Remind me: why is Rush Limbaugh still employed?
Warning: some of those links NSFW. Or for thinking, caring people.
-
About Bad Astronomy
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science.
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Science Getaways
Subscribe to BA
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
- A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
- Animal Friendships: My cover story for Time magazine
- The Future of E-books–podcast of my interview on Wisconsin Public Radio
- Thursday, February 16: Science and social media panel in New York
- A Scientific Jonah: My profile of Joy Reidenberg in tomorrow’s New York Times
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
October 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh is still employed because he brings in ratings?
I don’t quite think someone should be fired for his (stupid) opinion anyway.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Ratings probably why he is still employed.
Now as to WHY people listen to him is another reason.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
uh, because of the first amendment?
Actually, he’s self-employed and he ain’t gonna fire himself!!!!!
The news site quoted above…it looks to me like he’s (Rush that is) stating what he thought when he watched MJ Fox on TV. What he thought might have been baloney, but I certainly stand for his right to say it! He probably has a wide audience because he says what he believes, not what he thinks people want to hear–even people who disagree with him more often than not will have respect for him for that!
so I guess the REAL reason he’s still employed is 20-something million people want to hear what he has to say and that is money for his advertisers.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
His disease is tragic and painful to see, but it doesn’t make everything Fox says beyond reproach. Phil, Rush used his medium to express his opinion just as you have expressed yours.
One difference is Rush’s program is almost always about politics, not astronomy.
A second difference is that you strongly discourage anyone else on your forum from discussing politics or religion – but I guess you’ve now changed that rule for everyone, right? Yeah, right.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Rush is self-employed?
Well then, MJF ought to sue the guy for slander.
That, or someone ought to explain WHY he looked the way he did in the ad.
If I interpret it correctly, its from side effects of the drugs, yes?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think Rush Limbaugh is making a great contribution to the democratic effort to win back congres. I mean, who wants to be associated with his lot? In the blogosphere it is already backfiring.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
What disturbs me is that 20 million people enjoy listening to his ill-informed hatred.
Stem cells research shouldn’t be a right-wing/ left-wing issue (e.g. look at Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenegger’s honorable stand on stem cell research). It’s a ‘wedge’ issue designed to further split the country along culture-war lines and to attract the votes of the Christian right.
Meanwhile people are dying- and research that could potentially alleviate the suffering of thousands is being slowed down or stopped in the name of politics.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
AtomicAmish, you are wrong on many levels. This blog has my opinion, but it’s an informed one. Rush just says whatever stupidity he wants to. In this case, it was insulting, demeaning, disgusting, and in many ways a lie: he’ll say whatever it takes to slur what he considers liberals.
Second, I never said Michael J. Fox was beyond approach. I said (well, implied, but I’m saying it now) that Rush Limbaugh is disgusting. The links I posted make it clear that Fox is not doing any of the horrid things Limbaugh accused him of.
Third, this ain’t the BAUT. Check out the URL. It’s badastronomy.com, and so I can post about politics, religion, or anything I want.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
On the other hand, blaming the right wing for sharing some opinions with Rush is like blaming Christians for having the same religion as Fred Phelps.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Some people think that what Mr. Fox is advocating is murder, and when a person goes on TV advocating murder for profit I imagine that would garner some pretty strong words from people who feel that way. I don’t think so, but I can certainly see where people come from on this. The stem cell issue is an opinion, regardless of however right any of you think you are as scientifically minded people you have to accept the possibility that your belief (your “faith” as Mr. Platt so thoughfully used when using a straw man arguement against the pope a few posts back) is just plain wrong. If we asked Rush about this (and ive heard him say stuff like this before) i’m sure he would say that the moment Fox appeared on television expressing his opinion he was putting himself out as a target for whatever attacks may come.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Jesus Phil, stay on topic. You liberals sure are thin skinned.
Get over it.
Hal..
October 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
If Rush wanted to attack Fox’s position on stem cell research, then that’s fair game (however much I might disagree with Limbaugh). But to call him a liar (when Rush obviously has no medical training) is just plain *wrong* and childish. Honestly, I can’t understand why *anyone* would want to listen to this guy.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Limbaugh (and his ilk) are “employed” because of what I describe as damaged thinking processes in way too many people. And I’m not judging, I’m just saying.
We get people like W in the White House, people like Limbaugh as popular radio personalities, etc. because way too many people lack any decent level of critical thinking skills.
Of course, teaching these sorts of skills in schools leads to students who question and challenge the status quo. Dangerous stuff.
Now pardon me, I have to get back to the latest Fox News story on Paris Hilton…
October 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Stem cell research isn’t murder. That’s a straw man argument. If the people attacking stem cell research really were against it — or knew what they were talking about — they would be against in vitro fertilization, because that’s where the embryos come from. Ones that do not “take” are discarded, dumped down a drain. Stem cell research would use those otherwise discarded cells.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Phil, it doesn’t matter if this is BAUT or not. Yes, you can post what you want here; that’s what I expected you to say. Rush would say the same about his show, and you both would be right. Your opinion is informed on astronomy, but on every other subject it’s as uninformed as anyone else’s. The bill of rights applies to everyone. Richard Feynman had his head on straight about the value of scientists’ opinions on non-science matters like politics. If you don’t know what he said about that, it would be worth your time to look it up.
The first amendment includes the right to speak on subjects whether you or someone else considers you to be informed about it or not. It includes the right to be disgusting in someone else’s opinion.
I didn’t hear or read Rush’s statements, but I have seen Fox’s video that was on Drudge yesterday. I haven’t heard or read any other commentary on it, but I don’t know what is surprising to anyone about it. Hollywood in general is very liberal and pushes for the Democrats so, if anything, I would be surprised to see that Fox was not the same to some degree.
One big misunderstanding about this is that the Federal government is banning research – they are not. They are stopping Federal funding of research.
There are many, many sites to visit for political commentary. Yours has been one I’ve visited where I don’t see politics, and that’s been positive.
Your post today was about as interesting as Rush’s radio program on astronomy would be.
BTW, I did check out the URL – that’s why I expected to see something about astronomy.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again– I am an astronomer, but also a human, a skeptic, a humorist, a writer, a husband, a father, and a concerned voter. This is my blog and I’ll write what I want. Entries are listed by category, so if you want astronomy, only read those. If you don’t like what I’m writing, there are plenty of other blogs out there. I even have some conveniently listed in my blogroll.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
It’s depressing, but it’s sadly true that Rush remains on the air because millions of Americans think (and I do use the term loosely) the way he does, and are comforted by the notion that someone in the media reinforces their largely ignorant biases. It’s just the kind of validation that some people need to get through the day.
The ethical dilemma of stem cell research is one that is discussed seriously among thoughtful people on both sides of the fence. To me, the facts are simply these: that thousands (400,000 by some estimate) of human embryos are currently in storage, largely as the result of in-vitro feritlization treatments at fertility clinics. I think that if we’ve already reached a decision about the ethics surrounding the creation of sixteen or more embryos as part of a fertilization procedure for couples, it doesn’t seem sensible to deny a meaningful use for these otherwise discarded embryos.
Rgarding Fox’s message, I would claim that it’s kind of pathetic that people who are afflicted with terrible diseases need to be trotted out and put under the media spotlight for people to pay attention. I find it sad that we take the affliction of celebrities to be somehow more worthy of our attention than the afflictions of your average Joe on the street, but that is apparently what it takes to get people to consider the implications of their ideas.
If you’ve had the opportunity to know anyone with Parkinson’s, you’d know that it’s not a cake walk. What Rush is ultimately saying in all this is that if you’ve got Parksinson’s, you should suck it up. It’s not that bad. You don’t need help. You’re probably exaggerating your condition to get sympathy.
Do we really need to explain why that is not only wrong, but monstrous?
October 24th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Phil, I’ll find those other sites on my own.
That was easy.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
What I find interesting is that it’s not clearly -to me- relevant if Fox was/wasn’t on his meds. Let’s suppose hypothetically that he wasn’t taking his pills, even for the purpose of exposition. All ths means is that he showed off what Parkinson’s does to a person.
