Glenn Beck Versus Georgetown Law Student

[Selene]

I doubt that Maher's $1 million

You remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right?

Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil.

That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to.

Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right?

Adam

I am so confused...

All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes.

Good. We agree. I would apply the same standard to the Mittens on the Republican side.

What about the other candidates? I don't know about any of their big-money donors except for Gingrich's Las Vagas high roller.

Gingrich has one big donor who is not a mysoginist. Santorum has one big donor who is most likely not a mysoginist despite his amusing joke about holding an aspirin between your knees. Unfortunately, even though amusing, shows an extreme amount of ignorance when it comes to sexual positions. And, frankly, I am not aware of whether Dr. Paul has any big donors, but that is my failure in researching his donors.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I always mind you, Michael.

Carol,

Thank you.

And, despite not paying any attention to you wagging your finger in my face about that propaganda garbage (and I fully realize you perceived it differently at the time), I totally reciprocate your sentiment.

I said I am a fan of Rush, but I'm not a political hound, so my fan-ness only extends to light entertainment and some of his political commentary. He lives in a universe I do not inhabit--which is a one side constantly attacking the other and trying to trip it up with gotchas world.

(William, for example, lives far deeper in those woods than I will ever go. I tend to focus on other stuff, like getting the government out of our bedrooms altogether, not which "government in our bedroom" side is right, Democrat or Republican.)

If you want to know what I truly think about the respecting women thing, I think you already know. I can't imagine myself using the kind of language Rush did about a woman i didn't know for politics--or for anything. Nor Ed Schulz's language, for that matter. I am not that way.

Both men inhabit that attack universe, so I realize that they sometimes go overboard. (And I admit that I find some of their stuff hilarious--but it's always within the context of them in their world, never in general.)

I don't think either had the intent to denigrate women, or insult the particular woman as a woman. Instead I believe they insulted the position the woman was in by insulting the woman who was in it.

That sounds a bit convoluted, so here's what I mean. If any other woman had appeared saying what Fluke did where she did, or any other female commentator with a conservative audience had said what Ingram said, I believe those men would have said the same thing. Their target was not the woman, but the issue and the position expressing that issue. They just took it too far because they got wound up too tight.

And they both apologized.

Knowing the nature of their work, I believe they were both sincere and I don't believe it had anything to do with one being suspended or the other losing sponsors or whatever. These are attack dogs who, in a frenzy, bit the wrong person and when they realized it, they stopped and said, "Oops, sorry." Then went back to attacking their true targets.

On the other side, I would never pull such a blatant propaganda maneuver like I saw Fluke do, knowing she was attracting this. I have more respect for myself.

If she were stepping into the fire to actually address the problem of misogyny in a place where it actually exists (and there most definitely are such places), I would be all over Rush. But she wasn't. She was fighting for one thing--power for her handlers--while displaying herself as another, and in an inappropriate manner I might add. I'm not a fan of outright liars who live and operate in layers upon layers of deception and pseudo-victimization.

Bill O'Reilly thinks Fluke did this in a totally orchestrated manner (i.e., propaganda) and he thinks whoever on Obama's team dreamed this up was brilliant. (He says the proof of this is that she would not normally have had access to the things she did without high-placed insiders pushing.) She took the backlash heat off of Obama's attack on the Catholic church and turned it around to look like conservatives attacking women. To O'Reilly, this is a brilliant Obama reelection campaign ploy.

I agree with this, but I also admit, I'm still harboring my idea of kaboom and I keep looking at the overall picture trying to see what is near the boiling point. I know something is brewing. I just don't know the timing.

As to Rush's sponsors, this is more propaganda BS. Both left and right have organized attacks on the sponsors of controversial opinion celebrities, but I believe the left does this more. Here's the leftie style (the right does it a bit differently). They go to the companies and threaten them with OWS-like demonstrations, organized boycotts, oodles of negative publicity, etc. unless they pull out of a show. Since there are a lot more liberal media channels in the USA than conservative ones, they not only speak from a position of muscle, they also spin capitulations from their bullying as crises of conscience by the respective sponsors. That's totally BS, of course. Companies are in business to provide stuff and make money from it, not make politics.

