March 4, 2012
"Isn’t this the last guy who should be pointing fingers and accusing others of taking pills for recreational purposes?"
Maureen Dowd takes a shot at Rush Limbaugh, kind of missing the point, because no one doubts that Rush paid for his own recreational pills. But I say "kind of," because Rush's attack on Sandra Fluke floundered because he lost focus on the real issue: that she wanted reimbursement for her birth control expenses. He veered into simply attacking the woman for — he assumed — having a whole lot of sex — 3 times a day!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
98 comments:
He veered into simply attacking the woman for — he assumed — having a whole lot of sex — 3 times a day!
And wanting money for it!
It still cracks me up.
Now I got to go to church and repent.
We don't know if Lush Windbag paid for those Viagra pills at all. The prescription was in someone else's name.
He was busted on his return from the Dominican Republic, with other men. The DR is a sex tourism destination. So it seems likely Rush was there to enjoy prostitution.
And his apology is no apology. Like saying "I'm sorry if the slut took offense at something I said."
What, no fluke tag?
Trolling for another 400 comment thread?
Lush Windbag is also a junkie, remember. An oxycontin junkie who escaped prosecution because he is a rich celebrity.
It takes Rush Limbaugh for a liberal like alpha liberal to suddenly morph into a crime-fighting war-on-drugs enthusiast, or to even say anything untoward about illicit drug usage. Funny that.
nothing like a column from MoDo to dumb down the conversation
Assumes is the key word. He made assumptions and created entertainment. Everyone here defending him-I assume you are a low information voter. Rush is again whipping you up into a frenzy-he's manipulating you.
He asked for dirty videos.
Maybe that doesn't seem so terrible to boomers ... but to those younger it is someone 'grandpa age' perving about college girls, wanting to watch them have sex.
Stupid verbal insults are apologized for and eventually forgotten.
Being a dirty old man won't be forgotten. We didn't forget the Viagra ...
Mark--actually-- it will be forgotten after super tuesday, and no one really gives a damn--this has been yet another media flap involving pole vaulting over a mouse turd--
He veered into simply attacking the woman for — he assumed — having a whole lot of sex — 3 times a day!
Actually, wasn't he ham-handedly building the logical inference that she must be having a "whole lot of sex" if, as she testified, she couldn't afford contraception, even condoms?
Whole Lotta Love
You need coolin', baby, I'm not foolin'
I'm gonna send ya back to schoolin'
Way down inside, a-honey, you need it
I'm gonna give you my love
I'm gonna give you my love, oh
Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love
You've been yearnin'
And baby, I been burnin'
All them good times
Baby, baby, I've been discernin'-a
A-way, way down inside
A-honey, you need-a
I'm gonna give you my love, ah
I'm gonna give you my love, ah
You've got to bleed on me, yeah
Ah, ah, ah, ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ha, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ha, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah
No, no, no, no, ah
Love, love, low-ow-ow-ow-ove
Oh, babe, oh
You been coolin'
And baby, I've been droolin'
All the good times, baby, I've been misusin'-a/Oh
A-way, way down inside
I'm gonna give ya my love/Ah
I'm gonna give ya every inch of my love/Ah
I'm gonna give you my love/Ah
Yes, alright, let's go/Ah
Way down inside/ Way down inside
Way downinside, woman, you/woman
woman, you/you need it
need/Love
My, my, my, my
My, my, my, my/Ahh
Oh, shake for me, girl
I wanna be your backdoor man-a
Hey, oh, hey, oh/Ahh
Hey, oh, oooh
Oh, oh, oh, oh
Hoo-ma, ma, hey
Keep a-coolin', baby
A-keep a-coolin', baby
A-keep a-coolin', baby
Uh, keep a-coolin', baby, wuh, way-hoh, oo-ohh
I really miss Andrew Breitbart right about now.
I have no sympathy for Rush, and he should have apologized, but Andrew would have put together a montage of all the vile things said to and about conservative woman and jammed the absolute silence of the left and their omnipresent media pals up their faux outrage asses.
Palin is a c**t, her less than perfect baby boy is fair game, and Bachman is a freak married to a gay guy.
Andrew would not have taken it, and he taught that we don't have to put up with the filthy double standard either.
What's the Althouse obsession with Limbaugh? I only know what time he's on the radio so I can be sure to push the button to a different station during that time.
Limbaugh plays a role, I suppose, but no conservative I know listens to him regularly. But, I know a few liberals that do. Just to get themselves pissed off, I guess.
Maybe this is Ann's attempt at joining the MSM and diverting attention away from Obama and his disastrous economy, his attempts to rob of us of our rights and other Obama related impending doom. And, all we're hearing is about some radio talk show host calling a girl who whored herself out to the liberal cause a slut.
The Dems don't care about this woman. They don't care about you. They only care about power and control over your life. Their greed is the worst kind of greed, greed for power. They just need to fool you for one day, the day you vote. It worked last time, even on some law professors.
