This weekend’s long overdue explosion of outrage against Rush Limbaugh should remind us of a couple things.
First of all, this is not new – this has been going on for decades. Rush Limbaugh is the number one vector for right wing hatred, resentment, and ignorance in the United States. Even Fox News has a lot of work to do to catch up with the sheer volume of poison spewed by this sociopath.
And, important to remember, its not a coincidence that Rush is climate-denier number one in the American media – because racism, ignorance, hatred of women, and of the planet itself, go hand in fist with climate denial, and always have. We can see no clearer demonstration of that than the current GOP presidential campaign.
Actually, back in the mid-90s, I was fed-up enough with a Limbaugh tirade on global climate, that, when he challenged “any environmentalist who wants to defend this” to call the show, I called. And got through.
When the screener asked me if I was, in fact, an environmentalist, I affirmed that I had a pair of sandals, that I had occasionally eaten tofu. I averred that I did not hug trees, because although I like trees, it’s not that kind of relationship. He put me on hold.
El Rushbo had been railing about a full page ad in USAToday from a green group, a faux “weather map from the future” predicting high temperatures throughout the US – such as 124 F in the southwestern desert, etc. Now, of course, we are beginning to get a first taste of that scenario, but it must have seemed remote enough for skepticism at the time.
When I got online, Rush blustered that even the most severe predictions of warming were for only a few degrees, so such predictions of searingly high temperatures had to be fantasy and scaremongering.
I explained that the 2 to 5 degree of warming projections were for global average – that there would be plenty of room for much more extreme events on a local basis.
I went on to explain that insurance companies were already seeing the effects of increased weather catastrophes from climate change, and were beginning conversations with green groups to see what could be done to mitigate what was for them, beginning to resemble an existential threat. I also noted that no one was advocating that people go back to the stone age to deal with climate change, that plenty of technologies already existed to begin the move beyond fossil fuels.
“If I have a car that can take me wherever I want to go, that gets hundreds of miles to the gallon, or uses no fuel at all – where is this terrible hit to my standard of living? I would think every intelligent person would see it in their own best interest to own such a car..”
I pointed out that, given there is only one planet in the universe that can support human life, or any kind of life, so far as we know – that perhaps erring on the side of caution in preserving it might be – conservative.
I stayed on, I am sure, several minutes beyond the point that he would have liked, and pretty much unloaded my as-yet-meager trove of climate knowledge. Shortly after I hung up, the show took a “spontaneous” call from some kind of “think” tank expert, who spent a good part of the next hour trying to shore up the damage to Rush’s messaging. I was elated.
What I’ve been looking for, for years, actually, is some kind of talk radio archive of Limbaugh shows from the early 90s – if anyone out there has access to this, let me know – because on of my clearest memories from listening hour after hour to the stream of nonsense, is the nonstop parodies of “Algore” and his then-socialistic-sounding “Information superhighway” – something that the right wing saw at the time as another leftist, government research boondoggle – very much the same way they are positioned against renewable energy, electric cars, and energy efficiency now.
After the internet exploded into the greatest economic and social engine the world has ever seen, it then became necessary to stop lampooning Gore for championing it, and start calling him a liar for claiming to have anything to do with it….
Below, just to illustrate how things just stay the same, Limbaugh in ’93 on Oil prices.
“Explosion of outrage against Rush Limbaugh?” Are you kidding?
Some tart in Georgetown Univ. Law School complains that she she’s fornicating so much that the cost of birth control is breaking her budget and somebody else should pay for it, and Limbaugh calls her out as a slut, and Obama Himself calls her to sympathize — and you think it’s Limbaugh whose reputation has been hurt? What planet do you live on??
Whats the matter Dave? You don’t like that Rush is reaping what he has sown?
fascinating.
Please go on.
Do conservatives really not realize that most women take birth control pills which have a set cost regardless of how much sex they’re having?
Maybe women just can’t stand the sight of Rush, dave, and Co., so they’re jealous that anyone is having sex.
is it that far out that a thrice divorced, grossly obese drug addict would have some emotional issues that have never been addressed? Clearly his reference to sex videos reveals much about who he is, and who his audience is.
it is well known that the red states are out biggest consumers of internet porn..
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/03/11/red-states-embrace-internet-porn/
We live on Earth, circa 2012. What planet do you hail from, Dave? The Leather Goddesses of Phobos?
DaveBurton: climate denier, check. Misogynist, check. Has-been computer software developer, check. What other vices would you like to admit to?
