November 23, 2013

What Rush Limbaugh is almost surely planning to say to those who are outraged at his rape analogy.

Rush Limbaugh likes to throw out things that he knows liberal media types will propagate. He knows what gets them, and he's using them to go viral. It doesn't always work out right for him, and the Sandra Fluke incident ended up hurting him, but often it creates excitement around his show and keeps his reputation relatively fresh. People love him and hate him, and that's keeps the old radio show going.

This weekend lots of the sort of people who love to hate him are raging about the analogy he used in talking about the ending of the Senate filibuster:
Let’s say, let’s take 10 people, in a room in a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women, okay? The group has a rule, that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes of the ten to change the rule.

Every now and then some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it, they always found two guys, well the guy that kept proposing that women be raped kinda got tired of it. He was in the majority and he said, you know what, we’re going to change the rule. Now all we need is five."

And the women said, "You can't do that."

"Yes, we are. We're the majority, we're changing the rule." Then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half the room. You could change the rule to say three. You could change the rule say three people want it, it's gonna happen. There's no rule.
We've got Carolyn Bankoff in New York Magazine ("a vile, profoundly inappropriate rape analogy"), Amanda Marcotte ("The rape comparison is distasteful and casually misogynist"), and Politico collects the tweets:
Ana Marie Cox, a political columnist for the Guardian US, wrote that “Limbaugh using a rape analogy to explain the filibuster really takes mansplaining to a level I never imagined” — or as ChartGirl.com founder Hilary Sargent dubbed it, “rape-splaining.” Media Matters research fellow Oliver Willis tweeted that “rush limbaugh really games out how you could theoretically vote to rape women. hes just throwing it out there folks,” while fellow Media Matters colleague Todd Gregory called it “dumb, glib bullshit” that “is such a perfect encapsulation of rape culture, it should be put in a museum.” And The Huffington Post’s Elise Foley and Sabrina Siddiqui also weighed in, with Foley tweeting “Class act, that guy” in response to Siddiqui’s comment, “In today’s edition of offensive rape analogy.”
Come on. It's a trap. Don't you know your most basic famous aphorisms about democracy? "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Usually attributed, probably incorrectly, to Benjamin Franklin, it vividly drives home the problem with simple majority rule.

I'm virtually 100% certain that on his Monday show, Rush Limbaugh will laugh at his critics for their ignorance of the famous aphorism. He can easily point out that he did not minimize the seriousness of rape. In the aphorism, the lamb is killed by the wolves. His analogy substitutes rape for killing, men for wolves, and women for the lamb. Really, it's men who are getting the negative stereotype, so misogyny is exactly the wrong word. A lamb is the very symbol of innocence. And it is killed by those terrible, selfish wolves. Knowing Rush, I predict he'll pivot to a discussion of abortion: Maybe women don't realize that killing an innocent is terrible. Maybe that's why they didn't understand the workings of his analogy.

If he says all this on Monday, I won't know whether I've figured out his devious plan or if he reads my blog. If you're reading this, Rush, feel free to steal my ideas and you don't even have to say: It should have been so obvious that my analogy was built on that old wolves-and-lamb aphorism, but these idiots are blinded by their perpetual grievance. Well, I've got to say that one female saw what was clearly there, and that was the unusually perspicacious law professor blogger Ann Althouse.

ADDED: I do get why people feel antagonized when Rush — who's been taunting feminists for years — whips out a rape analogy and why they choose to exploit the occasion to attack Rush again — as feminists have done for years. I'm explaining a syndrome of baiting, taking the bait, and exulting. Rush doesn't always win, and sometimes both sides win, each in the minds of different audiences.

I know that many people think that rape should be sacrosanct in a way that murder is not, and that it cannot be used casually in jokes and metaphors and that even serious discussions of the subject require advance warnings so as not to inflict mental pain on rape survivors. We use murder as metaphor constantly in jokes and figures of speech, and murder is an even greater crime than rape. I'll bet some readers feel inclined to say: Yeah, but murder victims are dead. But that's my point: We say lightweight things about murder all the time. (And victims of attempted murder are alive, as are the loved ones of murder victims. These people are around to feel mental pain.)