Still dumbfounded that a Georgetown law student (and future 1%er) is the poster child for this non-issue. You know that she spends more than the cost of birth control pills at Starbuck's every month. The whole thing is idiotic.
I dunno Roger.
He lost Carbonite post apology.
With continuing traction, his remaining sponsors will not have fun this week.
It worked for Beck ...
Let me be a bit cynical--the staid Eugene Volokh when soliciting votes for his law blog said it was all about page views--He got over 400 on the Fluke controversy--Althouse is nearing the 1000 mark on successive posts--I am I the only schlub that thinks this bullshit isnt about page views and advertising?
Let's be clear - 'insurance' is a method of a group sharing the cost of infrequent but expensive occurrences.
In today's free love world, sex is neither infrequent nor expensive, and since everyone is doing it, 'insuring' it is merely a payment method.
(Well, except the situation where all of us 3-times-a-day-ers share the added costs of the infrequent occurrence of one of us having sex 6 times one day.)
Rush put an intentional and obvious flaw in his attack to give a clue to his point. Once you've bought the birth control pill it doesn't matter how much sex you have. 3 times a day even! Rush was demonstrating the double standard between attacks on female conservatives and female progressives. anything Rush said has been said frequently about conservative women who speak out but we hear nothing but crickets about that.
My guess is that Carbonite will soon have it confirmed that a huge part of their business comes from Rush listeners. And very little from those who sent in some boycott letters. They will be back with Rush shortly.
Rush has had two decades plus of a tremendous listener base. The Sandra Fluke demographic was never part of that base. Frankly he's been trolling that demographic with his "feminazi" bits for the past 23 years.
Has Flake ever justified her $3,000 for 3 years figure?
Steve Austin--I am shocked--shocked mind you, to think that broadcasters and bloggers troll their contitutent bases--you mean it reall isnt about truth justice and the American way? Damn--who knew
Hammer makes a great point, that won't ever be brought up in the MSM. They are too busy catering to Trig-truthers and other vile memes that are allowed to steep.
This whole flap is about money. And about how the left covets (claims!) the money of citizens via devious political moves as we have seen here. This woman, admittedly a willing stooge, has been used by the far-left wingers at the direction of Pelosi, Reid et al.
The frog is getting hot.
@Alpha
Rush said "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
How is that a non-apology?
Did Letterman ever apologize to Sarah Palin or her daughter?
Alpha--you are a genuine idiot who doesnt even know when you are being used: you come on the blog with your bullshit, which, of course, generates numerous comments, mostly correct, about how fucked up you are--and by so doing you enhance cash flow to althouse.com--Its nice to know you are a tool--a very dull one, but a tool nonetheless.
Ann, there is no way I will click on that Dowd link. But here is something we all should read:
Go Kirsten Powers! (in Daily Beast today -- give her some love).
Mark, this Fluke woman is 30. If she did a movie with another student the word 'Cougar' would be in the title. Hardly pervy
I guess he did. Google is sometimes my friend: "I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception."
You know, I find quite tiresome the way leftists keep bringing up Rush's past sins. Especially his earlier addiction to pain killers. Because (1) he owned up to it (2) took sole responsibility for it (3) moved past it. When leftist celebrities do similar or worse, we are asked to forgive, be understanding, not to judge, and so on. Fair enough. But when conservatives commit indiscretions, there is no forgiveness, ever, they are forever branded by that one mistake. Worse, they do this even when the conservative says "yes I screwed up, it was wrong, I apologize, and I have only myself to blame".
@AlphaLiberal - horse manure. There is in fact a significant distinction between "I shouldn't have used those words, I apologize" (to someone who probably won't acknowledge the apology, and will continue to milk a distorted presentation of the incident forever and ever) and "I'm sorry if you took offense" (which, as you yourself seem to be aware, is not really an apology).
And yet, so far as I know, Rush's apology was a real apology. Blimey, even when a conservative apologizes it makes no difference. You just want to use whatever is at hand to attack someone who says things you don't like, I don't think you really care about civility or apologies at all.
By the way, I'm not a fan of Rush and I don't listen. I don't care about him much one way or the other. What I care about is people being attacked unfairly in ways that only reinforce the diseased state of public discourse in American society.
This looks like a "win" for the Dems but perhaps only because the mainstream media is going so overboard on it. (I was in the airport the other day and Anderson Cooper on CNN was going full throttle with it alongside the company of Penn Gillette for an entire hour)
In the end, any episode where Obama has to insert himself into the Rush Limbaugh program will end up being a win for Romney.
"Did Letterman ever apologize to Sarah Palin or her daughter?"
Apologies are for conservatives.
They weren't included in the left wing narrative. They also left out any semblance of humility.