And of course, it’s been pointed out that Fox’s specific behavior in the ad is a side-effect of actually taking his meds. If that’s what the treatment does for the patient, I’d hate to see what he looks like without it. Limbaugh quite reliably demonstrates his disinterest in fairness on a daily basis.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Just one more thing, try watching this interview with Fox, and comparing it to the tenor and content of Limbaugh’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkA1aN1osVk
October 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
B.A, a lot of these people who oppose hESC research *are* opposed to in vitro fertilization. They honestly believe life begins at conception (not an unreasonable position since the zygote is alive, after all), and that the deliberate destruction of a human life is murder. These are the same people who oppose abortion. They’ve gotten organized over hESC because farming embryos for pharmaceutical-like treatments will be a huge business and result in, to this mindset, institutionalized genocide.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Rush is popular because, for many people, the facts don’t matter. Only loud ranting does.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I can understand that people opposed to stem cell research may feel that making the emotional appeal by showing the suffering of a patient is a form of rethoric. The fact that they can’t say that without being crucified by the people on the moral high ground just makes matters worse. However, it is not just rethoric: when the disease is as horrible as Parkinson’s it is good to see a patient, in order to put things into perspective.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Limbaugh hit below the belt. He was accusing Fox of exaggerating and exploiting his condition for political purposes, and was called on it, and had to apologize. Basically he pulled an Ann Coulter, and paid for it.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Rush Limbaugh is like the Jerry Springer of political punditry. When someone tells me they listen to him, and LIKE him, I seriously question their taste, and perhaps, acumen. I can’t help it–it’s how he says things and I’d feel the same way about a liberal equivalent. He’s also a major hypocrite. I think it’s a sad reflection on our society that Limbaugh is so popular, along with the other high-ratings bloviators like O’Reilly et al.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I can’t think of anything more disgusting than accusing (without any evidence whatsoever) a person diagnosed with Parkinson’s of faking his symptoms.
I don’t think the BA is taking a left-wing/right-wing side here (though it’s his right to do so if he chooses). The BA (in so many words) simply pointed out that Limbaugh is a rat who has lied about another’s medical condition for partisan reasons.
Again. You don’t have to be left-wing to find Limbaugh disgusting- you just have to be a somewhat decent human being.
I think that part of the reason I read the BABlog is because of the simple human decency of the BA. This comes across in his missions to explain difficult science to non-specialists. It also comes across in his more ‘political’ posts in which he has criticized the outstanding scientific ignorance of people in the media and politics when it comes to the intersection of science and public policy.
I recall reading a moving post from the BA on the stupidity of those who wish to withhold rights from homosexuals. I remember cheering him then and I cheer him now.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
M.A.DeLuca said:
Can anyone recommend a good Astronomy blog, by the way?
If you need an astronomy fix, you can read the board attached to this site where people are constantly posting astronomy and space related articles. You can also read Fraser’s constant updates at Universe Today where the comments are attached to BAUT for discussion. You could also read all the bitesize astronomy Phil has in pantry (links on the right side) if you still want some more. When Phil started this blog a year or so ago (maybe not quite), I thought it would be where he would discuss things he wouldn’t discuss on BAUT–every post was not about astronomy and still isn’t. I don’t understand why some people are complaining about this. I would think it would be redundant if he posted all the astronomy stuff that’s updated faster on BAUT and Universe Today. Blogs are about the blogger’s views and opinions.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
M. A. DeLuca:
Yes, it is scientifically unreasonable to suppose that an embryo smaller than a thumbnail has anything like the same degree of consciousness and awareness as an adult human being.
Really, the only people who debate this are doing so from a religious perspective- egged on by a section of the Republican party who cynically wish to drive a wedge between us.
I don’t particularly care if adults want to base their world-view on the pre-medieval and unscientific concept of nebulous spirits are souls that are said to reside in human foetuses (but not- for instance-in cow embryos). However, I do get upset when these people attempt to inhibit scientific research which has the potential for alleviating human suffering.
I also get upset when these people start to make outright lies about another’s medical condition- because they would rather adhere to their prescientific beliefs than confront the reality of MJF’s suffering.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
According to this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell
“Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo – approximately 4 to 5 days old in humans – consisting of 50-150 cells.”
Can anyone tell me (using arguments not derived from religion) how it is possible that a 100 cell blastocyst (that was created for in-vitro fertilization treatments and is to be destroyed anyway) should have a greater ‘right to life’ than a human who suffers from Parkinson’s?
October 24th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
If Rush wants to argue that (a) Fox shouldn’t be parlaying his celebrity status to influence politics (without being hypocritical – Rush, I mean) or (b) yes, Fox is extremely ill but the “cure” is immoral – then that’s one thing. But when Rush accuses Fox of “acting” – i.e., lying – that’s another. You don’t have to agree with either position on stem cells to see that, I would think.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Christian Burnham
is your mind so closed that you cannot fathom that life is a tad more complicated than the number of cells one has? you imply that there is demarcation where nothing exists and suddenly conscienceness spontaneously ignites. i can see no evidnece of such nonsense.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I heard Limbaugh’s comments the first time he made them and they at first made we wince as well. Yes, I listen to Rush here and there, so feel free to ignore me now, I AM a troglodyte.
He is first and foremost a showman, and no press is bad press, for a showman.
I think he was implying that Mr. Fox going off his meds was tatamount to past instances of the lame and disfigured at the gate showing off their deformaties for greater sympathy and a larger charity donation from passerby’s.
If stem cell research is to be debated on its scientific merit, do we need someone elected because they happened to have gotten the greatest handicapped individual to ‘pitch’ his infirmity to the masses?
That doesn’t sound very scientific.
At least that it what I attributed to his comments, perhaps I was reading too much into them.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
No need to apologize or explain. If someone doesn’t like your pontificating on a political topic, no one is forcing him to read it. At least that’s what I say on my own blog.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Scott, are you saying that a five-day-old embryo feels pain and has consciousness? (There is zero evidence of such a thing). If not, then you must agree that there must be a point later in the embryo’s development where consciousness starts to develop. But nothing is spontaneous – it’s all part of the normal developmental process of an embryo.
Most people do not realize that it is estimated that around 80% of all successful conceptions end in spontaneous abortions — most do not make it past implantation. Think about it. For every one live birth there are up to four more “lives” that do not make it that far. Yet I’ve never heard of anyone who believes that life should be protected immediately after conception expressing concern over that “holocast” that dwarfs anything human beings are directly responsible for.
In any case, embryonic stem cell research is here to stay (unless it proves futile which, in the long term, is unlikely). As the BA mentioned, few people are against IVF treatments today and politicians know opposing IVF is a surefire political loser. It was not always the case, and I believe the same will happen for ESCR. As soon as the first lifesaving cure for someone’s child is developed, the hue and cry will all but cease.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Scott
If you want to call a 4-day old embryo alive then that’s fine. But don’t tell me it’s any more alive than a 4-day old sheep embryo- and definitely less conscious than an adult sheep (for example).
The ONLY reason that people are against embryonic stem cell research is because of their personal religious convictions and prescientific ideas of souls inhabiting a clump of cells.
I’m all for freedom of religion- but don’t use it to deny other people rights.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
AtomicAmish, once again you are wrong.
For one thing, you say my opinion is as uninformed as anyone else’s. You don’t know this, and in fact you’re wrong. It can’t possibly be as uninformed as Limbaugh’s. And I try to do my research before I form an opinion. Limbaugh’s opinion, if he’s giving it truthfully and not just being a loudmouth to get ratings (cough cough Ann Coulter cough cough), is formed solely from preconceived ideology. In his case, research is not only not required, but seemingly contrary to his goals.
Second, it doesn’t matter much what Feynman said. Scientist or not, I have political opinions based on the information I have, and I do try to get as much information as I can. Just because I am a scientist doesn’t preclude that I can, in fact, develop an informed opinion. I understand it doesn’t mean I have the corner on the truth… but as a rationalist and a critical thinker, I can do pretty well on fencing it in.
Third, when did this become a Bill of Rights issue? When did I say he doesn’t have the right to say what he does? I was questioning why he’s still employed. Greaseman made a horribly racial comment a few years back and was canned from his radio station. It’s happened to others as well. A DJ represents the station. If they say something vile it reflects on the station (or channel or network) itself. For that reason, he should be canned. It’s obvious he won’t be; his job is more or less the same as Ann Coulter’s: inflame and incite. That sells.
But it’s truly awful, and lowers us all as human beings.
If you don’t like this post, there’s not much I can do about it. I will continue to write what I see fit. I’ve already blogged about this.
And finally, again, when I talked about the URL here, I was distinguishing it from BAUT, where religion and politics are not allowed. This is not the bulletin board.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
I’ve noticed something. Many people who actually listen to and believe Rush Limbaugh tend to refer to him by his first name, saying things like “Rush says” or “Rush’s statements”. Why is that? Typically when a media personality is quoted or referred to, it is by their full name or last name only. Does “Rush” really instill such a sense of trust and familiarity? If so, how does he do this? Is it by having an impeccable record as a purveyor of truth and objectivity? Is it his enormous, soft, marshmallow-like appearance that instill in his followers a level of affection usually reserved for one’s closest fraternity brother or favority dog?
