Rochester Smackdown: Economist, Blogger Steve Landsburg vs. University of Rochester President
University of Rochester President Joel Seligman sharply criticized faculty member Steven Landsburg for saying that Rush Limbaugh provided “the requisite mockery” of a Georgetown student. In his March 2 blog, Landsburg, a professor of economics, said that Fluke’s position “deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered.”Landsburg went on to say, “To treat it with respect would be a travesty.”
Read more here.
58 Comments:
My favorite quote from the comments:
He is a libertarian and has consistently taken the stance that we should favor free markets and economic efficiency over moral issues
As if free markets, i.e., liberty and freedom, aren't moral issues.
discussion of this issue seems to get a number of things tangled up.
first, i agree that her demand that contraception be provided for free is a poor one.
it contains the assumption that WE ought to be giving free stuff to THEM.
opposing that is hardly a radical viewpoint.
but then rush weighed in and said a whole pile of baseless and unfounded things about her.
this has turned the issue into a circus and rush has unwittingly aided the opposition by becoming a lightning rod and allowing for poor straw men attacks.
it's quite possible to think she's wrong, but not agree with what rush said.
i'd even go so far as to say that most of those disagreeing with her felt that way.
but they now labor under the burden of this caricature of their viewpoint that rush put forward like some cartoon demon in an unsubtle morality play.
of course, those agreeing with her have since jumped in and proved that they either cannot think clearly or desire to distort the issue for personal gain.
rush said some stupid, reprehensible things. so what?
he has not changed the actual issues about wealth transfer and federal regulation vs individual freedom.
the fact that the debate has become entirely about whether or not he is an idiot speaks poorly for our society.
comments like "her views do not even bear addressing" are just a less dramatic example of the same thing.
her views are easy to argue against in a consistent, principled way and i doubt she can argue for them the same way.
far from not being worth addressing, i think they are very much worth addressing and debunking.
if you have the strong argument, then make it.
these are the sorts of "own goals" that any serious argument with the facts on its side needs to avoid.
guys like landburg and limbaugh are harming their own side.
i sure don't want them on my team.
I agree. She deserves to be ridiculed for her stupidity.
Rush did the same thing they do here in Carpe Diem. They get personal.
they can't seem to disagree on the merits - without being insulting.
on the issue itself.
For ANY insurance - the question is - are you paying for coverage for others that you do not want?
I think that's an honest issue.
If you COULD ...with employer-provided insurance - have a cafeteria plan - would that solve the issue?
After all... with auto insurance, you can decide on which coverages you want and even which deductibles.... (however you cannot refuse to pay the uninsured motorist fee - at least in Virginia).
This idiot Fluke was brought to you by the Democrat party. They brought her before the American people to explain why it's our duty to finance her and her friends' sex life. Obama called her and, in all seriousness, said her parents must be so proud of her for announcing to the world why basically free condoms just aren't good enough. Fluke also believes "gender reassignment" surgery should be covered by insurance. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=45074
No doubt another mandate from Lord Almighty Obama will be forthcoming eventually.
But Rush is the main story here...
"but then rush weighed in and said a whole pile of baseless and unfounded things about her"...
What was baseless and unfounded supposedly morganovich?
"i'd even go so far as to say that most of those disagreeing with her felt that way"...
I wouldn't...
Most people I know thought Limbaugh let Flukes off rather lightly...
"rush said some stupid, reprehensible things. so what?"...
Again what were things you found so reprehensible?
"the fact that the debate has become entirely about whether or not he is an idiot speaks poorly for our society"...
Now that's a rather unhinged statement...
There was nothing poor about what Rush said...
"i sure don't want them on my team"...
I can't even begin to imagine what they might think of the likes of you...
Sadly I can't see you as anything but a dupe on this particular subject morganovich...
Where is the wailing and carrying on when the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz toss out their numerous misogynistic outbursts?
"No doubt another mandate from Lord Almighty Obama will be forthcoming eventually"...
Well paul you do know that the bamster had a phone conversation with Flukes heh! heh! heh!
Yes indeed this was another Pelosi dog & pony show...
Fluke who has a history of questionable activism knew exactly what Georgetown University was but decided to challenge it anyway...
Fluke was challenged on her stance and liberals whined...
