Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

READER'S POST #12 - Rush Got it Wrong

By: 32slim32

While we suffer through the highest period of unemployment in American history, deal with rising fuel prices, and trillion dollar-plus deficits, at least we are focused on the most important issue facing America today: free contraceptives for law students.

Ms. Fluke testified before Congress that, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.”

First of all, $1,000 a year for contraceptives? Gee, someone must be telling a lie. According to Planned Parenthood’s website, “Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month”. Let’s see $50 a month times 12 months per year comes out to $600 per year and a total of $1,800 for the entire three years of law school.

Now Rush, you can’t be using derogatory, demeaning, and non-politically correct terms like “slut.” We must turn to our compassionate, caring-and-concerned-about-women liberal counterparts to find acceptable language. Apparently “cunt” is the term you should have used. Every time Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin that there is no outrage, no 24/7 headlines, and a lot of people laugh.

In fact, Bill Maher says this is acceptable because he doesn’t have sponsors. “Slut” is bad when Rush uses it because he has sponsors, but “cunt” is acceptable for Maher because he doesn’t have sponsors. Does that mean if Rush Limbaugh got rid of all of his sponsors he could just randomly call Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton et al “cunts” and there would be no mainstream media freak outs? Is that how it works? I somehow doubt that it does. I am more than sure the way it works is that Bill Maher and other liberals can say whatever they like about conservative women (sponsors or not), while conservatives had better not even slightly criticize a liberal woman.

Where was all this “war on women” crap when Sarah Palin was being bashed, lied about, stalked, mocked, and trashed the last four years? Oh wait, she’s not a liberal so she’s fair game. Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s not a double standard just more of one standard for liberals and a totally different standard for everyone else.

Does White House press secretary James Carney not find the word “cunt” reprehensible? He didn’t find the word “slut” reprehensible when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham that. Did he just learn what the word means? Another funny thing: wonder boy 0bama didn’t call Palin or Ingraham after they were verbally accosted. I’m not even going to ask why because we all know why.

Ms. Fluke also testified that, “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” Considering that Wal-Mart and Target sell prescription birth control for $9, I wonder what other items stayed in their budget. Did the cable bill, iPhone service, Netflix, and daily visit to Starbucks remain in the budget after making room by freeing up $9 per month?

Sure, Rush using the word “slut” may have been a little over the top but don’t give me all this non-sense when you have the likes of Bill Maher and Ed Schultz running around using the same and worse kind of language.

Whatever happened to the good old days of President Clinton? Mr. Obama and all of you stooges in the mainstream media, keep in mind the words of your hero, BJ (Bill Jefferson) Clinton: “It’s the economy STUPID”. So, please, let’s start talking about high unemployment, even higher deficits, a stagnant economy, and sky rocketing fuel prices. Oh wait, it may be a little hard to blame that on Bush four years later, so I guess we need to be prepared for all kinds of trivial little stories like this.

I have a question for Ms. Fluke: you don’t pay for your education and don’t want to pay for your own $9 a month contraceptives; should the taxpayers supply you with your post-orgasm cigarettes too? Should we supply all the booze to give a man enough courage to pick you up and take you home too? Where does it end Ms. Fluke? How much do the taxpayers owe you? What else should be provided for you since you are just a poor struggling 30 year old student?

Anyone that can’t see the blatant double standard and hypocrisy of the media is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

Disclaimer from The Elephant in the RoomThe article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, check out our Reader's Post page here (http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-posts-our-open-forum-blog.html) or email us at loudmouthelephant@gmail.com

24 comments:

  1. HAHA He said cunt

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good morning slim32,

    This topic upset me for a number of reasons, a big part of which we agree on. It receiving this much attention is serving more to distract from the major, more important fiscal issues we're dealing with right now. Don't get me wrong, social issues are important as well, but needless to say the economic crisis we're battling through over the past 4-5 years takes top spot.

    If people/the media were only as passionate about the fiscal issues as we are with the social ones, we might not be in our current mess.

    That said, there's of course still room to discuss this.

    I do have to say that Ms. Fluke isn't lying about the $3,000 per year figure.

