VoteVets’ double standard
I can tell when dicksmith at VetVoice knows when I’m going to hammer him on his double standards – he just copy and pastes VoteVet press releases without comment so I can’t call him dicksmith. But it never works.
Anyway, today’s obvious double standard has to do with, what else, Rush Limbaugh under the title “Sexism Has No Place on AFN” in which some of the VoteVets ‘tards decide that the Armed Forces Network should remove Rush from their airwaves;
Miranda Norman (who is a VoteVets.org Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations for the U.S. Air Forces in Europe at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany said the following:
“Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are “sluts” and “prostitutes” is beyond the pale. It isn’t just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it’s language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone – even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn’t.”
So I looked up the AFN radio programming and look what I found…notice the name following Rush’s name at the 2100 slot;
It’s Ed Schultz who last May called Laura Ingraham a “slut”. Using all of my Google-fu skills and try as I might, I couldn’t find a call from VetVoice or VoteVets’, “three female Iraq war veterans” regarding Schultz “in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform.”
Same word, different guys, the only thing separating them, besides the size of their listening audience, and their respective talents, is their politics. So, you take away from this posting what you want, but to me it looks like VoteVets isn’t all that “nonpartisan” that they claim in the last line of that piece. I’m just guessing.
Thanks to TSO.
March 5th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
I still hate you for the haymakers I took today.
March 5th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
I’m surprised they posted anything this close to an actual veterans issue. After their recent mail out asking for Romney to release his tax records I figured they had just dropped the vet thing and gone all in.
I absolutely can’t stand Rush. He is a detestable human being. But I couldn’t give two shits about whether or not he is on AFN. I’ve never met a soldier who was so poorly trained he couldn’t turn off a radio.
March 5th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
If they don’t say anything about Schultz, I imagine it has a lot to do with the reasoning I’ve been hearing from women today all over…”Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, and the like are all women who have made personal verbal attacks on others and are political figures. They deserve being called c*nts and sluts. Sarah Fluke was a private citizen doing her womanly duty demanding free BC.” I kid you not. *Facepalms*
March 5th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
I don’t loathe the man, but I also don’t listen to him. I don’t listen to Schultz either. But, I think if we only have Pentagon and “approved” messages on AFN, we get to a point where there is jack shit worth listening to. To think that the military will somehow we so much worse if we listen to Rush is ridiculous. Could not the same argument be made for all R rated movies, any pornography, tobacco, alcohol, rap music etc? At what point do we draw the line? It’s not like Opie and Anthony are on AFN. (Which would be Teh Awesome.)
March 5th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Yeah, I love the private citizen argument. You know, a private citizen who is the head of a public interest group and happens to have appeared before Congress and on TV. Now would be a good time to ask Media Matters to take down their erroneous and slanderous page regarding me I guess. (Technically, I don’t believe they had malice, but their errors are from some douche CLAIMING to be me.)
March 5th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
It is funny the mental gymnastics they go through to justify the attacks that are leveled. Its okay to offer hatred and attack women they hate, but women they like not so much… Its funny.
March 5th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
@5- You have a Media Matters page, TSO?
That’s big time. Should we start calling you Hollywood?
March 5th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
@5, yeah what #7 said – you have a Media Matters page? I think this merits a full blog entry.
March 5th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
@7, @8, check that, Sourcewatch page. Not MM.
March 5th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Rush Limbaugh is an enjoyable entertainer, conservative thinker, and businessman. Don’t like him? No problem – millions of others do. AFN’s programming is about as Progressive as it gets and still have a connection to America.
I see Fluke The Whore was ungracious in not accepting Rush’s apology. So no need to apologise to her – she knows what she is, it’s only a matter of price. Or should we be gentile and call her Madam since she speaks for all female students at Georgetown?
Heard a rumour that you lose when you surrender first – the conservatives and the GOP sure do seem French when it comes to the national silence on civility.
March 5th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Because I’m so helpful on all matters TSO;
Media Matters
Source Watch
March 5th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Jesus, thanks Jonn. I needed more shit to get pissed off about today.
March 5th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
I personally don’t give a shit–I’m working when he’s on and doubt I would listen to him even if I could. Same goes for the rest of the pundits, liberal or conservative.
But here’s the telling point: in a year, people will still be listening to Rush, still paying shitloads of money to EIB for ad revenues, and in the same breath will go, “Sandra who?”
The left got their mileage out of her, or will have very soon, and she’ll be tossed out like another 2 AM bar conquest.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
@11- Good stuff.
TSO- There’s some decent hate and condescending bullshit built up in the few comments on that MM article. Lots of nice conspiracy stuff on your background and motivation for criticizing Moran, too.
TinSel tOwn.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
And it is all largely wrong. But when I tried to correct him, and I didn’t even act like my usual asshole self, he refused to accept what I was telling him.
JUST LIKE THIS IDIOT WOMAN I AM FIGHTING WITH TODAY THAT IS ON OUR FAHKIN SIDE.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
The problem from here appears to be not that there is a double standard but that only one side seems to have any standards.
FWIW, I think Rush played this out masterfully! Instead of allowing the libbiots to bank this and market it at their convenience, he called them out on it and got it fully aired right now. He managed to neutralize any negative effect it might have had later in this political silly season.
Don’t usually listen to him either, but was housebound part of last week so I heard this unfold. It is some of the funniest radio I’ve heard in a very long time. It was pretty obvious (to those who actually heard it) that he was working it and moving it along toward something. His “apology” fit perfectly into the rest of the program.
