Marc Randazza: "It's Un-American To Silence Limbaugh"
I love the hell out of Marc J. Randazza. He was my First Amendment knight in shining armor when I got a letter of demand from the lawyer for TSA worker Thedala Magee, demanding that I pay her $500,000 for "libel" and "defamation." (Or as Marc and I and anybody who has read the Constitution calls it, "Asserting one's First Amendment rights.")
He is a fierce defender of civil liberties and especially free speech rights, and understands that nobody has a right to not be offended. The First Amendment is the asshole protection amendment. We don't need to protect the rights of people who say things everyone agrees with, but those with views that offend others. And those views are extremely important to protect -- and the foundation of a free society. Most gloriously -- and I use that word intentionally -- here's Randazza defending Rush Limbaugh's free speech CNN:
I despise Rush Limbaugh. I despise almost everything I have ever heard him say. I wish that he were no longer on the air. That is why I write today to defend him against those who call for him to be silenced.Far too frequently, Americans find offense in another's art, music or other expression, and then they call for censorship. This is intolerable.
The First Amendment stands for principles like that espoused by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Barnette: "Of there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Or that wisdom given to us by New York Times v. Sullivan, "Debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
The First Amendment requires neither tact nor politeness. It requires that we permit all views to set up stalls in the marketplace of ideas, and we let that marketplace decide which ideas prevail.
Rush Limbaugh has a right to his views. Just as important, his fans have a right to hear him. Those of us who disagree with him have a right to fight him, but we must do so on our own. Using the government to support our view is constitutionally intolerable. Trying to bully him off the air is wrong.
Some call for the Federal Communications Commission to pull Clear Channel's broadcast licenses if they keep Limbaugh on the air, because they believe that Rush Limbaugh does not "serve the public interest." This is inaccurate and not permissible under the Constitution.
It is a terrifying prospect that the government might review the political and social positions of a broadcaster when deciding who gets access to the airwaves. Should the government censor books that it finds to be unpopular or offensive?
...I despise Limbaugh not because he uttered one or two nasty words, but because his views are truly evil. I debate those who agree with him. I place my ideas into the marketplace, and I believe that ideas like mine will win out.
I realize that my work is difficult, and I may not even live to see Limbaugh's ideas repudiated. But my commitment to free expression requires me to engage his ideas, to parry them and to let my beliefs stand on their own -- without using the government or other improper means to tip the scales.
Free speech means tolerating views that you despise. Otherwise, one day, it will be your views that someone doesn't like.
If you don't stand up for Limbaugh's liberty today, someone may come for yours tomorrow. Discredit him, but don't silence him.
On a related note, here's an excerpt from an email an editor sent me from a woman trying to get me fired by a newspaper group that runs me:
I'm writing to ask you to please, please, PLEASE stop printing the "Advice Goddess" column in the Sunday paper. This column is occasionally funny but usually offensive and anti-feminist...Please, for the sake of my blood pressure (which rises every Sunday morning as I come across this nonsense while trying to eat a peaceful breakfast with my family), stop printing it.
An excerpt from my reply -- complete with free-speech-lovin' ending:
I think it's essential that we tell young women the truth, which is one of the goals of my column -- cutting through political correctness. This sometimes disturbs people who favor the party line...I put an enormous amount of research, thought, time, and energy into turning out a column that I feel is not only funny but based in good science and integrity, and it's disturbing when a reader wants to see the column axed simply because they don't share my beliefs.
In addition to writing my column, I support free speech in this country through my support of organizations like theFIRE.org, which defends free speech on college campuses -- all free speech, even that which they personally disagree with.
To me, having all views expressed is makes for the healthiest society, and I hope, M., you will consider that when you read my column in the future.
Randazza on the radio on Limbaugh/free speech.
Oh, and on the bright side, "occasionally funny" from someone who hates you and is trying to get you fired probably means "HILARIOUS!"
Why doesnt't the offended woman stop reading the paper? Then she need not encounter anything offensive.
KateC at March 15, 2012 12:14 AM
Mostly I'm offended by people who think Limbaugh is a problem. The man's an entertainer.
NPR is much more offensive to me, and I'd think so even if they weren't paid with my tax money, and didn't have their valuable broadcast bandwidth exempted from the sunshine of competition in my name.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 12:22 AM
I don't wish Limbaugh silenced by government fiat; he's welcome to express his bilious nonsense to whomever wishes to hear him, and he can be a total dickbag - and usually is - and still enjoy free speech protections. Bill Maher is a total dickbag, and is also deserving of the same. I don't think there's any real contrary constitutional argument, at least not by anyone sane?
But Rush's free speech doesn't necessarily mean he's owed airtime by hundreds of stations in prime talk radio slots.
One thing that I've seen discussed elsewhere is whether it's seemly for groups to lean on Rush's advertisers, and ask them to quit paying for his broadcast. This to me seems both-heavy handed and also entirely legitimate. It's not censorship, in that no government group is doing it, and it takes a bunch of citizens to make it happen. It's not the work of a cabal, though pressure can certainly be directed by the usual hit list of Rush's enemies. However, if these advertisers were proud of Rush and thought he spoke for a large part of their market, they would stick by him. Among conservatives, upsetting the feminists is more valuable than costly. Rush has gotten away with pushing boundaries for years, and usually comes out on top. That he's getting pushback now suggests he's finally beyond what his real backers consider acceptable.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 12:22 AM
I'm no big fan of Limbaugh but the recent stampede against is perfect evidence of THE FACT that the Modern Left no longer wants to debate, they simply just want to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
Robert W. at March 15, 2012 12:26 AM
> But Rush's free speech doesn't necessarily mean
> he's owed airtime by hundreds of stations in
> prime talk radio slots.
On what planet, if only in your daydreams, are people provided with the airtime that they're "owed"?
And who chairs the committee which decides who those people are? (I bet you have someone in mind!)
> That he's getting pushback now suggests he's
> finally beyond what his real backers consider
> acceptable.
"Finally". That's a nice touch! I imagine you driving along in your car, snarling at your radio, getting angrier and angrier, because some unseen army out there is listening to Limbaugh tell them what to think. And because you're so clear-headed and courageous, you can't be pushed around that way!... Unlike the little people, from whom you're desperate to make (social) distance.
Yet some say his numbers are up... This scandal may well have raised his CPM. He certainly has his supporters.
