Another Stop the PRESSES!!! Moment

As I was writing my last essay, the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy began to blow up in the press.

After Sandra Fluke, a 3^rd year law student at Georgetown University, was prevented from testifying at Rep. Darrel Issa’s Capitol Hill Hearing faith-based hearing, she was finally allowed to testify at a Democratic hearing arranged by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. While Rep. Issa’s hearing was held under the guise of discussing religious freedoms, the Rep. Pelosi hearing appears to have been convened as a more open discussion on Democratic Policy.   If you are so inclined, ABCNews’ online article is here, and you can find the text of Ms. Fluke’s testimony at this Democratic hearing linked in the article or here.

Enter the conservative attack machine.  You can find a pretty good timeline article on the events following Ms. Fluke’s testimony, on the “The Week” website.  I have yet to find a reliable transcript of Limbaugh’s comment on his radio show, but, it appear he was piling on from articles published at CNS News and Hot Air with incendiary titles such as; "Sex-crazed co-eds going broke buying birth control, student tells Pelosi hearing touting freebie mandate" and "Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex... We're going broke buying birth control." Good Ole big mouth Rush jumps on in radio broadcast with comment like, claiming that she is asking the government to subsidize her sex life. "What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex” and "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Regardless of the fact that nowhere in her testimony before congress can you find any reference to Ms. Fluke sexual activities or frequency, CNS News, Hot Air, and Rush Limbaugh (I’m showing great restrain to avoid name calling here, though find some of my Facebook posts to find them) chose to enflamed their readers and listeners with of the most vile, vitriolic, and inaccurate accounts of her testimony.  I don’t think, as Sanda Fluke has declared, this attack was design to silence her specific, but rather to discredit her and discourage others from speaking out.  These are clear examples of Conservative movement and current GOP’s attack bullies, no different than schoolyard bullies around the nation and which we are trying to combat today.  I include the GOP in this essay because, the current Speaker of House had to “encouraged” to disavow Limbaugh’s comments, and when the current group of GOP Presidential candidates were given a chance to comment, they either soft-pedaled a response or choice to deflect and use the chance to instead make negative comments about our current President.

Yes, Rush did apologize…  But, like the schoolyard bully, not until he was hauled into the Principal’s office and made to apologize with his head held low and toe stabbing and the floor, did Rush offer his apology, and with the same sincerity of the schoolyard bully.  I have long held that an apology – sincerely given – is more for the benefit of the person giving it, a chance to express and acknowledge true regret.  And… In my experience, once said, words can never be unsaid.  You can apologize forever, but you can never take it back.  Whether Ms. Fluke accepts his apology is of little consequence, as long as she allows herself to forgive.  For you see, forgiveness is, like an apology, more beneficial to the giver.  But, there is one thing about forgiveness, just because you forgive someone, it doesn’t mean you need to forget what has been done or said, nor accept the transgression prompting the forgiveness.  It only mean that you bear no malice to the individual it is given too.   

Now, what about the right to ‘Free Speech’?  Yes, it is Rush’s right to say whatever it is that he deems appropriate, however, he also has the right (or responsibility) to accept every consequence for his speech.  While the Constitution grants him the right to free speech, it only exempts him from government sanctions for that speech, not the wrath or rebuke of a society repulsed by it.    While I am not generally given to violence, if Rush Limbaugh had made such comments about one of my daughters of the same nature as Ms. Fluke and I met him on the street, I’d be inclined to punch his limits out, and then…  Gladly accept the consequences for my actions.  I have heard a few right leaning commentators that this is uproar is a double standard, and that when left leaning ‘pundits’, like Bill Maher (who I don’t watch because I find his rhetoric largely distasteful), make comments like those of Rush’s, it is largely ignored.  I monitor a broad spectrum of news sources, and I haven’t seen any material like this one.  Point me to them I and will read them and respond, as I believe anyone spewing the vitriolic tripe that Limbaugh unleashed on the airwaves.  I am not against anyone speaking out about their view, opinions, and convictions, but, this Limbaugh diatribe was a blatant personal attack on a young woman given the opportunity to express her views.  And… It is obviously to me that he did so with malicious intent.  He either did not read, or didn’t care about the content of the opinion she expressed, he chose to attack her character simple because it suited his purposes, and because that is what his supports expect.  So, ask you;  Who is the real slut and or whore here?

As with any right or freedom, they all come with certain explicit expectations that they be exercised responsibility.  I have known about Rush Limbaugh for many years, he really started out as a comedian with a bent for political commentary years ago.  He has mistakenly started to believe his own press that he a now a powerful GOP pundit and leader, and forgotten that what is accepted from the comedian, is not appreciated or accepted from our leaders, real or perceived.  I have similar issues with Bill Maher, though he doesn’t seem to be garnering the press coverage of Rush Limbaugh and the ultra-conservative media.  Yes… I know it all the fault of that nasty liberal media machine.

And finally, a recommendation for Rush Limbaugh...  Where Sanda Fluke is concerned, thread lightly, you WAY out of your league!

