Rush Limbaugh: I generally look at things as part of a big picture, finding one thing connects to another, resulting in an interlocking whole. This seems to me a good thing, though the joys of complexity sometimes results in one getting lost in the morass of detail. Rush Limbaugh's troubles appears to me to fit the bill. Is he a hypocrite for being so strongly critical of illegal drug users [and supportive of destructive strict drug laws as compared to saner alternatives] and civil libertarians of a sort, when he too appears to be an illegal drug user and is now arguing his medical privacy was violated in a way that is probably no worse a threat to liberty than others he sneers at? Or are there differences? Just what is involved here?

The complexity and wider picture his alleged prescription drug abuse (and general selective human failing targeting) opens up might not be immediately clear, if we take the shortsighted approach. This is a failing befalls us all, so do not assume I'm unaware that other examples can be used. All the same, here a Rush listener might ignore the connections that Oxycontin or "hillbilly heroin" has to general drug abuse. Oxycontin is a potent narcotic used and abused to deal with pain as is its illegal cousins. And, the abuse of prescription drugs to deal with general malaise that drives many illegal drug abuses is well known. Hopefully, the connections and complex issues involved is seen by more people once "one of their own" is affected. All the same, just calling him a hypocrite without connecting the dots might result in people talking past each other. A danger that is all too clear these days.

---

An Eclectic Bunch Of Interesting Articles: An explanation of utilitarianism that appeals to my philosophy of life can be found here. Some of the reasons why health care should not be seen just as some capitalistic good can be found here; the surrounding "fray" discussion points out some reasons why our current health care system is inefficient and ultimately destructive to the economy. On Friday, Balkanization explained how the Republican view of the 2nd Amendment might be "republican" (trust the people with arms to protect against governmental abuse), but the Iraqi Constitution (which they seem to support, perhaps unwisely?) arguably does not. I examine or cite three subjects examined by the weekend papers here.