It's very difficult to make time for Limbaugh. But in my seven-minutes-per-year samplings, I've never heard him say anything too outrageous... The man's an entertainer. I don't make much time for Marie Osmond, either.
What I like most about him is that he pisses off people like you. Conservatism's never more fun than when the idiot left says it's running scared.
But you are not that bright, and you are not that decent.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 12:45 AM
> the Modern Left no longer wants to debate
Well, they have no tradition of it. These people are so coddled and fat and happy in their consumer paradise that the chores of persuasion and real-world engagement are unknown to them. For years they've been told that their idiot impulses are the center of the Universe, and now they assume it's true.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 12:47 AM
I'm sure people are mad at Rush for the patter as well as the things he brings up.
But in the USA, where "history" is apparently last week's People magazine, how many issues would be news if he didn't comment on them?
As with some things asserted about Sarah Palin, I find that most I have asked about some issues on which Rush's stand is known can't really say why they object.
Sure he's an entertainer. But the sad fact is that the people he brings on his radio version of The Jerry Springer Show are your elected officials, and you should recognize that before aiming at the messenger.
Radwaste at March 15, 2012 2:49 AM
On the brighter side, those who resort to fascism to silence their opponents are admitting they cannot compete in the forum of ideas. Liberal surrender, how sweet.
I'm not even a Limbaugh fan and until this little dustup started, I could not have told you who his advertisers were. I think I caught an hour or two of one show, one time, a decade ago.
There is a problem with boycotts - they are bidirectional. I do know who succumbed to pressure now, and my next car will not be a Ford. They've decided they don't support free speech and they don't want my money anymore. I've bought three new ones over a lifetime, but I'm sure there are plenty of 99 percenters who will pick up the slack.
MarkD at March 15, 2012 4:22 AM
> I'm sure there are plenty of 99 percenters
> who will pick up the slack.
Sarcasm, we presume? They're all about the Prius....
Buying (or not not buying) the sponsor's (or ex-sponsor's) product is the absolute best way to respond to something like this. There's nothing illegal or even particularly snotty about a "secondary" boycott. Freedom of association is wonderful thing.
But one of the really odious things about this scandal last week –something much more troubling than the offense this 30-year-old lawyer-to-be could have taken at being called a nasty name– was the lefty triumphalism over the imaginary crippling Limbaugh had given himself. Day after day there were headlines about how the show had lost critical revenue streams... But when you actually read the pieces, the show and its income were essentially undiminished.
This happens all the time. I remember on 5-Nov-2008, a liberal friend came up to me and said that we could all agree that Palin had cost McCain the election... Right? Right? RIGHT?!??!... And I said 'Well, no, it's clear that she brought McCain the only real conservative voltage he ever had, votes he should have been able to attract even without her, as the Republican nominee.' But my lefty buddy was eager to depict Palin as an untouchable, and kick her from American public life without further discussion.
I get the feeling that liberals are most comfortable with grade-schooler games of social posturing in lieu of persuasive argument. ("Finally!")
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 5:34 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought slander and libel are one of the very few types of speech not protected by the 1st amendment.
Mike Hunter at March 15, 2012 6:28 AM
One of the great advantages of free speech is that it confers on the truly mean,moronic and mendacious the opportunity to reveal themselves as they truly are.
BarSinister at March 15, 2012 6:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/15/its_un-american.html#comment-3072254">comment from Mike HunterOpinion is protected, Mike.
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2012 6:35 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought slander and liable are one of the very few types of speech not protected by the 1st amendment.
Yes. And Ms. Fluke, being a wannabee lawyer, should know how to gain recourse if she feels she's been damaged.
Of course, having voluntarily submitted herself into the public dialog and becoming a public figure, the standards for proving slander are significantly higher.
And discovery works both ways. And if she ever participated in a slut walk...
I R A Darth Aggie at March 15, 2012 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/15/its_un-american.html#comment-3072267">comment from I R A Darth AggieCorrect on the public figure thing.
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2012 6:45 AM
Amy,
With all due respect, I am lobbying to allow for BOTU to come back in the spirit of First Amendment.
He sure was annoying as hell when he skipped his med but he expressed different point of views from the frequent visitors here, who are generally single, childless, bitter and libertarian.
I generally enjoyed reading BOTU's wacky writing and I don't believe I am the only one, who feels that way. If you do, please speak up.
chang at March 15, 2012 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/15/its_un-american.html#comment-3072389">comment from changchang, sorry, but any view related to a topic is welcome here, whether I agree with it or not -- and better if I don't because that sparks interesting discussion. Echo chambers are boring. What is not welcome here, however, is a commenter who turns every post into a referendum on his rectum. He's had a number of chances (he'd change IPs and start posting again) and he blew every one. He's not going to be allowed back.
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2012 7:59 AM
On what planet, if only in your daydreams, are people provided with the airtime that they're "owed"?
My point exactly, honey bunches. Rush's airtime is bought and paid for by his ability to attract advertising revenue to stations in a private transaction between his show's producers and the stations he's aired on. If those stations decide they'd like to no longer have him on, they're free to do so – there's no First Amendment right to that airtime.
"Finally". That's a nice touch!
Rush has been making racist and misogynistic comments for years, and this is the first I've read of advertisers abandoning his show. So, finally.
Yet some say his numbers are up.
Yes, generating outrage can be an effective audience-building model. I'd be interested to know what the radio version of his CPM is doing though.
What I like most about him is that he pisses off people like you.
The tribal impulse is a strong motivator.
But you are not that bright, and you are not that decent.
If you say so.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 7:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/15/its_un-american.html#comment-3072405">comment from ChristopherActually, the thing I've been saying about the advertisers dropping out is "Where have they been the other 360 or so days of the year?" It's not like he's every all "Kumbaya." They only noticed this now?
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2012 8:06 AM
> My point exactly,
It doesn't follow... You're dodging the question. Whence the "owed"?
> Rush has been making racist and misogynistic
> comments for years
I just knew you were a fan. Nobody loves that guy as much as those who imagine themselves superior for hating him... They NEED him in their lives.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 8:08 AM
I listen to Rush as often as I can - probably more than most. I have been since the older Bush's campaign against Clinton. I called Fluke a slut when I heard what she said - before I heard that Rush had called her a slut. Maybe it is an age thing.
I don't think Christopher listens to Rush much at all. I believe, like most people who dislike Rush, listen to those who dislike Rush.
