By the time he apologized, online protesters had been organizing for days on social networking Web sites and liberal hubs like Daily Kos. They called on companies like ProFlowers to remove their ads from “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and appeared to be having some success, as companies like Sleep Train said they had suspended advertising....Now, I believe in general principles, and I want to know what the general principle is about accepting apologies. I'd like to nail down people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Boehlert, because their candidate, Barack Obama, is one of the greatest purveyors of apologies in the history of the world!
Mr. Limbaugh’s critics dismissed his apology as having been forced by the advertiser pressure. Reflecting those feelings on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, said, “I know he apologized, but forgive me, I doubt his sincerity, given that he lost at least six advertisers.”
Eric Boehlert of the liberal media monitoring group Media Matters for America predicted on Sunday that the apology would not “stop the pressure that’s being applied to his advertisers.”
“His comments were so egregious, naturally advertisers will have doubts about being associated with Limbaugh’s brand of hate,” Mr. Boehlert said in an e-mail message.
Why did Obama apologize for the burning of Korans in Afghanistan? Should his apology be rejected as insincere because it didn't come from pure recognition that Americans had done wrong? Obviously, the apology was motivated by American self-interest. He wanted to stop the violent reaction.
The tendency in recent years has been to demand apologies. But these demands are bogus unless apologies are accepted. Now, some people criticize our culture of apology. Santorum didn't like Obama's apology for the Koran burning.
And Rush Limbaugh is the furthest thing from an apology guy:
February 20, 2012: "Why did Clinton bother with all the public apologies with Jesse Jackson and so forth over the Lewinsky stuff? Because it offended people's sense of decency where it comes to family values. He had to get 'em back."
October 12, 2011: "Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one? The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaeda propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to 'express its condolences' to his family....We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us. It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for."
January 31, 2011: "[W]e're minding our own business on September 11th; our own airplanes are hijacked by Islamist Muslim radicals, 3,000 people end up dead, and we think we have to reach out to Muslims. Obama gets elected, he goes over there, and gives this speech in Cairo as an apologist for the United States. It's always perplexed me.... Obama has been to Egypt. He apologized for us. He told everybody over there, 'We've been wrong and we're gonna make it right. I'm president now, and we're not gonna do these horrible, rotten things to you that my predecessors have done. I'm apologizing,' and still with Barack Hussein Pharaoh Obama now, President of the United States going into his third year, there's still anti-American sentiment in Egypt. How can this be? Where is the love? Where his the consensus?"
July 22, 2010: "People have asked me about this woman Sarah Spitz, who's now 'apologized,' and they want my reaction to it. And this is another thing I'll react to it but I really don't want to. This bores me as well, this whole concept of forcing people to apologize for things they meant to say. Why is she gonna apologize? She meant to say it, she wrote it, stand by it. You want to watch me die, Sarah? Say it! Where are your guts? Well, she's 'apologized.' 'A producer for an NPR-affiliated radio station has apologized for saying she would 'laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out' if she were to see conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh suffering a heart attack."
Why apologize? Sarah, this is where you people just flummox me. You wrote it. You meant it. Stand by it. She apologizes to "anyone I may have offended and I regret these comments." She doesn't regret 'em, and she hasn't apologized to me. She just apologized to anybody she "may have offended," but why apologize in the first place? She's buckling to pressure. She meant to say it.Ha ha. I'll stop there. I hit the mother lode. LOL. Ha ha ha.
She meant it. (interruption) What, Snerdley? What? (interruption) I don't know who is pressuring her to apologize. I have no idea who's pressuring here. You'd have to ask her. But I don't know why she's apologizing. She meant it! Stand by it. She knows damn well she meant it. Everybody on that website, in that listserv, meant everything they wrote. It's just fascinating to see they don't have the guts to stand by it. So that's my reaction. If you want to know what I think about it, that's it. (interruption) If she apologized to me directly? I don't know what I would do, but... (sigh) (interruption) Well, yes, I know I'd be gracious, but I'd just... (interruption) Well, I don't know if it will ever happen, but the point is that the latest trend in apologies, "That's not who I really am." You know, "That's not the person I am." Bull! It is who you are! You are a commie! You are a full-fledged Marxist liberal! You do wish I was dead. It is who you are.
