Of apologies and of double-standards

We know that there are two sets of rules, one set for liberals and another for conservatives.

I read that Rush Limbaugh apologized for what he called the activist from Georgetown who wants taxpayers to pay for her contraceptives.

I am sure that Nancy Pelosi will now apologize to other members of the House whom she accused of trying to kill women.

I am certain that liberals will now abandon their double-standard in a spirit of civility and fairness.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Of apologies and of double-standards

  1. NoTambourines says:

    I’ve been on a free, reliable regimen of pregnancy prevention for 2 decades. It’s called abstinence. I pass the savings onto me!

    I heard a great quote about political correctness recently. It was attributed to John Cleese, but I can’t find verification of that. Still, it went something like:

    “Political correctness is being beholden to the most emotionally unstable person in the room.”

    Some people have made an entire industry out of it.

  2. Joanne says:

    Nancy Pelosi probably won’t apologize. Bill Maher probably won’t apologize for what he said about Sarah Palin either. That doesn’t change the fact that Rush said something uncharitable and indefensible and something for which an apology was totally appropriate. Good for him for wanting to be the bigger person.

  3. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321 will respond as soon as he receives a FAX from the Democratic party.

  4. APX says:

    @NoTambourines

    I agree with you on that one. Furthermore, abstinence does wonders to liberate women. I can’t begin to tell women how liberating it is to not have to fret over whether or not lateness means I’m preggers, or having to remember to take a pill everyday and obsessively wondering whether or not I missed a dose. Whenever I need x-rays I never have to waste time with pregnancy tests. When I feel like throwing up in the morning, I know it isn’t morning sickness. Paying $300+ for the HPV vaccine or worrying I was exposed to the virus? Not me.

    Yes, that’s right. By practicing abstinence, I am a completely liberated woman. Free from the bonds imprudent sexual transgressions.

    BTW: Whatever happened to those “Chastity- That’s My Choice” PSA’s they had when I was a kid?

  5. EXCHIEF says:

    Father
    Don’t stay up late waiting for the socialists to apologize. Busy as you are you need some sleep, and if you wait for them to admit error you’ll never get any.

  6. jflare says:

    “FrJim4321 will respond as soon as he receives a FAX from the Democratic party.”

    robt, for someone who likely hasn’t met frjim, between this post and the last that dealt with Limbaugh, you seem to have an awfully clairvoyant knowledge of his state of being and intent. Unless you have some sort of legitimate charge to level against him, I’d appreciate it if you’d knock it off.

    I don’t necessarily agree with frjim on many things, but your approach to challenging him doesn’t precisely motivate me to give any more “ear-time” to you than to him.

  7. Brooklyn says:

    I most definitely disagee with the student activitist, and I am certainly no fan of people like Pelosi. But at the same time, that does not give Rush Limbaugh or anyone else the right to use words like “slut” and “prostitute” to dsecribe those with whom he disagrees. Limbaugh’s apology was definitely in order, and I give him tremendous credit for doing so. Lowering ourselves to the base standards of those with whom we disagree makes us no better than they are. We should be trying to change people’s minds and hearts, not degrade and insult them.

  8. downyduck says:

    I don’t understand why the Left is so wee weed up about Limbaugh’s name calling. A “slut” is a promiscuous female and Ms. Fluke went before millions and proudly stated that she is a promiscuous female. A “prostitute” is a person who wishes to be paid for sex. Ms. Fluke went before millions and brazenly stated that she and her classmates should be paid to have sex. Yes, his words were inflammatory, but also accurate based on the very testimony of Ms. Fluke!

  9. SKAY says:

    Obviously there is a double standard.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10988-religious-broadcasters-urge-irs-probe-of-media-matters

    We now know that this WH is working with Media Matters and the MSM to shape the news headlines.
    We have known for a long time that we have a biased media–and they try to destroy anyone that disagrees with their view. They are not only going after freedom of religion–they are also going after freedom of speech.
    Rush could have chosen his words a little better—but it is also interesting that this law student said that she was told by Obama that her parents should be proud of her actions. Of course we know true morality is not important to the left and the very meaning of the word has been turned upside down.

  10. david andrew says:

    Limbaugh’s apology, while sincere, may have been a bit premature.

    News over the last 24 hours has now shown that Fluke was a very carefully selected liberal plant who lied about her age and her motivations for being involved in this scam so as to advance the Regime’s ongoing attack on the morals and values of decent, serious-minded members of our society. She did this for pay, and with the intent of gaining something from the deception.

