Recent
On Leadership
Men Are Replaceable
They Chase Their Rainbows
Go Ahead and Discuss Things
Voting on Maturity Levels
Badass Rebels
The Release Candidate
Un-Salesman
July Recap
It Runs, and It Doesn’t Run
Memo For File CCXX
Cult
Symbols
That’s What You Get For Threatening The Establishment
Wounded, Incomplete, Toxic Females Saturate Social Media With Their Execrable Ideas About Bears
Someone is Indoctrinating Women to be Afraid of Men
Friends
The Men Coming Out on Top
When They Tell Us How It’s Gonna Be
Fact Check!
Items of Interest
FAQ
Glossary
Things I Know
Things I Doubt
Conservative Platform
I Totally Hate These Words
Things I Don't Get
Movies You Ought Not Spoil
Rules For Living With Me
When I Start Running This Place
Bathosploration
What Is A Liberal?
Yin and Yang
If We Really Cared
The Oath
Seven Steps to Insanity
Morgan's Personality Test
What the Blogroll Icons Mean
Things That Make Me Smile
I Don't Want to See These Things in Movies Ever Again
Feminism in Ten Acts
My 42 Definitions of a Strong Society
Monthly Archives
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
What They Say
Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
The Heat Is On: From House of Eratosthenes comes yet another enlightening piece on liberals. All I can say is "Dayum, does this guy have libs pegged or what?" Excellent work, Morgan. Here's to ya!
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Pajamas Media: Over at The House of Eratosthenes ("The blog nobody reads"), Morgan Freeberg is taking a candid look at one of America's most indulgent habits.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Links
186k Per Second
4-Block World
84 Rules
9/11 Families
A Big Victory
Ace of Spades HQ
Adam's Blog
After Grog Blog
Alarming News
Alice the Camel
Althouse
Always Right, Usually Correct
America's North Shore Journal
American Daily
American Digest
American Princess
The Anchoress
Andrew Ian Dodge
Andrew Olmstead
Angelican Samizdat
Ann's Fuse Box
Annoyances and Dislikes
Another Rovian Conspiracy
Another Think
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Associated Content
The Astute Bloggers
Atlantic Blog
Atlas Shrugs
Atomic Trousers
Azamatterofact
B Movies
Bad Catholicism
Bacon Eating Atheist Jew
Barking Moonbat Early Warning System
The Bastidge
The Belmont Club
Because I Said So
Bernie Quigley
Best of the Web
Between the Coasts
Bidinotto's Blog
Big Lizards
Bill Hobbs
Bill Roggio
The Black Republican
BlameBush!
Blasphemes
Blog Curry
Blogodidact
Blowing Smoke
A Blog For All
The Blog On A Stick
Blogizdat (Just Think About It)
Blogmeister USA
Blogs For Bush
Blogs With A Face
Blue Star Chronicles
Blue Stickies
Bodie Specter
Brilliant! Unsympathetic Common Sense
Booker Rising
Boots and Sabers
Boots On
Bottom Line Up Front
Broken Masterpieces
Brothers Judd
Brutally Honest
Building a Timberframe Home
Bush is Hitler
Busty Superhero Chick
Caerdroia
Caffeinated Thoughts
California Conservative
Cap'n Bob & The Damsel
Can I Borrow Your Life
Captain's Quarters
Carol's Blog!
Cassy Fiano
Cato Institute
CDR Salamander
Ceecee Marie
Cellar Door
Chancy Chatter
Chaos Manor Musings
Chapomatic
Chicago Boyz
Chickenhawk Express
Chief Wiggles
Chika de ManiLA
Christianity, Politics, Sports and Me
Church and State
The Cigar Intelligence Agency
Cindermutha
Classic Liberal Blog
Club Troppo
Coalition of the Swilling
Code Red
Coffey Grinds
Cold Fury
Colorado Right
Common Sense Junction
Common Sense Regained with Kyle-Anne Shiver
Confederate Yankee
Confessions of a Gun Toting Seagull
Conservathink
Conservative Beach Girl
Conservative Blog Therapy
Conservative Boot Camp
Conservative Outpost
Conservative Pup
The Conservative Right
Conservatives for American Values
Conspiracy To Keep You Poor & Stupid
Cox and Forkum
Cranky Professor
Cranky Rants
Crazy But Able
Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns
Create a New Season
Crush Liberalism
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
D. Challener Roe
Da' Guns Random Thoughts
Dagney's Rant
The Daily Brief
The Daily Dish
Daily Flute
Daily Pundit
The Daley Gator
Daniel J. Summers
Dare2SayIt
Darlene Taylor
Dave's Not Here
David Drake
Day By Day
Dean's World
Decision '08
Debbie Schlussel
Dhimmi Watch
Dipso Chronicles
Dirty Election
Dirty Harry's Place
Dissecting Leftism
The Dissident Frogman
Dogwood Pundit
Don Singleton
Don Surber
Don't Go Into The Light
Dooce
Doug Ross
Down With Absolutes
Drink This
Dumb Ox News
Dummocrats
Dustbury
Dustin M. Wax
Dyspepsia Generation
Ed Driscoll
The Egoist
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Euphoric Reality
Exile in Portales
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Exit Zero
Expanding Introverse
Exposing Feminism
Faith and Theology
FARK
Fatale Abstraction
Feministing
Fetching Jen
Finding Ponies...
Fireflies in the Cloud
Fish or Man
Flagrant Harbour
Flopping Aces
Florida Cracker
For Your Conservative Pleasure
Forgetting Ourselves
Fourth Check Raise
Fred Thompson News
Free Thoughts
The Freedom Dogs
Gadfly
Galley Slaves
Gate City
Gator in the Desert
Gay Patriot
The Gallivantings of Daniel Franklin
Garbanzo Tunes
God, Guts & Sarah Palin
Google News
GOP Vixen
GraniteGrok
The Greatest Jeneration
Green Mountain Daily
Greg and Beth
Greg Mankiw
Gribbit's Word
Guy in Pajamas
Hammer of Truth
The Happy Feminist
Hatless in Hattiesburg
The Heat Is On
Hell in a Handbasket
Hello Iraq
Helmet Hair Blog
Heritage Foundation
Hillary Needs a Vacation
Hillbilly White Trash
The Hoffman's Hearsay
Hog on Ice
HolyCoast
Homeschooling 9/11
Horsefeathers
Huck Upchuck
Hugh Hewitt
I, Infidel
I'll Think of Something Later
IMAO
Imaginary Liberal
In Jennifer's Head
Innocents Abroad
Instapundit
Intellectual Conservative
The Iowa Voice
Is This Life?
Islamic Danger 4u
The Ivory Tower
Ivory Tower Adventures
J. D. Pendry
Jaded Haven
James Lileks
Jane Lake Makes a Mistake
Jarhead's Firing Range
The Jawa Report
Jellyfish Online
Jeremayakovka
Jesus and the Culture Wars
Jesus' General
Jihad Watch
Jim Ryan
Jon Swift
Joseph Grossberg
Julie Cork
Just Because Your Paranoid...
Just One Minute
Karen De Coster
Keep America at Work
KelliPundit
Kender's Musings
Kiko's House
Kini Aloha Guy
KURU Lounge
La Casa de Towanda
Laughter Geneology
Leaning Straight Up
Left Coast Rebel
Let's Think About That
Liberal Utopia
Liberal Whoppers
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Liberpolly's Journal
Libertas Immortalis
Life in 3D
Linda SOG
Little Green Fascists
Little Green Footballs
Locomotive Breath
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Lundesigns
Rachel Lucas
The Machinery of Night
The Macho Response
Macsmind
Maggie's Farm
Making Ripples
Management Systems Consulting, Inc.