The only time you might see a 'humble' democrat is after indictment or scandal revelation. Their playbook states that they are smarter than the average bear so there's no room for anything of the sort.
Theirs is arrogance, condescension and hypocrisy.
That, the only thing that will be left to take to the bank after they complete the destruction of the economy with their tireless meddling.
I'm still wondering if Ms. Fluke needs birth control at all.
pm317
A refreshing moment of clarity from Ms. Powers.
Thanks for sharing!
Reuters Thursday, 9 Feb 2012 04:05pm EST
"Carbonite Inc announced . . . for fiscal 2012, the Company expects GAAP net loss per diluted common share to be in the range of $(0.82)-$(0.86)."
Friday, the stock closed at $9.46, down 55% from its 52-week high of $21.10.
Since they advertised most heavily on Rush, I would assume that this unprofitable company will now be negatively affected.
I'm not sure what the lesson is here, but I would think companies might become all the more shy of controversial ad outlets.
I disturbed that a woman can testify, and her testimony be given so much weight, using what appears to be highly inflated figures and vague and untested 'testimony' about her 'friends' personal situations. And that our Senators would give weight to such mush, and use this to form public policy.
If you think I'm helping you milk this for another day, you are mistaken. It's like a mid-summer day here, and I'm in the mood to challenge some lady's birth control personally. I'm on a slut building mission. But, don't worry you social conservatives, I'm really bad at this, and you liberals will be happy to know that I'll be flashing my food stamps to bring the honeys around.
I must sincerely thank our government for finding ways to keep the modern liberated women dependent and of low self-esteem. I couldn't do it without you.
Did I miss something? Did Rush go to a hearing asking everyone to pay for his drugs?
Carbonite Inc announced . . . the Company expects GAAP net loss... I'm not sure what the lesson is here...
Flash drives.
Once again, Althouse, who insists the economics behind this are important to discuss, instead chooses to focus on what Rush said rather than what the President has done or what was testified to in Congress, or the economics of it.
Well, I'll stop playing her game on this issue. It obviously isn't important enough to her.
I admire Althouse for being so American, for being so in touch with popular culture. Rush and Dowd are part of that culture (especially Rush). Having said that, I pay zip attention to Rush and Dowd. I never listen to him and never read her.
If I want to read intelligent commentary from the right, I might read National Review, Krauthammer, George Will, Weekly Standard, etc. RealClearPolitics has links to commentary from both the left and the right.
Rush is an entertainer, he is mostly concerned with maintaining and expanding his audience. Dowd is an air head. I don't care what either one of them says.
Regarding paying for birth control via federal health insurance, the feds should not be micro managing insurance companies, telling them what to do and what services they must offer. Much better for the feds to distribute health care insurance vouchers that people could use as they see fit. This approach will reduce governmental waste waste and corruption, preserve liberty, and reduce the cost of government (which is an enormous issue).
LilyBart @ 9:34am
Exactly. It's embarrassing. I imagine the world gets a little nervous seeing what kind of crap occupies the people in charge of the single supreme military in the world. It must be very reassuring.
Almost Ali
Exactly right, my version of Carbonite are 2 inexpensive USB bus-powered hard drives that get backed up to, daily.
And, my data isn't transmitted out over a network and kept in a 'secure' off-site location.
Have to believe that business model is limited based on that.
I'm guessing - guessing, mind you - that Rush read a poorly written summary - or misread an otherwise good one (hey, happens to everybody) - and went from that. Considering how many things MoDo has willfully misrepresented, she's the last to say someone else is the last to be pointing fingers.
And I think Austin is prolly right about Carbnonite. They do a little advertising on cable, but anybody who goes to Rush's site sees their ad, front and center.
LilyBart said...
Has Flake ever justified her $3,000 for 3 years figure?
Doubt it. Her testimony leavers the impression the $3000 figure is for the average woman. A 3 month implant is available from Planned Barrenhood for $100 and Walmart sells birth control for $9.
Doubtless there are women who require stuff more expensive, but I'm betting they're the exception.
I disturbed that a woman can testify, and her testimony be given so much weight, using what appears to be highly inflated figures and vague and untested 'testimony' about her 'friends' personal situations.
Ms Fluke's expertise - and long experience - is in social advocacy - a community organizer, of sorts. She was presumably pulled into Pelosi Galore's dog-and-pony show to be a counterweight to all the bad rap coming from the Church.
Talk show hosts have huge egos and it's hard for them to not make everything about them.
Blogger Don't Tread 2012 said...
--------------
She is one of the few journalists who tries hard (at least tries) to be objective in this divisive environment. It is high time bastards(I can say that because they deserve every bit of it) like Matthews, Maher, Olberman, and all such fuckers are taken to task.
Wow! the Limbaughphobes have certainly risen to the occasion
edutcher
Truth be told, in terms of Ms. Fluke and her background, the rug does not match the curtains.
The left routinely trot out their pawns for political gain. As old as the hills.
