Ad Hominem attack on Limbaugh related to Drug Problem

[304065]

So yesterday I took the Shuttle from Grand Central to Times Square. Down in the station the walls are plastered with ads for WLIB, "Air America Radio." The ads feature various personalities deemed to be conservative, with a red silhouette of the United States mainland featuring a tagline. The one over Limbaugh's face is, "All the caffiene and none of the Oxycontin." or words to that effect.

I think that it is in incredibly poor taste for WLIB to reference his drug problem in this way. Disagree with Limbaugh however you want, write a book calling him a big fat idiot (which certainly runs afoul of liberal PC and possibly the Americans with Disabilities Act), but leave his substance abuse out of it.

Drug abuse is not a problem of the right, left or center: it is a universal problem for everybody, whether junkies in East Village shooting galleries (those that haven't been made into luxury loft apartments, anyway) or dowagers popping yellow jackets at the country club. The appropriate response when somebody has a problem, whether you agree with their politics or not, is to treat it like any other debilitating condition, and be supportive of the physical recovery. The law will take care of punishing him if it's ultimately determined that he violated it.

No doubt the inevitable strident response will follow: "Limbaugh's a bad guy, he's a hypocrite, he's made fun of other people, he deserves it, etc." To which the answer is a polite no, attacking him for his drug problem is off-limits. The man has plenty of other significant limitations that would keep any thoughtful critic busy for hours.

One final point, while I'm on the subject: Where is the outcry from you "civil" liberterians (double pun intended) over the Florida AG's attempt to obtain his medical records to further his prosecution? No less a body than the ACLU has come down on the side of Limbaugh in an attempt to fortify the doctor-patient privilege.

Or is he not entitled to the protection of that privilege because we don't care for his opinions? Would you feel the same way if it were a well-known female media mogul seeking protection of her psychiatrist's notes?

[speeder]

I agree w/ you for the most part, in a just world no one would be judged harshly for addiction if they sought help for the condition. Rush's case is a little unique, he has been a huge public figure for years on the basis of his loud opinions which always included advocating harsh prison sentences for drug users, (as opposed to dealers), and the fact that he never has repented those comments. He was completely OK with remaining a person w/ a significant illegal drug addiction until he was caught and arrested, now he of course wants and expects all of our sensitivity to his "serious and personal" problem.

The Air America folks are definitely treading the line of bad taste in exploiting this, IMO, Rush does a magnificent job of making a fool of himself w/o any outside help, but the exposure of gross hypocrisy of a right-wing icon is just too much for some to resist, I guess.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I've seen the advertisements to which John refers -- and typical of the breed, they're crass, derivative and of a particularly adolescent nastiness.

Denis' point is valid, and Rush deserves the heat he's brought onto himself. However, I believe John is spot-on. This is one of those myriad of circumstances that if you reversed the roles/politics, there would be an outburst of media attention and blow-dried blowhard reproach.

Best of the Web Today (WSJ) frequently provides quotes of liberals under headings such as "If [the speaker] were Republican, this would be racism" or "If [the speaker] were a Conservative, [he/she] would be stupid." Whether I agree or disagree with the quotation presented, once viewed in that light, it's evident that the Left has a lot more latitude for intolerance, libel and slander (concomitant with laxity regarding fact, which is doubly dangerous).

Nobody Move! We're taking this thread to Cuba!
Consider the public outrage surrounding Trent Lott's statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party in late 2002: If Thurmond had been elected President in 1948, when running as a Dixiecrat "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." That statement caused an enormous hue and cry from our entirely neutral, non-agenda driven media, which cost Lott his Senate Majority Leader status.

A few weeks ago Christopher Dodd who said of KKK member Robert Byrd "(I) cannot think of a single moment in this nation's 220-plus year history where (Byrd) would not have been a valuable asset to this country." This is the same Byrd that said to Tony Snow that there are "white n*ggers". This is the same Dodd who said "If a Democratic leader had made (Lott's) statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever."

Where's the outrage? Where's the "stepping aside?" Or have we "progressed" beyond outrage at stupid, off-hand comments in some stretch-of-logic manner implicating race ... until the next time a Republican makes one, anyway.

