consultants are sandburs

Saturday, March 03, 2012

From your perspective and within your value system, who is the higher quality human being - Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Fluke? It is your sidebar poll, so voice your choice before the poll closes.

For those wholly clued out on context, for background, there is this:

click screen capture to read
or see full story, here

Whatever your basis for your opinion, vulgarity, crudeness, rudeness, belief system, personal experiences, support of the Griswold decision, or antithetical feelings, please vote.

Christian Science Monitor on Limbaugh-Fluke, this link. Limbaugh as vulgar, or humorous, in your view; per the Monitor again, here, quoting nuggets from the the man's multi-day running commentary.

Strib on Limbaugh-Fluke, here. Crooks and Liars, here (complete with a word tag cloud). Hullabaloo, here (including noting Limbaugh good taste, from earlier, juxtaposed with what Limbaugh quite recently declared his belief system to be, online, here). More Digby re Limbaugh's latest, here, earlier, here. Rush, among the rich, wellborn and able, made it to first base so bless him. Make it rich, intellectually consistent, wellborn and able, (a home run chance), and bless Rush again for again reaching first base.

Not just Rush? Digby here, with Tweet evidence, "Just in case you thought it was only Republican men guilty of classless misogyny. Something is really wrong with these people at a deep psychological level." Or is Digby wrong? Leave a comment if you've any constructive ideas, either way.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Forbes notes Limbaugh here, and in a parallel new online item here shows how easily Ms. Fluke's question of healthcare coverage can be reached in sane and decent ways where intelligent policy debate can be explored. The Forbes op-ed allows a response that, independent of traditional insurance and risk-coverage views, the question really is one of healthcare coverage with coverage for something many in our nation want covered and view as needed, so that healthcare coverage should be inclusive vs narrow, i.e., for things that matter apart from disease and injury and abnormal-but-catastrophic risk. Forbes shows how there can be light, vs. heat only, in a way that invites further intelligent points and counterpoints.

Some might think that with Limbaugh the last thing in the world he wants or values is intelligent debate, preferring non sequitur and name calling and whatever boosts his ratings without having advertiser dollars depart over fear and/or loathing.

Others might think the man worth listening to, once, or even regularly. Addictions can be strange things.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Yet two more links, here and here.

Not redundant, because each adds something to clearer understandings and to any rational attempt at analysis of what Limbaugh said, and how that relates to what Fluke's testimony was and how "The Pill" works.

Facts like the latter seem to intrude between what Limbaugh wants to say and what's true, but it only intrudes for those wanting to find sense in his rambling. He does not care what truth comes between him and one of his self-indulgent grand to listen to screeds.

The propaganda addicts don't care. So why should Limbaugh?

Something as basic as how The Pill works, ignore it as a mere troublesome detail contradicting the point of a grand ongoing screed against healthcare services including the providing to women of The Pill - but only intruding and contradicting for somebody who looks at what you say beyond the intoning and flow of how you say it.

While the propaganda addicts are hooked on tone and flow, as regulars conditioned to by now not care about fact; I'm sorry, but truth and fact are relevant to me in wanting a sensible understanding of issues.

Others may feel differently, but I simply don't have time for Limbaugh. Let him work his audience, it's generally not worth my time. However, something like the Fluke thing goes so far to the deep end of folly, in a way so public that it irritates.

Along the lines of these two updates, another item, using the "misogynistic" label for Limbaugh, which strikes me as more generic in reach than what the report indicates, a plain old fashioned male double standard, in this instance between male specific medicines and those that are female specific.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Is turning Rush Limbaugh into a more civil human being than he'd choose to be possible? I believe so, if you reach him at a level he reverently understands and truly treasures.

His cash flow. This link:

Monday, AOL announced it would suspend advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Radio show. AOL is the latest in a growing number of advertisers who have pulled their ads from his show over comments Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified in support of the administration's contraception coverage rule. Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute."

AOL's statement is on its Facebook page:

At AOL one of our core values is that we act with integrity. We have monitored the unfolding events and have determined that Mr. Limbaugh’s comments are not in line with our values. As a result we have made the decision to suspend advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Radio show.

Limbaugh issued an apology Saturday. Appearing on The View Monday morning, Fluke said of Limbaugh's apology: "I don't think that a statement like this…changes anything."

[links in original, italics added] So, will a statement like AOL's change anything? Wait. See.

WaPo on Limbaugh's contraception-related advertisus interruptus (advertiser pull-out) experiences.


Anonymous said...

Spending a thousand a year of tax payer money for birth control for one slut? Are you Fucking nuts? Just get a abortion What are you goofy libs thinking anyways!

Anonymous said...

Her parents have to be so proud raising such a parasite.. demanding that the government make insurance companies pay for her recreational sex. Fallow that logic and they should also pay for my green fees.

eric zaetsch said...

Anon - Are you saying healthcare coverage should or should not reach to providing your spouse's Viagra?

eric zaetsch said...

Anon - I expect Ms. Fluke's parents are quite proud of her, as your's might be expect to be were you to have made it to a third year of law school at Georgetown, with a present high likelihood of graduating and pursuing a learned profession.

Anonymous said...

In her third year of law school and the same dependent class worthless shit attitude as you.. What a god damn embarrassment.

eric zaetsch said...

Anon - To me, your perception of things resembles Limbaugh's, although you can tell me if I am wrong. Are you a regular listener? If so, what do you get out of it? Do you find yourself ever disagreeing with Limbaugh's opinions? Does listening to him boost your own ego and id, by congruence of thought and world view - yours and his? That, and do you see him saying things exactly in ways you would? Is it a kind of self-validation symbiosis type of thing?

Anonymous said...

does it matter? How can someone in their 60s possably be a progressive socialist? That little child like bubble that you live in is not reality!