Dave B at March 15, 2012 8:29 AM
It doesn't follow... You're dodging the question. Whence the "owed"?
You're asking me to defend something when I quite literally wrote the opposite: "not owed". Bizarre.
I listen to Rush as often as I can...I called Fluke a slut when I heard what she said - before I heard that Rush had called her a slut
Does Rush know his market or what?
I don't think Christopher listens to Rush much at all.
I've listened occasionally over the years, but it doesn't take much. The man has his shtick down pat; he's consistent in his politics, humor, tongue in cheek self-aggrandizement, and delight in pushing liberals' buttons. He's been doing the same thing for as long as I can remember.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 9:06 AM
"Does Rush know his market or what?"
How do you know it wasn't just me?
"I've listened occasionally over the years, but it doesn't take much."
That's your story and you are sticking to it.
Dave B at March 15, 2012 9:18 AM
How do you know it wasn't just me?
Perhaps you are the only other person labeled her a slut before Rush did (Using birth control = slut?). However, Rush's remarkable success as a broadcaster is largely due to his ability to vocalize what his audience is thinking: dittoheads, "Rush is right"...
That's your story and you are sticking to it.
There's nothing implausible in what I wrote. If I had stated that "I listen to Rush all the time..." then I can understand it might not be believable.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 9:52 AM
Christopher, Fluke's a slut because of the sense of entitlement to have SOMEONE ELSE pick up the tab for her to have a consequence-free sex life.
Adults take care of these things themselves. She's a 30 year old high-school slut, nothing more. And just like Cindy Sheehan, when she's no longer useful for advancing The Narrative, she'll be tossed in the garbage.
And I'd love it if you could provide even one instance of Rush's so-called "racism".
Crid - the left has never been interested in discussion, only control. It's their way or they call you names in order to get people to ignore you.
Literally everything a liberal says is projection.
brian at March 15, 2012 10:26 AM
Fluke's a slut because of the sense of entitlement to have SOMEONE ELSE pick up the tab for her to have a consequence-free sex life.
Doesn't she pay insurance premiums? How is someone else picking up the tab?
slut (n). a) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.b) A woman prostitute.c) A slovenly woman; a slattern.
And I'd love it if you could provide even one instance of Rush's so-called "racism".
Let's see:
Arguing that a Pro Bowl QB who brought his team to the playoffs regularly throughout his career got mostly got attention cause he was black instead of being good.
Stating that composite pics of criminals all look like Jesse Jackson
Christopher at March 15, 2012 11:33 AM
Wow. Who knew liberal online magazine, Slate, was racist?
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2003/10/rush_limbaugh_was_right.html
Conan the Grammarian at March 15, 2012 11:55 AM
If he was talking/writing about Donovan McNabb, whom I happen to like, I would say he had a point. Donovan has disappointed more than one team. He hasn't done much with his talent.
(No, I'm not going to read Slate. Sorry.)
MarkD at March 15, 2012 12:25 PM
> I quite literally wrote the opposite
You like to dress up "owed" and "free speech" in weird clothes and make them dance to shitty music... There's no reason to trust you.
> How is someone else picking up the tab?
Insurance is by definition shared risk.
Even with the understanding that health risks having nothing to do with behavior can be ameliorated through these treatments, it remains the case that they're used first (and were developed) for birth control. People you're eager to mock as naive and short-sight may well have practical experience and sharpened perspectives which you, in your smug & isolated lefty condescension, do not have. Deciding that one should not promiscuously accept responsibility for (or involvement in) the sexual conduct of others is hardly a primitive calculation. Many of the better religions demand stoicism in such matters. Isn't a "slut" someone who recklessly projects the consequences of her sexuality on the larger community?
> got mostly got attention cause he was black
> instead of being good.
Don't know the sport; was it true? Was it arguable? (Why are lefties always trying to pass off twitchy sensitivity as principled enlightenment?)
> Stating that composite pics of criminals all
> look like Jesse Jackson
A fun slam! It would have been fun against Joe Biden, too. Do you suppose Rush ever made fun of Biden's brain surgery? Was it racist when he did?
Chrissybun, I just don't think you're the one to tell us how things should work in considerations of sexuality and race. You've given no evidence in experience in anything except turning up your nose at people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 12:29 PM
> (No, I'm not going to read Slate. Sorry.)
Damn, I love you boys sometimes.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 12:30 PM
You have the right to say what you want. You DON'T have the right to get paid to say what you want. Nothing un-American about pulling out sponsorship from a douchebag. Nothing un-American about asking sponsors to pull-out.
I haven't heard of any government intervention, so far this is private sector.
Having said that, getting outraged and surprised about Limbaugh being an asshole is like getting outraged and surprised about Lady Gaga wearing a strange outfit.
NicoleK at March 15, 2012 1:09 PM
Christopher, you whiney little slut, I called her a slut because she wants someone else to subsidize her sexual behavior. Kinda how we talked in the 50's and 60's. You are probably one of those that gets all in a tizzie over the use of nigger - they are all racist that use the term, amirite?
Dave B at March 15, 2012 1:16 PM
> Nothing un-American about pulling out
> sponsorship from a douchebag. Nothing
> un-American about asking sponsors to pull-out.
Strongly agree.
But man, it gets pathetic pretty quickly...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 1:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought slander and libel are one of the very few types of speech not protected by the 1st amendment.
Look them up. They have specific definitions.
Got a mode of travel that's a right yet?
Radwaste at March 15, 2012 3:27 PM
> slander and libel are one of the very few types
> of speech not protected
Two, not one. And afterwards, you can prosecute; but you need serious probative material in your brief if yer gonna attempt prior restraint. The Rush='Douchebag' types got nuthin'.
Indeed, most jurors in America would piss their pants will glee if they learned they had the chance to slam the gate on a 30- (30!) year-old, deeply indebted law student who was getting all mouthy about how other people needed to pay for her contraception.
(Imagine the [legally protected] courtroom innuendo... Your Honor, if she'd been reading her books instead of doggyfucking her boyfriends on someone else's dime, she'd have finished her J.D. four years ago, and she'd be hanging a shingle instead of complaining about radio shows that she doesn't listen to anyway....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 4:36 PM
So, if women are sluts for wanting their insurance to cover BC then what does that make men whos insurances does cover boner pills?
Keep in mind that most employers already have insurance plans that cover BC, what were really talking about is how churches want an exepmtion from doing the same as other employers.
