399 replies to this topic

[Ser Lany Cassandra]

Hope it is ok that I started a new topic on this.

Manhole Eunuchsbane, on 03 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

They are inextricably linked for any parent who has gone through divorce. And IMO, custody is the most important aspect of the process. I'm extremely lucky to have true, shared 50/50 custody of my children. The only reason I have that is that my ex basically allowed it.

I agree completely...my comments were in reference to making it harder for women to get divorces as the NEXT STEP to limiting rights.  This as an extreme follow up to the "single parent = abuse" law.  I never meant for it to be taken out of context.


It is a long string of events proposed by Republicans that I think take us back more than 50 years.

[Ormond]

I'm really sorry, but I think there's a lot of overreaction to this proposed law (so far only put forward by one state senator).

The column Atreides linked to has this as the relevant sections of the law:

Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read:
48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read:
48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

This is not a law about defining child abuse. This is a section of law directing some state board or agency to disseminate educational information about child abuse and neglect. The proposed change does not say that nonmarital parenthood is the ONLY factor in abuse and neglect. It just says it's "a contributing factor." It certainly is not a law which means that kids of single parents in Wisconsin will be in immediate danger of being put into foster care if it passes.

I don't agree with telling the board to "emphasize" nonmarital parenthood over any other factors that contribute to this. But leaping from this to the idea that even this particular state senator wants kids put into foster care just because their parents weren't married when they were born is left-wing paranoia, IMHO.

I think this is just as much a knee-jerk unreasonable reaction as those who accuse Obama of wanting to be some sort of socialist dictator because he is in favor of national health care and letting the Bush tax cuts expire are having a knee-jerk unreasonable right wing reaction.

If you want to say this proposed law is silly, unnecessary, and prejudicial, I'd agree. But to say that this proposed law is claiming that "single parenthood = abuse" just isn't correct.

Edited by Ormond, 03 March 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[TerraPrime]

Ormond, on 03 March 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

If you want to say this proposed law is silly, unnecessary, and prejudicial, I'd agree. But to say that this proposed law is claiming that "single parenthood = abuse" just isn't correct.

Not explicitly, no, but in singling out this one characteristic to make it the focus, the proposed law is, I think, reasonably interpreted as a condemnation of single parent households in a way that it doesn't condemn, say, alcoholism or drug addiction in the household as contributing factors to child abuse. It is also an extension of the social conservative narrative regarding the importance of the nuclear family, where much social ills, like the rampant and militant homosexual lobby, are attributed to the deterioration thereof. This law is less about protecting the welfare of children and more about establishing and enshrining orthodoxy of male-female married households.

[Sci-2]

Got emails saying proflowers and carbonite advertise on shows across the political spectrum. But apparently the Carbonite prez is going to meet with Limbaugh next week to let him know how offensive he is.

Really, Limbaugh is just smoothing the road for Obama IMO. I'm surprised social conservatives decided to pull out their nonsense so early and so flagrantly this year.

[TerraPrime]

I'm kinda amused, in a way, about this reaction to Limbaugh. I mean, that's hardly the most offensive thing he's said on the show, about Muslims, minorities, or poor people. I guess this is the straw that breaks the pill-popping camel's back?

[Ormond]

Typical Woman, on 03 March 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I'm kinda amused, in a way, about this reaction to Limbaugh. I mean, that's hardly the most offensive thing he's said on the show, about Muslims, minorities, or poor people. I guess this is the straw that breaks the pill-popping camel's back?

? The person he said this about was not a Muslim, a minority, or a poor person, but a White woman student at a prestigious law school.

It's no surprise to me that the media would pay more attention to Limbaugh insulting her. It's the same thing as them paying more attention to attractive White women like Natalee Holloway and Laci Peterson as murder victims than they do to men or minorities who are murder victims. Any  woman who can be described as young, White, and attractive is going to get more attention than a poor minority Muslim in a similar situation. It's about what the news show producers think will increase their ratings.

[Forderz]

The only outcome I can foresee from Carbonite meeting with Rush is that Rush will tone down his rhetoric concerning white women.  Admirable in and out of itself, but not a huge blow.

Unless, of course, Rush behaves just as toolishly with his advertisers as he does with his listeners.  Then all bets are off.

[Trebla]

I think the Rush uproar escalated because he escalated it. The original comment was bad, but not much different than his usual rants. But he defiantly doubled down the next day and the day after. That's when the petitions started and his sponsors started running for cover. I think had he just told everybody to lighten up on the second day, it wouild have been filed under just another Rush controversy. He didn't and it grew beyond what even he could stand. Because he's folding:

http://politicaltick...r-slut-comment/

Quote

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” Limbaugh said in a statement on his website. “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

eta: added quote

Edited by Trebla, 03 March 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[TerraPrime]

Trebla, on 03 March 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Quote

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” Limbaugh said in a statement on his website. “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

And the number of people who thinks that his apology is sincere or is in any way meaningful is.... what, 7?