I don't care whether it's Tiger Woods saying, "You know, that's really not who I am." It is. It is who you are! What, did somebody steal your personality for a day and grab hold of your hands and start typing on your keyboard and it wasn't you? "This is not who I am. I want everybody to know, as a publicist I understand and this is not who I am." It is who you are! This is one of the big problems we have in this country: People don't have the guts to be who they are and stand up for who they are and admit what they really are, especially under fire. "Oh, that wasn't me. I don't know what happened there! We were just hanging around with a bunch of like-minded people and then you saw it, and that means 'that's not who I am.'" I bet the other people in this group are a little upset she's apologizing.
So, what do you say? Anyone looking for consistency here?
Posts
90 comments:
I gave up looking for consistency from partisan hacks a long time ago.
1. Rush actually did apologize - none of this "I'm sorry if you were offended" crap.
2. I doubt Rush caves to advertisers. He's got plenty of money, and I would bet there are lots of new advertisers ready to step in.
3. Can we now use this "I'm not accepting your apology" meme to show how they don't really care about an apology in the first place?
You'll know consistency is at least possible when advertisers begin deserting Rolling Stone (for just one example).
I'm not accepting your apology.
How old are we?
The infantilization of America is almost complete.
But Rush apologized for being rude. He did not necessarily back down from his position on the subject. He wasn't saying he's sorry for lambasting Ms. Fluke. He was saying he's sorry he was a jerk about it. Maybe a minor difference, but it seems important.
It is all a game between hard left and hard right. If there is a dominant section that wants the issue gone, apology will be accepted otherwise they will keep fighting. Here, the left is just getting started -- they got the big fat man to apologize. By not accepting they are goading him to take back his apology and then they can start all over again how a big fat man called a poor little honest woman a slut.
I'm tired of everyone being so humorless.
I liked how Carville handled demands for apologies when he called that guy a Judas.
“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it,” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.”...
...I called Mr. Carville again and asked if he wanted to revise his remarks or actually apologize. For several seconds he laughed – cackled might be more accurate – and then said he stood by his quote fully.
Rush is going down in flames and the Professor is wielding a squirt gun.
You have someone saying they spend $1000 a year on birth control and can barely afford it. (Or was it $3000?) And, of course, that sounds crazy because you have to be buying some pretty luxurious birth control to spend that much, so if you can't afford it, how are you blowing so much money on it? So the joke is that she must be a real slut.
I didn't hear or read any of the things Rush said, but if he apologized, I imagine that he pressed the joke too far.
But all the silliness out there, all this, "See! Republicans hate birth control and sex!" This stuff is ridiculous.
My position is that I don't want to share insurance rolls with anyone who is so foolish as to be gamed out of $1000 a year for birth control.
Squirrel!!!
This is all part of Left's game plan to create a distraction away from the economy, and an attempt to secure as many women Obama voters as possible.
And Rush walked right into it.
And so has Santorum.
And the left will do anything - anything! - to keep the controversy going in hopes that you forget that your sister is out of work and your friend has been looking for a job for 3 years.
The proper answer to Fluke is, "This country is absolutely insolvent and your generation robbed blind by the boomers, but you still want your free government birth control, you selfish unpatriotic infant!"
Apologies avoid conflict. The Democrats don't want to avoid conflict. End of story.
As I said the other day, Rush broke like a twig. He was forced to apologize.
Think about this in the context of the establishment clause. We don't force people to pray. Why not? Because when you force people to say things they don't mean, they don't mean it. It's a lie. You are forcing them to lie in public.
So now the left is like, "it's a lie!" Of course it's a lie. It's a lie you forced him to say.
The left is not happy until you are completely subjugated. They love to send people to re-education camps. If they could, they would. Indoctrinate your children? Of course!
And then, after you've been forced to say what they want you to say, they insist it's not enough. It's never enough until they have your soul utterly. Even then, they will monitor what you say. If they see any hint of rebellion, they are always ready to destroy you.
This is socialism.