ALSO: I realize that Rush's analogy deals with a more complex scenario than the old wolves-and-lamb aphorism. The wolves and lamb had only a simple democracy, with no safeguard added to protect the minority. The Senate filibuster rule was a safeguard for the minority, and Rush's point had to deal with the problem of using a simple majority to abolish the safeguard for the minority. So if you wanted to talk about lambs and wolves, you'd have to develop the story so that the lambs had believed they were protected by a system in which they could not be outvoted by the wolves, and then the wolves used their majority to change the system and then they outvoted the lambs.

Of course, in the real life of lambs and wolves, there is no system to lure the lambs into complacency, there is no pre-lunch vote, and everyone knows all along that wolves eat lambs and lambs don't eat wolves. The predator and prey are locked into place, and the wolves should never be trusted.

In the real life of men and women, all are threatened by violence, including violence to themselves and to the people they care about, and nearly all men care about at least some women. Only some men — probably quite few — want to be free to commit rape, and it's hard to imagine any man wanting all the other men to be free to get away with raping any women that they want. It's not helpful to try to think about the damned filibuster in these terms because unlike lambs and wolves — where you totally get that all the wolves want to eat all the lambs — there's no reality to the scenario.

So it is fair to say that Rush selected rape as the analogy in order to get a rise out of his usual antagonists, who responded to his call. They were seduced by his allure.

Now, in real life of the Senate, it's quite different from lambs and wolves or men and women, because the majority position switches back and forth over the years and both parties are equally eager to further their interests as they see them and equally tempted to take advantage when they have the majority. The Senate had a structural safeguard that protected the minority and it was always subject to repeal by simple majority. The rule survived because each party, when it had the majority, could picture itself back in the minority. To use a temporary majority to take away the protection of the minority was to accept a risk and to activate the predatory nature of their long-time opponents. In this setting, no one is eaten (like the lamb) and no one is raped (like the women). All survive in an endless political fight that just got nastier.

Therefore we do need some better analogies.

85 comments:

Illuninati said...

I'm not sure Rush will bother explaining his analogy. He enjoys watching his critics make fools of themselves.

EDH said...

The lesson for the present majority is that "men" can be raped too.

Tom said...

When I heard him start the analogy, my first thought was, "OMG is he really going there? Much Sandra Fluke-like trouble ahead." But then I realized that it was perfectly thought out, and, of course, pre-written. I concluded, like Professor Althouse, that it WAS both a "trap" and a publicity stunt to gin up comments - all while be easily 'splainable! Yeah, he's good at what he does.

Tom said...

* all while BEING . . .

JHapp said...

The Sandra Fluke incident is one of those rare things in life that just keep on giving.

PB Reader said...

"Tyranny of the majority and the rape culture"

I'd say that our founders knew well of tyranny of the majority and wished to design mechanisms to avoid it or delay it long enough for cooler heads to prevail. That's the primary construct of our bicameral federal government in this republic of states.

I'd also say that in modern terms, tyranny of the majority can be likened to a "rape culture" where the slimmest of majorities can essentially say to the minority, "sit down, shut up, lay back and enjoy it. We don't care how much you object, you must submit."

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

EDH:

Rape or rape-rape? Apparently, there is a difference. Perhaps with a personal motivation.

Rape is involuntary exploitation (e.g. abortion). It may also be superior exploitation (e.g. democracy). This is why it's so important to penalize murder and have a bill of rights, respectively, in order to preserve the value and dignity of human life.

rhhardin said...

I'd take out all the tripwires entirely.

Why kowtow to rape sensitivity at all.

rhhardin said...

Apre rape

gspencer said...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

But in a republic there's an agreed-upon menu and in addition the lamb/sheep are armed.

rhhardin said...

Augustine's pear tree was probably an anagram of rape as well.

Rusty said...

JHapp said...
The Sandra Fluke incident is one of those rare things in life that just keep on giving.

I understand Sandra Fluke keeps on giving as well.

William said...

