The following article was recently offered up on Facebook.
I’ve got NO idea who Mark Steyn is, and based on his writing I have no desire to. Anyone who has to resort to this level of hate speech, caustic vitriol, and name calling, IMHO really has nothing worthwhile to say at all. Read Flukes testimony, does she resort to this level of discourse.
Without wasting too much of my brain time and serenity analyzing each line of his “commentary”, I’ll offer the following:
(1) Did he happen to read Ms. Fluke’s testimony. No where in her actual testimony does she discuss her personal sex life. How does he infer some of the derogatory statements he makes regarding Ms. Fluke from her testimony? Forgive me but I just don't see it. He seems to attempt to justify his statement, because others have used hateful speech about other women. Logical? Where does he infer frequency (as if that is any of his business any way).
(2) It is not his, nor any other person's business what the sex life is of another person (as long as they are not harming another). It is not his, nor any other person's responsibility to determine what is or is not virtuous behavior in another. That is between the person, their higher power and anyone they are in a relationship with.
(3) The decision for the type of contraception that a man or woman chooses should be between the patient and their doctor. The art, science, profession and practice of medicine is based on standards of care as defined by the profession. It’s the decision of the medical practitioner and patient to determine the appropriate standard of care for the patient’s situation. The decision regarding the form of birth control is between the doctor and patient. Institutions and business need to decide if they are going to provide medical coverage in whole as determined by the doctor and patient based on accepted standards of care, or none at all. Institutions should not be able to pick and choose those standards of care and practices which they will and will not permit the insurance provider to cover (particularly based on “religious” grounds).
(4) Remember, the woman (or man) is totally free to exercise their freedom of religion and not choose or accept a particular form of treatment, for example a form of birth control.
(5) Ms. Fluke is not asking for the institution or the government (tax payer) to pay for contraception. While Mr. Steyn does seem to acknowledge this point, it is vague best. She is asking that an INSURANCE PLAN SHE PAYS FOR provide the benefit of covering all or a part of birth control pills. The school does not pay for her insurance, I don’t think it is even a partially funded program.
(6) His main point seems to be: “… the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-age children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.”
All I can say is, Oye… there are so many problems with this statement and if you don’t see them, no matter what I say, you will never see them.
All I can say is, Oye… there are so many problems with this statement and if you don’t see them, no matter what I say, you will never see them.
(7) "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. REALLY – Quoting B. Franklin regarding “virtuous people”. I think he needs a history lesson. And who is to define “virtuous”, a church, the state, the party, him. Or, like many Islamic nations should we have a pseudo government organization like a “Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice”.
( (8) I have to laugh when someone offering a commentary like this uses science as part of their argument – “unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics”. What do you want to bet that this guy is a global warming denier? - which basically means he rejects the scientific method and therefore should care as much about the Laws of Physics as he does about reasoned and civil discourse.
As previously noted – I could have gone line-by-line, statement-by-statement and ripped this “commentary” apart, but its just not worth my time or effort. Maybe this guy will be around with Rush and the rest of the cock roaches and they can argue about it. (sorry stooping to his level)
I will acknowledge there are problems with Ms. Flukes statement. It relies too heavily on personal stories and anecdotal information. More detailed and empirical information could have been provided to back up her statements. Note however, that we regularly see statements by experienced and veteran law makers, experts and talking heads where the same mistakes are made. (Mr. Steyn's statement is an excellent example.) I do not see where these flaws in her statement provide an excuse to excoriate Ms. Fluke the way she has been here or in other "commentaries". Nor, do these flaws explain the wild assumptions and inferences made regarding Ms. Fluke.
A side note:
If it were up to the Catholic Church all forms of birth control (with the exception of the rhythm method) would be illegal.
Update: I've done some reading on this guy. I like him even less. Just a run of the mill fear monger. I see he is co-hosting for Rush. They deserve each other.
Update: I've done some reading on this guy. I like him even less. Just a run of the mill fear monger. I see he is co-hosting for Rush. They deserve each other.