This is all part of Left's game plan to create a distraction away from the economy, and an attempt to secure as many women Obama voters as possible.
Dangle a nice looking young woman on a hook and wait for Limbaugh to chomp?
You don't accept an apology when you want to keep the fight going. You accept it when you want it to stop. Pretty simple rule.
"This country is absolutely insolvent and your generation robbed blind by the boomers, but you still want your free government birth control, you selfish unpatriotic infant!"
Yet another person who doesn't understand how health insurance works.
I'm with Freeman on this one.
Additionally, is anyone else tired of Democrats BECAUSE they are unconstrained by the rules of common decency like telling the truth?
Seriously - is there a Democrat or liberal ANYWHERE who actually believes they should ALWAYS tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Anywhere?
The reason this nation's discourse is at an almost all time low since the civil war: Democrats and liberals cannot come close to the same vicinity as truth and honesty.
I thought Limbaugh's apology was more an acknowledgement to himself that he went to far.
I don't accept your apology is not very polite when the person apologizing is -- apparently -- contrite.
Clearly, the immediate demise of every Democrat and liberal would be a positive, tremendous boost for the quality of life in the United States alone, not to mention the world.Of course I am meaning by natural causes.
Like some selective nuclear bomb that only takes out people of no real integrity.
Too early. Or should I say to early? :)
No, Garage, point a comment right at the leftists vulnerability and watch Garage bite.
Debbie Wasserman Shultz would be a pleasant first loss.
I thought Limbaugh's apology was more an acknowledgement to himself that he went to far.
I think he's apologizing for the sake of his sponsors.
But what I ever do for movies?
And this blog . . (uh oh)
Rush apologized in a clear cut way, none of this "if you were offended" BS. If they don't accept his apology, to hell with them: He was apologizing to Ms. Fluke anyway, so she is the only one with a right to accept or reject it.
They take his money. "Do you apologize?"
No.
They take more money. "Do you apologize?"
No!
They take more money. "Do you apologize now?"
No! Never!
They take more money. "Do you apologize now?"
And then, when he's running out of advertisers, he breaks.
"Okay, I apologize, I'm sorry. Okay."
And what do they say?
"You don't mean it!"
The use of force made any apology meaningless. We all know he was under duress. When you put him under duress, then we can't believe any apology.
Why don't you waterboard him, liberals, and see if you can't get a more sincere apology out of him?
I heart Willard
now there's a waste of human being . . .
He/She knows the real motiviation of conservatives!
Let's put him/her right behind Debbie Wasserman Shultz on the does damage to the human fabric and it would be great to have them crossed off the list.
Seriously - why all the hate I (heart) Willard?
sorry but I see no inconsistency, reread what Rush said about his apology to Ms. Fluke.
as for Carbonite, if they were truly principled they would pull their advertising from Ed Schulz's show since he called Laura Ingraham the c-word(IIRC)
bill maher said he wasn't worried about sponsors because he doesn't have any, but he forgets that millions of subscribers to HBO are the reason he exists. I suspect many of those subscribers are like myself in that we pay the monthly fee because we want to watch shows other than Maher. Maybe it's time I cancelled my HBO and tell them the reason I am is because of Bill Maher's language and attitude
Frothing partisan attack groups like Media Matters whole reason for being is to whip up perpetual outrage. No outrage = no point to MM.
Partisan hacks gotta partisan hate.
Maybe, just maybe--after Rush commits Seppuku, will the left, maybe forgive him.
Seriously - why all the hate I (heart) Willard?
Seriously? This from the guy who wrote
The reason this nation's discourse is at an almost all time low since the civil war: Democrats and liberals cannot come close to the same vicinity as truth and honesty.
If you want to understand hate, look in your own heart.
Have a super day!
Quayle, I'm starting to think that these things aren't 'Squirrel'-type distractions, but really the things the Left is interested in focusing on. They really seem consumed with applying culture-war tactics to picayune problems, especially domestic ones. Ask Garage what the Democratic economic plan is for Wisconsin if they win back the guv & legislature. After reinstating all the public union perks; crickets.