Beautifully done! Still laughing,
March 5th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Good comments, Jonn. But why don’t you put this out into the VetVoice web site directly???? They’d love to hear from you.
March 5th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
When I was over there Rush was followed by Dr. Laura. Didn’t know they had replaced her with Special Ed. And we only got one hour of his show. From a three hour show! Besides, its on at 2000hrs. Not a big audiance at that time.
Apparently, all this hubbub hasn’t hurt this woman. A week ago nobody had heard of her and now she’s all over the damn place. There’s a name for people like that. Attention-whore.
You all do know the correct pronounciation of her name, right? Its not “Flook”. Take the F-bomb and insert an “l” after the “f”. About crapped the first time I heard it.
March 5th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
OMG do I hate Dr Laura.
March 5th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
I’m reminded of the Shirley Sherrod episode. Breitbart gets blasted falsely as a racist twit, only to expose Sherrod as only part of a ring defrauding all Americans out of tens of millions of dollars.
Fluke was not presented to Congress as a fluke. Rep Elijah Cummings and his partners intentionally withhold her CV/vetting from the House Committee in order to show her as just some random college coed they found at the local Starbucks. Fluke’s a professional activist, and had Rush not responded, Fluke would’ve just added the testimony to her resume and gone on.
Frankly, I’m sick and damned tired of all the fratricide our side inflicts every time the Salon Set thinks its dinner invites are at risk.
March 5th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
I ate breakfast in the chow every morning with Keith Olbermann telling me how many days since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. AFN has every point of view represented precisely because they don’t single out people that are not politically correct.
March 6th, 2012 at 4:08 am
Agreed–liberal or conservative, you shouldn’t be calling women sluts or etc, etc. Nor should you be calling men etc., etc.
But what has people, especially women, so angry isn’t merely that he used the word. It was how he used it. “Slut” was part of his comments mocking and distorting testimony about the need for hormones for women’s health. *That’s* the real reason we’re not letting this go.
Let me translate: “Sam Fluke wants his estrogen paid for. So is the guy a male slut or a male hooker, hah-hah? If he’s gonna get that much, I wanna see the videos!”
You see, gentlemen, here’s the real punchline: Female hormones aren’t just for birth control, or even “women’s issues,” they’re also used to treat prostate cancer.
When it comes to health, we’re all in it together. If you love and respect the women in your life, you should stand beside us in condemning someone who would mock our need for healthcare, just as we would stand beside you. My father is a prostate cancer survivor.
March 6th, 2012 at 5:04 am
Kay, this has nothing at all to do with respect for women and everything to do with pushing a political agenda.
First of all, the inappropriate terminology was directed at one individual, and an apology has been issued. It is extremely telling that the woman in question rebuffs it, because she never cared about what was said in the first place beyond the political theater she is acting out.
Second of all, this individual sat down in front of Congress and demanded that the government force a private entity to pay for something that entity finds objectionable. That entity has no bond or hold over this woman, nor over any other human being who freely chooses to associate with said entity. Anyone who doesn’t like the contents of Georgetown’s health insurance plan is totally free to purchase their own elsewhere or buy a different plan that fits their needs (For now, until Obamacare kicks in anyway). If all else fails, they can attend an equally prestigious school that is willing to provide what they demand from all of us.
Third, the healthcare item in question is readily available to individual women through major retail/pharmacy chains and Planned Parenthood for those with financial difficulties. As quickly discovered by anyone with a computer or smartphone, there is a Target pharmacy less than 3 miles from the Georgetown campus that sells this kind of medication for very reasonable prices. What we’ve seen over the past week doesn’t have a damn thing to do with birth control, and has everything to do with the kind of liberty and freedom of conscience smothering government control that comes along with soft tyranny (Go read Alexis de Tocqueville sometime if you don’t know what that is).
With that in mind, you’ll have to excuse me for not being swayed by your shallow and vacuous appeal to emotion. As a person who counts survivors of various cancers (including women) among my family and friends, I’m most offended by your pathetic use of them (and women in general) as political props and shields.
March 6th, 2012 at 5:26 am
Yeah, what Powerpoint Ranger said!?
March 6th, 2012 at 6:25 am
Kay’s post pretty much illustrates the entirety of where this whole thing has progressed (pardon the pun); the focus has now become ‘women’s health issues’ as opposed to the rights of religious organizations to go tell the government to shove it in regards to demands that they compromise their basic cherished beliefs. The narrative is now twisted and for the most part, Limbaugh assisted the willing media and whores in congress in changing the conversation into a topic where they believe they can win.
March 6th, 2012 at 8:46 am
Georgetown Law School–$46,000/year.
Birth Control Pills–$108/year. ($9/month–look it up.)
Getting called on your bullshit–PRICELESS.
By the way, I’m going to apply for a job at GEICO or Allstate (or better still, Progressive) and then go in front of Congress demanding that the government force them to cover oil changes in my car insurance policy. Whadya think?
March 6th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Makes just as much sense as this does, Sparks!
Be sure to whine about how by telling you “NO” when you demand that they pay for it that somehow this translates into being deprived of oil changes in general.
March 6th, 2012 at 9:07 am
E Wyatt #17; I used to comment over there, got one of them fired while I was there, too, but oddly enough, my password doesn’t work there anymore. So, I guess they don’t appreciate my talents as much as you might think.
