If Obama embraces misogyny, then so should we all [Reader Post]

Loading

In the wake of Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” there has been no end to furor. The Washington Post, in full piety mode:

IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.

So what do they recommend?

What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.

WaPo wants the Republican Party to repudiate Limbaugh.

In an astonishingly honest article, Kirsten Powers elucidates a litany of abuse on the part of the left wing media:

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Please read the entire thing.

Don Surber adds more:

What about President Obama? He has never repudiated Bill Maher for myriad of similar offenses including calling Sarah Palin the C-word and the T-word. Instead of demanding that Bill Maher apologize, Barack Obama accepted a million bucks from him. Just what will Bill Maher get in the second term from President Obama for that million?

In fact, liberals rallied around the free-speech rights of Bill Maher when he praised the 9-11 hijackers as heroes and added, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away… Staying in the airplane when it hits the building — say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”

So there it is, clear as day. The new decency standards.

If you’re a conservative commentator, call a woman a “slut”, you need to apologize and Republicans are supposed to repudiate you.

If you’re a liberal commentator and you call a woman a “c*nt”, a “dumb twat” and proclaim that the 9-11 hijackers are heroes, not only do you not have to apologize, Barack Obama will take a million dollars from you.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will appear on your show!

If the President of the United States can embrace misogyny, then so should we all.

Exit question- If Obama called Sandra Fluke after Limbaugh’s comments, why didn’t he call Palin after Maher’s comments?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Hard Right:
Thank YOU for proving MY point with your argument based on bile, not facts.

That’s o.k. You’re cutting your own political throat, and I’ll just step out of the spray of blood.

@johngalt:
“…, since scientists overall lean liberal, and since the scientific method is one that seeks truth, therefore conservatives do NOT seek truth. Is that correct? If it is, then I find your conclusion to be an ‘elitist’ point of view concerning conservatives and truth. Does that clear that point up for you? “

Well, thank you for a reasonable question. You are mistaken, in my view, but expressed yourself politely and reasonably. We can have a reasonable conversation at this point.

Let’s look at the argument:
1. scientists overall lean liberal
2. the scientific method is one that seeks truth
THEREFORE conservatives do NOT seek truth.

Can we agree that that argument is faulty – that the conclusion does not follow from the premises?
Fortunately, it is not the argument I was making – although maybe I didn’t express my argument with enough clarity. Let me re-state it:

1. Today’s conservatives (…to be distinguished from Goldwater, Milton Friedman etc. …) argue mostly from the gut. In the words of one famous conservative: “we create our own reality”. IIRC Mises explicitly rejects the experimental method (…or that might have been Hayek … one of the Austrians anyway.)
2. Scientists seek truth through collecting objective facts, hypothesizing from them, and when the facts don’t match the hypothesis, CHANGING their ideas. Invective (while fun, and even scientists are not immune to fun) is not part of the method.
THEREFORE:
Most scientists find their training incompatible with today’s conservativism.

Is that more clear?
If so, is it less objectionable?
Is clearly stating facts and acting on them regardless of your gut feelings inherently elitist? I would call it “practical”. I remember a day when America’s conservatives proudly described themselves as hard-headed realists, and it’s kind of funny to see the difference today.

@rewinn:

Meanwhile, aren’t you bothered by the real elitists – the 1% who are shipping your jobs overseas? What about the elitists who demand that women who want access to prescription birth control bills to treat ovarian cysts should post sex tapes on the web. Is that really a political faction you want to stick with?

What I can see, from just those first two questions I highlighted, is that you subscribe to the liberal notion of framing a debate or issue without regard to the truth of the issues at hand. And you want to put down conservatives for not seeking the truth? Now really, that’s quite a laugh.

For example, in your first question there, you frame your question as if it’s simply a matter of the ‘elitists’ in corporate America who are deciding, because they are the “1%”, to ship jobs overseas. No mention, of course, on onerous regulations, tax policy, trade policy, burdensome lawsuits, amongst many other factors those “1%” use in determining whether or not to open up factories overseas and “ship” jobs there. No mention, of course, on what those “1%” are doing out of necessity in order to keep the corporations they run afloat, and even profitable for those who invest in them, including the millions of 401k investors within the middle-class.

And your second question I highlighted suggests that all conservatives feel and say about the contraceptive mandate issue as Rush has said about Ms. Fluke, and that because of that, we are somehow elitists. No mention, of course, about the ACTUAL issue at stake, which is religious freedom.

You are showing yourself to be quite the liberal elitist, employing the typical liberal method of framing the debates and issues as something they are most definitely not, and, I might add, not really interested with the truth.

And didn’t you just hint above that liberals are concerned with seeking the truth?

Bile? Project much?
Ms. Fluke is a self admitted activist and has voluntarily made herself a public figure. Not to mention leftists such as yourself have tried to make it about vile names. Well, you only prove your hypocrisy by doing so. I’d call you a liberal hypocrite, but that would be redundant. You wish to ignore all the disgusting names you and your bretheren have thrown at Conservative women, let alone Conservatives period.

As far as seeking truth, liberals cannot face reality which is truth in it’s purest form. So your claims that the scientific method is in line with liberal “thinking” is proof of egomaniacal delusions typical of the left. You are your ilk are driven by narcissism and pathological denial of reality and you have certainly proven what I say.

@rewinn:

Most scientists find their training incompatible with today’s conservativism.