The media is used by the left brilliantly. Marshall McLuhan was exactly right in terms of his analysis of media and its power to shape perception.
The horse that left the barn was the wrong horse, but a horse, nonetheless.
Yes, let's ignore the apology and continue the attack.
Always continue the attack.
And throw in a bit of libel and defamation* while you're at it.
That is always a good leftist tactic while claiming to be on the moral high ground, when you revel in being in the guttter.
_________________
* Limbaugh's mis-use of prescription drugs was, as all evidence shows, not for recreational reasons but the result of legitimate use of painkillers to treat real and significant physical pain, which later led to a dependency on those highly addictive painkillers (as frequently happens).
I represented a woman charged with prescription fraud for forging her doctor's signature to obtain Oxycontin after she had acquired a dependency on it and her legitimate prescription had run out. She was originally taking the painkiller because her boyfriend had beat the shit out of her multiple times, landing her in the hospital. Are you going to joke now that she was taking it for "recreational" purposes?
pm317
Yeah, I hear ya.
But get a load of some of the lib comments with regard to her column.
Parallel universe stuff. Liberalism truly is hypocrisy, personified.
To bring the Carbonite thing back into play, I'd guess that the primary Rush demographic is white males in the 45-65 age group.
While at risk of making a wrong stereotype, I'd guess most of that group values their computer data but at the same time isn't keeping up with flash drives and other new and alternate methods of data storage.
Where I'm going with it, is that despite the reduced financial performance from Carbonite, I'd guess that company still has derived a ton of their revenue the last five years from Limbaugh.
I don't think there is any link between Carbonite market share declining and advertising on Rush. Actually the opposite. Probably a lot more potential carbonite customers listen to Rush.
Carbonite is with Rush for a reason just like that Gold company is with Beck. In that same reasoning, Sandra Fluke probably will be able to be a good spokesperson for RU-486. Her demographic will use that product.
What's wrong with recreational anything. Recreation is right at the top of human needs. I even think recreational drug use is fine and dandy as long as it's not allowed to get addictive, which takes the recreation right out of it and then makes it a medical need. And recreational sex, I really hope we don't have a problem with that.
I love Carbonite. Backing up with local drives or flash drives is no substitute. If the backup is not off-site it's not much of a back up. If your house is robbed, or gets destroyed by fire, storm, etc., you got nothing. And Carbonite is completely automatic, never forgets, multiple copies, off site. The only time I ever think about it is once a year at renewal.
That said, I wrote them today and told them I would not renew if they didn't go back to Rush, who I rarely listen to. I told them I didn't trust my data to a company blowing in the media wind and making such rash decisions on trivia. Probably just a bluff on my part, but I feel all cocky now.
The double-standard on calling names aside, it seems weird to me that Ann keeps claiming these were "attacks" when I - and, apparently, she - laugh along with Rush every day.
What happened to jokes?
Maureen is not missing the point.
She is changing the subject.
An old ploy.
Women with an uncontrollable sex drive do not usually end up in law school. Limbaugh was engaging in obvious hyperbole. It was a bad joke, but it was meant as a joke. On the other hand, women who can figure out a way to attend a first tier, expensive law school are generally resourceful enough to figure out a way of financing their own birth control. This is not one of the big issues facing women. Ms. Fluke was also engaging in a bit of hyperbole.....Limbaugh's hyperbole will, at the very least, dent his career. Fluke's hyperbole will definitely make her career. Limbaugh's words were unjust, but, my goodness, he didn't call the woman a dumb cunt with heartfelt sincerity, and this woman's reputation has been enhanced not ruined by his words.
I mean, stop me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Ann's first criticism that the humor fell flat?
If so - and I think it was because I answered her on the subject of jokes - then why is she now claiming "attacks"?
I repeat: EVERYBODY'S LYING.
And unlike Ms Fluke, Rush realizes that what he was doing WAS WRONG and he changed his behavior.
This is a cheap FAILED attempt to play the "hypocrite" card, when Rush is simply holding Ms Fluke to the standards expected of him by Ms Dowd herself.
THe hypocrite card is a very weak argument at best and doesn't actually apply in this case. Rush quit using and made amends. Ms Fluke will not quit using and demands others pay for it forever.
"I mean, stop me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Ann's first criticism that the humor fell flat?"
Why don't you read the post and find out?
My criticisms were that the joke was premised on bad facts, so he put joking above the actual policy argument about what insurance should be required to cover, and that he made the subject of the debate sex (and puritanism about sex) instead of what the Republican Party had been trying to make it (religious freedom), and he hurt the electoral interests of conservatives.
Now Obama's Axelrod jumps into the fray, saying Rush's apology isn't enough and Rush insulted all women.
Re-elect Obama, because he is wise enough not to see women as individuals!
