Posted on 10/15/2003 2:41:50 PM PDT by ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush's drug use no joking matter Joe Conason - The New York Observer 10.15.03 - As a man with firm and simple opinions about almost everything, America's most successful radio personality told his listeners years ago what society should do about unfortunate people like Rush Limbaugh: send them to prison. Back in 1995, arguing against liberal leniency toward dope fiends, Mr. Limbaugh endorsed the boilerplate ideology and draconian methods of the drug war with baritone bombast. "Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country," he intoned. "And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Displaying characteristic conservative empathy, he dismissed data showing that blacks are punished more predictably and more severely than whites for similar narcotics offenses. Such statistics are meaningless, he said; all those studies prove is that "too many whites are getting away with drug use." According to him, the proper solution is not to treat addiction among all ethnic groups as a disease rather than a crime, but to arrest more white offenders -- and, of course, to "convict them and send them up the river, too." Eight years later, Mr. Limbaugh's "talent on loan from God" has suddenly collided with instant karma. If the story that his former housekeeper told (or sold) to the National Enquirer is true, then by his own standards El Rushbo himself should be headed "up the river" for a spell. His admitted abuse of Oxycontin, a federally controlled opiate used by millions of patients for the relief of disabling pain, was plainly illegal, as were his alleged purchases of thousands of the little "blue babies." Luckily for him, however, criminal prosecution is unlikely, despite the e-mails, voice messages and other evidence his dealer reportedly kept. To be indicted and convicted of drug offenses, he would have to be caught in red-handed possession of his stash. And the credibility of his accusers in court would be nil -- not only because they sold their tale to the tabloid, but also because of their own obvious criminal liability. Legal experts in Florida agree that Mr. Limbaugh's high-priced Miami attorney, Roy Black (best known for defending William Kennedy Smith and Marv Albert), has little reason to worry that his celebrity client will do time. So whatever punishment Mr. Limbaugh must endure will be handed down in the court of public opinion. He enjoys the support of millions of character witnesses, including prominent fellow hypocrites such as his close friends William Bennett and Newt Gingrich. But they would all be hard-pressed to describe the mighty radio mouth as someone who has earned great sympathy. This is, after all, a man who earned millions by lampooning the plight of AIDS victims, spreading rumors that implicated Hillary Clinton in murder and Bill Clinton in cocaine abuse, and mocking the physical appearance of their young child. His brilliant career was founded on daily "entertainment" of this quality. Mr. Limbaugh specialized in legitimizing the denigration of the least fortunate. "The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples," he complained. "And I'm sick and tired of playing the one phony game I've had to play, and that is this so-called compassion for the poor. I don't have compassion for the poor." Not even a hungry child or an unemployed father or an ill elderly woman was deemed by the great conservative guru to be deserving of his sympathy. With that grim record, Mr. Limbaugh now presents a real challenge to liberal compassion. Rather than the cruel "joking" he might well have inflicted on an opponent in his situation, that challenge should be met with sincere wishes for his recovery and rehabilitation. But what would rehabilitation mean? In the statement he released last week, Mr. Limbaugh said his addiction had grown from a prescription of pain medication. By proffering that explanation, he only demonized effective medicines that rarely cause problems for the millions who badly need effective opiates to relieve disabling agony. Both he and the nation would be better off if he resolved instead to deal with the real problems that afflict him. According to his biographers, Mr. Limbaugh has always been a terribly insecure and often lonely man. His chronic projection of rage against women, gays, blacks, liberals, Democrats and others is a symptom. Addiction is a psychiatric diagnosis, which most often occurs in people who medicate themselves to relieve psychic pain. His repeated failures to conquer his drug dependency suggest that he has yet to obtain the kind of therapy he needs. While he examines his issues in seclusion over the next month or so, he might also ponder the social injustices of the drug war. Wealthy and well-connected junkies like Mr. Limbaugh get treatment and prayers; poor and obscure junkies get prison and scorn. Even a dittohead should be able to understand why that is wrong.
COPYRIGHT (c) 2003 THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
|
|
I believe the correct term for left wing drivel is "yada, yada, yada."
I loved this!
Perhaps you can find something pro-Rush that would make it more "fair and balanced".(please do not sue me FOX)
Moe, Larry, and Shemp. Starring in Do as I say, not as I Doo Doo.
[...] If the story that his former housekeeper told (or sold) to the National Enquirer is true, then by his own standards El Rushbo himself should be headed "up the river" for a spell.
Absolutely correct.
"There's nothing good about drug use, We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
Rush Limbaugh 1995
"If(Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993
"By legalizing drugs, all you're going to do is define further deviancy downward. We have a duty to pass on values to our descendants, values that will maintain the standards of behavior and ensure the survivability of the American way of life. And drugs are no different. You end up destroying more than yourself."
-- Rush Limbaugh Playboy interview, December 1993
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995
"'When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks."
-Rush Limbaugh after the death of Jerry Garcia
That last little doozy about Garcia is quite entertaining.
That may be, but Rush's drug use (if indeed he illegally purchased drugs) is providing Conason and every other liberal with a marvelous case of schadenfreude. Rush's hypocrisy has handed them their pleasure on a silver platter.
If Rush had not been so supportive of the Drug War, he wouldn't have to worry about Conason digging up his past words and throwing them back at him. (After all, that's the kind of thing Rush does to liberals all the time.) Now Rush will just have to endure the consequences and take his lumps.
| FREE RUSH! |
I guess even a leftist can tell the truth once in a while.
Shouldn't he be charged first? Then arrested? Then tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers? Then convicted? Then actually sentenced "up the river"?
Or should we skip that, and if the "story that his former housekeeper told (or sold) to the National Enquirer is true", just head up that river?
Boy, for someone who decried the "injustice" against the Tulia drug dealers, you're coming across as pretty darn hypocritical.
'If the story that his former housekeeper told (or sold) to the National Enquirer is true, then by his own standards El Rushbo himself should be headed "up the river" for a spell.'
Shouldn't he be charged first? Then arrested? Then tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers? Then convicted?
Of course.
I thought you were against that? Or are you just selective in your criticism?
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.