Does that not state, in different words, by implication, that which you stated prior to that, which you called a faulty argument? That is;

THEREFORE conservatives do NOT seek truth.

Couple that with this statement of yours;

Evidence, rather than bile, is how truth is fond, and today’s conservatives have given up on evidence.

The inference, then, is that conservatives do not seek the truth. And that, most definitely, is an elitist point of view.

Correlation does not imply causation, rewinn. And “bile”, by the way, is heaved across the lines from both sides.

Crimson: Me either. I just took them at their word. More to the point though, it’s the only available source anyone can find on the topic

Thanks for the link. Would have helped if you provided it with your first comment.

Despite your snide comment about Google, the onus on supporting your comment about churches providing the benefits because they can’t find an economical way to exclude them was on you. It’s not up to me to prove what you stated was true.

Just so you are clear where I stand on this, I don’t think the feds have *any* right to mandate minimum policy coverage nation wide, because that infringes on the 10th Amendment. The states have no right to infringe on 1st Amendment or conscience rights with their state mandates without providing for those exceptions in the law.

And most importantly, to me, providing coverage for this, and simple “mosquito bite” miscellaneous crap, is the reason that premiums are so high.

That said, there’s two issues with @your original comment:

This is a society in which prior to any Obamacare rulings, most Catholic universities included abortions in their healthcare coverage, because most insurance plans affordably available to them included this by default.

First let’s address the “affordably available” bit in a reality/cost sense. State mandates (the only Constitutional ones, as long as they provide exceptions for 1st Amendment/Conscience) do only one thing. They tell any health insurance provider doing business in that state the minimum coverage for (in this case) their prescription drug policies.

Under no circumstances does that law provide for any mandated policy premium reduction, merely because a policy holder rejects any particular drugs in that coverage. In fact, policy holders can formally request the removal of offensive items to the insurer. Again, that doesn’t mean that the insurer will lower the price, and the law, rightfully, doesn’t dictate they do.

Therefore the first problem with this Christian reporter’s article, and the man she interviewed, is erroneously linking the premium price (i.e. affordable off the shelf) to any reason why they do not exclude offensive items from their prescription drug plan. If they can afford it included, and the price is no different if not included, then the affordability remains the same. The insurance companies don’t charge “extra” to provide less benefits upon request.

If the premiums rose with heavy usage of the contraceptive claims, then it’s actually more affordable *not* to include the coverage. So the argument about “affordability” has no logic associated.

The irony is that the citation you chose to highlight, and not based on any known statistical database, comes from Christus Medicus Foundation – an organization who is a Christian health insurance company themselves. So not only did Mr. Dea have no statistical data to back up his observation that “most” churches don’t have an “affordable” option, he had a vested interest in doing so because that is the product that Foundation sells to religious institutions.

Conflict of interest much?

Therefore I’m going to have to *not* believe Mr. Dea’s undocumented statement because of his business. And, in fact, it would be interesting to compare the rates of their “ActiveCare” product to those who offer the same coverage, except the contraceptives, and see if they are truly more “affordable” as he claims.

Following Mr. Dea’s undocumented observation, the article then went on to instead document how most of those she churches she contacted actually did *not* provide benefits contrary to their tenets. This, of course, runs totally contrary to the Christian health insurance provider’s comment.

Since there are religious institutions (whether most or not, we don’t know – neither does that Christian insurance provider) that likely provide these benefits, they are likely to fall under two categories:

1: unaware of the specifics in their prescription policies (not unusual, with convoluted plans)
2: or were in one of the 6 or so states that did not provide for an exception for religion/conscience

To the #1 – being unaware – you can’t equate their lack of knowledge that it was included as approval. There may have been many that have been providing these benefits, blissfully ignorant they were in violation of their tenets. But those that did become aware… i.e. the Belmont case I mentioned above, and also mentioned in your link… took to the state courts in battle. Please note that no where in the Belmont lawsuit was “affordability” an argument of merit.

To #2, you’ll have to remember that since 1998-99, the states have been already putting this mandate in their laws. However the majority of them have allowed for exceptions. We have no documentation as to how many of them used that exception, or simply canceled their prescription drug coverage from their policies because, as I said, there is no single database of statistics on this.

In fact, when you read your own link, the reporter’s (Valerie Schmalz) “unscientific” research found that out of the 40 out of 245 some odd churches she tried to talk to, less than 20 responded. Of those, the majority cited they had put their own limitations voluntarily on the coverage (i.e. abortions in the case of rape or incest). Or that they were having to comply with state mandates that did not allow exceptions. IL’s DePaul Univ had made it’s attempt at limitations, but they are in a mandate state and had to add contraceptive coverage because of EEOC complaints several years before.

The final summary of all this?

1: Some religious institutions may be clueless to their prescription drugs coverage, but we’ve seen them attempt to change it when they discover it. Therefore they don’t approve.

2: Other religious institutions are commandeered by state mandates without exceptions. There have certainly been those that have taken the battle to court. I’m equally sure it’s likely there are some that don’t.

3: Affordability of obtaining *less* drug coverage has never been a stated issue in any of the documented lawsuits, and in fact defies all logic. But then, the guy who made that statement just happens to sell health insurance.

For those that were blissfully ignorant, I can safely say I think that has been stripped away now. And in this wake of this already unconstitutional mandate is the rise of lawsuits by these religious institutions – all of which is ridiculous since arguing that the federal government is allowed to mandate minimum coverage, as long as they provide religious exceptions, is akin to the adage: We’ve already established what you are, madam. We are now just haggling over price.