Mark Steyn wrote a great article a few years ago where he coined the term 'Bike Path Left'. Offers an interesting insight into why you won't hear Democrats offer many ideas on the economy and foreign policy. They aren't built to lead on those issues. They're built to bring down big meanies like organized religion and conservatives.
Maybe it's time I cancelled my HBO and tell them the reason I am is because of Bill Maher's language and attitude
Yes, this is a superb idea. In fact, considering the liberal bias throughout the media, I suggest you cancel your cable service and sell your television set. See no evil, hear no evil.
"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
What a liar...
Perhaps what it means is that Rush wouldn't apologize unless he really meant it.
As for it not being accepted... funny you should mention Obama and the Koran burning, because there is no evidence that is accepted either.
No, wait, we agreed not only to apologize but to arrest and try the soldiers who made the mistake. Since we're not going to behead them, that won't work as an apology. After all, we've told them in no uncertain terms they're right to be raging and they've told us that only the White House burning to the ground will do.
Now?!?
Maybe, just maybe--after Rush commits Seppuku, will the left, maybe forgive him.
I have to admit, it would make a terrific pay per view event.
Just to be clear about this, Rush's "apology" is to Ms. Fluke and no one else. Has she refused to accept his apology?
There was no apology. There wasn't even a weak or incomplete apology. There was a "Statement from Rush".
So no apology needs to be accepted.
I (Heart) Willard, Obviously you cannot recognize the difference between facts and your hate-filled reaction to them.
Your children and grandchildren - are they being trained to be haters like you?
The other night, while channel surfing I caught Ed Schultz asking viewers to boycott advertiser’s of Rush Limbaugh. Then I see one of my banker’s commercial’s on the Ed Schultz show. Thanks to Ed Schultz I am now going to remove my money from this advertiser because Ed Schultz is against Governor Walker’s saving taxpayer’s like me from the Democratic and Union money laundering scheme.
There was no apology.
From Rush's statement:
"I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
Meade?
machine said...
"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
What a liar...
Why the personal attack on Rush Limbaugh? Where is the lie? You have evidence?
When I read Rush's apology, I saw:
-2 contrite sentences
-A rant about how he's right after all
-2 contrite sentences
--
It made it quite clear why Rush is on wife #4, he is unable to drop the issue and actually apologize.
In that `apology', Rush very clearly is trying to have the last word on the subject matter.
Men on this thread ... does your wife accept your apology when you offer it with an argument about you are actually right about this?
I didn't think so ...
Quayle, I'm starting to think that these things aren't 'Squirrel'-type distractions, but really the things the Left is interested in focusing on
If Limbaugh hadn't smeared this woman over 50 times over a 3 day period nobody would be talking about this. Team Democrat couldn't have dreamed of an easier own goal. Why wouldn't they pile on Limbaugh?
Obviously you cannot recognize the difference between facts and your hate-filled reaction to them.
Hey! Aren't you the guy who wrote this?
"Clearly, the immediate demise of every Democrat and liberal would be a positive, tremendous boost for the quality of life in the United States alone, not to mention the world."
Your children and grandchildren - are they being trained to be haters like you?
Yes, of course, as soon as they come into existence! Thank you for caring. :-)
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
This sounds like an apology to me, but it is not phrased in a way that asks for a response. If he had followed with ...and I sincerely and humbly ask Ms. Fluke for her forgiveness... Then she could either withhold or grant forgiveness.
I ♥ Willard said...
There was no apology.
From Rush's statement:
"I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
Meade?
Right. He apologized to Ms. Fluke for choosing words that insulted. She can either accept or decline his apology. Or ignore it.
Last Sunday, February 26, 2012, Eastern Orthodox Christians the world over served Forgiveness Vespers. This is an annual ritual of the Church, wherein the congregants participate in a litany of prayers, then ritually prostrate themselves before each other, asking each member's forgiveness for the wrongs done in the past year, whether the wronged knows of them or not.
Our priest reminded us that Forgiveness Vespers is not a series of apologies; that apologies are a social necessity, not a requirement for repentance, and that forgiving someone's offenses toward you is the greater part than that person asking your forgiveness. For "whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" John 20:23. He also told us that we must forgive, but we are not required to forget.
