NAME-CALLING HYPOCRISY IS NO FLUKE

 

President Obama made a compassionate call to Sandra Fluke because Rush Limbaugh had wrongfully called her a “slut” on national radio. Limbaugh was wrong. Limbaugh can be pompous. While I may share some of his views, I don’t approve of overt disrespect. Regardless of political positions, calling any woman dirty names is low class and far from funny. It speaks more about the name caller, than the name-callee.
 
Of course, one might wonder why a president of the United States would take time out of his daily crises situations to telephone a woman with hurt feelings because a talk show host called her a name. How’s $1 million for an answer?
 
The president’s actions opened an intended can of worms. You see, this isn’t the first time politically leaning TV hosts and comedians have crossed the “low-class” line by resorting to filthy name-calling …especially against women.  According to the media and the president, it seems whatever Bill Maher might say about an American woman is downright funny. They are fair game, because you see, Bill Maher is Democrat who loves Obama and has donated $1 million dollars to his campaign to boot. So, Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann all the dirty names he likes, it’s ok.
 
From Maher:  Palin And Bachmann Are “Two Bimbos” Who Belong On Gilligan’s Island. (nice)
 
Regarding Sarah Palin… “Speaking of dumb twats…” (nice)
 
When Maher called Sarah Palin a “C–T” on national TV, he added, “there’s no other word for her.” (nice again)  Classy guy. 
 
Bill Maher is fearlessly unapologetic for his vulgar references to women politicos (who are Republican) and makes it a chronic habit, not some one-time slip of the tongue. Talk about hating. Talk about getting away with vulgarity on the air. And what are we to think of the people who would even laugh at so much unfunniness?
 
This begs another question: Where are the phone calls to Sarah Palin, Mr. President?  Isn’t being called a “C–T”  or a “Twat”  or a “Bimbo” just as derogatory as being called a slut?
 
Where was the president’s call when Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Conservative talk-show host, Laura Ingraham a “Slut?”
 
Where was the president’s call when Christine O’Donnell appeared on the Joy Behar show only to be called a “Whore.”
 
Where was the president’s call when Michelle Bachmann walked onto the Late Night Show with Jimmy Fallon as the band played, “Lying Ass Bitch?”
 
 Where was the president’s call when California gubernatorial hopeful, Meg Whitman, was called a “whore” on voice mail by the now-governor, Jerry Brown?
 
This is not about republican versus democrat. It’s about decency and respect. Celebrities, like all of us, may all share major differences in political issues but that doesn’t give license to denigrate women by calling vulgar names. It’s very Low-Class on both sides of the aisle. anyone who engages in such should feel the wrath of their constituency. That includes Maher.
 
And, if the president had any class, he’d tell Maher where he could stick his $1 million.
 
Don’t hold your breath.

39 Responses to NAME-CALLING HYPOCRISY IS NO FLUKE

  1. Hank Harris March 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    Marshall, in general you are right. Maher stepped over the line just as Limbaugh did. There is a major difference, however; Palin and Bachmann, along with most of the Republican far right, deserve denigration and laughter for their nonsensical views that support the upper classes at the expense of most of us. Ms. Fluke, at least so far, is not like that. It remains to be seen whether greed is an integral part of her DNA which will cause her honor, integrity and sense of fairness to suffer deterioration. I certainly hope it does not.

    • sinmantyx March 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

      NO – it doesn’t make it different because the conservative women deserve it. When you call a woman by a gender-specific slur – you are denigrating ALL women.

      I know many names that I would call Bachmann – like “delusional”, “hateful”, “radical theocrat”, “hypocrite”, “anti-intellectual”, “anti-science”, and all sort of other things. “Cultural fascist” works. “Islamophobic anti-American bigot” – that works too.

      Her husband also psychologically tortures gays – and is a “former” homosexual. Do you think it would be okay to call him a “fag” because he deserves it?! That makes as much sense.

      If I wanted to talk about Palin – I might point out that her church supports witch-hunters who kill children in Africa in the name of spiritual warfare against demons. So “child murder” might fit in a stretch. However horrible calling someone THAT is – it doesn’t bring all women down with her.