March 6th, 2012 at 9:42 am
The issue always was about women’s health. Any woman grasped that instantly. Because we know what those hormones are also used for. Suppose the Church wouldn’t cover cardiac meds for men, using the religious rationale that if you weren’t afraid of dropping dead in bed as God intended, you’d have more non-procreative sex. You’d immediately say, “Hold it, wait a minute, you don’t understand what these meds actually do.” That was our reaction from the first.
When Limbaugh insulted Fluke he insulted all women. If Bill Maher said some crap like, “Sgt. Smith is a slut and a whore,” would you say, “Oh, well, he was just insulting one individual vet?” If he then issued a classic non-apology-apology, would you say, “Oh, well, everything’s okay then”?
You think the issue is freedom of religion, but what you’re really backing is the right of an employer to cherry pick health coverage based on an employee’s sex. Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex in this country, therefore, you can get it elsewhere simply isn’t an acceptable answer. I grant you, that if this hits the courts, it may make for an interesting Constitutional clash. For now, any institution that accepts federal money, say for example, in the form of financial aid for its students, has to abide by federal law.
I didn’t use either women or cancer as political props and shields or an appeal to emotion. I won’t even get into how offended your comments made me, because darn it, we’re all too quick to offend, and that gets us nowhere. I brought up women, ’cause, hello, I am one. I brought up prostate cancer to underscore that female hormones aren’t just about contraception. There are (for obvious reasons) few 1:1 comparisons, and prostate cancer is the only one I know of (because of my father) where I could say: Hey, this is what it could be like if the shoe were on the other foot.
I don’t want a fight. I want to say: You’re our brothers, our fathers, our sons, our husbands. We’re your sisters, your mothers, your daughters, your wives. Stand with us.
March 6th, 2012 at 9:56 am
When Limbaugh insulted Fluke he insulted all women.
Hardly. But nice reaching there anyway. Oh, and Maher HAS gone to the misogynist card–as has Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, and a few other lib pundits. But hey, it’s not offensive when a liberal does it, right?
Is the goverment taking away your right to birth control? Nope. Is Georgetown saying you can’t use it? Not at all–they’re just not going to pay for it.
Again, I use my other analogy–can I now go in front of Congress and bitch about my car insurance company not paying for my oil changes and other normal maintenance (well fuck, why don’t we just go full ri-tard and ask them to fill our gas tanks! Shit–already been done) and force THEM to pay for it! After all, driving on the road is my RIGHT, dammit!
March 6th, 2012 at 10:49 am
“We’re your sisters, your mothers, your daughters, your wives. Stand with us”. Not when your motivation is to shred that part of the 1st Amendment you don’t agree with.
And your reaction has nothing to do with what any medication does, it’s all about forcing another entity to comply with the over-reach of the government to give you something you think you have a right to have handed to you.
How’s about I demand that GM give me a new 1/2 ton Silverado, after all, they took taxpayer money, and I’m a taxpayer, they owe me. Maybe the Dodge Red Wings edition 1/2 ton Ram?
March 6th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Kay: no, the issues were (1) who pays for elective (e.g., not medically necessary) medical care that violates a religious organization’s faith, and (2) can the Federal government force religious organizations to pay for elective medical care that violates their religious tenets? The issue would be no different if we were talking Viagra or vasectomies. In general, neither are medically necessary – and forcing a religious organization to pay for either is just as wrong. And I don’t believe Catholic organizations routinely cover either in their self-insurance programs (though I haven’t researched that and could be wrong).
Quit trying to “spin” the debate by dissembling about the issue at hand. It ain’t “women’s health”. It’s (1) who pays, and (2) does the Federal government have the power to compel violation of religious principles.
Oh, and a guy on MSNBC named Ed Schultz has called at least one prominent conservative woman a “slut” – to the sound of crickets from the media – and has to my knowledge never apologized. You’d know that if you bothered to read Jonn’s original article above. And as NHSparky points out above that’s hardly an isolated example of liberal misogyny, either. I could give additional examples, but the point’s already made well enough.
Further, the minute Fluke testified publicly as an advocate on this issue she became a public figure (and she’s apparently got a prior history of such public advocacy as well). So unlike your mythical “Sgt Smith”, Fluke’s a public figure – and gets to deal with all the grief that comes with being a public figure. In contrast, your mythical “Sgt Smith” would likely be a private figure – so your comparison here is not logically valid.
March 6th, 2012 at 11:28 am
@#29
I don’t think the ‘Church’ or any private entity, should be required to cover anything they don’t want to cover, regardless of who it’s for, and neither do any of the people you’re railing against here, is that clear enough for you?!
My dad died from cancer, broke and deep in debt from fighting it, not once, but 3 times, that doesn’t change my opinion. One of my best friends died from throat cancer. He and his wife moved to another state in search of a treatment he believed in and the whole experience broke them, still doesn’t change my opinion. I have plenty of examples to draw from, none of them change my opinion.
I for one don’t care how offended the comments here are making you, they’re true.
And by and large you are correct, take the Emperor’s coin = play by the Emperor’s rules. Of course the simplest way to avoid that is to quit taking the Emperor’s coin, one can hope.
March 6th, 2012 at 11:28 am
So, Kay, when Maher called Sarah Palin names he insulted ALL women, right??
And who appointed YOU the spokesman for ALL women?
March 6th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@34, she certainly does not speak for me!
