Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Double Standard

Double Standard

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Wow! Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke were, to say the least, a controversy.

Fluke is not 23 years old, as originally reported. She is, in fact, 30 years old, and has a history of activism, particularly about women’s rights causes. Since this dust up has caused such a commotion, I thought a closer look may be in order.

First, Sandra Fluke, in her testimony before Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat Policy and Steering Committee (not Congress), said, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” She attends Georgetown University in Washington DC. I did some investigating using the Internet, the same Internet that Fluke could use. Using Google, I quickly (in less than 10 minutes) found a CVS Pharmacy (1200First Street Northeast) within walking distance of the Georgetown University Law Center. I presume that Sandra Fluke, being a law student, would be at or near the Law Center. I then found that CVS has a pack of 24 Durex Extra Sensitive Condoms for $15.43, with free shipping if four were bought at the same time. The individual cost per condom is 64.3 cents. So if Fluke has sex once per day for three years, the total cost will be $704.09, somewhat less than the $3,000 she testified when she was before Pelosi’s committee. In fact, Fluke could have sex over four times per day and still be below the $3,000 figure she provided. If what she testified is true, either she has little time for classes and study (drawing upon my personal graduate school experience), or she could use shopping lessons, or both. Since Fluke was intelligent enough to be admitted to Georgetown University Law School, personally I think the $3,000 figure is, at best, bogus. That, or sales tax in Washington DC must be really high.

As you know, Rush Limbaugh was castigated for his remarks about Sandra Fluke. But what was said about Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin with little or no reaction? Let’s see:

  • Laura Ingraham was called a slut by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz (the same word used by Limbaugh) on May 26, 2011. Schultz was suspended for one week. But where was the MSM outrage over Schultz’s remark? Where was the call for condemnation of Ed Schultz by Democrats? Where was the call for sponsors to leave “The Ed Show,” or for MSNBC to drop his show? I guess I was busy and missed all of that. The ladies on ABC’s The View were quite sympathetic to Sandra Fluke’s having been called a “slut.” Yet when Laura Ingraham said on Fox & Friends that she was called a “slut,” The View‘s Barbara Walters found Schultz’s remark to be a source of great amusement. BTW, President Barack Hussein Obama called Sandra Fluke, but Ingraham is STILL waiting for the call from Obama.
  •  

  • Michele Bachmann was attacked by Howard Stern on his Sirius satellite radio show in the wake of the Rolling Stone article on teen suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin school district. Said Stern, “The amazing thing to me…Michele Bachmann…they are the two worst people on the planet.” “It’s as outrageous as anything Hitler used to say! And it’s still an accepted bigotry!” Stern compares the homophobic bigotry to Nazi Germany, and says that Bachmann should be thrown out of the country. Stern compared Bachmann to Hitler. Where was the MSM outrage over Stern’s remark? Where was the call for condemnation of Stern by Democrats? Where was the call for sponsors to leave Stern’s show, or for Sirus to drop his show? I guess I was busy and missed all of that.
  •  

  • Sarah Palin was attacked by Democrats and liberals during her campaign for the vice presidency 2008. When Palin made a speech supporting Sen. John McCain, Democrats photoshopped her head onto a stripper’s body. Randi Rhodes, former Air America host, insinuated that Palin could not be trusted around teenage boys. Heather Mallick, in a CBC column, said Palin “added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote.” And let’s not forget Bill Maher calling Palin “a dumb twat” and “a c–t.” Where was the MSM outrage over Democrat’s action, or Rhodes’ remark or Mallick’s remark, or Maher’s remark? Where was the call for condemnation by Democrats of Democrat action? Where was the call for sponsors to leave Rhodes’ and Maher’s show, or for Nova M Radio to drop her show or for HBO to drop Bill Maher’s show? I guess I was busy and missed all of that.

This post is not about Rush Limbaugh or Ed Schultz or Howard Stern or Randi Rhodes or Heather Mallick or Bill Maher or Democrats. It is about the MSM and political reaction to Limbaugh’s comment and the non-reaction to comments about Ingraham and Bachmann and Palin. Can anyone say double standard?

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Warren, if you had bothered to actually read the transcript of Ms Fluke’s testimony that you linked to, you would have realized that she was talking about the birth control pill, not condoms, and she also noted that women take the pill for a variety of reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

    The most expensive pill will set you back about $100 a month if you don’t have insurance, so a woman’s out-of-pocket costs could be up to $1200 a year. That easily exceeds $3000 over three years, and in fact, as the Buzzfeed poster who is your source notes, Ms Fluke was actually referring to the cost over the entirety of law school, i.e. seven or eight years, not three. So a woman can get to the $3000 mark even if she is prescribed one of the cheaper pills.

    All this is rather beside the point, though.

    Secondly, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are public figures. As reprehensible as some of the comments that have been made about them are, they are directed at that public persona. Sandra Fluke was speaking to Congress as a private citizen, and Limbaugh’s insults against her as a private person crossed the line. Whether or not she has a history of activism is irrelevant.