It's actually a clever plot to get Martin Bashir fired. No one at MSNBC can, in good conscience, criticize Limbaugh while Bashir is still on the payroll. While everyone there loves Bashir and can appreciate his clever wit, the fact remains that you look pretty silly knocking Limbaugh and paying Bashir. If 51% of the staff at MSNBC want to criticize Limbaugh and only 49% want to be protective of Bashir's job, then Bashir will be gone. But perhaps many of the commentators there feel that they too will say something just as stupid in the future. Then they will realize that the short term pleasure of dumping on Limbaugh is not worth the pain of firing Bashir.

Sharc said...

Rush ... whips out a rape analogy

ISWYDT.

Biff said...

Ugh. "Mansplaining." Occasionally, it's an appropriate word, but more often than not, it's used when someone encounters a statement that they disagree with but that they don't want to engage on the merits, cf "racist."

Bob Boyd said...

I think Rush is taking a backhanded swipe at Senate Republicans here as well.
Its not very flattering to characterize the situation in the Senate as Dems able to have their way with the Republicans at will.

jimbino said...

Ann is perpetuating the useless notion of "innocence" of the lamb. The lamb killed was "innocent."

Aren't the wolves also innocent?

The worst abuse of "innocence" has to do with all those innocent children killed in, say, Syria. Aren't a lot of adults also innocent? Arent't some of the adults, those who have fought to save others, better than innocent?

Even Jesus wasn't innocent for chrissake: he railed against the Pharisees and disturbed the peace in the temple.

I suppose you could call children innocent in the sense that they are all atheists until brainwashed into religion or other superstition.

Clyde said...

Damned rapist wolves! The funniest thing of all is that if the shoe was on the other foot and the Republicans had chosen the nuclear option, and some liberal talk show host from Pacifica or something (I know, "If a tree falls in the forest...") used the exact same rape analogy, the women with their panties in a twist now would be the first to nod their heads about how it was just like that.

Michael K said...

James Taranto ha a good take and quotes a couple of lefty commentators.

""The political problems bedeviling Democrats" is a marvelous bit of understatement. The abject failure of ObamaCare has made the prospect of a Republican Senate in 2015 and a Republican president in 2017 much likelier. Thus even from a purely partisan standpoint, rational Democrats would have been more cautious about invoking the nuclear option when they did than at just about any other time in the past five years."

The filibuster maneuver by Reid is not a demonstration of strength. It is an admission of weakness. The idiots at HuffPo and the LA Times are beating their chests in joy at the prospect of eternal Democrat majorities hat can ignore those pesky Republicans.

In fact, what Reid is acknowledging is that the Democrat majority in he Senate is going away and now is the time to pack the courts and regulatory agencies with ideologues and get all the anti-business regulations in place while they can/

Bloomberg sees what happened, too.

“Under any administration, federal agencies seek to implement the president’s policies by developing regulations,” Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in Washington who has represented coal-heavy utilities, said. “But in most cases, the judges on the D.C. Circuit are the people who decide whether those regulations comply with federal law.”

I fully expect to see anti-fracking regulations roll out soon, once the Obama appointments get confirmed by the rump Senate

Clyde said...

@ EDH

They also can be burned with torches, poked with pitchforks and festooned from lamp-posts along the thoroughfares of our imperial capital.

From my mouth to God's ears.

Unknown said...

with all due respect to Althouse, who has a nice (publicly funded) university job with a nice (publicly funded) pension and healthcare, as a self employed person in the private sector I receive no pension, no vacation days and no benefits that I do not supply myself.

And feel as though I am being raped by the public sector and public employee unions in particular. And not just raped, but viciously ass raped by multiple people, all members of the public employee unions.

As a tax payer no politician represents me, except maybe Scott Walker.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Consider the possibility that Republicans agreed to be raped on the filibuster rule. Under the previous rule, in order for judgeships to be filled, some small number of Republicans could be forced to go on record as supporting the judgeships.

Having such consensual intercourse with the Democrats could be politically embarrassing in the event of a Tea Party primary challenge. By allowing themselves to be raped of their filibuster rights, the more moderate Republicans hope to avoid a political death.