      • Christopher Jones March 13, 2012 at 2:25 am #

        “I know many names that I would call Bachmann – like “delusional”, “hateful”, “radical theocrat”, “hypocrite”, “anti-intellectual”, “anti-science”, and all sort of other things. “Cultural fascist” works. “Islamophobic anti-American bigot” – that works too.

        Her husband also psychologically tortures gays”

        Really? Tortures gays? So, let me get this strait (no pun intended). You are saying that he cannot be a “former gay”? Or what is it that you are saying? Are you a “born that way” believer? Do you know Mr. Bachmann? Why are you condemning him? What is an Islamophobic anti-American person??? Is that someone who survived the two World Trade disasters and now distrusts the political movement called Islam, which hides under the umbrella of a religion? Have you ever read the Quran? OK, enough questions. But you will not answer them anyway.

        It is most telling to see the spew of the Marxist regime lovers. It reminds me of a song of my youth…

        They’re coming to take me away, ha ha, ho ho, he he…etc.

        JKR is right on. The hate shows from you lefties…and like Maher, it isn’t very funny. Just mean spirited, hateful talk…

        • sinmantyx March 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

          You guys are so fun. Seriously – “I know you will not answer them!!!!”

          You’re so bent on raging against the strawmen in your mind, you refuse to have a real conversation. I know quite a few liberals that can’t do anything but rail against the cartoonish conservatism that they lap up on the news too. See, it’s all about Coke and Pepsi, IBM and apple, Liberal and conservative, Eurasia and Oceania.

          The original post is just an extension of that. We can’t just have a conversation about what Rush actually said and how inappropriate it is – and all agree. It has to be packaged in an US against THEM fashion. Everyone just lock-steps into the manufactured conflict, false dichotomies, and convenient outrage.

          I don’t listen to Maher often – usually only when someone sends me a link or something. I did watch Religulous and wasn’t impressed. It needed less mocking, more substance, and the end was preachy and annoying. I’m not a big fan because he is borderline germ-theory denialist (which really bothers me) and even though his show has had some brilliant moments – of playing a brilliant devil’s advocate, you have to wade through the rest of it. he is also defending Rush – which I’m not too keen on.

          I have never in my entire life listened to Ed Shultz except when someone linked his apology about his own misogynistic statements in an article about Rush. I never bothered with him because I was told he is just insulting – essentially a liberal version of Rush – and I don’t see the point of that.

          So, exactly WHO is the charge of hypocrisy against? That nameless liberal horde? The “elite media”? What are their names? Who exactly has said that it is okay for liberal commentators to be misogynistic and conservatives should be blasted? I know that, according to Rush, every political hit and forced apology and professional set-back caused by misogynistic statements of “liberals” never happened. The news never reported on it. Nobody ever apologized and all his listeners shouldn’t hold their breath. …but we all know that’s a lie. Rush isn’t magically better than every other painfully misogynistic public figure because he apologized (poorly) and claimed (falsely) that nobody else has.

          I’ll answer your questions in a separate post, but we’re getting a bit off-topic. My point was that you could attack your political opponents (either rightly or wrongly) based on your disagreements with them or their actions and not some sort of immutable characteristic. You don’t need to say racist, homophobic, sexist, able-ist, or transphobic things to attack your opponents; if that’s all you have, your attack isn’t just mean or hateful; it has no substance at all and just supports generalized bigotry.

        • sinmantyx March 14, 2012 at 3:55 am #

          To answer your questions:

          Really? – yes

          Tortures gays? – “Torture” is an inflammatory word, however many programs aimed at “curing” homosexuality are known to be psychologically damaging (some much more than others).

          So, let me get this strait (no pun intended). You are saying that he cannot be a “former gay”? – No, sexual orientation is not always completely fixed in a person. Also, some avenues of “curing” or abating “same-sex attraction” (that’s the phrase those programs general use) simply abates one’s general sexual desire making ignoring them easier.

          Or what is it that you are saying? – I’m saying that organizations that attempt to “cure” or abate same-sex attraction are extremely harmful to many people psychologically. However, a few of the more secretive ones are actually more like support groups for closeted (and many times married) gays so that they can form friendships and be open with one another. They aren’t actually trying to be “fixed” because they know it’s impossible, it’s just a pretext.