But no matter for Rush. With his audience, I seriously doubt he will lack for new sponsors to take the place of the old ones. Another thing about business is that there are all kinds of people in it. Some of those people are conservative, so there might be some signing on for ideology, but a good many are bully-detesters who are not afraid to face down backstage threats--especially in front of a huge mobilized audience. After all, they got to where they did by scratching and fighting for their place in the sun. They are the ones who tend to flow in.

Notice that as I go on, the problem of respecting women gets more and more ignored. That's because after you say women should be respected and you live that way, there's not much else to say.

Well, I can think of one other thing. I honestly believe this, too. I believe most class warfare folks have no problem at all publicly disrespecting a woman in the vilest terms if she is on the side they are not on and if they think they can get away with it.

There are exceptions. Good ones.

I can't stand Ed Schulz, but I believe he is more of a true man than someone like Bill Maher. I can respect Schulz. (Graaaack... I don't believe I just wrote that. ) I can't Maher. And this is because I believe, in his own crazy way, Schulz is fighting for a better world. That is what is in his heart and that is what makes it no problem at all for him to issue an apology to a woman he despises because he did something he believes is wrong. That's what people in a "better world" do, even in his misguided view.

I believe Maher is merely interested in power and being able to look down his nose at others. So he thinks, who gives a crap? And further thinks he's superior to his targets and that's all that matters.

Incidentally, I don't think he's a misogynist. I do believe he's a bigot, but not a bigot against women. I believe he uses misogynistic language against women in his scapegoat group just to be outrageous and express even more bigotry against them than he would otherwise be able to.

Michael

[Selene]

Schultz has a lot of friends on the opposite side of the divide.

He is a good man. He is a recovering alcoholic and substance abuser and he has devoted himself to helping others with addictions.

I disagree with a number of his positions, but he is an honest liberal who I can argue with and still enjoy his company.

His apology was a class A apology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1mQS3zxPF4

Adam

[Selene]

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GALS [NAGS] has issued a press release on the Rush issue:

NOW Calls for Clear Channel to Pull the Plug on Limbaugh

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

March 2, 2012

Bigoted bully Rush Limbaugh has been rewarded for his hostile, hate-filled speech for far too long. The National Organization for Women calls on Clear Channel Communications to pull the plug on Limbaugh's gilded microphone immediately. In addition, we call on Limbaugh's conservative comrades in the media to fully denounce, with no excuses, his derogatory comments.

Limbaugh's targeting of Sandra Fluke was way out of line, even for him. Limbaugh is free to disagree all he wants with Fluke -- a Georgetown Law student who testified before a congressional committee in support of health care coverage for birth control -- but calling her a 'slut' and a 'prostitute' on air is unacceptable. After sparking outrage, Limbaugh took to the airwaves again yesterday to suggest that if Fluke wants contraception to be fully covered, she should post videos of herself having sex online so Limbaugh and others can watch.

Clearly, Limbaugh is not just having fun here. He is trying to shame a young woman for coming forward, speaking her mind and standing up for women's rights. This is how bullies try to chase all women from the public square.

Isn't the GOP embarrassed by this man by now? Remember, Limbaugh is not some fringe right-winger -- he has been identified time and time again as a lead strategist in the Republican party, not to mention a king-maker and an enforcer. The fact that this man has so much power in one of the two dominant political parties in the United States is shameful.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Latoya Veal w. 202-628-8669, ext. 116, c. 301-660-3447

[caroljane]

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GALS [NAGS] has issued a press release on the Rush issue:

NOW Calls for Clear Channel to Pull the Plug on Limbaugh

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

March 2, 2012

Bigoted bully Rush Limbaugh has been rewarded for his hostile, hate-filled speech for far too long. The National Organization for Women calls on Clear Channel Communications to pull the plug on Limbaugh's gilded microphone immediately. In addition, we call on Limbaugh's conservative comrades in the media to fully denounce, with no excuses, his derogatory comments.