My next piece will be the essay I was working on before this entire media firestorm made itself known.  It will be expanding on some of my thoughts expressed in this essay.

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

Stop the PRESSES!!!

I was right in the middle of writing another article, and this came across my news feed:

Wilmington City Council Passes Resolution Urging 'Personhood' Rights For Sperm

Quoted from the article:

The council for Delaware's largest city passed a resolution by an 8-4 vote Thursday calling on the Delaware legislature, other state legislatures and the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting "personhood" rights to eggs and sperm. The resolution was authored by councilwoman Loretta Walsh as a protest in the current battle over women's health care access.

"[E]ach 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government and be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other dependent minor and be protected against abuse, neglect or abandonment by the parent or guardian," says the resolution. "[L]aws should be enacted by all legislative bodies in the United States to promote equal representation, and should potentially include laws in defense of 'personhood,' forbidding every man from destroying his semen."

Are you F*%()*&!!! Kidding me?  I use think that no one could surprise me with the potential stupidity that the human beast is capable of producing.  COLOR ME Surprised!!!  Now I know that this is only a city council resolution, and has no real chance of producing and real legislation, except possibly with the city limits of Wilmington, Delaware.  But, let’s expose some of the absolute absurdity should this resolution, or others like it, actually become law.

First on the personhood of sperm side of the argument:  A man choosing to pleasure (cleaned up term) himself would be subject criminal charges, probably for abuse, neglect, AND abandonment.  To further demonstrate the silliness of this position, I’d posit that every man on this planet has experienced a phenomenon known as a “wet dream.”  This would now become a criminal activity, prosecutable by the state.  Don’t think so; ever hear of prosecution for involuntary manslaughter?  A law giving, essentially, the right of a living human being to these sperm persons would criminalize many other activities between consenting adults for which the state was no business or right to interfere.  You have now made a criminal out of every male in the United State over the age of 13.  Additionally, with the exception of diplomatically immune persons, you have subjected every foreign male, entering this country, to criminal prosecution.  Ridiculous?  If you hesitated for a moment to think about that, you are probably not a person with whom I want to associate.

Let us move on to rights of the ‘egg persons’.  While the resolution caring avoids suggesting creating laws related to the destruction on egg persons, which is explicit in the verbiage of resolution, and the express guarantees of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.  So, a woman who chooses to avoid sexual activities while ovulating would be guilty of, and subject to prosecution for, at minimum – abandonment.  To make matters even more ludicrous, this view would criminalize the young girl entering puberty, having started her menstrual  cycle which can start as early as age 9 (trust me, I KNOW.)  So, we are going to decriminalize pedophilia, at least, where menstruating young girls are concerned?  Now, I don’t know about any other father, but being the Dad to two exceptional young women, there is absolutely no length to which I would not go, to have protected my daughters, at the age of puberty, from participation in procreative activities, PERIOD!!!

Now, I know that enacting any laws regarding the personhood of human eggs or sperm would be struck down as unconstitutional, and the possibility of amending our Constitution, to allow such laws to be enacted, is near zero.  But, I am concerned that any public leader who subject such bizarre public policy is given any responsibility to guide his or her community on any level, and I am alarmed that this resolution passed by an 8 to 4 vote.  If I was to apply the same warp logic that I believe is used to statically justify religion – at least what I see from many Christians – this vote (where the city council should be representative of the community they lead) would indicate that 2 to every 3 citizens of Wilmington, Delaware is a religious zealot.  And, is the strongest argument for “Separation of Church and State.”

This concept of an ‘egg person’ and ‘sperm person’ pushes pass even the concept of life starting at conception, both of which are religiously motivated, and the scientific support behind them questionable at best.  In my religion, if that is what you wish to called it – I don’t, my believe is that human life begins when that life is capable of maintaining itself, with the caveat that some assistance may be need.  A human infant is capable of maintain itself with the assistance of its parents, and a human embryo is capable of maintaining its life, at some point, outside the womb with medical assistance.  Prior to that, I hold that it is not a life; it is a parasites organism of human origin.  In a country the touts religious freedom as a tenet of its foundation, why should I be forces to live my life, through legislation, under the belief system of someone else.  I do not purpose forcing anyone to accept my views, nor am I advocating passing legislation which would force anyone to take actions which I consider moral.  Anyone who advocating legislation, such as proposed by resolutions such the spark for this essay, is in fact advocating a violation of the United State Constitution’s express prohibition to the contrary.  These are arguments and decisions that should be discussed in temples, churches, and synagogues among their congregants to their needs.  They do not belong in our city, county, state, or federal legislative bodies.

But, I am still flabbergasted that I have experience a situation in today’s society that would prompt this essay.  I have recently had several discussions with a friend about the appropriate way to approach religious debate, to which there is a comment which should be reserved for only the most extreme cases.  This is in my opinion just such a case.  So to the eight members of the Wilmington, Delaware city council who voted for this resolutions;

 “^*%) you, YOU’RE STUPID!”

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.