@Hard Right:

Ms. Fluke is a self admitted activist and has voluntarily made herself a public figure.

Issa rejected her testimonybecause her qualifications could not be verified. And it came to pass that democrats misrepresented her entirely, vindicating Issa’s decision.

@drjohn:

I agree he should have done what he did. She pretended to be nothing more than a concerned student, but it has been shown that even she describes herself as an activist and has been involved in her “cause” for a while.

@johngalt:
You asked, politely:
Most scientists find their training incompatible with today’s conservativism.

Does that not state, in different words, by implication, that which you stated prior to that, which you called a faulty argument? That is;
THEREFORE conservatives do NOT seek truth.
———

No. No it does not.

Let’s look again:

“Most scientists find their training incompatible with today’s conservativism” is an observation or an observed fact, if you prefer. Someone posted a link to that effect above.

In contrast,
“THEREFORE conservatives do NOT seek truth.” is a conclusion (?see the “THEREFORE”?) A conclusion is not an observation.

Now a conclusion may basically assert the same fact as an observation. For example, let us say your cookie is gone and you either observed me eat your cookie, or didn’t see me eat it but there are crumbs on my face. You may draw the same CONCLUSION from the latter as you would from the former, but the logical processes are very different.

So to go back to the argument that I hope we agree is incorrect:
FACT 1: scientists overall lean liberal
FACT 2: the scientific method is one that seeks truth
DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY: “THEREFORE conservatives do NOT seek truth.”

At this point, we are essentially either debating points of logic (fun!) or calling each other “elitist” (which amuses me. Who would not want to be the best of the best?) and there doesn’t seem to be any real discussion as to why today’s “conservatives” feel the need to defend Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting attack on a young woman (at my age, I may call a 30-year-old “young”). Y’all seem to forget the bit about the sex tapes … why is that?

Please, carry on with or without me. I feel no need to respond in detail but I am very amused to see the remnants of the conservative movement alienate American women!

The argument that a woman should not be an “activist”, but should passively accept whatever the old white men in Congress or the radio do to her, pretty much says all there needs to be said. Our Founders, after all, were activists.

@rewinn:

Maher: used a nasty word about a public figure.

Limbaugh: went on for hours about a private citizen, demanding (among other things) to see sex tapes of her.

I appreciate that if you don’t see a difference, then you don’t see a difference. Your POV is your POV and I can’t say you don’t have it.

I see a difference (not the one you probably are seeing); but you seriously don’t see the similarity as well as the double-standard and hypocrisy of the liberal outrage, pointed out even be Kirsten Powers?

Bill Maher has said more than just “a nasty word”. He wallows in misogynist gutter talk about GOP women on a regular basis.

Even so, I encourage you and your political faction to keep it up. It’s a competitive world out there, and when your political foes are cutting their own throats, the smart thing to do is to let them.

Or, as in the case of a dominant liberal media and its political pundits, make more brouhaha hay out of this than is warranted as well as distort (contrary to the liberal smear merchants: There is no GOP attempt to ban contraceptives or a “war on women”); and give liberal public figures a pass when they make stupid offensive remarks, sweeping it quietly under the rug of public consciousness.

To Wordsmith and Aqua:

There are two issues here. The first is the distinction between an attack on a private citizen and an attack on a professional politician. The second is the nature of the attack. Not all attacks are equal in degrees of egregiousness. This is the concept of “the line,” and when said “line” is crossed. How does one define where the “line” gets drawn? It’s not so easy to define and the best answer is that most people know it when they see it. Limbaugh got a lot of public criticism from Democrats, but he got a ton of private criticism from Republicans, which is why he apologized — sort of.

It’s a bit of a straw man to imply that I approve of attacks on Joe the Plumber. To the best of my recollection, I didn’t personally attack Joe, at the time, nor did I get involved in any attempt to defend those who may have been attacking Joe on a personal level. It’s also a straw man to say that I don’t disapprove of Bill Maher using the four letter “C” work to refer to Sarah Palin. I will point out, however, that, firstly, Palin is not only a professional politician, but she’s a professional publicity seeker.

I also think that calling a professional politician/publicity seeker a “C–t” is much less offensive than calling a private citizen a “Sl-t.” The former word is a vulgar expletive used as an extreme — but generic — insult to a particular woman. But the word implies nothing specific — simply that the person uttering the word has a visceral hatred toward the woman against whom the epithet is uttered. A conservative woman politician could rightly take it as a badge of honor that she was at the top of Bill Maher’s “C–t list.” Calling a 30 year old woman a “sl-t,” however, is a very specific form of insult — it is making a very specific statement about her personal behavior and morality. Limbaugh left no doubt as to his meaning of the word. She was having “so much sex that she needed to– blah blah” and “she should have it videoed and posted online; so that we all can watch.”

All of this is what crossed the difficult to define “line,” that one knows mainly when one sees.