          Are you a “born that way” believer? – Not completely. Sexual orientation is a complicated part of being human. However, it’s well-established that there is little or no conscience choice in what your sexual orientation is. Many people want desperately to be straight because of the social stigma of not being straight; and try extreme measure to attempt to “fix” themselves. Some of these measures are very damaging. The most extreme probably – is aversion therapy and electro-shock treatment. Those are archaic strategies that have been condemned by the psychological establishment for many years, but used to be relatively common in practice. It’s amazing to me that anyone could possibly believe this is something you just decide one day.

          Do you know Mr. Bachmann? – No.

          Why are you condemning him? – Because the views that both he and his wife express are damaging to the well-being of people I love. They have a right to say whatever they want. I have a right to vehemently disagree.

          What is an Islamophobic anti-American person??? – Someone who doesn’t see Muslim U.S. citizens (my friends and neighbors) as having an equal right to be considered “American”.

          Is that someone who survived the two World Trade disasters and now distrusts the political movement called Islam, which hides under the umbrella of a religion? – Possibly, but I don’t accept the premise imbedded in your “question”.

          Have you ever read the Quran? – No. However, I am aware of many of the problematic passages that are often described. I am also aware that the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret many of those passages at face-value. Similarly, the vast majority of Christians and Jews do not interpret problematic passages of their own sacred texts at face-value. For example, most Christians and Jews do not seek out “witches” to kill because the Bible says not to suffer a witch to live. However, SOME DO – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5klKretrsw This is also relevant to what I said about Sarah Palin (though I suspect she is unaware of this).

          OK, enough questions. But you will not answer them anyway. – Of course not – if you say so.

    • Rachel March 12, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

      Gee Hank….let me get this straight. According to what you wrote, name-calling is NOT ok if you are a woman who supports infanticide, and thinks she is entitled to have her sexual habits financed by the American Taxpayers because she is too damn lazy to go to her local Planned Parenthood office and buy her own pills for under $10 a month. But it IS ok if you are a woman of strong principles who puts herself out there in the general public at the request of those who nominated her to run for political office in this country.

      In my opinion, name calling is NEVER ok…no matter who does it….it’s the tactic of schoolchildren who don’t know how to resolve differences any other way.

      You justification for it because you don’t agree with the views of Sara Palin or Michelle Bachmann is libtard hypocrisy at it’s finest. Note, now…I am calling your justification libtard hypocrisy….I am not saying that you are a hypocritical libtard. I suspect you are a somewhat intelligent individual, so I’ll reserve my final opinion until you prove that theory otherwise….but more comments like this one will certainly lead me to attach that label to your name….in my mind.

      • sinmantyx March 13, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

        I cannot believe that you just split hairs about whether or not your use of the term “libtard” was name calling. It is.

        You do realize that “libtard” is a combination of the words “liberal” and “retarded” right?

        I think you might want to check yourself there. I think I speak for Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and every other parent of special needs kids (and essentially anyone who treats people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities with respect), that the term “libtard” is inappropriate and offensive. I’m quite certain that despite our extreme difference in views on other topics – we’d agree on this one.

        The fact that you used a variant of “retarded” after a self-righteous tirade about not acting like a schoolchild (you know those school children that I’m going to have to protect my son against being abused by), enrages me in indescribable ways.

        • Rachel March 14, 2012 at 11:29 am #

          Sinmantyx….you do NOT speak for Sara Palin, Rick Santorum or anyone else. You need an anger management program. Your diatribes are neither informative, respectful, or even interesting. I suggest you go find yourself a site where you can feel more at home with your views and not get so upset over opinions that do not agree with yours. Your need to make mountains out of molehills and create tempests in teacups is much more suited to other kinds of forums.

          FYI, retarded is a perfectly legitimate english word that means slow to develop. Your insuinuation that I am applying it as a slur to put down developmentally challenged individuals is simply more of your unfounded anger. Grow up. The danger of political correctness is that we lose sight of reality as we couch everything in politcally correct phraseology. You KNOW what I meant by the word libtard, so quit making another mountain out of a molehill….it gets really tiring.

