Rush Limbaugh has an inflammatory article up in the Stack of Stuff section of his website, in which he refers to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as "getting her panties in a wad over the fact the military doesn't have any GVs ready for her every time she wants to take one." Unsurprisingly, this statement takes the situation out of context, and deliberately misconstrues several elements of the discussion. It is a crazy world indeed when a Fox News article is a less biased source of information on a story. First, we must address Rush's use of the reprehensible phrase, "panties in a wad." Which is patronizing, sexist, and demeaning, all at once. And Rush wonders why women don't like him? The gall of this man is breathtaking. Second, Rush conveniently leaves out the historical context. This article is based on an incident which happened in the early days of Pelosi's tenure (Memorial Day 2007, to be specific). Evidently someone has had words with Pelosi since then, and she has been respectful and apologetic on the subject since then. Rush presents this as something new, something that happened today - something current. And it just isn't. Are we allowed to forgive people when they correct their behavior? Third, Rush fails to mention that Pelosi's predecessor, Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, used military aircraft to a far greater extent than Pelosi has. Pelosi has used military aircraft an average of once a month, while Hastert used military aircraft every weekend. So if we're discussing whether or not it's appropriate for the Speaker of the House to be requisitioning military flights for personal use, Pelosi is not the worst offender here. Fourth, Rush assigns Pelosi's feelings and actions to the feelings and actions of a completely different person. The emails in question were sent by Pelosi's aides. Pelosi herself has never said anything like what Rush Limbaugh ascribes to her. I wonder how upset Rush would be if one of his staffers sent an email to the press, and the press ran with it as "Rush said X"? Considering he's always standing on the "you put words in my mouth" soapbox, I'm guessing the answer is: very upset. Later in his chat, Rush draws a link between Pelosi's use of military aircraft and the recent debacle over executives using private jets. He implies that if it's inappropriate for executives to use private jets in our current economic climate, then it should be similarly inappropriate for members of the government to requisition expensive military aircraft and fly at taxpayer expense. However, in the wake of 9/11, the security of the Speaker of the House has been a top priority, since they are second in the line of succession to the presidency. Funny that someone who's always banging on about national security should conveniently overlook that very issue in order to make a ridiculous point about national spending. Oh wait, not "funny." "Typical," maybe, or "sad," but definitely not "funny."