Limbaugh's targeting of Sandra Fluke was way out of line, even for him. Limbaugh is free to disagree all he wants with Fluke -- a Georgetown Law student who testified before a congressional committee in support of health care coverage for birth control -- but calling her a 'slut' and a 'prostitute' on air is unacceptable. After sparking outrage, Limbaugh took to the airwaves again yesterday to suggest that if Fluke wants contraception to be fully covered, she should post videos of herself having sex online so Limbaugh and others can watch.

Clearly, Limbaugh is not just having fun here. He is trying to shame a young woman for coming forward, speaking her mind and standing up for women's rights. This is how bullies try to chase all women from the public square.

Isn't the GOP embarrassed by this man by now? Remember, Limbaugh is not some fringe right-winger -- he has been identified time and time again as a lead strategist in the Republican party, not to mention a king-maker and an enforcer. The fact that this man has so much power in one of the two dominant political parties in the United States is shameful.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Latoya Veal w. 202-628-8669, ext. 116, c. 301-660-3447

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

[9thdoctor]

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

My 92 year old grandmother has been a fan for a good 20 years. I don't know how she feels about this latest kerfuffle.

[Selene]

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

Carol:

We would have to get that from testimonial statements because the active duty military cannot comment on certain issues.

Great question though.

Adam

[caroljane]

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

Carol:

We would have to get that from testimonial statements because the active duty military cannot comment on certain issues.

Great question though.

Adam

Thanks. I have heard that his listeners are predominantly male (as are the armed forces of course ) but don't know if that's true or not. Most civilian radio listeners are alone in their cars etc. but I was thinking in the service it would be more of a group listening situation; interesting scenario .

[Peter]

Rush seemed to be his usual self today when I listened. He had sponsors, and they were not of the Sham Wow variety. Rush had one Newt-Pac commercial, not paid for by the candidate. Clear Channel rents a few billboards my family owns so I will plead Rush’s case to them, if they start to grumble, (my daughters inherit the proceeds.) Unfortunately, Rush is still pushing Social Conservatism. After Sarah Palin promoted “putting the social issues on the back burner” a year or so ago, I had hoped for a Tea Party coalition. Now I am not so hopeful. But we must unite. Rush did say that though he is not supporting any candidate he does think that Mitt will be an acceptable candidate for him to support, unlike McCain. Social Conservatism will get you twenty-five percent of the Republican vote but it hands ammunition in the form of biblical arguments to the left wing opposition.

Daunce wrote:

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

end quote

They mostly vote for Ron Paul, but the political orientation you mentioned is not nuanced in the usual left – right spectrum, but rather as a microcosm of the Tea Party with a hawkish sheen.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

[william.scherk]

The specifics are worth comment, I think. I cannot quite get whether or not you would grant to everyone[, like Adam, as an employer or fiduciary (as with students) whatever health care packages you feel are necessary, if any.

Like Adam, you may at the same time offer to your fiduciary (say a daughter on your health-care plan) or an employee (as say, your Institute staff and faculty) a non-discriminatory policy should you choose a co-op option with these folks.

That is what I am interested in on genital issues, Michael, the grain of principles and decisions.

I do not consider myself qualified to grant this or that to anyone with your money. Not even through a surrogate.

I know that principle seems difficult for you to accept as a principle, but it is one of the operating principles in my thinking..

Michael, a couple of caveats on your remarks addressed to me (and some that seem to target my observations obliquely):

When I said that the specifics were worth mentioning, I referenced Adam's earlier comment where he told us how he would act as an employer. When my comment is truncated [...] it impedes mutual understanding, by altering the context of response.

It was a note on principles in action. I was curious and careful in asking Adam.

The principle behind opposition to APACA is not difficult for me to accept as a principle, I have stated clearly three times in this thread that I fully understand that opposition. I spend enough time among the Objectivish to grasp the principle.