          • sinmantyx March 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

            Yes – I know what you mean. You are conflating a “liberal” with a person with developmental disabilities. Sarah Palin has already gone on record condemning the use of the word “retarded”. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded/

            I didn’t talk about our differences in opinion. This isn’t about our differences in opinion. This is about the fact that you have the lack of self-awareness to complain about name-calling and then use a term with “tard” in it.

            If you are simply completely unaware that “retarded” (although once a term with a clinical definition – similar to “moron” and “idiot” that also once had clinical definitions) has been used as a slur against people with developmental disabilities and cognitive impairments for a good 50 years; then I’m making you aware of that now.

            Then in all manner of contradiction, you railed against political correctness and while suggesting that I leave because you don’t find my statements politically correct (essentially).

            I’m also sort of annoyed that you are misrepresenting and insulting Sandra Fluke instead of addressing ANYTHING she said at all.

            I do have my own forum (linked to my username here), and I would love to have more people comment on that so I’m not just talking to myself. I enjoy discussing things with people who disagree with me. Why would I be here if I didn’t. I’ve had real conversations with people who (honest to goodness) want to imprison my friends, create a completely voluntary society, usher in a communist regime headed by a technocratic oligarchy, or create a Christian theocratic state or an Islamic theocratic state, want me to subjugate myself, etc so forth. I don’t mind interacting with people I disagree with.

            What I have trouble with is someone who will talk about not using slurs out of one side of her mouth and use slurs with the other.

            ..and yeah, I know that your language was not directed AT the group it refers to, but it does refer to them. Saying anything otherwise is either incredibly naive or dishonest.

            Obviously, I can’t make you NOT use the word. You have every right to use whatever language you choose. We are in Mr. Frank’s house and I appreciate his tolerance of a variety of views and ideas on his page. If you wish to APPEAR civil though, you might want to take that out of your lexicon.

    • Brock March 14, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

      Wow Hank, please go to the store and attempt to buy a clue. No, they don’t deserve to be attacked by political hit men like Maher over their view. Fluke was used by the radical left in an unofficial hearing. It was a media day basically to again further the radical agenda of OBama. Tell me again who is lacking honor and integrity? Please. She is not a victim, she is a cog in a larger plan. She sold herself out to this too. I don’t need expletives to describe it, other than she allowed herself to be used for her own and others’ gain.

      • sinmantyx March 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

        She was a president of a student organization that felt that birth control should be covered by insurance before it was a hot-button issue.

        She wasn’t “used” at all, she just disagrees with you. She is not a “cog” or a “victim”.

        She expressed her opinion and shared her experiences with Democrats (after being denied speaking to Republicans). She was then the subject of an inappropriate attack by an incredibly popular talk show host.

        • Rachel March 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

          Just out of curiousity, because I don’t know, did that group of democrats who invited/allowed Ms. Fluke to speak also invite/allow a young woman from a religious college/university to present an opposing view? I would expect that they would listen to both views before coming to any informed conclusions. Sadly though, I suspect this was NOT the case. Hopefully somebody will prove my suspicions are incorrect.

          This of course, digresses from the real point of this entire conversation which began with Marshall Frank’s comments on the civility issue. As most adults know, two wrongs do not make a right, so Rush Limbaugh’s comments were not justified by Bill Maher’s attacks on conservative women. But should the president have called Ms. Fluke to comfort her? That may have been well-intentioned on his part, but not a good move in general. Otherwise, one could logically conclude that he should call all women who have been maligned in public and comfort them as well….not just the cute, young democrats who hail from his Alma Mater and agree with the agenda he is trying to cram down all of our throats.

          I didn’t hear any of his outrage and need to protect the innocence of his daughters when Sara Palin’s daughters were being ridiculed and maligned in public. I didn’t even hear him condemn that type of behavior by his supporters like Maher. Interesting that during that entire campaign of 2008, the Palin girls were constantly in the press, while his precious darlings remained wrapped in the wings of the angelic liberal mass media. Is that because they were black? Because since both candidates had daughters, I’m not sure why Palin’s were open game and the Obama darlings were not. Again, two wrongs do not make a right, but again the boundaries of common decency were completely violated in the campaign and we heard not ONE WORD of public disgust or outrage about this. This double standard is nauseating.