March 6th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Kay-
if Ms Fluke’s testimony was solely about women’s health and the real benefits that medicine used for contraception can have for women (ie ovarian cysts) then why does Fluke keep demanding ‘contraception’? She didn’t ask for coverage of medicine that just happens to be contraception, she asked repeatedly for contraception coverage.
And not just a one time usage either-she says she and her friends need to be on this medication for the entire 4 years they are at Georgetown. That is not a medical need-she wants contraception for the purpose it was created-preventing pregnancy.
March 6th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Here’s a bit more about Ms. Fluke, and her views, from the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. This is her view about “discrimination” against LGBTQs, along with her co-author, Karen Hu.
“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families”.
She and Ms. Hu go on, “A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”
So, she’s crusading for more than BC, she’s also on the soapbox for gender reassignment surgery. “Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered”.
So, no, this isn’t about a war on women, at all, Kay.
Got this at Newsbusters.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
You’re right that the word isn’t appropriate in ANY circumstance, as I said in my first post. Let’s also not forget that when a kid says, “Wah, Johnny did it too!” we don’t let the kid off the hook.
What got people going this time is less the word itself than Limbaugh’s mocking of Fluke’s testimony–she was describing how a friend lost an ovary. Whether Fluke herself is using hormones for contraception, plenty of other women use them for health reasons unrelated to contraception.
As for the government forcing a religion to go against its policies…The government isn’t saying the Catholic CHURCH can’t take a stand against contraception or whatever the issue may be. It’s saying that religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) that take federal money have to play by federal rules. That applies to any institution that takes federal money. You don’t get to accept tax dollars and then cherry pick the law.
I could go on…you guys could go on…but unfortunately, sadly, like so many issues these days, everybody goes round and round and winds up right back where we started from. But I’m glad to have chatted with all of you. We spend too much time in our own echo chambers and I wanted to step away from mine and spend some time with the other side. Even if it all ends with, “We have to agree to disagree,” at least we talked and that’s a good start.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“What got people going this time is less the word itself than Limbaugh’s mocking of Fluke’s testimony–she was describing how a friend lost an ovary”. Unless she furnishes specifics, her “testimony” is just an anecdotal story, nothing more. I could make up a story about a woman who died because her birth control caused hemorrhaging but, without specifics, it’s just that, a story.
And you still can’t see that Fluke was doing nothing but spewing the left’s talking points.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Kay,
Stand with you and do what? Go around the country demanding that private entities give up the right to stand by their convictions and be forced to pay for something that they don’t believe in?
What does it say about your mindset that you can’t be satisfied with the fact that birth control/contraception, for whatever purposes it is wanted or needed, is widely available all over the country without institutions like Georgetown University being forced by the government to pay for it?
What drives your need to see Georgetown’s right to hold the courage of their convictions ground to dust under the heel of government, when it’s been well established that any woman in the country can obtain these items for reasonable cost in the free market?
March 6th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Let’s also not forget that when a kid says, “Wah, Johnny did it too!” we don’t let the kid off the hook.
Tell ya what, Kay–when you hold Letterman, Shultz, Olbermann, and Maher, to name a few, up to the same standard you apparently want to hold Limbaugh, let us know.
What got people going this time is less the word itself than Limbaugh’s mocking of Fluke’s testimony
As she well deserved mocking. She was NOTHING of what she claimed to be. The longer we go, the more of her agenda and true persona emerge.
The government isn’t saying the Catholic CHURCH can’t take a stand against contraception or whatever the issue may be.
Uh, actually, yes they are. They’ve basically told the Vatican, “Piss off–we don’t care what your beliefs may be, you’re going to do as we say, tenets of your religion be damned.” What’s next? Forcing churches to recognize gay marriages, despite most Christian religions regarding it as a sin?
I could go on…you guys could go on…but unfortunately, sadly, like so many issues these days, everybody goes round and round and winds up right back where we started from.
Translation: Outside the ad hominem talking points, you got nuthin. Okay, have a nice day, thanks for playing.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
“As for the government forcing a religion to go against its policies…The government isn’t saying the Catholic CHURCH can’t take a stand against contraception or whatever the issue may be. It’s saying that religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) that take federal money have to play by federal rules. That applies to any institution that takes federal money. You don’t get to accept tax dollars and then cherry pick the law.”
It never ceases to amaze me how much hyprocrisy is spewed from the liberals. One minute they are whining because they think that if Christians are going to be calling themselves such, then they need to “walk the walk” in *all* areas of their lives instead of just “cherry picking” and choosing things out of the Bible, but when it comes to expecting the government to bow down to liberal rhetoric, then all of a sudden, it’s perfectly ok for someone with Christian beliefs to “cherry pick” the values they uphold. How dare you and your feminazi friends demand that anyone chooses what parts of their morals they should uphold just so you can get free prescription drugs at someone else’s expense. Last time I checked this was still a free (enough) country, Fluke could very well have researched what Georgetown was all about and chose to go elsewhere. I hate to see what kind of wake up call she’s going to get when she gets a decent job that offers health insurance but her employer refuses to give in to her demands that they change their coverage options just for her.
March 6th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
@38
Let’s also not forget that when a kid says, “Wah, Johnny did it too!” we don’t let the kid off the hook.
Nice spin. The fact is that liberals don’t give a crap when it’s a conservative being targetted with racist or sexist remarks. Rules only apply to conservatives, apparently.
That applies to any institution that takes federal money. You don’t get to accept tax dollars and then cherry pick the law.