Adam's insurance answer added to my understanding the edges where principles meet principles. He would, in his private capacity as employer (or in a fiduciary relationship), choose to offer his employees a co-operative purchase of (presumably) their choice from the menu (I guess within agreed-upon cost limits). He would not impose his own personal Blunt sex amendment on anyone's policy.

Of course he would be dealing with the world as it is right now, at the same time as holding fast to the contining principle of limited government as principle.

The law that you both oppose strongly (AAPCA) currently requires that no religious objection will be allowed in offering policies to employees or staff or folks in a fiduciary relationship (as with a student required to purchase insurance in an educational institution).

The bad law containing this proviso was to be 'improved' by the pandering Blunt sex amendment -- it would give carte blanche to employers (in this instance) or fiduciaries to use 'conscience' to decide, line by line, that contraception, sex/reproductive health services, etcetera would never be part of a package offered to staff students or faculty ...

The presumed liar, operator, propagandist and all-round political thug and powermonger Fluuuuuck, well, she did take advantage, invited her self to the hearings in Congress, sought to be a witness, was rejected, then spoke from prepared remarks at Democrat-cobbled showboat the exact same speech she had meant to deliver after the men witnesses had finished testifying.

So, one can see in the speech a laundry list of totalitarian health proposals, even if served alongside the seeming injustice at Georgetown (unjust only if you are a late-blooming radical activist law student seeking to overturn tradition at a Jesuit university).

Sure, one can say she is pretty close to evul, but at the same time we can have an opinion on the things she was talking (or lying) about. For example the Virginia Transvaginal Express, shortly to be Law, We can also have an opinion on the probity of a Jesuit university offering professors and janitors contraception in their policies yet disallowing for women students like the operative Flucck.

We can say this hypocrisy and tutelage is not personally appealing, but that Jesuits have that right. We can say that if you do not like it, spend your own fucking money on a court suit against them.

As for Flucck's noted whiny women 'friends' -- well, what else would you expect a lying, cunning powerhummer like Fluuuuucckkk to talk about? Their whines about fertility problems, bureaucratic error and delay ... this could always be seen as feminazi bitching. That is what they do, especially if they are but pawns in a larger totalitarian movement.

To bring up that point you raised, Michael, I accept you do not consider yourself qualified to grant employee or fiduciary benefits via insurance plans to employees or wards ... but in the example above, it would not be my money. It is their money (with a co-op pay, by choice). And there is no surrogate unless you choose one to delegate deciding such benefit questions.

Michael, bear in mind that I do not keep asking what women as a class should do -- I did ask of you, however, to let us know (as did Adam) what the women in your life have to say. The point being it is an issue of relative interest to women, and they can be consulted. If you do not literally think about what the women in your life think on issues of the day, great. I am sure they do not mind, because in your behaviour, you are a man in all the ways women may need a man: protection, mutual-support. love, child-rearing ... gutters and spiders.

As for the notion of a class action/warfare epistemology, Groucho, I am with you. I hate communists and rat-haired radicals with no clue. Re KABOOM, I would like to know what this means, but I can wait for the proper time and the proper words.

Now, Ayn Rand indeed might not resonate with any of this government involvement in abortion 'stuff.' I can see that. She would have no opinion on Blunt, or if she had an opinion, it might be that the core evil is the AACPA regulations. Who knows? I suspect she would be appalled at Republican pandering to anti-abortion rhetoric and policy emerging from the Christian evangelical right, but I definitely could be wrong. Getting rid of Obama might have made her willing to get into bed with Rick or Mitt if necessary. I mean, her intellectual heir switched to Democrat to battle the Christian evangelical right in one election.

She was quite a woman, who would no doubt have taken advantage of the Pill had it been congenial or convenient when she was most fertile -- and considering she remaining active sexually well into her sixties, she may have hoped for a policy that was straightforward: I am a woman, give me a woman's insurance policy. Give me options, hormones for menopause, a senior's discount. It is MY money and my body.

