| « | March 2012 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
The Santorum Google bomb, which was planted by a gay rights activist, makes me wonder why gays haven't denounced the swine who, on their behalf, rubbed this insult into Rick Santorum's face. Could it be that gay Americans approve of such goings-on…?
You know, I think that the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto is on to something in this article on the Rush Limbaugh uproar:
There is, to say the least, a tension between the feminist ideal of equality between the sexes and special pleading on behalf of feminine sensibilities.
A Facebook friend of ours, a middle-aged female professional, posted a series of sanctimonious status updates denouncing Limbaugh and his defenders—a few days after she posted one approving of the Rick Santorum "Google bomb." The latter, which originated in 2003 with a gay left-wing columnist, is an obscene scatological insult that "wouldn't normally appear in a family newspaper," as our colleagues Ian Sherr and Geoffrey Fowler discreetly put it. It has been cited with a wink and a nod by, among others, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman of the New York Times.
One could argue that it's worse to insult Fluke than Santorum because it is punching down: Although she has made herself a public figure, she has considerably lower status than a U.S. senator. But several of the women [Kirsten] Powers mentions as having been targets of left-wing "misogyny"—Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann—are of roughly equal status to Santorum. If women and men are equal, and if ugly sexual insults are acceptable when directed at a male politician (Powers, let us note, does not say they are but ignores the question altogether), then isn't that just sauce for the goose?
Good question! So therefore, if it’s OK for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a “cunt” and Michelle Bachmann a “bimbo,” then it's all right for me to observe that he, Maher, has the face and mannerisms of a sex offender.
Finally, by way of illustrating what today’s (presumably liberal) “middle-aged female professional” considers acceptable political discourse, here’s the Santorum Google bomb of which she so heartily approves. And this lowlife vulgarian is mad at Limbaugh…?
One of the things that most amuses me about progressives is their habit of saying totally stupid things under the impression that they're being devilishly clever. Case in point (courtesy of the Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway): the none-too-swift Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos website—prime real estate in the leftie fever swamps. A couple of days ago he took to Twitter to mock Rick Santorum with this observation: “Santorum scoffs at notion that gov’t creates rights. In other words, he doesn’t believe in the US Constitution.”
Oh, where to begin!
Moulitsas may believe in the Constitution of the United States, but evidently he’s never actually read the thing. Had he taken the time to do so, he might have noticed that the Constitution and its first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) grant no rights. On the contrary, the Constitution assumes the pre-existence of rights and liberties, and either prohibits the government from infringing upon them (freedom of religion, speech, assembly) or charges the government to uphold them (the right to a speedy and public trial). Nowhere in the Constitution is it asserted or implied that rights are the government’s gift to the people. As the Ninth Amendment puts it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Incidentally, I guess that the Kos-Man didn't get Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's memo. She's been complaining that the US Constitution is far too niggardly in the rights department.)
Markos, you dumbass, if you’re going to make your living as a cheap shot artist, could you at least do your homework?
There’s been a lot of buzz recently about the number of advertisers that The Rush Limbaugh Show has lost since Limbaugh stepped over the line by calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” & etc. He responded to that buzz during his show yesterday, claiming that the numbers being bandied about are so much hooey. Here’s the transcript.
Not being an expert on the radio biz, I have no way of assessing the validity of Limbaugh’s explanation. Let’s just wait and see if he’s still on the air six months from now. I’m inclined to think that he will be.
As of this morning the Obama super PAC (run by former Obama adviser Bill Burton) has not returned the $1 million donation it received from that vile and degenerate misogynist, Bill Maher. So I guess that the President has no problem with terms like "dumb twat" when they're directed against a conservative woman. Stay classy, Barry.
Sarah Palin made a good point yesterday with this Facebook post: “Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?”
Sandra Fluke got a sympathetic call from Barry after Rush Limbaugh slimed her as a “prostitute” and “slut” on his radio show. The generous misogynist is the execrable Bill Maher, who has called Palin a “dumb twat” among other pleasantries. He recently donated $1 million to the Obama super PAC, which is run by former Obama adviser Bill Burton. So far, Burton hasn’t flung the money back in Maher’s ugly face, which suggests that the President’s concern for his daughters is somewhat selective. Hey, but a buck's a buck…
For the most part I don’t take progressive politicians seriously, i.e. I don’t think that they have too many IQ points invested in what they say. Most of the rhetoric spilling out of the mouths of people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Dick Durban, Maxine Waters etc. is what Orwell called duckspeak: speech emanating from the larynx, not the brain pan. Some of these people are intelligent and some are as dumb as a box of rocks, but the end result is much the same. And it’s not even the product of cynicism. Constant repetition has reduced their political rhetoric to the status of a conditioned reflex. Some of them might be surprised to discover that they actually don’t believe what they’re saying—if only they could master the trick of self-overhearing.
But a few progressive politicians are passionate believers. When they say that corporations are the root of all evil in the capitalist economy or that Dick Cheney is a war criminal, they sincerely mean it. Self-deluding fools they may be, but you have to give them points for honesty. Such a one is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, whose colorful and entertaining political career was terminated last night. Redistricting forced Kucinich into a primary battle with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a House collegue, who trounced him by a 24-point margin.