Marginalized Action Dinosaur
Mark's Programming Ramblings
The Marmot's Hole
Martini Pundit
MB Musings
McBangle's Angle
Media Research Center
The Median Sib
Mein Blogovault
Melissa Clouthier
Men's News Daily
Mending Time
Michael's Soapbox
Michelle Malkin
Mike's Eyes
Millard Filmore's Bathtub
A Million Monkeys Typing
Michael Savage
Minnesota Democrats Exposed
Miss Cellania
Missio Dei
Missouri Minuteman
Modern Tribalist
Moonbattery
Mother, May I Sleep With Treacher?
Move America Forward
Moxie
Ms. Underestimated
My Republican Blog
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Mythusmage Opines
Naked Writing
Nation of Cowards
National Center Blog
Nealz Nuze
NeoCon Blonde
Neo-Neocon
Neptunus Lex
Nerd Family
Network of Enlightened Women (NeW)
News Pundit
Nightmare Hall
No Sheeples Here
NoisyRoom.net
Normblog
The Nose On Your Face
NYC Educator
The Oak Tree
Obama's Gaffes
Obi's Sister
Oh, That Liberal Media!
Old Hippie
One Cosmos
One Man's Kingdom
One More Cup of Coffee
Operation Yellow Elephant
OpiniPundit
Orion Sector
The Other (Robert Stacy) McCain
The Outlaw Republican
Outside The Beltway
Pajamas Media
Palm Tree Pundit
Papa Knows
Part-Time Pundit
Pass The Ammo
Passionate America
Patriotic Mom
Pat's Daily Rant
Patterico's Pontifications
Pencader Days
Perfunction
Perish the Thought
Personal Qwest
Peter Porcupine
Pettifog
Philmon
Philosoblog
Physics Geek
Pigilito Says...
Pillage Idiot
The Pirate's Cove
Pittsburgh Bloggers
Point of a Gun
Political Byline
A Political Glimpse From Ireland
Political Party Pooper
Possumblog
Power Line
PrestoPundit
Professor Mondo
Protein Wisdom
Protest Warrior
Psssst! Over Here!
The Pungeoning
Q and O
Quiet Moments, Busy Lives
Rachel Lucas
Radio Paradise
Rantburg
Real Clear Politics
Real Debate Wisconsin
Reason
Rebecca MacKinnon
RedState.Org PAC
Red, White and Conservative
Reformed Chicks Babbling
The Reign of Reason
The Religion of Peace
Resistance is Futile!
Revenge...
Reverse Vampyr
Rhymes with Cars and Girls
Right Angle
Right Events
Right Mom
Right Thinking from the Left Coast
Right Truth
Right View Wisconsin
Right Wing Rocker
Right Wing News
Rightwingsparkle
Robin Goodfellow
Rocker and Sage
Roger L. Simon
Rogue Thinker
Roissy in DC
Ronalfy
Ron's Musings
Rossputin
Roughstock Journal
The Rude Pundit
The Rule of Reason
Running Roach
The Saloon
The Salty Tusk
Samantha Speaks
Samizdata
Samson Blinded
Say Anything
Say No To P.C.B.S.
Scillicon and Cigarette Burns
Scott's Morning Brew
SCOTUSBlog
Screw Politically Correct B.S.
SCSU Scholars
Seablogger
See Jane Mom
Self-Evident Truths
Sensenbrenner Watch
Sergeant Lori
Seven Inches of Sense
Shakesville
Shark Blog
Sheila Schoonmaker
Shot in the Dark
The Simplest Thing
Simply Left Behind
Sister Toldjah
Sippican Cottage
SISU
Six Meat Buffet
Skeptical Observer
Skirts, Not Pantsuits
Small Dead Animals
Smallest Minority
Solomonia
Soy Como Soy
Spiced Sass
Spleenville
Steeljaw Scribe
Stephen W. Browne
Stilettos In The Sand
Still Muttering to Myself
SoxBlog
Stolen Thunder
Strata-Sphere
Sugar Free But Still Sweet
The Sundries Shack
Susan Hill
Sweet, Familiar Dissonance
Tail Over Tea Kettle
Tale Spin
Talk Arena
Tapscott's Copy Desk
Target of Opportunity
Tasteful Infidelicacies
Tequila and Javalinas
Texas Rainmaker
Texas Scribbler
That's Right
Thirty-Nine And Holding
This Blog Is Full Of Crap
Thought You Should Know
Tom Nelson
Townhall
Toys in the Attic
The Truth
Tim Blair
The TrogloPundit
Truth, Justice and the American Way
The Truth Laid Bear
Two Babes and a Brain
Unclaimed Territory
Urban Grounds
Varifrank
Verum Serum
Victor Davis Hanson
Villanous Company
The Virginian
Vodkapundit
The Volokh Conspiracy
Vox Popular
Vox Veterana
Walls of the City
The Warrior Class
Washington Rebel
Weasel Zippers
Webutante
Weekly Standard
Western Chauvinist
A Western Heart
Wheels Within Wheels
When Angry Democrats Attack!
Whiskey's Place
Wicking's Weblog
Wide Awakes Radio (WAR)
Winds of Change.NET
Word Around the Net
Writing English
Woman Honor Thyself
"A Work in Progress
World According to Carl
WorldNet Daily
WuzzaDem
WyBlog
Yorkshire Soul
Zero Two Mike Soldier
* Kluke never talked about her personal life.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2012 @ 08:30* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
From Ira Stoll writing in the WSJ:
The word “slut” wouldn’t be used around Ms. Fluke if her math were not so ridiculous. Assuming she has the talents to recognize that beforehand, the only explanation for her bizarre behavior is that she just doesn’t give a damn, and/or that it’s much more important for her to…well, what other verb fits? — prostitute herself and her testimony in service of Minority Leader Pelosi and President Obama’s political ambitions.
Now, is there an equally-or-more compelling reason to fit the “slut” moniker on the former Governor of Alaska? I’ve yet to hear it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2012 @ 08:45mkfreeberg: The word “slut” wouldn’t be used around Ms. Fluke if her math were not so ridiculous.
So people bad at math are “sluts”. Really, now?
90% of employer-based insurance plans cover prescription contraceptives.
More than half the states require such coverage.
The pill is more effective than condoms, and many couples use both.
High Cost of Birth Control
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/BC_costs.html
Effectiveness of Birth Control
- Zachriel | 03/13/2012 @ 09:32http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm
So people bad at math are “sluts”. Really, now?
Nope. That’s not what I said.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2012 @ 09:38Here, let’s just settle this once and for all.
Slut (n.):
Slovenly (adj.):
All arguments based on the idea that Ms. Fluke somehow fails a dictionary-strict applicability test of the word “slut,” fail. She is careless with her reputation, in a way that ladies in a more elegant time were expected not to be. Careless, negligent, sloppy and slovenly.
And the pro-pill linkage has a relevance to the discussion that is questionable at best.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2012 @ 10:20mkfreeberg: Here, let’s just settle this once and for all. Slut (n.): a slovenly woman
Sorry, but that is certainly not the sense that was meant, either by Rush or by the caption in the image above.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2012 @ 07:48Then that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
The definitions do apply; they are dictionary-correct, as you can plainly see; and, from listening to Rush’s original remarks, as well as his recital of Ms. Fluke’s remarks, that was exactly what he meant. Fluke is careless with her reputation in a way that, in a more elegant time, ladies were not expected to be.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2012 @ 08:27mkfreeberg: The definitions do apply; they are dictionary-correct, as you can plainly see; and, from listening to Rush’s original remarks, as well as his recital of Ms. Fluke’s remarks, that was exactly what he meant.