If she ever had occasion to offer medical insurance as co-op payer or as employee benefit, I simply cannot imagine her insisting that her girls in the office buy their own damn recreational sex avoidance regimes, hormonal or not.

I do agree that class warfare folks are total wastes of time in a real emergency. Every time I have been in an administrative emergency with actual Communists, they were bossy and shouty and incompetent. When a woman had a problem in camp, however, it was lefty soft-hearts who hustled touchy Romeo to the bus stop.

Nothing and no one in our leftist summer wonderland of back-breaking labour was allowed to abuse woman. And it was, sadly, in at least a half-dozen cases, the half-formed 'conservative' fellow who got Greyhound and fired for his pains. In one case, it was me who marched the dumb fuck to the boat. Occupy your own fucking sleeping bag, jerk off.

Now that you have given that slut Fluke and those whimpering leftist men another good whomping, I wonder if you have any comment on Limbaugh's second "apology" ? I thought it was fairly humorous though I only read the text, I did not hear his tone of voice.

Carol, as MSK points out, these people, those people, the bad guys and gals, they are pretty awful, all of them. The them folk. They don't give a damn. They want power. They want to hit their targets. They are all fucked. It might even be that Fluccck is the worst "Women's Causes' advocate because she is simplyfraudulent or at least devoted mainly to Obama and totalitarian health-care: I mean, who looks at her specialty (slavery, trafficking) in law and does not think she BSes -- she gives a damn about slavery and human trafficking?

Everybody was indeed thinking of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt on TV. Fluccck may have said on The View that Maher was bad, but fuck nuance ... she can still be harshly criticized as a liar and a political hustler.

It is fascinating how ecstatic some folks are by Rush's unclever blunder. Again, it rang off message and was completely below his regular satire and wit.

[...]

As I said above, let's see who comes out on top, now there is an inappropriate pun, in this battle.

Obama is having his first press conference in 152 days and it just happens to be tomorrow on super Tuesday. Anybody want to bet that the boy prince overreaches on this issue?

He bores me at his press conferences, rarely says anything new or awkward or surprising.

Like it or not, Haymaking is underway -- as you note, we will have to wait to see who makes the most of the contretemps. The blunder by Rush has ramifications now but they may dwindle away in a day or two.

Maher, I have never liked his schtick, because he is never modest, never acknowledges he has been uninformed, and turns aggressive and a domineering in a minute when challenged. His anti-vaccination bulshit turned my stomach even more, compounded by some sleazy personal accusations and signs of unwarranted arrogance. Although I was not particularly happy when Maher lost employment over his 9/11 coward comments, I do not think he got enough heat for his sleaze in re Palin. Palin had to put up with shit (as did Clinton) that should not have occurred had she not been raised from relative obscurity. I thought it was right that Schultz got a week off without pay for his shitty comments. There were some really gross stories (one was an 'I fucked Christine O'Donnell and she doesn't trim her pubes) put up by such as Gawker and other sleaze sites. I hated that. She was a loon, but the attention paid to her gender got ugly in a few places.

However.

If Palin had been in the same position as Fluke (Political showpiece 'activist' reporting to Congress) and she had got the same shit as did Fluke, yes, I would want media hell to rain down on that person. If it was Maher, all the better. He is nasty.

But recall, Fluke was not running for VP, nor was she a Presidential candidate like Bachman. Nor was she a serious candidate like O'Donnell, nor was she the wife of a Presidential candidate. Nor was she the chairman of anything other than her hokey human slavery and contraceptive 'rights' organizations ...

The whole issue hinges -- for many, I believe, rightly or wrongly, on making a relative unknown a symbol for Rush's sex notions -- allowing Democrats to sleaze all Republican opinion-makers and candidates for Prez as sex-hatin' wingnuts. Strong and compelling stands on issues of importance to women will either be reclaimed by Republicans or they will not. Hay will be available from now until November.

I cannot promise not to return to this issue, though I must seem like a nag and a whore for realism.