    (Oh, and for the record, Ed Schultz is an obnoxious turd and the airwaves would be cleaner for him not being on them.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I disagree about Ed Schultz. I’ve listened to him quite often, and he’s hardly obnoxious compared to several on the Right that I’ve listened to as well. I’ve yet to hear him race-bait or use crude insults as I’ve heard Mike Levin and Mike Savage use…and many’s the time I’ve listened as Ed Schultz patiently waited for a right-winger to finish an entire monologue – which is not something often heard on the right-wing stations. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s not nearly as obnoxious as you seem to think.

    If you want someone on the Left who’s as obnoxious as Rush and whose presence we could do without, it’s Mike Malloy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “… she also noted that women take the pill for a variety of reasons other than preventing pregnancy.” Dreadful, #1

    Whether they do or do not for those reasons is incidental and hardly germane to what the pill was designed for.

    In making that point, you’re simply fudging just as all liberals are so keen on — our zing here, your client, being the perfect example.

    So if you’re really disclaiming the identity as a run-of-the-mill liberal, act and speak more appropriately, and you’ll be more believable.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Glenn:

    Maybe there are worse liberal radio personalities than Schultz. Personally, he makes me want to stop the car and rip out the battery just so that I can pour the acid inside it over the radio.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Pay particular attention to what Doc said – Palin, Bachmann, and Ingraham are public figures and are fair game as are all other public figures and celebrities.

    Sandra Fluke is a private figure and is deserving of the privacy that others forsake in the name of fame. Now if Sandra Fluke becomes a politician or an actress or a talk-show host who’s making a living by remaining in the public spotlight, then Rush can say what he will about her. But until then, she is a private citizen and off limits to people like “Barack the Magic Negro” Rush Limbaugh.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Roger:

    Whether they do or do not for those reasons is incidental and hardly germane to what the pill was designed for.

    Since we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Rush Limbaugh hadn’t publicly called a woman a prostitute and a slut for using contraception, it’s perfectly germane.

    What the fuck, Roger? I think you just take issue with people for the hell of it most of the time, which is fine, but it’s the condescending manner in which you do it that’s really off-pissing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Dreadful,

    You know as well as I that Rush’s comments have nothing to do with my point. But since you feel compelled to make use of them as the context for your remarks. who am I to stand in your way?

    Just remember, you’re coming across more and more like our zingo. And I certainly don’t mean it as a compliment.

    I’d still rather think highly of you.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Roger, the reason I am compelled to make use of them is that Warren wrote an article about them and I was responding to that article. For fuck’s sake.

    And though your comparison of me to zing isn’t meant as a compliment, I’ll take it as such. His crass turn of phrase may mask it, but believe it or not he’s one of the clearest thinkers on here.

    Among his strengths are his capacity for self-awareness and self-criticism: qualities that you conspicuously lack.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t read Warren, Dreadful, and I don’t think I’m missing anything. I responded to your comment alone.

    It’s not my object to have a discussion with the author of the article. You’re different.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment #1, Dr. Dreadful, Fluke said, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” She said contraception. And the last time I looked, condoms are a form of contraception. She used the word “contraception” seven times. The only specific money amount she mentioned was in reference to contraception.

    And this GULC link refers to three years.

    Also, you said, ” Sandra Fluke was speaking to Congress as a private citizen…” When Sandra Fluke spoke to Nancy Pelosi’s committee (not Congress), she forfeited whatever claim she had to being a private citizen, and became a public citizen. Going before Pelosi’s committee and becoming the Democrat darling makes her a public citizen. Besides, what does being a public or private citizen have to do with reactions?

    Re: comment #5, Glenn, see observation about privacy above.

    Re: comment #9, roger, you are missing a great deal :)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Whatever floats your boat, Roger, although the ability to discuss articles directly with their author is precisely why Blogcritics has a comments space… And if you’re not reading articles but only the comments on them, you’re missing the main thrust of most of our discussions, which again seems to be a theme with you.

    Yes, the space can act as a forum as well, but that isn’t its primary purpose.

  • Zingzing

    So, Roger, you don’t read articles and you know nothing about contraception, how to get it, or its uses (as that would mean you would be “girlish”). that means you speak from ignorance. And you accuse doc of not speaking appropriately or being believable? You speak from as if from on a high horse while riding a donkey with Scoliosis.

    (and regulation of the period is one of the things birth control is designed to do. In fact, it was first approved for use to treat women with menstrual disorders. It’s at the core of how the damn things work in the first place.)

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    I like the title because the author is unaware it apples to him. Nowhere does Warren Hussein hold Rush to account for all the things he said about Fluke. Instead, Warren Stalin reveals to the reader very quickly he has no idea what the issue is about with his bizarre tangent about the affordability of condoms.

    As for there being a double standard in politics, the answer is of course there is one, but anyone complaining about it now looks rather naive, like a child revealing there’s no Santa or wrestling is fake. Instead of cleaning up their own house, the right attacks their enemies in a nice bit of distraction, much as the left does when they too are under the gun.

    And to continue to show how disingenuous he is, Warren Mussolini doesn’t give an accurate account in his comparisons.

    Yes, Schulz crossed the line in his rant against Ingraham. But unlike Rush, he didn’t continue to pile on for three days in response to negative criticism and only buckle when sponsors began leaving. Unlike Rush, he apologized the next day, reached out to make the apology directly to the person he offended before making a public apology, took full responsibility for his actions, and stated he was going on indefinite hiatus before MSNBC determined the length of time. Listen to Ed’s apology and listen to Rush’s to compare the two for yourselves.