Mayhap the apologizers can find some forgiveness in their souls?
What Bob R. said.
Freeman -- it's not funny to call a person a slut. It's just...not funny.
I love James Carville. Now, he's a genuinely funny guy.
Limbaugh is merely the right wing's counterpart to Bill Maher. Neither guy is funny. At all.
Limbaugh apologized under duress, which makes it insincere, although I think he may be genuinely sorry he was fool enough to get sucked into the contraception nonsense. He got punked, and that's what he's truly sorry for.
Why the personal attack on Rush Limbaugh? Where is the lie? You have evidence?
Dear Meade,
Calling a woman a "slut" and a "prostitute" constitutes an obvious and intentional personal attack. No amount of prescription drugs can change the reality of that fact.
I ♥ Willard said...
Just to be clear about this, Rush's "apology" is to Ms. Fluke and no one else. Has she refused to accept his apology?
Good question.
Didn't James Carville call Paula Jones "trailer park trash"?
And didn't that insult embolden her to press the sexual harassment suit that led to the Starr Report which ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment?
Nora said...
"I love James Carville. Now, he's a genuinely funny guy."
Did James Carville ever apologize to Paula Jones for calling her "trash"?
Over the years when I was using prescription birth control, including when I was away at college one year, I had to cover those costs myself. They were never covered under an insurance prescription medication plan - in college or not.
Now it's supposed to be provided "at no cost" to the user.
IIRC birth control pills only began being covered by prescription medication coverage once erectile dysfunction meds were covered. There was a big To-Do about covering Viagra and not covering the pill.
Why can't my daughter's anti-convulsive medications be "free of charge?".
Rush pulled the rug from under the Demos' feet when he apologized over the weekend. They were hoping (praying, actually) he would stand defiant on his Monday show. Now it's going to be tough to keep it going.
Freeman Hunt said...
You have someone saying they spend $1000 a year on birth control and can barely afford it.
But can afford Georgetown Law which, I presume, is quite expensive.
Truth in advertising, I don't think she said it was her that spent a grand a year, just that it could cost that much. She never really specified who spent that much, BTW.
I ♥ Willard said...
This country is absolutely insolvent and your generation robbed blind by the boomers, but you still want your free government birth control, you selfish unpatriotic infant!
Yet another person who doesn't understand how health insurance works.
From someone who clearly doesn't understand how money works.
Presidential schedule.
9:00 a.m. Update on Iranian nukes.
9:30 a.m. Budget cuts
10:00 a.m. Jobs bill
10:30 a.m. Phone call to victim of Rush Limbaugh.
It's really kind of hilarious. Rush ought to pick people out of the phone book and call them names. The sympathy phone calls would take over Obama's whole schedule.
I think it's time for a Boo Boo Summit.
If you demand an apology and don't accept it, then STFU.
So, when is Fluke going to apologize for lying to COngress and to the rest of us about the availability of contraceptives in the USA?
Prove me wrong, Garage. I'd love to hear the Left say, "this whole Rush Limbaugh thing is distracting us from addressing our real problems, which is really what the people of America deserve from us. Let's move on."
Instead, the left is acting like piranhas around a bleeding cow in the river. If only you'd approach governing with the same tenacity.
On the more abstract question of giving and accepting apologies, you pose an intriguing question. Giving an apology is often quite easy and just as meaningless; they are often meant to sooth over hurt feelings, not express actual contrition. When they do express actual contrition, it is difficult to discern that since the words are often, if not usually, the same.
Then there is the issue of what the apology is for. It is here that I think we most often run into problems. Three situations I think are common are:
1) The offending party genuinely has no idea what they did to cause offense. So they apologize for the most immediate thing, only making it worse since it betrays their cluelessness.
2) The offending party knows they caused offense, but apologize for the wrong thing. Again, it shows insensitivity.
3) The offending party apologizes for a lesser offense to avoid apologizing for a greater offense since the latter would force them to admit to a much greater culpability than they are willing or able to handle. This could be further modified that they don't believe they are at fault in this greater thing and won't or can't engage in introspection. This often happens when dealing with disturbed personalities, such as cluster "B" (i.e. Narcissists and Borderlines.)