Edited March 7, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/06/Ingraham%20Walters%20Laugh%20Slut

This is from today's Fox show. Laura Ingraham comments on the Schultz "slur," his apology and the current issue.

She is a phenomenal human being. Breast cancer survivor and has adopted two children from Russia I believe.

She converted to Catholicism. She was a law clerk to Clarence Thomas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I saw that. When Laura is called a slut by a liberal, the folks on The View think it's chuckle chuckle time (including the audience). When Fluke is called one by a conservative, it's a grave women's problem.

William goes on and on as if I think one side of this is good and the other is bad. (That is class warfare epistemology, but I don't play it.)

And he doesn't seem to see, or notice, or if he does see, find any importance in the kind of cultural bias indictated by the reactions on The View (or the widespread bashing the words of the right while giving a blind eye to actual rape on the left)--which is my real beef.

I would hold the same view that there is a serious problem if the bias were the other way. Hell, I went to Brazil for over 30 years because of that kind of bias in the South, only there it was racism.

My former conducting master, Eleazar De Carvalho used to say that there are two kinds of people, those who make the gesture only and those who really do what they say.

I think all this us-agasint-them BS--at our level--is a lot of people who make the gesture only. The real players are behind the scenes laughing their asses off at these discussions.

I miss Brazil. This is too much BS for my BS meter. This crap is the very reason I left the USA in the first place, only now it's on the leftie side.

It's theater for a tribe, not actual life.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But recall, Fluke was not running for VP, nor was she a Presidential candidate like Bachman. Nor was she a serious candidate like O'Donnell, nor was she the wife of a Presidential candidate. Nor was she the chairman of anything other than her hokey human slavery and contraceptive 'rights' organizations ...

William,

With all due respect (and you know I like you a lot), this is a crock.

The women in important places had nothing to gain and everything to lose by being called foul misogynistic names in the press.

Fluke, on the other hand, with her sudden fame, just got a brand-spanking new high-paying career handed to her on a silver platter and lost nothing, nor had anything to lose. Not like those other women (and I include Hillary here).

From that angle, Rush calling her a bad name was the best thing that ever happened to her.

You want me to think she's a victim? On what planet?

Michael

[william.scherk]

You want me to think she's a victim? On what planet?

I will simplify my point to indicate where I am coming from. Yes, Fluke got national play via her testimony (oh, and oops, via Rush), but she was not and is not running for office. Palin, O'Donnell, Bachman, Clinton -- all were running for national office. That is the difference. All were victims of sexist language at the very least. Fluke was a (drive-by, perhaps) non-office-holder, non-public-figure, victim of nationally-broadcast verbal abuse for three days by the gentleman in question.

Michael, as far as I can see we are looking at the same principles and only differing in our perceptions or interpretation of where they must intersect. I do not mean to pick a fight, just sharpen my and your arguments. I don't understand what I sense as hostility. What am I doing wrong here to raise your ire if my words or argument so do?

I have learned a lot in this thread, all about American presidential party politics. It is full of money and sleaze and it takes a long long time without an incumbent heading for a second election.

I think I learned this, too -- that another blunder like the Rush pratfall that plays into the hands of the Democratic machine will lead to disaster in November for those who oppose Obama. If I am wrong, good for the opponents, but I would like to know how Rush helped this week, seriously. Why can't the Republican candidates move more women to their side contra the Democrats this cycle? Are they not playing that game?

If I am asking for too much realistic appraisal, just say so, and I will go all Pöllyanna on Newt, Mitt, Ron and Rick's likely November triumph over the current officeholder.

Look, this thread has turned me into a Republican political news junkie. Satisfied, you sluts?

Added, as a very sharp and very effective piece of communication. The dogpile continues. Even the Economist has weighed in, skirts atwitching.

Edited March 7, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Very nice last line.

I am not so sure that there is a gender gap this time. I have to check some of my sources, but i think it has basically evaporated. I will get back to you on this issue.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't understand what I sense as hostility.

William,

Neither do I, but coming the other way.