So, all those colleges that didn’t allow ROTC programs… did they accept federal money? Ooh, wait, they’re liberal, so they get to “cherry pick the law”. Rules only apply to conservatives.
she was describing how a friend lost an ovary.
Was she? Or was she just making crap up?
I’d like to see receipts, medical records, and the insurance company’s letter explaining why it wasn’t covering the alleged treatment.
March 6th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Hi guys, I’m back. I really do have to make this the last round, simply because I can’t procrastinate any longer on the project I’ve got due, not because I’m running from an argument.
It’s obvious we’re not going to convince each other either way, and that was never my intent. I just wanted to say, “Hey, here’s how the whole Fluke thing looks from our side,” in the hope that maybe some of you might think, “Okay, I still disagree, but now it doesn’t sound *quite* so crazy.”
I also came on here because, as I said, I wanted out of my own echo chamber. I’m really tired of what our political rhetoric has become. I’m tired of conservatives who think all liberals are elitist, ignorant, blahblahblah. But I’m JUST as tired of liberals who think all conservatives are stupid, ignorant, blahblahblah. That’s way too easy on both sides.
The hard work, the essential work, for a democracy is for us all to look for common ground. We’re not going to agree on a lot of things, for sure. But if we can be civil about it, we might find the one or two bits where we do agree and work up from there.
For example, several of you have said liberals haven’t denounced liberal commentators who also used the infamous word. I think I’m safe in assuming none of you travel in liberal circles : ) If you did–I know a nightmare, but bear with me here–you’d discover that there’s a LOT of soul-searching going on among liberal women. Many of us are asking ourselves, “Why DID we let men supposedly on our side get away with using that word?”
So…however tiny, there it is: One piece of common ground. We BOTH agree the word is bad in all contexts AND that liberals should’ve called their/our own out on it. In fact, there is some retro-calling out going on, but at the moment (as far as I know), it’s happening mostly on liberal Twitter feeds. Oh, and here, right here on this blog, you’ve got a liberal woman saying, “I agree with you–we screwed up when we let that word slide.”
Here’s another one that’s not as easy. Georgetown has no choice. They are currently in violation of federal law. That’s not something you can disagree on; it’s a rain-is-wet fact. HOWEVER, if you dislike a law, you can work to change it. Now, obviously, we’d be on different sides on that one: You working to change the law, me working to keep it as it is. But we’d still have common ground: We both respect the law, and we both respect the system in which laws are made and can be changed.
And here’s one that will blow your minds: I AGREE with you that universities should comply with federal law and let ROTC on campus, *especially* elite universities. I think they never should have banned ROTC in the first place. That our nation’s future civilian and military leaders are being educated separately is very, very dangerous for a democracy. I hope when ROTC re-takes its rightful place, we might begin to have less us vs. them.
Too often we pounce first on our differences, and then we amplify those differences to the point where we can no longer hear each other. And the pity of that it is, often both sides have something to learn from each other, but we’ve both gotten so defensive that we no longer can. So I’m respectfully suggesting we start the other way round: Let’s look first for what we have in common.
March 6th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
The hard work, the essential work, for a democracy is for us all to look for common ground.
I don’t believe liberals are willing to do that, and I’m kind of distrustful of the idea of unilateral disarmament.
there’s a LOT of soul-searching going on among liberal women.
I guess that makes you feel better about it. Soul-searching doesn’t really mean anything, though… it’s just a way for women to justify endorsing a double standard.
AND that liberals should’ve called their/our own out on it.
But they didn’t. And there is NO reason to believe they will in the future.
Tell you what, though… get Maher kicked off of HBO, or get at least a handful of cable networks to stop offering HBO because of Maher, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
March 7th, 2012 at 12:57 am
@#45, that seems simple enough, malclave, but I don’t think any of us see it happening. Maher is celebrated on CNN, PMSNBC and the like, he’s a sage, his show is so entertaining./sarc.
Oh, and “We both respect the law”? But, you don’t. You don’t respect what the First Amendment says, Kay. So, how are we supposed to find any common ground with you and yours?
March 7th, 2012 at 3:34 am
Darn it, I promised myself I wasn’t posting again. But I can’t let what you said go unanswered, UpNorth. I deeply respect ALL the amendments. That’s why I know this situation isn’t so cut and dried.
There is a law on the books that says employers can’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Is it going to turn out to be in conflict with First Amendment protections when it comes to religious employers? Or are the protections of the 14th Amendment going to be used to uphold the law? *Or* is the 14th Amendment going to be used to double-down on protections for religious employers?
The Constitution isn’t a manual with simple directions. It’s a complex document that takes years of study to master. It has kept us together as a country for over two hundred years, including a Civil War. I don’t just respect the Constitution–I’m awed by its foresight and brilliance.
Frankly, guys, this whole discussion makes me sad. I’m so tired of this back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives. I dearly wish we could find common ground. Could we at least all agree to raise a toast to the Founding Fathers?
March 7th, 2012 at 7:01 am
Kay: last time I checked, in a conflict between a law (Federal or state) and the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Something called the “supremacy clause”, as I recall (Article VI).
As written, the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses are restrictions on state actions vice Federal ones. While these clauses may be enforced via Federal legislation, that enabling legislation may not itself conflict with the Constitution and remain valid. In particular, any part of enabling legislation that conflicts with the First Amendment is highly suspect on Constitutional grounds.
The common ground you seek is both simple and available, but you choose to ignore it. Here it is: if you want something, pay for it yourself. Don’t ask others to pay for it on your behalf.