Um, no.
“essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”
“She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
“are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
“we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070884/-Rush-s-52-Smears-Against-Sandra-Fluke
- Zachriel | 03/14/2012 @ 09:02And the whole point to her so-called “testimony” is that this expense is too much for one person to bear, right?
So she does want to be paid, by someone else; or at the very least, is speaking on behalf of other “students” who are demanding this. Am I misinterpreting in any way at all?
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2012 @ 09:19mkfreeberg: So she does want to be paid, by someone else; or at the very least, is speaking on behalf of other “students” who are demanding this.
We were discussing your misrepresentation of Limbaugh’s use of the term “slut”.
In any case, students pay health insurance premiums. They want the coverage to include reproductive services, which are an important component of women’s health.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2012 @ 09:40If we were discussing my misrepresentation of Limbaugh’s use of the term, we can only reasonably conclude there was no misrepresentation. Limbaugh did what he’s always done, “illustrate absurdity by being absurd”; in other words, he demonstrated how risible Ms. Fluke’s comments were by taking them completely seriously. Which makes her look like a slut. Well, as is always the case when he does it correctly — and he did here — the only way you can come to a different (less ridiculous) conclusion, is by taking her words less than seriously: She’s exaggerating the financially-crippling effects of paying for these supplies out of pocket. Or, you can indulge in the timeless left-wing tactic of refusing to ever get specific about anything…but if you have to do that, it means forfeiting the argument.
Now in the cases where the birth control is needed for non-recreational-sex purposes, like with the famous “ovarian cysts,” there are many cases where the mean ol’ insurance companies actually do cover the cost of supplies for that reason. But we don’t hear much about that because it doesn’t fit the “GOP war on women” narrative.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2012 @ 10:26mkfreeberg: Which makes her look like a slut.
No, for the reasons given above, and repeated here:
* Fluke never talked about her personal life.
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
* The pill is more effective than condoms, and many couples use both.
High Cost of Birth Control
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/BC_costs.html
Effectiveness of Birth Control
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm
mkfreeberg: Or, you can indulge in the timeless left-wing tactic of refusing to ever get specific about anything…
Please note that we are being highly specific, as well as providing appropriate citations.
mkfreeberg: Now in the cases where the birth control is needed for non-recreational-sex purposes, like with the famous “ovarian cysts,” there are many cases where the mean ol’ insurance companies actually do cover the cost of supplies for that reason.
* 90% of employer-based insurance plans already cover prescription contraceptives.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2012 @ 11:43* More than half the states require such coverage.
More than half the states require such coverage.
So again, her “testimony” is senseless, because it amounts to an impassioned plea for new regulations that already exist. What’s with the links to data favorable to Fluke’s argument? There are a lot of people who think Limbaugh was out-of-line in using the word, for many reasons, who aren’t receptive to what she was trying to do; and there are a lot of people receptive to what she was trying to do, who think the double-standard being invoked against Rush is untenable. So that part of it seems OT, to me.
As far as the language issue, yes you continue to provide citations about that, too, but they are for the benefit of people who did not read the transcript from Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and from Rush Limbaugh’s comments about it. Also, your citations are for the benefit of non-Limbaugh listeners who are not familiar with the “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” schtick. To any of Rush’s regular audience — and they are the ones who matter, for this is supposed to be a discussion about cleaning up his show, after all — the entire thing is nonsensical because it wasn’t supposed to make much sense in the first place. Fluke’s testimony is the “absurdity” that was being illustrated. So to those who understood what was happening here before the arrival of any ThinkProgress or DailyKOS propaganda, the propaganda isn’t going to mean much. We have the pertinent knowledge and we are missing the requisite ignorance.
The point of the illustration, and this is immediately obvious I think, that we have these people running around out there who are ready to call Palin a slut and are now getting their selectively-twisted knickers in a selective twist now that the shoe is on the other foot. As I’ve demonstrated, there is a dictionary-validated reason for calling Fluke a slut — I don’t see anyone even making a motion toward any position that there is such a reason for using similar language on the former Governor.
Is that the position you’re trying to take here?
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2012 @ 11:56mkfreeberg: So again, her “testimony” is senseless, because it amounts to an impassioned plea for new regulations that already exist.
Huh? The question she addressed is whether the rule should apply to employees of religiously-affiliated businesses.
mkfreeberg: There are a lot of people who think Limbaugh was out-of-line in using the word, for many reasons, who aren’t receptive to what she was trying to do; and there are a lot of people receptive to what she was trying to do, who think the double-standard being invoked against Rush is untenable. So that part of it seems OT, to me.
You had suggested, wrongly, that the term was being used in a manner different than its usual sense. You seem to be just trying different arguments to see what works, rather than arguing to a position.
mkfreeberg: Is that the position you’re trying to take here?
The term shouldn’t be applied to Palin either.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2012 @ 12:18You seem to be just trying different arguments to see what works, rather than arguing to a position.
Actually, I’m the one who went to the dictionary to see if it applied to the situation at hand, and if so, how.
You’re the one who keeps trying to shift the subject back to the human-interest story of women who need to pay more for their contraceptives out-of-pocket, than they think they should have to.
The position I’m arguing is as simple as it is consistent: There is a logical reason for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a slut, and there is no such logical reason on the Palin side. People who don’t like the word used in either case, should have gotten their dander up way-back-when the word was applied to Palin, when its usage really didn’t make any sense. Has she been before cameras, microphones, and members of Congress to “testify” about how her birth control costs more than she can afford, or that we need a plan so we can look out for the financial well-being of single college students who are working through it too fast? Has she done anything remotely like this? No…so why are all these people making noise, when they were quiet back then. Come to think of it, how much noise did you make about it?
Perhaps you don’t like the illustration because it hits too close to home.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2012 @ 12:25mkfreeberg: Actually, I’m the one who went to the dictionary to see if it applied to the situation at hand, and if so, how.
That’s right. You purposefully chose the definition that was not the intent of either Limbaugh or the panelist, in order to frame your argument.
mkfreeberg: There is a logical reason for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a slut, and there is no such logical reason on the Palin side.
There’s no logical reason to consider Fluke anything of the sort. It’s just another opportunity to smear her.
mkfreeberg: People who don’t like the word used in either case, should have gotten their dander up way-back-when the word was applied to Palin …
You didn’t specify the event, but many people have objected to such language in other contexts. Still, there is a difference.
1. SIGNIFICANCE: Limbaugh is not just a minor personality or comedian, but a significant figure in the Republican Party.
2. POWER DIFFERENCE: One was a comment about a political figure with access to media outlets to defend herself, versus a days-long smear of an essentially private person.
3. SATIRE V. SMEAR: Limbaugh argued over three days that the student was literally a prostitute and a slut. Compare to this:
“Rush Limbaugh is a prostitute”
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10590928-stephen-colbert-rush-limbaugh-is-a-prostitute
4. DIFFERENT MEANINGS: Compare to crass language used against Palin by comedians. C**t, a**h*** and such words are hackneyed and unimaginative variations of ugly jerk, “extremely loud incredibly gross”, and so on, used for shock value. They contain no specific accusation. In any case, Palin has a platform with which to respond.
SLUTS RESPOND
- Zachriel | 03/15/2012 @ 05:47http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/sluts-respond-to-rush-limbaugh_n_1332547.html?ref=comedy
You purposefully chose the definition that was not the intent of either Limbaugh or the panelist, in order to frame your argument.
