Inner party propaganda: Sandra Fluke

I hate that I’m writing about this topic, but it’s a very good illustration of the process of which consent is manufactured.

Ms Fluke attends a law school that costs $63,750/year by one estimate. Three years there will therefore cost her $191,250 (assuming that tuition does not increase between years, which is almost certainly will). Upon graduation, if she does decently, she can expect to make $160,000 plus bonus.

How much does birth control cost? The pills are actually about $9/month or $108/year – approximately 0.17% of her annual education and living expenses. If she can’t afford that, she can always use condoms, which are about as difficult to find for free on the campus of Georgetown Law as reflectively left-liberal opinions (see here for the surprisingly long list of Georgetown Law faculty that have been appointed to the Obama administration).

In sum, "free" birth control may be the only thing in the world that the wealthy, well-connected and privileged student population of Georgetown Law doesn’t have immediate access to.

There is absolutely no scandal of any sort here – yet this "scandal" is the very process by which democratic government functions on many levels. If your reaction to this sort of thing is anything other than detached amusement, you’re doing it wrong.

Advertisements

17 Responses to Inner party propaganda: Sandra Fluke

  1. Allan says:

    I do not feel detached amusement.

    For the past two days
    I have been in a state of quiet rage
    thinking about the Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke imbroglio.

    Few people seem to realize the significance of this drama.

    Limbaugh
    who always has bragged
    that he was beholden to no one
    was forced to apologize cravenly
    for a description of this 30 year old ‘student’
    which was totally accurate
    and with which
    not so many years ago
    most of society would have been in total agreement.

    Now everyone
    even (or especially) amongst ‘right-wing’ commentators
    says he was out of bounds.

    (A similar thing happened two weeks ago
    to the popular Los Angeles broadcasters
    John and Ken
    who were suspended for a week
    for accurately describing Whitney Houston
    as a ‘crack ho’
    which apparently is a popular expression
    widely used amongst the Black community).

    So even the great Rush Limbaugh
    who works for no one
    who runs his own show
    has bowed to the forces of correctness.

    Now no one in the USA any longer can speak the truth
    except within their own walls
    and maybe soon that as well will be risky.

    The battle is over.

    The savages have won.

    • Doug1 says:

      You can’t say it’s totally accurate that she’s either a slut or a whore. The last is so far out there on the basis of what’s known about her that it shouldn’t even sting much. As for the former just because she takes bc pills doesn’t mean she engages in tons of causal sex. It does suggest she isn’t a virgin, but then very few 30 yo women unmarried or not are.

      However that’s different from saying as some I saw on NBC saying that no woman should ever be called either. Rubbish. There’s certainly basis for calling Lindsay Lohan a slut for example. Yeah it’s an insult but why isn’t it one she deserves?

      • Allan says:

        To paraphrase an old joke:

        From her testimony
        we know what she is
        we’re only haggling about her price,
        to be paid by the taxpayer
        for her services.

    • TFT says:

      Allan,

      You dilute your own authority by employing an unconventional writing style. Your whimsy undermines the very foundation your argument relies on.

      Why do you do that?

      • Allan says:

        Authority?
        The world has gone to Hell.
        What authority does anyone have
        let alone me?

      • TFT says:

        “Authority?”

        I mean the authority of your argument (or “lament,” if that’s all it is).

        It seems you are bemoaning the erosion of civilization — of structure and tradition. Yet you are using an unconventional form of expression to convey this. You are throwing custom to the wind to decry that custom has been thrown to the wind.

        That seems rather self-detonating, no?

      • Foseti says:

        Civilization and authority are inseparable. Perhaps hierarchy is a better word?

      • TFT says:

        I was just using “authority” in the strictly rhetorical sense. Substitute “credibility” or “strength” or “soundness” as needed…

      • Allan says:

        I take great pains to use correct grammar and syntax
        following the model of Fowler and Fowler
        (first edition, 1906, not the recent editions).
        I use the spelling given in the Oxford English Dictionary
        not American spelling.
        I don’t much like punctuation marks
        but if you go back a thousand years or so
        you’ll find they didn’t use much punctuation either.

        Also
        I intensely dislike seeing a line broken
        in the middle of a phrase
        or a clause
        it deeply offends my aesthetic sense
        (and also makes it harder to read
        on a computer monitor).
        In this
        I suppose
        I am going against recent convention
        but I am not so sure the ancients would have disapproved.

        So where am I throwing custom to the wind?

      • Allan says:

        I see Foseti’s blog manager has broken some of my lines.
        My apologies.
        It is beyond my control.

    • Iano says:

      He should have just called her a liar or a fantasist as these were more accurate terms.

      Because of this people are not focussing on her lies.

  2. rightsaidfred says:

    detached amusement

    I guess I’m doing it wrong. I hang upside-down and scream at the top of my lungs at such things.

    I was at a planning session with a lobbying group and one speaker bemoaned the fact that “we are up against people who readily wheel someone in a wheelchair up to the microphone”. I’ve come to view legislative testimony through this lens: wheelchairs to the microphone. They should have had Sandra Fluke speaking through a Stephen Hawking-type voice synthesizer. That would have been funny, cool, and accurate.

  3. Leonard says:

    I tend to feel more anger about the thing than bemusement.

    Limbaugh was (modestly) out of bounds. It’s not that (or his limited apology) that irks me– it’s the double standard, where right-wingers have to be correct (including “socially correct”, as in this case) 100% of the time, including when they are speaking hyperbolically. Whereas the left doesn’t. I recognize this as the rules of the game — but it still angers me to see it in action.

  4. Columnist says:

    Foseti, don’t you know that it isn’t about Sandra Fluke herself, but about covertly weeding out the NAMs by birth control. It is simply Margaret Sanger cum taqiyya.

  5. DCW says:

    When people stop trying to appease those that despise them, things will change. Until that time comes, expect more of the same.
    BTW – why would anyone care about the complaints and opinions of someone that hates them? That this kind of craven cowardice is demonstrated every day is remarkable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: