nothing to do with what American citizens pay for directly.  Is this candor in place of your regular feeble attempts at reductio ad absurdum?  If so, it’s not so candid.  In fact, it’s a purposely waved red herring, a classic “bait and switch” maneuver.  

I would like to proffer a follow-up question at this point.  As a self-proclaimed advocate of “personal accountability and responsibility,” why are you so opposed to offering people the means to exercise just those behavioral values in the realm of sex?  Contraception offers health and economic benefits, enables fuller civic participation of sexually active women (as a man on his 4th marriage, I assume that you approve of sexually active women?), and most importantly for your own political constituency, contraception decreases the number of women seeking abortions.  Isn’t availability of contraception important for promoting the exercise of “personal accountability and responsibility”?  

Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?

I think we draw the line through national consensus on what constitutes basic health care needs.  Survey after survey after survey answers this.  They all reveal that a solid majority of Americans include contraception.  No survey suggests that subsidizing sneakers qualifies as a basic health care need.  When you can produce one, I’m happy to debate that issue.  Until then, please leave out your distractio ad absurdum.

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.

Actually, the history of your involvement in our public discourse suggests that you are a bit obsessed with what happens in American bedrooms.  And regardless, if you don’t want this issue to occupy our public debate, why have you contributed to it.  You could have ignored it.  You also could have simply expressed the fact that you don’t think we should be spending time discussing it instead of inflaming it by indulging in a despicable attempt to defame the character of a private citizen who simply tried to offer a counter-perspective to your side’s initiation of this debate.

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.

Yes.  Not the best.  Calling someone a “slut” and a “prostitute” and demanding to watch her engage in intimate sexual activities and calling into question her worthiness of her own parents’ pride is not the best.  Short of wishing her death, something that is far from beyond you based on your history, it was the worst.  But for you, it was also pretty much de rigeur.  So I don’t really accept your sincerity or that of the lawyer who composed your apology for you.  In fact, it’s feebleness and lack of logical force suggests that your lawyer is both insincere and inept and you can probably afford much better.  But if you want to prove me wrong, then there is something you can do.  Since you either don’t want to or cannot refrain from such despicable and risible rhetoric, and as you cannot demonstrate personally accountability and responsibility for your verbal actions, if you indeed regret them it’s time to bid your listeners farewell, urge them to find better sources of entertainment and political engagement, turn off your microphone for good, and retire to enjoy the vast wealth you have acquired through attacks just like the one you have leveled at Sandra Fluke.