Interesting factoid from the Sunday paper: ONLY women's contraceptive drugs and devices are covered, not men's. Tubal? Yes. Vasectomy? No. Female condom? Yes. Male condom? No. I would guess researchers trying to develop a "male pill" might as well pack up and go home, as the unintended consequence of this decision may well be that contraception has been officially declared "women's responsibility."
"
My criticisms were that the joke was premised on bad facts"
Well then, fake but accurate. I mean even if it's not her, we know there is a slut somewhere who this all applies too. We need to find that role model and get her in front of congress. I bet we could find two. I dated more of them than that myself.
Hey, and do health plans have to cover any and all contraceptives, or can they say, for instance, only generic pills are covered, not name-brand?
"
My criticisms were that the joke was premised on bad facts"
Well then, fake but accurate. I mean even if it's not her, we know there is a slut somewhere who this all applies too. We need to find that role model and get her in front of congress. I bet we could find two. I dated more of them than that myself.
The issue isn't even that she wanted reimbursement for her birth control. (You can make the case that birth control is a legitimate medical expense and that it saves society money and helps prevent abortion.) It's that people who have a moral objection to contraception would be compelled by the government to share in the expense.
Seriously... does anyone at all think that she does or did? It's ridiculous, which was his (not well articulated) point.
On the other hand, without using the WORD the left has been telling us that all women are, and they've been doing it for decades. Anything having to do with sex ed or contraception is based on the sure knowledge that beginning at their menses, girls and then women, are that-word. Can't ask them not to be, either, because that is baaaaaad. Can't suggest that teenagers are capable of self-control because that's not only wrong (teenagers are never ever capable of self-control) it's being a hater. Can't suggest that adult men or women have self-control either. Can't even suggest in the face of the AIDS epidemic that finding some smidgen of self-control or self-discipline might be a worthwhile task because then you're a homophobic hater.
Oh Rush! You just shouldn't have used the WORD!
Ann Althouse,
My criticisms were that the joke was premised on bad facts,...
two things:
1) jokes don't have to have facts.
2) How did jokes become "attacks"?
She wanted to testify with the men.
Turns out... she thought that she had qualifications that set her alongside people who had studied theology or law for their entire lives, three lifetimes apiece compared to her one so far.
She's a professional advocate, sure.
But the only claim she had to sit at the table with those men and talk about the impact of the mandate on the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion is that she is a female of reproductive age.
As Nancy Pelosi said... it was *unthinkable* that they hadn't invited a woman to talk about something that concerned only women... had nothing to do with old men or religion or the constitution.
Pelosi and others were spinning this as only and ever about hating women from the start. No amount of claiming that it's actually about forcing people or organizations with a real religious conviction to violate their convictions.
That was brushed away *before* the controversy even started. 90% of Catholics use birth control, so that proves that the organization is just blowing wind.
Therefore it's about hating women or hating sex.
The fact that whats-his-face at one of the Republican debates asked about contraception (not abortion) before it was on anyone's radar, suggests that this was planned.
Why do all the girl-things in the health insurance mandate have $0 co-pay (including breast pumps!) while anything and everything else, for men, for *children*, all of it, has co-pays?
I generally don't think people are smart enough to plan things like this ahead of time but what happens if we can be *shamed* into stepping back from this over charges of hating women?
If we can NOT oppose free contraception (only for women, not for men!) and breast pumps and a Federal Law that demands a room set aside for breast feeding (I nursed all of my children, and this blows my mind) at the work place... on what basis is anything opposed ever again?
I've seen two separate comments (one here, one elsewhere) that have said essentially that if you don't want to dump your religious freedom or simply accept the infringement on your liberty if you're not religious, then maybe you shouldn't *be* an employer.
Which seems to me to be the worst sort of religious test... not for public service!.. but for permission to LIVE.
Back down from this, and all else becomes unassailable.
When I say that Fluke wanted to testify *officially* with the men, I'm saying, that from what I hear, she asked to do so and was either refused because she's got no area competency in how this impacts religious freedom and/or that she had missed the deadline and could not be added.
Pelosi most certainly reacted the way that I said (and a couple of others with her, like the congress lady claiming that no man ever needed birth control).
Perhaps simply for the visuals there should have been women included in those hearings. Certainly there are women with doctorates in constitutional law or theology out there. We all know one who has been teaching Constitutional Law for a long time, right?
And his apology is no apology. Like saying "I'm sorry if the slut took offense at something I said."
So he gave a Progressive apology. Golden.
Lush Windbag is also a junkie, remember. An oxycontin junkie who escaped prosecution because he is a rich celebrity.
Calm down. Such hate can allegedly kill you.
Everyone here defending him-I assume you are a low information voter.
Don't fret. I assume most people attacking him are lamely trying to change the subject.
Certainly there are women with doctorates in constitutional law or theology out there.