In all of these, without accompanying corrective action, an apology is just words. This follows the Christian steps of repentance, where the apology is part of restitution, but must then be followed by a genuine change of behavior. This last step is where people often stumble. I've noticed with others and myself that most effective apologies are ones where you acknowledge very specifically what you did without any excuses, even if there were legitimate ones.
This is also why so many political apologies are so meaningless. They are given risk free without the giver having to modify anything. Sometimes they can't, especially for offenses where nobody on either side is alive any more.
Nora said
it's not funny to call a person a slut. It's just...not funny.
Jane Curtain demands an apology from Dan Ackroyd!
Oh look, how fucking precious; Leftists Democrat liars complaining about someone not being sincere.
Let's see here:
Liberals don't accept Limbaugh's apology, because they think it was insincere.
Conservatives accept Limbaugh's apology because they think it was sincere.
Liberals don't mind the President's Koran apology because they think it was insincere (made only for political reasons).
Conservatives dislike the President's Koran apology because they think it might have been sincere.
Is there a trend here?
Sgt. Ted, as I pointed out yesterday, Fluke didn't lie. My youngest daughter's prescription for Ocella (used to regulate her period) costs over $900 a year when the doctor appointment [and pap smear] is included. I have a high deductible Cigna plan which negotiated a lower price for Ocella from the manufacturer, though I still pay that full price out-of-pocket. I suspect that someone without any insurance would pay $10 to $15 more for this.
Walmart and Target carry Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec, which doesn't work for all women.
So when Fluke said it's about $3000 for three years without insurance, she was right for that segment of the female population. Should she have made that caveat? Yes. But to characterize what she said as a lie is mistaken.
That's $10-$15 a month, so saying that being on the pill costs $1000 a year for the uninsured can be quite accurate.
WHy should Rush, or anybody for that matter, be made to grovel or apologize to any Government Official for offensive words?
Thats what Democrats are demanding; that a citizen cow-tow to Officers of the Federal Government when they come demanding he apologize for his speech, simply because SOME people got offended.
Fuck that.
Rush was righter than even he knew.
Fluke is a slut to the DNC. She's a stage prop in a failed sob story about her invisible friend who got into law school but somehow can't seem to grasp that condoms are a contraceptive too.
Is there a trend here?
"We will begin with the firemen, then the math teachers, and so on in that fashion until everyone is eaten."
She lied by omission and you know it. Condoms work too. Expensive BCP are not necessary for contraceptive needs.
Contraceptive pills are not "preventative medicine" because pregancy isn't a disease.
She want free shit to make her sex life more convenient for her at the expense of the rest of the people in her insurance pool.
She want free shit to make her sex life more convenient for her at the expense of the rest of the people in her insurance pool.
She also wants the Federal Governmnet, who she has confused with being her daddy or big brother, to make other people give it to her.
Sgt. Ted, as I pointed out yesterday, Fluke didn't lie. My youngest daughter's prescription for Ocella (used to regulate her period) costs over $900 a year when the doctor appointment [and pap smear] is included.
Why include the doctor's appointment? That would be included or not, regardless of what the doctor prescribes.
Lots of people have to take expensive medicine. If you read the Georgetown prescription plan, they don't cover fertility treatments, allergy treatment, or alopecia treatments.
Did Miss Fluke bring up the sad stories of any allergy sufferers at the hearing? Any tragically bald young women? Any 30 year old law students who can't get pregnant?
I took the time to read her actual testimony and feel it is being mischaracterized by Rush and many here. I don't agree with all she said, do feel she was being melodramatic at parts and didn't take the time to discover all the alternatives.
One point that is interesting is that Georgetown would cover the pill for my daughter [to regulate her period], but not for someone whose intent was to use it solely for birth control. How they make that distinction is a mystery to me since I know several women who use the pill for both birth control reasons and to regulate their periods.
So can you criticize the substance of Fluke's remarks. Of course. But expanding that with the ad hominen attacks makes the attackers look crass.
That would be included or not, regardless of what the doctor prescribes.
Because it's mandatory. There may be exceptions, but most doctors require women to see them yearly.