What about Obama and the $1M super-PAC contribution from Maher? My number three political issue (after not wanting to be on the receiving end of a nuclear explosion on Long Beach Harbor and the need for improvement in the US health care system) is reintroducing the concept of the honest difference of opinion to political discourse. I think that Obama missed an opportunity to advance the latter “cause” by not making some sort of public statement clearly distancing himself from some of Maher’s remarks, at the time Maher announced that he was making the contribution. I wish that someone would ask Jay Carney what the administration thinks about Maher’s comments, in light of the Limbaugh controversy. That would be entirely appropriate, under the circumstances.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

rewinn is an example of why our legal system is in the toilet. He has no problem defending the lies he spews.
By all means, keep believing you represent anyone’s interests other than the narcissistic tenents of leftist religion. Keep believing you are helping anyone other than yourself ego wise. People are finally waking up to how you’ve screwed them and the country over.

@rewinn:

there doesn’t seem to be any real discussion as to why today’s “conservatives” feel the need to defend Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting attack on a young woman

I don’t know many conservatives who are defending Rush’s choice of words and analogy. Is that what this post is about? Or is this your wishful partisan thinking?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

To translate what larry said, because he dislikes Sarah Palin, it’s not all that bad to call her disgusting names.
Because it was a fellow dem who lied and even pretended to be something she wasn’t, it’s not ok.
Gotcha.
BTW, Sarah has been a “non-public official” for a while now. Do try to keep up.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

I also think that calling a professional politician/publicity seeker a “C–t” is much less offensive than calling a private citizen a “Sl-t.” The former word is a vulgar expletive used as an extreme — but generic — insult to a particular woman. But the word implies nothing specific — simply that the person uttering the word has a visceral hatred toward the woman against whom the epithet is uttered. A conservative woman politician could rightly take it as a badge of honor that she was at the top of Bill Maher’s “C–t list.” Calling a 30 year old woman a “sl-t,” however, is a very specific form of insult — it is making a very specific statement about her personal behavior and morality.

Seriously, Larry? You’re really making this point of distinction?

And once again, Maher has said much more than just the “c” word. Since you’re making a distinction between public figure and private citizen, I think he joined Letterman in also putting down Bristol Palin in one of his disgusting sexual jokes. I suppose she no longer counts as “private citizen” but qualifies as “public figure” ’cause she was on Dancing with the Stars and interviewed on 60 Minutes?

As far as any of this goes, btw, how does any of this name-calling actually do damage? Are we really so thin-skinned that we can’t take an insult? A public figure calls me a horrible name and I have to give it the time of day, the energy and attention it doesn’t deserve and refute what should be quite obvious in not needing refutation? Are we this emotionally fragile?

Kinda reminds me of part of my point in the Jeremy Lin/chink issue.

Rush was wrong. He apologized. Good. My biggest problem with Rush’s attack on this woman was that she was not what I would call a public person. Yes, she went to give testimony, but she was not a public person. That was a mistake that he singled her out and made her a public figure.

@rewinn #39:

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Yours is a pretty thoughtful comment, and better than anything I wrote above. I really can’t tell from your comment what your politics may be, which suggests it is correct on all the important points.

ROFL!!!!!!!!

Larry’s liberal, rewinn. 😀 Gee, I wonder why he seems and sounds so reasonable to you? It couldn’t be because his “voice of reason” sounds similar to your pov, could it? 🙂

But, okay I will concede: Larry is “pretty thoughtful” (for a liberal)…even when he’s wrong on the issues (because he’s a liberal). 😉

[/ribbing]

@blast:

My biggest problem with Rush’s attack on this woman was that she was not what I would call a public person. Yes, she went to give testimony, but she was not a public person. That was a mistake that he singled her out and made her a public figure.

I disagree. Once one takes that stand – and she knew exactly what she was doing- one becomes a public figure.

@rewinn:

Ok, off of the “elitist” topic and your obvious viewpoint of conservatives as non-truth seekers, despite your assertions to the contrary.

You stated;

At this point, we are essentially either debating points of logic (fun!) or calling each other “elitist” (which amuses me. Who would not want to be the best of the best?) and there doesn’t seem to be any real discussion as to why today’s “conservatives” feel the need to defend Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting attack on a young woman (at my age, I may call a 30-year-old “young”). Y’all seem to forget the bit about the sex tapes … why is that?

In that statement you attempt to paint conservatives with a broad brush and claim that we “feel the need” to defend Rush’s attack on Ms. Fluke.

For clarification purposes;
Dr.John:

I do not defend Limbaugh’s words,

DrJohn penned the op. His point was on the hypocrisy regarding Obama specifically, but the point can be made regarding liberals in general as well. I may have missed it, but I don’t recall anyone within this particular article actually standing up and defending Rush’s language. But yes, we conservatives do defend Rush’s wider point on the issue which no where above have any of the liberals pointed to.

Instead, what liberals point to is a specific situation and use it in order to promote their viewpoint, rather than discuss the actual issue at stake, which not even you have done.

The real issue at stake? Is it correct for government to mandate to a religious organization that they provide something for it’s employees that is specifically noted as being against their official stance. And even that is but a part of the much wider issue of government mandating what an individual, group, or entity must purchase.

But, since that is not the point of this article, back to the topic. Recent American political history is rife with misogynist statement’s by politicians, from both parties, by radio talk show hosts, from both conservative and liberal stripes, and by all manner other media personalities, including TV and print media. It doesn’t make it right, no matter who does it, yet, the left seems to take these statements and run with them as some sort of “proof” of conservative’s hatred of women, while the comments by the liberals are overlooked and brushed under the rug. So continue to believe that conservatives are alienating women. Ignore the comments by the liberal personalities that are ofttimes more vulgar in language and intent. And ignore the point of the article on the hypocrisy exposed. Concentrating on everything but the point is something the left is very good at.