    And it’s hard to tell what the complaint is about Stern. If I am reading Warren Pol Pot correctly, Stern compared homophobic bigotry to antisemitism. So who was supposed to be offended and complain exactly? People who are for homophobia? And what sponsors does Stern have? I don’t listen to him so I have no idea and will accept that he may have some, but Sirius is a subscription-based service. Considering the contract Stern has, Sirius isn’t going to drop him and pay him not to work, so individuals would have to cancel if they had an issue. This paragraph alone is yet another example of Warren Idi Amin not knowing and not bothering to research what he rants about.

  • Zingzing

    Frankly, doc, I think you could read just page 2 of this article and get about as much keen insight into this issue as you would from reading the whole. I’ll agree with Roger on that. Warren just says she should go buy condoms and then goes off about dems attack women as well. It’s not really worth reading, but then I only read warren’s articles for the laughs.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    She said contraception. And the last time I looked, condoms are a form of contraception.

    Warren, you moved the goalposts and now, after the groundskeeper has called you on it, you are refusing to put them back. Ms Fluke’s testimony was specifically in reference to the contraceptive pill: if you refuse to read your own citation, then you are being obtuse as well as shifty.

    And this GULC link refers to three years.

    As I understand it, you can’t get into law school straight from high school: you need to get an undergraduate degree first. Hence, seven years.

    When Sandra Fluke spoke to Nancy Pelosi’s committee (not Congress)…

    A congressional witness is still a congressional witness whether they testify before a committee or the full Congress.

    …she forfeited whatever claim she had to being a private citizen, and became a public citizen.

    Perhaps you’d care to explain that to the Supreme Court, which held in Watkins v. United States (1957) that congressional witnesses had the same rights as court witnesses.

    Ordinary people testify before Congress or one of its committees all the time. Let’s say your uncle was a farmer who was called to testify on the humane treatment of livestock before the Senate Agriculture Committee, and as a result of his testimony was subsequently called an ignorant, inbred hillbilly on nationally syndicated radio by a talk show host with an audience of millions. You’d think it was gratuitous and uncalled for. You’d be outraged, offended and hurt, and quite rightly so.

    Besides, what does being a public or private citizen have to do with reactions?

    Because you, Warren No-Not-That-Warren Beatty, wouldn’t want to open tomorrow’s paper and find that a nationally known media figure had been calling you the worst names under the sun.

    Basic litmus test: had you heard of Sandra Fluke before Rush Limbaugh talked about her on his radio show? Of course you hadn’t. Had you heard of Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin? Yes.

  • Clavos

    So it’s OK if I call Sarah Palin a dumb twat and a c–t because she’s a public figure? Or is it because y’all agree with Maher and think he was right?

    What about Nancy Pelosi? Michelle Obama? Mother Teresa? Nancy Reagan? My Congressman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

    Oh wait…I forgot: not the libruls, just the conservatives, Libertarians, and similar lowlife scum.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Of course it’s not OK, Clav, and no-one here says it is. But, as Glenn pointed out in #5, it does come with the territory if you’re a public figure.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Any political cartoonist can make fun of any public figure – but can’t touch a private figure. It doesn’t matter if the public figure is political or a sports figure or an actor or whatever, they’re fair game. Private figures – until they start making a living with their fame – are off limits. This has been backed up in the courts many times.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    I wouldn’t pay to see Maher, but if that’s what he does in his act, that’s on him and the people that buy tickets. He’s not using the public airwaves. But I would like to know the context of how he used it. Did he just blurt it out or was it part of a larger piece? No one ever seems to mention that. They just like pairing Palin with the c-word for some odd reason. Hadn’t even heard about Maher doing that until now, so why were people sitting on this info?

  • troll

    …that the ‘left’ holds no moral high ground here doesn’t make RL any less a poxy turd

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Looks like Limbaugh’s draconian views on sex (which apply to anyone but him) have made their way to the state of Utah where the governor is deciding whether to sign a bill

  • Glenn Contrarian
  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment #15, Dr. Deadful, you said, ” Ms Fluke’s testimony was specifically in reference to the contraceptive pill:….” Since you don’t seem to understand the word “contraception,” here is a cost analysis focused on the pill, via AiPolitics.

    “I used a run-of-the-mill map application to locate Georgetown University (her school) on a map. I then searched for pharmacies within close proximity to Georgetown. I then called the first one that I saw and asked how much a month’s supply of Ortho Tri-Cyclen costs WITHOUT insurance. The name brand was surprisingly pricey. I was quoted a cost of just under 45 bucks. That would equal about half of the amount Sandra Fluke told Congress it would cost. I started to think that maybe she deserved some benefit of the doubt. But then the pharmacist offered me another option (SANS INSURANCE).

    I was told that if I paid $20 for the pharmacy’s club card, I could purchase a month’s supply of (generic) Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $12 a month. And that’s from a pharmacy within walking distance from Georgetown University. So instead of the proposed $1000 a year that Sandra Fluke told Congress that her friends spend on contraceptives, it was closer to $164 a year. So instead of $3000+, we are now looking at $492 for three years worth of birth control. I mean, maybe Miss Fluke is used to Congress accepting bogus budgets, but we should all be offended that she would try to be so dishonest with us.”

