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
He’s creepy.
I think my email is messed up … send me a note and I’ll try a reply.
Blouise, He must crave negative attention but I also think he wants the woman to feel shame.
Yep, just read it. The boy does love to incite.
Woosty was responded to with porn on the thread about models in Israel. It is not the first time that has happened to her.
Women even get attacked on this blog for being focused on women’s issues.
Elaine,
Sent a couple of your articles to my niece in NC. She said today the same.
And gave me a saying, of course not new to you:
Behind every good man is a great woman.
Her name is Lucy after my ma Lucille, bless her soul.
Thank god for liberal women, otherwise dark ages again.
idealist707,
It appears nothing much has changed in twenty years in regard to conservative media attacks on liberal women who stand up and speak out.
Elaine M.
Re: Brock
Until the last paragraph it was good, but routine.
And then the bomb exploded:
Great choice.
Quote:
I cannot comprehend the level of disrespect toward women I presented. Beyond the sexism, there was the clear message sent to women: Stand up and you will be attacked.
end brock
Fleeing advertisers doom Rush Limbaugh’s business model
By DAVID BROCK | 3/20/12
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74237.html
Excerpt:
The financial model that fueled Rush Limbaugh’s radio show seems to have disintegrated in recent weeks, with at least 100 advertisers reportedly abandoning his radio program.
For more than two decades, “The Rush Limbaugh Show” has promoted his brand of misogyny, racism and general intolerance to an audience of more than 15 million people on as many as 600 radio stations. He has accused actor Michael J. Fox of “exaggerating the effects” of Parkinson’s disease; called the National Organization for Women “nags” who “are a bunch of whores to liberalism”; and just last week referred to a Washington Post reporter as a synonym for a female dog.
Limbaugh’s recent attack on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke was as irresponsible as it was abhorrent. His words were not simply a glancing blow or an accidental slip of the tongue. They encompassed three days of his program, more than six full hours.
While Rush, already under duress from advertisers, apologized for calling Fluke a “prostitute” and a “slut,” his diatribe went further. To this date, he has shown no contrition for saying Fluke wanted “taxpayers to pay her to have sex” or that she should post sex “videos online so we can all watch.”
Unlike his attacks on NOW or Fox, Fluke is a private citizen. Her only sin was to attempt to discharge her right to petition her government. While Rush’s attacks on public figures, most notably women, have been offensive, to levy these attacks against someone without any public means of defense is bullying.
At Media Matters for America, we have monitored “The Rush Limbaugh Show” every day since our founding in 2004. There is no example we can recall in which Limbaugh, or any other media figure, levied attacks of the tone and duration of those leveled against Fluke.
It is for that reason that Media Matters, along with numerous other groups, have begun to educate advertisers about the damage their financial support of Limbaugh’s program can do to their brands.
There is a myth that advertiser actions, like those now targeted at Limbaugh, impinge on his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. The truth is just the opposite: They are a demonstration of the power of the First Amendment.
We are not a government entity attempting to stifle Limbaugh’s speech. Instead, we are using our right of free assembly to join together and raise our voices against Limbaugh. We are, in fact, engaging in the marketplace of ideas, one in which people, examining all of the facts, can choose whether it is in their financial interest to support hate radio.
We are confident, seeing the reaction over the previous two weeks, that sponsors will take their dollars elsewhere.
It’s ironic that Limbaugh would accuse others of trying to silence him, when his own actions were designed to prevent them from speaking out. What Limbaugh clearly hoped to accomplish in his more than six hours of attacks on Fluke was to exact a price for her willingness to speak her mind on a controversial issue, to send a message to other women that if they speak out, they too will be attacked.
Twenty years ago, in one of my most regrettable episodes in the conservative media, I used similar words to attack Anita Hill, calling her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” Reading those words today, I cannot comprehend the level of disrespect toward women I presented. Beyond the sexism, there was the clear message sent to women: Stand up and you will be attacked.
I assume, hopefully correctly (?), that they can not deny employment based on religion, etc. Why should their religion allow denial of coverage of medicat costs related to women?
Is there possibly a case based on discriminationf based on gender, which again I assume is covered in a civil rights law against discrimiination.???
They are, in effect, denying equal health coverage based on gender base needs
A point for all to consider, perhaps.
Birth Control Mandate: Religious Groups Will Have More Say According To White House Proposal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/birth-control-mandate-religion_n_1365693.html?ref=religion
By David Gibson
Religion News Service
Excerpt:
(RNS) The Obama administration is offering to expand the number of faith-based groups that can be exempt from the controversial contraception mandate, and proposing that third-party companies administer coverage for self-insured faith-based groups at no cost.
At its heart, the newest offering from the White House would allow religious groups — dioceses, denominations and others — to decide which affiliated institutions are “religious” and therefore exempt from the new requirement that employers offer free contraception coverage as part of employee insurance plans.
UR’s Landsburg shakes up the university
Posted by Jerome Nathaniel • March 7, 2012
http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/youngprofessionals/?p=4591
Excerpt:
This isn’t a political issue. This has nothing to do with what anyone thinks about healthcare, government subsidies, Limbaugh or freedom of speech; this is about the acceptance of misogynistic language in public discourse and its use by high ranked members of our institution. UR is a university that strives to promote diversity of ethnicity, cultures, genders, religions, beliefs and thoughts while respecting and accepting all communities. Comments like Landsburg’s threaten the very fiber of our University more than any alleged security breach or supposed instances of ‘trespassing’ (which I’ve personally experienced firsthand, even as alum). While I am thankful that our president has distinguished the dichotomy between our University and the bold statements of tenured (untouchable) professors, this may not do enough to appease students who have every right to be offended that their educator made such audacious remarks. Let us not forget how Arum Gandhi was chased out of the University and his very own Gandhi Institute for Non-violence during his first year shortly after he made a comment in his blog that was considered anti-Semitic.
All,
All my years avoiding following Americas domestic feuding, hasn’t prepped me for the ugliness of that door, or the thoughts of the people behind it. Shades of KKK.
Would it be worthwhile to find this sicko, and check out his supporters and buddies? I mean really make this as big an issue as Zipperman.
Sure it’s small stuff to LEOs, but not to me.
To remain a free and OPEN country after our Christmas bombing by a terrorist was important to us. And by open we mean to be able to walk the streets without fear. And withuut arming ourselves etther physically or mentally.
Wish you all could experience it.
Swarthmore mom,
That is a sad news item.
SwM,
Ditto … good night
Did you get the Biden campaign letter? I clicked on Women’s Issues
Blouise, I am getting tired.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/20/1076277/-BREAKING-Texas-Democratic-State-Sen-Wendy-Davis-Fort-Worth-Office-Firebombed The cause is not known but she is an avid planned parenthood supporter.
Bloise, I can think of some catholics that I wish would lose – John Boehner, Peter King, Marco Rubio just to name a few. Rubio is not up this year but he is among the very worst.
SwM,
I hope you’re right.
Blouise, Down here many of the pro-choice democrats that are elected are hispanic catholics Doubt there will be a backlash. Most of the anti- women ones like Perry are evangelical.