Here is Cathleen Cleaver Ruse, former Chief Counsel of the House Consitution Subcommittee (and Georgetown Law graduate), on the subject --
Notice how Mr. Obama and his team at the White House repeat and repeat the formulaic phrase that women must “have access to contraceptive services.” But all women have access to contraception today, don’t they? There’s no law against birth-control drugs or devices, not one. Nor are there any laws against the sale of the abortion-inducing drugs that fall under the mandate, such as the drug “ella.” . . . Americans are, in fact, accessing contraception and abortion at record rates. The United States has nearly the highest prevalence of contraceptive use on the planet, according to United Nations statistics. The United States has the highest abortion rate in the Western world.
What about Catholics? Supporters of the mandate have made much of polls showing a high rate of contraception use among Catholics. The Guttmacher Institute says 98 percent. Contraception among Catholics is not news, and Guttmacher’s number is hotly disputed, but more important, it’s not relevant, except insofar as it shows Catholics need no help from Mr. Obama when it comes to contraception. . . .
Please, spare us the narrative of the oppressed. The easiest possible thing to be today is a contracepting Catholic. The subject comes up only rarely, if at all, from church sources, and only ever as a proposition. The church can only propose the truth of its beliefs; it neither has nor desires the power to impose them on anyone. How easy, indeed, to decline the proposition. You can find plenty of Catholic friends who use contraceptives just like you, and your status as dissenter gains you the respect of the people who publish your morning paper, likely your doctor, all the intellectuals at your local university, and every starlet on stage and screen you’ve ever secretly admired. Being pro-contraception is like getting a big warm hug from every corner of the dominant culture.
It’s the Catholic women choosing to follow the church’s teaching on sexual morality who have the real challenge. We have to swim against the current, from how we date to how we live our married lives and how we raise our children. Yet the Catholic women friends in my circle do just that, and it’s not a small circle. I could name dozens of friends who do not use contraceptives and are not in the least bitter about it.
No, it’s not a victim issue, and it’s not a women’s issue, whatever Nancy Pelosi or Barbra Streisand may say. It’s not even a matter of competing rights. Americans who want contraception are free to get it. But forcing religious employers or their insurers to provide it is a federal power grab that does nothing but diminish freedom.
He lost Carbonite post apology.
With continuing traction, his remaining sponsors will not have fun this week.
The same company who advertises on Ed Schultz show after he called Laura Ingraham a slut and advocated widespread voter fraud?
THAT Carbonite?
Considering Dowd's support for Bill Clinton, who treated multiple women like garbage, including one who was young enough to be his daughter, she has no standing to pontificate on the subject.
because he lost focus on the real issue: that she wanted reimbursement for her birth control expenses. He veered into simply attacking the woman
That's why I stopped listening to Rush soon after I started well over a dozen years ago. His ad hominem attacks on Chelsea Clinton were tasteless.
It may also be worth pointing out that while Fluke went with high numbers, they weren't all together inaccurate. My youngest daughter is on Ocella/Yasminto regulate her period and costs $800 a year when you add in the mandatory yearly visit (I have high deductible insurance with an HSA.) (And for those who advocate the $9 Walmart/Target pill, it's Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec, which works for some women, but not all.)
ProFlowers just dropped Rush.
8 sponsors have dropped him now, including two post-apology.
Other people might have used bad words, but that video comment is a multiplier on his verbal insults.
He didn't just use words ... he gave us an image of him watching college girls in sex videos.
Big fat Rush, sitting in a dark room, watching young girls having sex. Wonder what he's doing?
You don't live that image down.
Names are forgotten, images and feelings are much harder to forget.
Either he re-apologizes ... or he's tagged a perv.
"It may also be worth pointing out that while Fluke went with high numbers, they weren't all together inaccurate. My youngest daughter is on Ocella/Yasminto regulate her period..."
Has anyone actually bothered to find out if Georgetown pays for non-contraceptive hormone treatments? When we were talking about Hospitals, there was a reasonably clear distinction made... if you have a non-contraceptive health reason that you've got to have these, you get them.
I was in the Air Force during a time when Air Force hospitals did *not* perform abortions. It was against the law for them to perform abortions. Yet I had a friend who had TWO of them.
She ended up sterile, and that's very sad, but it's better than ending up dead or something.
But I've heard all these horror stories about how sometimes you need an abortion to save your life and how illegal abortions mean that women just... die.
And it's lies.
So what about Georgetown (or Catholic Hospitals) and students who need the hormones in oral contraceptives because they have real medical issues that need treatment?
Has anyone bothered to find out?
Or would it ruin the narrative?
8 sponsors have dropped him now, including two post-apology.
So apologize for what reason exactly?
Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut --- and Carbonite had no problem with that whatsoever.
Doesn't matter. Pro Flowers has crap product and Carbonite is on the verge of death.
His ad hominem attacks on Chelsea Clinton were tasteless.
You mean the one that aped an SNL sketch and that he apologized the moment it happened?