    So even if we accept your seven year argument, the cost is $1148, still far below the figure she quoted.

    You cite 354 U.S. 178 (1957) WATKINS v. UNITED STATES Did you even bother to read and comprehend it? First, it speaks ONLY about witnesses being injured by the testimony of other witnesses, or by being compelled to appear before Congress. Second, I am not an attorney, nor have I ever played one on TV, but I can READ! I quote from it, specifically paragraph 187: “But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.” “Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” In para 197, “The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify, against his will, about his beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference.”

    ‘Was Fluke compelled to appear and testify? I don’t think so. Did Limbaugh discuss any specific facts of her “testimony?” Again, I don’t think so. He voiced his opinion (para 197, freedoms of the First Amendment) that her behavior made her a slut and that she wanted taxpayers to provide her and her fellow female classmates with contraception.

    So the case you cited was, in fact, support for the point that I am making. Thank you.

    You say, “Basic litmus test: had you heard of Sandra Fluke before Rush Limbaugh talked about her on his radio show? Of course you hadn’t. Had you heard of Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin? Yes.” Thank you for making my point. No, I had never heard of Sandra Fluke before she voluntarily, without Rush Limbaugh’s help, became a public person when she appeared before Pelosi’s committee (Pelosi’s committee is not Congress regardless of how you try to spin it), and, by Glenn’s (comment #18) definition, became fair game.

    You say, “Ordinary people testify before Congress or one of its committees all the time. Let’s say your uncle was a farmer who was called to testify on the humane treatment of livestock before the Senate Agriculture Committee, and as a result of his testimony was subsequently called an ignorant, inbred hillbilly on nationally syndicated radio by a talk show host with an audience of millions. You’d think it was gratuitous and uncalled for. You’d be outraged, offended and hurt, and quite rightly so.” Yes, I agree with you, but when the hypothetical uncle appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee, he became a public person.

    The article was specifically about the double standard applied by the MSM and liberals/progressives. Trying to hide behind the public/private citizen issue is typical, as no lucid (to rational people) argument against my point can be made.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Since you don’t seem to understand the word “contraception”

    Warren, I am perfectly familiar with the meaning of the term “contraception”, and I am also familiar with the concept of context, which you do not appear to be.

    But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you are unaware that the pill doesn’t work in the same way as condoms, and that most types must be taken daily, not just when a woman has sex. Perhaps, in your visits to the drugstore, you haven’t noticed that you need a prescription to obtain the pill, whereas condoms can be purchased off the shelf.

    And, not being a woman yourself, you can’t be expected to know that most women take the pill not because they expect to be doing the wild thing 78 times a day, but to regulate their menstrual cycles. If sex is in the offing, a sensible woman who is on the pill will use a condom anyway – for reasons of health.

    So even if we accept your seven year argument, the cost is $1148, still far below the figure she quoted.

    And neither you nor “AI Politics” can be blamed for overlooking the fact that the pill is not a “one size fits all” deal and that the generic Ortho Tri-Cyclen is not suitable for every woman. Of course there are cheap pills on the market – but not everyone can use them. Which may, I suspect, be why Ms Fluke told Congress that contraception “can cost a woman over $3000 during law school”.

    Re Watkins v. U.S.: again with the failure to detect context. I used it as an illustration that a congressional witness is in essence no different than a court witness. Just as a woman called as a witness in a trial shouldn’t expect to be slandered in the media, neither should a woman called to testify before a House committee.

    (Pelosi’s committee is not Congress regardless of how you try to spin it)

    Really? Then perhaps you’d better alert the sergeant-at-arms at once, since clearly Rep. Pelosi is using congressional premises for non-congressional activities and should be evicted.

    The article was specifically about the double standard applied by the MSM and liberals/progressives.

    Not specifically it wasn’t, no. About half of it was that daft tangent about the cost of condoms.

    Trying to hide behind the public/private citizen issue is typical

    At no point have I, Glenn or anyone else on this thread tried to argue that the mysogynistic insults hurled at Ingraham, Bachmann and Palin are acceptable behavior. What we have pointed out is that when you are a public figure, that kind of thing comes with the territory. I’m sorry, but a single appearance before a congressional committee does not make you a public figure, whether your appearance was voluntary or not.

    Limbaugh questioning the validity of her testimony, as AI Politics did, would have been fine. But he didn’t. He insulted her personally (the fact that he did so in a particularly stupid way makes it even worse), and thereby crossed the line.

    no lucid (to rational people) argument against my point can be made.

    Your point, and indeed your entire argument, has been thoroughly demolished on this thread, but you just go right on pretending it hasn’t if it makes you feel good.

    If I had a dollar for every time a conservative claimed they’d made a watertight argument that couldn’t possibly be refuted, I’d be one of the 1%…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just a question, Warren. Is it the appearance before Congress that makes one a public person? What’s your criterion here?

    Are members of the media public persons? Are we, who crank out our articles for BC?