So why exaclty does a church who onsw a resturant, or a hospital, or a raelty company deserve an exemtions from behaving in the same manner as secular employers?
lujlp at March 15, 2012 5:57 PM
You are probably one of those that gets all in a tizzie over the use of nigger - they are all racist that use the term, amirite
It depends on context, if you are a white man and call another man a nigger, chances are you're a racist. If you are a black man and you give a friend a dap and say "my nigga" you're not being racist.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 6:27 PM
Insurance is by definition shared risk.
Yes, everybody throws their money into the same pot. As presumably healthy 30 year old, Fluke is probably subsidizing a lifelong smoker's chemo for lung cancer, or some sedentary fat man's bypass surgery. Or some guy's ED medications. Maybe Rush's - we know he likes his Viagra! Everybody pays for shit they don't use under this system, and maybe some shit they don't think they should have to. But birth control and reproductive medicine is quite common in insurance policies, and wanting her insurance to get with the program does not make Fluke a slut.
You like to dress up "owed" and "free speech" in weird clothes and make them dance to shitty music
I read this, and it's got words in a grammatical order and all, but it doesn't seem to parse into something meaningful. You do enjoy writing colorfully, though, so good on you.
Slut
Redefine the word post-hoc all you want, Rush was clearly talking about someone having lots of sex, and revealing an apparent ignorance about birth control that was either intentional or staggering.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 6:52 PM
"Rush's airtime is bought and paid for by his ability to attract advertising revenue to stations in a private transaction between his show's producers and the stations he's aired on. If those stations decide they'd like to no longer have him on, they're free to do so – there's no First Amendment right to that airtime."
Certainly. Allocation of airtime, and allocation of advertising dollars, are private decisions. No one is entitled to receive airtime or advertising support.
However, boycotts can work both ways. Ask David Friend, the CEO of Carbonite, how that's working out for him. (Actually, if you ask me, what's happening to Carbonite and Friend is long-delayed karma. Somewhere, Al Pearlman is laughing.)
Cousin Dave at March 15, 2012 7:22 PM
Rush can say whatever he wants. To each their own. There is a dial on my radio that I can spin to find a program that doesn't make me want to barf.
AK at March 15, 2012 7:27 PM
Rush Limbaugh is not "truly evil." Your "knight in shining armor" is an unadulterated absolute dumbass of the first order on this subject.
Amy, do you listen to Rush yourself, or do you just believe what others say about him?
Try listening for 6 weeks or so and you may learn something.
Chester White at March 15, 2012 7:47 PM
I haven't heard Rush in a very long time and probably would have forgotten he existed had this incident not popped up. Rush lost me when he railed about drug laws and sending druggies to prison forever all while he had his own drug problem and was losing his hearing as he sent his maid doctor shopping for his illegal prescriptions. The hypocrisy is what always gets me.
My Rush rant aside, he has a right to say what he wants to say. If you don't like what he says or think he's offensive then don't listen. Isn't that easy enough? I've done that for years now and it works quite well.
Of course people are welcome to bombard the advertisers with stupidness but these same advertisers know what Rush is all about and that is precisely why they advertise in his time slot. Don't mistake them abandoning him as them agreeing with your false sense of morality. Your demand that they axe him goes against everything you love about this country that was founded on freedoms.
Are people really this dumb?
Kristen at March 15, 2012 8:13 PM
> wanting her insurance to get with the program
> does not make Fluke a slut.
Wanting no options for anyone beyond her preferences makes her an authoritarian mobster. "Slut" is mild.
> You do enjoy writing colorfully, though, so
> good on you.
And you enjoy writing obliviously, but it doesn't flatter you.
> revealing an apparent ignorance about birth
> control that was either intentional or
> staggering.
You're so certain that everyone will agree with you, all the little people, if they could only be made to understand. It's "apparent"! "Finally" so!
And until they admit they understand, you'll use law to make it work your way.
Eventually you'll hit a wall where people just aren't going to care about what you compel them to care about. Brick by brick... Fifteen trillion bricks and counting. Of course, most of this wealth will never be created, let alone delivered to the treasury for redistribution. But until impact, you're very pleased with yourself for telling other people how their money can be spent.
Maybe it's my long-forsaken Christian heritage, but I can't admire people who try to get into Heaven by consuming other people's resources.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2012 9:20 PM
> wanting her insurance to get with the program
> does not make Fluke a slut.
Wanting no options for anyone beyond her preferences makes her an authoritarian mobster. "Slut" is mild.
Is that was she was doing? I could have sworn she laid out a case for situations where BC was used for medical conditions other than preventing birth, and the hypocray of RELIGIOUS exemptions for NONRELIGIOUS businesses simply becuase said business is owned by a church
lujlp at March 15, 2012 9:53 PM
Wanting no options for anyone beyond her preferences makes her an authoritarian mobster.
Monsters want their insurance to follow the law!
And you enjoy writing obliviously
I write lucidly, directly, and use commonly understood definitions of words. You seem to take everything as poetry and feelings, write accordingly, and then seem surprised when others don't understand you. But that's OK, true artists are frequently misunderstood. Or you could start assembling logical arguments in some sort of fashion that allows others to follow along.
You're so certain that everyone will agree with you,
When you say that "she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills" you either are intentionally lying or are total idiot. I think Rush is not an idiot. He's not a good person and I do not think he brings good things to this world but he is not dumb.
Brick by brick... Fifteen trillion bricks and counting.
Yes, yes, everything is about the deficit. You care about that now, when Obama is president. Didja vote for GWB?
Amy, do you listen to Rush yourself, or do you just believe what others say about him?
HAY CHESTER DID YOU READ THE POST OR ANYTHING ELSE AMY HAS POSTED OR DID YOU JUST SEEM SOME CRITICAL STUFF ABOUT RUSH AND DECIDE TO POST HERE
Christopher at March 15, 2012 10:46 PM
Sometimes I truly believe that lujlp is a shut-in. Next he'll (or she, can't tell from here) tell us that single payer is the only answer to all of these church people problems.
Luj, check out "Sandra Fluke is My Hero!" on youtube. I just watched it over at IOTW.
Dave B at March 15, 2012 10:52 PM
"He's not a good person and I do not think he brings good things to this world"
I know a lot of charities that would disagree with your opinion Christopher. It would suck if he was like Biden or your buddy Kerry, but I'm sure you think they are nice charitable people. Or maybe Rush should be like the Bill Maher (sp) dude on HBO who gave a million to Obama's campaign. I doubt he gives much more than Biden to charitible causes if at all.