@Wordsmith:

As far as any of this goes, btw, how does any of this name-calling actually do damage? Are we really so thin-skinned that we can’t take an insult? A public figure calls me a horrible name and I have to give it the time of day, the energy and attention it doesn’t deserve and refute what should be quite obvious in not needing refutation? Are we this emotionally fragile?

It’s sort of the whole point, though. Beyond a smattering of people clamoring for apologies to be made to conservative women being similarly insulted, most people brush it off as idiocy on the part of the speaker of the insults. However, when the comment is by a conservative insulting a liberal, the situation is hijacked by the leftist politicians and media to “prove” their viewpoint on the issue.

In this instance, the argument still remains the same, even as the liberals are using Rush’s comment to paint the picture that “conservatives hate women”. Fine. I just don’t want to hear about liberals being “truth” seekers and implying that conservatives are not.

I just don’t want to hear about liberals being “truth” seekers and implying that conservatives are not.

That sort of thing destroys my irony meter every time.

@rewinn: Not “data” (plural) but “datum” (singular): ONE case
Out of a universe of how many institutions? You don’t know, but if I stated there are at the least many hundreds, would you then attack me for not providing a citation?

Dunno if you have a problem with math, but I provided far more than “ONE case” in my comment, rewinn. So the correct word is data, not datum.

On the flip side of the coin, Crimson’s belated link to an article in a Christian publication was based on “ONE man’s observation” without any data. Additionally that one man who made that observation happened to be in the business of selling health insurance policies that caters to religious institutions. So the person who provided “datum” was Crimson.

That Christian health insurer happens to be located in Michigan, which has no state mandate for insurers and their prescription drug plans. Therefore, they have no conflict of interest with their product.

However the site gives no indication whether they sell outside of the state. And if they did, they would comply with the state mandates to do so.

@MataHarley:

From having seen rewinn’s blog and his posts, he isn’t concerned about debating or even being honest. Just pushing leftist propaganda. He is a flaming mooonbat wackjob. And I thought greg was bad…yeesh.

@Hard Right:

I’m sure you understand my point, HR. The implication that liberals are truth seekers and conservatives are not, when on this issue liberals are doing everything BUT seeking the truth is asinine. In the end, the issue isn’t about the accusations on Ms. Fluke’s sex life. It isn’t about the price of contraceptives. It certainly isn’t about conservatives wanting to ban them to all women. And it isn’t about the “right” of women to have them available.

No, in the end, the issue is about religious freedom and the Constitution, both of which liberals have attacked on this issue, starting with Obamacare itself. Obama merely doubled down on his attacks when he reneged on “promises” to religious groups to exempt them from the contraceptive mandate. Ms. Fluke is nothing but a pawn in a much bigger game, and Rush has simply helped the liberals to “define” the issue as something it never was.

@johngalt:

I do understand and agree. The left doesn’t want the real issue discussed or highlighted and yes, Rush made a mistake which helped them to obscure it.
The left doesn’t respect the Constitution or religion from what I can see. They have their political ideology/religion and will do anything to force it on others. Anything includes outright lying and blatant distraction by any means necessary.
rewinn provided several examples of what I mentioned.

@rewinn:
Way off topic, but I can’t let this go.

FACT 2: the scientific method is one that seeks truth

Maybe in some circles and maybe a few decades ago. One need look no further than the climate scientists to see that Fact 2 is crap. The scientific method encourages peer review and most importantly the need to duplicate results, especially by skeptics.

@Hard Right:
“…He is a flaming mooonbat wackjob…”

Well, how can I argue against logic like that?

Please, continue to martyrbate among yourselves. I’ve had a good time, but the laughter may kill me.

Signing off …

Hi Word (#67): Points well taken. If I can paraphrase you (not to put words in your mouth):

We should all be shocked….SHOCKED that Limbaugh and Maher say things that those on the other side consider to be outrageous?

I’m a HUGE Jeremy Lin fan, by the way. Got myself a $40 replica Harvard #4 basketball jersey with “Lin” on the back — similar to the one modeled by Spike Lee, only mine is black letters on white background. Also spending $32.95 a month on an NBA “League Pass,” just so that I can stream Knicks games to my iPad. I’m more of a Lakers fan, and I hadn’t previously cared about the Knicks since the days of David DeBusschere and Bill Bradley (the latter who went on to become a NY Senator and Dem Presidential candidate).

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Wow, you’re really twisting and spinning on this one, teabagger. Rush and the GOP just gave the Dems the women vote in 2012. It’s all over, lol!!!

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

The NBA hasn’t had a player as exciting as Lin in quite awhile now. Seems like most of the guys coming out of college are all pretty much interchangeable with one another, with the occasional player who reminds us of one of those players from yesteryear. I won’t get the NBA “league pass” like you did, but I have tried to watch the Knicks when they play on a channel I get now.

On a side note, it looks like Tommy Amaker has tutored at least one pretty good pro. I’m genuinely happy for him doing so well at Harvard. It’s almost a shame it didn’t work out better at UM. Go Blue!