    It's not a typical cost figure, but it certainly is a possible one.

    The problem being that not all birth control pills work the same for everyone. It’s not as simple as ‘pick a color!’ or going to your doctor and requesting a $9 generic from Walmart, as in most cases the wrong pill can cause adverse reactions. This is why there are so many different forms, types and dosages (all with different levels/types of hormones, release rates, etc). Often, any doctor prescribing it will require constant check-ups/monitoring for the first 2 months because of this... Along with a minimum of a once-a-year evaluation (and possible cervix biopsy) to continue the prescription.

    Now with all that in mind, take note of the fact that birth control bills in reality can cost up to at least $206 per month (check the price on Seasonale birth control). That in combination with the above, it is very possible for this to add up to over $3k per year. It's not a lie, but perhaps not the most accurate figure either considering that wouldn't be the most common situation by any stretch.

    I can't really see eye to eye with comparison of Bill Maher/Ed Schultz or the like to Rush Limbaugh either though, not that it makes either of their actions any less excusable. But I think that it's obvious Rush Limbaugh committing a major faux pas is much more of a big deal than Bill Maher, because Rush has literally 15+ times the viewer base and actually carries a fair amount of influence and support in Republican politics. Bill/Ed don’t. It just comes with the territory; the more influence and popularity you have, the more you fall under the magnifying glass (and the more abhorrent your mistakes).

    Again, that’s not to justify anyone ever doing that, but I’m sure you could understand why on a similar line of reasoning Obama calling someone a slut would be a far bigger deal than the state Senator of Alaska doing the same.

    Lastly, one must keep in mind that the many birth control users (I’ve read as much as 40%) actually use it for reasons other than just birth control. This isn’t just about sex; which is part of the major frustration in this conversation.
    - The pill has been proven to over time reduce ovarian cancer risk by up to 70%.
    - It can help reduce testosterone, and prevent an imbalance (which also fights severe acne).
    - Can be used in various forms of hormone therapy.
    - Assists in regulating the menstruation cycle and reducing the severity of periods; often eliminating cramping/stress near-completely.
    - It can steady the hormone increases caused by PMS, which often can cause moderate to severe distress/anxiety and stress your body.
    - Reduces the chances of Endometriosis, a growth issue caused by elevated hormone levels.
    - PCOS (ovarian cyst) relief.
    - Treating menorrhagia with or without anemia.
    - Migraine relief.
    - Severe dysmenorrheal.
    - Combating infertility.

    And more, all of which are potential medical reasons to take given type of birth control. All of which are beneficial and desirable for a large number of woman even without considering the birth control aspects.

    Which, needless to say, results in a large amount of women taking birth control for reasons other than just contraception (if not completely for those other reasons).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning 32slim32 and RKen -

      You knew this had to come up :-) The Rush Limbaugh saga... Regardless of the opinions of each person, this is great. It's good to see a debate about this.

      For me personally... I usually try to stay out of personal/social things. I like econ; I know econ; I tend to stick to econ... I do have opinions about social issues, but to me, I don't weigh them nearly as heavily as I do economic ones.

      As for this whole thing, I do agree that Rush could have been a little more selective in his word choice. I pretty much want to ask him, "what good did this do? Can't you please make good points without the crassness?"

      As far as the issue itself... I, as I am with all gov't-sponsored, discriminatory socio-economic programs, am vehemently against the gov't paying for any one person's or group of persons sustenance, health care, housing, or anything. It's discrimination. Why should the gov't pay for someone's birth control and heating oil (for example) and not mine? Why should they give that person something that is valued at approx (example) $6,000 per year while I don't get $6,000 per year. To me, it has nothing to do with BC or women's rights; it has to do with the government spending more money to just give people free things. It kills incentive; it tells people that they shouldn't have to work hard for it... the government will just give it to you.