It seems to me everything “Rush” says and the way he says it are meant to foster in his listeners an Us vs. Them mentality. He lumps everyone he disagrees with into one big group and lables them as the enemy. As we know, it goes against instinct to stop and consider the validity of your enemy’s arguments or question the integrity of your glorious leader’s statements. He keeps it all very simple so that his followers are never distracted by the gray areas, which are inconsistent with the black and white worldview he proposes. Then he makes jokes and jibes about the enemy so all his followers can laugh at them together, a true bonding experience. I’ve witnessed it many times on school playgrounds.
I think “Rush” is a brilliant businessman but a reprehensible human being. I actually think he is probably too intelligent to buy into most of what he preaches, but boy does he know how to keep an audience enthralled. This quality is called charisma and most of the world’s successful leaders and personalities have had it. One of our responsibilities as citizens and human beings is to recognize when charisma is being used to exploit us and try to turn us into senseless drones instead of the rational, thoughtful creatures we can and should be.
This does not apply to Ann Coulter, however. She’s just a mean hag.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
A nurse’s 2 cents: Limbaugh is a jerk but his comment about MJF were particularly disgusting, even for Limbaugh.
The message Limbaugh sent with his comment that Fox was off his meds to garner sympathy implied the false claim that people with Parkinson’s are OK as long as they take their meds and don’t need any potential “cure” from stem cell research.
The truth is Parkinson’s patients eventually quit responding to the meds.
And as far as the nonsense every embryo is a human being, tell me then, would those making that claim enter a burning building to save some frozen embryos? Would they carry out a cannister with thousands of embryos from a burning building or a single baby if they could only save one? Would someone who claims to believe embryos are human beings even try to lug them out of a building in a fire? Would you leave a baby behind?
An embryo is only a human being in the fantasy scenario of a person’s belief system. When you challenge those beliefs with questions such as in the burning building dilemma, you expose the fallacy in such a belief. If the embryo is a human being then it should be equal to a human being in a burning building, but it is not equal. And if it isn’t equal in a burning building, then claiming an embryo is a human being is a fantasy belief.
Stem cell research is going to go on whether or not any American tax dollars pay for it or any American laws outlaw it. There is no moral debate. There is a fantasy belief by a bunch of people who, while they may think they are well meaning, are in fact just delaying the potential benefits all of us might reap from this science.
To those who believe the fantasy, if you wouldn’t risk your life to save a cannister of embryos from a burning building, or you wouldn’t loan out your uterus to stop some of the thousands of embryos from being discarded since they can’t be stored forever, then get over that fantasy. Find another cause to occupy your time. There are a lot of real human beings out there that really do need protection. May I suggest you try anti-war activism for instance?
October 24th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Gag, another uncorrectable typo, comments (plural) were.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Just a side comment/question to anyone who claims “life begins at fertilization.” That statement is pure moonshine. There are several stages to fertilization (look it up). Where is the magic moment during fertilization when “life” begins?
Answer: there isn’t one; it’s a process.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Another point on the beginning of human life: Many people use the fact that there’s no prominent dividing line between consciousness and pre-consciousness in development to then claim the difference doesn’t actually exist. They then use this to push back the boundary to where there actually is a clear dividing line: the moment of conception.
The problem is that this using the False Continuum logical fallacy. Just because there’s no clear dividing line doesn’t mean there’s no difference. Take black and white, for instance. They’re obviously different, but fill in all the shades of grey between them and you’ve formed a continuum. There’s no dividing line between black and grey or grey and white, so black is grey and grey is white and black is white. You see the problem.
In my opinion, we should err on the side of caution with our distinction of when consciousness starts. I think we should put the line right at the point where the brain begins developing. Consciousness can’t begin earlier than that, and probably not until quite a bti afterwards, and it still leaves us a fair amount of room for abortions and productive uses of the fetus.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Rush Limbaugh has extremly high ratings and people love listening to him. I love listening to him. If you people don’t like it then just don’t listen. You can choose to ignore him if you want.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:42 am
What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and The Hindenburg?
One is a flaming Nazi gasbag whereas the other was a German Airship.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Confuddled:
I think you’ll find that most of the people who dislike Rush on this board don’t listen to him. Unfortunately, we can’t ignore him- or more precisely- we can no longer ignore the effect he has on his audience.
The fact that he has extremely high ratings doesn’t make him credible- it just makes him more dangerous.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:44 am
“Where is the magic moment during fertilization when “life†begins? ”
I figured it was when cell division begins. But that’s well after fertilization, is it not?
October 25th, 2006 at 5:49 am
Life began about 3 billion years ago when the first true cell split. That’s all. No more new life since.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Some people seem to not understand what the first amendment is about. It’s so that the *government* can’t prevent you from expressing your opinion. Hate mongers can shout all they want, it doesn’t mean a company is legally obligated to employ them. Spew his brand of hate at someone with a disability at your place of employment and see what happens to you.
But yeah, there’s enough fools listening to him that he’ll still be spouting his ignorant venom for years to come
October 25th, 2006 at 7:13 am
1. I don’t believe in abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical complications that will result in the death of the mother and baby. However, that being said, I do think that stem cell research holds a great deal of promise. Especially since the intention is to use fetuses that won’t become viable, anyway.
2. It’s Phil’s blog. He can post whatever he likes. If you don’t agree with it, either pick and choose the ones you read, or stay away. If nothing else, you get to express your opinions in the comment threads, and you can see what everyone else thinks.
3. I think Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have all the mass it appears he does, because of the hot air he contains. Which would explain his bloated appearance. If someone stuck a needle in him he’d look Ric Ocasek, of The Cars. What Mr. Limbaugh said about MJ Fox was as bad as George Clooney’s comment about Charleton Heston. Rush does have the right to speak his mind. However, when he doesn’t have his facts straight, he needs to apologize and correct it. Just like everyone else.
AtomicAmish, you are correct in thinking no one is beyond reproach. However, MJ Fox was campaigning for something he believes in, and not acting in any way. Rush was simply doing a character attack on Fox, because they had a differing point of view, and belittling the devastating effects of a major disease (not to mention its cure) in the process. And as far as Phil’s blogs, I’ve seen several that dealt with religion and politics. It’s a BLOG! If you want to deal with Astronomy, leave the blog and go to http://www.badastronomy.com/intro.html or somewhere else. That may offend your sensibilities a little less, although you said yourself that you have the right to be disgusted.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Mr. Limbaugh gets paid to mouth off. BA gets paid to do what he does. People should spend less time criticizing others and more time working together.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I concur with what Merovingian says above, although I shudder at the thought of having to share any given somewhat close space (say, one of the smaller New England states) with a Limbaugh fan. It has always seemed to me that he appeals to the worst in people — though I reluctantly concede that what I consider to be “worst” is someone else’s “best.” To some, a combination of greed, splenetic uninformed speech and crude sarcasm is appealing: folks smile, cluck their tongues and say “I LIKE him! He’s feisty.” Or something.
If I recall correctly, Limbaugh once described advocates of light pollution control as a bunch of nuts. I defend his right to say so, as I will defend my right to term him a drug-addled, befuddled, rancid sack of uneducated guts.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Is Rush Limbaugh bound by FCC rules? If so, does Limbaugh’s slander rise to the level of something that would give concerned citizens reason to file a complaint with the FCC? For that matter, do concerned citizens NEED a reason to complain to the FCC?
October 25th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Scott: Either the “soul” is immortal, existing independently of a body, in which case destruction of a POTENTIAL organic structure is inconsequential, or there is no such thing as a soul and therefore the potential body is still inconsequential. Either way, the organic structure is just that, an organic machine, nothing more or less.
MJF has Parkinsons disease, in which the dopamine receptor cells in the motor control cortex of the brain are dying and are incapable of controlling the muscles, so that random muscle tremors occur. MJF still maintains SOME control thru the use of drugs, but the neurons continue to die, making the disease a progressive degeneration. Only by replacing the cells and correcting the underlying degenrative process can he be “cured” and the only way we are likely to understand the process is by sacrificing some organic machinary.
Gary 7
October 25th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Dear human, a skeptic, a humorist, a writer, a husband, a father, and a concerned voter. I suspect you have neither listened to, nor heard, Limbaugh for more that 5 minutes any any one time; he does have things to say that are reasonable to many. When you begin to roam outside your field of expertise in science your trip over your ego and fall on you liberal face… a sad thing to see for an otherwise thinking man. Please don’t challenge us….you can be gone in a click!
October 25th, 2006 at 9:20 am
I find the opposition to embryonic stem cell research by the f****** born agains to be laughable. These are the same clowns that yelled long and loudly about the Terri Schiavo case stating that she should be kept alive artifically in the hope that a cure for her condition might be found. In fact, embryonic stem cell research is the best candidate known so far that has the potential to regrow dead brain cells, which is the only treatment which could have alleviated her condition.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Veritas:
What makes you think I’m human?