So, an unmarried woman wants a third party to for her birth control. A particular third party that has longstanding religious traditions against such payment. This woman is paraded out by the democratic party in a sort of three ring circus. Why? Because they feel slighted there weren't enough women on the panel appearing before the full committee. So this woman goes before the committee thus, making herself a public figure. Limbaugh calls her out for what many of us believe she obviously is, an unmarried woman who wants others to pay for protection from her sexual escapades (call her whatever you want). Limbaugh didn't say anything reprehensible, unless truth is suddenly reprehensible.
She's a radical activist the Democrats trotted out as some poor, innocent school girl. Until last week, I'd never heard that contraceptives were "women's health" issues. What hasn't been answered is why basically free condoms that offer some protection against STD's aren't a better choice for "women's health."
"Sandra Fluke told a House panel last week birth control can cost over $3,000 while in law school."
I wonder when they actually study law in law school.
This comment has been removed by the author.
paul-
"She's a radical activist the Democrats trotted out as some poor, innocent school girl."
exactly. and she could have been painted and vilified as such and had her ideas shown to be the doggerel they are if fat boy had not opened his mouth and made her into a victim.
he literally handed her the victim card and said "here, please play it".
not a great plan.
Those who decide to attend law school should pay at least a $3,000 birth control fee with tuition.
"rush went way overboard, engaged in absurd and unjustified ad hominem, and turned a winning argument into an emotional circus"...
Well maybe in bizzaro world morganovich Limbaugh's comments were overboard but we all don't live in bizzaro world where inane behavior and bragging about it goes unnoticed...
The fact that someone who drags their sex life out in public, in front of Congress, and on television is asking to be made the butt of jokes and comments...
Why should anyone have to keep their opinions to themselves regarding Fluke when she didn't?
Maybe its because I'm Limbaugh's age and we grew at time when one didn't drag one's private life out for display is at best tasteless in the extreme...
"I have no issue with his even calling her stupid or foolish or greedy. but a slut and a prostitute?"...
Then maybe its time to refresh your memory on the definition of those two words morganovich...
"it was a massive own goal and the real issues are getting drowned out under all the stupidity he unleashed"...
Well apparently in bizzaro world it is but in the real world she is what she is, an embarrassing idiot...
Imagine if Fluke would've pulled stunt like that in the real world of say Egypt or Iraq...
dupe?
you must be joking.
a guy with a legitimate beef with a woman's political views makes himself look like an ass by calling her a slut and a prostitute based on no information and i object to having such a loose cannon on my side and that makes ME a dupe?
take a look at what you are saying juandos.
his calling her a slut and a prostitute based on her wanting to require health insurance to cover contraception is like me calling you an obese oxy addict for agreeing with rush.
rush went way overboard, engaged in absurd and unjustified ad hominem, and turned a winning argument into an emotional circus while making himself look like an ass.
it was a massive own goal and the real issues are getting drowned out under all the stupidity he unleashed.
seems to me that the dupe is anyone wanting rush supporting them on this. again, why would you want a guy like that on your team?
i have no issue with his even calling her stupid or foolish or greedy. he might have a basis for making such claims. but a slut and a prostitute? be serious. that was the behavior of an immature idiot and was neither reasoned nor principled and neither is your apparent knee jerk defense of him. that sort of "my team-their team" thinking is anathema to principled debate. you ought to be better than that.
mike, you seriously need to rethink this.
wishing for insurance to cover birth control does not make you a hooker. if that's what you and "many like you obviously believe her to be" then you have some serious issues.
juandos-
so let me get this straight, you seriously believe that asking that insurance cover contraception makes you a slut and a prostitute?
that those are valid takeaways from that viewpoint?
you have some evidence that she has a pimp and a string of johns do you? if so, you're going to make a mint selling it to the press. rush would pay you top dollar.
but you don't, because it's a lie.
you seem fine with his telling lies and making baseless (and they are baseless, please provide me with one valid piece of evidence that she is a hooker) personal attacks because you agree with his viewpoint.
that's a pretty disgusting viewpoint juandos.
the atrocities and lies of my friends are fine so long as they strike at my foes? you sound like al gore telling us it's OK to overstate the danger of climate change because it makes us more likely to do something about it.
seriously, are you even listening to yourself?
under what system of ethics is it permissible to lie about someone being a hooker because you do not agree with their politics?
you sounds as moraly vapid as he did. i'm sure a lot of the world looks "bizzaro" with ethics as screwed up as yours seem to be.
by your own logic you are a fat oxy addict, because that's what people with your social views are like. hey, you came out supporting them and agreeing that she's a slut and aprostitute, if you are not going to keep your baseless opinions to yourself, why should anyone else?
what a disturbed, false little world we get if we all follow your ideas.