    She may not have been a “prostitute” deserving of the epithet “slut” in the commonplace usage of those words, but never the less if the shoe fits . . .

  11. poohbear says:

    Abstinence rules! I made this argument during a rather heated discussion of the topic at work the other day. Surprisingly, there were no come back comments. It pretty much ended the conversation.

    As for Limbaugh, I think he hit the nail on the head. His choice of words could have been different, but he is correct in his views, IMO.

  12. LisaP. says:

    As is usual with “Limbaugh said. . . ” stories, that’s not exactly what Limbaugh said. It was direct, but he didn’t say she *was* a slut and a prostitute. He asked what you would call someone who expected you to pay for her to have sex, wouldn’t that person be a slut and a prostitute. Maybe a difference without a distinction, but he was making a point, not a personal attack, about definitions and expectations and morays.

    I guess on revisiting it he himself considered it too close to sounding like he was making a direct personal attack against the woman herself, but as he points out himself that wasn’t the intention. The intention was to make a point on the issue and the approach, and it was a good point, and one that should be made. We have come a long way when people can expect the general population to pay for folks to have sex outside of marriage.

    My daughter picked up a book for young teens the other day and vetted it through me. One passage had the daughter talking about how oogey it was that her mom was sleeping with her teacher. Isn’t that cute? Isn’t that funny? He’s right to point out how far the new normal is from what we considered normal pre-BCP.

  13. frjim4321 says:

    As is usual with “Limbaugh said. . . ” stories, that’s not exactly what Limbaugh said. It was direct, but he didn’t say she *was* a slut and a prostitute. He asked what you would call someone who expected you to pay for her to have sex, wouldn’t that person be a slut and a prostitute. Maybe a difference without a distinction, but he was making a point, not a personal attack, about definitions and expectations and morays.

    Actually, and typically, he was saying what he wanted to say without having to take responsibility for saying it. Cleverly promoting sexism here and racism at other times in such a way as to not be quotable enough to be called to account.

    This time he crossed the line, and despite the pseudo-apology four major sponsors have dropped him like a hot potato. Perhaps like Savage stations will begin to drop him because of his ugly remarks.

  14. Dave N. says:

    A man currently living in an adulterous relationship and whose Viagra was confiscated on his way back from vacation (when he wasn’t married) probably should steer clear of such topics. People who live in glass houses….

  15. Joseph-Mary says:

    Don’t hold your breath waiting on Pelosi, et al, to apologize for anything.

    That woman who presented herself as a young co-ed whose studies were affected by her needing to pay for contraceptive ‘services’…well maybe her studies are affected by an active sex life???? And she is a 30 year old long time feminist activist~! Lies all over the place.

    Face it: planned parenthood, with government support, promotes a SINFUL lifetyle that is promiscuous–and likely to end in abortion, the taking of a physical life and also the life of God in souls.

    What do you call people who promote such a thing? Minions of the evil one perhaps?

  16. LisaP. says:

    Whether he was “saying what he wanted to say without having to take responsibility for it” or not depends on your view of what sexism and racism are.

    If sexism and racism are condemning human beings based on their sex or race, then what Limbaugh says is not sexism and racism.

    If sexism and racism are condemning people for their *behavior* based on universal norms and regardless of their sex and race but sometimes in the context of sex and race, then what Limbaugh says is sexism and racism.

    But the second definition is not a universally agreed upon one.

    In this circumstance, I’d ask if his critics recognize the difference between calling someone a slut and a prostitute because she disagrees with you and making the point that traditional definitions would place someone who has voluntary sex outside of marriage in the category of “slut” and would place someone who expects others to pay for her to have sex out of marriage in the category of “prostitute”. If you see no difference, you’ll consider Limbaugh’s comments sneaky and mean. If you see a difference, which I do, you will see the difference as meaningful and the debate about it as propagandist and distracting — not addressing his valid point, but rather misrepresenting it as a slander in order to avoid having to address it.

  17. LisaP. says:

    Oops — that second was supposed to be “not racism”. I need to start previewing!

  18. wmeyer says:

    LisaP: well said. Not only is the second definition not universally accepted, it would depend on moral relativism, so can never be universally accepted.

  19. Gail F says:

    Good one, Fr. Z!