I guess my reaction to what I perceive as hostility sounds hostile, but my true focus isn't.

You're one of my favorite posters.

I do believe, however, that it's hard for you to grok the mindset of a person truly committed to individualism in the way I am. I don't mean the arguments. I mean the day-to-day living--the literal boredom with issues like which government measure represents true sexual justice for women as a class as opposed to which represents true villainy, etc.

I just don't see the world that way. I want the government out of these things. Literally.

In the way I live, I treat government interference in private lives as an illegitimate obstacle, not as a set of laws deserving of respect and thoughtful discussion.

If I ever needed to bribe a public official to get the government out of my way, or blackmail him with scandal, or use any dirty rotten trick on him I could devise, I would have no moral qualms whatsoever about doing so. (I haven't needed to do this here in the USA so far, thank goodness. I may have no moral problems with it, but I'm not a fool--I know such matters always come with risks.)

If other people have different attitudes, I'm cool with that. I'll still do what I want.

Maybe I get testy, who knows?, when someone insinuates that I am playing hardball for one side (presumably because I hold stereotyped views) in a social activism game (one that is nothing more than glorified propaganda) where in reality I am not playing anything, but instead, trying to understand the propaganda correctly so I can make sure I can stay away from the game.

In Brazil, in my underground days, I heard a saying quite a lot: In a fight between two bandits, the only one who wins is the police.

I see the same principle operating here except that the people are not bandits, they are mostly good people who are duped suckers in a left-right game, and the authority who wins in all cases is hidden backstage,

If you want to help shine a spotlight on the true power-mongers, now that's different. Count me in. But don't come with narratives from the mainstream media and left-wing propaganda outfits--or right-wing for that matter. All that does is serve the power-mongers, who, incidentally, are not bi-partisan. They. like me, don't play at all. They own the whole damn structure. And I only own me.

Michael

[Selene]

Well now, this is interesting...

March 7, 2012

Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement

On Saturday, Carbonite CEO David Friend released a statement on his company’s website declaring that Carbonite had decided to “withdraw” advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in the wake of his controversial remarks involving Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke because it will “ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:

Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

However, it hasn’t done much to contribute to his company’s stock price. Since the market opened on Monday through its close today, Carbonite stock (NASDAQ:CARB) has plummeted nearly 12 percent, outpacing the drop of the NASDAQ index in that same time period by nine-and-a-half points. It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday.

Follow Jeff on Twitter

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/#ixzz1oPZ4iu65

[william.scherk]

I am not so sure that there is a gender gap this time. I have to check some of my sources, but i think it has basically evaporated.

US News blogger Laura Chapin has a few sharp observations and reminder of earlier observations. in Rush Limbaugh Leads Republicans Right Into Social Issues Trap:

In another serious danger sign for Republicans, the gender gap is becoming a chasm: Obama leads among women in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll 55 percent to 37 percent [MSNBC summary of poll / full PDF]. Fun fact: there are 114,000 more women voters in Colorado than men, and they vote in higher percentages than men do.

[...]

[T]he Republicans have walked straight into the trap. Like Colorado in 2010, national Republicans in 2012 have to placate their far-right base in the primary, which hurts them with Latinos, independents, and women in the general. They can't get a moderate to win in the primary and they can't get a right-wing candidate to win in the general.

They can't stop talking about social issues, even as contraception is a fact of life for 99 percent of American women and a majority of Americans support gay rights, including a plurality in the NBC News poll who back gay marriage. The Republicans are too driven by the talk radio universe of Rush Limbaugh and a primary in which only the base of the base is turning out because their candidates aren't generating any excitement.

In Colorado, we've seen this play out before. And it didn't turn out well for Republicans last time.

See also Poll

:

Gender gap in attitudes toward Obama birth control rule

Edited March 7, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to let this one speak for itself, but I wrote one comment and the rest followed. (Surprise, surprise with me, huh? )

I like it when BS is blown out of the saddle.