Rush apologized for his comments about Sandra Fluke. I, on the other hand, still think she is a slut, and do not intend to apologize.
Dave B at March 15, 2012 11:05 PM
"I write lucidly, directly, and use commonly understood definitions of words."
That is the funniest thing you have ever written Christopher. You should consider a little stand up.
Dave B at March 15, 2012 11:09 PM
Sigh.
I'll give a good gosh darn about Ms. Fluke and her flucking lifestyle and her demands for free birth control pills when I see women like Sharon Osbourne rightly chastized and shamed off her show. She got minimal flack for making fun of a man who's soon to be ex-wife cut off his penis and stuck it down the sink garbage disposal upon learning he wanted out. Her apology was full of laughter. But Rush is a mysogynist for calling a woman a mere slut.
Oh, and Fluke is just a poor gal working her way through the tough world, not a connected activist and a plant to push a political agenda away from free speech/religion to contraception. She really cares...
http://thegraph.com/2012/03/sandra-flukes-boyfriend/
Sio at March 15, 2012 11:12 PM
It would suck if he was like Biden or your buddy Kerry
I'm not an admirer of either of those men.
Nor do I think that giving to charity makes it OK to be a dickbag the rest of the time.
That is the funniest thing you have ever written Christopher. You should consider a little stand up.
Then I'm sure you're ready to provide examples of where I've been unclear or pretended words mean something different than what they're commonly understood to mean. E.g., like when you pretend that 'slut' means someone who "wants someone else to subsidize her sexual behavior" as opposed to its commonly understood definition of "A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.b) A woman prostitute." which was how Rush used it.
Christopher at March 15, 2012 11:23 PM
not a connected activist
OMG SOMEONE TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS HAS AN AGENDA!
Christopher at March 15, 2012 11:28 PM
> Monsters want their insurance to follow the law!
Exactly. Those who disagree must be constrained.
> I write lucidly, directly, and use commonly
> understood definitions of words.
The authoritarian is proud of bein' jus' plain folks.
> seem surprised when others don't understand you.
People adore me.
> Yes, yes, everything is about the deficit.
Every speck of virtue you pursue comes at a cost to others... You're compelled to argue that their burdens aren't real.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 12:24 AM
The authoritarian
1. Yah man, it's Kristallnacht and I'm kicking in doors, lol.
2. Poor you, someone in a democracy where he disagrees with some of the laws. Wat do? Call others totalitarians or advocate for change in laws?
People adore me.
I'm sure your mommy and daddy do wuv you! Is your bench deep?
Every speck of virtue you pursue comes at a cost to others.
You think you know me, but you are full of shit. I work very hard to take good care of my family, and my business helps people to learn and do things (profitably, with no government, angel or venture funding screwing with our model). Fuck you if you think you can lecture me about virtue.
You're compelled to argue that their burdens aren't real.
I'm arguing they're complaining about nonsense that's of no real consequence in a world where there's a lot of real shit to solve.
People are all mad because all of a sudden Catholic schools and hospitals might need to offer birth control with their insurance policies like all other institutions under current law. It's a moral issue they say. As opposed to church officials covering up the rape of children, which somehow never comes up when we talk about matters of conscience. Fuck them.
We got real shit to deal with. This is nonsense and is a waste of time and energy.
Christopher at March 16, 2012 1:10 AM
How awkward. You were serious when you wrote "I write lucidly, directly, and use commonly understood definitions of words." Did you do it with half your brain tied behind your back Christopher?
"I'm not an admirer of either of those men." But you voted for both of them Christopher.
" Nor do I think that giving to charity makes it OK to be a dickbag the rest of the time." That sounds like you are saying that Rush is a dickbag that gives to charity. Care to elaborate, or as Crid says you are so certain everyone will agree with you.
"You think you know me, but you are full of shit. I work very hard to take good care of my family, and my business helps people to learn and do things (profitably, with no government, angel or venture funding screwing with our model). Fuck you if you think you can lecture me about virtue." Rush could say the same thing to you and you know what, more people know Rush than know you. I think he comes out on top in that debate.
"As opposed to church officials covering up the rape of children, which somehow never comes up when we talk about matters of conscience." Yeah, never been discussed.
Dave B at March 16, 2012 7:54 AM
"People adore me."
How fortunate that you have me to look up to!
(And even I think you should write for a living, even though I have no idea what you really do.)
Radwaste at March 16, 2012 8:57 AM
"People are all mad because all of a sudden Catholic schools and hospitals might need to offer birth control with their insurance policies like all other institutions under current law. It's a moral issue they say. As opposed to church officials covering up the rape of children, which somehow never comes up when we talk about matters of conscience."
You really, really need to brush up on what fallacies are.
Meanwhile, you're advocating that government force be used where alternatives are clearly available to the consumer - and those alternatives are available without regard to race, creed, color, gender identity or whether the carpet matches the drapes.
Radwaste at March 16, 2012 9:01 AM
I have a great deal of respect for Randazza, but on this point, he's simply wrong.
No one (well, at least not me) is advocating *government* censorship of Limbaugh. This is *exactly* the "marketplace of ideas" working: the market (appears) to be rejecting Limbaugh's ideas. And if his ideas are so repugnant that they cannot survive the free market, then they rightly and justly die. Artificially keeping them alive if the market rejects them doesn't further our free speech rights in any way.
In order to preserve free speech, I agree that we can't simply censor ideas we find objectionable to. But we don't have to pay to hear them, either. If the market finds that Limbaugh has crossed a line, and he loses money and airtime because of it then the marketplace of ideas has spoken.
Dave at March 16, 2012 10:18 AM
> I'm kicking in doors, lol.
I've been doing online chatter for about a quarter century; after all this time there's still no finer indicator of a lonely, humorless personality than "lol" (formerly rofl). It's mirthless, often nakedly so, as in this instance. Even when it's not, it's embarrassingly theatrical, like the people who try to rope you into a pensive, forlorn mood by beginning a paragraph with "Sigh." It's too desperate to connect, and too eager to establish a shared awareness without effort. "Lucid!"
> Call others totalitarians or advocate for
> change in laws?
No tears, Sugarbun. I don't want any complaints from you, in any forthcoming context, about how your government has failed you. It's "the law"!