BTW, thanks for reminding me why I, as an independent, am voting Democratic this year.
I’m not sure what the “Climate Movement community” is, but climate scientists have been pointing out for as long as I can remember that to detect a temperature trend through all the noise of short-term variation takes a decade’s worth of data at least. That’s why the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record is significant, whereas the fact that 2005 approximately ties with 1998 as the warmest single year on record, is not.
The upward trend has been unambiguous for the last 40 years – but you’d never think so to listen to the ‘skeptics’, for whom global warming “has stopped” every time a cooler year follows a hot one.
I’m not surprised that people who think contraception=slut empowerment also have a hard time understanding climate change.
Daveburton: she’s not a tart. She’s a highly educated student that is an advocate for free access to birth control. Birth control is used for things other than ‘safe sex’ as anybody who had a sister understands. She has never said anything of her sexual activities.
actually, I think she wanted to speak on behalf of another person, who was using the medication to suppress ovarian cysts.
I don’t understand how Dave Burton can be a an instant internet expert oceanographer and not an expert on endocrinology as well.
Endocrinolgy! How about the birds and the bees?
Fess up Peter. Dave is a fictional character that you’ve created to spice up your blog.
they’re all my imaginary friends.
True Greenman: she has never discussed her sex life. Interpretations of her sex life have been imagined or concocted… just like climate science put forth by faux skeptics.
The Sandra Fluke situation was about health care, not ‘religious persecution’ or free sex. Like many of our best scientists, she is taking the high road and keeping her message on point. Limbaugh is focused on the sex and misogyny.
Dave, let me gently say, you are a complete idiot, and this goes way beyond any Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You haven’t listened to what she said. You haven’t read the transcript of what she said. In short, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Do you post just to parrot someone else’s stunning ignorance, someone who also hasn’t listened to what she said and hasn’t read the transcript. Or, perhaps he did listen and deliberately chose to lie and misrepresent what she said. Hmm, so are you ignorant or perhaps you also are deliberately misrepresenting what she said?
I recommend you use Peter’s little known secret that gives him an unfair advantage over the blowhards, deniers and the ignorant–that is, read the actual paper. In this case, go read the transcript. Or just keep quiet on things you haven’t even bothered looking up. You’ve made a complete fool of yourself yet again.
Amazing how the right-wing half wits try to turn any rational discussion into an indictement of facts and common-sense.
Many woman use birth control for medical reasons other than not concieving unwanted children at a particular point in their lives.
Using contraceptives or some form of birth control is done by over 97% of woman at some point in their lives.
This young woman is paying for her own health insurance, a group plan required by Catholic Georgetown; most universities require such coverage to protect students. Isn’t this mandated health care? Since she and all other Georgetown students pay for this coverage, she feels female hormones (for birth control or other medical reasons) should be covered and university officials should not limit the health care plan based on their religious idiology. It is a woman’s health issue.
I don’t think Dave Burton knows or cares for the facts. His goal (if he really exists) is to distract for the real arguments.
It boils down to one thing. You either believe it is OK to cast slurs against women or it’s not. No other minority group would ever tolerate these slurs. Why is it that in 2012, women are still treated this way? What self respecting woman or man would allow any female member of their family or group to suffer these kinds of slurs unanswered? Rush is a sick, sick, sick, member of humanity. The subject of discussion is irrelevant. It is never OK to slur another person. Those that do or condone others that do show their true nature.
Please let’s not forget that a young woman has been verbally assaulted. Then we can go into the ugly subject of why. How Rush hated her for daring to try to testify before Congress. How there were no women on the hearing panel. How she was not allowed to testify at the hearing.
Sandra Fluke deserves to be treated respectfully. If you don’t agree with her fine, but you cast slurs or condone them, you cross the line and you only disgrace yourself.
Dave Burton’s comments only go to show Rush Limbaugh is truly representative of today’s conservative movement. If you go to You Tube, some of the comments are truly appalling. They appear to want to entirely alienate the vast majority of women voters.
There must be some conservatives, particularly women, who must be horrified at what was said by Limbaugh and perhaps even more so by the comments in his support.
This is going to cost Republicans, maybe even the Presidency. In choosing to support Limbaugh, they are giving Obama a huge advantage. Middle America is outraged, ignoring that outrage is unwise.
Sure much of the outrage is from those who would not have voted Republican, but some of them might otherwise not have voted for Obama. Smart move? Enervate the Democrats and turn the swinging voter against you.
Dave Burton your support for Limbaugh will end up helping reelect Obama.