Why don't the guys she is having sex with pay for the contraceptives?
The greatest beneficiaries of the women's "liberation" movement have been irresponsible men.
"..why would you want a guy like that on your team?"
Because he apologized and he has over 20 years of being a positive force for spreading conservative ideas. The Rush demonization project by Obama and his ilk only demonstrate how effective Limbaugh has been. They won't be happy until they drive him, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, and all other dissenters from the public sphere. I'm not going to abandon Limbaugh because of one remark, especially when the Left is guilty of far worse invective towards Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other females who dare to be on the Right.
"...you seriously believe that asking that insurance cover contraception makes you a slut and a prostitute?"
No, and Rush didn't really either. It was a bad joke poorly executed, not a "lie."
This whole thing is ridiculous and is hopefully one of the final acts of a desperate administration.
Can't talk about his record. Can't talk about any of his legislation since it is universally hated. Can't talk about his "ideas" because he has none.
So...he plants an idiotic question in a R primary with one his lackeys. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever considering the multitude of REAL problems this country faces to even discuss at the time. Then it is rolled out in full force weeks later and here we are.
Nobody talking about what an abject monumental failure this man is. All pretty pathetic.
"No, and Rush didn't really either. It was a bad joke poorly executed, not a "lie.""
i'm curios, what is your evidence for that?
in general, you don;t call someone a prostitute as a joke. that said, i did not hear the broadcast, so i guess it's possible.
i'm sure he is saying that now, but how were we to know then?
from what i have seen, it sure looks like deliberate misrepresentation and demonization, the very things about which he complains so bitterly.
it was also really, really stupid.
to use terms like slut and prostitute carelessly is to invite debate, particularity about the former.
there is a certain subset of folks, juandos apparently among them, that feel that any unmarried woman having sex is a slut. this is, however, not a popular definition and not many adhere to it anymore. defining it in such a way shifts the debate to the definition of slut.
i had a fantastic professor in college the late professor emeritus beiser who taught politics of the legal system. he was a huge advocate that the framing of the issue is the key to any debate. he sued to say "i can win any argument on any topic with anyone, anytime, if you allow me to pose the question."
this is exactly what rush gave up.
he had a winner of an argument on individual rights, religious freedom, etc. and turned it into a loser over the definition of slut.
it was the equivalent of holding 4 aces vs your opponents 3 10's and demanding that your hand be counted as 2 pair.
despite agreeing with him on the issue, i sure wish he was not arguing for my team. he's made a real hash of this and such apologies are all but worthless.
call your girlfriend or wife a slut in anger, then apologize and see how well it goes...
some things are pretty difficult to unsay.
ps-
paul, i realize that you do not believe that desiring insured contraception = slut and hooker, but i was asking juandos.
comments like this:
"me: I have no issue with his even calling her stupid or foolish or greedy. but a slut and a prostitute?"...
juandos: Then maybe its time to refresh your memory on the definition of those two words morganovich..."
make me suspect he does and i'm trying to figure out what he's arguing.
his position all along seems to have been that rush said nothing wrong or unfounded.
go back and read his comments and see if you interpreting them differently.
maybe it's me, but that's sure what i'm getting from them.
"so let me get this straight, you seriously believe that asking that insurance cover contraception makes you a slut and a prostitute?"...
Not exactly, that makes them a stupid slut and a prostitue morganovich...
"that's a pretty disgusting viewpoint juandos"...
I'm sure it is in bizzaro world but then again I don't live there, I live in the real world...
"you have some evidence that she has a pimp and a string of johns do you?"...
Flukes admission that she needs $3000 to keep from getting pregnant...
" you sound like al gore telling us blah blah blah"...
Nice attempt at reaching for the proverbial strawman morganovich but as usual it ends in failure...
"seriously, are you even listening to yourself"...
Are you listening to yourself or is the background noise in bizzaro world drowning out the sound?
"under what system of ethics is it permissible to lie about someone being a hooker because you do not agree with their politics?"...
What lie? You have conclusive and credible proof of this alledged lie?
"by your own logic you are a fat oxy addict, because that's what people with your social views are like.blah blah blah"...
More spewage from bizzaro world? Is this what passes for enlightened conversation in bizzaro world?
"you sounds as moraly vapid as he did blah blah blah"...
Well apparently Limbaugh has some but also just as apparently having morals in bizzaro world must a real scarlet letter, eh?