      Aside from that, with the religious freedom issue, I definitely agree with conservatives on this one... Let it be known (some people might not follow this blog any more, and that would suck) but I'm strongly agnostic/atheist. Yes... I'm an NRC (non-religious conservative). I was even thinking of creating a PAC called ARC (atheist republican committee). So gasp, conservatives, I'm not religious. I hope people can deal with that. I DO, however, respect religions AND their First Amendment rights to practice their religion freely and have no laws made against them to do so. That is what the First Amendment guarantees... "government shall make no law respecting..." is very important to me. If a religion is against some practice, and the government comes in and tells it, "no... You MUST do this even if it's against your dogma (in this case, you must sponsor/subsidize birth control, which Catholics reject...)" what stops the government from creating a similar, unconstitutional law of the like. As atheist/agnostic as I am, I respect the First Amendment and the Constitution.

      continued...

      Delete
    2. continued - I also, in spite of what the liberal press wants us to believe, don't believe this has anything to do with women's health rights. No one is saying women shouldn't have access to birth control. No one. The right is simply saying, "You can't make a religion do it if they object." Just as the government can't force you to go to war if you conscientiously object, it can't do this to a religion. I wish the press would stop this spinning.

      As far as social issues in general, I really don't believe political parties should have social platforms collectively. Social issues are typically about an individual. If you want to be against gay marriage, for example, fine... But that's an individual issue, and you shouldn't make it illegal for others to do it via political platforms. We all believe what we believe. I speak the way I think, believe how I wish, etc... But I don't have a goal to make every individual speaker, believer, etc. think and speak and believe like me. Economics, however, interconnects us all... That's why economic policies/platforms/positions exist... Social issues interconnect no one.

      I hope that kind of sums up my points on this. 32slim32, to me, makes a good point about the double standard in the media. I respectfully disagree with RKen about the degree of followers, etc. To me, that doesn't make the speech any less harsh (I read that you feel this way too, and you don't condone it)... but Maher and Schultz should have the same treatment as Rush. They didn't, and to me, that's sad. To RKen... I love the bringing of fact and a good, sound understanding of the subject matter (the science behind birth control) into it. Fact-backed opinions are great! Thank you both.

      Delete
    3. Good morning LME, hope you're doing well.

      I'm actually agnostic as well; and also like you still respect religions and their first amendment rights.

      And I mostly agree or understand and respect your views on the other aspects.

      Two things I’d like to address though.

      The first of which, is that actually many women do view this debate as discriminatory. You mention ‘why should this person’s birth control be paid and not mine’, and that’s actually what some woman see it as. This is because for men vasectomies, Viagra, testosterone drugs, and libido-enhancement drugs are all covered under insurance and (without any objection) are even covered for religious organizations. So they will ask why are those OK, but birth control isn’t?

      Additionally, it’s important to note this isn’t an issue of what the government spends money on, as the government isn’t supplying the healthcare (or the insurance). The government is just mandating that all insurance providers follow a universal plan of coverage (which does include contraception, thus the issue).

      But, there is one other aspect you brought light to that I think is a bit more complex than this situation leads on. The 'government should make no law respecting religious practices' seems to be a built-up non-issue for this debate. I of course strongly agree with the principle, but I have difficulty understanding how it applies here.

      A great deal of the money pooled in taxes/insurance ends up being used for things a given religion may not approve of all the time; why is this so important now? Why not before? And if we start legislating based on ‘a religions right to refuse payment in any way towards anything that conflicts with their practices’, where do we draw the line? Can Christian Scientists refuse the healthcare mandate, refuse Medicare taxes, and get a discount on their federal taxes (to account for the non-payment towards health-related federal programs [VA, etc])? Can a Muslim refuse a portion of their state taxes that may go towards decorating the city for X-mas? Can Christians refuse a portion of their taxes that goes towards the bombs/bullets we use?

      It just seems silly to start counting what a pool of money can be spent on as a legislative conflict against religions, because we never have legislated on that before and needless to say I think it’d be a disastrous precedent to set and apply equally to all religions.

      That wasn’t meant to come off as a type of ‘slippery slope’ argument, just that if you do it for one on a national legislation level you really can’t make a case against not doing it for everyone to remain fair.