Sure, they could have put up more of a fight on the rule change, but that's blaming the victim. Why dou you think moderate Reublican Olympia Smowe retired from the Senate? She was tired of being the victim.

Think of how the government shutdown provided cover to the healthcare.gov flop. The rape culture in Washington today is that the Tea Party holds a gun to the head while the Democrats commit the rape.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann is perpetuating the useless notion of "innocence" of the lamb. The lamb killed was "innocent.""

Actually, I did not say lambs are innocent. I said they are "symbols of innocence." That is absolutely factually true. To use lambs in a aphorism is to resonate with that longstanding symbolism (which is particularly huge among Christians).

You go on to talk about Jesus, interestingly. Jesus committed crimes (I suppose) within the totalitarian system he was born into. The word innocent implies a system that defines things you can be guilty of. In Christianity, I think you assume that there is a higher law and whatever Jesus did is exactly right within that law and thus he is innocent.

The Lamb of God.

traditionalguy said...

Very "perspicacious" post. If I only knew what what that word means.

Rush's rape metaphor is spot on. The Senate majority is now a rape room. Obama just never misses a trick in his drive to destroy the USA.

cubanbob said...

"I suppose you could call children innocent in the sense that they are all atheists until brainwashed into religion or other superstition"

Like socialism?

Ann as for Rush's comments on Sandra Fluke, it appears to be a case of premature orraculation but not in error. A lot of people are angry at being forced to pay substantially higher health insurance premiums so Sandra Fluke can get her cheap birth control pills that her fornicators are apparently too cheap to buy for her.

I wonder how your posting threads on Rush effect your social life in Madison. I believe you are right, Rush's comments weren't off the cuff, he said them intentionally to spark controversy and no doubt he did succeed with that. that's what he does for a living and he is rather successful at it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Of course, what you really need to ask yourself is why white liberal women are obsessing over rape.

Margaret Atwood got it completely backwards. The threat isn't white Christian men. It's Moslems. Likewise, here in the U.S., the primary threat isn't white men, it's black men. In Western Europe, particularly in Scandinavia and Britain, white women are effectively being driven off the streets of cities by Moslems trying to impose Sharia law.

So, for us white men, the question is... Why are our women so determined to fix the blame on white Christian men, when the threat comes from elsewhere?

The answer is too long for this blog. Short version. Blood lust. White liberal women are actually fantasizing about rape and the complete breakdown of social order. It is the sin of Eve. Rather than accept the God given nature of being women, liberal white women would prefer to blow the world to hell in a long shot effort to remake nature. Long distance projection... they will succeed in their efforts at creating chaos and inciting blood lust. What happened in Germany at the end of WWII? The rape fantasies were finally fulfilled.

I don't say this thinking that the momentum can be stopped. We're already too far along the path. This is a cyclical reality of wealthy societies that afford women a life of idleness and luxury. Can't be stopped.

EDH said...

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy (1974 TV Movie)

Hard to believe that a rape could be played for laughs, even in a TV movie of the 1970s, but such was precisely the case with It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy. The well-ordered life of stout, middle-aged real estate salesman Harry Walter (Paul Sorvino) is left in shambles when he is sexually assaulted at gunpoint by a beautiful woman (JoAnna Cameron). Wandering naked into a nearby town, poor Harry can't get anyone to believe his story -- least of all his wife, Janet (Michael Learned). An indication of the subtlety to be found hereabouts is the fact that the initials of Harry's seducer are "W.O.W." Wow indeed. It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy was presented as an ABC "Movie of the Week" on November 19, 1974.

The TV Guide ad and listing side-by-side.

Mrs. Walton's husband, Pauly from Goodfellas, raped by Saturday morning's "ISIS".

Got to love the 70s!

traditionalguy said...

Jesus is the Passover lamb sacrifice in Judeo-Christian terms. Lambs famously just stand there and let men shear them or kill them; and lambs never get angry and attack back.

But scripture also says that when we see The Lamb of God return, He will be an angry lamb (See, Psalm 110).

When the GOP returns to the Senate majority, will we see an angry lamb?

Titus said...