"by your own logic you are a fat oxy addict, because that's what people with your social views are like blah blah blah"...
Well then I guess in your bizzaro world you're a reefer toking, ectasy dropping leading citizen by what you're spewing...
"what a disturbed, false little world we get if we all follow your ideas"...
You being ensconced in bizzaro world, how would you know what's disturbing or false if everything is cool regardless of what it is as long as its politically correct too?
but then rush weighed in and said a whole pile of baseless and unfounded things about her.
That is the problem. The social conservatives could never resist personal attacks because they have so little experience with actually standing on principle. As a result, the debate has been diverted to a place where the lefties feel much more comfortable.
She's a radical activist the Democrats trotted out as some poor, innocent school girl.
That may be true. But Rush fell into it when he called her a prostitute and diverted attention from where the argument really belongs. Instead of talking about the stupidity of having some people pay for the use of contraceptives by others we are distracted by personal attacks.
Until last week, I'd never heard that contraceptives were "women's health" issues. What hasn't been answered is why basically free condoms that offer some protection against STD's aren't a better choice for "women's health."
Not only that but why one has to pay $3,500 when you can get condoms so much cheaper or use the pills sold by Wal-Mart for one tenth of the cost.
juandos-
you are seriously unhinged.
you comments do not even make the rudiments of sense.
saying that contraception costs money makes you a hooker?
wake up and smell what you are shoveling son, you are clearly part of the problem here. that's not even sensible enough to be absurd.
lots of women spend money on contraceptives, certainly the majority of college students. so they are all hookers?
get a grip guy.
and this "What lie? You have conclusive and credible proof of this alledged lie?"
is just pure BS and bluster.
even rush admits his comment was baseless, but you still cannot get a grip.
it's the accuser that must prove his case.
i call rush a liar because he agrees.
unless you can prove she's a prostitute, and utter bullshit like "she says contraception costs money" does not count. prostitution is having intimate relations for money. either prove she did it, or shut up and admit you lied. rush already has, so i doubt you have a better case apart from some bizarre febrile imaginings and definitional stupidity that makes most american women hookers.
all this "bizzaro world" bluster cannot mask the fact that you have not demonstrated ANY of your case and that your arguments are devoid of logic and sense.
bizzaro world is where admitting that contraception costs money makes you a hooker and where you trot out egypt and iraq as moral examplars.
sorry juandos, but this is reality. we use facts and standard definitions here, none of which you seem familiar with.
in the real world, lying is not suddenly ethical just because you dislike the person being lied about and you don't get to make up crackpot definitions of prostitute to try and weasel out of it.
you are really embarrassing yourself here. you off your meds or something?
vangel-
"
That is the problem. The social conservatives could never resist personal attacks because they have so little experience with actually standing on principle. As a result, the debate has been diverted to a place where the lefties feel much more comfortable."
yup, that's a good summary.
watching juandos come utterly unhinged and start making absurd claims about what a prostitute is is an excellent case in point.
it's like they want to destroy any ability to get what they want.
Rush is 100% right. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
Obviously, Juandos doesn't want to pay for Georgetown University Law students, who have so much sex they can't afford it.
For ANY insurance - the question is - are you paying for coverage for others that you do not want?
I can choose what my insurance plan covers. If I want insurance plans that cover only catastrophic events, I can. If I want on that covers yearly doctor visits, I can.
Any plan I choose will dictate the costs of premiums. If I choose to not have somethings covered, my premiums decrease. If I choose to have somethings covered, my premiums increase.
Note that the word "choose" is used everywhere above. You and Fluke want to FORCE me to buy a plan that covers birth control, regardless of what I want to buy.
he called her a slut and a prostitute based, as far as i know, on zero evidence of any kind
She spend thousands of dollars on contraception in order to get it on the maximum number of times she could. That's pretty much the definition of a slut.
She now is demanding that other people PAY HER to have said sex. That's pretty much the definition of a prostitute.
"watching juandos come utterly unhinged and start making absurd claims about what a prostitute is is an excellent case in point"...
I became unhinged?!?!
You rode your rocket of leftist indignation and disdain out of bizzaro world freaking out that someone would call it like it is?!?!
Now that's funny morgaonovich!
Welcome to the real world where pollite sentiment doesn't work well as a mask for utter disgust...
"sorry juandos, but this is reality. we use facts and standard definitions here, none of which you seem familiar with"...
"and this "What lie? You have conclusive and credible proof of this alledged lie?"
is just pure BS and bluster"...
