'Allahpundit':
"
I’m torn. I could happily live another 10 lifetimes without having to deal with phony, politically calculated, outrageously outrageous outrage. Ann Romney, in fact, did an
elegant job on CNN last night urging everyone (ahem, Newt) to lighten up over Robert DeNiro’s lame but innocuous joke about America’s white First Ladies.
Just one question: What makes Maher think the outrage in his case is phony?..."
(Read more? Click title)
The outrage against Maher is far from phony. Such hypocrisy. As in the way of rightful things, the saga of Sandra Fluke mirrors back with a daily dose of commentary (mostly from men) that is returning fire in honorable ways.
Such as Jim Klein of New Castle, Colorado as he questions Maher's defenders and Limbaugh's critics: "After reading the opinions of Erica Griffith and Candy Norvell in the March 17 edition regarding the comments of Bill Maher, as well as those of Rush Limbaugh, I felt compelled to respond.
I have several questions for these ladies. First, how does Bill Maher's use of profanity in describing Sarah Palin not fall into the realm of complete bigotry?
Second, how does Rush Limbaugh's opinion that the taxpayer shouldn't foot the bill for a woman's contraception fall into the category of cultist behavior?
Now, it turns out, that Sandra Fluke was paid by the Democratic Party to make her statements to Congress in order to remove focus from the issue of the Obama administration's constitutional violation of a church's right to deny services that go against its beliefs. After all, a woman can get contraception from places like Planned Parenthood, if she so chooses. Why else, then, did Sandra Fluke recant her earliest statements?..."
(Read more,
Click here)
Michael McReynolds of Carbondale, Colorado as he does the math for Flukes contraception spending: "Rush Limbaugh never actually called Sandra Fluke a slut. He did criticize groups who believe they have a right to free contraception. He also pointed out that it's unconstitutional for the president to mandate that a religious organization fund activities they find morally wrong.
At the end of the segment, he pointed out that women, like Sandra Fluke, expect someone else to pay for their sex. Then he asked the question: “What does society call a woman who expects to be paid for sex?” Splitting hairs? Sure. But this letter isn't about Rush, it's about Sandra Fluke.
Some suggest that Ms. Fluke is a victim: hardly. By her own admission, Ms. Fluke knew Georgetown was a Catholic university and contraception was not included in the student health plan. Rather than choose a university where contraception is part of the plan, she choose Georgetown to pick a fight (her words on “The View”).
So now she's a reproductive rights activist. What is a reproductive rights activist? Do we live in China where the state limits your right to reproduce? Or is it that one should not have to be personally responsible for their reproductive activity?
Ms. Fluke testified that she spends $1,000 a year on contraception. Isn't anyone curious about how much contraception $1,000 will buy? Assume the co-pay for the doctor visit for birth control pills is $15. Chain pharmacies (Walgreens, Wal-Mart, et. al.) in the Washington, D.C., area offer generic birth control pills for $9 per month, totaling $108 per year. That's $123 per year.
So where does she spend the remaining $877? Let's assume she spends it on condoms. At an average price of 20 cents per condom, $877 will buy 4,385 condoms, or 12 condoms per day. So I'll ask the question that's begged: What does society call a woman who burns through 12 condoms per day?..."
More op-eds hit the air daily on the controversy Fluke started:
Elizabeth Harrington: "Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus sells a month's supply of birth control pills for just $9...."
William A. Jacobson: "Just as
Bill Maher was pleading for an “amnesty” in the political correctness war to silence speech, Media Matters was committing $100,000 to an advertising campaign urging people to call local radio stations to complain about Limbaugh...."
'SandBox Nanny' comes back to a post by John Scotus/Tree of Mamre today: "That pretty much sums it up. Romney believes in business. He believes in decency (which is not at all, by the way, a moral value, see
here), he believes that he is good and would make a good president, and he believes in his family. But that is about it. Yet, apart from the bit about business, we have just described Obama. If this is all Romney’s candidacy comes down to, then it is not really worth the trouble voting for him. Seriously.
I believe that the most important issues facing America today all come down to moral values. Since I believe that, I just have to say that I cannot be bought. And, essentially, by promising that he can heal the economy, but being uninterested in anything else, Romney is wanting to buy my vote. This is the same deal being peddled in Asia. This is the same deal the Japanese bought into. Buy the votes of the people by promising them economic prosperity, and then ignore them after the election. And this deal leads to nothing but the economic and spiritual death of a country.
I would rather die fighting than sell my vote in such a cheap and tawdry deal.
So, no, unless Romney is able to convince me, for example, that he will–at a bare minimum–appoint pro-life judges, I will not vote for him, even if it means Obama is reelected.
I refuse to sell my soul–or my vote–merely for low gas prices or economic prosperity. America means too much to me...."
And ends with the words of Michael McReynolds of Carbondale, Colorado:
"The real problem is gas at $5 per gallon in some parts of the country, real unemployment at 19 percent, a national debt of $16 trillion ($6 trillion in the past three years), and GDP at 2 percent. And we're arguing about free contraception."
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