Despite the laughable naivate of his progressivism, there was something oddly endearing about the guy. He seemed incapable of true nastiness, and you always had the sense that he was telling you what he really thought. An honest politician, even when he's dead wrong about practically everything, is a rare commodity in Washington, DC, and I have to admit that I’ll miss Dennis Kucinich.
In the interests of balance, here are some choice tidbits, culled from various articles and websites, demonstrating what the male division of our morally superior progressive master class really thinks of women:
In 2008, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.”
In 2008, Chris Matthews went on a tear against Hillary Clinton, calling her a “she-devil,” “witchy,” “anti-male” and “uppity,” among other things.
In 2009 Keith Olbermann characterized conservative blogger Michelle Malkin as “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
In 2010, Jerry Brown, casting about for a way to attack his rival, Meg Whitman, in the race for governor of California, asked: “What about saying that she’s a whore?” (Brown was subsequently elected governor, which certainly helps to explain why California’s circling the toilet bowl.)
At various times, Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and a “cunt.” Most recently, he cracked a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. (Incidentally, Bill has donated $1 million to Obama’s reelection super PAC. Stay classy, Barry.)
Tu quoque: That’s the problem with the progressive campaign against Rush Limbaugh.
Though I’m not a regular listener, I’ve always enjoyed Rush Limbaugh. I like his bombastic broadcast persona, his good humor, his passion, his connection to his audience, his conservative take on politics—and, of course, the fact that he has all the right enemies. And it’s true that the outrage over his use of the terms “slut” and “prostitute” in connection with feminist nosebleed Sandra Fluke betrays the usual double standard. To take a single example, Laura Ingraham notes that few people got particularly upset when MSNBC’s Ed Schultz called her a slut. (Incidentally it should be noted that liberal pundit Kirsten Powers was and is one of those few. In this column she lambastes the one-eyed liberal attitude that protects jerks like Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, etc. from the outrage that’s lashing Limbaugh. Kudos, Kirsten.)
But even so, this unsavory incident has left me thinking less of Rush Limbaugh. That progressives do the same thing, far more often and far more viciously, is no excuse for his tasteless and insulting behavior. Referring to a woman as a “slut,” “prostitute,” “whore,” “bitch,” “cunt” etc. is never acceptable—period. And to say that “Rush is no worse than Ed Schultz” is a pathetic caricature of a defense.
Moreover, as Tallyrand would no doubt agree, Limbaugh’s gaffe was worse than a crime—it was a blunder. His prominence in the conservative movement and his perceived connection to the Republican Party meant that Limbaugh’s boorish name-calling caused a good deal of collateral damage. This was a serious lapse of judgment, perhaps indicating that his years of talk-radio dominance have made El Rushbo a bit too cocky for his own and conservatism’s good.
Rush Limbaugh will no doubt survive this scandal. With 15 million loyal listeners, he’ll always be able to attract advertisers. And it’s never wise to count out a guy who’s armed with such a large megaphone. So the Left is sure to be disappointed in its hopes for his demise. But Rush, Rush—I have to say that I’m pretty damned disappointed in you…
Check out this pathetic whine from David Sirota, writing for that ever-hilarious radical rag, Nation of Change:
N+1 magazine notes that since the late 1970s, when [GOP presidential candidate Rick] Santorum was enjoying his taxpayer-subsidized higher education, "the price of tuition at U.S. colleges has increased over 900 percent." In 2011, that meant the average total cost of a year at a public university was $21,477, up 5.4 percent in just 12 months. Thanks to cuts to programs that make college and vocational education more affordable—cuts Santorum supported in Congress—those tuition increases promise to get even steeper in the coming years, all but ensuring that a future college student will have even more than the $25,250 in education debt that today's average student carries.
Let’s unpack this idiocy. If you believe Sirota, college tuition has gone up 900% since the late 1970s in part because of “cuts to programs.” Apparently if Congress cuts (or, to be accurate, moderates the rate of growth) of a higher education program, that causes colleges and universities to raise tuition. Presumably, therefore, if Congress spent more on such programs, colleges and universities would lower their tuition. Right?
Now don’t try telling me that I’m distorting Sirota’s argument. Here it is again, in his own words: “Thanks to cuts to programs that make college and vocational education more affordable…tuition increases promise to get even steeper in the coming years.” You could conclude from this that Dave is a moron, but I think he’s just intellectually lazy. People like him have no respect for their audience and see no need to cobble together a plausible argument.
Sirota never points a finger at the true culprit: the vociferous, greedy, money-grubbing monster called “higher education.” Students and their families—and, not incidentally, the American taxpayer—get hosed big time by higher ed, and progressives like Sirota blame conservatives! He goes on at great and boring length the evils of conservative economics—with nary a word of criticism for the schools that are actually jacking up tuition and fees, not to mention the liberal politicians who feed the beast. This from a guy who no doubt tossed a blood clot when Bank of America tried to raise ATM fees.
As far as I know, not one Occupy protest has been directed against the Ivory Tower itself. This smelly mob of postmodern proles isn’t at all concerned about the evils of this academic con game. They just want to shift the costs of it onto hard-working taxpayers who weren’t so stupid as to assume a debt load of $20,000 for a master of fine arts degree in puppetry. You know what, Dave? Screw you.