The topic is about whether it’s more reasonable to call Sandra Fluke a slut and protest against the word’s use against Sarah Palin, or vice-versa. Do I have that right?
“Contraceptives” means something used to prevent pregnancy during sex. Evidently, now that this whole thing has gotten some attention, it is no longer supposed to, because the people who want to excoriate Rush Limbaugh are withholding their permission to the rest of us to think of it that way. Um, on what grounds? During Fluke’s testimony she specifically referred to a student who needed the contraceptives for other reasons, for health reasons, and in the same sentence made it clear that this particular use was covered by Georgetown. Look it up. So, conclusion: She’s talking specifically about a personal expense, related to sexual activity, becoming unaffordable.
You didn’t specify the event, but many people have objected to such language in other contexts.
Not when applied to Palin. Not the people who are complaining now.
Ann Coulter said it very well:
You’ve got a lot of things to sell here, which are highly subjective, therefore resting on the prospective buyer’s sensibilities. First, now that I’ve already read Limbaugh’s remarks, and was familiar with them before the powers-that-be decided this should be some kind of tempest in a teapot, that the nice sensitive folks at DailyKOS who never say anything bad about anybody at all (chortle) will edify me somehow with their summaries and recitations and links and cause me to revisit the question, replacing my own cruder sensibilities with their enlightened ones. Second, that birth control is so expensive in some cases (which are in fact covered), that it should somehow become a cultural taboo to utter anything negative against someone who wants to make health insurance regulation more onerous and prickly…which is, arguably, how health insurance in this country got to be the way it is in the first place. Third — and this seems, to me, a concession that Limbaugh was correct in his application of the word based on Fluke’s remarks — now that the fake-testimony has received more attention than was intended by Minority Leader Pelosi, we are to think, just because we’re being told to, that the primary focus of Fluke’s concerns was always about the ladies who are not her using contraceptives for purposes other than…contraceptives.
You find one blogger for a Blog That Nobody Reads, who isn’t buyin’ any of the three. How do you respond. By arguing some more. Trying to make it look like it’s a requirement to buy into all three, when there isn’t. There’s no such requirement, there isn’t even any reason.
Yes, Limbaugh didn’t have knowledge of Sandra Fluke’s personal life. He didn’t pretend to. What he conjectured about it, he did as a consequence of her remarks — ridiculously, on purpose, to illustrate how ridiculous her remarks were. This has already been explained to you. If you need me to explain it again, I will, but it shouldn’t be necessary.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2012 @ 07:30mkefreeberg: The topic is about whether it’s more reasonable to call Sandra Fluke a slut and protest against the word’s use against Sarah Palin, or vice-versa. Do I have that right?
Neither meets the definition, as used by Limbaugh. (This is distinguished from calling someone a media-whore, which has a different meaning.)
mkefreeberg: You find one blogger for a Blog That Nobody Reads, who isn’t buyin’ any of the three.
You should try to be more precise. What blogger whose opinion did we rely upon?
mkefreeberg: Third — and this seems, to me, a concession that Limbaugh was correct in his application of the word based on Fluke’s remarks …
Notably, you never responded to the substance of our remarks.
* Fluke never talked about her personal life.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2012 @ 08:35* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
Neither meets the definition, as used by Limbaugh.
The definition as used by Limbaugh is non-technical and relies purely on the value system and judgment call of the person using the term. In other words, it’s an insult. Those are okay, right? Because if they aren’t, if I were you I’d make a point of avoiding ThinkProgress and DailyKOS.
I’m continuing to see this meme out there that Fluke’s situation doesn’t “meet the definition,” as if there is some number of times per day a person has to be having sex, or a certain number of sex partners within some time interval, or perhaps some objective way of measuring the casual nature of the relationship between the practitioner and her sex partners. They, and you, don’t say as much, but they and you seem to be relying on an argument that presumes this. So there’s a statistical litmus test for sluts? What is that?
You should try to be more precise. What blogger whose opinion did we rely upon?
You need to be more precise in your reading; the blogger to whom I’m referring is me. For your argument to make sense, I need to surrender to you 1) dictatorial control over figuring out Limbaugh’s intent, and 2) the same with regard to figuring out Fluke’s intent. If you have to have unilateral control over both of those inferences for your argument to work, it probably isn’t a very good one.
Notably, you never responded to the substance of our remarks.
I don’t have to, because I’ve supplied substantive and logical arguments that they’re irrelevant.
But this is really about the offensiveness of the term, rather than whether the term “fits”; as I pointed out above, there’s something silly about figuring out if a pure-insult fits on a technical basis, and as I pointed out earlier, if we do set out on such an endeavor using whatever technical tools are at our disposal (the dictionary), we find out it does, and you’re left sputtering some kind of pure conjecture about how Limbaugh meant something different…which means, your protest has been called out as false and you don’t have anything further to back it up.
Now if it’s offensive to the people who are calling it out as offensive, does that dog hunt? Apparently not, we have President Obama calling up Ms. Fluke on the phone to make sure she’s okay, and in the week afterward we have this viral video zipping around of Obama’s supporters using much worse language…if anyone else now conveniently pretending to find the word “slut” offensive beyond bearing, were to make such a spectacle of themselves, I’ll just take it as a given there’s enough material out there to make them similarly embarrassed.
In other words, this is pure hypocrisy. You can try to cherry-pick enough “facts” to make that look like an invalid conclusion, but finding them is another thing, and then getting them sold is yet another thing. You will find some buyers, in those who wanted to buy it anyway. But in not too many others, and that’s a pretty good definition of a weak argument.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2012 @ 09:22mkfreeberg: The definition as used by Limbaugh is non-technical and relies purely on the value system and judgment call of the person using the term. In other words, it’s an insult.
Yes, it was an insult. More particularly, it was a specific claim, that she was a sex prostitute.
mkfreeberg: In other words, it’s an insult. Those are okay, right?
Sure, but it wasn’t means as a generic insult, but a specific accusation that Limbaugh argued for three days.
mkfreeberg: For your argument to make sense, I need to surrender to you 1) dictatorial control over figuring out Limbaugh’s intent, and 2) the same with regard to figuring out Fluke’s intent.
Of course not. You just have to listen to their words. Limbaugh made very clear he was talking about prostitution. We know because he used the word “prostitution”. Go figure.
mkfreeberg: You can try to cherry-pick enough “facts” to make that look like an invalid conclusion, but finding them is another thing, and then getting them sold is yet another thing.
There is a valid distinction, which we detailed above, but you ignored again.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2012 @ 10:00Yes, it was an insult. More particularly, it was a specific claim, that she was a sex prostitute.
Then it fits. She’s engaged in a quid pro quo. She gives this fake testimony, she receives the support of the minority party in Congress toward her pet agenda of requiring contraceptives to be covered. She, and those upon whose behalf she speaks, receive a material benefit which is this “access to” — meaning, provision of, complimentary. That is the ambition. So I’d call her a prostitute too, in fact, I’d call her a lying prostitute.
For that to fit, it is not necessary for me to convince you.
Sure, but it wasn’t means as a generic insult, but a specific accusation that Limbaugh argued for three days.
By taking her words seriously. Therefore, Limbaugh did not create the situation. Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi did. If Limbaugh ends up making comments you find offensive and untrue, and he’s merely concluding things from what was said, then what does that say about what was said?
It means, as has been explained to you many times by now, the problem is in the original comments.
Of course not. You just have to listen to their words.
I provided a link to her words. It is very clear she’s talking about requiring access to contraceptives without concern over cost, because the need for the contraceptives is greater than what the individuals can financially sustain.
There isn’t any other way to read it — if you bother to read it.
There is a valid distinction, which we detailed above, but you ignored again.
