|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.
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.
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.
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.