Hi John, I think that Amaker is going to have a sensational career at Harvard, which is a perfect fit for him. Amaker was a star point guard for some great Duke teams, as well as a true scholar athlete (he also got a Duke MBA). The former disadvantage that the Ivies had (in that they can’t award athletic scholarships) has by now greatly diminished. Financial aid is based exclusively on financial need, where all students with family incomes less than $65,000 get free tuition, room, and board, and where aid above this level is still quite generous. Every year, there are quite a few gifted athletes with the academic wherewithal to qualify for schools like Stanford and Harvard. Stanford awards athletic scholarships and has had a lot of success, at the Division I level. Harvard now offers quite competitive financial support, and has a coach with both the coaching, academic, and personal athletic background to appeal to both student athlete and parents, and now they have one of the greatest stories in the NBA, in Jeremy Lin.

Just when I thought I couldn’t possibly like the kid any more than I already did, I came across this video, which he wrote, produced, and performed last Fall, during the lock out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylNjMW8A1BE

As for Michigan, it worked out OK for us, too, in John Beilein (to say nothing of Brady Hoke). It’s a great time to be a Wolverine!

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@liberalmann:

Rush and the GOP just gave the Dems the women vote in 2012. It’s all over, lol!!!

Then I guess us conservatives ought to just pack up and go home, right?

PS – Anytime you want to give it, I’ll be waiting for my apology.
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/leaked-bin-laden-not-buried-at-sea-body-moved-on-cia-plane-to-us/#comment-363005

rewinn@#33/35 – Projectionist!!! Mata and Nan provide truck loads of Data/Links/Proof on not only the vast number of subjects/stories/debated here, but to back up much of what [ they write ] here….many [displaced people] to be nice, come here and ‘drop bombs’ without a shred of evidence to back themselves up….not to mention statements that make you say: Huh??? Wha..What???

I give these two [ and many of the other FA regulars] a lot of credit for their research, their writing and …their educating the many here [ and ] to try to re-educate those who come here, on truths[s] based on evidence, fact…

Bottom line – Don’t believe the Liberal Media!

@Aqua #78:

@rewinn:
Way off topic, but I can’t let this go.

FACT 2: the scientific method is one that seeks truth

Maybe in some circles and maybe a few decades ago. One need look no further than the climate scientists to see that Fact 2 is crap. The scientific method encourages peer review and most importantly the need to duplicate results, especially by skeptics.

I seem to recall coming across studies before, regarding bias in the sciences and how scientists are not above drawing partisan conclusions and distorted findings, based upon partisan leanings and bias.

A quick search finds some links of interest:

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias?

Pressure for Positive Results Puts Science Under Threat, Study Shows

Pew science and the public report – PU the bias is potent

A commenter on the 2009 Pew Research study regarding scientists and political leanings, with this point:

This survey is not surprising. The overwhelming majority of scientists work for the government, large universities, and large corporate entities. I would bet that a survey of entrepeneurial scientists would reflect different sentiments. The start up guys(not the guys who have already made their billions) in silicon valley are going to have a different take on life than scientists who are “salary men”. It’s like running a survey of small businessmen–they’re overwhelmingly moderate to conservative. The liberal model does little for them and typically adversely affects them. Lastly, most scientists think that they are more intelligent than the average guy–this fits in with the liberal model; i.e., if one doesn’t agree with the liberal agenda, they’re probably too stupid to appreciate its inherent righteousness.

Roy Spencer:

It’s Impossible to Avoid Bias

We are all familiar with competing experts in a trial who have diametrically opposed opinions on some matter, even given the same evidence. This happens in science all the time.

Even if we have perfect measurements of Nature, scientists can still come to different conclusions about what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. So, biases on the part of scientists inevitably influence their opinions. The formation of a hypothesis of how nature works is always biased by the scientist’s worldview and limited amount of knowledge, as well as the limited availability of research funding from a government that has biased policy interests to preserve.

Admittedly, the existence of bias in scientific research – which is always present — does not mean the research is necessarily wrong. But as I often remind people, it’s much easier to be wrong than right in science. This is because, while the physical world works in only one way, we can dream up a myriad ways by which we think it works. And they can’t all be correct.

So, bias ends up being the enemy of the search for scientific truth because it keeps us from entertaining alternative hypotheses for how the physical world works. It increases the likelihood that our conclusions are wrong.

Biased but Brilliant:

In the laboratory, this is labeled confirmation bias; observed in the real world, it’s known as pigheadedness.

Scientists are not immune. In another experiment, psychologists were asked to review a paper submitted for journal publication in their field. They rated the paper’s methodology, data presentation and scientific contribution significantly more favorably when the paper happened to offer results consistent with their own theoretical stance. Identical research methods prompted a very different response in those whose scientific opinion was challenged.

This is a worry. Doesn’t the ideal of scientific reasoning call for pure, dispassionate curiosity? Doesn’t it positively shun the ego-driven desire to prevail over our critics and the prejudicial urge to support our social values (like opposition to the death penalty)?

Perhaps not. Some academics have recently suggested that a scientist’s pigheadedness and social prejudices can peacefully coexist with — and may even facilitate — the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Let’s take pigheadedness first. In a much discussed article this year in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that our reasoning skills are really not as dismal as they seem. They don’t deny that irrationalities like the confirmation bias are common. Instead, they suggest that we stop thinking of the primary function of reasoning as being to improve knowledge and make better decisions. Reasoning, they claim, is for winning arguments. And an irrational tendency like pigheadedness can be quite an asset in an argumentative context. A engages with B and proposes X. B disagrees and counters with Y. Reverse roles, repeat as desired — and what in the old days we might have mistaken for an exercise in stubbornness turns out instead to be a highly efficient “division of cognitive labor” with A specializing in the pros, B in the cons.