O.K. you can't answer the question so you want to continue pack that hole in your argument (no, that wasn't a pun) with excessive verbiage and bizzaro world two step?
In your bizzaro world maybe morganovich but in the real world when some hose_bag whines publically that she (my disgust would be just as deep if it were a guy) that she needs $3K of taxpayer dollars to cover her sexual activities well that tells the whole story right there in the real world...
The new morality, well it don't fly and people who push it while painting themselves as some sort of victim deserve all the mocking and sneering $3K can buy and more...
Morganovich,
"i'm curios, what is your evidence for that?"
The actual broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODI-NALkI4c
It doesn't sound like you ever listen to Rush so you may not get his tongue-in-cheek manner. He often says he likes to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. In this particular case, it fell flat. Obama and his parasite minions then flocked in to distract from the real issue here. I refuse to fall for their diversion, the real villainy here is not coming from Rush.
"You rode your rocket of leftist indignation and disdain out of bizzaro world freaking out that someone would call it like it is?!?!"
QED. unhinged. you are ranting like a lunatic and trying to defend a statement that never had any basis in fact. even rush has said so.
so, let's take this back to the basics:
he called the girl a prostitute.
tell me how that is accurate or defensible.
lay it out oh arbiter of reality.
you can't, because it's not true.
none of this BS about contraception costing money. that makes no sense at all. it is nothing like trading sex for money.
by your logic, buying your kid a car makes them a taxi driver.
so lay it out blowhard.
seriously, try.
you are completely unhinged on this issue.
you take "i'd like insurance to cover contraception" to equal "i have sex for money" then accuse others of living in a bizzaro world? wow.
that's hideous and ridiculous thinking. it has NO logic of any kind, just your bizzare emotional bigotry.
i don't agree with her that she should get covered birth control. i think it's a terrible idea.
but wanting it hardly makes her a hooker.
are most European women hookers then?
your thinking is so screwed up on this is hard to even know where to start. to even try to get it to make sesne, you have to trot out rgytp and iraq as moral exemplars.
get a grip guy.
you are talking idiocy.
ken-
"
She now is demanding that other people PAY HER to have said sex. That's pretty much the definition of a prostitute."
that is utterly asinine.
having contraception covered by insurance (which, for the record, i think is a bad idea) is NOT the same as getting paid to have sex.
by your logic, insurance covering immunizations is getting paid to get measles.
a prostitute has sex for money.
she has done nothing of the kind.
if you buy your kid a car, are they a taxi driver?
your logic here is totally absent.
you are just acting like an emotionally driven zealot.
it is precisely folks like you that do so much harm to the libertarian movement.
morganovich: it's quite possible to think she's wrong, but not agree with what rush said.
True.
morganovich: wishing for insurance to cover birth control does not make you a hooker.
For instance, many students are married or are in committed relationships, and might want to postpone childbirth until after they graduate.
mike k: So, an unmarried woman wants a third party to for her birth control.
She wants students paying insurance premiums to have contraceptive coverage included as part of theiir standard package.
juandos: The fact that someone who drags their sex life out in public, in front of Congress, and on television is asking to be made the butt of jokes and comments...
No. She did not. She said, "And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard." She did not speak about her personal life.
Paul: It was a bad joke poorly executed, not a "lie."
He wasn't joking. It was a two-day tirade. He was way over the top, and his apology was clearly inadequate and insincere.
juandos: Flukes admission that she needs $3000 to keep from getting pregnant...
She said no such thing.
VangelV: Not only that but why one has to pay $3,500 when you can get condoms so much cheaper or use the pills sold by Wal-Mart for one tenth of the cost.
Each woman's situation is different, and each woman's body is different. Prescriptions for contraception vary considerably.
PeakTrader: Obviously, Juandos doesn't want to pay for Georgetown University Law students, who have so much sex they can't afford it.
You obviously don't know how birth control works. Whether a woman has sex once a month with her committed partner, or every day, if she takes the pill, she has to take the entire regimen for it to be effective.
Ken: You and Fluke want to FORCE me to buy a plan that covers birth control, regardless of what I want to buy.
Next thing you know, your insurance premiums will be used to pay for someone's colonoscopy or emergency operation.
Ken: She spend thousands of dollars on contraception in order to get it on the maximum number of times she could. That's pretty much the definition of a slut.
Again, we don't know anything about Fluke's personal life or contraceptive use. If a woman has sex with her committed partner once a month, she still has to take the entire regimen of pills, the prescription varying depending on the particular woman.
juandos: she needs $3K of taxpayer dollars to cover her sexual activities well that tells the whole story right there in the real world...
