Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com The Dark Window: Rush Limbaugh Helps Us Understand the Environment

Prepare to be horrified...

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Rush Limbaugh Helps Us Understand the Environment

A lot of people are talking about climate change right now and that makes Rush Limbaugh pretty dang mad.

You know, everybody is out there getting all hepped up, the environmentalist wackos.

You know, it sounds like somebody else is all hepped up too. Probably on OxyContin.

Anyway, Rush is angry because there's a new movie out about climate change and now some people at the New York Times are talking about the environment and how maybe humans are doing something to change it. He devoted a substantial part of his radio program on Tuesday to tell us all the way things really are in case we're dumb enough to go places like the New York Times for our news and information.

Now, stop and think about that. What is it that allows some human beings, what kind of vanity must they have? You know, we are amazing creatures. There's no question. But do you realize that in the grand scheme of things, we are but passing molecules through the great cosmos, my friends? The idea, the very idea!

The very idea indeed! Why can't everybody be humble like Rush? After all, it's obvious that nothing we do could possibly have any effect on the environment. We're Americans, after all. Don't those commie pinkos at the Times understand that?

Things change every day. My body changes every day! It does different things every day.

That's true. One day it does Oxy. Another it does Hydrocodone.

To sit here and to believe that our basic existence, which is oriented in this country to improving the quality of life for as many of our human and animal and plant friends as possible is going to result in all of these disasters, and then to have the audacity to publish this apocalyptic bilge day-in and day-out in the so-called newspaper of record is the height of ego and vanity and self-centeredness.

How dare the Times question any possible consequences of our mass-marketed, corporate-driven consumer culture dedication to improving the quality of life! Talk about self-centered! Interesting, though, that Limbaugh uses the phrases "our basic existence" and "the height of ego and vanity and self-centeredness" in the same sentence. Must have been a slip of the otherwise golden tongue.

We are so powerful and dangerous that we can destroy all of this simply by designing the automobiles we design, by increasing food production. But increasing and enabling mobility and upward mobility and all kinds of prosperity for all the peoples of the world who wish to take advantage of the secrets -- well, the blessings -- of our way of life. It has always offended the hell out of me -- and then for this business that we are now past the threshold of inevitable change on the cusp of "climate destabilization."

When will the wacko environmentalists finally learn that if only everybody had a Hummer, a supersized McDonald's meal, and a Walmart, this world would be a paradise? No wonder the hell has been offended out of Rush.

I want to know when the climate has ever been destable, or destabilized or stable. The fact is it is unstable by definition. There have always been tornadoes. Predictable, but I'd say it's unstable.

Rush makes the somewhat common mistake of confusing weather and climate (the two words are, in the technical sense, not at all synonymous) in referring to tornadoes as climate. But the rest of his environmental knowledge is so vast that I'm inclined to let that one slide.

Actually, you know what I would say? I'd say none of it is unstable. I'd say, "It's all what is." It's all natural. Hurricanes are natural. These things that destroy and provide destruction, things that provide beauty, it's a part of the mix. It's always been here, always going to be here. We didn't cause it. We didn't invent hurricanes. We don't make 'em worse; we can't stop 'em; we can't redirect them. We can't do diddlysquat because we are powerless, and we are not responsible for what they do -- except if we do stupid things like build houses in their paths.

Right. How could beings as powerless as we ever create something that causes destruction? Things that harm the environment - things like mass-consumption and mind-boggling waste - are simply natural. (Well, in Rush's case, I'm guessing that might actually be true.) So we aren't responsible for anything we do. We are, after all, nothing but powerless creatures. And whoever espouses the idea of personal or collective responsiblity probably just hates America and everything it stands for.

You know how many ice ages there have been? You ever heard of Nanook of the North? He didn't live in the Caribbean. I mean, the idea that all of this is happening for the first time, never before happened.

Wasn't Nanook of the North a movie? And wasn't it about an Eskimo in Alaska? What, exactly, does that have to do with how many ice ages there have been? I'm beginning to understand where Rush gets his vast knowledge about the environment.

Go to the Soviet Union during their period of time when they ruled the Eastern Bloc and go look at all of the environmental destruction that was brought about by the lack of capitalism, the lack of productivity, the lack of progress, the lack of freedom -- and you go to any industrialized country where there is freedom and prosperity and take a look at the living conditions and tell me where you'd rather be, and then tell me why in the hell these idiots are blaming the good guys for the problems.

Wait, I thought you just said we had no responsibility for environmental problems. Does this mean that only the commies are accountable and responsible for their actions?

And I know it's probably just nit-picking but "these idiots" have long placed a great deal of blame on the Eastern Bloc (Murray Feshbach's seminal work, Ecocide in the USSR, comes to mind) for "the problems." (By the way, why is Rush saying there are problems? I thought he just said there weren't any.)

In spite of this very minor flaw in his reasoning, Rush is able to take us to the heart of why some people are concerned about the environment. It's because they hate freedom.

It's because they're anti-capitalist. It's because they use the environmental movement as their platform for attacking freedom because they're threatened by it because they're elitists, and now all of a sudden... [Ellipses in original]

That's right, folks. Only socialist elitists want to pass along a clean and healthy planet to its future inhabitants. Don't you just hate selfish people like that? Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that personal responsibility is important!

Rush goes on to give us several more good arguments as to why we should ignore the environment, many of which involve making fun of the names of New York Times columnists. But I think some things he said during another segment of the same show sum it up better.

The only people that make news are the whiners and the complainers and they're all on the left; the environmentalist wackos, the feminazis. Go down the list: the Algores, the MoveOn.orgs. They're a bunch of angry, mean-spirited, affected people whining and moaning and complaining.


The people that believe optimistically are out living their lives. They're not on a protest march; they're not whining and complaining, thus they're not making news.

Ahhhhh...The Dark Window just loves irony. And those last two wonderful paragraphs are ironic in so many delightful ways.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?