      Delete
    4. RKen – I think there might be a few extra mixings of issues going on here… I will do my best to “unmix” them :-)

      You said, “The first of which, is that actually man … why are those OK, but birth control isn’t?"

      I think there is a mixing of two issues here: government paying for things, and healthcare companies covering things.

      First, with the comment of, “why should this person’s birth control be paid and not mine ( I would say, my anything… if the government pays for someone’s heating oil and birth control, I want money for food and hockey equipment)”… to me, that’s a government subsidy issue, and to be fair, I don’t think the government should be paying anything to anyone that the individual can and should pay for themselves. Whether it’s heating oil, birth control, health care, food, housing, etc. etc. etc., I vehemently oppose the government just supplying things to some people and not to others. I’m for no gov’t discrimination at all. Ever.

      With the other part… “This is because for men vasectomies… even covered for religious organizations” to me, this is the heart of the issue: should the government FORCE an insurance company or an employer to offer this as medical coverage? To me, the answer is a simple “no!” So I technically agree with your sentiment. It shouldn’t be forced at all. As non-religious as I am, I have to side with religious freedoms here. Some companies can cover this; some might not… but the government, in my opinion, should not FORCE companies to do it.

      I look at it this way: I own a company, LME, LLC and I have 10 employees. As part of my benefits package, I pay for 85% of their health insurance costs (my current employer does this). Now… I offer 3 plans or various coverages and options, and since I’m a strict Catholic (of course, hypothetical) I chose 3 plans that explicitly do not cover contraception. I will pay the 85% for these 3 health plans as stated. The rub? Employees know this and make the conscious choice to work for me. They have the choice not to… and I should have the choice to offer health insurance subsidization as I wish. If the government forces all health insurance companies to cover this, I will simply choose to not offer any health care subsidization (oh wait, Obamacare is going to make me, or pay a fine)… so yes, to me, my religious freedom to practice how I see fit is greatly infringed upon.

      continued...

      Delete
    5. continued; As for this, “Additionally, it’s important to note this isn’t an issue… contraception, thus the issue). “ Yup. Got and understand that… My reasoning behind incorporating that side is because of the topic of “the government should pay for my birth control.”

      For this paragraph, “A great deal of the money pooled… towards the bombs/bullets we use?” You do make a good point here… My first (almost snippy reply, please forgive me lol) is that yes… the government shouldn’t be spending on any of these things… All this government spending is absolutely silly to me. But that’s beside the point. You do bring up a good point, and it’s a very grey issue. Should someone be able to do whatever they want simply by saying “it’s my religious right?” Should they be able to say “well, I can just kill people because my religion tells me to?” No. But that wasn’t the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution balances rights and personal freedoms. You can practice your religion, free speech, right to assemble so long as it doesn’t infringe on others. This also works backwards from the government. The government can make laws that treat everything equally, so long as it doesn’t impose a law on an individual. For example… the government can say “murder is illegal.” If I say, “it’s my religious right to murder”… I can’t express that right because of the government law that protects everyone equally. I can speak all I want under the First amendment, but I can’t slander. The government protects everyone equally from that. To me, this is that “backward-direction, from the government to the people” argument… that the government cannot make people participate in forcing health care providers to cover contraception if they disagree with it on religious grounds. The citizens are protected; they have access to birth control (the government does not ban BC on all grounds), and so are religions. I’m merely standing up and guarding against a dangerous precedent that’s being set in this case.

      The slippery slope one is very fair… and it’s a good debate topic. I hope I’m contributing to the understanding of it. I do definitely understand your points.

      Delete
    6. LME, I definitely understand your points. I think we mostly agree, and it's just that this is kind of a tough topic to discuss because there are so many different views of what is happening and important here.

      For some it's a personal freedom issue, for others it’s a religious issue, or others a government issue, or a discrimination issue, or a legislative rights issue, or a healthcare issue, or an employer rights issue, etc. So many different possible perspectives for one topic.

      Could probably write a book on all of the different potential views, opinions, and arguments concerning a topic like this.