  2. Christopher Jones March 12, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    WOW… I could not agree more Marshall. I have posted in another of your blogs how distasteful I thought Limbaugh was when he referred to the woman as a slut. He lowered himself to the level of those many you document…virtually all leftist rants. I have written to Rush, and while I do not expect a return, lambasted him for publically committing an act beneath the good taste of a commentator. I am not listening to him for now, and may not. I find that Sean Hannity has more class, and does not lower himself to that level of nastiness.

    All that said, I found it very strange that a sitting president would call someone and ask how they are doing (the press making a big deal out of it), when he failed to call Sarah Palin after Bill Maher called her the vile names he did – incidentally far far more vile than anything Rush did. OH…that’s right, it was in the name of comedy. COMEDY? REALLY? I guess you have to be a left wing nutjob to think that is funny. Anyway, Obama then took Maher’s million dollars. Can we say hypocrisy?

    Regardless, the leftist readers you have will spin, parse, and defend the left’s usage of gutter talk, and of course at the same time crucify Rush. There is such a double standard out there, that it makes ones stomach turn.

    Let anyone refer to Michelle Obama as anything just slightly derogatory, and stand back to see fireworks the likes of which we don’t get except maybe on the 4th of July. Oh, yes, double standard is what this is all about.

    • Anonymous March 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

      I could not a agree with you more , all these people on the left cry like babies when they dont like someone or thing . Its more than double standards now with this kind of president we have things are out of controll and people have forgotten their values and manners toward others I disagree with just about everything the left stands for but when I meet someone outside I listen to their view and nicely disagree and when I do disagree these people get all oh your a bigit, you hate blacks , ect . All the progress this country as made over the last 50 years as gone down the drain and if the whites vote for this guy again they are dishonering our country . Nothing is free remember that for all the money and gimmacks Obama comes up with someone must pay for All our white presidents treated everyone equall and always took care of the poor as best the cou ntry could All you people need to wake up before our country is gone . Talk to someone that as come here from another country and ask them how it was and compare to what we have and they will tell you we are going in the wrong direction .I believe we take care of the sick and weak and most of all our VETS .But every person should have a job and contribute to the country they live in and just because a person made a lot of money being wise and worked hard people should not be hate them for it and Iam poor but I have no anger for the rich and if they give to their charrites great but they shoul not be told by some lazy but person to give their money to someone else.I could go on and on but I will not I only hope that the women of this great country will wake up and not vote for Obama . If you cant afford birth control maybe you should not be having sex and you can get free birth control at many communites or are you to lazy to even do that you want us to deliver it to you door also
      Pat Wal

      • sinmantyx March 15, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

        Do you realize that some of the “white presidents” owned slaves?

  3. JKR March 12, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    The blog has now opened to some serial writers from the far (and mean-spirited) left. But that is ok. They can parrot Mahar’s approach and his hate for anyone who does not agree with him.

    Hank: no one deserves such statements made against them. Not the left nor the right.

    Sinmantyx: Your “cute” way of denigrating someone is no different than is Mahar’s.

  4. Pamela Jarvis March 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    The problem here is that Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “whore” for using birth control pills. His ignorance regarding how birth control pills are prescribed, the reasons they are prescribed, how the pills must be taken every day to be effective, leaves one realizing the extent of his stupidity…especially in regard to the impact his statements make on ALL women, not just individuals who are called out in the name of comedy or sensational “journalism”, such as the kind we sometimes see here on this blog. If he hadn’t erred in this respect, he never would have apologized. The GOP (who Limbaugh represents) is rightfully trying to distance itself from this…….they need the women votes to win….but I would bet this has cost them some, no matter how they try to spin it.

  5. Chuck I March 13, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    Name Maher sponsors I and most of the other people who want a rational and above board bodypolitic will boycott them and they hopefully understand that the double standard will not be put up with. I do not watch Maher’s show at all.