( as in,,,merely,,,)
Gary 7
October 25th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Gary, I take exception with this: “the organic structure is just that, an organic machine, nothing more or less.” What moral precepts do humanists/atheists then use to argue against exploitation of other humans and animals? Why do we respect other individuals and give them rights? Is this determined only by law or local custom, or are there overarching principles? Why don’t we just harvest usable organs from those too weak, young, or poor to defend themselves? Why don’t we treat other humans the same as we treat feed lot stock?
As for Rush: he stepped out of line, he realized it and apologized. He’ll probably repeat the error. He should not have shot off his mouth about MJF “acting” unless he had first-hand knowledge of the actor’s present condition. Dumb move, as MJF is beloved even by Rush’s audience, and many have relatives with Parkinsons, as does my mother.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Veritas: bzzzt. I have listened to Limbaugh many times; I used to take walks around my office park and listen to him bloviate about things he didn’t understand. I find him to be irrational on nearly every topic I have ever heard him pontificate on.
Why do so many here who disagree with me think I am only able to comment on science? I am a college graduate, I have traveled quite a bit, I read voraciously, and I have lived in all sorts of places where people hold vastly different opinions than I do. I find it greatly ironic that many fans of Limbaugh — a man who distorts the truth, lies, is hypocritical, and uses logical fallacies like they’re candy– want to accuse me of being narrow minded.
And Confuddled, the problem is that Limbaugh helps form (distort) peoples’ opinions of reality. I don’t begrudge him the right to speak (within the law, it’s possible what he said about MJF is slanderous), but it does irritate me greatly that people use his bloviation as a basis of opinion-making. The cure for bad speech is more speech by the opposition. That’s what I’m doing here. The best way to kill mildew and other noisome microbes is to expose them to sunlight.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:02 am
WB:
Jesus put it quite succinctly two millenia ago. No society can survive based upon hate or, as Jerry Garcia put it,
” Without love in the dream it will never come true.”
The point being that some kinds of behavior allow us to survive. Some ways of survival are admirable. Some we would prefer to do without. Imposing our will upon others is, in the long run, anti survival at the worst or at the least, not much fun.
The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Are single cells, without a central nervous system capable of feeling pain, worth worrying about?
To me, they are just machines. Whole systems, with complex nervous systems are an entirely different matter.
I know that feeling of love, extended to virtually every life form. I respect everything, even the single cell, but that cell is just a potential.
The developed organism is the realization of that potential.
Should I concern myself with the potential of individual proteins, which MAY self assemble into a life form?
I concern myself with that which can feel, think, dream, laugh and love. Cells don’t do that. Neither do individual proteins.
GAry 7
October 25th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Todd said:
>uh, because of the first amendment?
What does the First Amendment have to do with it? The question was “Why is he still employed [in radio]?”, not “Why hasn’t the government come and given him a water boarding* for his opinions?”
*Hey, it’s just water boarding, it’s not like that’s torture, and water boarding is now legal anyway, especially if they can link Rush with terrorism – Hmm, Rush’s views are pretty terrible, is that close enough?
> The news site quoted above…it looks to me like he’s (Rush that is) stating what he thought when he watched MJ Fox on TV. What he thought might have been baloney, but I certainly stand for his right to say it!
So he’s got the right to spout of and be a hate-filled, blithering idiot. Nobody said he doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean we have to listen to him (which I don’t), or agree with him (which I certainly don’t), or refrain from stating our disapproval. That’s also part of the First Amendment.
> so I guess the REAL reason he’s still employed is 20-something million people want to hear what he has to say and that is money for his advertisers.
Yes, that’s the real reason, and that’s unfortunate, because that says something about 20-something million people that is scary.
AtomicAmish said:
> One difference is Rush’s program is almost always about politics, not astronomy.
Another difference is that Rush’s program is full of tasteless, mean-spirited and uninformed remarks that cater to the least common denominator is “conservative” thought. Whereas Phil’s blog is informed, well-reasoned, caring, and intelligent.
Grand Lunar said:
> If I interpret it correctly, its from side effects of the drugs, yes?
That’s what people are saying. The L-dopa used to treat the Parkinson’s (rigidity and small tremors) leads to overstimulation of the nerves and spontaneous motions (the swaying and jerking).
AstroSmurf said:
> On the other hand, blaming the right wing for sharing some opinions with Rush is like blaming Christians for having the same religion as Fred Phelps.
Fred Phelps has a very small following. Many people may share some of his opinions, but not to the hate-filled extreme that he goes. Whereas, according to above sources, Rush has a following of 20-something million people. I think I can blame 20-something million people for sharing obnoxious and spiteful opinions.
calm down said:
> Some people think that what Mr. Fox is advocating is murder, and when a person goes on TV advocating murder for profit I imagine that would garner some pretty strong words from people who feel that way.
Well, then, they should say “Murder for profit is wrong, and Michael J. Fox is wrong for advocating it!” Not, “Michael J. Fox is faking or off his meds!”
>I don’t think so, but I can certainly see where people come from on this. The stem cell issue is an opinion, regardless of however right any of you think you are as scientifically minded people you have to accept the possibility that your belief (your “faith†as Mr. Platt so thoughfully used when using a straw man arguement against the pope a few posts back) is just plain wrong.
I do understand where they’re coming from. I’m all over the difference in assumptions that forms the difference for the positions on Abortion and stem cell research (or Embryonic Stem Cell Research, since it’s important for some people that we be explicit about what we’re talking about, even though everyone knows that’s what the issue is about.) The difference is my belief about the beginnings of life is founded upon evidence – biology, biochemistry, and such. Whereas the alternate position is founded upon metaphysics – souls, spirits, and whatnot. I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong, but so far the sum total of evidence that is amassed on the opposing side is zilch. Until that changes, I’ll continue to hold my current beliefs, and act accordingly. And according to them, blastocysts are not “human beings”, any more than a thumbnail is a “human being”.
> If we asked Rush about this (and ive heard him say stuff like this before) i’m sure he would say that the moment Fox appeared on television expressing his opinion he was putting himself out as a target for whatever attacks may come.
Yes, Michael J. Fox set himself up as a target by expressing an opinion. He put himself into the crosshairs of examination. No one is refuting or questioning that. What we are voicing distress over is Rush’s ill-informed and hateful remarks. Guess what? By opening his mouth, Rush is making himself a target as well. Who’s the bigger target, a skinny, short guy with a nervous tic that keeps him moving randomly, or a fat jackass windbag on painkillers?
Hal DeVaney said:
> You liberals sure are thin skinned.
Yeah, jerks* bother us. I wish I could be more heartless and insensitive like you conservatives. :rolleyes:
*”Jerks” being a sanitized version of my original wording.
AtomicAmish said:
> The bill of rights applies to everyone.
Again with the Bill of Rights. No one has advocated anything against the Bill of Rights. What we’ve said is that Rush is a jerk and it seems odd that anyone would want to listen to a jerk. Or pay a jerk to spout off on the radio.
> Richard Feynman had his head on straight about the value of scientists’ opinions on non-science matters like politics.
Phil isn’t using his status as a scientist to claim authority in areas unrelated to astronomy. So Feynman’s comments do not apply. Yes, Phil could be just as uninformed on any other topic as anyone else. However, Phil does make an effort to be informed, as opposed to certain radio pontificators.
> One big misunderstanding about this is that the Federal government is banning research – they are not. They are stopping Federal funding of research.
The Government has banned Federal funding to be used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) from any lines beyond the existing cultured lines that were identified at the time of the decision. Those existing lines happen to be fairly useless for the kind of research required, but that didn’t stop the President for using them as a pretext for stating new cell lines were not required. Yes, private funding can be used for ESCR, but that research has to be entirely independent from federally funded programs. This means not only must the staff be paid by outside dollars, but the facilities used cannot be purchased in full or in part by federal dollars, either. That means that if a hospital/research organization has a facility that they previously received federal funding to build or supply, they cannot use those facilities and supplies, even if those items are “overhead”, or common facilities and equipment, such as centrifuges. Thus this effectively means that any organization wishing to pursue ESCR must build and outfit new facilities for those lines of research only. Thus the cost differential is not just the dollars for the research itself, but the delta cost of the facilities that most research programs spread across multiple funding sources and programs.
Say I buy an X-ray spectrograph for use in one research project, using money from that project. Once that project is over, I still own the X-ray spectrograph, and now have it available for any other project in the future. Unless it was bought (in whole or in part) by federal funds, in which case I can’t use it on ESCR. (No idea if I need an X-ray spectrograph for ESCR, I’m demonstrating the principle.)
M.A.DeLuca said:
>B.A, a lot of these people who oppose hESC research *are* opposed to in vitro fertilization. They honestly believe life begins at conception (not an unreasonable position since the zygote is alive, after all), and that the deliberate destruction of a human life is murder.