You don’t have any “right” to other people’s property.
March 7th, 2012 at 11:56 am
“I dearly wish we could find common ground”. Go read a bit on Du or Kos, Kay. Then you may understand why finding “common ground” may be just a bit different. Or, if you can find the ramblings of our very own Joey, read his BS, that, too, will explain why “common ground” probably isn’t going to be easy.
As for the First Amendment and a law, what anon said in #48.
Or, as one entrepeneur said on a bumper sticker, already, “I’ll pay for your contraception, when you pay for my ammunition”.
March 7th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@#49, different should be difficult.
March 7th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
“I’ll pay for your contraception, when you pay for my ammunition.”
Stolen.
March 7th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Frankly I’m tired of hearing this idea that the different sides of any issue should strive to find ‘common ground.’
If the proponents of opposing ideologies, that also happen to be mutually exclusive, truly believe in their ’cause’, there isn’t an argument on earth that could justify compromise, nor should there be.
Go along to get along is a cop out. Imagine if you will that the colonists had decided to try and find common ground with King George in order to avoid a messy and costly war. Constant internal struggle is our political lot in life. If the struggle occasionally results in gridlock, so be it, a government that is accomplishing nothing due to that internal struggle is far more attractive to me than a government that is passing and supporting poor legislation just to prove its members can ‘get along’.
March 7th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
@Anon, your point is well-taken, but Reed v. Reed extends the 14th Amendment’s equal protections to women. Thus, there is a head-on conflict between the 1st and the 14th on this issue, further complicated by the point you made, so it all could get very interesting…
@Jacobite, funny you bring up the Revolution: If you all with your “no common ground” attitudes were around in 1789, instead of having a functioning country with a Constitution, we’d still be squabbling in Philadelphia, while the Brits would be laughing their asses off at us.
As for “Paying for my ammunition…” Guys, that’s just about the dumbest slogan out there. You may mean personal ammunition, but everyone else is immediately going to remember how many tax dollars have been spent on the wars. And I’m not saying that as some peacenik liberal. I’m saying it as someone who worked at a military sub-contractor and saw the budgets–and salaries. Go drive past a prime or a sub one day and check out the parking lot. If you do that, and let yourself think about what you were paid to risk your life, it’ll drive you nuts. Here’s my slogan: I’d rather have my tax dollars pay for contraceptives than some contractor’s sports car.
March 7th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Guys, that’s just about the dumbest slogan out there.
Is it now? Seems to me that the Second Amendment still applies. Can you say the same thing about BC pills?
March 7th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I’ll go one further, Kay–should Progressive Insurance company be forced by the government to pay for the oil changes or new tires, or gas for a policy holder because those things are just too darned expensive?
March 7th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Where in the Constitution, Kay, does it say that a person is entitled to birth control? Health care? While we’re waiting, might I direct you to that pesky Bill of Rights and its 1st Amendment – you know, the one that says some stuff about religion and freedom and such?
March 7th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Sparky @#51, I didn’t steal it, saw it on a bumper sticker. Looked like it was done professionally, but it was probably done on someone’s printer.
And, Kay, you really need to lighten up. You’re starting to come across as just another humorless liberal. Glad to see that you speak for “everyone else” though, much like Ms. Fluke apparently speaks for “everyone else”.
March 7th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Sorry Kay, but the divide between the Left and the Right political spectrums in the country today is far more akin to the divide between the Colonies and Britain than it is to the divide amongst the colonists while establishing the country.
As a first generation American on one parent’s side, with relatives currently in the UK, I can tell you in all truthfulness that the Brits have never quit laughing their ass off at us over our politics in all these 200+ years.
And I’d rather my tax dollars didn’t pay for contraceptives OR sports cars. Fact is I don’t think our tax dollars should be spent on a majority of the things they ARE spent on period.
March 7th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Healthcare/birth control come under that whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens, not just use them to fight wars. Or, if you happen to be Germany under the Kaiser, because you’ve figured out that it’s better to have your citizens be healthy when you need them to fight wars. Germany was actually one of (or the) first government to have government-paid healthcare for just that reason.
And yeah, we still beat the crap out of them in two wars. But now, their citizens have universal healthcare and ours don’t, which is a major something’s-wrong-with-this-picture.
Oh, and by the way, why don’t you show me where in the Constitution it says the military gets to put an upper age limit on patriotism? And if you’re wondering what the heck I’m talking about, trying enlisting after age 42.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Sorry, UpNorth, I was trying to give you guys the respect of taking this all seriously. Your point is well-taken. But the truth is my experience working for the military sub-contractor was very unsettling. It really was an insight into how many people are being killed and wounded to keep other people wealthy. Never mind politics or idealism, there’s just no economic incentive to stop going to war.
Jacobite, I’ve got British friends, and you’re absolutely right!
March 7th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Oops, obviously that was “try enlisting.” Sorry for the multiple posts, guys, but there’s only one of me and a whole lot of you!
I really appreciate your willingness to reply in detail and not just with snarky one-liners. It’s provided me with good insights into why there’s a divide, even if I’m disappointed that we all remain so far apart.
I love this country dearly, and I wish that somehow, someway, we could bridge the divide, even if we may never agree on some fundamental issues.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Healthcare/birth control come under that whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens
Which in the US is supposedly, and erroneously, supported by the ‘Commerce Clause’. The individual States, not the Federal Government, are the correct venue for the debate you envision.