I’m ignoring it because it doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work. Maybe it sounds credible to people who don’t listen to Limbaugh and didn’t have a chance to read the transcripts and make up their own minds, before being plied with lefty propaganda…or, to people who are inclined to believe lefty propaganda uncritically. But that’s not the acid test.
It’s looking more and more like this is an argument about individuals, not just Rush Limbaugh, reaching conclusions about Sandra Fluke without receiving approval from some Sandra Fluke or some other outside party. That is their and our right. It would be our right, even if we were concluding incorrectly, which we’re not. It doesn’t matter that Fluke and her supporters remain ignorant of the depths to which she has denigrated herself, the fact remains that she did.
But what really interests me is this: We should be able to agree that Sandra Fluke is either out there, or she’s not. If she wants an audience with members of Congress, with the express purpose and intent of changing the rules of the country of which I and others are citizens, and whose laws we must obey…we get to form and communicate opinions about her, right? Even if they don’t meet with your approval. So is your position that she isn’t fair game, because the Congressional “hearing” was in fact a sham so therefore her “testimony” had no weight? Or are you trying to have it both ways. I have to ask because you’ve said a great deal implying that Limbaugh carries some obligation to adhere to some kind of gentlemanly code, and Fluke is not so obliged, as I understand it.
That’s not going to work either. She’s either climbing on a soapbox or she isn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2012 @ 10:23mkfreeberg: So I’d call her a prostitute too, in fact, I’d call her a lying prostitute.
mkfreeberg: For that to fit, it is not necessary for me to convince you.
Of course not. You can hold any position you want, no matter how nonsensical.
mkfreeberg: By taking her words seriously.
Advocating that students’ insurance premiums should cover contraceptive coverage doesn’t make one a prostitute.
mkfreeberg: t’s looking more and more like this is an argument about individuals, not just Rush Limbaugh, reaching conclusions about Sandra Fluke without receiving approval from some Sandra Fluke or some other outside party. That is their and our right.
Sure, but that doesn’t make the position defensible, or Limbaugh any less ‘loud or gross’.
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/jon-stewart-rush-limbaugh-extremely-loud-incredibly-gross-video-35986
mkfreeberg: I’m ignoring it because it doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work.
Ignoring an argument doesn’t constitute a valid response. To defend your position, you have to *show* that our detailed arguments “doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work”. Most open-minded readers will assume that if you repeatedly ignore an argument, that you have no valid response. We repeated that detailed argument several times, and while you have commented hundreds of words, you haven’t responded.
Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 04:24If you have one singular argument presented in the exchange here, which is supposed to be awaiting a response from me, maybe you haven’t noticed but it isn’t clear what it is. You kicked it off with
None of which has anything to do with the graphic that was presented, the point of which is that it’s stupid to call Sarah Palin a slut and get one’s laundry in a dander over Fluke being called the same thing.
Since then, you’ve engaged in appeal to a lot of other things besides reason, mostly to emotion. I’m supposed to be in shock over the 53 things Rush said, I’m supposed to be outraged that birth control can be so expensive, I’m supposed to get mad over all kinds of other things. Is that what you’re talking about? I suppose, if you’re accustomed to invoking these little emotional triggers and seeing them have the desired effect, and then you meet someone who only discusses what the conversation is really all about, that might look like “ignoring an argument.”
But when you’re not accustomed to the right things, new things can look different from what they really are. If we’re sitting in judgment of Fluke, and Palin, and people who call one of those women a slut and display all this theatrical indignation over the other one being called the same thing…the high cost of birth control is irrelevant. The whole question of the validity of Fluke’s testimony, in fact, is irrelevant, since it’s possible to sympathize with all of it, stem to stern, and still understand what’s indefensible about calling Palin a cunt and then showing mock outrage over the birth-control-activist being called a slut. As I pointed out before, there are real people who’ve taken that exact position. So it is you who, by continuing to discuss the validity of what she wants to do, has been dragging the thread off the subject. I’ve pointed this out, as well.
Again, if I need to point it out again, I will. But I shouldn’t have to.
By the way: Can you pick out the quote, from Rush, about Sandra Fluke in which he specifically says that she works the streets for money? Without relying on something she said, to make him think so?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2012 @ 07:34mkfreeberg: Can you pick out the quote, from Rush, about Sandra Fluke in which he specifically says that she works the streets for money?
Rush Limbaugh (one of many such comments): “It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.” Limbaugh knew better, and has made a feeble apology. It’s just his way to smear people who disagree with him. It makes for his particular brand of rage radio.
mkfreeberg: If you have one singular argument presented in the exchange here, which is supposed to be awaiting a response from me, maybe you haven’t noticed but it isn’t clear what it is.
This responds to the caption in the original post about Fluke specifically.
Zachriel:
* {F}luke never talked about her personal life.
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
This responds to the differences between the comments about Fluke and about Palin.
Zachriel:
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 10:001. SIGNIFICANCE: Limbaugh is not just a minor personality or comedian, but a significant figure in the Republican Party.
2. POWER DIFFERENCE: One was a comment about a political figure with access to media outlets to defend herself, versus a days-long smear of an essentially private person.
3. SATIRE V. SMEAR: Limbaugh argued over three days that the student was literally a prostitute and a slut. Compare to this:
“Rush Limbaugh is a prostitute”
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10590928-stephen-colbert-rush-limbaugh-is-a-prostitute
4. DIFFERENT MEANINGS: Compare to crass language used against Palin by comedians. C**t, a**h*** and such words are hackneyed and unimaginative variations of ugly jerk, “extremely loud incredibly gross”, and so on, used for shock value. They contain no specific accusation. In any case, Palin has a platform with which to respond.
Limbaugh knew better…
Not so fast. You have formed an opinion, one shared by many others, that there is a big difference between Fluke talking about her own sex life and Fluke talking about the sex lives of others. That is certainly your right; others have the right to form an opinion, quite legitimate since we’re talking about an advocate (who is decidedly advocate-first-student-a-distant-second) that there is no such meaningful difference. “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan (sic) Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”
Yeah, he new better. He made a decision, also an opinion shared by many others, that the difference is irrelevant. As always, he disclosed Sandra Fluke’s exact remarks beforehand so there was no deception there. Swing and a miss for you.
* {F}luke never talked about her personal life.
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
This responds to the differences between the comments about Fluke and about Palin.
I missed the part where Palin made an issue about her use of the pill in particular, or contraceptives in general. I suppose you could say she’s talked “about her personal life” in that she’s proud of her husband and children, and repulsed when slimebag reporters rent the house next door to her for the purpose of peeking in her windows. You and I live in different worlds if you’re putting that on the same level.
1. SIGNIFICANCE….blah blah blah
This one I’ve addressed directly. There is this deranged mindset out there that says Ms. Fluke can make a spectacle out of herself the way she did, and somehow, not be fair game. It doesn’t work because it’s a true/false thing, you’re either in the public eye or you’re not. Sandra Fluke has chosen to be in the public eye. This particular point is a fact; there can be no reasonable dispute about it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2012 @ 10:18mkfreeberg: I missed the part where Palin made an issue about her use of the pill in particular, or contraceptives in general.
The parallel construction should have been clear. The first part is about Fluke in particular, the latter concerning the differences between the situations.
mkfreeberg: This one I’ve addressed directly.
No, you haven’t.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 10:28The parallel construction should have been clear. The first part is about Fluke in particular, the latter concerning the differences between the situations.
You said, and I quote, “This responds to the differences between the comments about Fluke and about Palin.” You made this claim about:
* {F}luke never talked about her personal life.