    Rush Limbaugh knows the woman was an activist and a plant, he said so on his show Friday. I tuned in because I had heard about the dust-up Thursday, which I did not hear, and wanted to hear what he had to say. He was hilarious! I think Fluke deserves all the ridicule she gets because of her preposterous testimony, and I don’t think he was out of line. He was clearly joking, as opposed to many of the people who said vile and disgusting things about Sarah Palin (who, for the record, I would never in a million years vote for). I assume he made the apology because of the campaign to get his advertisers to drop him — I read in the newspaper that several did. These days, it seems, there is no room for nasty jokes from anyone on the Right, though people on the Left can say any vile thing they want to. So quit saying “slut” and “prostitute” and stick with “she wants to have as much sex as she wants to with no consequences and without having to pay for it.”

  20. ckdexterhaven says:

    FrJim4321- how exactly does Limbaugh “cleverly promote racism”? I listen to Rush every day, and I have never heard him say anything racist.

    I didn’t think Rush should have called Fluke such a vulgar name. He did the right thing by apologizing. But has FrJim opined on Obama accepting $1 million from Bill Maher? Or advocated Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann being forced off the air for their hateful extremist comments towards Palin, Michelle Malkin, Hillary Clinton (in the case of Matthews)?

  21. wmeyer says:

    With regard to the way the left demeans and defames anyone who disagrees with them, I would cite 1 John 4:20 – If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God* whom he has not seen.

    And I think we’ve seen folks here who might review that verse, too.

  22. frjim4321 says:

    I don’t think any party or ideology has a monopoly on being disgusting. There’s plenty of invective at any given point on the spectrum. We’ll be running around in circles if we try to prove that one contingent is less civil than another. It would be an endless game of tit-for-tat.

    I did not know about President Obama receiving one million dollars for Bill Maher which is certainly his right as a citizen. And I certainly don’t remember Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann calling Sarah Palin a s**t.

    How is Fluke being on the panel any more or less than a “plant” than any of the others, including the all-male panel put up by the republicans? That’s what panels ARE.

    I think we could tone done some of the partisan rancor if we took political rhetoric for what it was . . . on both sides of the aisle.

  23. Juergensen says:

    I don’t understand what all the hubbub is about. Ms. Flake testified under oath that she wants us to give her money for sex. That’s called something other than what Limbaugh called her.

  24. wmeyer says:

    It has been my observation that many liberals hear only what they believe, which is what seems to account for a good deal of buyer’s remorse among some of my liberal friends. I have listened closely to the pundits on both sides, and I’m sorry, but slander and defamation are not equally present, nor have they been for years.

  25. letchitsa1 says:

    “I think we could tone done some of the partisan rancor if we took political rhetoric for what it was . . . on both sides of the aisle.”

    I agree 100%. The rhetoric isn’t amusing when either side uses it, and truth be told – both sides have been equally guilty over the years.

  26. introibo says:

    And what about the so-called “slut walks” that are going on at college campuses around the country? Women can call themselves that name with no problem, but let somebody else do it, and wait for the outcry!

  27. wmeyer says:

    Introibo: Women calling themselves sluts are emulating blacks who call themselves the N word. This is one of the idiocies of moral relativism. Either a word is offensive, or it is not. It can’t be offensive when used by one, and fine when used by another. That’s just PC nonsense.

  28. Kathleen10 says:

    I am sitting by my phone awaiting the phone call from Obama apologizing for calling me a “potential terrorist” when I attended a Tea Party meeting. Or it may have been Nancy Pelosi. I always confuse my Socialists!

    Rush should not of course have used such an insulting term when he referred to the young lady who insists taxpayers pay for her contraception. He was wrong. I think he apologized so his sponsors would return. That looks pretty sorry to me.

    When pundits, even entertainers, say something, it would be great if they would remember that the Left is recording every word, in the hopes that one day, one of them will say just this kind of thing so they can use it against them. This hurts the cause. People don’t care what liberals say, but they get really worked up when a conservative says something that can be misused. Nobody was in a lather when Sarah Palin was called terrible names, and all manner of derogatory remarks were made. The Left can say anything!
    I hope Rush uses better judgment in the future. Like it or not, this is what we’ve got to play by. There are millions of gullible, foolish people, who believe what the media or media types say about conservatives, the GOP, etc. They don’t find out, they just believe…

  29. AnAmericanMother says:

    frjim1234,

    You haven’t been listening, then. Or maybe you just hear what you want to hear.