The Constitution, did not envision the purposes to which that particular clause has been applied, and no amount of wishing it so will make that go away. That Federal lawmakers have been able to circumvent the intent of the Constitution in no way renders it’s original intent obsolete.
As for enlisting, show me in the Constitution where it says the military can’t set an upper age limit.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Hi Jacobite,
Well, of course, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause is one of those fundamental disagreements.
But regarding, “As for enlisting, show me in the Constitution where it says the military can’t set an upper age limit.”
(Sigh) you gotta point there…
March 7th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Oops, typo, meant to turn the Italics off after “can’t”.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Okay, time to have a very good laugh at my expense! Really hoping I got it right this time…
March 7th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
ACK! Thought I knew my way around WordPress HTML. When you all stop laughing, could ya help me out?
March 7th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Thank you to whatever coding god fixed the embarrassments in my last posts!!
March 7th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Jacobite:
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation ofthe land and naval Forces;” (as well as numerous other things). Congress has done so in Title 10 of the US Code. I believe that age limits are set therein.
In short: the authority to set age limits for military service is explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. There is no need to argue about the matter. Anyone arguing to the contrary is wrong on Constitutional grounds.
In contrast, the power to provide/regulate/compel persons to have healthcare is no where granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. (Authority to “regulate commerce” is NOT equivalent to the authority to “compel participation without any possibility of lawful avoidance”; it is the authority to forbid or set conditions on otherwise voluntary conduct.) Authority to compel participation in healthcare activities is therefore an authority prohibited to the Federal government by the 10th Amendment – which reserves all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” to the States and/or individual citizens.
March 7th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
We just reported on a 51-year-old mom who enlisted and just finished basic training. I’m no mathematician, but I think 51 is more than 40-whatever.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Jonn,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart! I’d been told it was impossible to get an age waiver.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
@#59, Kay. Yes, you’re correct, Germany’s citizens, along with most or all of the Euro Union have universal health care. Along with other cradle to grave entitlements. How’s that working out for those countries?
Seems there’s a bit of a dust up in Greece, it’s projected that Spain, Portugal and possible Italy may follow their socialist comrades down the path of insolvency, taking the somewhat healthy economies of Germany, Britain and France down with them. Along with massive riots in the streets of several of said socialist paradises.
And, as Anon said in #68, most readers of the Constitution can not find anything where it says that citizens must buy health insurance or get fined.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Actually, UpNorth, Germany’s doing just fine:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/germany-s-jobless-rate-remains-at-lowest-in-two-decades-1-.html
As for the rest, that’s a thesis-worth of complications.
I wonder how many of you run a business? One of the biggest pushes for national health is coming from business. Employer-paid healthcare is a nearly impossible financial burden, especially if you’re a small business. It’s one of the things that makes businesses reluctant to add staff and it underlies a lot of age discrimination.
As for mandated insurance with fines, blame a president and Congress who lack the stones to stand up to the insurance industry.
March 7th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Germany won’t be doing fine if Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal all go under in the next 12 months. And you’re basing this observation on the unemployment rate? And just skip over the statement that 17 nations are experiencing difficulties?
Um, business is in love with Obamacare? Then this from the IBD is all wrong? “To the long and growing list of failed ObamaCare promises, you can now add this one: The tax credit that was supposed to cut insurance costs for millions of small businesses has proved to be a complete bust”.? See the article here. http://news.investors.com/article/591335/201111101851/obamacare-is-a-flop-with-small-businesses.htm
So, it’s the insurance industry who forced Congress and the President to pass something so that, down the road, they could figure out what they passed?
March 7th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
The rest of Europe going under is such a complicated issue, which has much to do with the Euro and the recession and about a trillion other things I don’t have enough background to discuss well.
Business is not in love with Obamacare; it’s a far from perfect solution. But they’re desperate for something to get out from under these costs.
Insurance industry lobbying is behind so much of the current mess. So many millions of dollars are going to paperwork rather than direct patient care. On top of that, millions more dollars are being spent on unnecessary tests mandated by insurance companies afraid of lawsuits, when they could simply ask people to sign waivers. (Ask the women in your life how many times they’ve had to take pregnancy tests before receiving medical treatment, even when they knew it was impossible for them to be pregnant.)
We need a single-payer system. You’ll hear that from almost anyone who works in healthcare, outside of insurance executives.
As for having no business passing bills you haven’t fully read or understood…bingo, UpNorth, we found something we agree on!
March 7th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
@68
I’m aware of all that. My intention was to short circuit any idea that age limits in the military might be un-constitutional on simple grounds.
Your Constitutional health care issue observations are just more in depth statements of the point I was making. I just figured it wasn’t worth the effort to argue the particulars with someone (Kay) who obviously interprets it differently and isn’t really interested in seeing it any other way.
March 8th, 2012 at 1:19 am
@#74, yes we did. Unfortunately, that may be all we can agree on. Fer instance, single payer? Nope, not in a million years. Google the NHS. Or waiting times for service, in the U.S., Canada and Britain. No thanks, I’d rather see a doc and pay, than die waiting to see one.
And, my doc would disagree with you, vehemently, about single payer.
And,the major problem with Obamacare, well, at least one of the major problems, the FOB’s(Friends of Barack) have all gotten waivers, so it doesn’t apply to them. Who do you think will have to pick up the slack?
