Thursday, January 18, 2007

Rush LImbaugh Kidnap Apologist

Correction and update 2/23: It was Bill O'Reilly who made these comments I linked to, although Rush Limbaugh very likely could have made similar comments. Mr. O'Reilly is now claiming that his comments about Shawn Hornbeck were taken out of context.

Just as many people suffer from rape blindness Bill O'Reilly suffers from a severe case of kidnap blindness. Worse, he's a carrier of this disease.

If he were kidnapped and treated exactly as Patty Hearst was, he knows his murderous kidnappers couldn't have gotten him to cooperate with them unless he decided that it would be fun to play at being an outlaw.

He also knows that any child kidnapped by a stranger who is ever left alone and is physically able to escape, but doesn't escape stays for one reason only. Living with a kidnapper is more fun than living at home and having to go to school.

I don't know what fantasies he has about being the victim of a kidnapper, but it clearly has no relationship with the reality of being a kidnap victim.

For Bill O'Reilly's exact words which attack kidnap victim Shawn Hornbeck and which shift the responsibility off his kidnapper, Michael Devlin, check out Media Matters.

Something that I doubt he or anyone who agrees with him thinks about is that his attitude contributes to a kidnap victim's fear of what will happen if they tell someone who they really are once they've been allowed to be alone.

In his public denial of the power a kidnapper has over his or her victim, the kidnapper is given even more power when they say to their victims, "Nobody will believe that you didn't stay because you wanted to."
Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 12:41 PM   2 comments links to this post


At January 18, 2007 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Umm, this guy is innocent until proven guilty. Remember that? Without the exact wording of his "confession", we have no knowledge that he abducted those boys against their wills. They very well could have been runaways looking for a place to crash.

At January 19, 2007 9:52 AM, Anonymous joe said...

No, the accused is held innocent by the law until proved guilty in a court of law. (In the USA at least)

In some cases there may not be enough evidence for the public to reach a reasonable conclusion. Or that evidence might not be available and the truth is that a reasonable conclusion can't be reached by the public. It’s also totally appropriate to develop suspicions about someone based on how they interpret data and how they react to new information. I agree that the findings of a trial should trump a media report. But it’s silly to pretend that you can NEVER reasonably make a decision until after trial.

If you aren’t sure that he’s a kidnapper say so, there’s nothing wrong with saying that you don’t know enough to decide yet.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home