Fatty shouldn't speak about sex.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

His current analogy is good, and so was the Sandra Fluke one.

Not buying in any way, the Liberal history rewrite that it was not.

pm317 said...

Sorry to rain on your parade, Ann (I find it odd to call you Althouse even though you told us you prefer that. There is an odd kinship here).

You are not the only one to think of wolves and lamb and looking at the timestamp of the articles, they are about 1 hour apart and would seem simultaneous:
Post-Nuclear Option Holocaust Dinner: Rack of Lamb Anyone?

garage mahal said...

1. He was taken out of context.
2. It was a joke.
3. You just don't get his brilliance.
4. Why do you hate free speech.

Looks like this one is at stage #3, #4 is sure to follow.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Wolves are not morally culpable for eating lambs. Wolves will die if they don't eat lambs or some other animal that doesn't want to be eaten.

There's a Japanese series where two young boys--the protagonist and the antagonist--see a spider about kill a butterfly. The good boy expresses his concern, the bad boy reaches out and crushes the spider. The good boy is angry, why did you kill the spider. The bad boy says that saving the butterfly would starve the spider and therefore kill it, and this way was faster. The good boy is angrier, there must be a way to save them both...

Both boys grow up to commit atrocities.

Michael K said...

It looks like Reid's tactic brought garage back to life. Have you gotten your Obamacare policy yet ?

somefeller said...

Maybe they understood the analogy and saw it as a useful opportunity to repeat a simple point: Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jackass who is rightfully disdained by most thinking people. The bait is taken to set some more bait. So there's that option.

cubanbob said...

Ed Shultz is a loudmouth jackass who is rightfully disdained by most thinking people. Fixed that for you.

MadisonMan said...

How can you write It's a trap without linking to the Admiral Ackbar quote!

(SMH)

David said...

I would say that Rush's analogy is too complicated. He's usually more pithy.

The outrage is just liberal plumage.

rhhardin said...

There's a nifty thing called a sheep squeeze that used to be advertised in sheep! magazine.

You herd the sheep inside this pen-like thing, and the sides squeeze down to hold the sheep, and then the whole thing can be raised and turned over, so you can shear or medicate or trim the toenails.

A gift subscription to sheep! is always welcomed by friends at christmas, if sheep! still exists.

A true surprise. I know that I was surprised.

rhhardin said...

Posssibly there's a wolf! magazine with a wolf squeeze.

Somebody has to trim the toenails.

David said...

Once in majority power, the Republicans can simply transfer the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit over federal regulation appeals to some other court.

Let the howls begin.

garage mahal said...

Have you gotten your Obamacare policy yet ?

Nope, fortunately, HitlerCare didn't march into my home. One of the lucky few!

rhhardin said...

The cow of innocence.

SGT Ted said...

For the Marcotte types, it is really more about policing speech, Alinsky style. They have a template and they filter everything through it. Merely using the word "rape" while not genuflecting to femi-Commie agitprop about "triggers" and being extra sensitive to women at all times is guaranteed to get the harpy pack treatment from this crowd.

El Pollo Raylan said...

William said...
It's actually a clever plot to get Martin Bashir fired. No one at MSNBC can, in good conscience, criticize Limbaugh while Bashir is still on the payroll.

I suspect that many liberals harbor the same "I shit in your mouth" fantasy about Limbaugh that Martin Bashir expressed for Sarah Palin. But we don't talk about or even admonish those things. That's exactly why reasonable people shouldn't take these feminist faux outrages seriously. It's just over-the-top hypocrisy.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Alinsky! Never forget him! He's like that dastardly Emmanuel Goldstein, except he's from Chicago and we all know what that means...

Anonymous said...

There's something tragic about ideologues, in that they can be compelling people standing up for something, but just as soon they can become pathetic figures, stale, small, has-beens frozen in time

Sandra Fluke is particularly pathetic because she was an inspiring ideologue, just some anaesthetic 30 yrld Leftist feminist demanding the world fit her concept of rights and justice at a Catholic institution.

She didn't even have good reasons and shamelessly tried to parlay her appearance into a career.