    What kind of exposure are we talking about, and where do we draw the line?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “… most women take the pill not because they expect to be doing the wild thing 78 times a day, but to regulate their menstrual cycles.”

    Had no idea, Dreadful. You mean even healthy women find the mother Nature failing them in this respect?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Yep. Just the same as Mother Nature fails them by giving them breast cancer, or yeast infections, or the ‘flu, or migraines, or…

  • Clavos

    Glenn @#18:,

    You are the most condescending hillbilly I have ever run into. Amazing how a citizen of the most ignorant, backward state in the union has the chutzpah to believe he knows more than anyone else; I’m not the only correspondent on these threads to call you out for your arrogance and condescension, and I’m certain I won’t be the last.

    Knock it off, cracker.

  • Zingzing

    What in #18 demanded that response? Do you disagree? Obviously, warren is having a bit of trouble with the concept. And something about stones and glass houses, clavos… You display the same chutzpah often enough, and sometimes you are right, but it’s rather ignorant of you to judge a person’s worth but what fucking state they were born in… I’m sure there are plenty of stereotypes about the place you were born. Plus, Glenn is literate at that puts him one up on the average Mississippian.

  • Clavos

    What in #18 demanded that response?

    Puleeze…read it again; it drips condescension — which is a consistent and prominent trait of Glenn’s, and I’m not the only one to call him out on it.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    No, it doesn’t, Clav. I’ll grant you that Glenn often can’t resist being pompous and condescending, but #18 is calm and factual.

    I think perhaps you’ve been conditioned to have the same reaction to Glenn as I have to Ed Schultz!

  • Clavos

    Since it was addressed to me, Doc, I’d say my opinion as to whether or not I feel condescended to by it is what counts.

    It’s typical Glenn; he patiently explains (I can just hear his voice!) to the ignorant bumpkin exactly what is a public and private person.

    He’s talking down to me.

    He usually does.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Factual, perhaps, pretentious for sure.

    But the hillbilly label fits like a glove. Clav did hit a home run here. I guess one can never lose their Mississippi Delta upbringing, even after they’ve learned their syntax. For it’s not in the syntax, dear fellas, but in the state of mind. And that, I’m afraid, is a dead giveaway. For all the ports our sailor here had visited in his lifelong travails.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Now, want to talk about condescending, boys?

    That’s condescending!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s a reason for this, dear Clav. It’s lije the fucking religion to some of these people. They’ve got to be right, and they’ll ignore all the rules of polite behavior and conversation for the sake of convincing themselves they’re right.

    Think of Eugene O’Neil’s The Iceman Cometh, and all the denizens of the Hope Hotel.

    Our Contrarian would surely blend in, booze or no booze. His is a state of permanent intoxication with his own self-importance.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    There’s a reason for this, dear Clav. It’s lije the fucking religion to some of these people.

    I happen to know that Clavos’s real name, while unusual, is not Elijah, nor do I suspect him to be the sort of person who would care to be called by any of its hillbillyesque derivatives if it were.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Puleeze…read it again; it drips condescension”

    don’t see it. you feigned confusion in a sarcastic manner (condescension in its own way, although to a general audience), and he responded. i doubt he missed your sarcasm. but by mentioning all those public figures, it appears you didn’t quite get the distinction. you laid out the same silly line warren did, as if that already hadn’t been in discussion. you were obviously responding to the comments, so i wonder why it seems you didn’t bother to read most of them.

    if you act like a petulant child and then get a “don’t play dumb” back, that’s your own damn fault. he didn’t insult or belittle you, as you chose to do.

    “Since it was addressed to me, Doc, I’d say my opinion as to whether or not I feel condescended to by it is what counts.”

    so you whine and insult? good show, clavos. if you knew those distinctions the whole time, why did you bother to pretend you didn’t?

    i certainly wouldn’t attack someone’s place of birth (which they certainly did not choose,) as if that has any relevance.

    and roger’s got a whole lot of gumption, seeing as how he’s from the home of the dumb joke. one would hope he’d have more sense.

    “I happen to know that Clavos’s real name, while unusual, is not Elijah…”

    i know it as well, and it sounds like he should be picking flowers next to a windmill in overalls.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Why would the windmill be wearing overalls? In this economy, isn’t that a flagrant waste of denim?

  • Zingzing

    You know, I thought it would be clavos that pointed that out. Thought about owning up to it, but I’d rather have clavos naked on some Dutch landscape with a windmill wearing overalls in the background. Do Dutch people even wear overalls? I dunno. Some big hat then. Lots of chiaroscuro.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I looked back at #18 and that’s not condescending at all. I’ve made my share of condescending remarks – as have you and Roger – but that ain’t one of them. Methinks you (and Roger) might be having a wee bit of a problem with assignment or perhaps even projection if you think #18 is condescending.

    But I forget – it’s condescending and elitist of me to point out that you’re wrong in the least. I get that. So I will tremblingly bow before you and grovel for your forgiveness and understanding, ’cause Ah’m just a crackah who don’t know no better. All Ah knows how ta do is play “Duelin’ Benjos” out by mah Japan-eze outhouse while listenin’ to the squealin’ of the pigs.

    When was the last time y’all watched Hee-Haw? Gloom, despair, and agony on me!