(My doctor does the same for one of my prescriptions. It drives me crazy since the prescription is going to be renewed. Plus, since that's why I'm seeing him, the appointment doesn't count as a wellness checkup unless the doctor happens to bill it that way. So it costs me $65 to be weighed, have my blood pressure taken and be nagged about taking statins.)
Because it's mandatory. There may be exceptions, but most doctors require women to see them yearly.
That's what I'm saying.
The yearly exam is the same for all women, whether they are on birth control or not. It is either covered or not. No insurance plan will refuse to pay for a yearly exam just because the doctor prescribed a non-covered medicine as a result.
It is separate from the calculation of the cost of birth control.
Including any costs for a doctor's visit in the $3K over 3 years total is disingenuous. Costs would not include the doctor's visit because that is covered under the HMO or PPO. The prescription meds are covered separately.
Many over the counter meds/items used to be covered under HRAs, but this administration decided that that would no longer qualify.
wv: limpin teximea
How they make that distinction is a mystery to me since I know several women who use the pill for both birth control reasons and to regulate their periods.
They ask the doctor to make the distinction.
I'm sure they look at "regulate their periods" claims quite closely, as simply irregular periods isn't a medical condition worth spending a lot of money on.
If there are problems other than irregularity, that's a different story.
But they don't cover bc for bc sake because they are against it morally. There are other medications they don't cover, as is true for all insurance plans.
As for Fluke going to congress and being melodramatic, incomplete, and misleading...I'd say that's a problem. She wasn't just standing in a lecture hall giving her opinion to her friends. Ask Barry Bonds if you are supposed to be serious in your testimony to Congress.
And then, after you've been forced to say what they want you to say, they insist it's not enough. It's never enough until they have your soul utterly. Even then, they will monitor what you say. If they see any hint of rebellion, they are always ready to destroy you.
"Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."
As an aside, I'm beginning to think that the liberals/Democrats social issue "Squirrel!" ing technique may blow up in their face.
If I'm right, the GOP can and should address each of these distractors fully.
If/When there is time, they can return to the economy.
And then when it comes into the last few weeks of the campaign, and people are saying to themselves "$5 gas! High unemployment! Food costs rising! And the news media keeps asking questions about contraception?? These Democrats don't have a plan to fix the economy, I'm voting GOP!"
When people are unhappy with the current state of affairs, they will want to try something different. The current Democrat bubbas aren't doing anything to make the case they deserve another term to fix things. They are just saying that the economy doesn't matter at all when compared to free contraception.
I can't see that as a winning argument at all.
But the news media will continue to tell their masters what they want to hear. The liberal cocoon will continue, thank goodness!
Fine, take out the appointment and pap smear; my daughter's prescription is still $824.88 a year. It could easily be more with a different brand.
My point is that Fluke's statement "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." Is accurate.
Again, this isn't to say her testimony wasn't overly melodramatic, which it was, and conflated several issues in a very confusing way, which it did, and ignored that contraception, as you know, can cost a women under $$500 during law school.
The operative word here is "can". Using "may", "can", "could", etc. and you can say just about anything.
We don't accept apologies when they aren't apologies. Rush's "apology" basically says he should've found a nicer way to call her a "slut" and "prostitute," while he continues to lie about her argument.
Sandra Fluke is not seeking taxpayer-funded contraception and the contraception coverage rule doesn't require it. Yet that's exactly how Limbaugh continues to frame the argument. This isn't a difference of opinion, this is a lie. You don't get to continue to lie about the person you're apologizing to in your apology.
People are right to reject Limbaugh's "apology," because it isn't an apology at all. It's a more polite, but just as dishonest, attack on Sandra Fluke and the people who agree with her.
Sandra Fluke is not seeking taxpayer-funded contraception and the contraception coverage rule doesn't require it
This is actually a point I'd like to see addressed.
Generally, college students are exempt from receiving benefits meant for low-income people.
But soon the Obamacare tax-payer provided subsidies to buy insurance will kick in. Would college students be eligible for that?
One thing that fascinated me about the Fluke testimony is there was no attention paid to the price of insurance. That used to be the big deal. There was no discussion about the price of insurance (everyone's) going up with more mandates, and whether that bothered Ms Fluke's friends.