    Palin was called words so obscene that they really shouldn’t be repeated. Bill Maher called her by two different slang names for female genitalia. A bunch of Obama supporters thought that was just dandy and printed “Sarah Palin is a ****” on T-shirts. Ed Schultz called her a slang name for a prostitute. I didn’t happen to personally hear anything the other people you listed called her, but nothing really would surprise me.

    At least a ‘slut’ can just be a messy housekeeper – iow although that was not the meaning intended, the word is not itself obscene, unlike the language used habitually by the leftist media — with nary a cry of outrage from anyone.

  30. AnAmericanMother says:

    letchitsa,
    I don’t know where you’ve been to equate the language from the left and the right.
    The right has some standards and you will rarely hear frankly obscene language on the right. This is not because of any overwhelming virtue on their part — it’s because if they use even mildly pejorative language they are pilloried for it (e.g. Limbaugh). The left, on the other hand, can use street and gutter obscenities and nobody calls them on it. So, of course, they do. It also helps that many of them have no moral standards whatsoever when it comes to sex — which is how this whole Fluke thing started in the first place. People who have no standards are more difficult to criticize, and you certainly can’t call them hypocrites.
    Another example that comes to mind: Palin was accused of being responsible for the Giffords shooting because her website had a map “targeting” districts (not people) for close election contests. While, on the other hand, CBS (yes, that CBS!) put on national television a photo of President Bush’s face with a telescopic sight superimposed over it and the caption “SNIPERS WANTED”. They eventually apologized, but there was very little outcry.

  31. wmeyer says:

    AnAmericanMother: It’s nice to know I am not the only one who has observed selective hearing. As a boy, I thought that only applied to my grandfather when my grandmother called him to help with something. ;)

  32. AnAmericanMother says:

    wmeyer,
    Yup . . . in our family we call it “Selective Parental Deafness”. :-D
    I also find that my dogs are afflicted with it when I call them in to anything other than dinner.

  33. ckdexterhaven says:

    Frjim4321, Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick”, he said this on prime time MSNBC. Bill Maher has said numerous vulgar things about Sarah Palin and her daughters!!! that are beyond vile. He even made a comment about Bristol Palin’s upcoming book. It’s too disgusting to put on Father Z’s page, but google it. Obama called Sandra Fluke over Rush’s comments, but has he ever called on Bill Maher to repudiate the hateful rhetoric Maher used against the Vice Presidential nominee? Maher has also made comments about Rick Santorum’s wife that again, I don’t feel right putting on Father Z’s page. And yes, FrJim, Maher *just last week* rather splashily announced his $1 million contribution to Obama, so it’s not like it’s ancient history. So spare me the liberals’ high dudgeon over Rush’s poor choice of words.

    FrJim4321, is there proof of your odious claim that Limbaugh “cleverly practices racism?”

  34. LisaP. says:

    Maybe no monopoly on disgusting, but sure a corner on the market.

    Heinous infraction on the right: Suggesting that a woman who testifies to Congress that she’s having sex outside of marriage would once have been called a slut, and then apologizing if it was too much of a personal insult.

    Heinous infraction on the left: Fabricating a horrific definition for a presidential candidate’s last name because he dared to run for office while holding the opinion held by the Catholic Church on gay marriage, then promoting it until it becomes the top hit for Google (and not subject to Google’s filter) so that any kid doing a homework project on the candidates would become introduced to a concept best left until adulthood (or never).

    I don’t even see how that’s close.

  35. wmeyer says:

    And yet, LisaP, it is the right which is called crazy, despicable, rude, and evil.

  36. frjim4321 says:

    FrJim4321, is there proof of your odious claim that Limbaugh “cleverly practices racism?”

    Of course not, just as there is no legal definition of pornography.

    But I know it when I see/hear it.

  37. pm125 says:

    Remember the one track voices of double-standards on Tuesday.
    Liberal for me and no liberty for thee.
    Wonder what isn’t being reported while ‘just say contraception’ is getting overcooked.
    Smokescreens for …
    Fr. George Rutler ended his 3/4 column: “Hope is a theological virtue. Optimism is not. The wise have warned that pessimists are unhappy fools and optimists are happy fools. But the hopeful are not foolish. Christ began His war with a forty-day battle in a desert filled with wild beasts, but as they prowled about, He could hear angels.”