      But, good discussion and I enjoy reading your point of views as well. :)

      The last comment I'd like to express a bit on is concerning your hypothetical, where as the Catholic employer and owner of an LLC you wish to have the right to determine what healthcare coverage is available to employees. This is another aspect of this argument I simply don't agree with; employers shouldn't have the ability to impose their religious beliefs (in any fashion) on their employees. I feel that again sets a dangerous precedent that could be abused or infringe on other people’s rights.

      Delete
    7. RKen - you are wise, my friend.

      I completely agree with this: "...and it's just that this is kind of a tough topic to discuss because there are so many different views of what is happening and important here.

      For some it's a personal freedom issue, for others it’s a religious issue, or others a government issue, or a discrimination issue, or a legislative rights issue, or a healthcare issue, or an employer rights issue, etc. So many different possible perspectives for one topic."

      100%

      As far as the last comment, I don't want to see that either. But, to me, the tipping point is that people aren't required to work for me (well, my hypothetical company). People have the right to work, and I have the right to run my company as I see fit. They don't have to work for me, I don't have to hire them. If a company said, "$50,000 salary, 3 weeks vacation, paid health... must be catholic" someone might not like it, but that's the risk I run. I might not get any employees, and I would maybe have to alter one of my compensation pieces. I err on the side of it's none of the government's business :-)

      But, the other point is true, and I think you and 32slim32 agree: it's unbelievable that with allllll the other economic stuff going on, THIS is such a huge part of the discussion in politics right now... yuck.

      Delete
  3. Howdy LME and RKen. Hope all is well with you guys today.

    Wow, those are some wordy posts guys.

    RKen, you said, "This is another aspect of this argument I simply don't agree with; employers shouldn't have the ability to impose their religious beliefs (in any fashion) on their employees. I feel that again sets a dangerous precedent that could be abused or infringe on other people’s rights." So would you prefer that in order to be FAIR that the Catholic employer just simply elected not to offer insurance that way he isn't "imposing their religious beliefs" on you or other non-Catholics? That would solve the problem. Right?

    Another option would be start your own company and offer a "fair" insurance policy that covers whatever you want.

    I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you RKen, but, you seem to be in favor of imposing your beliefs upon others. The argument does go both ways.

    I think it is absolutely insane the amount of publicity this silly issue has created.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Slim, and yep! It's a good day! Hope your day is as well.

      I understand you're not picking a fight :) I know that we likely won't agree completely on this topic and will question each other, and that’s perfectly OK.

      And there’s no question that we both agree in how much this issue is taking away from the more serious ones we’re facing.

      As far as your example, it’s tough to say. I feel like that situation brings in even more potential questions to this topic; such as, should healthcare be mandated? Is a mandate fair/constitutional? Is it beneficial/fair to allow exceptions to the mandate? How much power do employers have when it comes to such legislation?

      All of which open up a whole different can of worms.

      Avoiding that, if I had to answer your question directly: I feel like this issue can be more simply boiled down to falsely assigning business entities a label of personhood, that doesn’t exist anywhere in our system.

      As the owner, CEO, or major stakeholder of a small/medium/large/corporate business, one may feel or even want the company to follow a certain set of rules, morals, or principles. And in most cases, you (or a group of the leaders) can even run the company around those standards. But there’s a limit to what you can do, and there’s a clear line drawn between human rights and corporate rights, as they’re completely separate issues. This is a major part of liability in our laws.

      Everything about our laws/legislation, taxes, and court system treats corporations/businesses separately from an actual person (to varying degrees, depending on the level).

      Your example comes off as a blur between the lines of applying a personhood right to a corporate right; which is not recognizable in laws, court, taxes, or anything. IE: As a person, I have the right to have an opinion about X race. I may not like people of that race, or heck I may love them. But once I form a business entity, if I try to apply that same right to the rights of the business in how I treat workers/who I hire, I’ll get one heck of a lawsuit (and fast).

      That is, once more, because the rights I have as a person do not translate directly into the rights a corporation has. There are limits, and your rights/morals/religion as a person doesn’t translate over to re-write the laws of a business just because it goes against what you believe. That is just part of the cost of doing business in America.