  6. Royam March 13, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    I am a Democrat and if it were not for hypocracy, politics today could not survive. As for Maher, I think he and his ardent supporters are too ignorant to tell the difference between smut and humor. Some of today’s comodians (I spelt what I meant) thrive on foul language. I think back to Red Skelton whom I thought was one of the greatest true comics and I never recall him using foul language for humor. As for Rush, he reminds me of a vulture because he thrives on carrion. The real problem is that so many politicians and officials don’t promote them selves all they do denigrate others. They are leading our society to become negatively orientated and from this they proclaim they will build a better America.

    • Christopher Jones March 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

      Amen to the good old days of Red Skelton. He was very funny, and was not smutty. Where is Bob Hope, and the others when you really really need them…

      Interesting that you mentioned that Maher’s supporters are too ingnorant to tell the difference between smut and humor. You would think a responsible person, vis a vis the President of the U.S. would eschew a monetary gift from someone so vile as Maher. It is a sad commentary that he would take the money.

      Just sayin’…

  7. Sara Ann March 13, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    There’s one huge point being missed here. Political candidates and talk show hosts are public figures. Sandra Fluke is a private citizen. All denigration is bad, but Sandra Fluke got the phone call from President Obama because she is a private citizen and doesn’t therefore have agents or operatives or PR people to spin her life for her, or make what Limbaugh did instantly better. She was less well-armed for the attack, so she got the phone call. I’m sure President Obama thinks all denigration is bad. And, he isn’t going to make a phone call to every single person who is denigrated, be they left or right of center politically, because then he would not have time to do anything else. Not making lots of phone calls to denigrated public figures doesn’t make him a bad person or a hypocrite, it’s part of being President of the United States and having a load of more pressing things to do.

    • Christopher Jones March 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

      Please…give me a break. Let’s get out the violins for poor little old Sandra.
      She had her 15 minutes of fame. She went before CONGRESS to testify. She knew what she was getting in to. Shame that Rush pandered to the left by fueling the fire.

      Sandra ain’t no victim here…

    • sinmantyx March 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

      I don’t think it is so much about whether or not she is a public figure – she did choose to testify and knew that she might be attacked for it. I don’t think she could foresee (as nobody did) just how much she was going to be attacked. Could she see into the future and know they were going to deny her the privilege of testifying in the first place and this was going to make a scene, and she would have to testify later in a Democratic hearing? Could anyone look forward in time and know that Rush was going to call her a slut, a sex addict, a prostitute, etc and demand that she tape herself having sex and show it to him and all his listeners? Did anyone know that he was going to rant for three days for a good part of his show all about his fantasies about her sex life?

      NO – that’s crazy right?

      I think the main reason she was called is that the Democrats sincerely felt bad that this happened to her. THEY asked her to come and testify and THIS is what happened. She is a college student, although a mature college student at a Law School. She is not established in her professional life yet, and I can imagine this is very stressful for her. At the very least, she OUGHT not to have had to deal with this.

    • Rachel March 14, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

      I believe Sara Palin’s young daughters were private citizens….your theory does not hold water. They were the frequent victims of nasty comments and false conclusions….just because their mother is a public figure. Apparently, Obama has no compassion for young girls…only young democrats from his Alma Mater, who agree with his agenda. But perhaps he had to jet off for a golf match somewhere while all this was going on.

      • sinmantyx March 15, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

        Palin’s children should be off-limits too – and commentators that made fun of them were called out for it. If you were told that nasty things were said, but that nobody responded or reprimanded then in any way – someone was lying to you. I mean, Rush flat out said that liberals have never ever apologized for saying sexist statements. If anyone can’t see that as a blatant lie, they’ve been getting their public information from sources that simply don’t tell the whole truth.

        There is a case to be made that since one of Palin’s children wrote a book and went on talk-shows that it was fair-game to criticize her. I think there is some truth to that, but there is a civil and an uncivil way of doing that. When dealing with young people, especially, I feel it is the responsibility of people who disagree to tread carefully.

        If you remember Clinton’s presidency – the things said about Chelsea (generally making fun of her looks) were bizarre and terrible.

        As I have tried to point out – this isn’t an US/THEM thing.

        About the only justification that tends to go along party lines is that when a public figure thinks other people’s personal lives are their business (such as some social conservatives) they tend to open themselves up to criticism of their own personal life.