  38. JKnott says:

    With the endless list of critical concerns facing our country the Democrats focus time and taxpayer money demanding that Congress repudiate a talk shows host? Our president cannot denounce the slaughter of Christians in the Mideast, but makes a high profile phone call of support and encouragement to a promiscuous activist female. Imagine how many young people will think of her immoral behavior as a praiseworthy role model. There is no end to Obama’s strategy to undermine our country. Rush did a great service, calling a spade a spade. So what if he didn’t present the absolute truth of it quite as delicately as our Blessed Mother did at Fatima when she told the children, “More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh.” Thanks Rush.

  39. Supertradmum says:

    The Church Militant should apologize for nothing. Did Elijah, Isaiah, Moses, John the Baptist (the greatest man born of men, said Christ) apologize for anything? NO.

  40. Brooklyn says:

    I find many of the comments here very disturbing. Our Lord told us to pray for our enemies, not insult and degrade them. No one is disputing the fact that the Left is guilty of many egregious acts and slander. But does that give the green light to us, as Christians, to engage in the same kind of behaviour? Many on the Left live their lives completely apart from the light of God’s word. They are guided by their own corrupt human nature. Bur we, as Christians, should be guided by a higher standard, that of the Living Word of God.

    To use a worn out cliche – what would Jesus do? Does anyone here really think Jesus would condone the outrageous things that Rush Limbaugh said? He he called her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex”. He said she was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk”. He said she was “having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs.”

    I am in complete disagreement with Fluke. As the church teaches, I believe artificial birth control is inherently evil and is the basis for much of the evil in our society. But disagreement should never lead to such outrageous attacks as those by Rush Limbaugh. The ad hominen attacks by Limbaugh completely crossed the line, and that is why he is losing so many of his advertisers.

    Everyone needs to take a step back and think about what they are really saying, especially in this time of Lent when we should be drawing closer in following in the footsteps of our Lord, not the way of the world.

  41. Supertradmum says:

    Brooklyn, Have you read what St. John the Baptist and Christ Himself said of some people who were sinning? Here is an example of Christ’s words and there are many more. From Matthew 23:33
    You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

  42. bookworm says:

    A couple of days ago I saw this quote on another site, concerning a completely unrelated issue: “Weaknesses are strengths pushed too far.” Aristotle had a similar idea concerning virtue and vice — virtue (generally) means moderation while either deficiency or excess is vice. An act becomes virtuous when done at the right time, in the right place, for the right reason.

    Yes, there is a time and a place for calling a spade a spade, and Jesus certainly did call some people names. However, some people use that as an excuse to act like insulting jerks all the time, or most of the time, even when it is NOT appropriate. The last thing we need to do is encourage them. Rush had a point, but he went overboard in this instance and I’m glad he apologized.

  43. Brooklyn says:

    Supertradmom – John the Baptist was attacking those who were spiritual leaders but were preaching lies and leading people away from God. And Christ called out the spiritual leaders for the same reason. You cannot compare that to Rush Limbaugh who is flinging ad hominem attacks at someone with whom he disagrees. We are told to pray for those who persecute us, not attack them. When Christ was hanging on the cross his words were Father forgive them for they know now what they do.

    Fluke is not a spiritual leader. She is a very misguided young woman who has been brainwashed by our sick and sinful society. Attacking her only gives more amunition to those who believe as she does. This does nothing to further the cause of truth. As I said in my first post, lowering ourselves to the base standards of those with whom we disagree makes us no better than they are.

  44. Brooklyn says:

    One other thing, Supertradmom, Christ did not attack the woman caught in the act of adultery nor any other sinner. We need to learn from that.

  45. Supertradmum says:

    We need more prophets, not less.

  46. Brooklyn says:

    Supertradmum – Are you saying Rush Limbaugh is a prophet?

  47. LisaP. says:

    Brooklyn,

    Don’t you get the joke of saying she’s having so much sex she can’t afford all the BCP she needs? His point is clearly not to make fun of her promiscuity, but to make fun of her arguments. She is the one who brought her sexuality in as an argument for her proposition. He is not, then, allowed to address that? She is extolling the virtues of an active sex life in those not married, is that addressable? Instead of making a joke using a pejorative (don’t we call people who expect others to pay for them to have sex prostitutes?) (I’d argue, by the way, that we would instead call them Johns with unrealistic expectations) should he instead have made the argument that this young woman is promoting an evil act, sex outside of marriage, and seems to be engaging in that evil act, and therefore should be publicly admonished instead of treated with deferrence before Congress? Would that have gone over better? You don’t think he’d have been called a big meanie if he’d used words like “evil” and “sin”? So, he just concedes the field because they put a young woman with no moral compass out there as an example and a hero?