It’s salvation of a kind: our apparently irrational quirks start to make sense when we think of reasoning as serving the purpose of persuading others to accept our point of view. And by way of positive side effect, these heated social interactions, when they occur within a scientific community, can lead to the discovery of the truth.

And what about scientists’ prejudices? Clearly, social values should never count as evidence for or against a particular hypothesis — abhorrence of the death penalty does not count as data against its crime-deterrent effects. However, the philosopher of science Heather Douglas has argued that social values can safely play an indirect role in scientific reasoning. Consider: The greater we judge the social costs of a potential scientific error, the higher the standard of evidence we will demand. Professor A, for example, may be troubled by the thought of an incorrect discovery that current levels of a carcinogen in the water are safe, fearing the “discovery” will cost lives. But Professor B may be more anxious about the possibility of an erroneous conclusion that levels are unsafe, which would lead to public panic and expensive and unnecessary regulation.

Both professors may scrutinize a research paper with these different costs of error implicitly in mind. If the paper looked at cancer rates in rats, did the criteria it used to identify the presence of cancer favor over- or under-diagnosis? Did the paper assume a threshold of exposure below which there is no cause for concern, or did it assume that any level of exposure increases risk? Deciding which are the “better” criteria or the “better” background assumptions is not, Ms. Douglas argues, solely a scientific issue. It also depends on the social values you bring to bear on the research. So when Professor A concludes that a research study is excellent, while Professor B declares it seriously mistaken, it may be that neither is irrationally inflating or discounting the strength of the evidence; rather, each is tending to a different social concern.

Science often makes important contributions to debates that involve clashes of social values, like the protection of public health versus the protection of private industry from overregulation. Yet Ms. Douglas suggests that, with social values denied any legitimate role in scientific reasoning, “debates often dance around these issues, attempting to hide them behind debates about the interpretation of data.” Professors A and B are left with no other option but to conclude that the other is a stubborn, pigheaded excuse for a scientist.

For all its imperfections, science continues to be a stunning success. Yet maybe progress would be even faster and smoother if scientists would admit, and even embrace, their humanity.

@chicken thief: #44
Some sponsors want to come back to Rush. He also explains how he doesn’t make any money from the advertisers. I didn’t know that.

Rush: Sponsors ‘practically begging to come back’

The businesses quitting Rush and then having their stock prices drop gives me an idea how to fight liberal companies. Find out which ones they are (Google, General Electric, General Motors, etc.) and sell of any stock you have with them, assuming you have control over your investments and then encourage others to do the same.

Is there a web sight that lists liberal oriented companies so a person can keep track of them?

@Crimson: #47
As I have mentioned before:

(1) Obama tells us not to listen to Fox News. Their ratings skyrocket.
(2) Obama tells us not to listen to Joe the Plumber. He became a reporter and a speaker for conservatives.
(3) Obama tells us not to listen to Rush. His ratings skyrocket.
(4) Obama says not to listen to Smorgasbord. I become famous and make a lot of money touring the country and making speeches. I want to become a target of Obama and the propaganda media.

lARRY The days of Dollar Bill,Walt Frazier,Earl the Pearl and Willis hobbling out at half time.Great stuff.
Think Lin is the real deal and if Carmelo and Amare blend Knicks should contend.

BTW Bradley a Princeton grad, then 2 years at Oxford, was a 3 time Sen. from N.J. A great guy and would have made a wonderful POTUS.

@rewinn: #54
Is it that scientists tend to lean liberal, or just that the liberal ones get the attention of the propaganda media, and we don’t hear about the others? Let’s not forget about the specialists in many fields who are trying to PROVE a theory of theirs, not find the truth.

@Wordsmith:
Yep, it’s a shame. I don’t know when the truth was no longer considered part of the scientific method, but it seems to have been replaced with agenda.

“Scientists” leaning “liberal” is not something to be proud of, rewinn. Any “scientist” with an agenda, isn’t one.

Shall we review the lies propagated concerning AGCC by the “scientists” at East Anglia, etc.? No? Didn’t think so.

What does “science” have to do with the Left’s denigration, degradation and hatred of women, anyway?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Private citizen my but. She is an activist with a cause for the Democrat Party and you know it. Come on, at least act like you have some sense of brains.

Hi Common Sense: I disagree. You make it sound as if she’s a professional, paid operative for the Democratic National Committee, or whatever. No, she was first a college student, then worked in an anti-domestic violence program and other legal advocacy programs, then gained admission to the (highly competitive) Georgetown University Law School. She is, in every way, a private citizen and cannot be remotely compared to the likes of Sarah Palin.

To wit:

http://www.wlala.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=89

Each year, the WLALA Foundation awards the Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant to a law student to fund summer public interest projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted.

The WLALA Foundation is proud to have awarded a grant in the amount of $5,000 to fund the summer public interest project of Sandra Fluke. The Grant funded the production of an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. The film will be distributed to Los Angeles County courthouse clinics, domestic violence shelters, and legal assistance providers, in addition to being available online.

Ms. Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Ms. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions.