      So I guess that would come down to, do you believe its fair for a business to openly discriminate against religion/races/sex/political affiliation or whatever in any ways they want?

      Delete
    2. I see the issue more as this: The employer is paying for 85% (that was the hypothetical above I believe) of your insurance premiums. Shouldn't they have a say in what plan they CHOOSE to provide and pay the majority of. If you don't like that plan, you can always choose to not be covered and purchase your own. Or, you could find another job that has the coverage you desire.

      I don't think your employer owes you health insurance. They provide it in an effort to recruit and retain quality employees to grow their business.

      Besides that, most insurance choices will be made based on cost more so than religious beliefs.

      The issue regarding Ms. Fluke is that she knowingly chose to go to a Catholic school and knew full well going in about their contraceptive beliefs. Maybe she should have went to Harvard or somewhere else. I think there are several institutions that have a law school.

      By the way, Ms. Fluke is also an advocate of insurance companies paying for sex change operations. I see this as an elective procedure much like a boob job is an elective procedure, which insurance does not cover. Will that be the next women's health issue?

      Delete
    3. I don't want to come off as demeaning here, but this is a common misconception for those that don't know the law but talk about it often (I'm a lawyer).

      You, as a private citizen, yes, 100% can discriminate any way you can/wish. That is your right. As much as people don't like it, and as much as it seems like a nasty thing, you can, under the law, regulate your life as you see fit.

      This IS also true with regards to private corporations to some extent. The line is drawn based on government involvement and/or funding. A private corporation (publicly traded, too) for example, can discriminate all it wants. Take Hooters. If it wants to say that only females can be waitresses, that's its right. If you try to get a job and you're a man, the government cannot make Hooters hire you. IF Hooters (this is kind of funny to think of) took any kind of government funding, tax break/incentive, et al, it would have to be an equal opportunity employer. This is the same for private universities (why can private universities stipulate based on a religion, while public can't), housing, etc. If I wanted to rent out a room in my house, as much of an asshole as it would make me, I can legally say I will not rent to hispanics, blacks, etc. If I offered housing to subsidized people, I can't discriminate.

      Please keep in mind where the line is drawn. Again, it has to do with ties to the government. GE, because of its tax incentives (I'm sure I've read about this) cannot discriminate, but if Pepsico had no government ties, it can make a policy that no black people are permitted to work at Pepsi and there is nothing anyone can do.

      Just wanted to clear the air to offer some legal advice :-)

      I'm not racist, by the way.

      -Haj

      Delete
    4. This was to Mr. RKen by the way.

      -Haj

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the clarification Haj, appreciate the extra information!

      I do agree slim32 in that it's a bit bazaar to choose to go to a major Catholic school, and not practice the religion. But oddly enough it's not all that uncommon; though I still don't quite understand it.

      And, I'm also on the same page as you where sex change operations should fall under the same category as any other typical 'cosmetic' issue unless there is some sort of major health reason for it.

      Delete
    6. Good morning RKen,

      Just a brief comment before I run to a meeting. I was going to try to counter Haj's remarks. I thought there were interesting, but they didn't sound right. I forwarded his comment to a co-worker of mine that works in General Counsel and he said that Haj is 100% right. It just sounded so odd, but my friend said that's the way it is, and that is the boundary. I hate to admit it, but I guess Haj was right about being involved and knowing vs. not knowing the law. I hate being wrong, but I do like learning new things lol.

      Delete
  4. I don't think waht maher and others have said about GOP women is as bad as what Rush said. Schultz was reprimanded and not paid for what 5 weeks or something. I think you should get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you don't Anonymous. You are one of them. So you don't think "cunt" and "twat" are nearly as offensive as "slut"?

      Schultz was off the air for 5 DAYS not weeks. Maybe you should get your facts straight Anonymous.

      Delete
    2. Non Anonymous Booyah!March 7, 2012 at 11:29 AM

      Anonymous, you just got smoooookkkkeeeeeedddddddd

      Facts always win!

      Delete
  5. Good evening all... I think there are a couple of significant differences between what Rush said and what Maher said (not so much a difference between Rush and Ed).