Here’s what Sandra Fluke said: “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.”
So that probably means $3000 is her total cost over the full three years it takes to get a law degree, which means that contraception is costing her over $1000/year. (Some commentators have interpreted her statement as meaning that her claimed annual cost is $3000, since she compared it to her annual summer salary, but that probably isn’t what she meant.)
Someone else is already paying for her $60,000/year Georgetown U. Law School education. But she also wants somebody else to pay for her contraception, so that she can fornicate for free.
Now, I wondered how could it cost $1000 per year for contraception? Well, let’s do the math.
First, assume that, to be safe, she’s using both birth control pills and condoms, and that her cheapskate boyfriends aren’t paying for any of it. Those are the assumptions that would maximize her expense.
Sprintec (ethinyl estradiol + norgestimate) birth control pills cost $9/month at WalMart. 12x$9 = $108/year. So subtract $108/year from that $1000/year she’s spending. That leaves $892/year that she must be spending on condoms.
You can buy condoms at $0.20 each or less on eBay. I calculate that $892/year would by ($892 / $0.20/condom) = 4,460 condoms per year, or more than 12 per day.
Rush wondered how she can still walk after that much sex. Don’t you?
Dave,
You’ve sunk to a new low. There is a possibility that a woman is taking birth control for another reason than to have sex. The amount a woman spends on birth control medication doesn’t necessarily mean that she is sexually promiscuous or even that she is having a lot of sex. Birth control pill don’t work like Viagra you idiot.
guylacrosse, you’ve been deceived. A small percentage of women taking hormonal contraceptive pills do so for reasons other than contraception. But, of those that do, none spend over $1000 per year for it. So Sandra Fluke is obviously not one of those women.
Moreover, hormonal contraceptive pills used to treat medical problems (rather than used for contraception) are already covered by insurance to the same extend that all other medically-necessary medications are covered, even by insurance that does not otherwise pay for contraception.
At issue isn’t insurance coverage for medically necessary drugs. It is federally mandated preferential (from first dollar) coverage for just one class of drugs and devices: contraception. If you need drugs to treat a heart condition, or asthma, or cancer, or an infection, the federal government will not mandate first-dollar coverage by insurance. Only non-medically-necessary contraception gets that favored treatment.
Dave, the more you speak, the more glaringly apparent it is that you didn’t review Ms Fluke’s testimony and more importantly understand it. But it is apparent that you are searching for and trying to support a rational opinion to support Limbaugh’s, which quite simply is that Fluke is a slut that demands we pay for her to continue being a slut. She advocates for women to receive contraception in health insurance: her sexuality has never been the issue. Why don’t you and the rest of the right wing understand that?
It seems as if your point is that ‘only a small percentage of women use contraception to manage health issues, and those health issues are covered anyway. This is about government forcing religious institutions to pay for Condoms for Coeds.’
Condoms for Coeds. Sounds… Limbaughian.
Here’s what Sandra Fluke said: “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.”
Her words are plain: she want’s free contraception, so that she can have sex without getting pregnant, and without paying (money) for it.
She’s already getting someone else to pay for her $60,000 / year law degree. But that’s not sufficient, she also wants to make someone else pay for her contraception.
Note that other drugs, for treating medical problems, such as infections, cancer, or other illnesses, are NOT FREE with most insurance plans. There’re limits, copays, etc.. But Fluke wants the federal government to require that her contraception be provided to her for FREE.
In the 2nd place, with other medications, there’s no federal government REQUIREMENT that such things be paid for by insurance at all. If you want such coverage, you must buy a plan that covers it.
In the 3rd place, note that Fluke is not ill. She doesn’t want coverage to treat a medical problem, she wants free contraception to STOP her perfectly functional body from working properly, so that she can have recreational sex without getting pregnant.
In the 4th place, the purchase of most other medications do not violate the teachings of the church which founded, and is still affiliated with, Georgetown University.
The chances are very high that, because of her lifestyle, Fluke is already infected with one or more dangerous strains of HPV (most of which cannot be protected against with vaccines), putting her at risk for cervical cancer (and other cancers) later in life. Those who promote promiscuity are responsible for thousands of deaths from cervical cancer each year.
The Obama Administration has declared war on Catholics and other Christians who believe that contraception and fornication are sinful, and on everyone who thinks that the scope and power of the federal government should be limited (as supposedly required by the Bill of Rights), and on everyone who belives that it is wrong for governent to require people to violate their consciences.
gee, and I thought this was all about religious freedom.
Go, Dave, Go!!!