I find it very telling that you look at freedom that way. Very telling indeed. Fortunately, here in France, we have that freedom. Does that mean that French people are smarter than Americans, or more snobbish than Americans?
This just in... In the face of criticism over his comments about the law student/activist who attempted to testify about government funding of contraception, and after several advertisers pulled their commercials from his program, PREMIERE NETWORKS host RUSH LIMBAUGH issued an apology to SANDRA FLUKE SATURDAY (3/3). The statement read, "For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. FLUKE. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if tax payers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. FLUKE for the insulting word choices." LINK
Your personal preference is just that: your personal preference. Sometimes that preference may get overridden and just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it illegitimate.
Did Asyn really ask Americans if we thought the French were snobbish? That's only the most prevalent stereotype of the French.
From what few French people I know, I don't think the word "snob" fits. Definitely proud, confident, self assured, but not snobbish. Just from my experiences, at any rate. In fact, I think the reason the French and the U.S. clash (at least culturally in some respects), is because we're a lot alike.
This half assed apology may be the first step toward trying to spike a lawsuit. Rush clearly defamed her and cast her in a false light (unless he can prove she IS a slut, which I doubt). Additionally, she is not a public figure and the Sullivan standard of "actual malice" does not apply. Rush may have left himself for a big-ass lawsuit.
I don't think anyone gives up there status as a private person that easily. Do you have a daughter her age? This fellow does. A Statement from David Friend, CEO of Carbonite: “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.” LINK
There's no way a libel suit could be successful. There's generally a sliding scale that's influenced by both how much of a public figure the person is and how bad the statement was. For example, you can accuse the president of being a serial child molester with the bodies of 10 underage prostitutes hidden in his basement and not get sued, whereas if you publicly accused your neighbor or a local city council member of cheating on his wife or belonging to the KKK, he might succeed in suing you. In this case, having testified before Congress doesn't elevate a person to the same "public figure" level as the president, but the level of statement required to be legally actionable is higher than it would be for anyone who hadn't put themselves on the public stage in a political setting. It would still be possible for someone to get themselves sued for libeling her, but lobbing some crude insults at her isn't enough.
I'm not so sure. If you go back and read Louis Nizer's account of the libel case he won on behalf of Quentin Reynolds against Westbrook Pegler, there are some pretty interesting parallels. Granted, the Reynolds case did come before Times vs. Sullivan, but I really don't think that testifying in front of Congress makes you fair game for this kind of attack. I've already been chastised in another forum for suggesting a suit could happen, but I'm not buying the idea that it's a total non-starter.
Do tell, how did it become so? Were millions of people suddenly inspired to just... make that up? People all over America just woke up one morning and all of them, totally independent from the others, thought to themselves, "Hmmmm... I don't know much about the French. I guess I'll just make something up about them. They like to hit themselves in the head with plates. No... no, save that one for the Chileans. Nah, I'll probably forget. Um... they eat through their butts and poop out their mouths? No, South Park already did that one, that's people from Colorado. Oh! I've got it! They're snobs!"
This is good, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, IMHO. I don't have any personal information, and I know the standard Wordforge tactic is to ask someone if they're a mind-reader when they think they understand someone else's motives (which I'm not), but this does not come across to me as being very sincere.
Mizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Fugazi's motives in joining a Catholic institution, apparently expressly for the purpose of forcing them away from their stance on contraception, don't seem particularly sincere, either. +1 for Rush Limbaugh, dipshit that he is notwithstanding.
A personal preference for making my own choices, as long as I and the people with whom I set up a contract through that choice all agree on it, and which doesn't hurt anyone, is not a bad thing. As I said, I find it very telling that you think a person wanting to make his own choices, as long as they don't hurt others, is snobbish and "thinks he's smarter than everyone else." That is actually the tactic of the far right: "We know what is acceptable morality better than you do, so even though what you are doing is between consenting people and not hurting anyone else, we will make laws preventing you from doing it. For your own good, of course." I don't like it when it comes from the right, and I don't like it when it comes from the left. When did it become a bad thing to think for yourself? For you to say you disagree with my preference on what I want covered by insurance is totally acceptable; people have different values and different situations, making such choices extremely subjective. But for you to present it as a bad thing to want to be able to make that choice freely shows a very dangerous slide into authoritarianism.
But not an unexpected slide, not even remotely. That's what the Left is all about. Couching slavery in terms of freedom. Who doesn't like freedom? Well, no one doesn't like freedom! Great! Just sign on the dotted line, and we'll make all the decisions that will make you more free. Oh -- on second thought, you don't even have to sign, vee heff med ziss deezishun for choo. Beck to zee fecktory, drone.