Whatever compelling reasons the feminists had, 2nd and 3rd wave feminists are pale copies of their heroes, perhaps as many civil rights activists are fighting old battles and their ranks are filled with hustlers and wealth-extortionists.

This tells me there's some wrong with the ideas if you get such diminishing returns, but I don't doubt they're much more entrenched in our culture now.

Rush Limbaugh's an ideologue too, and he needs to stay relevant, but I support Rush because at least he makes his own money out in the marketplace, and supports an ideology which appears to me to be more likely to leave me alone if it gains political power.

I can't say that of Leftists, feminists and progressives and the dread Fluke.

Anonymous said...

That should read 'aspiring' ideologue.

To be fair, I tried to make it down to that Nevada Sak-N-Save for a good Flukin' time.

FullMoon said...

I cannot be the only one suspecting the democrats have a fall back plan should the they become the minority.

somefeller said...

And Fluke is the new Alinsky! Her spirit and power is everywhere, I tells ya. Burn the witch!

Anonymous said...

No, somefeller, perhaps the ideologues are finding each other.

This would lend to a theory that Obama is further Left and more inexperienced than advertised. The Flukes come out of the woodwork and Rush baits them. Such is the level of our discourse should we choose to participate.



Anonymous said...

Just a bunch of nobodies trying to hitch a ride on Limbaugh's notoriety wagon for a brief free ride. Pipsqueaks the lot.

Jupiter said...

Two points.

1 - It is entirely routine to see images in popular "entertainment" of men being killed in horrible fashions. Frequently, this is the high point of the plot, and is regarded as "a consummation devoutly to be wished". On those rare occasions when rape is depicted, it is understood that the rapists are evil men. In fact, it is likely that their violent deaths will be the climax of the plot. So, it's OK to kill men, but it's not OK to rape women. Got it?

2 - Does Rush, or Ann, or anyone else, really suppose that five American males chosen more or less at random would vote to rape women? While there do appear to be certain subcultures (Democrats all, by the way) in which males regard rape as an illicit good to be obtained when possible, most men would not vote for that rule, would not regard such a rule as legitimate, even were it enacted by a majority, and would in fact oppose it by all means at hand, including violence (Note the similarities to abortion).

jacksonjay said...

Rush Limbaugh - Provocateur par excelance!

We've heard from Wonkette, have we hear from the Girls genius, Lena?

Rusty said...

Blogger somefeller said...
Alinsky! Never forget him! He's like that dastardly Emmanuel Goldstein, except he's from Chicago and we all know what that means...


For a guy who likes the sophistication and nuance of the New York Times you sure are a braying fool.

campy said...

You herd the sheep inside this pen-like thing, and the sides squeeze down to hold the sheep, and then the whole thing can be raised and turned over, so you can shear or medicate or trim the toenails.

Do they make one that would fit a 7 1/2 lb. Siamese cat?

rcocean said...

Well played Rush. But good grief, does anyone except themselves, care about liberals/lefties faux-outrage over sexism, racism, etc?

They've cried wolf so often, and smeared so many on the Right so many times, over so little - only a moron would care.

Of course, Republicans ARE stuck on stupid, so there's that. One can imagine Jonah and his girly-men heaving a big sigh of relief that Rush got called sexist instead of them.

B said...

Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jackass who is rightfully disdained by most thinking people.

No doubt by your definition of 'thinking people'. But this is not the NYT. The paper of record that the lazy and uninformed read to become the lazy and misinformed.

This is a place where the well-informed discuss matters and where the loudmouth jackasses like yourself come to display how sublimely ignorant and misinformed they've become. The sort that the author C. Kornbluth was talking about when he coined the phrase 'marching morons'. The people he was talking about assumed they are the epitome of intelligence and capability. The adults who actually did use their heads had to see that things stayed running and quietly did so while allowing the marching morons their delusions. Until the burden of minding them became to much trouble.

Birches said...

Damned rapist wolves!

Like this one?

campy said...

They've cried wolf so often, and smeared so many on the Right so many times, over so little - only a moron would care.

Well, that is the demo's biggest voting bloc.

Hyphenated American said...

"Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jackass who is rightfully disdained by most thinking people. "

Are these same "thinking men" who believed that "you can keep your insurance if you like your insurance"? Same "thinking men" who thought that it was the video that killed our ambassador to Libya? Same "thinking men" who believed that obama's stimulus would cut unemployment rate to 5% in a few years?

Hyphenated American said...

Millions of people are losing their insurance so that Sandra fluke could get a subsidy for condoms.

Annie said...

I'd also say that in modern terms, tyranny of the majority can be likened to a "rape culture" where the slimmest of majorities can essentially say to the minority, "sit down, shut up, lay back and enjoy it. We don't care how much you object, you must submit."

Yep. Obamacare, where the middle class gets raped. Again.

MattL said...

Liberals like to say how nuanced and sophisticated they are, but they repeatedly demonstrate the opposite when someone like Rush says something like, "Rape is bad," and then say that he's part of rape culture (whatever that is).

One of the best services that Rush provides is that when he trolls the left like this with vivid imagery, they come out and say all sorts of inane stuff (like "rape culture"). Of course, this also gives them a subject to focus on instead of the actual topic at hand. Unfortunately, most LIVs and NYT readers don't notice that the howlers of the Left don't even attempt to understand or defend that actual subject.

dave in boca said...

The Fluke comment hardly hurt Rush and Fargo Fats Schultz said the same about Laura Ingraham without Libs raising a murmur.

Tyranny of the Majority is PoliSci 101. Most Libs never got that far above GED.

dave in boca said...

The Fluke comment hardly hurt Rush and Fargo Fats Schultz said the same about Laura Ingraham without Libs raising a murmur.

Tyranny of the Majority is PoliSci 101. Most Libs never got that far above GED.

Carl said...

Limbaugh is accusing Marcotte and her fellow travelers of being accomplices to rape -- mothers pimping out instead of protecting their daughters.

He's right. And they know it. That's why they squeal so hysterically loud.

The nasty little secret of leftism in general is that it eats its own. And didn't Orwell warn us? It's much worse to be Winston Smith than Emmanuel Goldstein. Goldstein, after all, is needed.

It will work that way here, too, of course. The people who have taken the brunt of Obama have been Obama voters -- the young, single mothers, the unemployed and unlucky, even academics (how's that adjunct position looking post-ACA, hmm?) The people who suffer the most under new court decisions by lefty judges will also be soft lefties, deluded true believers and useful idiots. They are cannon fodder for the lefty generals. Always will be. If you need to appeal to someone's far-off future-centered idealism, what does that tell you about what you're going to do to their practical interests of today? It's no less true for lefty rabble-rousers than it is for a Victorian general exhorting his Tommies to be first over the top when the whistle blows.

Firehand said...

Way I originally heard it is
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
A republic is a well-armed lamb disagreeing on the menu."

n.n said...

A large minority, and perhaps a majority, of Republicans will not tolerate morally ambiguous policies and language. This remark will play well with the Democratic elite and their morally compromised base.

The Godfather said...

What Limbaugh's example seeks to do is highlight a moral, rather than strictly political, aspect of the Senate Democrats' action. There are certain things that we don't regard as legitimate even if they are approved by a majority. Even if a majority in a community were to vote in favor of rape, we would not accept that decision as valid, because it violates the rights of the raped minority. That is of the essence of a constitutional republic.

It's an entirely legitimate point, and, far from fostering a "rape culture", it takes its force from abhorrence to rape.

That said, I don't think Limbaugh's argument is valid. The Senate filibuster was an operating rule of the Senate, which has been used at least as much for bad purposes as for good. It is not in the Constitution, and its repeal does not violate any protected individual rights. I believe that the repeal will change the nature of the Senate as an institution, and not for the better, but that's a political opinion.

But Limbaugh has for certain, once again, successfully jerked the chain of the liberal commentatariat, and for that I applaud him.

somefeller said...

This is a place where the well-informed discuss matters and where the loudmouth jackasses like yourself come to display how sublimely ignorant and misinformed they've become. The sort that the author C. Kornbluth was talking about when he coined the phrase 'marching morons.