    I think it’s important that when someone does something wrong, his or her wrong is noticed and noted. The only thing evil men need to triumph is for good men to stay quiet, and when we stay quiet when we see evil done by our enemies, our friends, or ourselves we allow it to continue flourishing. If someone thinks the language Limbaugh used was wrong because it was personal, degrading, and female-based, I can see that. But the problem I have is with refusing to see that his point was not to be personal, degrading, and anti-female — his point was to make an intellectual point about her argument, in a humorous and striking manner. And I also have a problem with the equivalency argument. Tell me it’s wrong, I can consider that. Tell me it’s *the same* and you’ll have me pulling all my hair out. He made an off color remark in order to get at the truth. The recent examples of personal remarks from the left are about making personal remarks in order to distract from the truth. They are polar opposites.

  48. Sissy says:

    Brooklyn, Ms. Fluke is not a misguided young woman. She is a 30 year old veteran of the leftist war on Catholic culture. She has stated that she deliberately applied to Georgetown University Law School specifically because it was a Catholic university for the very purpose of trying to force them to provide free birth control. She calls herself a “reproductive rights activist”. In college, she was well-known for shutting down pro-life free speech on campus. This isn’t some naive dupe of the death-culture left. She aspires to be one of their front-line combat leaders, by her own admission.

  49. Brooklyn says:

    How does personally attacking anyone help people see what is right and wrong? How does attacking her character help people see the evil of contraception? Isn’t it better to attack her argument and not attack her personally? Why do we put down the Left for their tactics, and then adopt the same tactics ourselves? Don’t you see that Limbaugh has just empowered the Left by what he has done?

    Don’t you get the joke of saying she’s having so much sex she can’t afford all the BCP she needs?

    I guess my sense of humor does not apply to ad hominem attacks.

  50. jarhead462 says:

    Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

    Semper Fi!

  51. wmeyer says:

    Further to what Sissy said, at 30, Ms. Fluke is old enough to take full responsibility for her actions and words. Whether or not she has been brainwashed, she is recognized in this society as being capable of deciding her own direction, and is legally independent. As an adult, she has a responsibility to apply reason (we’d like to think that having qualified to enroll at Georgetown, she has some reasoning capacity), and to reach her decisions in an intelligent way. There is, therefore, no excuse for her actions, nor for her words. They are her own.

  52. wmeyer says:

    Amen, jarhead!

  53. Sissy says:

    After Ms. Fluke’s testimony, Charlie Cook joked that there was a CVS within a few blocks of Georgetown that sells a box of 20 condoms for $10. He then calculated that Ms. Fluke’s friends would have to engage in sexual activity at least 5 times a day, every day, in order to spend $3000.00 per year on contraception. Limbaugh was riffing off of this analysis of Fluke’s absurd statistic when he pondered “What is she saying about herself, that she’s some kind of slut?”. I wouldn’t use that word to describe a woman who asserts she has so much sex she can’t afford to eat, but English does provide words to describe such behavior. Is it really an ad hominem attack to accurately characterize the extreme form of behavior Ms. Fluke described? What’s the polite word for the kind of lifestyle she is affirming? [I’m an ancient historian, so I probably would have called her “a modern-day Messalina”]

  54. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, I like your analysis. It’s all too easy to condemn men for poor choices in the words used to describe a clearly irresponsible and immoral behavior. On the other hand, I never thought of Messalina as being merely a slut, which seems a very mundane term, and conjures the room-by-the-hour sort of image for me.

  55. Sissy says:

    Well, wmeyer, Messalina was best-known for her prodigious feats of rapid-fire, repeat sexual episodes, once winning a famous contest with a Roman prostitute. I wouldn’t call Ms. Fluke “merely a slut” either. She’s also a manipulative, savvy political operative who expertly promotes her own radical agenda. Among other things.

  56. JKnott says:

    Ms. Fluke made a choice to present herself publically as a wolf is sheep’s clothing. Rush took her ridiculous argument and demonstrated valid errors in that argument. I don’t see his motive as a direct attack on her, but rather on her foolish presentation.
    Jesus defended poor sinners, but he called out the hypocrites. The woman caught in adultery was hopelessly helpless. She did not stand up pronouncing to all how adultery was a necessary part of her life and begging people to please pay her for it.
    The reader who mentioned John the Baptist has a good point. Jesus never scolded him for publically accusing Herod’s wife of adultery. We know what he said about John the Baptist.
    Unfortunately, today, anything is used to distract from the truth and in this case it is all the silliness of being offended by a stupid word “slut.” Youth needed to hear what Rush said for their own good. That generic behavior has always been known by many names, including slutty. It is. It is also the language kids understand.
    Thanks again Rush.