> You think you know me
Smugness of your magnitude is unmistakable. It's a mugshot on a business card, with a DNA transcription on DVD, and a CV on cotton bond, all in a tidy manilla envelope. (It has one of those old time string clasps.) You're naively authoritarian and proud of it. That's you: No doubt about it.
> in a world where there's a lot of real
> shit to solve.
You're taking command of everyone's insurance options by law and then complaining that it's time to get serious? (Holy fuck!... Hang on people, here it comes!)
Well, darlin', whaddya wanna talk about next? (We know that spending money you don't have isn't a source of concern to you, right?)
Whatever you choose, I'm gonna guess that you wanna fix the problem by constraining other people (the meanies!) through law... You don't seem to be interested in letting the guy on the street apply his own judgment. You'll do the same strong-arming that got us into this mess, and expect to be loved for it. (It's "apparent" "good care"!)
Can't wait.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 10:38 AM
Turfin'—
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 10:44 AM
Why do I imagine radio listener Christopher crying his eyes out over this Daisey thing?
"This American Life" is doing a meltdown on Twitter right now... The lefties are bereft. They truly are as mind-controlled as they imagine Limbaugh's conservatives to be.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 11:16 AM
Christ, this is golden.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 11:18 AM
Failure to connect to web server = Daisey
Dave B at March 16, 2012 11:28 AM
I could probably spend a couple hours googling to a fare-thee-well and not come up with a more preposterous misunderstanding of the word "racism" than this.
That's racist like suggesting Danica Patrick gets attention more for being a woman than being good is sexist.
So, please, give us a real example of Rush the racist, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to yourself and us that you can actually use the concept correctly.
Speaking of concept abuse: "coverage" What Fluke and her ilk (great name for a rock band) want is for people who don't use contraception to pay for those who do. "Covering" ED meds is just as idiotic.
Insurance is the pooling of risk, not the subsidizing of certainty.
Jeff Guinn at March 16, 2012 11:35 AM
"I'm arguing they're complaining about nonsense that's of no real consequence in a world where there's a lot of real shit to solve."
Uh, enslaving me to the state's healthcare plan is of real consequence. If I don't play ball, Nancy Pelosi has hinted that I can be jailed. The fed is rumbling about applying hippa laws to any computer that has access to healthcare data. Use your iphone ap to do anything with your healthcare? Gov has the right to access it.
Ironic that the state wants to make me a slave, that they know whats best given who's in office.
Christopher, just do me a favor. When implementing these laws, gear up, mount up and show up yourself to my door to make sure I cooperate with your approved gov healthcare plan instead of hiring some goons with badges to do your dirty work.
Sio at March 16, 2012 11:39 AM
"Insurance is the pooling of risk, not the subsidizing of certainty."
Legalize prostitution and mandate that people participate in gov. brothels and bingo, bango, bongo, certainty and we should cover pills and rubbers for all. :)
Sio at March 16, 2012 11:44 AM
Fluke's situation fails to elicit sympathy from many people due to several all-too-common rookie activist mistakes on her part.
First, she willfully exaggerated the costs ($3,000 over three years) in order to claim that those costs were prohibiting students from having medically necessary drugs ... this for a group of people attending an expensive private law school. That argument was shot down almost immediately when pundits pointed out that both Target and Wal-Mart (with locations near campus) sell generic prescription contraceptives for $9 and $7 for a month's supply.
Second, she exaggerated the number of students needing contraceptives for medical purposes and used the exaggerated numbers to argue that contraceptives should be provided free of charge en masse. Pundits quickly pointed out that the Catholic Church does not oppose contraceptives being used for medical (non-contraceptive) purposes and Georgetown Law School already funds the provision of prescription contraceptives for those purposes with Church blessing.
Third, she treated the fact that some young women could not afford prescription contraceptives as a civil rights tragedy. As if students attending an expensive and demographically-diverse private law school and not getting free contraceptives are victims of oppression on the same level as people who were lynched in the dark of night or sprayed with fire hoses and tear gas when they had the audacity to try to attend a "white" school.
Fourth, she presented herself as a disinterested student concerned about women's health issues when she is, in fact, a feminist activist who advocates for "reproductive justice" (WTF is "reproductive justice").
Limbaugh's attempt at humor was ham-handed and offensive (not nearly as offensive as Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c**t); but the idea that someone smart enough to get into an expensive private law school can't figure out beforehand how she's going to afford contraceptives while in school deserves to be mocked a bit rang a bell with many people.
Conan the Grammarian at March 16, 2012 11:47 AM
> Insurance is the pooling of risk, not the
> subsidizing of certainty.
Nicely put.
> Failure to connect to web server = Daisey
Yeah... That sound of rushing water is the sound of the salty, salty tears from millions of egotistically sentimental leftoids. The servers are buckling under the flood.
But the story's everywhere now. Check Google news.
Thing is, Ira Glass always sounded like a preteen fool to me... An undercooked, resentful scrawnyboy who'd just been towel-snapped in the locker room. His work was obviously derivative when charming and smarmy when not.
So he puts a "performance artist" into a journalist's slot on national public radio. And both the largest company in the world and the largest nation in the world get horribly slandered.
Is anyone surprised?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 12:03 PM
"I stand by my work," he writes. "My show is a theatrical piece whose goal is to create a human connection between our gorgeous devices and the brutal circumstances from which they emerge."
Christopher couldn't have said it better. I wonder if this guy Daisey would be a dickbag in Christopher's world.
Dave B at March 16, 2012 12:31 PM
Yeah...
Does anyone remember the lesbian blogger from Syria? He put it like this:
Got that? The facts are true. Even though the reader would have no way of distinguishing them from the "narrative voice".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 12:41 PM
I've always understood slut to mean someone who has lots of sex for free. So Fluke's friend, to whom she was referring in her comments, might be a slut, but mostly she seems to be a woman who wanted her insurance to cover medication that might have prevented a lot of needless suffering.
Personally, I like "slattern." Has character.
And as one of the most liberal posters on this blog, I gotta say I'm thrilled with the push to kill Rush's advertising. It's hardcore American. It leaves the first amendment out of the fight and lets the free market do its thing.
Rush intentionally says things to provoke people into extreme reactions. If he can't take the heat, well, fuck 'em.
On another note, I'm not sure why people get their panties in a knot over birth control when insurance covers a lot of things people could consider questionable.
1) Cancer treatments for smokers
2) AIDS treatments for drug addicts and the sexually promiscuos
3) Heart medication for the obese
4) Viagra for the impotent
5) Pain medication for people can just as well suck it up. Pain is part of life, you commies.