  • Clavos

    I am Swedish (as is my name), zing, not Dutch…

    And Mexican, and (when convenient) an american (lower case).

    But mostly, I inhabit my own world and I don’t allow illegals in it.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos has feelings, I guess. Let’s do our best not to offend them, everyone. Thus, peace is maintained. Cool, bros?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yeah, buddy, Ah don’t want to offend ol’ Clavos now, ’cause he’s too far ‘bove mah station in life, m-hmm, y’know? Besides, Ah knows that if Ah off-ends him too much, y’know’, he just might up and do something we’d all regret, m-hmm. ‘Course Ah don’t mind the insults ‘n condescendin’ lan-gwige, ’cause I knows Momma didn’t raise no dummy, and Ah knows how to takes life’s l’il ups-n-downs, y’know?

  • Clavos

    Let’s do our best not to offend them, everyone.

    And yet, and yet…

    We’re all just pixels.

    Pixels.

    e pluribus mierda

  • Zingzing

    Meh. Forgive me. I’m Finnish by heritage, so give me the benefit of the doubt if I mistake someone from scandinavia for being from elsewhere. It does sound Dutch… Ah well. SUOMI. SISU!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Know what, y’all? I wuz just thinkin’ to myself, yes I was, that it was just flat out amazin’ that li’l ol’ me, just a know-nuthin’ hick crackah from waaaaay out ‘n the boonies…li’l ol’ me is th’ “greatest threat to democracy”!

    It’s got to be true, y’know, ’cause Roger done said it, an’ if Roger done said it, then it’s gotta be true, y’know?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Just remember, Glenn, it’s the know-nuthin’ hick crackahs who elect the Santori of this world…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Clavos –

    It’s typical Glenn; he patiently explains (I can just hear his voice!) to the ignorant bumpkin exactly what is a public and private person. He’s talking down to me. He usually does.

    Trait Ascription Bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.

    You will of course see that not as constructive criticism, but as further condescension – which might be explained by the Backfire Effect, which describes how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly (see anthropogenic global warming).

    Ah, life’s little insecurities. And it’s largely my own fault due to Projection Bias, which is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. I thought y’all would be as welcoming of correction and constructive criticism as I try to be. But it doesn’t work that way, I guess, thanks to the Backfire Effect.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “It’s lije the fucking religion to some of these people. They’ve got to be right, and they’ll ignore all the rules of polite behavior and conversation for the sake of convincing themselves they’re right.”

    Did you type that with a straight face?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Darn right. Compared to us, Europeans, all you Yanks are just a bunch of hicka.

    Rven Dreadful here forgot all his bearings, never mind class. Too much time in Fresno.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Forgive the typos, since am watching a European flick in a dark room. But anything’s good enough for hicks such as you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Go to bed, Rog – it’s like 3 A.M. there.

    (this is a free bed-time reminder service provided by your friendly neighborhood nanny-state supporter)

  • Clavos

    Ya don’t like the message, kill the messenger.

    Works every time…

  • Igor

    The legal distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ figures is not for Clavos and Warren to settle since it has already been settled by actual legal courts. Anyone can look it up for themselves.

    Clearly, Fluke is a private figure. For one thing she doesn’t earn her living as a public figure, such as an actress or politician or broadcaster would.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Ya don’t like the message, kill the messenger. Works every time….

    See comment #32.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment #25, Roger, it is my belief that all of us, to some extent, are public figures. What is my criterion? You might just as well ask, “How high is up?’ Or, “How much is enough?” The answer(s) depend upon the personal views of the person answering. There is no firm line. Having said that, it is my personal view that anyone who voluntarily thrusts him or herself in the spotlight has crossed over the line and has become a public person (and, as Glenn said in comment #5, become fair game).

    And, yes, I include us BC posters as public figures.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Interestingly, we don’t seem to have libel laws here. If you want to sue for libel, you have to go to the UK.

  • Zingzing

    Fluke probably could sue rush, and she might win. I don’t think she should win. Really, this just shows how much of a misogynistic prick rush is, but he should be allowed to say what he wants, and people should be allowed to call him an asshole for what he thinks.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 58, Zingzing, yes, you are correct, and I can make the same observations about YOU. Ain’t it funny how two-way streets work?

  • zingzing

    actually, there’s no personal attacks around here, warren. and i’m not a misogynist prick.

  • Clavos

    The legal distinction between public and private is only important insofar as you liberals use it to excuse shithead Bill Maher’s reprehensible characterizations of Palin; descriptions that make Limbaugh’s descriptions of miss Fluke (pronounced Fluck) pale by comparison.

    But of course, the real distinction between Palin and Fluke is that the former is a conservative and thus fair game, while the latter, though studying to be that most reprehensible of professions, an attorney, is untouchable by virtue of her liberalness.

    Had someone called Pelosi, a liberal Democrat a c__t, the hue and cry would have been worldwide; in stark contrast to the almost total lack of reaction, not only from the press, but from anyone on the Dem side when Palin was the target — it’s not rocket surgery to figure out why.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    The legal distinction between public and private is only important insofar as you liberals use it to excuse shithead Bill Maher’s reprehensible characterizations of Palin

    Show me where any of us here have done anything of the kind.