One more thing about the "taxpayer" argument.
If we are to imagine Fluke was there to discuss the mandate, and not just her friends, then taxpayer does indeed make sense.
She doesn't want the mandate to apply only at Georgetown. She wants it to apply to every American. In that case, every citizen will be picking up the tab for this subsidy, taxpayers especially.
So... Georgetown does pay for contraceptives that are prescribed for other purposes? Thanks for looking that up Joe. But doesn't that mean that Fluke was pretty much lying her pants off?
But doesn't that mean that Fluke was pretty much lying her pants off?
"Her pants off?!"
Apologize! Apologize!
There's a very vocal subset of women who seem to want to combat the stereotype that women are weak, soft-headed, and hysterical by being weak, soft-headed and hysterical.
Our culture has been enabling this long enough. Women are equal. Hold them to equal standards.
Let's play their game and follow the standard set by The New York Times. Based on their selective exhibition of outrage and their history of prejudice manifested in biased reporting, we can reasonably assume that this new standard was motivated by an ulterior motive. This would, in fact, negate both the standard they would presume to set and credibility of their reporting.
As for Fluke, the irony is that she defined her own character. And, her history of activism would suggest she possessed an ulterior motive for attending the "Jesuit and Catholic university", Georgetown. By The New York Times standard, she is further disqualified from offering testimony to her own practice and of others. And he remarks cannot be justified when they are exploited to conduct progressive involuntary exploitation in both the public and private sectors.
Nathan Alexander:
Even in a totalitarian state, for example, the Soviet Union, there is still a marginal separation between the public and private sectors. Furthermore, the communists, and other left-wing actors, are principally concerned with consolidating capital and power under their control. Since they represent finite interests with finite resources, their focus is always on the most profitable and central aspects of the economy. The remainder of the economy is left for development by the people and often remains fallow and undeveloped or undeveloped (especially after generations suffer from sabotaged character development).
Your astute question almost answers itself.
They don't care about civility, about apologies, about motives or any of that. They care about one and only one thing. Grabbing any weapon at hand to attack, crush, silence the opposition which in this case happens to be Rush Limbaugh.
You yourself Ann have observed this pattern among some leftists, and described it well in earlier posts. That civility (or whatever it is at the moment) is not an end, but a means to an end.
Heck, they change the rules from year to year, month to month, sometimes from day to day, depending on what advances their agenda. What a leftist says yesterday has no bearing on what they say today. The end, the goal, is everything and determines every means. "How dare you exclude me from that hearing!" says a woman in a staged press conference from which every other point of view has been excluded. Do they have no self-awareness at all?!?
I am trying not to be consumed with disgust and anger, and not succeeding very well. It is becoming increasingly clear just what too many leftists are really like, and it's not pretty. I think our nation and our society are in serious trouble unless we wake up, "gird our loins", and fight back with conviction.
While we're at it 3 out of the 4 members of my family take regular medications. One of them, if that family member didn't take it faithfully, she would probably die. Speaking of "women's health".
None of them are free. None. Insurance pays most, we have a copay that kicks in after deductible. Adds up over the course of a year. Might even add up to $1000.
Why are we talking about free *anything* being mandated? That's why I don't think this is really about insurance, or "women's health" at all. That's bullsh!t smokescreen for a different agenda. And some here accuse Rush of lying?
Democratic rejection of Rush's apology can be explained with a quick Google search on "civility bullshit." Click the Instapundit links.
I ♥ Willard said...
Maybe it's time I cancelled my HBO and tell them the reason I am is because of Bill Maher's language and attitude
Yes, this is a superb idea. In fact, considering the liberal bias throughout the media, I suggest you cancel your cable service and sell your television set. See no evil, hear no evil.
I'd suggest you try actually trying a decent argument, but your type of argument is pretty common on the left. If someone thinks there are too many regulations than obviously they want to poison the air and force children into factories. If they are against the government forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control they are waging a war on women. If they disagree with the president, they are racists. Life is so simple when you are a liberal and don't have to think.
Post a Comment