Well, I am ok with that! See you, hater!
Economics professor under attack for criticizing Sandra Fluke's position
-
and I mean it; if a bunch of liberals were talking about what a bitch she is in this thread and how right Schulz was, I hope I would have the strength and morals to call that shit out as well. It's much easier calling out Rush and Landsburg (and you all) because (surprise) I am a liberal, but I hope I would.
-
Well, a quick Google search of "Bill Maher hate speech" gets 290,000 hits, so there's a little to get you started.
Ed Schultz: called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut."
-
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/09/letter-to-a-reporter/#more-7135
This is good news- he's squarely in "don't give two f**ks" mode and is trudging on sarcastically as expected.
-
I don't understand the problem. Landsburg's offense should not, and will not, lead to tenure revocation. It's far below the threshold for that. But tenure does not mean that you have a right to make an ass of yourself and your profession by blogging some complete bs (it's obvious he didn't read the testimony) and then ask for shelter from the shitstorm.
-
Fluke’s years of liberal activism. Add her ties to the LGBTQ and her efforts to:
” force schools to pay for sex change operations”.
http://voices.yahoo.com/sandra-fluke-liberal-lesbian-activist-secret-11062294.html?cat=9
Sandra Fluke — Liberal Lesbian Activist on a Secret Mission ...
Consider also the little matter of Fluke’s efforts on behalf of the activist group called Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Questioning.
Review — titled Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons.
“A prime example of direct discrimination,” the “gender law” article claims “is:
denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”
-
Let me be clearer: It's obvious he committed an intellectual hit'n'run (all he's capable of, as far as I can tell) where he spent like 2 minutes thinking about the matter before deciding that his standard argument - government shouldn't interfere in private contracts - applies. Never mind that it's completely off base here. That government has the right to regulate insurance contracts is debatable as a general position, but was a given for the hearing's purpose because the ACA is law and contains standards for private health care. Done! The hearing was about conditions under which contraceptive coverage should be part of those standards. (Not "just so," by the way, it was about prescribed use.) It's obvious that SL didn't bother to think through any of this context and just applied a libertarian knee-jerk reaction plus some name-calling. The kind of stuff that any undergrad who read Ayn Rand and is way too full of himself could do just as well. I stand by my assessment: The guy is unbearable and a disgrace to our profession.
it's obvious he didn't read the testimony
What part of her testimony did he not read that would support her subsidy claim? -
You guys who are doing the "but you're a hypocrite!" thing are a bunch of losers. Don't you get what is going on here? This is a partisan fight. Of course everyone is being hypocritical. The goal is to try and take out a soldier for the other side, using whatever weapons are necessary.
It is simple, and good arguments have nothing to do with it. Rush is not trying to make a good argument. He is trying to fire up the partisan hacks on his side, and make more money for himself. Fluke was just cannon-fodder. That's the way it goes.
And this econ prof-troll has made himself a legitimate target too. Sucks to be him, but hey, he should have thought about it before getting involved.
-
-
Wow, you call this "clearer"? It's not. I'm asking you a simple question: Where in Fluke's testimony did she lay out a rationale for why taxpayers should pay for her purchase of contraceptives?
Let me be clearer: It's obvious he committed an intellectual hit'n'run (all he's capable of, as far as I can tell) where he spent like 2 minutes thinking about the matter before deciding that his standard argument - government shouldn't interfere in private contracts - applies. Never mind that it's completely off base here. That government has the right to regulate insurance contracts is debatable as a general position, but was a given for the hearing's purpose because the ACA is law and contains standards for private health care. Done! The hearing was about conditions under which contraceptive coverage should be part of those standards. (Not "just so," by the way, it was about prescribed use.) It's obvious that SL didn't bother to think through any of this context and just applied a libertarian knee-jerk reaction plus some name-calling. The kind of stuff that any undergrad who read Ayn Rand and is way too full of himself could do just as well. I stand by my assessment: The guy is unbearable and a disgrace to our profession.
it's obvious he didn't read the testimony
What part of her testimony did he not read that would support her subsidy claim? -
Congratulations, you've abandoned rational thought, which, based on your statement, must be your intended goal.
You guys who are doing the "but you're a hypocrite!" thing are a bunch of losers. Don't you get what is going on here? This is a partisan fight. Of course everyone is being hypocritical. The goal is to try and take out a soldier for the other side, using whatever weapons are necessary.
It is simple, and good arguments have nothing to do with it. Rush is not trying to make a good argument. He is trying to fire up the partisan hacks on his side, and make more money for himself. Fluke was just cannon-fodder. That's the way it goes.
And this econ prof-troll has made himself a legitimate target too. Sucks to be him, but hey, he should have thought about it before getting involved.