That statement is not universally agreed with, as anyone can say who has taken note of his gleeful participation in the get-the-Clintons, poke-fun-at-liberals, revile-the-“Feminazis” campaigns for which he has been one of the primary spokesmen. He may indeed be known for his grace toward people he agrees with, but it seems to me that “good character” involves a bit more than simply not poking fun at physical ailments. A better test of character is how one handles disagreements, and he has not done well in that regard. If the reply to that is that it’s all part of his act, not meant seriously or personally, that’s actually sadder in a way, and not fully credible either.
If this misfortune causes him to have a bit more sympathy toward others, a little more patience with differing viewpoints, and a little more understanding of the complexity of the world, it won’t be entirely bad. There is no sinner who cannot be saved, and no affliction that cannot be ennobling.
But nobody deserves not to ever be able to hear music again.
I have been duking it out on the Pit thread about Rush. I have to say, I am pretty amazed that some people find it so easy to find “poetic justice” in this.
So, some of you hate Rush Limbaugh. So you think he’s an ass. So “poetic justice” would be for him to have some severe professional set-back. Lose a lot of sponsors, maybe. Lose his show. If you dislike him, yeah, I could see you finding something like that to be “poetic justice”.
But to go deaf? Never hear music again? To never hear the voices of his family and loved ones again? That affects his whole life, forever and ever. How is that “poetic”? And how is deafness “poetic” anyway? (That’s what they are claiming on the Pit thread - sorry for the slight bleed-over here!)
I always thought there was some sort of unwritten taboo that held us back from revelling and rejoicing in someone else’s personal afflictions like this. And so I agree with Drastic and Tygr here. It is a bit shocking and disheartening to find that some of you who have no problem breaking this taboo.
yosemitebabe, you must think it’s understandable how someone who has made a good living out of denouncing and belittling others, and has so gleefully wallowed in their own travails, would have little claim to sympathy for his own problems. If he, and most importantly his adorers, learn and grow from this, that’s fine. If not, it’s best to ignore them. Either way, gloating puts one down at the level he’s been at for most of his entertainment career.
For all of you who see the justice in this, and figure it is poetic since he has been mean to people, I hope you keep that in mind the next time someone brings up the supposed genius of Al Franken or Michael Moore.
It is well known that all who ever got a chance to know him on a personal level hold him in high regard as a man of charm, wit, and good character. He never stooped to the point of revelling in the random misfortunes of those he disagreed with. This is one of the hallmarks of good character, a quality that is clearly lacking among posters here.
Who the heck are you kidding?
This is a guy who called Chelsea Clinton ugly.
On the air.
More than once.
Rush may have said some uncharitable things in his career. But fellow Doper Sam Stone saw the Chelsea Clinton “incident” as it originally happened, on Limbaugh’s TV Show. Stone relates it on this Pit thread. I will take his first-hand account more seriously than anyone else’s hearsay. (Unless you have personally heard Limbaugh repeat the “Chelsea is ugly” statement repeatedly, rather than just hearing other people claim that he did that.) Basically, according to Stone’s account, The Chelsea thing was a technical slip-up of Limbaugh’s (perhaps) and that Limbaugh apologized for it, over and over. And that it was a long time ago. And he never did it again.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh’s show all that often, so I’m not an expert on everything he says. But, yeah, I’ve heard him say some things that made me squirm. But very often they sounded far worse than they really were, when taken out of context. I mean, I remember hearing things he said, and then hearing the “spin” about what he people claimed he said later on. They weren’t the same thing. This happens (I daresay) to every radio (or TV) personality, whenever they express any opinion.
What I heard was Rush Limbaugh discussing, on the radio, the fact that he was being criticized for calling the girl ugly, but that none of his critics was actually denying that she was ugly. This was circa early '93.
That struck me as one of the lowest things I’ve ever heard on the air.
I’m wondering if this isn’t going to cause deafness to become the political health issue in vouge for the next few months… When Michael J. Fox was diagnosed with Parkinsons, it became a big thing, funding increased for research (thanks to celeb status), etc etc.
Rush becoming deaf is a terrible thing for him and those around him. 'Scuse me for being grouchy or politically incorrect, or whatever, but I’m basically viewing this as yet another celebrity-affected issue that’s going to end up in front of Congress looking for research funding, money for access, etc etc. (I’m glad of it - not of it happening to HIM, however, I’m deaf and anything that could potentially help the deaf community makes me happy.)
Karma is a werid thing… I don’t (obviously) listen to his program, but I remember my gramma - who loves him - saying a while ago that she was angry with him for making statements regarding the handicapped needed to adapt to the world, not the other way around. I have no idea if this is true or not, so pleassssssssssssssseeeeeeeeee don’t quote me on that one.
I’m really curious as to what the cause of his deafness is though. Does anyone know?
There isnt always a cause. They dont know what caused mine either. Why I figure I be going deaf three times, once from unknown causes, second, surfers ear & three, old age
I don’t have a view on Rush’s deafness, per se, but I have to admit that the above occured to me as well. I have a number of acquaintances with spinal injuries, and I know exactly how much “research for a cure” was done before Christopher Reeve broke his back. Makes me nuts that we rarely pay enough attention to finding cures for disease or disability until a celebrity is afflicted. Or maybe it’s that the research gets no public interest until that point. Either way, it sucks for those who are suffering prior to the celebrity.
LifeOnWry : I agree with you on how many things don’t get any public interest until a celebrity gets hurt/sick whatever. But - how to word this correctly? - isn’t it kind of a good thing that these kinds of things happen? I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, of course, but sometimes I’m glad that something like this happens to someone who has an effect on the public eye. Suddenly, for a short while at least, the research gets more funding, and small breakthroughs (and hopefully large ones) occur. Or the opportunity for financial providers to consider the situation and commit to a cause.
I guess its the old “silver lining” idea - now people know something new, and what can cause it, and who can it affect, and what to do about it, and what the treatment is, and what kinds of research is happening to fix it, etc. Something good CAN come out of it.
I just can’t resist giving my example of my best friend. She had leukemia at 15 - shes in remission and studying to be a nurse. It was a GOOD thing!
It’s always a good thing when anything draws attention to a worthy cause. What upsets me is that it sometimes seems as though these causes don’t exist until a celebrity is affected. What good does research do NOW for the people who were affected 20 years ago? What, they’re not famous enough to warrant a cure? You gotta BE famous to matter? It’s just kinda sad, yanno?