I don't particularly give a ***** about either statement, but it casts a stark relief on the rules about who can say what and be taken to task for it.

JP

[350HP930]

I think rush is just merely reaping what he has sown, which is never easy for a hypocrite.

I also think there is nothing wrong with the police investigating rush's medical records since it is now known that rush abused the medical system to feed his drug addiction. The police do have the authority to open up normally private records in order to investigate a crime.

Just look at what Rush says should be done about people like himself?

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

"In the audio link below, I go into detail about these non-thinking talking points that "you can't tell people what to do with their bodies" and "you can't legislate morality." First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time--no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality! "

[nostatic]

Originally posted by john_cramer
One final point, while I'm on the subject: Where is the outcry from you "civil" liberterians (double pun intended) over the Florida AG's attempt to obtain his medical records to further his prosecution? No less a body than the ACLU has come down on the side of Limbaugh in an attempt to fortify the doctor-patient privilege.

I think it is wrong, and applaud the ACLU for taking the case. The irony is so massive that I can barely breathe though. And this is part of the point of the sarcasm found in the ad campaign. Limbaugh isn't being picked on becuase he is a drug addict. He's being picked on because he is a hypocrite...he argued for harsh sentences and decried drug abuse *until* he was a victim...then it all changes.

Did he ever come out and say, "gee, I may have been wrong all those years"? The American press loves to jump on people when they're down, but the public also seem to accept apologies.

[fintstone]

I believe that the way they seized Limbaugh's medical records was indeed wrong and am glad he is in a position to fight this abuse...as most of us would not have the resources to do so.
I think Mr Limbaugh or anyone using drugs illegally is assinine and they generally deserve what they get....I do differentiate a bit between those (like Limbaugh) who begin use legally as medical treatment and are subsequently addicted and those who go down to the street corner to buy heroin to get high.
Limbaugh did, in fact, say he was wrong...not for his previous (and current) position on drugs, but for his actions.

[turbo6bar]

There are few real men today--ones who will admit they are wrong...

Limbaugh reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell (my body guard can carry a gun, but you are too stupid to carry a gun).

[304065]

This thread is another in a long-standing series of unscientific experiments to determine whether the "Rawlsian veil of ignorance" is true. The philosopher John Rawls (I am paraphrasing) once said that choice of legal rules was much more likely to be even-handed in the absence of information about distributive preferences, i.e., who would be favored and disfavored by a particular legal rule. More simply put, how do children divide a candy bar on the playground? "You break, I'll choose" is the standard practice- you are much less likely to break the candy bar off-center if you don't get the first choice of a piece.

And yet there are those who for reasons of ideology or whatever, cannot see that the principles that underly our "concept of ordered liberty" are intended to apply equally, no matter who is being affected by them. Both left and right generally agree that protections of various freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, for example, are not to be selectively applied based on the status of the petitioner as a member of any race, ethnic group, religious view, or otherwise.

What is wrong with the statement below?

I also think there is nothing wrong with the police investigating rush's medical records since it is now known that rush abused the medical system to feed his drug addiction. The police do have the authority to open up normally private records in order to investigate a crime

No sir, the POLICE most certainly do NOT have the ability to view your medical records. One of the most fundamentally recognized rights of privacy in the USA is your right to have your medical records protected from being "opened up" by the police in connection with an investigation. The policy is that you don't want to deter people from seeking health care because they are afraid that they will be subject to future criminal prosecution.

The records can be furnished to prosecutors pursuant to a subpoena, with notice to the party being charged. No such notice was timely made in the Limbaugh case which is what has everyone so upset. Everyone except, evidently, those who think he is "reaping what he has sown."

I suppose in your world the police would be able to pull the medical records of a woman suspected of having a late term abortion and go through them?

Do you see that what is at stake is exactly the same principle?

It's obvious you don't like Limbaugh, but do you really have so little regard for the privacy of individuals that you would allow the prosecutors to threaten everyone's privacy just to hang Limbaugh?

[350HP930]

Well, it does sound as if the police agencies involved screwed up by using a search warrant instead of a subpeona to access rush's records.

That does not change the fact that the law should have been properly applied to rush's crimes as he has stated should be performed in cases like his.