The bottom line is no money is being lost by Rush, and none is being lost by the broadcast companies that carry him. The sponsors are not even canceling their advertising accounts. It's a scheduling thing for a few local stations. And, as usual, Media Matters, Soros, Left Wing Media & Co. are trying to distort public perception as a propaganda effort.

The thing to focus on is that they know the story will be debunked the moment they do it. They already know. And they do it anyway.

They do it because they can get away with it. There's audience for it.

Here's a fact, and it's not limited to left-wing propaganda. It works for everyone in all areas.

People buy falsehood full well knowing it's falsehood because it plays into the narrative they believe in.

And by "buy," I mean in all senses--including adopt, recommend to others, and plunk their money down.

Actually, I'm studying marketing, so this is good news for me. I even know how to do it with a gazillion different techniques. Now if I can only get rid of my goddam conscience I'll make a friggen' fortune.

Clearing Up Misinformation on Our Sponsors

Rush Limbaugh

Transcript - March 7, 2012

Michael

[caroljane]

Of course RL will be fine financially. But with him as their leading popular spokesman, will the Republicans be fine politically?

[Selene]

Of course RL will be fine financially. But with him as their leading popular spokesman, will the Republicans be fine politically?

Carol:

I know that this is going to come as a shock, but Rush is not liked by the Republican establishment. He is no where near "their leading popular spokesman."

Rush is a Conservative. He was completely anti- John McCain.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I think so.

All this tends to blow over as the media manipulations become exposed.

Some people may not like what Rush believes in, but he's true to his values and his audience knows it. His critics always run into a brick wall when they try to paint him as believing in something else, something sleazy that is at odds with his main message. This isn't the first time they've tried.

Just off the top of my head, I remember when he got addicted to pain-killers. The left tried to paint him as a hypocritical closet junkie and opportunist in his views on narcotics--as a huckster pandering to his audience. But it backfired. He kicked the habit, talked openly about his difficulties, and there was an outpouring of love and support from his fans. He actually gained in popularity.

In the present case, the left is pushing to taint the Republican party with the cry of, "You are religious kook misogynists--just look at Rush, your "spokesman," the misogynist extraordinaire you refuse to repudiate!" But it ain't working. It's already blowing over. The only women who will be swayed by that are ones who don't need to be swayed.

In other words, same old same old. Nothing actually happened, neither against Rush nor against the left for that matter (people are already used to them doing this crap)--not anything that will have any result. With one exception. Fluke made out OK--expect to see her popping up once in a while and raking in the dough.

In the big scheme of things, it's like a slow-flake in a blizzard. It just doesn't feel like that right now because of all the yelling in the media. But soon they will be yelling about something else and this will become one of those comments like, "Remember that thing that happened a while back, what was it?... Rush said something, oh yeah... (yadda yadda yadda)." And everyone will laugh.

If you feel cheated, you should. I imagine there are some very noble feelings and beliefs inside you. But you were being manipulated. There's no real there there in the people who gave you hope that you might see a change for the better and that your voice, however small, could help make a difference. The sad fact is they don't give a crap about your voice--not in the same way you do. They just want people like you on board to make them look respectable--for the show.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol,

I think so.

If you feel cheated, you should. I imagine there are some very noble feelings and beliefs inside you. But you were being manipulated. There's no real there there in the people who gave you hope that you might see a change for the better and that your voice, however small, could help make a difference. The sad fact is they don't give a crap about your voice--not in the same way you do. They just want people like you on board to make them look respectable--for the show.

Michael

I don't feel cheated - why should I? This is an interesting story and I am fascinated to see how it plays out long term, but you forget that I am an outsider - to me it is more "reading a story" than watching out for what could affect me personally. Of course I do not share the views of RL or approve of manipulative media PR camaigns, but neither am I manipulated by them. I worked in PR for too many years to be taken for any media rides. I did not believe the Hill & Knowlton-generated "soldiers are killing babies in incubators" story which helped start the Gulf War, for example.

As an outsider I hope I am still allowed to comment and evaluate in my own mind the relative merits and importance of the issues and stratagems.