Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Not “Arrested”?

Rush Limbaugh was booked, fingerprinted, and had to post bond last week in Palm Beach, Florida, as a part of his plea bargain in his drug-dealing case. But according to him, he “won,” and according to his acolytes, to say he was “arrested” is “misleading.”

Okay, I’m not a lawyer, but to the average citizen if you’ve got a mug shot and have to post bail, that sounds “arrested” to me.

I never cease to marvel at the complex sense of irony that the righties have. Bill Clinton said he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky, using the same defense that a teenage boy uses when he gets caught getting a blow job; he didn’t actually, y’know, stick it in there, so it wasn’t “sex.” That brought down the wrath of the right for such a lame splitting of legal hairs. Someone please explain to me how Rush’s case is any different in terms of parsing the term “arrested.”

What’s more disturbing is that Rush didn’t seem to learn anything in rehab, especially the lesson that once an addict, always an addict — you’re just not popping pills today. Those of us who’ve dealt with people in recovery know that you can never say “it’s over.” The legal case may be in process and he may not be in an orange jump suit and fending off chubby chasers, but he’ll always be one Lortab away from Step One. Getting over his ego is going to be the hardest part, because in his case, it’s the only thing he has going for him.