    The first is their occupations. As RKen pointed out, Rush holds a prominent spot in GOP politics as a political talk show host with 15M viewers. Bill Maher is a satirist (a comedian in other words) on a cable television show whose value is somewhat (and perhaps largely) directly related to saying things with shock value and ridiculing the GOP. It would be different had Olbermann, Matthews, {insert msnbc host here}. Ed Schultz WAS punished while Rush has not been (doesn't he own his own network?) so his sponsors are punishing him. Maher is a comedian. Would you really care if Chris Rock (a pure comedian) or Howard Stern (one who also makes a living saying shocking things)? Given that Bill Maher focuses solely on politics but he is what he is and that's a comedian.

    Secondly is the context. Sarah Palin and Laura Ingrham are public figures and are more open to ridicule and attack and there is a higher level of acceptability. I'm not saying it's right but it goes along with the turf. It's no different than the stuff in tabloids, both are slanderous but the law provides for latitude with public figures. Fluke is not a public figure but rather a law student who was asked to testify in front of Congress. People, especially younger people, should not be attacked for testifying in front of Congress. It sets a bad/dangerous precedent that it is ok to bully anyone and everyone that testifies in front of Congress.

    What Rush said was wrong and disrespectful to a young woman doing her best to do what we try to do here, play her part in civil debate and offer to Congress her experiences. To bully and slander someone for doing so is to intimidate others who may be somewhat reluctant to offer theirs in ways that may have actual importance in the grand scheme of this country. He used his influence to demean this girl for doing nothing but what she thought was her civic duty. Shame on Rush for doing so and for tearing at the fabric of the political process!

    LME - Curious how you feel about corporate subsidies?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good evening Whatsamattausa.


    How is it Rush is a prominent GOP figure and Bill Maher is not a prominent Democrat figure? It is no secret that Maher is liberal hack. How exactly is it that you see some difference. This Maher is a comedian crap ain't going to cut it with me. That's BS and a very lame excuse.

    Also, if Rush had called Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman Schultz a "slut" you wouldn't be nearly as bothered since they are public figures and all. Right? Even if Rush called them a "cunt" or "dumb twat". I mean since they are public officials they should accept that and take it in stride. Right? Oh, and there shouldn't be any outrage any where. Right?

    Ms. Fluke put her self in the spotlight. No, she didn't deserve to be called a "slut" but she isn't just some random law student either. She is a 30 year old Democrat activist that singled out this school just for her 15 minutes of fame.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi everyone!

    Going back to the beginning of this 'controversy' it came to light that Ms. Pelosi and her ilk attempted to jam Ms. Fluke's testimony into a congressional hearing. As the matter at hand WAS the 1st Amendment issue and NOT contraception per se... and she'd not been vetted, she was refused.

    Pelosi THEN called the, now infamous, press conference - not so cleverly disguised as a 'hearing' - to get Ms. Fluke's testimony 'out there.' The rest is history.

    As I said the last time this was raised - this whole thing was a smoke screen specifically designed and orchestrated to distract We The People from the REAL issues. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.

    The left set a trap and conservatives gleefully stepped into it.

    The left invokes the 1st Amendment to justify OWS disrupting the free speech and liberty of others, squatting and destroying property, etc... but they fail to address the fact that freedom of religion actually PRECEDES freedom of speech/press in that same amendment.

    They continually scream 'separation of Church and State' - which btw appears NO WHERE in the Constitution. Then, they turn around and attempt to FORCE State values into Church doctrine. You can't have it both ways.

    The bottom line has nothing to do with the Church. It's an attack on the very document our country was founded on... one that - on the VERY first page - allows us to worship - or not as WE see fit. If they succeed with this... what's next?

    To paraphrase Bonhoeffer:

    First they came for the Catholics - and I was not a Catholic - so I said nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Dara, good morning. I agree 100% with 100% of your post.

      Delete
  8. Hi Slim,

    Thanks. Now... to get our candidates away from this contrived circus and back on track : )

    ReplyDelete