Do you have OTHER examples?
My youngest daughter is on Ocella/Yasminto regulate her period and costs $800 a year when you add in the mandatory yearly visit (I have high deductible insurance with an HSA.
A 25% overstatement is "close"?
Althouse wrote: Rush's attack on Sandra Fluke floundered because he lost focus on the real issue: that she wanted reimbursement for her birth control expenses.
Not to flog a dead horse (or one that ought to be dead), here are the "real issue[s]" from which Rush's tastelessness is a distraction.
It absurd to believe:
That for the gov’t to compel a religious institution with scruples against birth control and abortive practices to provide insurance including those things raises no constitutional issues;
That compelling the insurance companies to absorb the costs of said coverage eliminates those and other constitutional issues;
That the preferences of people as reflected by polling ought to override the Constitution;
That a significant number of people want to use this issue to regulate recreational sex (or that the few who might are all Republicans);
That contraception is, per se, a health problem;
That doctors will be precluded from prescribing contraceptives for the treatment of medical conditions if the opponents of this Sibelius/Obama policy are successful;
That taxpayers or other third parties ought to be required to pay for birth control so that men and women can engage in recreational sex;
That the cost of birth control imposes an inordinate financial burden on the users;
That this issue is significant to the future of our country;
That a significant number of women (or men) are stupid enough to think otherwise and to vote for Democrats as a result.
Sadly, it appears from recent comments on the Althouse Blog that a number of fairly articulate people endorse some, if not all of these absurdities.
Here's what irks me about college plans. You have to request to waive them. Even if the student has insurance from his parents, if it doesn't suit the university, you have to buy their policy as well.
Talk about costing money!
mstsf conewmoMy criticisms were that the joke was premised on bad facts, so he put joking above the actual policy argument about what insurance should be required to cover, and that he made the subject of the debate sex (and puritanism about sex) instead of what the Republican Party had been trying to make it (religious freedom), and he hurt the electoral interests of conservatives.
Finally! Thank you for this. What is most astonishing is how Ms. Fluke never spoke about herself, spoke almost entirely about medical issues of others that the pill would have alleviated. None of these women want anything free, they just want the insurance coverage that they pay for 100% themselves, to include the pill.
She at least, was speaking for real women with medical issues, as well as those who want birth control covered under the insurance they pay for. The all male panel members of priests, clergy and insurances company weren't speaking for women but for religion and profit.
A 25% overstatement is "close"?
I actually rounded down. I found the latest receipt. Ocella is $68.74 a month. That's $824.88 a year. I haven't yet had a checkup under my current plan, but several years ago, my doctor office charged about $65 for a visit without any extra work. So that's $889 a year.
Other birth control pills cost more. At $85 a month, that's $1020 a year.
As for Rush; he engages in a lot of ad hominem attacks. Henry Waxman is another. And Rush did not apologize about his attacks on Chelsea independent of SNL.
Has anyone actually bothered to find out if Georgetown pays for non-contraceptive hormone treatments? When we were talking about Hospitals, there was a reasonably clear distinction made... if you have a non-contraceptive health reason that you've got to have these, you get them.
Have you bothered to read what Ms. Fluke actually said. The women she spoke about with non-contraceptive health reasons do not get them. That was pretty much the point of her appearance. ......but the only thing commented on is Ms. Fluke's sex life which she never references and hasnothing to do with the issue.
Frankly... I'd want to know from Georgetown, not from Ms. Fluke.
I've had too many conversations with too many abortion advocates insisting that women will be left to die if abortion is illegal, to trust a word that a professional contraceptive advocate says.
Does Ms. Fluke work in the office approving or disapproving health insurance claims for students? No, she doesn't.
Aren't the Fluke, Flounder, and Sole in the family of fishes?
"So apologize for what reason exactly?
Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut --- and Carbonite had no problem with that whatsoever."
Your argument is a logical fallacy, one the Sean Hannity often makes also... there's even a name for it, it's called:
Tu quoque
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tu quoque (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3]
You-too version
This form of the argument, familiar from everyday disagreements, is as follows:
A makes criticism P.A is also guilty of P.Therefore, P is dismissed.
Not being able to charge people with hypocrisy is going to *destroy* the left.
Though I don't think that it's actually a fallacy when someone is attempting to claim a standard.
If it were a statement of fact, "you too!" doesn't mean something didn't happen. It means that it did happen. If someone was saying "Rush wasn't rude because look, Ed Schultz!" then that would be an excellent example of the fallacy. Obviously Schultz's rudeness is independent of Rush's rudeness.
But if someone is attempting to claim a standard of behavior, then a failure of that standard is relevant.
If Carbonite decides that it can't advertise with Rush, but still advertises with Schultz, then it's lying about *why*.
That's not a logical fallacy.
Ed Schultz asked for sex videos?