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but unless there’s been some issue in the news about Sarah Palin and her use of contraception, none of your four bullet points have anything to do with the former Alaska Governor. So, I’m supposed to just figure out that you don’t mean the things you say?
No, you haven’t.
Yes, I have.
There are things about which you can form your own opinion, and there are other things where you don’t get to do that. You seem to be having difficulty with this. If you mean to say “No you haven’t, not to my satisfaction, and you never will,” then say that. Or, go ahead and pretend some things happened and other things didn’t, conveniently forgetting some things and just making up others. But you’re going to be disappointed consistently if you’ve got some expectation that others should play along.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2012 @ 10:41This responds to the caption in the original post about Fluke specifically.
* {F}luke never talked about her personal life.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 13:53* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
This responds to the differences between the comments about Fluke and about Palin.
1. SIGNIFICANCE: Limbaugh is not just a minor personality or comedian, but a significant figure in the Republican Party.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 13:532. POWER DIFFERENCE: One was a comment about a political figure with access to media outlets to defend herself, versus a days-long smear of an essentially private person.
3. SATIRE V. SMEAR: Limbaugh argued over three days that the student was literally a prostitute and a slut. Compare to this:
“Rush Limbaugh is a prostitute”
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10590928-stephen-colbert-rush-limbaugh-is-a-prostitute
4. DIFFERENT MEANINGS: Compare to crass language used against Palin by comedians. C**t, a**h*** and such words are hackneyed and unimaginative variations of ugly jerk, “extremely loud incredibly gross”, and so on, used for shock value. They contain no specific accusation. In any case, Palin has a platform with which to respond.
mkfreeberg: This one I’ve addressed directly.
We reviewed, the thread and can’t find where you responded to 1. SIGNIFICANCE, 2. POWER DIFFERENCE, 3. SATIRE v. SMEAR, 4. DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2012 @ 13:57Alright then. Your story is, then, that after careful consideration of the eight points of consideration above, you, along with everyone else who’s making hay about the Fluke smear but didn’t have a peep to utter about the Palin smears, decided now was the time to spring into action. Ideology had nothing to do with it.
And now, I’m to pass judgment on that, or no wait, no I’m not, I’m to accept it uncritically.
Well yeah, I did come to a conclusion about that quite some time ago. No, I’m not forming the opinion about it that you would like me to. Frankly, you haven’t been that persuasive. This explanation for the double-standard makes more sense, to me.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2012 @ 14:01And what’s “we”?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2012 @ 14:01mkfreeberg: Your story is, then, that after careful consideration of the eight points of consideration above, you, along with everyone else who’s making hay about the Fluke smear but didn’t have a peep to utter about the Palin smears, decided now was the time to spring into action.
We object to unfair characterizations or attacks against Palin’s family, but have little concern with the use of coarse language. It’s bullying (POWER DIFFERENCE), and meanness (DIFFERENT MEANINGS) that are most objectionable. Hence, Colbert calling Limbaugh a (media) prostitute is within the fair limits of discourse (SATIRE), even if you disagree with the specific allegation. Limbaugh calling forth an army of flying monkeys against an essentially private citizen is not. In any case, Palin has the media platform with which to defend herself.
From your link:
Paul Theroux: Limbaugh is referred to as “the virtual leader of the Republican Party.” Oh, really? If you believe that a cracker like Rush with a radio show is the “virtual leader” of the Republican Party, you need a good proctologist to reposition your head.
Zev Chafets, “An Army Of One”: Early in the summer of 1992, Roger Ailes, who was working for President Bush, made the connection. The president invited Limbaugh to accompany him to the Kennedy Center and spend a night at the White House. Bush personally carried Limbaugh’s bag from the elevator of the White House residence to his room, a gesture Rush never forgot.
You have indirectly addressed SIGNIFICANCE, but ignored the strong evidence of Limbaugh’s actual political influence.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2012 @ 06:41There is this deranged mindset out there that says Ms. Fluke can make a spectacle out of herself the way she did, and somehow, not be fair game. It doesn’t work because it’s a true/false thing, you’re either in the public eye or you’re not. Sandra Fluke has chosen to be in the public eye.
This addresses all eight. Directly.
If I was trying to convince you, and get my own argument a passing grade under your watchful adjudication, this would be all over with just that one salient point. As it is, it never started; I put up a graphic that says it’s stupid to call Palin a slut, with impunity, and complete lack of self-restraint, and then put on this show of outrage over Ms. Fluke being called the same thing.
Then, you came on here and started trying to convince me of…something. Whatever it is, it’s certain that your task is incomplete although I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say about calling Palin these bad names. Sometimes you say it’s wrong, and it seems you’re trying to agree that it’s equally wrong, and then you advance these points that seem to suggest it’s quite alright, or not quite as bad, like a Whoopi Goldberg argument in defense of Polanski “it wasn’t rape rape.”
Maybe you need to go off and collaborate about exactly what point it is you’re trying to make. I get that you don’t want anyone to form their own opinions about Fluke, that aren’t flattering. Encountering people who disagree with us about things, is part of the price we pay for living in a free society; maybe you’re not ready for it. That part you’re just going to reach just by way of continuing education. But your Palin position is all over the map. In this paragraph, calling her a slut is okay, in that one, it’s bad but not bad-bad, in that other paragraph over there, it’s equally bad. But then, that would contradict your primary point that there’s some kind of situational difference and Palin is more “fair game” than Fluke is, so then you back off from that. You need to go do some thinking.
You know, I notice this about leftist campaigns, be they official campaigns like elections, or unofficial ones like Fluke’s fake testimony: The two characteristics they have in common are 1) So-and-so gets a bully pulpit and unlimited face time, even when the things said are completely silly the rest of us aren’t allowed to question any of it; and 2) Lots of bitter scolding for whoever says anything about so-and-so that isn’t absolutely positive, certainly, no criticism is allowed. Again, we live in a free society, in which those two points cannot co-exist. If you want to climb on the soapbox, you have to take the criticism. Every blogger knows that, or at least, should. Maybe that’s what Sandra Fluke should be doing; starting a blog.
Ah, but that’s not quick or direct enough. She wants a new rule put in place RIGHT NOW, at the federal level, and she’s not to be troubled with the responsibility of figuring out what the new rule would do once it’s in place. As, let’s say, the Governor of Alaska has to be? See, there is a situational difference, but it cuts both ways, and it doesn’t have anything at all to do with whether it’s appropriate to describe the person with vulgar slang.
Now, who’s “we”?
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2012 @ 08:28[b]mkfreeberg[/b]: [i]There is this deranged mindset out there that says Ms. Fluke can make a spectacle out of herself the way she did, and somehow, not be fair game. It doesn’t work because it’s a true/false thing, you’re either in the public eye or you’re not. Sandra Fluke has chosen to be in the public eye. [/i]
[b]mkfreeberg[/b]: [i]This addresses all eight. Directly.[/i]
Your statement does not address the fact that she was not talking about herself, that monogamous women also use birth control, that the cost of birth control is not directly related to frequency of sex, or that costs of contraception vary considerably due for a number of medical health reasons. Frankly, your caption for Fluke is simply false and derogatory, and you perpetuate the falsehood.
Your statement only addresses significance and the difference in power by the wave of the hand, and neglects the counterargument. Limbaugh is a powerful figure on the American political scene, with an army of self-described ditto-heads, significant enough that a standing U.S. president literally carries his bag. Limbaugh is a bully. Nor does it address the difference between satire and a smear, or the difference in meanings.
[b]mkfreeberg[/b]: [i]Then, you came on here and started trying to convince me of…something. [/i]
While we give you the benefit of the doubt, that you can be convinced by argument, our primary audience are the readers of the blog, who outnumber you.
