It only takes one show for Rush Limbaugh to show what a hypocritical jerk he is.
At the start of the show, Rush makes jokes about reporters in Egypt who have been detained — and typically beaten — by the army:
I mean, even two New York Times reporters were detained. Now, this is supposed to make us feel what, exactly? How we supposed to feel? Are we supposed to feel outrage over it? I don’t feel any outrage over it. Are we supposed to feel anger? I don’t feel any anger over this. Do we feel happy? Well — uh — do we feel kind of going like, “neh-neh-neh-neh”?
But later on, in the very same show, Rush learns that two Fox News reporters have been beaten and are hospitalized in Cairo:
According to Mediaite, Fox News’ Greg Palkot and crew have been severely beaten and are now hospitalized in Cairo. Now we were kidding before about The New York Times, of course. This kind of stuff is terrible. We wouldn’t wish this kind of thing even on reporters.
Hat tip to Bradblog, where you can hear the audio (if you can stand to listen to Rush).
I like to listen to Rush because he reminds me of everything I can’t stand about conservatives. This is a great example of how disproportionate he is with the rhetoric.
In his book “Idiot America”, Charles Pierce presents three premises that apply pretty well to this:
(1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings or otherwise moves units.
(2) Any thing can be true if someone says it loudly enough.
(3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.
Sounds like Limbaugh to me.
Um. Difference between being “detained” and “beaten and hospitalized.”
Why do I find myself defending Rush Limbaugh? You’re beginning to slip, IK.
Poor taste shock jock Limbaugh is. But, I agree with CGE comparing detained to beaten is apples to oranges.
Making fun of people being detained is not in good taste no matter what. Had it been Fox News reports being detained, Rush would not have made the same comments that he made and you know it.
It’s horrible what happened to the Fox News reporters, but how can you defend this jackass?
“Had it been Fox News reports being detained, Rush would not have made the same comments that he made and you know it.”
Hypotheticals do not an argument make.
Sorry, I’m sick and I didn’t make this post very clear. If you read some of the linked articles, you would have noticed that it wasn’t just Fox News employees who were being beaten and harassed. As another article that I had just read previous to this posting made clear, being detained by the police pretty much means being beaten. Definitely other journalists were beaten, and Rush knew that when he made the initial statement. But then changed his tune when he found out that several Fox News employees got the same treatment.
On my previous post, there was a link that included this quote: “Abuse by police has become endemic to the point that no one expects not to be tortured if arrested. And the reasons for arrest can be as simple as not moving quickly enough out of the way of a police officer.”
I think the point was he backtracked. He claimed the previous statement was a joke.
Maybe he’ll claim the whole show is a joke.
It is even more than that. Initially Rush left out the fact that these journalists were being beaten. The difference between being detained and being beaten was being created by Rush, not by any facts. So to spell it out:
1) Journalists are being detained by police and beaten.
2) Rush reports that journalists are being detained, leaves off that they are being beaten, and says that he feels no outrage or anger about it.
3) Rush finds out that Fox News journalists have been detained and beaten.
4) Rush backpedals and claims that he was joking earlier.
I guess when it happens to Fox News “journalists” then it stops being funny.
I am surprised at all of you! Haven’t you learned yet that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”????? 🙂
Where is the proof that Rush realized that being “detained” was essentially the same as being “beaten and hospitalized?”
Not to mention that even in the first linked article, it says:
“Two reporters working for The New York Times were released on Thursday after being detained overnight in Cairo.”
This seems to be what Rush was referring to, and this article says nothing of those specific reporters being physically assaulted.
china, you are confused and over thinking the obvious.
Isn’t this site progressive?
What’s with the gop straw poll doing on this page besides irritating me?
Don’t click on it. I never fill out anything that has been produced by the right. I don’t trust them to either manipulate or flat out discount my vote! And I sure don’t want them to count my email addy as one they can spam.
Mish -progressive? I’m glad there is finally a progressive visiting because I’ve bee wanting to know what that is and what progressives stand for/believe in. Please enlighten me as I am an old school democrat.
Mish, the site has affiliate advertising (is that the correct term?), so key words from the page generate advertising. On political sites, it can be oxymoronic to the page’s tenor.
There may be a difference between being detained and being beaten, but it doesn’t take a sociologist to know that Rush was taking delight in those librul NY Times reporters having issues vs. the good and righteous Fox News reporters’ attack.
Yeah, I use Google AdSense, and particularly on a site that is devoted to irony, some of the ads that they run are pretty darn ironic! But I don’t think of this as a progressive site (unless you consider reality progressive) and I don’t block ads coming from conservative groups (there are a few exceptions to this; for example, I blocked Sarah Palin ads after she ran some particularly annoying ones). But I welcome all viewpoints, as long as they are sincerely held and are not offensive. And it helps if you are willing to defend your beliefs with real evidence!
In particular, as you can see from the comments on this particular post, readers are willing to defend Rush Limbaugh if they don’t think I am being fair to him.
I had no idea there were ads on this site. Ain’t AdBlock great?
And by the way, Mish, when you tell people “Don’t click on it” you aren’t punishing them! When you click on an ad it costs the advertiser money (and pays money to the site).
I guess that means that when I block an ad from someone I don’t like, I’m doing them a favor by saving them money. Or something like that.
But do what you want. I make very little money off the ads (I don’t do this site for the money!)
Mish, perhaps you’d do me the service of explicitly explaining the obvious. Or perhaps you’d do me one more and answer the question that I posed: Where is the proof that:
A. The New York Times reporters to which Rush referred were assaulted.
B. Rush knew this to be the case when he mused about what kind of reaction he was supposed to have about it.
“There may be a difference between being detained and being beaten, but it doesn’t take a sociologist to know that Rush was taking delight in those librul NY Times reporters having issues vs. the good and righteous Fox News reporters’ attack.”
This is a terrible argument. You’re asserting that it was the employ of the journalists in particular that evoked different reactions. To suggest that, you would have to show that the events that took place were equal for both reporters. You’re admitting the difference between being detained and battered; why is it so hard to imagine that even Rush Limbaugh would draw that same distinction?
Look; we all know that Limbaugh is a fat, pompous, hot-air balloon of an ass, and that he’s no doubt biased, prejudiced, and just plain crass.
No one is debating this.
In fact, it’s old news. It’s decades-old news. Trying to catch him in the act of mudding the truth is like shooting fish in a barrel. So why bother to reach? This case in particular is such a stretch, it’s as if you’re actually straining to make it work. There’s no need! All you wind up doing is falling victim to faulty logic. It hurts your position against Limbaugh more than it strengthens it.
Or, because convincing arguments in the real world are not always good ones, if it’s strengthening your case against him, it’s doing so for the wrong reasons. I’d rather be right than winning any day.
@China: You stated about me, “You’re asserting that it was the employ of the journalists in particular that evoked different reactions.” Yes, I was. I’ve heard Limbaugh and the employ of reporters has ALWAYS evoked specific reactions from him.
I have to agree with CGE (especailly #21) on this one. I mean if the quoted *NYT* article only only says their reporters were “detained,” then how can we assume that they were also beaten?
Now, I agree that Limbaugh probably would be upset if the FOX reporters were just detained, and not upset if the NYT reporters were beaten, but this isn’t the quote from him.
It’s easy to put words into Rush’s mouth without actually quoting him because he says the same damn shit every day.
Part of the moral behind the Fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is to not be like the townspeople, either.