Ms. Fluke is in her second year at Georgetown University Law Center, where she was selected as a Public Interest Law Scholar. She is a member of the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, as well as the Co-President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

Ms. Fluke has interned with Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County in their Family Law Advocacy Group; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Found; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

What on earth do you mean by “activist,” which disqualifies one from being a private citizen? In college, I was a political columnist for the student newspaper (The University of Louisville “Cardinal”). I volunteered for work details to repair schools in Appalachian Kentucky. I participated in an open housing march and political rally, personally led by the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. Much more recently, I worked for a time (spoke at City Council meetings, passed out political flyers, attended organizational meetings, etc.) to get the city of Huntington Beach to pass bonds to construct youth sports facilities. I’ve also posted over 20,000 blogpost political comments, in my own way trying to influence political opinion. Does any or all of this this disqualify me from being a private citizen?

The way that Fluke has been portrayed as a “political operative” by Limbaugh supporters has been both distorted and exaggerated. A lot of law students at prestigious schools such as Georgetown have similar backgrounds. In many cases, these demonstrated interests and commitments to community service and legal justice projects is precisely what led to their selection for admission to these law schools.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

She’s an unpaid dem operative larry. As for Sarah, she’s a private citizen and the left still goes after her. Yet you think that is ok compared to SP. Hypocritical much?

@Aqua:

Just today your premise was found to be correct once again, Aqua.
Hansen : Tampering With Data All Over The Planet

http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Compared with:
http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1950&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

TEXT:
Hansen has been deleting cooling trends all over the planet. The image compares current GISS 1950-1998 trends, with those he published in 1999.
He has erased historical cooling trends (blue) in North America, South America, Africa, the Arctic, Antarctica, and elsewhere.

He also has created data in the southern hemisphere which didn’t previously exist. Note how the area of grey has shrunk.

The color scales are shifted, but the legends are located below the maps – and you can see that the values have changed.
The circle over Africa has changed from a -0.5C to -0.3C cooling trend, into a warming trend.

See the throbbing graphic here:
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet

No honesty at all.
What he did he got caught doing by those on BOTH sides.
Whenever anyone called him on it he either called them a ”denier,” or told them he had data that they were not privy to…..turned out not to be true.
Never once did he allow anyone to look at his original data so as to duplicate his findings.
WHY not?
Because he lied.

Hi Hard, Number one, Fluke is not an “operative.” She is exactly as described in her biography, above. She is most definitely a private citizen. Number two, on what planet is a former national level politician who hosted a TV show and remains a Fox News commentator and who is constantly giving press interviews and who maintains her own public relations staff and who had a high profile, self-promoting bus tour in the recent past in any way a “private citizen”/non-public figure?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry, let’s assume for a moment that you are correct about the “designations” on Ms. Fluke and Sarah Palin. That is, that Fluke is a private citizen and Palin is a public figure. Now that that is out of the way, what difference does it make what the target of the name-calling is? Misogyny is misogyny is misogyny, no matter who does the insulting, or who the target of the insult is. To make such a nuanced distinction as you were above is really reaching.

Let’s put it this way, Larry. Would you be more offended if a local newspaper reporter called your private citizen wife a “slut”, or if a local radio personality called your charity-involved, local public figure of a wife a c***? Or, would you be offended equally due to the misogynistic statements and physically beat the crap out of them(this is my choice, btw)?

PS – Just using your wife as an example, Larry. You are a pretty nice guy so I’m pretty sure your wife is at least as nice, but probably nicer since she has to put up with you. 😉

@MataHarley:

Just so you are clear where I stand on this, I don’t think the feds have *any* right to mandate minimum policy coverage nation wide, because that infringes on the 10th Amendment.

But that means if I hate blacks I can exclude sickle cell treatments. This is prohibited because it violates the civil rights act. This is the basis on which contraceptives are required under law, as per the 2000 ruling.

My opinion is I couldn’t care less. But our opinions about this don’t count. It’s settled law. It was settled law before Bush was sworn in, the day Obama was sworn in and nothing changed between these dates, other than Catholic institutions being forced to comply with it. Before the black socialist took office.
That could have been the point to express shock and outrage, but everyone took a pass on that. So bad luck.

Now this pretty much as interesting as an argument about how come Obama gets to have an unregulated derivatives market. If it’s something that pre-dated his predecessor, it’s not something that should be taken this seriously in 2012. If people would like to believe that, I don’t really have a stake in the outcome.

OMG did anyone hear we invaded Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires? Yep, it’s amazing the things you notice for the first time when the president is from the other team. That’s really all that’s going on here.

@MataHarley:
Thought you should see this Mata. I said it would be done by Summer, I was off by just a little bit.
~Snip

Most of the passionate debate was reserved for bills that would ban state employee health insurance plans from offering coverage for abortion services, SB 438, and SB 460, which would allow Georgia to exempt religiously affiliated businesses from having to provide birth control coverage.

Emphasis mine.
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/conservative-social-issues-rule-1377261.html

@Nan G:
Can’t really say I’m happy about being right or that I’m shocked. The only institution that I can say I have any respect for at all is CERN. And I lost a lot of that when they refused to release the results of their cloud experiment. But they did release it and it had a devastating effect on the AGW crowd.

“It’s best for the right to tuck its tail between its collective legs and take the beating.”
That is what elitest bigots like crimson and rewinn want us to do. Too bad we won’t be obliging them.

I was encouraging conservatives not to deliberately scare away half the electorate during an election year.
If you’d like to conclude that’s some kind of trick an elitist lefty is trying to trap you with, so be it.

We’ll find out together what that gets you and we can gauge our respective levels of happiness. Meet you back here in mid-November ? I bet you can’t wait.