  • zingzing

    clavos, your hyperbolic opinion doesn’t mean it’s anything more than your hyperbolic opinion. yes, liberal media personalities have called conservative women (mostly public figures, but let’s not forget “whoops, there’s a dick in me” bristol palin,) some pretty nasty things. but they’ve been taken to task as well. the degree to which the public has responded to rush’s comments is not because of some political or media conspiracy…

    rush has a history of this stuff. time and time again, he’s attacked women in general and specifically. for every maher bristol joke, you could bring up chelsea clinton, 13, the “white house dog.” and for every palin’s a cunt, you could bring up hillary’s a “bitch.” and there’s oodles of more of this. he’s a hateful, misogynistic pig.

    thing is, people seem to fed up with rush. and if that’s because he’s a conservative, rather than the fact that he did this to a private citizen, or due to the fact that the entire right seems to be very anti-women right now, well, maybe people aren’t just sick of rush’s attitude, maybe they’re sick of the right’s attitude. rush is a convenient scapegoat. if rush’s media empire falls apart because he said some stupid, misogynistic, right wing crap, well, maybe he deserves it, and maybe the right wing should choose its battles better. taking on half of america isn’t a political angle, it’s political suicide.

    “it’s not rocket surgery to figure out why.”

    nope. seems people are sick of rush’s shit. seems women don’t take kindly to being attacked. (and don’t deny that rush’s comments are simply an outcropping of the right’s attitude towards women at the moment. he was following the party line.)

    and maher’s still funny. (although i do find him a bit trying at times. he can be funny, but he can also be very unfunny and cruel.)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    QFT, zing – the entirety of your #63.

  • zingzing

    …and i simply don’t believe maher is a misogynist. he doesn’t have the history of misogyny that rush has. rush has told us time and again what he thinks about women in general, while maher has never given the slightest whiff of it.

  • zingzing

    just check this shit out, clavos. if you can find similar from a liberal, i’ll be surprised and troubled, but you should be troubled by the stuff in that link, particularly the more general woman-hatred to be found in it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I love the way all the libs keep on congratulating one another on a job well done. It has simply got to be species-specific, no other way to explain this curious phenomenon of group-think, a herd instinct elevated to its fullest even among those who might otherwise pass for intelligent humans.

    Champs and Orangutans surely have a place assured in this here world, especially if BC is the center stage.

    No better place made yet for a human zoo!

  • Zingzing

    Such a hypocrite…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Is that a retort of some kind or a fart?

    I should think the latter, a lib’s fart.

  • Zingzing

    No, Roger, it was a sigh. A sighing fart. A fart that no longer cares to fight the sound. Just tonight you patted clavos on the back and then went searching for compliments on another thread and you want to say that? Come on. You publicly yearn for confirmation.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    …and woe betide someone who has the ill manners to disagree with him, too…for if thou sayest aught against The Roger, thou shalt be expelled to the Outer Limits where there is whaling and lashing of tongues, and thou shalt be one with all the other Greatest Threats to Democracy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Confirmation from whom, zing? Certainly not from the libs, not until the libs could change their spots and start thinking for themselves. There’s nothing to respect about group-think, no validation to seek after.

    I complimented Clavos because he was spot on, and I respect his thinking, whether or not we agree. As to Mark Eden, I always cared about what he had to say because I value his thoughts. Never made bones about that either.

    So no, I make a distinction between pats on the back and high-fives among friends in a local tavern, where everybody knows everybody else, and the kind of chorus of approval among the libs on this site so as to shut the opposing voices down.

    I may have been wrong about my assessment of the situation, but there was no hypocrisy there.

  • troll

    …it’s true – when whaling in the outer limits one should lash one’s tongue securely to the mast

    …and a platonic xxoo to you too Roger – good to see you made it through the long night

  • Zingzing

    Roger there’s no difference between what you do and what others do. It’s just when you do it, it’s okay, and when others do it, it’s not okay. Don’t think yourself special and exempt. And if anyone’s trying to shut down conversation around here, just look where this conversation has gone.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 61, Clavos, you are EXACTLY right!

    Re: comment # 62, Dr. Dreadful, have you bothered to read my article?

    Re: comment # 63, Zingzing, you say, “…seems people are sick of rush’s shit.” Tell that to the 20 million (including me) people who daily listen to him.

    Re: comment # 67, roger, you say, “I love the way all the libs keep on congratulating one another on a job well done.” Well said. In fact, your entire comment is spot on.

  • Zingzing

    Warren, look at the first line of your comment, then the last.

  • troll

    Zingzing – you appear to have lost your war on capitalization…have you achieved a new level of maturity or what?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m am fucking special, zing. I’m a Pole and an Eastern European. I’m a legal immigrant. My upbringing and background are way different from your own or anybody else’s on these threads. And so were all my experiences and how I ended up processing all my experiences.

    Perhaps you too should claim some uniqueness on your own behalf and I assure, we’ll get along far better.