It's not taxpayer money, but out of insurance premiums.
paul:
i just watched that clip, and honestly, it's a worse pack of distortions and bullshit that i thought.
he completely mistates the facts, right from the word go by saying she claimed she must be paid to have sex. that never happened.
it's a complete lie.
he is either a complete idiot, incapable of logical thought (which i do not believe) or he's deliberately lying and making misstatements to inflame his listeners and vilify a political opponent. that is not principled nor ethical. this as not some slip of the tongue, it was a deliberate attack through distortion and falsehood.
that was NOT a joke. there was no humor. he accused her of wanting to be paid to have sex in a level, direct tone.
he's not laughing nor mocking. the second time, it's a direct, angry accusation "she wants to be paid to have sex"
i'm glad you got me to watch that and that i saw it.
i now understand why they are not accepting his tepid and weak apology. i wouldn't either.
that was NOT a joke. he's just spinning.
he is everyhting he dislikes and rails against. as a dyed in the wool libertarian, i really do not want him on my team.
i think he does more harm to my beliefs than good, but then, i feel that way about a lot of social conservatives.
they create this terrible situation where even though i agree on the issue, they misframe it so badly that they turn a winner into a loser and i get tarred with their social fascism and the whole debate gets driven off road into idiocy.
this was a legitimate and straightforward issue, but his lies and bigotry have turned it into just the kind of circus the left loves.
it's a massive own goal, pure and simple.
"QED. unhinged. you are ranting like a lunatic and trying to defend a statement that never had any basis in fact. even rush has said as such"...
There you go again, shrieking and whining because your minority viewpoint is being laughed at...
BTW I'm not Limbaugh and I don't have to pander to people buying ad time on a program...
I find your viewpoint at the very least amoral and more than a little insane considering some of the STDs that are almost impossible to cure anymore...
"but wanting it hardly makes her a hooker.
are most European women hookers then?"...
LMAO! but to answer your question I wouldn't any of them to be the mother my children...
I was perusing a few of the domestic Spanish language forums on the Fluke topic and dude you and your world view are so in the minority its hard to describe...
The world aint California or Europe thankfully...
MOrganovich,
"he completely mistates the facts, right from the word go by saying she claimed she must be paid to have sex. that never happened."
She wants other people to finance her sex life. Rush is just restating it with his usual schtick. I guess you don't get him because you don't listen to him and aren't used to his style. It's obvious to me he's just being a smartass here, but his joke landed with a thud. That's going to occasionally happen when you on the air 3 hours a day, 5 days a week.
"i now understand why they are not accepting his tepid and weak apology. i wouldn't either."
"They" is the entire Democrat party smelling a little blood in the water. Their hurt feelings and outrage is just so much overacted bullshit. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*nt and never apologized. THat isn't stopping David Axelrod from going on his show, or Obama from cashing Maher's million dollar check while his apparatchiks wail about some phony "war against women."
"they create this terrible situation where even though i agree on the issue, they misframe it so badly that they turn a winner into a loser and i get tarred with their social fascism and the whole debate gets driven off road into idiocy."
The only reason the "winner" is a "loser" here is because of the manufactured outrage coming from Obama's machine. Why let them take divert you to a sideshow?
Also, Limbaugh has been on the air for many years. He usually does an excellent job of slicing and dicing the issues, examining them from different angles, bringing up contradictions and hypocrisies most people had long forgotten about. One bad analogy does not define his whole career.
Morganovich,
Here's exactly what I'm talking about.
Zachriel,
"He was way over the top, and his apology was clearly inadequate and insincere."
How many tears did you cry into your pillow when Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick?" How about when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut?
I bet that pillow is bone dry.
Zachriel says: "PeakTrader: You obviously don't know how birth control works. Whether a woman has sex once a month with her committed partner, or every day, if she takes the pill, she has to take the entire regimen for it to be effective."
Why should Juandos pay elite college students attending a religious university, e.g. Georgetown, for their birth control, whether it's $1 or $3,000.
If a student can't afford birth control, maybe he or she shouldn't have sex.
Birth control pills "cost $15 to $50 a month."
Tuition at Georgetown University:
Board Approves Tuition Increases for 2010-2011
"Undergraduate tuition will increase next year to $39,768, compared to $38,616 this year."
paul--
"How many tears did you cry into your pillow when Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick?" How about when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut?