I concede this is a difficult ethical question. If your position that life begins at conception, then it is logical to view abortion as murder. That’s what makes the ethical debate difficult – because we don’t agree over the basis for that determination.
>They’ve gotten organized over hESC because farming embryos for pharmaceutical-like treatments will be a huge business and result in, to this mindset, institutionalized genocide.
Yes, that is a consistent position from the original opinion. But we don’t agree over the starting assumptions, so it’s difficult to find a common ground that is acceptable. And skeptigirl makes a very convincing case that even people that claim to hold embryos as equivalent to humans might be drawing those lines differently in different circumstances. That certainly puts their commitment to their position under question.
PK said:
> I can understand that people opposed to stem cell research may feel that making the emotional appeal by showing the suffering of a patient is a form of rethoric. The fact that they can’t say that without being crucified by the people on the moral high ground just makes matters worse.
But that’s not the case at all! Rush’s point may have been that trotting out Michael J. Fox’s condition is a rhetorical ploy, but he didn’t just say that. He accused Fox of deliberately playing up the effects to appear worse than they are. Whether that deliberate play up was to stay off his medications, or to act like he was off his meds, Rush accused Fox of exaggerating the claims. That’s what is offending us.
As for whether it’s acceptable for Fox to demonstrate the effects of what he lives with, whether by deliberately staying off his meds to show the condition or by taking his meds and demonstrating their effects, I find that totally reasonable when the issue is discussing what ESCR is hoped to be able to cure. It would be disengenous of Fox to take extra meds to “dramatize” the issue, or to act more out of control than he is. But Rush has no evidence to support those claims.
The appropriateness of using Fox’s condition as a one issue decision point for which political candidate to support is a separate issue. People evaluate the issues and candidates on a variety of criteria. If some people wish to make their decicion on one issue, that’s their choice. I would hope they’d at least be as informed as possible on that one issue. Given that TV ads are short (~20 to 30 secs), it is possibly fair to just point out 1 issue out of a list of any number of points where the candidates differ and advocate that issue. Hopefully that is supplemented by other ads on different issues.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:30 am
N S F W ???
Sorry but what does that acronym stand for?
Far as I’m concerned, Rush Limbaugh has consistently shown that he is a loud-mouthed, bigoted buffon with the IQ and human decency of raw sewage. This latest rant just emphasises it. I hope it does him as much if not more damage as Mel Gibson’s recent drunken rant did him. Better yet I hope Michael J. Fox sues and wins big sending the low-blowing limbaugh broke and forcing that slimy pice of excrement to crawl into the louse infested cesspool he came from.
Yeah I know, I’m pulling my punches for the sake of politeness here!
October 25th, 2006 at 10:41 am
“And Confuddled, the problem is that Limbaugh helps form (distort) peoples’ opinions of reality. I don’t begrudge him the right to speak (within the law, it’s possible what he said about MJF is slanderous), but it does irritate me greatly that people use his bloviation as a basis of opinion-making. The cure for bad speech is more speech by the opposition. That’s what I’m doing here. The best way to kill mildew and other noisome microbes is to expose them to sunlight. ”
=P He could say the same thing about you too. It’s really funny how America is always in a “Political Crisis’. You people are never satisfied with ANY president you have! I heard you people hated Ronal Reagyn at one point, is that true? I heard he was a great president. If you don’t like Bush don’t vote for him, but honestly! You people always over-eggagerate things WAY to much just for a political debate. Just vote for the President you think would do best, I think if Kerry took over the country would seriously loose it’s status as a Super Power.
That’s why I don’t mind politics to much, I just vote for the most suited and leave it at that. Go on with my life, there’s nothing you can really do about it.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:46 am
sirjonsnow says,
“Spew his brand of hate at someone with a disability at your place of employment and see what happens to you.”
You mean like when Al Gore said, “the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wing” and he was kicked out of office. Oh wait he wasn’t. It only took him two month to apologize.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:53 am
“I heard you people hated Ronal Reagyn at one point.”
A) I’m guessing you mean Ronald Reagan? Or was there a president Reagyn I missed?
B) “You people”? Nice.
C) “at one point”? No. I hated him at pretty much every point. In my opinion he was a cur. A better grade of cur than the one we currently suffer, but a cur nonetheless. MY OPINION FOLLOWS: two reasons some thought RR a “great president”: 1) he talked tough (if ungrammatically) to other countries, which allowed (I assume) some frustrated folks to get their rocks off through feeling tough by proxy, 2) he seemed at least to help make some folks some money, which in this country (a situation he helped foster) is all but equivalent to saying he put god in some peoples’ laps.
D) “I heard he was a great president.” No offense, but who cares what anyone /heard/? I know what I /experienced/ – mostly embarrassment. What did /you/ experience?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Ah, Ronnie Reagan, the guy who, as governor of Calif., threw a quarter million mentally ill people out on the street, just to save landowners some tax money. Yeah, what a great guy,,,
Gary 7
October 25th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Confuddled is serious befuddled. Phil didn’t say anything about Bush or Reagan, in this post at least.
Also, Rush couldn’t say the same thing about Phil, because I doubt Rush knows enough about biology to make such an analogy.
Now, all that said, THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS!!! Rush, IMHO, slanderously insulted MJ Fox. Not only accusing him of being a political tool, but of using his symptoms (or medication) to exaggerate his impact in the ad. This has nothing to do with the political aspects, or at least the original post didn’t.
Now, I have a question for you. Would you be against Terri Schaevo’s (not sure of the spelling) family endorsing a Republican candidate who was against DNR laws? Especially, if they showed pictures of Terri when she was alive and kicking?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I’ve never cared for Rush. He never really says anything. It takes him hours just to get through one news article. He’s always laughing and making snide comments and his point is usually lost. At least with the others like O’Reiily and Franken, you can understand the point they are trying to make.
When it comes to this specific issue, if he had any sort of intelleigence he’d keep his month shut. Analyses of the 2004 election showed that when celebrities endrosed or campaigned for candidates, it cost them votes. Notice how few celebrity commercials or movies you see during this election. I suspect the Rush’s tirade will help not hurt Claire McCaskill
October 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am
The Bad Astronomer: “Why do so many here who disagree with me think I am only able to comment on science?”
Because you don’t follow the Republican party agenda. That makes you a double plus ungood crime-thinker. Party first, country last.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:35 am
[...] Phil Plait of BadAstronomy blogged today about Rush Limbaugh’s 1st Amendment protected* diatribes accusing Michael J. Fox of shilling for political candidates in favor of stem cell research as therapeutic cloning. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Limbaugh is nothing more than an administration’s lackey with no sense of reason or integrity. [...]
October 25th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Why is Limbaugh employed? 20 million listeners, that’s why.
Rush used to be great radio for conservatives. He was an outsider who tossed napalm at bad ideas, criticized politicians on both sides and advocated zealously for what he believed in.
But since 2000, he’s started drinking the Kool-Aid. He’s no a bought man of the Republicans. His access to the White House has made him support the GOP even as they betray every single principle he purports to believe in. The Limbaugh of ten years ago might have commented on the Michael J. Fox ad being low politics. But he wouldn’t have mocked the man himself.
Just a sign of the times.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Mike said,
“The Limbaugh of ten years ago might have commented on the Michael J. Fox ad being low politics. But he wouldn’t have mocked the man himself.”
I agree with that statement.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I think Rush is confusing the side effects of oxycontin withdraw with the side effects of stopping medication for Parkinson’s. I guess he sticks to what he knows.
Even if he were correct about Fox being off his meds, complaining about that is akin to complaining about a cancer patient who normally wears a wig in public appearing bald in a PSA.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“The Limbaugh of ten years ago might have commented on the Michael J. Fox ad being low politics. But he wouldn’t have mocked the man himself.â€
Based on what? Um…this is the guy who used to comment about how ugly he thought then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton was.
A few quotes: “Feminism was established so that unattractive, ugly women could have easy access to mainstream society.”
“Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
“Why should Blacks be heard? They’re 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares.”
“I don’t give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a
disease that they didn’t have immunity against”
Yeah, he was a really nice guy before.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Limbaugh is a showman… Proving once again he can light up the media, and get everybody talking about him. Can you say suckered? I thought you could. Can you say ratings? Use your lips… ratings… Ah, there isn’t that better now.
His ability to get libs pissy never ceases to amaze me. Like the above poster, kind compassionate soul comparing people to raw sewage, I feel your love brutha
You know what, theres a growing group of us indies out here that think you dumocrats and repulsicans BOTH SUCK! (hey, had to get my name calling in too, thats what we do right?)