[b]mkfreeberg[/b]: [i]Sometimes you say it’s wrong, and it seems you’re trying to agree that it’s equally wrong, [/i]
Our position is clear. Use of coarse language is not nearly as objectionable as someone with great power in the media using that power to repeatedly smear someone who lacks that power.
[b]mkfreeberg[/b]: [i]{Fluke} wants a new rule put in place RIGHT NOW, at the federal level, and she’s not to be troubled with the responsibility of figuring out what the new rule would do once it’s in place. [/i]
And that would be a legitimate and debatable point. But that’s not what Limbaugh said.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2012 @ 06:29Your statement does not address the fact that she was not talking about herself, that monogamous women also use birth control, that the cost of birth control is not directly related to frequency of sex, or that costs of contraception vary considerably due for a number of medical health reasons.
And you have failed, so far, to clarify how any of those have to do with anything.
I’m wondering: If women really exist in the form presented to us by Sandra Fluke, how did they exist all these millennia without us big strong men coming up with a grand a year to pay for their birth control?
Your statement only addresses significance and the difference in power by the wave of the hand, and neglects the counterargument. Limbaugh is a powerful figure on the American political scene, with an army of self-described ditto-heads, significant enough that a standing U.S. president literally carries his bag. Limbaugh is a bully. Nor does it address the difference between satire and a smear, or the difference in meanings…Our position is clear. Use of coarse language is not nearly as objectionable as someone with great power in the media using that power to repeatedly smear someone who lacks that power.
Like I said, you have that pitch to sell that there are some meaningful differences in the situations. On whether this makes it more legitimate to call Palin a slut than to call Fluke a slut, so far, to the best of my recollection, you’ve been completely mum so I’m not sure where you’re trying to take this, other than you don’t like the graphic. But like I said before, best of luck on getting it sold. I’m not buying it, for the reasons I’ve stated, that being in the public eye is an on-or-off thing…
…our primary audience are the readers of the blog, who outnumber you.
…I cannot speak for them, but if I were you I’d be taking note that there have been only two posters in this thread. Generally, in these mega-discussions that swell to several score posts in a single thread, if ten people are noticing things worth noticing you’ll be hearing from ten people, or at least seven or eight. I’m not sure you’re achieving what you’re trying to achieve here.
The concept of “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” seems lost on you. I don’t blame you for this, it seems an easy call you’re not one of the “ditto-heads” and there’s no shame in not being one. Not until people start “rush”ing to judgment, opining away with recklessness and carelessness about technical minutiae about what was said & not said, entirely ignorant of the fact that they’re not serving on a jury hearing a slander case. When they disregard context, like you’re doing. Then it’s a point of shame.
If Sandra Fluke is worth a “don’t pass judgment until you hear the whole thing,” then so is Rush Limbaugh. Ms. Fluke being a slut, or acting like a slut, or having sex a certain number of times per day, or with a certain number of partners, or giving “Flukes” for a living, was not his point. So, in that sense, you are establishing an argument on a faulty premise, while accusing the other side of doing exactly that same thing.
Now, who’s “we”? Third time asking.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2012 @ 07:25[…] the monster thread where some opinionated sympathizer to that Fluke slut is trying to make me see the error of my ways […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/18/2012 @ 08:04mkfreeberg: And you have failed, so far, to clarify how any of those have to do with anything.
Your caption for Fluke is “”Single woman claiming to have sex so often she goes broke buying birth control”. She was not talking about herself, monogamous women also use birth control, the cost of birth control is not directly related to frequency of sex, and the costs of contraception vary considerably due for a number of medical health reasons.
mkfreeberg: If women really exist in the form presented to us by Sandra Fluke, how did they exist all these millennia without us big strong men coming up with a grand a year to pay for their birth control?
They got pregnant frequently, died during childbirth frequently, and their children died in youth frequently.
mkfreeberg: On whether this makes it more legitimate to call Palin a slut than to call Fluke a slut, so far, to the best of my recollection, you’ve been completely mum so I’m not sure where you’re trying to take this, other than you don’t like the graphic.
Then you don’t read carefully.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2012 @ 08:47That, or you’re inconsistent and much of what you say doesn’t make sense.
The same can be said about Ms. Fluke. So your protests that her words are not being studied with meticulous precision and attention to detail, are not quite completely invalid, but they are a little out of place here.
Sandra Fluke was appealing to emotion and not to reason. Check the link above to see what I mean by that. Therefore, it’s fair to evaluate her words based on the vibe she was trying to set up — and she never did say “mind you, I’m talking about other women, not about me.” She was using a lazy caricature to describe the female sex in general. And, again, since she put herself out there in public view, it’s fair to criticize her for it.
You have every right to agree with her that women are so weak and helpless they need big strong men to spend a thousand dollars a year on their contraceptives or else they’ll drop dead. But you’re expecting something you’re never gonna get, in thinking everyone else is obliged to agree or else shut up. Fact is, women are stronger than that. I and many others know better.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2012 @ 09:29mkfreeberg: So your protests that her words are not being studied with meticulous precision and attention to detail, are not quite completely invalid …
And again, you ignore the argument. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2012 @ 12:24Thank you, I believe I’ll have some.
But you already said you’re not even talking to me; all of your points have to do with the precise technicalities of what someone did & didn’t say, when she’s appealing to emotion and not reason. She speaks of females as if they’re all part of a big monolith, it’s true she never includes herself in the sisterhood but, as I pointed out, she never excludes herself from it either. Why keep beating around the bush here…she makes very little effort to distinguish between women who require b.c. for hormonal treatments, or for their actual contraceptive purpose, in fact she makes no distinction at all between women who are in favor of socialized medicine and the women who are opposed to it. She indulges in the classic feminist wrong-turn, of presuming to speak for everything human and female.
This is the part you’re missing. It doesn’t matter what kind of architectural masterpiece her structure is, it’s built on a foundation of sand.
Therefore, to parse her statements to the precision you’re demanding — I’d compare it to carving nanometer slices out of jello when the jello wasn’t even gelled properly. It just doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter if you recognize that you don’t have a point worth making. The fact is, you just don’t. Rush sounded silly when he did what he did, I’ve already explained it to you repeatedly, that was the entire point. Now you have a link to Ms. Lopez, who also reads Fluke’s words with greater reliance on logic and reason than Ms. Fluke intended, this time without the use of any vulgarities. But the result is, again, disaster.
So I’m arguing with a nobody, who is part of a “we,” and repeatedly refuses to say what the “we” is, who isn’t even talking to me, about the “testimony” of someone who wasn’t even testifying, who’s in the public eye, but really isn’t, because nobody’s supposed to criticize her because she’s still a “private person” who hasn’t really put herself out there…
…uh, when do we get to the part that I’m supposed to take seriously? As in, inspect, with surgical precision, with a decent respect paid to what she is & isn’t saying? This is nothing but a bunch of fluff from front to back, and you’re not doing anything at all to change that equation.
All in all, it’s looking more and more fishy.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2012 @ 12:49VDH addresses some of your eight. It’s another exercise in applying diligent and logical thinking to an idea that isn’t ready for it; in this case, yours.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2012 @ 15:16mkfreeberg: VDH addresses some of your eight.