6) Surgery for people hit by cars when they clearly didn't look both ways before crossing.
In fact, let's do something to make sure that no one who might be responsible for their own predicament ever burdens the taxpayers in any way.
I'm 34, and the only things I've ever used my insurance for are regular exams, birth control pills and anti-depressants. I want my money back from all those leeches who wrecked their bodies with poor diets and too much drinking and not enough sunshine failure to trim their toenails correctly, and then went crying to daddy. Not my problem.
/sarcasm, for people scanning
MonicaP at March 16, 2012 12:47 PM
I got it. There are racists in the world. I don't like Rush Limbaugh so he is a rasist, aka the Daisey method.
Dave B at March 16, 2012 12:52 PM
Rush can take the heat MonicaP. I sure wouldn't short his stock. On the other hand, I would short some of those advertisers that left him.
I am not one to keep adding things to insurance coverage that are questionable just because there are questinable ones there already.
Dave B at March 16, 2012 1:00 PM
On the other hand, I would short some of those advertisers that left him.
Advertisers don't owe Rush loyalty, though. If they see him a liability, they are obligated to their own bottom line to put their money elsewhere. It's just business.
Birth control is an add-on that can actually save insurers and customers money in the long run, unlike those other things I mentioned. For people who are using it to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it can save insurers the cost of pregnancy, labor and the additional health care costs of another person for 26 years, unlike, say, Viagra.
People get upset about it on moral terms, because it could help people be more sexually promiscuous and avoid the consequences of an unwanted child, not because it hurts their wallets.
MonicaP at March 16, 2012 1:07 PM
> I've always understood slut to mean someone who
> has lots of sex for free.
When she demands to be "freed" of her responsibility for her own behavior, do you see how this insult might come to mind?
> mostly she seems to be a woman who wanted her
> insurance to cover medication that might have
> prevented a lot of needless suffering.
I'm "suffering" without a Ferrari, people. "Needlessly." Time for the rest of you to step up, OK?
More later.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Monica:
In the world of insurance, properly termed, people pay based upon their risk profile. Fat smokers pay more for life insurance than sleek non-smokers.
Unfortunately, with regard to health, way way too many things are the consequence of judicial decisions and government mandates that take an extremely expansive view of what "health" entails.
Which is why, in the analysis-free world of progressives, "coverage" is just another word for "free".
In her NYT column last weekend, Ms. Dowd criticized Limbaugh for saying contraception coverage amounted to just another welfare entitlement. That, she insisted, “is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would.”
That is breathtakingly idiotic, so graphically, epically deluded that only having been temporarily decamped to Mars is sufficient excuse for the NYT editorial board having let this pass.
Yet as impenetrably ignorant as Dowd is, that is precisely what progressives must believe.
Fluke may not be a slut, but she is working hard on moron.
(IIRC, her undergraduate degree is in gender studies.)
Jeff Guinn at March 16, 2012 1:32 PM
> I gotta say I'm thrilled with the push to kill
> Rush's advertising. It's hardcore American. It
> leaves the first amendment out of the fight and
> lets the free market do its thing.
Excellent point. But as a practical matter, the "push" seems to have been nothing but an illusion, another in an endless series of nocturnal emissions from the Left. Limbaugh's program is as beloved, and his income as secure, as ever.
> it can save insurers the cost of pregnancy,
> labor and the additional health care costs
This is an almost Christopherian arrogance in presuming that you can make the arguments of your opponents on their behalf. You cannot. When a member of the pool wants to consider those things, they can do so as they see fit. But they need not decamp to your imaginary moral universe just because you tell them you've prepared a tent on their behalf. "Costs" are not what this is about. SEX is what this is about, and they don't want to have to pay for it on behalf of others.
> I want my money back from all those leeches who
> wrecked their bodies with poor diets and too
> much drinking and not enough sunshine failure
> to trim their toenails correctly, and then went
> crying to daddy. Not my problem.
None of these things are as directly attributable to behavior as is pregnancy. Fucky make babies, and other people think that shouldn't be their problem. Fucky has meaning and voltage not found in alcohol, tobacco or pedicures. You can force the point if you want, but you'll just be authoritarian-wrong instead of oblivious-wrong.
> unlike, say, Viagra.
Can someone explain how Viagra keeps coming up in this conversation? Is there a federal law that says insurance companies have to cover boner pills? If not, are consumers otherwise forbidden from make their coverage decisions on that basis? Yes: Women have cooters, and men have dicks; got it. So what?
More to the point, let's imagine that Viagra cured something else middle-aged, like, say, hearing loss. (IIRC, it was developed to treat blood pressure or something.)
If Viagra offered some statistically dicey benefit to men who had mild hearing loss, would you be patient with other people in the insurance pool who nonetheless didn't want men to be given boner pills?
Because I'd understand that position. Similarly:
> People get upset about it on moral terms,
> because it could help people be more sexually
> promiscuous and avoid the consequences of an
> unwanted child, not because it hurts their
> wallets.
And why shouldn't they? Why do you get to tell them, THROUGH LAW, that their morality isn't a factor?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 2:27 PM
Except, the people most likely to use birth control will pay for it if it isn't covered; or find another method. Or take responsibility for the child that results.
Those not likely to use it or take responsiblity, won't ... even if it's free (which it ain't).
Viagra raises heart rates - so users could have an early heart attack, saving the insurance company the cost of hip replacements, arthritis medication, etc.
Viagra helps fight depression in men (and, if a recent report on the connection between depression in women and frequency of sex is correct, women), sparing the insurance company the cost of anti-depressants and other medications.
On a serious note, ED carries psychological ramifications for men (and their wives) that can have medical consequences. Viagra vs. contraceptives is not quite an apples-to-apples argument.
That said, I don't think I should have to pay higher premiums so grampa gets free Viagra.
People get upset about it because they're being forced to pay for someone else's decisions - a decision that the other person made with the entitled expectation that someone else would pay for the costs and consequences.
I'm tired of people expecting me to pay higher taxes and insurance premiums because it's just not fair that they have pay for for their decisions and the consequences of their actions.
Conan the Grammarian at March 16, 2012 2:27 PM
> I'm tired of people expecting me to pay higher
> taxes and insurance premiums because it's just
> not fair that they have pay for for their
> decisions and the consequences of their actions.