Personally Iam getting pretty sick of injecting “victims” directly into the political debate for the purpose of making an unassailable target. What Limbaugh said was wrong, obviously. Yet I also feel Fox shilling for a candidate on the basis of his disease is wrong. If he wants to run around and plug for stem cell research generally, fine. Tell people to urge legislators to vote a certain way, fine. When he supports an individual he makes his cause a party cause. This is bad strategy if you actually want your cause to succeed whoever is in power. So the question becomes. Does he want stem cell research, or is he using his disease for a political agenda? Its not an unfair or mean question. And its one he should ask himself before he makes ads like that.
On a side note. I think it is patently stupid for any actor to express any political rants whatsoever. Why? Because then they can never portray anyone else ever again. I’ll always see the idiot who drove up in a motorcade, standing on a stage using enough power to light a small city, telling me how evil I am for drinking from a styrofoam cup and not riding my bicycle more.
live long and prosper… \\//
October 25th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Gerrsun said:
>I think he was implying that Mr. Fox going off his meds was tatamount to past instances of the lame and disfigured at the gate showing off their deformaties for greater sympathy and a larger charity donation from passerby’s.
Interesting parallel. In the instance offered, the lame, injured, and ill had no recourse but the charity of their families and, failing that, strangers. Thus begging was legitimate – more legitimate than stealing, anyway. And people gave what they wanted. There are certainly Libertarians who can appreciate the notion of each person giving what they want to whom they want, not getting it taken from them from the government and given to everyone else.
But I don’t think the parallel is accurate. Fox is a person with a medical condition. He is making an appeal for people to take an action he thinks will help people with his condition. Yes, he is visually displaying either the condition or effects of the medication to treat the condition to show what people experience. I think it’s fair to see what the condition really does, especially when you can compare to someone we’ve seen without the effects so the comparison is vivid.
>If stem cell research is to be debated on its scientific merit, do we need someone elected because they happened to have gotten the greatest handicapped individual to ‘pitch’ his infirmity to the masses?
Except the issue is not being debated on scientific merit. It is being debated on political issues based upon the potential medical benefit vs. the philosophical definition of life and possible harm. Because scientifically, ~100 undifferentiated embryonic stem cells are not equivalent to a fully developed nervous system and brain, or even a partially developed nervous system and brain with measurable alpha waves.
>At least that it what I attributed to his [Rush's] comments, perhaps I was reading too much into them.
You may be right, that is all Rush really meant, demonstrating and exaggerating the condition for sympathy is a weak rhetorical move for vote gathering. But Rush made accusations against Fox that were untrue, poorly founded, and definitely rude.
Interested Observer Said:
> I’ve noticed something. Many people who actually listen to and believe Rush Limbaugh tend to refer to him by his first name, saying things like “Rush says†or “Rush’s statementsâ€. Why is that? Typically when a media personality is quoted or referred to, it is by their full name or last name only. Does “Rush†really instill such a sense of trust and familiarity?
Interesting observation. Why does Rush choose to go by his first name rather than last? Maybe it’s easier to spell? To pronounce? Consider that Rush is a radio talk show host. Talk show hosts tend to go by their first names in order to convey a sense of familiarity with their guests and audiences. It’s a rapport building excercise, and far more comfortable to people than going by “Mr. Limbaugh” or “Mr. Letterman” or “Mr. Leno”. So our normal conventions for dealing with strangers when citing them are confounded by our conventions for dealing with friends when citing them. Whereas we would politely refer to a stranger by their last name (such as citing in a newspaper article), we have already established this sense of familiarity with the identity, and thus use that identity. Thus it’s “Johnny” and not “Mr. Carson”, and so it’s “Rush” and not “Limbaugh”.
> It seems to me everything “Rush†says and the way he says it are meant to foster in his listeners an Us vs. Them mentality. He lumps everyone he disagrees with into one big group and lables them as the enemy. As we know, it goes against instinct to stop and consider the validity of your enemy’s arguments or question the integrity of your glorious leader’s statements. He keeps it all very simple so that his followers are never distracted by the gray areas, which are inconsistent with the black and white worldview he proposes. Then he makes jokes and jibes about the enemy so all his followers can laugh at them together, a true bonding experience. I’ve witnessed it many times on school playgrounds.
Yes, that is an accurate description of his methods. He styles himself as a humorist, thus disguising that much of his humor is really obnoxious name-calling.
Infophile said:
> In my opinion, we should err on the side of caution with our distinction of when consciousness starts. I think we should put the line right at the point where the brain begins developing. Consciousness can’t begin earlier than that, and probably not until quite a bti afterwards, and it still leaves us a fair amount of room for abortions and productive uses of the fetus.
That’s a fair point to argue about the ethics based upon the known science and the limits of our knowledge. It gives us one definition of how to draw the line – because we like to draw lines on things that are inevitably continuous spectra. Pick a line we can draw at a point we expect is safe and justify the gap by conservativeness for the vagueness.
Harold said:
>Is Rush Limbaugh bound by FCC rules? If so, does Limbaugh’s slander rise to the level of something that would give concerned citizens reason to file a complaint with the FCC?
I don’t think it does. He does say in all his verbiage that if he’s wrong he will apologize to Fox, and ultimately puts enough vacillation to his accusation that I don’t think it would stand up as slander. IANAL.
veritas said:
> I suspect you have neither listened to, nor heard, Limbaugh for more that 5 minutes any any one time; he does have things to say that are reasonable to many.
Rush does express some reasonable, conservative, opinions. He makes observations couched from his own political slant, which matches the views of many people. Thus he has a broad base of support. However, he styles himself as a humorist and wraps his opinions and observations in mean-spirited and obnoxious language and descriptions. He’s a bigot, and claims he’s not really a bigot, it’s just funny that way. I disagree with his politics, and I disagree with his presentation of his politics, and I disagree with his hippocritical attitudes.
>When you begin to roam outside your field of expertise in science your trip over your ego and fall on you liberal face… a sad thing to see for an otherwise thinking man.
Funny, calling Phil on his ego while talking about Rush.
WB said:
>Gary, I take exception with this: “the organic structure is just that, an organic machine, nothing more or less.†What moral precepts do humanists/atheists then use to argue against exploitation of other humans and animals? Why do we respect other individuals and give them rights?
You’ve missed the context of the original remark. Gary was speaking about blastocysts.
mungascr said:
>N S F W ???
>Sorry but what does that acronym stand for?
Not Safe For Work. This was for language.
Confuddled said:
> If you don’t like Bush don’t vote for him, but honestly! You people always over-eggagerate things WAY to much just for a political debate. Just vote for the President you think would do best,… That’s why I don’t mind politics to much, I just vote for the most suited and leave it at that. Go on with my life, there’s nothing you can really do about it.
Democracy doesn’t end with casting your own vote. It also includes persuading others to share your position on issues. Thus politics. If you don’t want to participate, fine, but don’t begrudge others who would like to “stop the insanity” and “spread reasonable ideas” – whatever political hat they wear.
I will agree that some people over-exaggerate (as opposed to acceptably exaggerating?) things for political debate. Like taking an investigation over potential illegal money laundering and turning it into a crusade to find out about adultery and oral gratification. I’m sorry, which “you people” were you talking about?
jrkeller said:
> You mean like when Al Gore said, “the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wingâ€
I guess I missed that one.
Glenn Becker said:
>B) “You people� Nice.
There’s nothing wrong with “you people” other than the inherent vagueness of which people are in question. Democrats? Liberals? Americans? One-legged, left-handed anabaptists on crack?
October 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
jrkeller said:
>”You mean like when Al Gore said, “the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wing†and he was kicked out of office. Oh wait he wasn’t. It only took him two month to apologize.”
A little web search reveals that he was only stealing lines from Bush I.
LOS ANGELES TIMES/UPI (12/18/87): Vice President George Bush has apologized to a mother of a girl with Down’s syndrome for his use of the phrase “the extra-chromosome set” to refer to conservatives who oppose the recently signed arms-control treaty, a newspaper reported Thursday.
Apparentally, the phrase was coined by that Liberal Lee Atwater.
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/04/17/wimps/index.html
Guess Gore didn’t realize that only conservatives were allowed to call each other that!
October 25th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
roomtemp said:
>Limbaugh is a showman… Proving once again he can light up the media, and get everybody talking about him. Can you say suckered? I thought you could. Can you say ratings? Use your lips… ratings… Ah, there isn’t that better now.
If it’s just for ratings, it’s not working on me. I’m not listening to his show more now. The advertisers for his show aren’t getting me to listen to them now. The only publicity is for the man himself, and that’s for being an arrogant gasbag, which isn’t getting him my attention for his show. Ergo, no ratings increase from me. YMMV.
>His ability to get libs pissy never ceases to amaze me.