March 8th, 2012 at 1:58 am
UpNorth, don’t buy into the myths. I have friends who are Canadian. They grumble about their healthcare system, but after having an emergency with their daughter while in the US, they RANTED about how bad ours is.
Due to the cost to employers of private health insurance, many have decided to eliminate full-time jobs with benefits in favor of hiring independent contractors. When you have to buy your own, individual insurance, and discover that neither the premiums nor the deductibles are affordable, you realize just how bad is bad.
It infuriates me that Congress and Obama caved to the insurance companies and cut out the public option, which would have put some pressure on the insurance companies to keep rates affordable. I have no doubt there will be many of us, if not millions of us, who will take the fines instead of buying insurance. Not out of political protest, but simply because the fine will be affordable, while the insurance will still be out of reach.
If all insurance benefits were stripped from Congress and the presidency, then we’d finally have meaningful reform.
March 8th, 2012 at 6:44 am
Jacobite: I figured you knew what I posted above re: Constitutional authorities. Though addressed to you, I was posting it for Kay’s benefit – should she decide to actually read it with an open mind and think for herself vice parroting talking points she read on DU or other well-known libidiot sites.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
March 8th, 2012 at 9:09 am
whole pesky notion that governments are supposed to take care of their citizens
No, that would be a GCE, -10 points. Government is NOT supposed to “take care” of their citizens. The citizenry is supposed to take care of themselves.
Government is supposed to stay the fuck out of the way–a job which they’ve totally sucked at of late.
March 8th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Sparky, not to worry, all Kay is doing is posting OFA talking points. Ex. In #72, she maintained that “business” was pushing for Obamacare, in #74, she flip-flops to say, “Business is not in love with Obamacare; it’s a far from perfect solution”.
Then, it’s doctors who love Obamacare, except for the inconvenient fact that around 2/3′s of them don’t, according to Forbes Magazine, http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/26/doctors-say-obamacare-is-no-remedy-for-u-s-health-woes/
March 8th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
UpNorth, in 72, I specifically said business was pushing for “national health,” you interpreted that as meaning Obamacare. The idea and its implementation are very far from synonymous. That’s why it’s not a contradiction to say that business isn’t in love with Obamacare. I can say, “I want a car.” But if I get sold a lemon, I’m not going to be in love with the car.
Again, I did not say healthcare providers were for Obamacare, I said they were for single payer, which is very, very different from Obamacare. Single payer would eliminate much of the paperwork that makes American healthcare so expensive.
I have some questions for you all:
1. Have any of you run a business and had to pay healthcare costs for your employees?
2. Have any of you managed a doctor’s office and had to hire staff whose sole jobs were to handle insurance paperwork, not to provide medical care–and had to adjust what you charged your patients to cover their salaries?
3. Have any of you tried to buy individual health insurance for yourselves and/or your families? Have you seen the loopholes in the policies?
4. Have any of you seen the individual health insurance rates for people 40+? Have any of you seen the annual percentage increases on those rates?
Try to buy insurance for yourself and your family. Then you’ll understand.
This is why I’m not in favor of Obamacare, as currently written, because it doesn’t offer good ways to lower either rates or paperwork. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote in #77 : )
March 8th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
OK, Kay, my bad. But then, show me where anything says that the government is supposed to, or is able to run, health care? That’s what single payer is. My doctor gets apoplectic over Medicare and Medicaid, and he certainly wants no part of Obamacare, or single payer. MoF, he’s said that he’ll retire, rather than participate in what he calls some bureaucrat’s idea of how medicine should be run.
If I recall, the Soviet Union had single payer health care, and Cuba has it. They’ve done a fine job with it, right?
And, I did read #77. If you think that the fines won’t be prohibitive, you’re mistaken. I’ve already heard Sibelius and a couple of her deputies admitting that the fines won’t be high enough to dissuade people like you from risking the fines.
And, yes, I’ve bought health care insurance, not cheap, but certainly better than the alternative.
March 8th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
UpNorth, guess your doctor’s got a cash-only practice, ’cause there ain’t no bureaucracy like an insurance company : )
Don’t know anyone from the former SU or Cuba, but I did meet someone from Germany who was thinking of moving here. He was a freelance journalist with a pregnant wife. When I warned him he’d have to pay for private insurance, he looked at me like I’d told him his wife was going to have to give birth in a field.
Thanks for the warning about Sibelius. Much appreciated! If the fines go up, there will be protests and pushback, as there should be. I still think Obamacare is a sell-out to the insurance companies.
UpNorth, I’ve really enjoyed discussing this with you. I appreciate that you, and everyone here, has allowed me to play on your home court. Even if we still disagree, we’ve done it politely, and I’ve learned a lot from you all.
I think, at a certain point, we do have to shake hands and agree to disagree. We not only have differences in philosophy, but different experiences that both underlie and reinforce those differences. For the simplest example of that, you found private insurance “not cheap.” There’s a world of difference (often based on age and medical condition) between “not cheap” and “out of reach.” Having experienced the latter, I’m going to continue to argue for single payer. But you, with your own doctor threatening to retire, will understandably continue to argue against it.
So, I extend my hand. Shake?
March 8th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Sure, we can agree to disagree.
March 8th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Kay: before you make a statement like “medical providers favor a single payer”, you might want to see how satisfied they are with Medicare’s reimbursement policies and schedules. Medicare is the classic “single payer” for most elderly. And medical providers are taking it in the proverbial shorts right now regarding what they get from Medicare – which is one reason why their normal rates are so high.