I've had too many conversations with too many abortion advocates insisting that women will be left to die if abortion is illegal, to trust a word that a professional contraceptive advocate says.
Okay then. Not much point having a dialogue with you.
Your argument is a logical fallacy, one the Sean Hannity often makes also... there's even a name for it, it's called:
Tu quoque
Except I wasn't saying Rush was right because Schultz did it. I'm saying Carbonite is a thoroughly hypocritical company for treating identical situations completely differently.
So, attempt at patronizing kinda bombed a bit there.
Can YOU explain why the company was OK with Schultz calling Ingraham a slut but not Limbaugh?
Or do you opt to defend rather rank hypocrisy from a company on the verge of a highly deserved death.
As for Rush; he engages in a lot of ad hominem attacks. Henry Waxman is another. And Rush did not apologize about his attacks on Chelsea independent of SNL.
I watched the show where the incident occurred and he apologized in less a minute. The picture flashed up and he apologized immediately.
Can you name a second Chelsea comment?
The women she spoke about with non-contraceptive health reasons do not get them.
I know the concept of an advocate lying about their position is just baffling to think about --- but I've heard that 3 out of 4 policies there do cover it.
So, why should I believe a 30 year old activist who enrolled at Georgetown to protest their health care coverage?
Okay then. Not much point having a dialogue with you.
Yes, asking for independent verification of a claim from an advocate is just so beyond the pale.
A dialog?
About what?
I asked a question that has a factual answer. In the case of Catholic hospitals that do not cover contraception in their insurance, someone who needs medical treatment that is *incidentally* also contraception, has it covered by that Catholic Church insurance.
Is Georgetown different? Does Georgetown's student insurance not cover non-contraceptive medical treatments because they can also be used as contraception?
This is a question with a factual answer.
It isn't a matter of dialog. We don't *talk* about this and decide between us what is true.
And that women who go on the pill have the happy benefit of "Cool beans! My period just got regular!" is not proof of medical need being denied.
Ed Schultz asked for sex videos?
So, they are fine with calling women "sluts"? Got it.
Thanks for the clarification.
I find this amusing:
We use more than 40 talk show hosts to help get the Carbonite message out to the public. The nature of talk radio is that from time to time listeners are offended by a host and ask that we pull our advertising. This goes for conservatives like Limbaugh and progressives like Stephanie Miller and Ed Shultz.
http://www.carbonite.com/en/blog/A-Message-from-Carbonite-CEO-David-Friend-Regarding-Ads-on-Limbaugh
Hilarity.
I guess having no listeners is helpful to minimize the outcry --- that and the noted misogyny of the Left being expected.
If anything, I'm the one with the open mind because I'm not simply assuming that Georgetown *must* have a policy of covering medical necessities but not contraception. (Ie., no vasectomy, but if your balls are cancerous you get treatment.) Why? Because I don't know for certain. I'd like to know for certain.
And in my experience, the applicable logical fallacy going on most often (since we're talking about those) is of the nature of... 1) it is against federal law for military hospitals to perform abortions, 2) sometimes abortions are necessary for medical reasons, 3) therefore women who need them for medical reasons don't get them, and in conclusion, 4) anyone opposed to abortion wants women to die.
So, yes, I'd like independent verification of the facts.
Synova is the most boring commenter here.
She needs to mix it up and surprise us sometimes.
And I agree, Rush is the total victim here and that is the biggest travesty of this entire episode. He should never apologized. He was right, because he is always right and never makes any mistakes.
And any republicans who say differently are total rinos.
Now show us the videos Miss Fluke! Some old fat men want to see them pronto-and there is totally nothing wrong with that, because it is entertainment...that can not be rebuked by any republican ever.
damikesc,
Stop apologizing for Rush. I saw the TV show (over a dozen years ago) where he compared Chelsea to a dog. He didn't apologize; he was being sarcastic. On the radio, he made other comments about Chelsea and repeatedly makes ad hominem comments about people with whom he disagrees.
The fact the he "apologizes" multiple times pretty much proves my point.
He's an entertainer and being controversial and personal is his schtick. But don't confuse that for legitimate argument.
And when he gets slapped in return, don't be so defensive about it. If you are going be an attack dog, you better damn well be thick skinned enough to take an attack in return.
Obviously Rush's critique went array, but I think Ann is missing RUSH's point. She was demanding that her fellow insurance policy holders subsidize her birth control because it is sooooo important. Apparently more important than food or utilities. Rush was mocking Ms Fluke's demand for subsidies by extending her needs into ridiculous levels.
Obviously, it was a high wire act and too risky since the joke is too subtle to be even clearly explained. But it was valid. Just ill-advised.
Rush being wrong doesn't make Ms. Fluke right.
Saying that Ms. Fluke is wrong is not defending Rush.
Just to make that clear.
Rush needs a "Sandra Fluke Update" theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4
Post a Comment