Why is it so many conservatives take pride in being obnoxious prix*? NOTE: your supposed to take pride in having big prix, not being big prix. Where are all those values and morality I keep hearing so much about? You know, values like compassion, caring, sensitivity, or maybe just common politeness. What’s that slogan? WWJD? I don’t recall Jesus insulting the injured and ill in the Bible. Maybe I missed that verse.
*Spelling intentional for obfuscation purposes.
> Like the above poster, kind compassionate soul comparing people to raw sewage, I feel your love brutha
You’re mistaken. mungascr compared Rush’s level of decency with raw sewage.
> Yet I also feel Fox shilling for a candidate on the basis of his disease is wrong. If he wants to run around and plug for stem cell research generally, fine. Tell people to urge legislators to vote a certain way, fine. When he supports an individual he makes his cause a party cause. This is bad strategy if you actually want your cause to succeed whoever is in power.
Finally, a valid criticism. That’s a valid point. On the other hand, the Republican Party hasn’t been too keen on being open to the issue.
Note that when Ron Reagan, Jr., went around to the 2002 campaign to speak about Stem Cell Research, he offered to speak at both party conventions. The Democrats took him up on that offer. The Republicans didn’t. Who made it a party issue then?
> So the question becomes. Does he want stem cell research, or is he using his disease for a political agenda? Its not an unfair or mean question. And its one he should ask himself before he makes ads like that.
Yes, fair question. Is he advocating the Party or his issue? Is he advocating the Party because of his issue? If they’re the only ones taking his issue seriously, then is it unreasonable?
October 25th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
As a conservitive I believe tax dollars sould be spent on very few things. Stem cell research isnt one of them. If there is all the support for it as it sounds like there is then donations are the way to go. Most conservitives arent against stem cell research. We only fear it will start becoming problem when you start making embryos for the only purpose to destroy them. Mind you no one is trying to ban research. Just tax funded research.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
“A) I’m guessing you mean Ronald Reagan? Or was there a president Reagyn I missed?”
Well Glenn Becker I’m sorry if my typo blew up the world. =|
“D) “I heard he was a great president.†No offense, but who cares what anyone /heard/? I know what I /experienced/ – mostly embarrassment. What did /you/ experience?”
I recall experiencing a halt to the Cold War, he stood tall when America and the Soviet were literally shaking in their boots.
I recall Berlin wall and 5.7 billion dollars spent on AIDS.
“”I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose — last pages even now are being written.”–RR
I swear you peope are NEVER satisfied. If you hate it so much why not emmigrate out of the country?
October 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Bad Astronomer: …a man who distorts the truth, lies, is hypocritical, and uses logical fallacies like they’re candy…
Rush Limbaugh … or Bill Clinton?
Both perhaps, but whether you opine on it most likely depends on your perspective and biases.
You proved one thing Phil: politics is the great equalizer. There is no objective search for truth comparable to the sciences. I guess Richard Feynman figured that out at some point also.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I recall experiencing a halt to the Cold War, he stood tall when America and the Soviet were literally shaking in their boots.
I recall Berlin wall and 5.7 billion dollars spent on AIDS.
I recall the Gorbachev being more responsible for ending the war, or perhaps even the Russian people for voting for him when he ran on a platform of reform.
I also recall Contra.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Never mind the fact that MJF is basicly saying only one party is trying to cure the disease.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Adam:
MJF has attended both Republican and Democrat conventions to promote stem-cell research.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/14/se.03.html
According to tonight’s Olbermann news show- he has even campaigned for Republican Arlen Specter.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
“I recall the Gorbachev being more responsible for ending the war, or perhaps even the Russian people for voting for him when he ran on a platform of reform.”
What vote was that?! Gorbachev deserves a pat on the back for being a gracious loser, no more, no less. Reagan won it.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I just listened to the “Crooks and Liars” MP3. I don’t see what the BFD is. RL pointed out that MJF has admitted going off his meds before for the effect, and that he might be doing so now. And for that he’s hateful?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Well, in this case, he’s obviously on his meds. Those movements are indicative of the side-effects of the medication, not the disease itself.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Irishman
Says:
>>jrkeller said:
>> You mean like when Al Gore said, “the extreme right wing, the extra >>chromosome right wingâ€
>I guess I missed that one.
During the 94 midterm election.
On 1994-10-28 in Virginia, during a speech about Oliver North’s Senate bid, Gore called North supporters “the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wing.” This was not some of the cuff comment or some sound bite, but clearly planned. Gore eventuall apologized in a letter about two months later.
Why it angered so many people, like me who has a child with Down Syndrome, it that is was obviously planned, he took forever to apologize, he apologized by writting a letter to National Review and just a few years early under Bush the elder, the American with Disabilites Act was passed and things seem to change significantly (at least for my school age daughter) and now we are back to square one.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Phil,
To put a human face on this discussion, this is a poem by a lady who posts on the Democratic Underground website as “AutmnMist.” It was submitted to DU by her husband, who posts as “The Straight Story.” The straight story, in this case, is that the lady was only recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s:
One Day
One day came without warning
A perfectly innocent day full of promise and sunlight against office windows
Harsh reality stood behind large glass doors hiding like a thief in the shadows
There were no stop signs
No haunting Hollywood music to make the moment seem predictable.
No safety net for me to fall back into against the glare of neon.
I was a willing player with faith wrapped around me like a cloak of armor.
And the dance began
The whispered diagnoses was like a scream ricocheting in my mind
This cannot be….I am 35 years old
Doesn’t that count for something?
“Where are the brownie points?†I thought to myself as I sat on cold paper covered vinyl
clutching my husbands hand because it was the only link to home in this now hostile territory.
The doctor’s office with pastel colored flower paintings suddenly became winter
and I had my back to the winter gale.
I sat with a smile frozen to my lips and tears running down my face
Where was the safety of the car?
Where was the safety of my youth?
Where were the safe spots so we couldn’t play tag with my life?
Now I was “itâ€.
One day had come to my window to roost
Can I draw the curtains?
One day I had thought to myself when I was younger
One day I will climb snow covered peaks
One day I will learn to play the guitar and sing like an angel
One day I will become a mother and raise my children in a home full of love
One day will make the dreams I have a possibility
One day…
Isn’t there always time?
Knock, Knock
One day is at the door…Its for you!
So I went home and shed tears over a lost reality
and laughed in the face of a new one.
My new friend one day stood outside patiently waiting for me to embrace it
Waiting for me to open the door and invite them in
I wasn’t so sure this was the dinner guest that I had planned on entertaining through the years of my life
But there it was.
Like a slow rain falling…
I realized as time passed and the whispers of my diagnoses silenced themselves
That the dreams I had were always there
The dance of life had always been played out before me
I had just chosen to fill up my dance card with the rigors of daily life
The little things that drive us to forget that our “one day†is not something that is convenient
It’s not something that we do not fight for
It’s not something to be taken for granted
Embrace the tomorrow that you think may never come
Make it happen today
Don’t let it go
Don’t let it falter
Don’t let it slip
Because one day we will all look our own mortality in the face
It will also be at your window like a new dawn
And when the rays of the new dawn hit your face may you always see that you do have the time to make it happen right now
Dance with your fears and embrace the things that have always eluded you
Take the time to see who you are underneath the white noise of daily life
Take the time to love like you never have before
Take the time to play when you don’t feel like you have anything left
and if you do these things you can let the elusive “one day†into your life and simply ask
How do you like your tea?
The original post, where her husband talks about her diagnosis, and her courage and grace, is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×1144775
I hope stem cell research and other lines of medical research can come up with a cure for this disease before this lady loses her life, and her husband loses the light of his life.
As for Mr. Limbaugh, and all his hate-radio ilk, they’re the reason that politics has become so much meaner in recent years, as well as the reason political campaigns have been so devoid of ideas or substantial discussion.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:02 am
John, says “I recall the Gorbachev being more responsible for ending the war, or perhaps even the Russian people for voting for him when he ran on a platform of reform.â€
What vote was that?! Gorbachev deserves a pat on the back for being a gracious loser, no more, no less. Reagan won it.
Apparently, you were either too young to remember, or you have selective amnes… errr, recall. Gorbachev was elected into office because of his policies of reform. Gorbachev knew that communism was a failure, and ran for office because he wanted to bring his country out of the dark ages. Gorbachev had them tear down the Berlin Wall, and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall…” speech was only grandstanding. If anyone else had been in office in the CCCP, then the wall would still be standing.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:08 am
I lived through that era and I don’t remember Gorbachev being elected. He was elected by the Communist Party which did not include the entire Russian people. Yeltsin was the first president elected by a popular election.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:19 am
It’s true Gorbachev lost the popular election to Yeltsin. It’s true Gorbachev was elected by the Communist Party, not the entire Russian people. It’s also true that Gorbachev was the advocate for change in Russia that broke the Soviet Union. Glasnost was Gorbachev, not Yeltsin. The only reason Reagan could challenge Gorbachev to tear down the wall was because Gorbachev was already making dramatic reforms.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Okay, so the original claim that he was elected by the Russian people should have been, “[S]elected by the Communist Party.” I guess they were some of the people, anyway.
