Rush Limbaugh: Law Student "Slut" and "Prostitute"

Discussion in 'The Fire Hydrant' started by sillysally, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. Puckstop31

    Puckstop31 Super-Genius

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    4 (2 dogs, 1 Guniea Pig, 1 Mouse)
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA, USA
    Home Page:
  2. Gempress

    Gempress Walks into Mordor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I personally think his apology was disgusting. He still tried to use it to further his own agenda. Basically, he said that he sank to the level of his opponents. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    I'm not sure Maher has ever done something as spectacular as Rush's three day tirade, but you're right, he used worse words (although Rush can't use those words . . . FCC regulations) and he's just as much of a jerk.
    I hope the SuperPAC refuses the donation (though, for the record, candidates do not control their SuperPACs, so Obama can't actually do anything about it directly).

    There are some reasons why I think Rush's attack on Fluke was particularly obnoxious, but that said, the left is FAR from innocent of misogyny, and some of the quotes in this article are jaw-dropping, and all from lefties.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

    Of course, I find most of those people profoundly obnoxious even when they aren't being sexist. (I do have to question a couple of the remarks the author calls "sexist" though . . . "batsh!t crazy?" I use that term for people of both sexes.)
     
  4. Kat09Tails

    Kat09Tails *Now with Snark*

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    6 + finches
    Location:
    Upper Left hand corner, USA
    Bill Maher is an idiot (he's a PETA puke) often times but when he gets up in the morning his job title is "comedian." That's why the rules are different for Bill rather than Rush whose accepted job is "political talk show host." There is also the difference of forum - public radio vs paid for tv channel where he has a late night TV show that is only fit for drunk yuppies. Bill has also had to make public apologies but the difference is he doesn't have "sponsors" - he has subscribers - so there is a real difference of access to the public discourse.
     
  5. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    I'm not sure the rules are different really . . . Rush may be a political talk show host, but he also describes himself as an entertainer. The forum makes a difference in what they are allowed to say (Rush can't use the c-word), and perhaps in their ubiquity (you can tune into Rush by accident), but I'm not sure it changes their obligation to not be sexist pigs.

    In my mind the reason Rush's attack was so obnoxious is:

    1) Unlike, say, Sarah Palin, Ms. Fluke is not a public figure. She signed up to give testimony, and she is an activist, but she is not a well-known individual who has a reason to expect personal attacks. She's a garden variety activist, which are a dime a dozen on campuses.

    2) He didn't just call her insulting sexist slurs. He specifically accused her of unsavory sexual behavior and directly attacked her sex life and sexuality. If you call Ms. Palin a c*nt that is very offensive and sexist, but its not the same as saying outright, repeatedly, that someone is outrageously promiscuous and asking them to send you sex tapes, and etc. Bill Maher was way out of line using the words he used . . . but he didn't accuse Ms. Palin, of, say, banging the entire RNC to get the Republician nomination. Basically, its the difference between using slurs and something bordering on slander.

    3) Rush's prominence (he has FAR more listeners than Maher has viewers, and far more influence over them . . .unfortunately, there are a sizable number of people who take what he says seriously); and

    4) Rush totally, utterly, and completely misrepresented what she said and why, and certain people on the right, including prime lunatic Pamela Geller, have continued to do so. Whether or not you agree with what Ms. Fluke said, Rush's characterization was a breathtaking demonstration of ignorance and misogyny, as well as being a personal attack. Not only that, but it has left many people who listen to such people as Rush completely misinformed about what Ms. Fluke said and why she was testifying. He managed to get wrong how birth control works, how much it costs, how birth control is used (not just for preventing babies), that Ms. Fluke said who she was up front, what Ms. Fluke was asking for and why . . . I could go on.

    All that said, the fact that Rush's rant was particularly egregious does not excuse anyone else using sexist, racist, etc. slurs and personal attacks in a public forum, and everyone, both left and right, needs to start calling people out for doing it and, in particular, not defending it. There's no excuse for that kind of language or that kind of attack. Hopefully, the very fact that Rush's conduct was so spectacularly offensive will make people a lot more aware of it across the board.