I bet that pillow is bone dry."
i think that's kind of irrelevant.
personally, i think olberman is an ass. he's every bit as reprehensible.
you cannot justify one atrocity by pointing at another.
you certainly don't need to convince me of media bias and a massive double standard.
it's plain for all to see.
but i think you do our side a disservice by making it an issue about that.
it shifts the debate off the issues and onto media bias and who's a bigger jerk, which just leads to more pointless tail chasing and plays into the hands of the emotional thinkers.
"don't wrestle with pigs. you both get all dirty and the pig just likes it."
giving up your principles for the sake of a fight means you already lost.
"Why let them take divert you to a sideshow? "
it's not me i'm worried about. this has not altered my views in any way, including those about rush who i already disliked.
it's the rest of the debate and worse, all the debate it replaces. this is exactly the opportunity the left wanted: to get off the issues where they are losing and onto some emotional appeal based on rush's stupidity. he could not have done more for them if he wrapped it in a bow.
clearly, this sideshow has been VERY effective on a national level.
rush was the one who set it off.
it was a stupid thing to do and it was done for dishonest reasons.
and, as is clear from a lot of the posts even on this blog, many people cannot separate the issues here.
"Their hurt feelings and outrage is just so much overacted bullshit."
i think you are being a bit histrionic here.
if someone did that to my girlfriend and the proffered that apology, i'd punch his teeth down his throat.
you seem infinitely ready to excuse rush. this seems hypocritical if you are going to excoriate the other side when they say asinine things.
i think your comments about "well you just don't get his humor" share the same issue.
it was not any kind of humor i have ever seen, and i like a good joke or some biting sarcasm as much and more than the next guy.
i am not easy to offend. hell, i was the songmaster for rugby teams on 2 continents.
what rush said was not a joke, it was a direct, preachy attack.
it seems to me (and obviously, it's a matter of opinion) that you have a real blind spot about it. you seem like you are just circling the wagons and trying to deflect the issue by pointing at others.
there was no humor, no trace of a smile.
what do we cal them?
slut.
prostitute.
if he has said, "well, i'm against paying for other people's contraception, but in this case, i might make an exception to keep her from having kids" that would be obnoxious, but would be humor.
there was nothing of that ilk in his comments.
and this notion that she wants us to pay for he sex life is just BS and willful misstatement. she wants insurers to pay for contraception. being on the pill is not a sex life, it's a health and breeding choice.
i think she should pay it herself. but equating publicly paid contraception with prostitution makes most european women and all the canadians hookers.
it's a ludicrous and indefensible framing of the facts.
"i think that's kind of irrelevant."
No, it isn't. It crystallizes the phony outrage going on here.
"you cannot justify one atrocity by pointing at another."
And I wouldn't call name-calling an "atrocity" no matter who does it. I'd be up against a firing squad by now if it were.
"..it shifts the debate off the issues and onto media bias and who's a bigger jerk, which just leads to more pointless tail chasing and plays into the hands of the emotional thinkers."
Yeah, well, maybe,....so? Obama's hit team shifted the debate onto a tasteless remark by Limbaugh. So the original ship has already sailed.
"there was no humor, no trace of a smile."
Disagree.
"it seems to me (and obviously, it's a matter of opinion) that you have a real blind spot about it. you seem like you are just circling the wagons and trying to deflect the issue by pointing at others."
I think the outrage is bullshit, as demonstrated by their lack of concern when one of their own says something crass. And so I treat it as bullshit.
"and this notion that she wants us to pay for he sex life is just BS and willful misstatement."
I'm failing to understand why. Women don't go on the pill because it tastes like Juicy Fruit.
Anyway, I don't want to keep dragging this out considering I agree with you 99% of the time.
juandos-
what viewpoint?
you are just babbling and misrepresenting my views.
go back and read.
you'll find that i state very clearly about 5 times that i feel she should NOT have her contraceptives paid for.
so, are you willfully distorting my views or do you just have terrible reading comprehension?
you seem unable to separate these issues.
you can believe she's wrong AND not agree with rush.
quoting spanish fascist sites and egypt hardly makes you look like you have any idea what you are talking about and then you really go off the deep end and say you would never let a european woman be the mother of your child like you can speak for ALL of them.
you're a joke dude.
you're like some ridiculous caricature.
"If you COULD ...with employer-provided insurance - have a cafeteria plan - would that solve the issue?"