See, that's what I resent most of about this. Some who read that sentence will say you're being too simplistic and exclusionary.
But the thing is...
The stupidest people from your high school class know this.
The people who were too dim to make it to your high school know this. Certainly, some of them found out the hard way... But not all of them. You don't have to be a bright person, or a notably observant or compassionate one, to see that sex is the most disruptive expression of the natural world in our lives.
Well, dagummit, Barack Obama thinks he's smarter than other people. He thinks he knows better. He thinks people can be forced to think there's nothing special about sex, to treat it like any other 'health' concern. At the very least, he thinks the rest of us can be asked to ignore our better understanding of this fundamental truth as he mandates redress of a trifling hygiene concern through federal edict.
You should forgive the people who can only find the word "slut" to answer this arrogance. They've had their breath taken away.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 3:05 PM
"Birth control is an add-on that can actually save insurers and customers money in the long run,..."
I said in the last thread on this subject that if the actuaries had data to back this up, the insurance companies would be doing it already. I've seen some studies recently that suggest that paying for preventative care does not, in general, lower health care costs.
The specific thing with the Pill probably goes like this: Most women who use it don't use it to control the number of children they have -- they mainly use it to control the timing of when they have those children. So it winds up being a double whammy for the insurance companies: they pay for the Pill, and then they pay for the maternity benefits too. And possibly a triple whammy, if a lot of those women use the Pill to postpone childbearing until near the end of their fertile years, when a child born to them is more likely to suffer from genetic problems.
Cousin Dave at March 16, 2012 4:14 PM
>SEX is what this is about, and they don't want to have to pay for it on behalf of others.
Hey, I don't want to have to pay because some people can't put down the fork. But I do, and I will.
Except, the people most likely to use birth control will pay for it if it isn't covered; or find another method. Or take responsibility for the child that results.
Of course they will take responsibility. But they won't be paying for that kid's medical expenses out of pocket. Everything will still be going through insurance, from prenatal care to every minor cold to every unexpected medical emergency.
I bring up things like Viagra because it's such a ridiculous expense in comparison to others. My friend is nearly paralyzed by migraines because her insurance won't cover the meds that work, but it covers medication for old men to get boners. And I don't actually care that we cover Viagra. It's not the thing that's breaking the health care system. Nor is birth control.
And why shouldn't they? Why do you get to tell them, THROUGH LAW, that their morality isn't a factor?
Because then we all get a say in the moral component. As a lefty liberal commie pinko harlot bastard, I find it morally wrong that we cover people who have abused their bodies for decades but we won't cover people trying to not burden society with one more unwanted child. Can I opt out of heart medication for fatties?
MonicaP at March 16, 2012 4:43 PM
> Hey, I don't want to have to pay because
> some people can't put down the fork.
That "hey" is too glib. You can't seem to take this point: Sex isn't just a health question. Fucking and getting pregnant are about being good in ways that eating and getting fat are not.
> I bring up things like Viagra because it's such
> a ridiculous expense
Then don't pay it. You have the option, do you not? Can you at least petition an insurance company to offer a pool that doesn't include Viagra?
> Because then we all get a say in the moral
> component.
Jesus Fuck.
YES!! Exactly! We "all get a say in the moral component" of how we live our own goddamn lives. And that's a problem for you?
Shitballs, lady... You joke about being a "a lefty liberal commie pinko harlot bastard", but you shouldn't. Your heart apparently beats only for the Central Committee:
> we won't cover people trying to not
> burden society with one more
> unwanted child
"We" is private insurance. Can you comprehend that? We're talking about government, not markets, specifying which choices you CANNOT make, what things are health and what things are something else.
Damn. Caught me off guard. Left hook, outta nowhere, lights out.
Well, "because then we all get a say in the moral component" is a new entry in Amy's All-Time Fascist Reflex Sentiments Championship list. Your contenders are both from 2008:
Now, you're probably feeling a little intimated to find yourself grappling with such instinctively authoritarian challengers. Don't be daunted! I've seen your comments on earlier topics; you have a fluid, natural will-to-oppress that won't let you down in times of distraction or surprise. And if you happen to run into Christopher at the Jackboots 2012 convention in the Monterey Sheraton this April, you should reach out and buy him a drink.You guys could hang.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 16, 2012 5:47 PM
Sex isn't any more of of a moral issue than eating. Evolution has made us very eager to reproduce and consume calories. The moral issue comes in when we make people we can't take care of. Fucking in and of itself is not a sin. It's a fuck-you from the universe: We want you to want to fuck as much as possible, but we're going to get a collective stick up the ass whenever you do.
Private insurance on the level you are suggesting won't work. There are too many people with too many private hang-ups. Insurance works because there is a huge pool of money. If you don't want to have to pay for other people's stuff, the only way out of that is to have a society that has private insurance but to not have any of your own (and make sure to find a way to make sure EMTs let you die where they find you if you can't cover the bill), or start your own company that covers only the things that you find acceptable.
Now, you're probably feeling a little intimated to find yourself grappling with such instinctively authoritarian challengers.
Not even a little, Crid, Not even a little.
MonicaP at March 16, 2012 5:59 PM
Huh? What? Do you have any idea, even a little bit, how insurance works?
They will be insuring against the risk of medical expenses by paying higher premiums.
Insurance is a business, and a newborn is another customer. Only liberal lackwits (sorry, I repeat myself sometimes) could repeatedly trot out the assertion that somehow babies are a losing proposition for insurance companies.
Jeff Guinn at March 16, 2012 6:42 PM
Of course it is.
The urge to procreate may be a biological imperative, but sex has all sorts of ramifications (and resulting moral implications) that eating does not have.
Meatloaf doesn't get jealous if I have fish for dinner.
I don't have to promise to forsake all other proteins in order to enjoy the pleasures of a pork chop.
I don't have a responsibility to let my lasagna know if I have a social disease.
After I enjoy a steak, I don't have to raise and support the biological result from the encounter. I just have to flush it. And apparently, according to your simplistic view of morality, that's all you have to do.
Conan the Grammarian at March 16, 2012 8:44 PM
> There are too many people with too many
> private hang-ups.
Hang-ups? What is this, 1972? I imagine you trying to wash the bongwater out of a Sears Poncho, looking forward to the election of McGovern & Eagleton (!) to make all the pain go away....
Penn has his problems, but boyfriend nailed it to the wall this time.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2012 12:33 AM
Leave a comment