    Edit: Sort of a side note about prominence. I had NO IDEA who Maher was until he called Sarah Palin names. None. Of course, that's part of the reasons some of these guys do these things . . .it gets them attention.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  6. Laurelin

    Laurelin I'm All Ears

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    30,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    a lot
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Home Page:
    Thank you! As someone with PCOS this whole thing has pretty much pissed me off.
     
  7. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    I actually find that to be the most annoying thing about this as well. Whether or not insurance should have to cover birth control for "recreational purposes," as Limbaugh put it, is not the only issue here. I was actually astounded to find out that many health insurance plans won't cover the pill for even for bona fide medical conditions, and moreover, that the exemption for religious institutions, and the proposed exemption for all employers based on "conscience" allows them to not cover hormonal pills, even if perscribed to treat a disease. That Georgetown University sells its students a health plan that does not cover the pill, even if it is prescribed for a disease, and that the Catholic Church is fighting to make sure they never have to provide a plan that covers it, ever, at all, even in those circumstances, was the real shocker to me. I guess I always figured that if a plan didn't cover birth control . . it didn't cover birth control, not that it didn't cover the drugs for any reason. (Edit: for reasons discussed in another thread, I think it should be covered for "recreational purposes" as well, and that the whole reason we have to have this conversation is because of our defective system. But the idea that it wouldn't be covered for disease is a whole new level of wrong).

    And considering how inexpensive the pill is compared to many drugs these plans DO cover, expense is not the excuse. Instead the assumption is that the only reason any woman would ever want these things is to have sex without babies, and probably "immoral" sex at that. That really does show a profound ignorance with regard to women's health, in addition to being wildly sexist in the basic assumption. Not to mention that there are certain other medications that will not be prescribed to you unless you are on the pill (Accutane) so you're out of luck on those too.

    Finding the female reproductive system mysterious and yucky is not an excuse to arbitrarily deny a woman medical coverage simply because her illness is associated with her lady bits and can be used as contraception. I hate to say it, but I'm quite certain that if it turned out that Viagra was a treatment for testicular cysts, it would be immediately covered by every health plan out there, without a peep from "religious objectors" and no one would question the intention of a man asking for it because of his cysts or call him a man-wh*re.

    (Edit: I find particularly outrageous that some self-righteous employer could deny me coverage for treating a disease like PCOS based on a combination of religious beliefs I don't share and his own ignorance of female medical issues . . . that said, as I noted in another thread, the whole "employer-based health insurance" system is totally bats)
     
  8. Laurelin

    Laurelin I'm All Ears

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    30,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    a lot
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Home Page:
    :hail::hail::hail:

    You said it perfectly! And I've seen stats that place PCOS at the rate of 1 in 10 women. That's a heck of a lot of the population to ignore. And that's not even taking into account other medical conditions that are treated by BC pills.
     
  9. CaliTerp07

    CaliTerp07 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Just Miss Lucy-fur, my wondermutt!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
  10. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    Thanks. I will now have that tune stuck in my head for the rest of the week.

    That is if my head does not explode the next time someone says "These women just want someone else to pay for their birth control."

    NO.

    (warning, long Lil rant harping on things she's already said follows)

    They want birth control covered in the health insurance that THEY, one way or another, pay for. Georgetown charges $1300 a year for its health insurance (which will be charged to any student that doesn't show they have other insurance). Both I and Mike have money taken out of our paychecks to contribute to our insurance (as to virtually all employees) not to mention the lower wages we all enjoy because our employers pay the rest of the bill (for which they get a huge tax deduction, but which puts them in a trap as well as insurance costs spiral upward).