  8. EBB March 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    At their best, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are both highly talented, funny and infuriating entertainers. At their worst, their routines turn into train wrecks that damage their careers. Humor can be dangerous and a biting joke can bite the comedian — just ask Don Imus.

    I think the big differences between Rush and Maher centers on the nature of their programs, on the size of their audience, on how the audience accesses their programs and on their revenue sources:

    1. From my observation, Rush portrays himself firstly as political commentator who is secondly an excellent comedian and entertainer, whereas Maher is firstly a comedian who secondly devotes time to political topics. I think this difference of focus make Rush more vulnerable when routines go wrong. People take Rush more seriously. Maher is more of a jester. Limbaugh is well know enough that he appears on Polling Report and NBC has run three poll on his popularity, the last in 1979. It appears that Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rachael Maddow are small players compared with Rush as their polls do not appear. http://pollingreport.com/l.htm#Limbaugh

    2. Rush is on during the day and can be heard by anyone with a radio. Maher in on at night and can only be seen by those with HBO.

    3. Rush depends on advertisers to pay the bills. Maher relies on HBO subscribers. This make Rush more vulnerable to pressure against advertisers.

    4. Rush has a hugh audience of over 15,000,000 listeners per week. He makes a large splash when he speaks. Maher has a small audience of approximately 1,034,000 viewers and he barely ripples the pond. PeopWhen Rush sticks his foot in his moth people notice. Maher is barely noticed because he has a small audience.

    Real Time with Bill Maher (10:01pm, 58 minutes)
    – 1.034 million viewers http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/09/27/friday-cable-ratings-haven-stable-real-time-with-bill-maher-college-football-more/65406/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

    • sinmantyx March 15, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

      There are a lot of differences between Rush and Maher, and to pretend there is parity there is unreasonable. Also, Maher does not excuse Rush, just as Rush does not excuse Maher…..or Shultz or any of the others Marshall mentioned.

      Popularity is a big difference though – as you pointed out. There was an atheist YouTube vlogger that has always been really obnoxious, a few weeks or so ago he went on a tirade against a specific person (supposedly to make some sort of point) that was 100 times worse than anything Rush has ever said. Many people involved in atheist commentary and activism (some who always disliked his channel as well as many who enjoyed it) piped in to distance themselves from his frightening level of being absolutely horrible. However, the guy has about 300,000 subscribers (NOW – I think he used to have more, but many people had finally had enough of his brand of being a jerk). Even though his statements were worse than ANYTHING I have ever heard from ANYONE (seriously); it makes no sense for this to make any sort of national media coverage or organized protest. (For one thing, they wouldn’t be able to actually report what he said.) He just isn’t that popular.

      When Maher, however, used a few extremely ill-chosen misogynistic phrases – not only did other atheists (especially feminists, go figure) condemn his use of those terms; he did get national media attention and was strongly advised to apologize.

      Rush is EXTREMELY popular; so it sort of make some sense that his statements are getting so much publicity. It’s dishonest to think that his political opponents aren’t milking this for what it is worth – but, well, Rush is the one who stepped in it, now isn’t he? It would also be dishonest to claim that the political opponents of Maher, Rahm, Shultz, etc haven’t used those “civility issues” as political ammo. I mean, the original blog post is a good example of that.

      I mean – certainly women have become accustomed to their dignity, agency and health being used as political ammo. That’s why this conversation isn’t about treating people with respect or how women are treated – it’s all about the men. (sarcasm)

  9. Chris March 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Come on. Sandra Fluke is as much a victim here as I am. She went before Congress to “testify”. Her testimony was ludicrous, and a lie. You need b.c. pills, go to your local planned parenthood, and the cost is minimal. There is no good reason for the public to have to pay for anyone’s b.c. pills. Just one more lock step towards Marxism.

    The hypocritical thing Obama has done is not that he called Fluke to make a political point (why else was it a big news item), but that he took a million dollars from Maher, who is a vile degenerate. Let’s not overlook that. It is dirty money. What a legacy.

  10. Yoda March 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Good Captain:

    Ms Fluke is no fluke, she is being run by Obamanation to throw sand on his blunder assault on Catholic Christian liberties.

    It costs $63,000 per year to attend Harvard law school yet she can’t afford $9.95 a month for her sexual dalliances.

