Friday, March 16, 2012

Was Rush wrong? What about Bill Maher? What about President Obama and liberals? YES to all the above!

            Rush Limbaugh has been the most vocal and effective voice for the conservative movement for years. But, like many who get great and assume they got their all on their own, and that they do not need any help staying there, El Rush-bo got a little too big for his britches, and is, as we say down south, "gettin' his comeuppance."
            I will take nothing away from Rush being where he is in the world of talk radio; he has been the "king" for years, with an audience being self-stated at roughly twenty million!  However, if one takes into the account that those numbers are calculated using multipliers if someone listens to rush for all three hours, then the actual numbers of listeners at any one time is around 350,000 to 600,000.  Still a tremendous audience for a radio talk show by any stretch of the imagination, but far less than twenty million.
            But Rush has fallen into that stereotypical celebrity image, e.g., believing all the hype and niceties thrown at him by people constantly sucking up to him, and ignoring those who warn him that his rhetoric is becoming too flamboyant and too vicious at times.  Rush has grown egotistical, arrogant, and in his own mind, invincible.
            But alas, along came a young lady who decided that it was the taxpayer's duty to provide her birth control so she could sleep with upwards of a hundred different men without getting pregnant.  Sandra Fluke has the audacity to go before Congress and testify that it costs her nearly $3000 to pay for "contraceptive methods" a year, and that was too much for a college student to pay, so therefore Congress should pay for her birth control pills and give them to her free.
            We will discuss the lunacy of her position later, however Rush took this and just crucified this young lady on the airwaves, calling her a "slut", a "prostitute", and made the analogy to her sexual promiscuity sound like Ms. Fluke had the boys lined up around the block waiting for their chance and time to have sex with the young lady.
            Stupid!  Those type of comments are just plain STUPID...S-T-U-P-I-D!  Rush, when are you going to learn to keep your big mouth shut?  You had the world on a platter.  This girl did herself enough harm without coming across as the world's biggest chauvinist, the world's most arrogant and nastiest radio talk-show host.  If you has just taken a few minutes to think about what you were going to say, you could have been just as effective, and still maintained your sponsors and audience.
            OK, let's just go ahead and get this out of the way.  That a young woman going to Georgetown Law School would get on national television in front of congress and tell people that it costs her $3000 to get her contraceptives while at Georgetown Law School, and that is a real financial hardship on her? 
            According to Georgetown Law School's website, the per semester costs to attend that very prestigious institution are approximately $31,680.  If a student attends two semesters a year, plus the summer program, annual costs to attend are approximately $70,000.
            The average starting salary for a Georgetown Law School Graduate is $161,000.  Are we really supposed to believe that anyone that can afford to go to Georgetown Law School needs $3000 a year for contraceptive service?  Second, assuming she graduates, do we really think that she is going to be so poor that she cannot afford to pay back her student loans, including the costs of contraception?
            Finally, I am wondering where she gets this $1000 per year costs?  According to the internet, the average costs of a monthly pack of birth control pills is $20 to $50 per month for someone with no medical prescription coverage.  Average that out to $35 per month, and the annual costs are $420.00.  So...I guess Mrs. Fluke requires some type of super-effective birth control that would costs SEVEN TIMES the average pack of birth control pills?  Or, one might assume that instead of birth control pills, she provides her partner a condom?  A male condom's cost for a name brand are approximately $.75 per condom, according to the Internet.  If she is using a female condom, then the average costs are $3 per condom per the internet.  Since we do not know which she might use, we would therefore take the average cost of each, and assume that if she provides the male condom, then she is having sex approximately 1,333 times per year, or if she is using the female version, that she is having sex approximately 333 times per year.  In either case, it certainly makes one wonder how she manages to work in enough time to do her studying at Georgetown.

            Again, one cannot assume anything, but one would certainly be justified in questioning where she would come up with what she says are her annual costs for birth control.  But, again pursuing the more pressing ethical question at hand, is it really the Congress's belief that it is the duty of the U.S. taxpayer to pay for free contraceptive services to women (and, I would assume, if demanded, to a male)?  In this writer's humble opinion, only someone who believes that the average American taxpayer could care less about the Constitution of the United States and its provision to prevent the U.S. Government from interfering with the free practice of an individual's religious beliefs would expect anyone who thinks abortion, or even contraception are sins to be willing to pay for a service like that.  I personally think abortion is a sin and is the intention, premeditated murder (1st degree) of another, defenseless human being, and I am strongly against it.  I think contraception, on the other hand, is the prevention of becoming pregnant, and that is a decision between the two partners as to whether the prevention of pregnancy is desirable or not.
            Not under ANY circumstances, however, do I believe that any citizen should be forced to pay for either of those procedures against their will if it violates their religious convictions, and that is exactly what President Obama is trying to do.  He is wrong, and anyone who thinks he is not certainly has no concept of what the founders of this great nation intended when they wrote the Constitution
            Now, back to Rush!  Do I agree basically with his premise that Sandra Fluke was a phony, planted witness that the Democrats in Congress brought in to testify in favor of their efforts to enforce this dastardly provision of the Affordable Health Care Plan, a.k.a. "Obamacare"?  Absolutely.  She is a thirty year old political activist that previously worked for Anita Long, a known liberal, woman's right advocate.  She is not your average female law student.  She worked for years in some very worthwhile projects before returning to Georgetown Law School to pursue her degree.
            Do I think Rush was correct in calling her a slut or a prostitute?  No, I do not.  Rush is known for his flamboyant ranting on innumerable topics, and the target of most of his ranting are liberal politicians.  He crossed the line when he used those terms and attacked Ms. Fluke. 
            Do I agree with the way the liberal press and liberal politicians have called for his being banned from radio airwaves, or that his sponsors be boycotted if they continue to sponsor him?  Absolutely NOT!  Liberals are the world's biggest and most blatant hypocrits.  Do they decry the attacks by Bill Maher when he uses even more vulgar terms against Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann( Maher uses vulgarity to describe Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann)?  No.  Does President Obama call Sandra Fluke and ask if she is OK after Rush's comments?  Yes!  Does he say anything about Bill Maher's comments towards Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman?  No. 
            The Democrats/liberals are nothing but foul-mouthed hypocrites.  They scream foul, then go after the heads of anyone that is politically incorrect, then if someone tries to turn the attention to their hypocrisy, they shut up and coerce the liberal media into hushing up or candy-coating anything that makes them look bad.  What a gutless, cowardly, bunch of lying hacks.  They want Rush's head because he attacked a liberal.  They want Bill Maher to get a great humanitarian award or something because he slanders a Republican politician. 
            Frankly, what Rush is getting, much of it is deserved.  But not all is deserved because of what he said about Ms. Fluke.  Yes, I believe that he should lose sponsors.  Yes, I believe he is an arrogant bigmouth.  But the reason I believe he should lose sponsors is because he was vulgar and mean, and I do not think that has a place in the public airways.  Do I believe that Bill Maher should be banned from the airways and lose sponsors?  Absolutely, because he is a sorry, no-talent hack that could not make his living if he could not use such vulgarity in his speech.  He's a no-talent bum, and Rush is a talented, arrogant, loud-mouth bigmouth that just got too big for his britches, and got his butt spanked, justifiably. 
            People like Rush are good not so much because of what they know, but because of what they pay people to find out for them, then they use that found knowledge on the air.  Bill Maher is just not good...period.  No amount of paid help could make him look intelligent; only more vulgar, and he really does not need any help in that department.  He is very good at making himself look like an ignorant, no-talent thug.

No comments:

Post a Comment