Not in this case, where a private religious institution is being asked to pay for - through its insurance plan - something that its core teachings hold to be immoral, namely birth control.
"quoting spanish fascist sites and egypt hardly makes you look like you have any idea what you are talking about and then you really go off the deep end and say you would never let a european woman be the mother of your child like you can speak for ALL of them"...
ROFLMAO!
Ahhh morgaonvich how do you know they're facsits?
You don't, its just more of your bizzaro world projection at work...
Go back old son, go back to bizzaro world where you're comfortable...:-)
V: "That may be true. But Rush fell into it when he called her a prostitute and diverted attention from where the argument really belongs. Instead of talking about the stupidity of having some people pay for the use of contraceptives by others we are distracted by personal attacks."
Bingo.
V: "Not only that but why one has to pay $3,500 when you can get condoms so much cheaper or use the pills sold by Wal-Mart for one tenth of the cost."
And even MORE not only that, students at Georgetown aren't required to accept the school's health care plan which doesn't include coverage for birth control, but can obtain any other plan that meets minimum lifetime coverage limits required by the university.
I suspect many younger students are covered on their parents plans.
In case anyone isn't aware of just how ridiculous Ms Flukes testimony is, watch it here, or read the transcript here.
The real issue is whether or not a private religious institution should be required to provide something that they object to on moral and religious grounds.
What happened to my comment?
by your logic, insurance covering immunizations is getting paid to get measles.
False. Contraception is used to prevent egg fertilization. Eggs get fertilized because of sex. If you want me to pay you to buy contraception, then you want me to pay you to have sex.
Getting a measles immunization is to protect you from getting measles, which can be caught in a variety of ways.
Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy that is possible from ONE act - sex. Thus if you are asking me to pay to use contraception, you are asking me to pay for you having sex.
"False. Contraception is used to prevent egg fertilization. Eggs get fertilized because of sex. If you want me to pay you to buy contraception, then you want me to pay you to have sex"
Absolutely correct!
And if you aren't married....and you want me to pay for your contraception....you are a...?
Sorry Morg, I almost always agree with you...but Limbaugh was right. He probably went over the top, but he's a radio talk show host who makes a living doing such things. That girl asked for it when she showed up for that circus. She was an open target.
Landsburg's comment fails to identify who the we is in this discussion. The taxpayer is not being asked to provide Georgetown students with contraception, Georgetown is as part of its comprehensive student health plan. Students ultimately pay for this plan either directly with premiums, or indirectly with their tuition dollars. Fluke is fully correct in asserting that coverage should not exclude coverage for a prescribed drug on the basis of what or who it is designed to treat. I could make the same argument as Landsburg to exclude medical treatment for injuries suffered by students engaged in sports that are known to have a high incidence of injuries - say rugby or cheer leading. Covering such injuries certainly increases moral hazard, and results in more participation, less care being taken. and more injuries.
Limbaugh is a tool. I don't know why anybody would go out of their way to defend him.
Landsburg's we is definitely too general, but there is no denying that Fluke is asking others to subsidize her choices. Men, chaste women, and asexual weirdos will have to pay higher tuition in order to fund Fluke's contraception. But wait, most tuition is subsidized by... taxpayers in the form of loan guarantees! So yes, Fluke is asking you and me to pay for her contraception choices.
I agree that birth control pills prescribed for medical reasons should be covered, but that doesn't seem to be the primary reason Fluke wants the subsidized contraception.
By the way naphhof, depending on where Landsburg falls on the sliding scale of libertarianism, he might actually agree with your hypothetical of not covering sports injuries.
"Limbaugh is a tool. I don't know why anybody would go out of their way to defend him"...
A tool calling someone else a tool?!?!
ROFLMAO!
naphhof: "Fluke is fully correct in asserting that coverage should not exclude coverage for a prescribed drug on the basis of what or who it is designed to treat"
You are missing the point. She is asking that a private religious institution be forced to provide coverage for contraceptives through their insurance plan.
Prevention of conception is contrary to the moral principles of the Catholic Church. While the school would not prevent Fluke from using them, they are unwilling to buy them for her through their insurance plan.
Fluke understood this lack of coverage when she enrolled at Georgetown. She ignores the fact that no one is required to accept the healthcare plan that is provided by Georgetown, but can choose something else for themselves that better suits their individual needs, including coverage for contraceptives.
Her testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is pretty much a fact free appeal to emotion that relies on personal anecdotes for support.
Her basic argument is that private, religiously affiliated schools and employers should be forced to provide something they find morally wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home