  57. StJude says:

    The pill is $4.00 at Walmart, Ms Fluke. March your self down there and get a pack.

    Good grief. Personal responsibility is not a character trait of the left.

    When you put your sex life on full display in front of America.. dont be surprised when most of us think you are a slut.

  58. LisaP. says:

    Brooklyn,

    You take the BCP each day, it comes as a pack, you don’t take one each time you have sex, that’s the joke. It’s not a personal attack, it’s a joke about her arguments. You see what I mean?

  59. Y2Y says:

    One should never apologise to a liberal under any circumstances.

  60. Brooklyn says:

    One should never apologise to a liberal under any circumstances.

    This is what our Lord says in Matthew 5:43-45:

    You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

    As we pray in the Lord’s prayer:

    Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

    I don’t think any of the above includes calling our enemies a “slut” and “prostitute” or saying we want to film their sex acts and put them on the internet, even in “jest”. Even Limbaugh himself admitted that he was using the tactics of the Left to attack Fluke, and that it was wrong.

    Does anyone here honestly feel that our Lord would have said any of the things that Limbaugh said not just once but over a period of 3 days? Does anyone feel that any of Limbaugh’s comments were the least helpful in clarifying the view of the right and helping those who disagree see that they might be wrong? Or did he only add fuel to the fire and cause even more division between sides? The Left has been able to take this issue from one of freedom of religion to “women’s health” and Limbaugh has been instrumental in helping them do so. He has allowed Fluke to cast herself as a victim, rightly or wrongly, of one of the most powerful conservative forces in America instead of exposing her arguments as specious and without merit.

    The Left is now winning this argument in the eyes of the American public, and we have Rush Limbaugh to thank for much of that.

  61. LisaP. says:

    I appreciate your sincerity, Brooklyn, but personally I feel that in addressing the situation in an over the top way Limbaugh brings clarity. There are many who look on this as a women’s health issue, and with his humor Limbaugh is pointing out that on the one side we have folks who want to maintain religious freedom, and on the other side we have not folks who want to maintain women’s health, but folks who want to maintain the ability to have exclusively recreational sex without even having to pay a few bucks to do so. That is clarifying the situation. Whether the left wants to see that clarity is not Limbaugh’s choice.

    The problem with saying we need to avoid ad hominem here is that ad hominem is appropriate. It is only a rhetorical dirty trick when the person — “the man” — is not part of the argument. If you make yourself, your experiences, and your behavior part of the argument for your case, of course your opponent has every right to address your self, your experiences, and your behavior. Let’s say I was arguing for the existence of God, and I said, “I know God exists because when I helped an old lady cross the road the other day and it felt good, so I know that’s the hand of God.” It would be perfectly reasonable for you to tell me that I just had a brain chemistry surge based on my own human need to feel loved. It would be more than reasonable to tell me the old lady never wanted to cross the road and I in fact did harm to her, so that’s an argument that my feelings about God weren’t valid. You even could tell me my actions are evidence of my bossiness and pride, not the existence of God, and note other situations in which I’d been bossy or prideful. That’s not ad hominem, because I’m the one who brought my hominem into the situation. I’m glad folks are getting some information on logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks, but we need to understand the properly. Every time the speaker rather than the argument is referenced is not an ad hominem fallacy.

    I’ve noted this before here, but let me add my own personal twist. I’ve got a kid with a medical condition, diabetes. She’s five and has had it for four years. We pay about $750 a month for medical premiums and our out of pocket just for her insulin and test strips and supplies, which she will DIE without, runs us at least $200 a month. That’s when she’s healthy. Our household income is $2,200 a month (we get gifts, freely given, from family that helps a lot). The economics of what they propose means that the poor insured, like my family, see higher premiums when you add the latest fashion (contraception, certain number of days in hospital after giving birth, etc.) as required medical benefits. It’s like an additional medical tax on everyone, including the poor, not progressive at all. So, essentially, Ms. Fluke believes my poor family’s costs for life-sustaining health care for my young child should go up so that she can have free access to contraception so she can have sex outside of marriage. The fact that her “side” would likely judge me as being morally suspect because this child even exists (she’s my third and has a medical condition, what a resource sponge!) rubs salt in the wound. I’m supposed to pay for her choices without judgment, but she’s allowed to judge my moral choices and drive up the cost of them all she wants. It doesn’t make me want to call her a slut, but it does make me not mind the clarity — I want medical care that I pay for myself to keep my baby healthy and alive, she wants me to pay for her “medical care” to keep her free to have recreational sex. I’m glad to see that clarity in the public square, and I’m afraid after giving my kid two shots and testing her blood sugar and ketone level five times since 5 a.m., I’m not feeling a bit sorry for Ms. Fluke and her fake medical needs.