    Her coming months itinerary includes appearances on liberal TV programs around-the-country. I wonder who is paying for all the travel. Harvard law studies must be a cakewalk to take all the time away from the midnight oil.

    Right on good Captain – WRITE IN!

    Cordially, Yoda@magnifiedview.com

    P.S. If sexy Sandra were the last woman on earth I would say the hell with perpetuating the human race.

    • sinmantyx March 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

      Excuse me, but what on Earth does Sandra Fluke’s sex life (real or imagined) have to do with the issue?

      When she testified, she didn’t mention her own need or want for birth control at all. She was discussing the needs of other students. The two main examples she used were a married student and a student who needed hormonal birth control because of ovarian cysts.

      Your “P.S.” is disgusting – I’m not sure how your own personal sexual desires has to do with this issue either.

      • Perry March 15, 2012 at 4:03 am #

        THANK YOU glad some one other than myself listened to what she said

    • Perry March 15, 2012 at 4:19 am #

      Not all BC cost 9.99 one of my employees daughters has a syndrome that causes damage in her uterus, scene it is not considered a life saving drug the birth control (BC for rest of statement) she takes after the 50% reduction by the insurance co is still $63 a week. Our insurance company is about to pay full cost of the BC because it has already figured out something our government has not, it is cheaper to put them on BC other than having the births and adding extra dependents. The main point that was being brought up was the fact that this person testified in front or the lib’s about 2 examples of others and Rush and yourself (can tell from your statement) didn’t listen to or read the official transcript, Sinmantyx does tell you more. But scene in true Rush style where he can listen to Senator A say the sky is blue, then blast Congressmen Z for saying the sky looks green, he put his foot in mouth. And allot of the travel might be coming from Rush hoping she does not take everything he owns, she is not a public head and his comments are not protected by the 1st on this one.

  11. Royam March 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    I believe too many respondents are missing the salient point, I was raised at a time when how people conducted themselves, how they articulated and the courtesies they extended to others, whether they agreed with them or not, defined the quality of that person. If you cannot express your point of view without resorting to lies, foul language and falsehoods it means you are not intelligent enough to do so within the confines respectable public behavior. In today’s world everything said in the media on the air or online exerts an effect on those who hear it and read it. It makes no difference whether its politics or entertainment. People wonder why there is so much disobedience, vulgarity and disorder in today’s world and it can only be blamed by the way they were raised and those who raised them. By condoning improper behavior as a society we have allowed that behavior to become a standard of today’s society. I realize and accept I will probably be branded a prude or worse. But this is still America and opinions are protected and should be respected.

    • sinmantyx March 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

      I wish what you said was true. I wish it was about my generation or gen Y – and it certainly is to a certain degree. However, WHO exactly is listening to the vulgar, hateful commentary, who is the audience? It’s not just young people.

      If you look back – WAY back – to the political commentary of the past in the U.S. it was incredibly awful. This type of thing is not, by any means, new.

  12. Joe March 14, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    All the bullshit rhetoric aside: Rush was wrong, Maher was wrong, Schulz was wrong, but the fact remains that the government can not, should not and MUST not mandate that an institution with a religious foundation must provide a FREE product or service that is contrary to their basic beliefs!

    Fluke is free to pursue her law degree at any law school where her qualifications are sufficient to gain admission. If Georgetown does not provide a coverage she finds important, go to a school where that product or service is offered.

  13. Perry March 15, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    The big thing to remember is people like Glen Beck, Maher and generally Rush have done in the past is nailed public figures, protected speech because they put them self’s out there to the public. Where Rush and Imus messed up is calling people in the private sector names. Both broadcasting companies are waiting not to see public response but to see if this young lady becomes their new owner. Beck and Maher will never catch up with Rush on this one and Frank you saying he accidentally called her that come on that is a crock of crap and rainbow sherbets going to fly out your butt. I am a broadcaster and still have not wondered why he has not been removed. Imus got removed for the knappy headed Ho’s which is much nicer than calling a person a slut, prostitute and asking her and others to post their porn tapes on line.

    • sinmantyx March 15, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

      I don’t think there is a good slander case here because no “reasonable person” (by legal definition) would believe what Rush is saying about her.