Rush apologizes

Rush Limbaugh has apologized for calling Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute for advocating that the Catholic college she attends be forced to provide her with free birth control pills. Here is his statement: 

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.

He explained himself and apologized for his "insulting word choices."  I doubt this will satisfy his critics. 

In 2010 when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "cunt" and a "stupid twat," he too apologized. Here is his apology:

Well, you know, I've been through this so many times. There's a lot of people in America who have, of course, nothing to do except look for something to get mad at. And I've been a frequent target and I'm happy to provide that service. So, you know, I always say, as I've said many times in these kind of situations, if I hurt somebody's feelings, I'm always sorry about that, I'm not trying to hurt somebody's feelings. But if you want me to say I'm sorry what I said was wrong, no, sorry, I can't go there.

Top Stories

How Republicans want to keep poor people under their thumb.

Tennessean columnist Sritha Prabhu and nationally syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts writing in today's Tennessean each try to inflate the contraception controversy into something much bigger than it is. Prabhu says the issue is about how male authority figures control women's lives, destinies, sexuality and reproductive lives. Leonard Pitts says it illustrates how the GOP wants to return the nation to the supposed tranquility of the Beaver Cleaver years.

What? The issue is, should the government force religious institutions to offer insurance plans to their employees that pays for birth control pills. This is a conflict between church and state. This is a question of how far the government should go in forcing one to violate their conscience. However, for simplicities sake, put aside the complicated First Amendment separation of church and state religious argument for a moment to see the absurdity of how the Democrats are framing this issue.

Suppose we were debating a bill that would require all auto insurance companies to cover oil changes. Oil changes are a routine auto maintenance procedure, that if done has to be paid for by someone. If Republicans were opposing requiring that oil changes be provided "free," Democrats would frame the issue this way: "Oil change issue really about controlling poor people."

They would argue that oil changes, if not done routinely, cause cars to not last as long as they otherwise would and poor people as a result have to trade cars earlier than they otherwise would. They would argue that poor people have to pay a greater proportion of their income on oil changes than do middle and upper income people. That is just not fair, they would say.  They would have a poor person testify that he is trying to complete law school but has to change oil in his car every three months and it cost $35 dollars each time. By the time he completes three years of law school he will have spent $420 on oil changes.

Also, they would argue, we have inadequate mass transit in this country and not providing free oil changes denies poor people of mobility. Free oil changes should be a right, they would argue. This oil change issue is really part of a larger picture reflective of how Republicans want to keep poor people under their thumb.

Top Stories