  62. Sissy says:

    Excellent post, LisaP. Prayers for your precious little one and her siblings (and you). You express it so well: how is it “charity” and “social justice” to force you to provide for Ms. Fluke’s manifestly sinful priorities? Don’t you have a right to attend to your family priorities and then decide how you wish to express your charitable impulses?

    We’re seeing the rapid progression of the hard left agenda as it moves from requests for “tolerance” to demands for affirmation and active support. It’s no longer enough that we show respect and kindness to others; we’re now called upon to “celebrate” their depravities and underwrite their “lifestyle choices”. The next step will be that our beliefs will no longer be tolerated. Oh wait, it’s here.

  63. LisaP. says:

    Thank you, Sissy.
    Underwriting — that’s exactly what I mean.

  64. Brooklyn says:

    LisaP. – even Rush Limbaugh doesn’t agree with you as to the rhetoric he used. He said the tactics he used were the same as those of the left. This is what he said yesterday, which you can find at

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/05/why_i_apologized_to_sandra_fluke

    I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It’s what we have come to know and expect of them, but it’s way beneath me. And it’s way beneath you. It was wrong, and that’s why I’ve apologized, ’cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. Don’t be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me. I’m the one who had the failing on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.

    I completely agree with you, LisaP, as to why Fluke is wrong. I am merely upset at the tactics that Limbaugh used, and apparently he is as well, especially since he has lost so many advertisers. You can never convince me that he acted in a Christian way. His apology was absolutely necessary. We should not act like those who persecute us.

  65. wmeyer says:

    Given the outrageous behavior of the left, who seem to have no issue with abusive language directed at us, we place ourselves at a serious disadvantage when we insist upon being courteous and civilized. Their weakness is being so often strident; ours is in failing to be strident when outraged.

  66. LisaP. says:

    That’s an interesting read, Brooklyn, oddly enough I am more irritated by this apology than the original talk — I’m not a fan of parsed apologies, either you’re sorry or not, none of this “I’m sorry but. . . ” or “I’m sorry you feel that way” stuff for me!

    I don’t want to be obtuse here, I have to admit I would not use a word like “slut” myself, and I teach my kids not to call names. Anything done without love, by definition, is done against God.

    I guess to me he was making a point, and incidentally (and I’ll grant maybe unfortunately) slurs came in — rather than slurring to avoid making a good point. It’s not what I would have done, but I don’t like the idea of making it equivalent to other acts of incivility, and I don’t like that what he said is characterized as anti-woman when it was clearly an oppositional argument to a POV. I do agree that being mean never furthered any attempt to bring someone closer to God. But being direct sometimes does. I think we probably just differ on whether we think this was mean or direct.

    I wonder what my response would have been if someone had been direct with me during the the worst parts of my life. Part of why I knee-jerk the way I do is because I believe in my youth I was fostered in my sin by nice people with good intentions, and while I don’t blame them (they normally very much meant well) I definitely think they did me more harm than good. I like to think I’d like someone to be direct with me now if I’m living or especially if I’m promoting evil. If a Christian called me a pig right now, would that turn me from God or help me overcome my gluttony? Might go either way. But I do think if I heard someone else called a pig, my attention would indeed probably be directed towards the person doing the calling rather any point being made, I’ll definitely give you that.

  67. ssoldie says:

    When the ‘lady’ had said she needed’ x’ amount for her contraception use, which she definitely had stated, ( back in the old days) we would have said she had ’round heels’. It really means the same thing that Rush alluded to. So what is everyone so upset about. As a mother I would not be very proud of her, but then I don’t think she cares one way or another what her parents thinks. May be they didn’t pay for her college the way she thought they should. Wow ! what a legacy to leave your son or daughter. Shameful.