  • zingzing

    troll, it was never about capitalization. it’s about laziness. and if i’m typing on the ipad, it autocorrects me. so it would be against my one true principle of lazy typing if i were to fight the ipad on that count. does it really bother you? if so, i suggest worrying about other things. you seem to have a good war with punctuation going… sometimes it’s enough to make your sentences difficult to read.

    roger, the way you’re “special” is the way we’re all special, in that we all come from a certain set of circumstances and have our own individual experiences. but you’re not special in that you can get away with hypocrisy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s not approval that I seek, zing, but agreement, even disagreement if the contrary opinion is worth considering. And that’s not the same thing, if you get my meaning.

    Anyways, I’ve had enough approval to last me a lifetime, so no, thank you. Look at my fucking ego. It didn’t materialize all of a sudden.

    There’s no fucking hypocrisy on display here, none whatever. So I must conclude therefore that you’re projecting.

    In any case, it’s really sometimes futile to be talking to you. So if you insist on having the last word, go right ahead.

  • Zingzing

    Word.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Fair enough.

    Care to comment on my series of essays? I know it’s not above your “threshold,” to mimic Igor’s words.

    (I’m always looking for feedback, just like anyone else — surprise, surprise! — even if you disagree.)

  • Igor

    75-Warren reiterates his utter paucity of thought and total dependence on others:

    Re: comment # 61, Clavos, you are EXACTLY right!

    Re: comment # 63, Zingzing, you say, “…seems people are sick of rush’s shit.” Tell that to the 20 million (including me) people who daily listen to him.

    Re: … Well said. In fact, your entire comment is spot on.

    Throw off your chains, Warren.! Do your own reading and form your OWN opinions!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I love the way all the libs keep on congratulating one another on a job well done… Etc etc etc.

    Did you make a similarly snide response to Warren’s #24 on this thread, Roger?

    Didn’t think so. Which, I guess, means I also need to shoot a QFT at zing’s #68…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Warren (@ # 75):

    Never mind the bloody article. Did you miss the bit where Clavos talked about “you liberals”? Do you think he was addressing MSM journalists, who most likely haven’t read your article nor have ever heard of Blogcritics, or do you think he was addressing zing, Igor, myself and others who are actually here?

  • REMF(MCH)

    #32:
    “He’s talking down to me.”

    As does anyone else over 5’7″…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Really, REMF? You stop by for the first time in months just to bounce your solitary joke off something Clavos said 60 comments ago?

    Your repertoire is more limited than the talking panda I had as a kid, which said “Let’s go out to play” when you pulled its string.

    And the panda had more wit.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Don’t know his height, but I got a chuckle out of it

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Well, El B, for me it was mildly chucklesome the first 3,394 times, but it’s getting a bit old now.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    I didn’t realize short jokes were the Clavos equivalent of “killing a dog in a fortified compound”.

  • Clavos

    They were/are; not sure why, I’m 6 ft.

    But yeah, it’s my “fortified compound” cross…

    In exchange, I suppose, for tagging him as a REMF.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    It’s reassuring to know that the United States military has such a high degree of solidarity and mutual respect among its many branches.

  • Clavos

    Bwahahahahahaha, Doc!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    It’s actually a psychological thing. We can talk smack about something we belong(ed) to, but those of you who never did haven’t – in our eyes – earned the right. It’s not just with the military, but with anything that experiences a bit of esprit de corps such as colleges or sports teams…all the way down to the family unit. After all, how many times have you heard (or said) “I can say what I think about my family, but you can’t!”?

    So yeah, there’s rivalry – sometimes even bitter and spiteful – between the branches of the military…but we can do that because we’re all part of the military. We in the military all talk smack about each other, usually in good humor, but sometimes even with real anger and spite. But if someone who has never served tries to talk the same kind of smack, all of a sudden we all band together no matter how much we don’t like each other.

    That’s just the way most of us are wired.

  • TIRED OF TRIPE

    Forcing a Catholic organization to fund abortions and birth control – where’s the problem? This is so obvious it stinks putrid. The PR firm handling Fluke’s appearances is owned by a former Obama White House communications director. Meanwhile, this law student supposedly turned away from a pharmacy counter for the expense of the pill is flown to the West Coast for spring break with her boyfriend whose father is a huge contributor to Democrats. Where is the mainstream media in this huge-scale farce, other than towing the line of deception? Afraid of becoming a Breitbart? Blackballed like Rush? This charade, like all who are complicit in its propagation, simply stinks. Such an ugly ploy so openly accommodated. What the hell is wrong with this country to take any of this tripe seriously?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I have a friend in Australia who used to teach at a private Islamic school, and had to conceal from them the fact that she was living with her boyfriend.

    A religiously-affiliated employer that hires non-believers has already compromised itself, so I hardly think it can be shocked if its employees expect the same treatment and benefits they’d get at any other place of work.

    “Tired” is right about one thing: it’s all tripe.

  • Igor

    95-TIRED OF TRIPE: I’m sorry, I couldn’t untangle all the irony and sarcasm in your comment. Could you please explain your point? At first I thought, maybe, you were trying to compare it to asking a pacifist to pay taxes for a war, but now I just have no idea what you were trying to say. Too convoluted.

    “Forcing a Catholic organization to fund abortions and birth control – where’s the problem?”

  • REMF(MCH)

    Someone really killed a dog in a fortified compound? Hhmm, guess I missed that….

%d bloggers like this: