THE MYTH OF THE MYTH

"LIMBAUGH ON MICHAEL J FOX: 'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'..."

Dimballs "took on" Michael J. Fox by asserting, without any evidence (or knowledge of Parkinson's disease; that is, is people who have studied it are to be believed over an opportunist bloviator) that Fox was "off his medications" in a recent ad in which Fox made a pitch for stem-cell reseach. Limbaugh claimed that he was off the medications "so as to demonstrate the full horrors of the disease". (Which, by the way, there's nothing wrong with).

I'll bet you that Limbaugh, before making his comments, sat down, and "thought" to himself after watching the ad, "Oh, here's another example of the myth of liberal infallibilty. A sick librul, used by the Democrats, is paraded on to the air, and now we can't attack him". Why is it that every time a Republican cries, "Myth of liberal infallibility," the Republican has either, or will very shortly commence the same attack that the Republican claims he is "tongue-tied" from launching? It's the Republicans who have created a myth - a myth that there is this "liberal infallibility" - and their actions when they are confronted with the irreality of their creation prove the infallibility does not exist, AND serve to let the Republicans do best.

By the way, Fox did not argue that no one had the right to "take him on". He hasn't even responded to what Limbaugh said. So why did Limbaugh make the "take you on comment"? To fan the flames of the myth of the myth, and to launch a guttural, non-fact, non-thought-based attack. Fox, even after the "take on" comment, still did not respond to Limbaugh. It's so EASY to take the high grond when your opponent is the type who strolls through Sea World looking for his next mate (that park should CLOSE for a month or two during the year!)

Of course, one can "take on" someone who has injected himself into the political arena. But as I pointed out to a friend, political incorrectness such as Rush's rudeness is not correct, or brave, or insightful per se. Just because you can take someone on does not mean you can blubber out whatever banalities you wish; political incorrectness for its own sake is not a virtue. Why can't Dimballs take on someone FAIRLY (a word which accuratel describes how "taking on" should be accomplished)? Because to do so would require the absence of hate and the presence of thinking. These simple conditions are just too "tough" to meet for the so-called "toughest" of our political commentators. Ironic, isn't it?