Now I got to wonder if a bunch of incompetants have been put in charge of investigating his crimes or if someone inside our state's police agency aparatus has done rush a favor by sabbotaging the prosecution's ability to use his records as evidence of his crime.

[304065]

someone inside our state's police agency aparatus has done rush a favor by sabbotaging the prosecution's ability to use his records as evidence of his crime

Ahh, a conspiracy theory!

Scene: Florida Assistant District Attorneys Office. Crumpled papers and discarded coffee cups litter the floor. The ADAs pace the floor in shirtsleeves, saddlebags of sweat yellowing their armpits. An old air conditioner lazily cycles on and off in the corner.

ADA Johnson: "We've finally got something on Limbaugh! We're going to fry his ass this time, to make up for the 2000 election!"

ADA Swanson: "Yeah, he's going down. Let's subpoena his medical records and provide notice pursuant to Florida Statutes § 395.3025!"

ADA Bronson: "No way! Let's put our reputations and pensions on the line to screw up the investigation! I know we face personal ruin, but I really LOVE the program!"

All: "To hell with Civil Procedure, let's do it!"

FADE

[350HP930]

So I take it your guess is incompetance?

[304065]

Nah, not incompetence, just prosecutorial zeal. I think they probably thought that they needed to move quickly. His records are HIS property and in the absence of his being compelled to produce those documents ( a subpoena duces tecum meaning he has to appear and bring with him the documents) he is free to do whatever he wants with them, including burn them, without being in contempt of the order. They would then have to prove obstruction of justice. . .

So they used a WARRANT instead, which is faster, but it's not the law. And the law, which is designed to protect privacy, is more important than the individual defendant's case.

And I say the same thing when there's a procedural error in the prosecution of any other defendant. The police break in without a warrant and seize the murder weapon. At trial, the defendant argues that the murder weapon is inadmissible as evidence because his right of privacy was violated.

Outside the United States it is regarded as absurd, you would never let an accused murderer go, they have the weapon! Right, Canadians?

But in the USA, we would rather let him go and preserve that privacy right. You can bet the prosecutors get their butts chewed pretty good when that happens.

Being an ADA or prosecutor is not an easy job, either: I have pals from law school that do it for long hours and low pay. "Underpaid Grinders?"

[island911]

Originally posted by 350HP930
I think rush is just merely reaping what he has sown, which is never easy for a hypocrite.

I also think there is nothing wrong with the police investigating rush's medical records since it is now known that rush abused the medical system to feed his drug addiction. The police do have the authority to open up normally private records in order to investigate a crime.

Just look at what Rush says should be done about people like himself?
. . .

hypocrite, eh? We don't like those, do we?

Just look at what 350HP930 says about people like himself:

Originally posted by 350HP930 thread
. . .
I too think that what people do on their own time should be their own business. Unfortunately we live in a country where the government frequently tells concenting adults what they can do in their free time despite the hoopla about this being the land of the free.

I will just concider myself one of the many victims of this country's stupid drug policies.

gotcha

[350HP930]

Thats my opinion which obviously differs from rush's and and the law.

You would think that after all of rush's self righteousness that he would stand up for what he claims to believe in and voluntarily turn over all his records, admit to his guilt and become the felon he deserves to be.

[304065]

Scene: FL ADA office, later that day. The ADAs are huddled around a 9" black-and-white monitor, repeatedly screening a Janet Jackson video in search of content that "appeals to the prurient interest." A half-eaten box of Krispy Kreme donuts sits nearby.

CLOSE UP OF TV SCREEN WITH VOICEOVER: [Announcer]
"We interrupt this broadcast with a breaking news announcement. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh surrendered to prosecutors today. We go now live to the steps of the Dade County courthouse where Limbaugh is making a statement."

CUT TO COURTHOUSE: [Limbaugh]
"After all of my self- righteousness, I decided I would stand up for what I claim to believe in and voluntarily turn over all my records. I admit to my guilt and will become the felon I deserve to be."

[Announcer] "Well there you have it. Now back to our scheduled press conference by President Nader."

CUT TO DA'S OFFICE

ADA Johnson: "Well Bronson, I gotta hand it to you, you did it!"

ADA Bronson: "Yep. Pass me that bear claw, would ya?"

FADE