Posted on 10/13/2003 10:36:31 PM PDT by Diddley
Rush Limbaugh and the Grandmother Test
Jim Quinn Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003
Ed Asner is out there bloviatiing about how "we got Limbaugh, and Hannity's next" and how he wants to play the life of the "misunderstood" Joe Stalin. OK, so Uncle Joe did starve 100,000 people to death, but he was a good dancer.
One wonders if we have a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy going on or just the ravings of a delusional old Commie who longs for a return to the days when we could all sit around at the Free Store in Berkley listening to Paul Robeson sing the Soviet International. Time to bring back the black list.
Since all you lefties out there are having such a gosh darn good time reveling in the "misfortune" of Rush Limbaugh, it pains me to tinkle in your punch bowl, but I will none the less. From Newsweek to Michael Moore, the underlying criticism of Limbaugh is that he is a hypocrite. But that charge is intellectually dishonest and here's why.
From the moment a recreational drug user puts the first straw to his nose, the first joint to his lips or the first needle in his arm he KNOWS that what he is doing is illegal.
For whatever reason, he has made a moral choice that his "normal" state is insufficient and needs to be augmented so much so that he is willing to assume the risk of arrest and/or incarceration. And his resulting addiction should come as no surprise. He knowingly operates outside the law from the get-go. This is vastly different from Limbaugh's scenario.
In Rush's case the drugs were legal and prescribed for the management of pain. He had no reason to question his doctor about the propriety of their use. There was no need for him to wrestle with any moral question in the beginning. By the time morality became an issue, the drugs had pinned him to the mat.
Still, he managed twice at least to try to break the hold. What happened to Limbaugh could happen to your grandmother. It HAS happened to grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles.
Limbaugh took a dim view of recreational drug use. He preached against the importers and the dealers and the users. Because of this he is now gleefully proclaimed to be a hypocrite by his perennial detractors and by some fans acting like jilted lovers.
So, let me ask you a question: How do you think Rush's view of the importation, distribution and use of recreational drugs differs from the view held by your grandmother? You know, the one who broke her hip and got strung out on her pain meds. I'd dare say not very much. So, is your grandmother a hypocrite too? Well, is she? If the truth be known, more than a few of those who are pointing fingers at Rush are indulging in the forbidden themselves. They love it when they can point their fingers and say, "See, he does it too." But he really doesn't, and deep down inside you people know it.
So do an extra line for me. Maybe it will help you cope with the uncomfortable truth that your charge of "hypocrite" just doesn't pass the Granny Test.
Jim Quinn hosts the morning drive-time program "Quinn in the Morning with Radio Rose" at Pittsburgh's WRRK-FM.
It is a common human trait to confuse the message with the messenger and so infuse the messenger with the virtue or lack of it, which they perceive to be in the message. Hence, John Wayne was believed to be courageous because of his movie characters. Trial lawyers are perceived to be wicked because of the perceived guilt of their clients, even though the attorney himself might have acquitted himself quite honorably.
On the other hand the message is often highly valued because the messenger is revered. Mao and the Cultural Revolution come to mind.
Is the Gospel of Christ less real if brought to you by Elmer Gantry? Or more valid if you hear it from Mother Theresa?
So, Rush is what he is, a great entertainer, a broadcasting phenomenon who revolutionized the medium, a brilliant satirist, and a popularizer of the conservative cause who reshaped the political landscape. But he is not a moral icon, a man of letters, a great athlete, a success in his personal life, or a role model.
To believe that the validity of the conservative message depends on his moral rectitude is about as smart as buying a Buick because Tiger Woods endorses it, or buying a three wood because he can hit it. Nor should one believe that Rush is necessarily a noble person because he articulates a conservative philosophy. Some people might do well to concede the possibility that in private Al Franken, politics aside, might be far more charming than Rush Limbaugh.
Franken has been quoted as saying that a 12 step program will require Limbaugh to be rigorously honest and this means, if he is to recover from his addiction, that he cannot maintain his political views. This betrays Franken's myopia and illustrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. I know of nothing of Limbaugh's opinions or of his broadcasting modus operandi which suggests that Limbaugh is dishonest. Indeed, the contrary is true because he operates from the record and exposes with satire the absurdity of the liberal posture. He has operates out of conviction while on the air.
I wish Rush well and want his voice back on the radio advancing my cause but I do not believe he can get me to heaven.
For whatever reason, he has made a moral choice that his "normal" state is insufficient and needs to be augmented so much so that he is willing to assume the risk of arrest and/or incarceration. And his resulting addiction should come as no surprise. He knowingly operates outside the law from the get-go. This is vastly different from Limbaugh's scenario.-Jim Quinn
Rush and most people have taken a drink or two. It is a simple fact that drinking alcohol risks addiction. Yes, marijuana use is illegal by comparison and it is a sound moral course to abide by the law. But smoking a joint or two is also something that vast numbers of people do. And they risk addiction by doing it.
We should all appreciate the nuances and know that addicts are broken people at great risk.
At the same time, appreciating the nuances does not require us to stop condemning poor moral practices OR to stop fighting intrusive government.
At the same time, appreciating the nuances does not require us to stop condemning poor moral practices OR to stop fighting intrusive government.
Just shows what a dolt he is. Those like Franken who do not understand and therefore hate conservatism are being marginalized.
Yup. Of course, there should be laws concerning selling to kids.
Diddley
Great tag line.
Can you sing? :-)
The Founders knew that one size does not fit all, hence the 10th Amendment. Many today can't or won't see that. (or, to be fair, see it and disagree in this case)
I have listened to Rush fairly often and have never heard him distinguish "recreational drug use" (whatever that is) from any other kind of illegal drug use. Rush's position has consistently been that the government can rightfully tell people what to do with their bodies even within the confines of their own home, and that illegal usage is illegal usage regardless of the drug or the cirsumstances, and illegal users should be incarcerated.
Thus, while I do not condemn Rush for his drug abuse, it is apparent that he is a first class hypocrite who has hired a high-priced lawyer, ratted on his suppliers, and checked himself into a rehab center in order to avoid taking the bitter medicine he has prescribed for others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.