Some waitress, who I will not name so as not to reward her behavior, received a couple of tips from Rush Limbaugh when she served him on two occasions at the restaurant where she worked in Dallas. Well, saying they were a couple of tips is an understatement since they were each for $2000. Apparently Limbaugh is very generous with his tips and this is not unusual for him. $4000 would be several house payments for most people. That is likely more than she would make in a month. My wife worked as a waitress in the summers to support herself while she was going to school and she never made that much over the entire summer… though that was some years ago.
Instead of being grateful this woman had to whine to the Dallas Morning News about how dirty she felt taking the money. She said she felt like it was “blood money” because Limbaugh does not share all of her political views. So of course she did the only thing she could think of to make the money clean again by donating it to a charity that pays for abortions. Yes, you read that correctly. I will now pause for a moment while you reinsert your eyeballs back into their sockets.
But it gets worse, this woman who is so oblivious to the concept of irony that her best guess as to its meaning would be that it’s an adjective used in describing anvils, fancies herself an author. That is why the Dallas Morning News was interviewing her. She has a new book out detailing her experiences as a waitress. For some reason the Limbaugh anecdote did not make it into the book, but is nevertheless being used to promote it.
OK, so none of this is really remarkable. It just confirms that Rush is an exceptionally generous man and that leftists are exceptionally ungrateful, vindictive, and dysfunctional — nothing new there. Each of us spend money every day and some of that money makes its way to causes which we find abhorrent. For instance, I am sure that some of the money which Obama spends makes it to organizations which support the Constitution and individual civil rights despite his day job in waging war against both.
This is because money is fungible. But because money is fungible this is really a non-story that would never have been published but for the fact that it serves a political purpose. It is signalling that this is an acceptable, even laudable, way to act. It is printed as an amusing anecdote where the woman is seen as a bit of a hero rather than a lunatic. “Let’s all have a bit of a laugh at Rush’s expense. Oh, how we tricked him!” I am sure this story is very well received in the circle in which this woman travels.
I also think the cognitive dissonance being displayed is interesting. She obviously considers herself to be the moral superior of Rush. It had to gall her to no end to feel beholden to him or grateful to him in any small way. How could she continue to demonize him when he had been so kind to her?
She could not just accept the money graciously even though being in Dallas she must receive tips from pro-life people all of the time. It would just weigh too heavily on what she uses in lieu of a conscience to accept a tip from Rush. Except, and this will come as a surprise to no one, she admits she did not give the entirety of the tips away to charity — so we can safely put a price tag on her pseudo-conscience somewhere between $1 and $4000. It was a sort of homeopathic cleansing of the money where the bad money had one time mingled with money meant for a higher purpose — even if only in minuscule proportion.
And though one tries not to draw conclusions about a person’s life from one incident, in this case she has lead exactly the sort of life you would imagine she has.