It is, unfortunately, what the Right is all about as well. I have long said that the fundamental difference between the modern "Left" and "Right" in America is only about which specific areas they want to control, rather than let us make our own choices, and the specific way in which they want to spend more and more money. The motto of government run by either one of them should be: "We want from you an echo, not a choice. You will be happy. And controlled."
Wanting to follow your own preferences is not snobbish. Thinking everyone else is not as smart as you are is. It's perfectly understandable that you (or I) wouldn't like something the government does, however occasionally the government (any government, including the French government) does things that you or I might not like. Interesting mental gymnastics involved here when somehow pointing out a personality trait is equated to condemning a personal value. I didn't do that, but if you need to feed your sense of victimhood, I guess that's fine.
Skin would like to argue that, but there's no arguing it, except for this -- the mainstream media and the sheep that take their cues from the mainstream media, will argue that Libertarianism -- well, hell, anything other than Leftist enclaves, are "the Right." With that in mind, then: No, not all of the Right are the re-branded Left. The Demmunists, certainly, are the Left. The Republicans (the majority of which, at this point, are RINOs) are also Left, just with different shackles in mind. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, what-have-you -- they are the Right in this country right now. The Right is just about anyone who, like Ron Paul, the mainstream media won't even mention. Remember that Jon Stewart Daily Show bit about how Ron Paul was being clearly and deliberately ignored by the mainstream media? That's how you know. That's how you know that a candidate is on your side, when the media staunchly refuses to so much as utter his name.
Well, of course there's no way a libel suit could be successful. Limbaugh didn't commit libel, he slandered her. A slander suit would have a better chance. Libel: Print Slander: Oral
This is simply not true. Boths sides do want order. But the Left wants order by force of government, while the right wants order by the exercise of freedom of association. I don't see equivalency there, at least in theory. Also more descriptive of the Left, but I'll concede that the Right's elected representatives are rarely innate Right-thinkers (Romney comes to mind). Government itself is a leftist premise, and true conservatives don't really want to be there. But there are plenty of opportunistic authoritarians who are willing to pick up the mantle of the right. So in a sense there are leftists in both parties, and to that extent your motto is correct.
The birth control pill is a daily regimen. You have to take it every day to be safe from pregnancy following any sex, and frequency/quantity of sex is not a factor. To equate Fluke with a prostitute in the sense that she can only have sex on the condition of revenue which pays for her birth control is just an insult, and that's probably not a liability for Limbaugh. After all, the woman's clearly an activist, and it's okay to be critical of activism. It's hard to believe there's a lot of hardship among the women of Georgetown law -- the whole thing's staged. But to say she's having a lot of sex, and speculating about the number of partners she has, etc., strike me as slanderous. My guess is that Limbaugh's been served some sort of notice, and he may very well be liable in a civil suit.
More like "I know what works for me better than the government does." Async's set-up makes sense to have the insurance pay for big shit like car accidents or cancer. The fact that I have to have the right insurance just to be seen by a doctor rather than pay out-of-pocket is completely ridiculous.
You're the one who brought it up, saying that because I don't think the government should decide for me what I need in an insurance contract, that implies that "I think I'm smarter than anyone else." I maintain that that attitude is a dangerous slide to authoritarianism. You think that anyone who doesn't want the government deciding for him is snobbish and thinks he's smarter than everyone else. I maintain that people should be free to decide what they want. You certainly do not come across as a friend of liberty.
In that sense, I agree with you completely. But let's be honest: The Libertarians, Constitutionalists and other defenders of free choice (and the responsibility of dealing with those choices) are a distinct minority of "the Right" even if you classify them as being part of the Right. The neo-cons, busy looking for a new war to start and how to impose their moral values on everyone, are more numerous. That's why the Republican party is not "the party of small government." They are just "the party of an intrusive government that is intrusive in different ways from the Democrats."
I disagree firmly with this. Government, in and of itself, is a good and necessary aspect of society. The difference between left and right should not be "the left is in favor of government and the right is opposed to all government." But both sides need a better definition of the role of government than just "The government is there to take care of you," and then going from there to defining for you what "taking care of you" means. This way lies tyranny. I don't want the tyranny of statism whether it comes from the right or the left.
From your mockery of the standard courtesy title, can we assume that on top of everything else, you're one of those people who insists that a woman must be defined by her marital status?
