By now the five remaining people on the planet who didn't know that Rush Limbaugh embodies the very worst in politics, pop culture and possibly all mammals ever, have joined the rest of us in this knowledge. But for those of you that have been under a rock in recent days, allow me to fill you in on this latest dispatch from Rush Limbaugh's race to the bottom. Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, a woman he doesn't know, has never met and knows next to nothing about, a slut. I take that back. He knows something about her now, namely that she's smarter and more courageous than he is.
Fluke provoked Limbaugh's ire when the Georgetown University law student dared to testify in support of contraception coverage before a Democratic hearing after previously being denied the right to testify in a male (and conservative) dominated congressional hearing on the matter. Fluke's testimony highlighting the fact that many women rely on contraception to address medical issues unrelated to preventing pregnancy, apparently struck Limbaugh as humorous. (Hey -- who doesn't find ovarian cysts hysterical?) He then continued to riff on Fluke, speculating on her sexual habits in a manner I will allow you to read about for yourself because just thinking about the comments and frankly, their source, gives me the creeps.
On Saturday Limbaugh "sincerely apologized" to Fluke clearly seeing the error of his ways due to some serious self-reflection on his part. At least we're supposed to pretend it's due to his self-reflection, and not due to the fact that his advertisers are ditching him faster than he ditches wives. (At last count he's on number four and considering she's not much older than Ms. Fluke, part of me wonders if perhaps this was all some grotesque attempt at flirting on his part that simply went awry. After all, who wouldn't want to be the fifth Mrs. Limbaugh? Raise your hands high, ladies!)
As un-amusing as this whole situation has been, I can't help being amused by the timing of it all. March happens to be Women's History Month. Talk about starting it off with a bang. While we all know that for at least the next month we can look forward to hearing occasional references to our country's greatest women sprinkled in speeches, news items and, of course, school reports, what you may not know is that despite years of trying we still don't have a national museum to honor the contributions of women. Before any eye rolling or shouts of "pay down the deficit!" begin, did I mention that the planned National Women's History Museum won't cost taxpayers a single dollar? It will, however, require congressional approval for the land on which it will eventually be constructed; approval that despite years of negotiations (and efforts of the saner members of Congress on both sides of the aisle) has remained elusive.
If you need further proof of just how gridlocked and embarrassing Congress has become in recent years, consider this. We have a National Postal Museum, which was opened in the nineties, but recent efforts at making a National Women's History Museum a reality have repeatedly stalled. That means that the postal service, which may be the only body in America with a lower approval rating than Congress, was deemed worthy of its own museum honoring its contributions to this country, but after years of near-groveling women still haven't been deemed worthy of one.
Did I already mention the part about how the museum won't cost taxpayers a dime?
So what's the hold up?
In a nutshell, for the museum to be constructed on land in close proximity to the National Mall, congressional approval is required. As National Spokesperson Meryl Streep (who could also be called the museum's most devoted evangelist) recently explained in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, "It's a political football... It's a thing that everybody in Congress agrees with but then they attach it to something that no one agrees with." To her point, on more than one occasion the necessary bill has made it out of the House only to miss garnering a vote in the Senate before the end of the legislative session. But in at least one instance it was intentionally stalled. The reason: political posturing over the politics of women's health. Sound familiar?
In 2010, Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Demint, among the chamber's most conservative members, placed a "hold" on the bill. Initially the two senators expressed budgetary concerns. You know, despite the fact that the museum will not use taxpayer dollars. Perhaps someone pointed that out to them because they later argued the museum would unnecessarily duplicate others. But according to USA Today, the real reason allegedly behind their concern? An organization that opposes abortion wrote a letter to both men expressing concern that the museum would not sufficiently honor women who have opposed abortion rights. (Apparently every single political issue on the planet somehow comes back to we ladies and our reproductive organs.) For the record, the museum is a nonpartisan effort with supporters representing both major political parties.
The National Women's History Museum Act of 2011 was introduced last fall where it was approved in the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee but months later we're still waiting. Waiting for our male-dominated Congress to get its act together enough to agree that honoring the contributions of women -- especially when it won't cost taxpayers a cent -- is one issue that should transcend partisanship.
Meryl Streep, who recently clinched her third Academy Award for playing a history-making woman, Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, believes so strongly in the museum that she donated a million dollars to help make it become a reality. You may not have a million dollars to spare (few of us do) but you can help too. Here's how:
1) Write to your member of Congress and tell him or her that you support the National Women's History Museum, specifically you support the federal government approving the land necessary to make it become a reality. (Click here to see how to contact your elected officials and to see a sample letter.)
2) Support the National Women's History Museum online. The only way the museum can succeed without federal support is through private contributions. Click here for more details about how to get involved. In fact, why not make a donation in Rush Limbaugh's name? It seems only fitting that he help build the museum where thanks to him, Sandra Fluke's portrait is likely to hang someday.
Keli Goff is the author of The GQ Candidate and a Contributing Editor of Loop21.com where this post originally appeared.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Michael B. Keegan: Who's Sorry Now? The Republican Art of the Non-Apology
Catherine Meeks, Ph.D.: Yes, Alexander, It Is A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, But...
Marilyn Sewell: Rush Limbaugh and the Legacy of Margaret Sanger
Elizabeth Gregory: 'Slut' Limbaugh and the Virgin Queen
Insurance companies must stop paying for Viagra immediately - and reinstate only when they start paying for birth control.
p.s. Rush Limbaugh may technically be a mammal, but the idea of suckling anything that would morph into THAT gives me the dry heaves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerit-quealy/meryl-streep-gets-histori_b_740757.html
why else would they bring so many horrible laws that hurt women?
a tranvigianal probe is rape, and that law is republican in origin.
There are people who happen to be men being honored for various reasons in various fields.
Women who make noteworthy achievements should be honored in the museums related to their fields and not patronized or ghettoized with "separate, but equal" acknowledgement.
Whilst what you suggest IS the ideal, we are not particularly close to living in an idealistic world.
And that is why we have people stridently, valiantly fighting for this kind of thing, in the hope that one day we progress to the ideal world of equality suggested in your comment.
You'd prefer to see them marginalized ALL IN ONE PLACE.
That's being ghettoized.
I also believe that people, if given enough rope, will hang themselves long before they will use it to rescue themselves.
The best thing is to allow him to say what he wants, when he wants, and then his world will come crumbling down when he is taken off the air altogether.
People can't see the true colors of an individual if you chase him into hiding to recoup and revamp his arsenal. To not be heard for people like Rush is worth than being an outright outcast. He wants a war of words and it is only because the sponsors have given him notice that he is quieting down.
Personally I tuned him out almost 15-20 years ago when he was banging on Clinton on any and all matters.