By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Seems the far Right just can’t stay out of – or quit throwing – the muck. The Huffington Post reports that University of Rochester econ professor, Steve Landsburg, has launched his own attack on Georgetown law school student, Sandra Fluke, who had the temerity to speak her mind to a congressional committee discussing contraceptive services. Landsburg apparently dabbles in English grammar when his dismal graphs and computer models become tiresome. In his off-hours, he seems quite content to edit Rush Limbaugh’s right-wing attack pieces, adding some of his own insights. On his blog he felt compelled to share:
[Limbaugh] wants to brand Ms. Fluke a “slut” because, he says, she’s demanding to be paid for sex. There are two things wrong here. First, the word “slut” connotes (to me at least) precisely the sort of joyous enthusiasm that would render payment superfluous. A far better word might have been “prostitute” (or a five-letter synonym therefor), but that’s still wrong because Ms. Fluke is not in fact demanding to be paid for sex. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) She will, as I understand it, be having sex whether she gets paid or not. Her demand is to be paid. The right word for that is something much closer to “extortionist”. Or better yet, “extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement.” Is there a single word for that?
But whether or not he chose the right word, what I just don’t get is why the pro-respect crowd is aiming all its fire at Rush. Which is more disrespectful — his harsh language or Sandra Fluke’s attempt to pick your pocket?
Seems he may be on to something etymologically speaking but he fails
miserably in the free speech/separation of church-state class. I’d think he’s also getting a “D-” for comprehension in my class. Fluke made no claim on the public funds and instead merely advocated that private insurance cover contraceptive services to further women’s health rather than cater to religious convictions of a particular sect.
While Professor Landsburg doesn’t get it, the University’s students did. Thirty of them dressed in black and made a rather dramatic entry into his classroom passing out summaries of the professor’s musings and then opted to stand between him and his charges staging a pedagogical wall of separation between scorn and student.
Landsburg called security to disband the protest, but the students left of their own accord making their point for both civility and free speech. “We are appalled by how often women and their bodies have been used for political theatrics, and we refuse to remain passive on this issue,” Kelly Rickert, a Rochester student who was a part of the protest, told The Huffington Post. “To do so would be to condone the actions of Professor Landsburg.”
University of Rochester President Joel Seligman acknowledged his employee’s right to the academic freedom to express unpopular opinions but added:
“I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion,” Seligman said in a statement. “To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination.”
Well, Dr. Segilman some of you are. On the other hand, seems some in the ivory tower like to attack from the comfort of their office. Landsburg was undeterred, “[Fluke] deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered,” and “Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery” with a “spot-on analogy.” And in one of the most ironic statements I’ve heard from the academe in a long time said of the protestors, “in their contempt for the free exchange of ideas, they appear to be comrades-in-arms of Sandra Fluke.”
Comrades-in-arms by personal ridicule and thus chilling the free speech of another? In Rochester, it seems it takes one to know one.
In keeping with our academic theme, in a hundred words or less, pick the victim(s) and defend your answer:
a. Sandra Fluke
b. Professor Steve Landsburg
c. The University of Rochester
d. First Amendment
e. Academic Freedom
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
lottakatz
1, March 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Elaine M.:
“The latest GOP intimidation attack in the War on Women:
Tennessee Bill May Expose Identities Of Women Seeking Abortions”
“The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, …”
——————-
This is the last of several abortion limiting laws he has proposed in the last 15 months.
This politician is painting targets on the backs of doctors and possibly the doctor’s patients. No one is so ignorant of the murderous intent of some so-called pro-lifers that they can not imagine that may well open people up to danger from the extremists. Hill should be called out for the extremist he is.
He voted to end collective bargaining for Tennessee teachers and has a conservative radio talk show. I tuned in to the 2-9-12 show and his stand in for the day’s broadcast said to catch the 2-10 show for another of Matts ‘conspiracy Fridays’.
————————-
His official web-page:
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/h7.html
his radio show and archives can be listened to here:
http://www.irnusanews.com/our-programs/matthew-hill-show
Blouise, I hesitated and did not bring up it last night as I did not want to dredge the sorry episode up again. But then when Mike apologized I changed my mind.
Mike S.
Anon was counting on those memories remaining vague and knowingly took full advantage of your integrity to cast himself in the spotlight as a victim and you as the perpetrator of his victim-hood.
We simply turned the tables on him with truth.
This thread will also become a vague memory.
AY, I have no clue about what decision you are referring to.
Mike S.,
Evidently, you have a pretty good memory.
“Hey Mike, don’t apologise. I recall the thread and thereafter referred to Anon as ‘vagina-boy’ on several occasions for his shameful, base attack on one of our female posters. He is what he is and no amount of feigned insult now will wash away his revealing behaviour in the past.”
LK, Elaine, SwM, Blouise and others thank you for your support. I knew that there were many things that Anon has said through the years that would lead me to believe he was as stated. However, I had to apologize because when I deliberately attack someone as I did in this instance, I should have more than my vague memories to back up the accusation. This has taught me a lesson in temperate behavior, despite my outrage over Limbaugh’s vile attacks and apologizing when I’m wrong is simply the right thing to do.
I am reminded of Winston Churchills famous statement….
Yes they do SWM…. Feel free to tell your truth the way you see it… It is after all your right…. Now I see I made the right decision….. Spurned…. Burned….what’s really the difference……
Id707,
Geeze….I am not surprised of your knowledge in these areas…… Geeze…call me Gomer….but not Goober…as I do feel it’s a crack up…..
idealist707, I could google all the attacks on me under AY and the multitude of sockpuppets to prove him wrong but why bother. Everybody knows…..
SwM, AY
AY says:
“….Do not attack me personally….. Attack the posting…. Can you distinguish the difference? ….”
————————–
From the mouth of hypocrisy itself. That’s all he’s done to me, never the argument. What a bullshitter he is.
He never said a true word in his life.
Medusa was a woman, here is her male counterpart—-but without power, thus the verbal venom.
Ladies,
They are all suffering from two problems basically: mental illness and personality disorder. They express many symptoms, so listing them all is impossible.
Do continue concrentrting on women issues. They are so many, and have been so for millenia. For example, a very concrete one: Women’s heart attacks have not been a subject for study until very lately. Statistics show that women die more often from them than from breast cancer. Now the problem is being slowly righted. It did not do it by itself. It took a fight to get it grounded and started.
And apart from the economically motivated, your opponents as said above are not sound—-and are not capable of changing or even admitting perverted reasoning.
Save your energies for constructive work.
And SwM, you may vagina however much you will for my sake.
Anon, just never got over his little boy hatred for girls and kissing. Poor him.
SwM,
oops deniers
Really! The posts speak for themselves whether done under a sockpuppet name or not. Don’t feel venomous whatsoever. Just having a little fun calling out some deniars on their stuff.
SWM,
You need to separate your personal dislike of myself from what I have ever posted. Other than defending myself from your bullying tactics, I have not attacked you then nor am I doing so now. As LK said give it up….. Do not attack me personally….. Attack the posting…. Can you distinguish the difference? Just because a person dislike a person because they are female does not make for a woman hater. Spread your venom elsewhere….. Please….
Blouise
The Ladies Who Lunch have looong memories!
—
Yes, they do.
Mike S.
Don’t apologize. ANON is suckering you. He works for Google, in the data managemet on order group. He cleans up after himself, of course.
No. seriously, lack of data doesn’t change a bad apple, it’s still rotten.
And don’t steal my mea culpa territory. Smile.
SwM,
Not on our watch.
Ladies, it is a fight I have been in most of my adult life. Two men on a blog were not going to get men to back down and “apologize”.