Now that was a great parody of the classic internet ranter. The reference to a largely forgotten pulp sci-fi writer as an example of a brilliant political and cultural analyst to whom attention must be paid was the cherry on the sundae. Well-played, sir, well-played.

B said...

The reference to a largely forgotten pulp sci-fi writer as an example of a brilliant political and cultural analyst

Jesus but you have a low bar for a political and cultural analyst. Not too good at interpreting a simple comment either if you got that from it. BTW: here's a cluebat. The NYT Sunday magazine supplement is not where you go for brilliant political and cultural analysis.

Kornbluth was simply a very intelligent observer who wrote a timeless parody of folks like you.

somefeller said...

Kornbluth was simply a very intelligent observer who wrote a timeless parody of folks like you.

No doubt! And that's why he's so well-known among members of the literate public, particularly among those who find inspiration from comic books and sci-fi novels with reptilian aliens on the cover. Continue the game, sir, you play it masterfully!

Paco Wové said...

"I would say that Rush's analogy is too complicated. He's usually more pithy."

Agree on the 'too complicated' part. It's like a joke you have to explain. Analogies shouldn't be more complex than the thing they are trying to explicate.

Mary said...

Rush was pithy.
I think ann overexplained it.

B said...

And that's why he's so well-known among members of the literate public..

Yes, as a matter of fact, he is. The fact that you don't know about him doesn't take away from those who do. It takes away from you. I doubt you have any idea what the comment you made that I took the quote from reveals about how you think.

Being well read does not mean that the NYT tells you what to think. It means that you read and assimilate information and then think for yourself. And being well informed is not superficially skimming and then parroting the opinion mongers at the NYT. That's, well, what a marching moron does.

You're a wicked smart fellow and much smarter than anyone else here. You tell us that constantly. It's one of the assertions you spout ad nauseum and like all of them, they are just assertions. You never seem to be able to come up with anything to support that or the ones you make on any subjects and your braying about how smart you are is belied by that alone.

You're a perfect example of the sort of marching moron that progressives so depend upon to carry water for them. All they have to do is tell you that if you think what they tell you to think then you must be much smarter than those who think for themselves.

I doubt you have any true idea how little regard folks here have for your wicked smarts. And I suppose that your response to that would be that they are too stupid to appreciate them and you've have no inkling about how that highlighted what a lightweight you are.

somefeller said...

Another delightful rant! Anyway, as those crazy kids on the internets like to say, cool story bro.

B said...

Well, thanks, but marching morons are always easy targets.

Crazy Jane said...

I'm getting tired of rape being used as an analogy for every political and feminist situation.

That's just me. I was raped by a white man who broke into my apartment in the middle of the night. Not fun. The police pretty well knew who the guy was (I didn't), but, lacking easily procured evidence, they declined to pursue the case. They even discouraged me from posting general warnings around the neighborhood

Now we have drunks who regret having sex and calling it rape, and because the drunk men can be identified, the cases are prosecuted. We have colleges treating undergraduate men as potential rapists and enacting ridiculous speech codes to prevent "rape.".

We have feminists declaring a "war on women" based on what they call rape and deploring an "epidemic of rape" in the military.

We have politicians and talk-show hosts comparing policy victories by the other side to rape.

The rape meme has become a cheap trope. Personally, as someone who has been there, I resent it.







SGT Ted said...

"Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jackass who is rightfully disdained by most thinking people. "

Anybody that voted for Obama isn't a thinking person, by definition.

Strelnikov said...

It's almost like these outragees have never listened to him. Huh.

Kirk Parker said...

jimbino,

"I suppose you could call children innocent in the sense that they are all atheists until brainwashed into religion..."

This just shows how few children you've actually known.


(BTW, I see you're still profiting from the heinous breeder activities of your parents. Have you no shame?)

damikesc said...

That noted dimbulbs Marcotte, Cox, and Willis are unaware of that saying is surprising to few.

They seem to not comprehend the concept of the tyranny of the majority.

They will, however, when the Democrats lose the Senate and WH.

Then --- it'll be time to make some changes. BIG damned changes.