Ordinarily, I’d be inclined to assign the win to whomever can cite Allison Porchnik appropriately in an argument. However, in this case, I have to go with the following Lawyers, Gun$ and Money commenter.
scanner says:
It’s astonishing how “Jewish socialism” is supposed to be a meaningful rebuttal to the occasional medical necessity of birth control pills.
Indeed, yes, it is astonishing that Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend’s ethno/religious/family history is now the focus of the right’s rebuttal to the idea of treating birth control as preventative medicine.
You see, Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend is the descendent of prominent Jewish handbag merchants. And, as we all know, handbag merchants have always been very strike-orientated. Which is to say that Sandra Fluke is dating a Marxist.
But not a poor Marxist. This is a Marxist who can afford to vacation in Europe. Thus, presumably, he can afford to buy a box of condoms and leave the rest of us alone.
Watch the Republicans chase their own tails.
While they are off discussing the alleged socialism of Samuel Gompers, the rest of us are left to wonder how it came to this. The issue is whether or not birth control should be treated as a preventative medicine for the purpose of co-pays and deductibles under employer-provided health care plans. In favor of treating birth control as preventative medicine is that a) hormonal birth control is often prescribed for preventative medical purposes and b) unplanned pregnancies create a medical condition with both social and direct financial costs. Cost-free birth control (for the plan holder) will reduce unplanned pregnancies which will lower the abortion rate, avoid the social consequences of unwanted children, and reduce the price of health care for everyone. In favor of not treating birth control as preventative medicine is that a certain segment of the population that doesn’t believe it is moral to deliberately avoid pregnancy will be appeased.
And, to be clear, making health care cheaper for all us is the opposite of making us all pay for Sandra Fluke’s IUV so she can have consequence-free sex in some Swiss ski-lodge chateau with her Jew-boy handbag scion boyfriend.
Khaili Joy Gray did a very funny dkos piece on this earlier, especially so for this descendant of a Jewish handbag worker.
It’s not about cost, it’s not about birth control; well, indirectly it is. But birth control that’s controlled by women emancipates them from traditional gender roles. This is why libertarians and conservatives hate it. This is why they don’t have as much of a problem with condoms as they do with other birth control. The man must be in control of it. As Ludwig von Mises says:
And we can’t have that…
Nice diagram of the doings
http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2012/03/shocking-sandra-fluke-connections-over.html
lots of fun comments in addition to scanners,
“Eleven” references are so passe. Teh Stupid long ago passed twelve, on the way to thirteen.
Marshall now sells amps that go to twenty.
You took the words right off my keyboard with point number 1.
Actually, $$$$$ is the one thing these fools can actually sort of understand.
What’s cheaper, a packet of birth control pills or an abortion?
The pills? Good. So you can be quiet about supposedly paying for them now, since they are a good investment.
They may sort of understand it, but they will still accuse you of initiating death squads if you use the argument.
and they won’t if I don’t?
Which is sooo much a response to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, which dealt with the use of contraceptive pills for treatment of ovarian cancer.
Because Sandra Fluke is not a public figure, it would be nice to see some hefty defamation suits against the jokers who defamed her character.
Why do public figures have less rights to their good name than private citizens? A lie is a lie regardless of the status of the person against whom it is directed. Or does telling lies come under the definition of free speech?
By choosing to be a public figure you are inviting the world to look in and talk about your doings in ways that a private citizen who has expressed no interest in being a public figure simply does not. As someone who is a limited public figure by dint of both my authorial and elected official roles, I may not always be thrilled about that, but I have to acknowledge that it’s not an unreasonable distinction.
However if people tell lies about you are you not entitled to the same remedies as a private person? I love the way the media have defined a new category of persons called “celebrities” whose private lives are fair game for everyone. Many aspiring celebrities of course collude in this, but shouldn’t a person have a choice? Just because I am famous for something – because I am really good at it – doesn’t entitle others to tell lies about me. The issue is not about fair comment. It is about maliciousness and truth.
First, the legal distinction between public figures and private persons was not created by the media. It is very old law, and has been applied to libel/slander cases for centuries.
Second, you mention malice. That’s actually the legal standard. A private person can win a defamation suit merely by showing dishonesty and harm. A public person needs to show dishonesty, harm, and malice.
If “public figures” are fair game for “dishonesty and harm” that seems a great way to encourage people into public life – and improve the quality of public discourse. Malice is notoriously difficult – and expensive – to prove. So effectively it is open season once someone defines you as a “public figure”. But how is that defined? Standing for public office is an obvious definition. But if I am a novelist, journalist, poet, musician, sportsman – does that turn me into a “public figure” with no defence against dishonesty and harm?
I got this definition:
public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). (See: defamation, libel, slander)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Figure
Thanks. If I am an outstanding amateur sportsman, can I opt out of being a public figure? And what if the media decide I am a “celebrity” because I am (wrongly) accused of a serious crime, or because I am an outstanding writer (despite the fact that I crave privacy)?
I find the definition of celebrity to be quite self serving as far as the media are concerned…
man I just copy and paste stuff from the internet, I don’t know all the case law on what the definition of celebrity is, but it looks like you need to be a sports hero, just being really good isn’t enough. So at least you’re covered there.
But I am a hero! (In my own mind…Thankfully not too many people know about it! :-))
well you’re a sports hero to me, so there you go
If “public figures” are fair game for “dishonesty and harm” that seems a great way to encourage people into public life – and improve the quality of public discourse.
That is certainly a downside, no question.
The upside is that public figures, people of influence, don’t get to use the legal system to squash criticism of them, including by political opponents, merely by arguing that the criticism is false.
The people of real power and influence are often not necessarily the public figures that people think have the power and influence…
You’re missing the most obvious point. Handbag merchants? Where do women keep their contraceptives, for God’s sake? IN THEIR HANDBAGS!
Wonderful!!! hope you add this info to the chart to which I linked above
Sorry about your ovarian cysts, but can’t your boyfriend just buy some condoms?
Hey, how come we’re down 9 points among women from the last poll, derp derp?
I’m thinking that the original article was a joke, and a lot of people aren’t realizing that. Read the original article. It can’t be meant to be taken seriously.