The reason they elected a reformer (1985) is because they knew they were losing, dramatically, after Carter’s period of feckless weakness. The renewed, runaway economic success of America and Europe, the stronger conventional military, the mid range nukes in Europe, the Minuteman, SDI, and Reagan’s direct challenges to the leaders of the USSR are what did them in.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Irishman,
I don’t disagree with a single thing you said in your latest post. I was just pointing out that Gorbachev was never an elected leader. Or at least an elected leader in the way a democracy elects a leader.
October 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
You mean on the basis of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision?
October 26th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
True, it wasn’t a democratic election. Or even a representative election (electoral college).
October 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Okay, so the original claim that he was elected by the Russian people should have been, “[S]elected by the Communist Party.†I guess they were some of the people, anyway.
Yeah, that was my bad. But anyways, we’re getting a bit too far off subject here. Let’s see who can connect Gorbachev back to Rush Limbaugh or MJF in the fewest steps.
Ready?
Go!
October 27th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Infophile:
Done!
http://oracleofbacon.org/cgi-bin/oracle/movielinks?firstname=Rush+Limbaugh&secondname=Mikhail+Gorbachev+&using=3&game=0
The Oracle says: Mikhail Gorbachev has a Rush Limbaugh number of 3.
Mikhail Gorbachev was in Paul McCartney Live in St. Petersburg (2003) (TV) with Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney was in “NFL on Fox Pregame Show” (1994) {Super Bowl XXXIX Pregame Show} with Bill Clinton (I)
Bill Clinton (I) was in “On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren” (2002) {(2005-10-04)} with Rush Limbaugh
October 27th, 2006 at 1:22 am
Coming from the UK, I didn’t know much about Rush Limbaugh until I read this article. I’ve since done some looking on the web, including his official website and I have to say what i’ve seen has made me feel physically sick. The guy is obscene!!!
Scott
October 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am
But anyways, we’re getting a bit too far off subject here. Let’s see who can connect Gorbachev back to Rush Limbaugh or MJF in the fewest steps.
This was about Rush Limbaugh?!
October 27th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Both Rush and MJF use drugs
October 27th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Adam Says:
As a conservitive I believe tax dollars sould be spent on very few things. Stem cell research isnt one of them. If there is all the support for it as it sounds like there is then donations are the way to go. Most conservitives arent against stem cell research. We only fear it will start becoming problem when you start making embryos for the only purpose to destroy them. Mind you no one is trying to ban research. Just tax funded research.
Might sound reasonable, but here’s the problem.
Capitalism, which serves us fairly well, nonetheless has some inherent characteristics that don’t result in the optimal outcome for people in general. In the case of biotech companies, the corporate motive of the bottom line results in inadequate development of many drugs and treatment despite the huge market for some of them. The reason is R&D can represent such a large investment, companies don’t want to risk as much innovation as we could really benefit from. And, the large investments in R&D up front mean just having a market for a product doesn’t mean the market will be profitable enough to take the risks.
For example, drug companies have not been investing in new antibiotics despite the huge market for such products. Why? Because new antibiotics need to be used as little as possible to maintain their effectiveness against organisms that have developed resistance to other antibiotics. Whereas eventually the new antibiotics will be widely used as they become the only drug more and more organisms respond to, the return on investment isn’t fast enough to replace the invested capital. A company might have interest on debt during that time or stock prices might decline until more profit shows up on the books.
Also, you take antibiotics for a short time while other drugs such as those for high blood pressure, are taken daily the rest of a person’s life in most cases.
So without public supported research we get 15 versions of drugs that lower cholesterol and no new antibiotics for rapidly growing drug resistance in the bacterial population. That would be in the best interest of the corporation, but not in the best interest of the citizens in the USA.
We as people living in this country get a far higher return of value on dollars invested in medical research than on dollars invested in highways and other ‘commuinty’ properties.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I’m an advocate of stem cell research but I also don’t like political correctness and if Rush really thought Fox was exaggerating his condition I think it is appropriate for him to say something. Considering Limbaugh’s skeletons in his closet I’d say he has a lot of guts or stupidity (not sure which) bringing it up.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
community – wonder if I should try one of those re-designed keyboards?
October 27th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Troy Says:
… Considering Limbaugh’s skeletons in his closet I’d say he has a lot of guts or stupidity (not sure which) bringing it up.
I’d say it was unmitigated gall.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:59 am
I have two cents to add on the question of Rush Limbaugh and the first amendment. He has the right, within the laws of slander and libel, to express his opinion. That does not mean he has the automatic right to use the public airways to express them. If he were booted off the air, then his right to speak out would be the same as mine – would that be so unconscionable? Why should he have the right, which I don’t have, to broadcast his ideas to millions of people? Shouldn’t there be some standards required before someone has that priviledge?
October 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
PsychoGirl
Says:
>Why should he have the right, which I don’t have, to broadcast his ideas >to millions of people? Shouldn’t there be some standards required before >someone has that priviledge?
You have that right too. Regardless of how you feel about the man, Rush Limbaugh worked his butt off to get where is today. No one just handed him a mike, and 20 million listeners. He has been involved radio for close to 40 years and has had his own show for 22 years.
I personally don’t care for Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, but I would never say that they shouldn’t have the right to be on the airwaves and I should.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Katie Couric interview with Michal J Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8
October 28th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
PsychoGirl Says:
I have two cents to add on the question of Rush Limbaugh and the first amendment. He has the right, within the laws of slander and libel, to express his opinion. That does not mean he has the automatic right to use the public airways to express them. If he were booted off the air, then his right to speak out would be the same as mine – would that be so unconscionable? Why should he have the right, which I don’t have, to broadcast his ideas to millions of people? Shouldn’t there be some standards required before someone has that priviledge?
Contrary to jrkeller’s view that Rush worked his way up the ladder and we all have equal opportunity, I think there is ample evidence media monopolies, ie corporate controlled media and the influence of wealth buys that broadcasting access. I posted in the past a quote from a man who spent his life recording folk music from working people all over the world. It was something to the effect of “a million dollars for a transmitter and a million receivers for a dollar”. What he was saying was here were all these voices that were never to be heard on that inexpensive radio everyone could own but which only received transmissions from those million dollar transmitters very few people owned.
The Internet has changed that equation. While transmitters may not be a dollar, they are accessible to millions all over the world.
(BTW, don’t let the legislators turn the Internet into yet another million dollar transmitter. Fight for Net neutrality. It really does matter.)
October 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Hmmm. Some jerk said something mean in public.
We’re a) all on the Internet and b) acting as if this is some sort of new, horrible thing.
I am stuck somewhere between “so?” and “no one is forced to listen.” Welcome to America, comrades; whether factually correct or factually incorrect he’s still got the right and while we can indeed call Rushie for being a jerk I think arguing we need to /censor/ his views is a step in very much the wrong direction.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Could somebody explain to me why an astronomy blog
is engaged in taking cheap shots at a political analyst and
entertainer?
I am a professor and cosmologist/astrophysicist and I listen
to Limbaugh. I find him informative, sometimes obnoxious,
but very honest and smart.
I suggest that badAstronomy stick to astronomy and stop
engaging in amateurish political hackery.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Scott Funkhouser: I suggest you read this.
I’ll add that if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he is anything but a bloviating traitor to the principles of this country, then you probably won’t enjoy reading this blog.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“The Bad Astronomer” wrote,
“I’ll add that if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he is anything but a bloviating traitor to the principles of this country, then you probably won’t enjoy reading this blog.”
(1) Well, put another way, if enjoyment of this blog, which is
supposedly about astronomy, is a function of political views, then
I would not enjoy reading this blog.
(2) When you get around to it, maybe you could be specific about
which of the “principles of this country” that Rush has betrayed.
(3) When was the last time you published a scientific paper? Oh.
Maybe that is why your blog is just political hackery…
February 25th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
PS
Before you judge: I am an atheist and not remotely a Republican.
I wonder, how much time has the “Bad Astronomer” spent listening to Rush?
Yeah, I figured…
February 25th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Really, Scott? You just assume I haven’t spent any time listening to him, then insult me based on that assumption? That’s a no-no, making a strawman argument like that.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Phil Plait wrote, “You just assume I haven’t spent any time listening to him, then insult me based on that assumption? That’s a no-no, making a strawman argument like that.”
No, I made no such insult concerning your Limbaugh listening. Just look. The post is right there.
See it?
That’s a no-no, making a strawman argument like that, Phil.
Again, please enumerate the ways in which Rush has been supposedly
a “traitor to the principles of this country”.