Certainly, his fans will all think it's the big bad libruls who's making POLITICALLY CORRECT CNESOCHIP! at their beloved Rush, and that he's only caving in to appease us. The rest of us will just see a guy trying to do what he can to stop the revenue loss. I don't know who Rush thinks he's fooling.

Edited by Typical Woman, 03 March 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[Jon Sprunk]

Typical Woman, on 03 March 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

I don't know who Rush thinks he's fooling.

I think most of us exactly who Rush is fooling -- the same people he's been fooling with his brand of "shock conservatism" for many years. If the establishment treated him like a joke, I really wouldn't care. But they kiss his ass, and so they get tarred with the same brush.

[Forderz]

This is a rare occasion, in any case.  I wonder how sincere his apologies will become if he loses more advertisers?

[IheartTesla]

At some point Rush Limbaugh and the GOP will realize women make up 50% or so of the populace and spend a lot of money too. Good to see all these companies bailing. There'll probably be a non-apology apology next week from him.

I hate it when I'm right.

[dalThor]

While I always loathed their commercials, Quicken Loans is a huge Detroit company and purportedly a great place to work.  They've issued a statement "suspending" their advertising with Limbaugh.  Feel free to comment on their last wall post to support the decision and to make it permanent.  Or, to disagree, I suppose.

Quicken Loans FB page

ETA: They stated at some point that they are actually monitoring the post to judge reactions.

Edited by dalThor, 04 March 2012 - 02:32 AM.

[Howdyphillip]

Rush Limbaugh is a marketing genius.  He knows damn well that the notoriety he garnishes by this, and other outlandish comments causes publicity for himself. People paying attention to him is what he wants.That is what drives his ratings. I would venture to guess that a large part of his audience every day is liberals who listen to him out of offense.

If you really don't like what he is saying, ignore him. Every petition that is signed, is just ammunition for his sleazy ways because it lets the corporate sponsors know that people are listening. The more people listen, the more products are sold.

[dalThor]

Howdyphillip, on 04 March 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

If you really don't like what he is saying, ignore him. Every petition that is signed, is just ammunition for his sleazy ways because it lets the corporate sponsors know that people are listening. The more people listen, the more products are sold.

While I'd agree that petitions are largely ineffective this is something altogether different.  In this case the nation's largest home loan company has listened.  As a result they have decided to, temporarily at least, suspend their advertising with him.  This directly effects the bottom line.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Ser Lany Cassandra, on 03 March 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

It is a long string of events proposed by Republicans that I think take us back more than 50 years.

A bit unfair on the 1950s (a time when the US had income tax brackets of over 90%, and where a Republican President could make speeches criticising military-industrial complexes).

[The Real Will]

Typical Woman, on 03 March 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

And the number of people who thinks that his apology is sincere or is in any way meaningful is.... what, 7?

Certainly, his fans will all think it's the big bad libruls who's making POLITICALLY CORRECT CNESOCHIP! at their beloved Rush, and that he's only caving in to appease us. The rest of us will just see a guy trying to do what he can to stop the revenue loss. I don't know who Rush thinks he's fooling.

I doubt he thinks he's fooling anyone. As you say, his fans think he really meant it, and agree with it; others think he really meant it, and are sickened by it; yet others are probably indifferent to it, but I dare say most of them still think he really meant it. It's not about fooling people, it's about creating enough space for the advertisers to wave it aside and get back to the business of paying him. An apology and everyone can say it is now behind us and just move on...or so, I suspect, he hopes.

[MinDonner]

The way he's framing it as "sorry about my choice of words" is pathetic. Are there ANY words he could have chosen instead to make the same point that would have made it more palatable? "I should have phrased it more carefully" is not an apology when it's the message itself that is horrific, not the fucking word choices.

[The Great Unwashed]

MinDonner, on 04 March 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

The way he's framing it as "sorry about my choice of words" is pathetic. Are there ANY words he could have chosen instead to make the same point that would have made it more palatable? "I should have phrased it more carefully" is not an apology when it's the message itself that is horrific, not the fucking word choices.

But he's not trying to apologize. He's trying to give his sponsors enough blanket to cover their asses so they can turn around to the people who are upset and use his non-apology to pacify them. It's just a sick fucking cynical game and that's what allow the extremes to get pushed further out, because no one really truly gets held accountable for anything.

[MinDonner]

Oh, I know. Was just commenting on how inadequate the attempted ass-coverage really was.