Victor Davis Hanson: I suspect if you googled “Rush Limbaugh” and compared it to “Bill Maher,” the so-called hits would be about the same …
That’s funny. Don’t they have Google in Hanson’s world? The former is ~73.9 million, more than five times as many as the latter at ~14.5 million.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Rush+Limbaugh%22
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Bill+Maher%22
Nor is it even a valid measure of political influence. “Whitney Houston” garners more than 500 million hits on Google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Whitney+Houston%22
Nor does it address the context of the remarks. As we said, you haven’t bothered to address our arguments—which we provided several times above. You’re arguing to a preconceived position. No point belaboring the point.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2012 @ 05:04Don’t they have Google in Hanson’s world?
Oh, so now VDH is a dummy for failing to agree with you. Okay.
No point belaboring the point.
No, there isn’t, since you’re not picking up the message:
You presume things like Google-hits and influence matter, in such a way that we see an outcome where different people have to follow different rules, like golf handicaps. Some people do feel that way, others don’t. Insisting that I “respond” to it over and over again, when it’s already been explained to you that I don’t accept the premise, is rather petulant of you, and something of an exercise in being what you call others. Hanson spelled out his point specifically: “Few think Maher is any less a liberal commentator than Limbaugh is a conservative one.” Horror of horrors…I haven’t seen you (any of you?) address his point!
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2012 @ 07:22mkfreeberg: Oh, so now VDH is a dummy for failing to agree with you.
The irony of that Hanson guessed wrong at Google’s results without actually looking.
Zachriel: Nor {are Google counts} even a valid measure of political influence.
mkfreeberg: You presume things like Google-hits and influence matter …
You really don’t bother to read our responses before replying.
mkfreeberg: Few think Maher is any less a liberal commentator than Limbaugh is a conservative one.
Of course he is.
We addressed the differences above. Maher has much less influence than Limbaugh, meaning his words have less effect. Maher’s words were directed at a public personality, not a private individual without direct access to media. Maher’s words were not meant literally, while Limbaugh spent three days arguing that his words were to be taken literally and seriously. While one might take umbrage at Maher’s crass use of the c-word in a joke, a word that has often been associated with misogyny, that is quite different than Limbaugh’s extended bullying and malicious attack against someone who is essentially a civilian in the culture wars.
Which returns us to your caption above, which falsely suggests that Fluke is a “single woman claiming to have sex so often she goes broke buying birth control”. While your point is to draw attention to two incidents, those incidents are not comparable.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2012 @ 09:22You know, I notice this about leftist campaigns, be they official campaigns like elections, or unofficial ones like Fluke’s fake testimony: The two characteristics they have in common are 1) So-and-so gets a bully pulpit and unlimited face time, even when the things said are completely silly the rest of us aren’t allowed to question any of it; and 2) Lots of bitter scolding for whoever says anything about so-and-so that isn’t absolutely positive, certainly, no criticism is allowed.
That addresses all of your points. So-and-so gets “special,” unanswerable, free speech; others don’t. You want me to “address” your points but it’s looking more and more like you’re using “address” as a synonym for “accept,” and that is not what the word means.
Your statement does not address the fact that she was not talking about herself, that monogamous women also use birth control, that the cost of birth control is not directly related to frequency of sex, or that costs of contraception vary considerably due for a number of medical health reasons.
I don’t need to address those things because they don’t matter.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2012 @ 09:27mkfreeberg: So-and-so gets “special,” unanswerable, free speech; others don’t.
Nope.
mkfreeberg: I don’t need to address those things because they don’t matter.
Ignoring the argument as usual.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2012 @ 10:40So we’ve located the point of disagreement. You think you have a good argument for Fluke to be held to different, lower standards, or no standards at all. Now all you have to do is get the argument sold, but I’m not buying…so, since everything you have to say depends on this, there’s no place for you to go but to accuse me of “ignoring the argument as usual” — because I’m not buying it.
Actually, let’s test that. Costs of contraception vary considerably. Explain, if you will, how that is relevant to the poor judgment of people who say it’s fine to call Sarah Palin a slut but offensive when someone calls Sandra Fluke a slut. How does that pertain in any way at all to the subject at hand.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2012 @ 10:43mkfreeberg: You think you have a good argument for Fluke to be held to different, lower standards, or no standards at all.
Nope, but at least you’re making an attempt. There is absolutely no reason not to discuss or criticize Fluke’s position. However, that is not what Limbaugh did. Rather, he smeared a private person, someone who attempted to engage the issue in a forthright manner, repeatedly over several days.
mkfreeberg: Costs of contraception vary considerably. Explain, if you will, how that is relevant to the poor judgment of people who say it’s fine to call Sarah Palin a slut but offensive when someone calls Sandra Fluke a slut.
This directly relates to your caption for Fluke. Limbaugh, and as you amplified, used the high cost of conception for some women to repeatedly argue that Fluke was a “single woman claiming to have sex so often she goes broke buying birth control”. This is disleading because:
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
You keep comparing this to some unnamed person who called Palin a “s–t”, but without any context to determine how the term was used. We have discussed this many times, so it is rather odd you still can’t grasp the idea that a joke or metaphor or a curse word directed at a public figure is not equivalent to a days-long rant against a private individual arguing that the woman is a prostitute. Frankly, Limbaugh is a bully.
Your point seems to be that someone made bad comments about Fluke, and someone made bad comments about Palin, hence a double-standard. But you ignore the significant differences between these events.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2012 @ 11:07Rather, he smeared a private person, someone who attempted to engage the issue in a forthright manner, repeatedly over several days.
Close…he said unflattering things about a person, who by her choice was & is not private. More to the point, he came to conclusions about her, which were not proven but were logical inferences, by taking her words more seriously than she intended for them to be taken.
I’m curious: You make a big deal about things being precisely accurate, taken at technical face value, and continue to repeatedly refer to Sandra Fluke as a “private person.” Why do you persist in this false statement?
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2012 @ 11:13mkfreeberg: You make a big deal about things being precisely accurate, taken at technical face value, and continue to repeatedly refer to Sandra Fluke as a “private person.”
Testifying before Congress does not make one a public person. She was a law student representing a college legal group. By any measure, she did not have the same access to media as Rush Limbaugh, and unless others had rallied to her defense, she would not have been able to effectively respond to deny the accusations.
mkfreeberg: More to the point, he came to conclusions about her, which were not proven but were logical inferences, by taking her words more seriously than she intended for them to be taken.
You say they are logical inferences—even after we have repeatedly explained why the inference is not reasonable.
* Fluke never talked about her personal life.
* If a woman uses the pill, she has to complete the entire regimen regardless of how often she has sex.
* Married and faithful women also have sex and use contraception.
* Types of contraception and associated costs vary a great deal among women.
Ignorant as he is, Limbaugh wasn’t trying to make a logical inference, but merely finding justification for his smear.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2012 @ 11:49Testifying before Congress does not make one a public person.
This wasn’t even testimony.
She used her name, and her sob-stories, to provide Nancy Pelosi with video footage…it was a dog-n-pony show, plain and simple, so when you repeatedly protest that she’s a private person, all I can think is that you’re laboring under mistaken impressions about what was done here, or else you’re grasping for silly advantages to offer to the “good” people to make sure they win, win, win. I suppose since I’m actually arguing with a group of people, it could be some combination of those two things. But no, she isn’t a private person. Especially when you consider, the whole point to her appearance was to make it more likely that Congress and the President could force a bunch of other people, strangers who none of the above-mentioned will ever meet, to offer coverage against their will. In effect, to deliberately reduce their choices in life. Eh, no. I don’t think you can do that and remain a private person, in the sense that it somehow crosses a line for a radio guy to say bad things about you. Ms. Fluke opted into that, there’s no question about it.
Now, how do you presume to be qualified to state, with confidence, what was & was not within Limbaugh’s intents, since by now it’s obvious that you haven’t listened to his show?
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2012 @ 13:07