Rush Limbaugh flared up in the news this weekend. Despite the dead-news-time scheduling of the announcement of the plea bargain letting him off the doctor-shopping charge in Florida, the second-string weekend editors of the mass media managed find the story on the wires and to trot out file footage detailing the drug consumption crimes.
The reportorial tone was that of mentioning a done deal: a footnote to last year’s news.
Limbaugh’s light escape from the criminal justice system put me in the same conflicting muddle I felt when death penalty opponents were arguing for clemency for Tookie Williams.
I am in favor of diverting drug users like Limbaugh away from the jail and punishment. Get them get help.
I am generally against capital punishment. Keep inmates like Tookie in prison, isolated from society, for the rest of their life. Let them reflect.
Yet both of these men refused to own up to what they did that got them into trouble. It was difficult for me to feel that Tookie deserved special treatment when he refused to admit to his murders. Now it’s difficult for me to maintain a principled defense of diversion programs when the addict refuses to say he needs help.
Limbaugh’s lawyers are out proclaiming that Rush didn’t do it. They just settled the case because it was time to move on. Yeah. Right.
Unrepentant Rush can stay on the air, spewing intolerance, denying he is also a flawed human. He can do this while benefiting from a soft, lefty social program that allows drug scum to avoid the jail time they so richly deserve.
Rush’s avoidance of punishment really doesn’t bother me. It’s his avoidance of responsibility that disturbs.
As much as I dislike Limbaugh, I do feel the whole thing was blown out of proportion by the media and his political foes. It much reminds me of what he himself did to Clinton, Limbaugh being the media.
What both men did was between them and whomever it impacted. Neither was, in my mind, any business of the public, the media just pulled it out there. To say what Clinton did was a big deal or what Limbaugh did was a big deal is to accept the media or political foe’s stance that it was a big deal. It wasn’t. If anything illegal was done by either party it should have been handled as it would have for any other private party, with discretion.
For a middle aged man to get a blow job from an intern who apparently did it willingly, no biggie. For a middle aged man to get addicted to pain killers and do some stupid things to get them, no biggie either.
All humans are flawed. People do dumb things. I guess I only really care about crimes with victims. Maybe that’s my flaw.
I am not big on prosecuting people for what they do to themselves. But Rush’s double-standard double-talk gets me confused.
My live-and-let-live standard gets challenged by a feeling of fundamental unfairness.
For several years (dating back to roughly the start of the dotcom boom, although I can’t claim a specific connection between the two), there’s been a general trend in American society towards denying and/or avoiding personal responsibility.
I believe this trend is manifesting itself in many small ways.
– Increasing numbers of “stooopid” lawsuits (along the lines of the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Drive Through Woman, only stupider … like the lawsuit against McDonald’s for making people fat).
– Disturbing driving habits – such as people swooping across three lanes of traffic because they’re unwilling to miss an exit they haven’t been paying attention to. (How much safer would the roads be if such drivers accepted responsibility for missing their exit, and safely proceeded to the following exit, turned around, and drove back to their missed exit?)
– Denial of bad behavior by celebrities (throwing phones at concierges, hitting people, abusive behavior when traveling by air, etc.).
– Complaining about gas prices while driving an SUV.
There are other examples, but I think these are sufficient for now.
I believe Rush Limbaugh’s avoidance of punishment is yet another symptom of this denial-of-responsibility trend. Morally and ethically, I believe he should have voluntarily left the airwaves once he was convicted of abusing drugs. Obviously, this isn’t the case.
Increasing numbers of “stooopid” lawsuits (along the lines of the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Drive Through Woman, only stupider … like the lawsuit against McDonald’s for making people fat).
I’m all for limiting lame lawsuits, but I actually like the McCoffee lawsuit. The coffee gave her 3rd degree burns, she had skin grafts, initially tried to settle for just the medical expenses, got told to fuck off by McDonalds, it was adjusted down in appeal, and ultimately settled out-of-court.
I don’t care if she was a nitwit for spilling coffee on herself. If you’re serving coffee that requires skin grafts, there’s something wrong.
On the other hand … she took a cup of fresh, hot coffee and put it BETWEEN HER LEGS while she was driving.
This doesn’t excuse McDonald’s’ lack of reponse … but she’s responsible for putting hot coffee next to her ‘nads.