    Our bizarre health insurance system is at heart a form of tax arbitrage . . . because I cannot deduct my health expenses from my taxes (unless they are very high and even there are are severe limitations), I purchase (both with money and with overall lower wages) health insurance from my employer, because my employer CAN deduct it from its taxes. (Which, incidentally is why we use "insurance" to pay for virtually all health care in this country, rather than just catastrophic care . . . its a combination of tax arbitrage and group negotiating leverage). And because of the perverse incentives created by this system, we also have outrageously high costs . . .

    I am really, really tired of both the left and the right misrepresenting how the system works, and why it works that way. Its impossible to understand what he ACA/Obamacare does, and why, unless you understand the basics of the system its modifying. (that is not an endorsement of the ACA, just an observation about how incoherent this discussion has become--unless you understand how and why the current system works the way it does, then its hard to understand why a particular attempt is being made to modify it and what that modification does).

    Oh, and furthermore, about insurance in general (although health "insurance" is a weird beast) if I have a car accident and I file a claim with my car insurance company to fix the damage to my car, I am not "asking somoene else to pay to fix my car". I am asking the insurance company to provide the service that I PAY them to perform, which is to cover my costs in the case of an accident. Of course, unlike health insurance, car insurance is a mostly free market and I am perfectly free to buy any car insurance I like, with whatever features I like, from whomever I like, at competitive prices, so long as I met the minimum requirements that my state demands.

    I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but its driving me INSANE. I want to grab random members of both political parties and shake them until they either admit that they are lying through their teeth or admit they have no clue what they are talking about. ARGH.

    By the way, I'm a slut, snob, and an elitist. And a slut. I'm an S-L-U-T, S-L-U-T . . . dang it, its stuck in my head!! Help!
     
  11. blue

    blue Jerk.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    wasilla alaska
    Mrs Fluke is an activist who wants BC covered by insurance, but that is only the beginning. Rush globbing onto this is probably better then she could have ever hoped for, with out Rush she would not have gotten anywhere near this amount of publicity.
     
  12. Zoom

    Zoom Twin 2.0

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    40,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Viagra is covered by insurance, why shouldn't BC? Keep the balance, right? ;)
     
  13. blue

    blue Jerk.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    wasilla alaska
    I havent had insurance for 17 years and I dont need viagra. If the viagra is prescribed for its original purpose I dont see a problem, anymore then I dont have a problem with BC being prescribed for a medical purpose. Yeah this is a hypocritical stance but its where Im at.

    I have a problem with the .gov forcing a private institution to pay for services it disagrees with.

    Doesn't change the issue that Rush was the best thing that happened to Mrs Fluke.
     
  14. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    Which does not in anyway excuse his behavior, or what what he said any less stupid or offensive, or his interpretation of what she said any less ignorant or misogynistic.

    And yes she's an activist. Despite the BS floating around, she never said otherwise. She introduced herself as the former head of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And yes, she has written papers that express viewpoints that I don't share, and I don't agree with everything she said before Congress

    And, as I have explained several times:

    1) I'm not too fond of the government making people pay for services they have a problem with, BUT
    A) Those private companies aren't the ones, by and large, really paying for that insurance. The employee is through lower wages (in fact, they are often literally paying a portion of it), the taxpayer is (because of the huge tax deduction). The employer writes the check, but the only reason they do so is that our system is designed that way for reasons that made some sense after WWII and none whatsoever now. (This is not to diminish the problems that whole thing causes for employers either, who are often caught between a rock in a hard place in that they are expected to provide a "perk" of ever increasing cost and are punished, in some cases, if they don't, yet cannot simply further decrease wages to pay for it)
    B) Women do not have a choice in their health insurance in any practical sense (they take what their employer purchases, or they pay through the nose for an inferior product).
    C) If they buy without insurance, they pay outrageous prices even for generics, prices that are actually high above market price (which is what the insurance companies pay).
    D) Therefore, allowing employers to determine what is, or is not covered under the health insurance plan for moral reasons (there is almost NO cost difference) allows the employer, in effect, to determine if its female employee pays a small reasonable co-pay (or if the admin has their way nothing) or whether she pays upwards of $50, and likely far more, for her BC. For lower income women, the result is that their employer can determine whether BC is a minor expense, or whether it is a serious burden and might even be out of reach.
    2) So, though I have a problem with the government making employers buy (with the money that would have gone to wages that contributed by employees) insurance that covers something they don't like, I also have a problem with the government though the health system that it has created over the decades (and ,have no illusions, it HAS created it, if not always on purpose) empowering employers to decide for religious reasons, whether their female employes pay a small reasonable price for BC for an outrageous, possible budget busting price . . . (or indeed to decide for religious reasons whether she (or he) receives any service that they for some reason object to).

    Which again, doesn't change the fact that Rush's behavior was outrageous (and, as you point out, counterproductive to his cause) or the fact that BC should certainly be covered for medical reasons, and because of how our system is set up, for the reasons that I have repeated in several places, should also be covered for all reasons.

    Caveat: I don't agree with the administration on the "no co-pay" thing, which is part of the problem here, because it also excludes allowing women to buy a cheap rider. Assuming that the insurance co-pays are reasonable, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't pay them. I have always had a co-pay, and its never been very high for generic BC (admittedly, I've always had reasonably good insurance, even when I was otherwise dirt poor). I really don't see any reason why it should be free. However, it should be covered. I'll also point out that the "uninsured price" for even generic brands is outrageous . . . but that will lead into another lecture on perverse incentives.

    Frankly, the solution that would fix everything: MAKE BC AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER. I'm told there is NO medical reason why it isn't, except for a desire by doctors to make sure women have their "well-woman" exams yearly and pressure from the right.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2012
  15. blue

    blue Jerk.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    wasilla alaska
    Didnt read anything after this, TL.

    Wasnt aware I excused his behavior, or tried to defend him in any way shape or form.

    The left is 8 ways of giddy of shutting down the First Amendment Right of someone they wish dead.

    This is a win win for liberals, Feminazis, and the Trans-gender community activists that back Mrs Fluke.

    Rush is an a$$, and Mrs Fluke is an activist seeking attention. This is a huge win for her.
     
  16. Lilavati

    Lilavati Arbitrary and Capricious

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Way too many!
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Home Page:
    A victory he gave her. On a silver platter. While managing to tick off a large number of women. Oops.

    And for the record, I agree, mostly, with her point about birth control.

    I do not agree with the "poor Ms. Fluke" narrative from the left. Yes, his treatment of her was appalling, but she's a thirty year old woman who is clearly handling this with aplomb. She is obviously capable of handling it . . . so I would appreciate it if everyone stopped acting like she was a helpless teenager. She is a (mostly) private citizen, and his conduct is outrageous, but in many ways is just as sexist to assume that because she is "young woman" his comments are somehow especially damaging to her.

    I do not agree (or do not know much about, or do not care) with many of the other things she supports, to the extent that they mater in the relevant discussion, which, by and large, they don't. Should insurance cover sex-change operations? Well that's up to the insurance company, but it hardly seems to me to be something that should be federally mandated.

    I do not agree with any steps being taken beyond pressure on his advertisers by their customers, which is a voluntary act of individuals, and frankly seems to make an impression on the man. Demanding the FCC take him off the air is outrageous. Prosecuting him under obscure laws is stupid. To the extent Ms. Fluke wishes to sue him for slander, such a suit passes the giggle test, but is unlikely to be successful.

    Rush has as much of a right to say those things as I have to be repulsed by them.

    Honestly, I'm far less mad at Rush than I am at those who have attempted to defend him, taking at face value the what he said. I assume that he will say nasty, stupid, malicious, ignorant things without knowing the facts. He does it all the time and I stopped being angry about it awhile ago. However, that people, including other pundits, who are theoretically better informed would support his ignorant drivel does tick me off.
     

Share This Page