Fair warning that I'm sleep deprived, so if I goof something again, please prod me so I catch it. This thread just moves so fast that I don't want to get left behind, and besides, I found something I want to post.
The trouble is that different people, and different camps in a debate, and in society, have wildly divergent ideas about in what corners logos and pathos are to be found (I'm referring to the level of "knowing or judging on what grounds one is doing something, or taking a view" here, not just to the bare fact that people want different things, have different aims and programs). At what points someone would be driven by reason and at what points by passion and agitated emotion, or somebody else's trumped-up emotions (that's rethoric, you know). Besides, one can't really ask that everyone taking part in a debate should be able to step out of themselves and make an 'objective', calm and fair assessment of when they are being passionate, pigheaded or driven by sound reasoned arguments; it only works under special circumstances, like, if it's a small circle and every one of them shares the same frame of ideas, some of the same outlooks.
I agree that people who are discussing in public sometimes ought to do a bit more thinking, facts checking and self-restraint of expression before they speak up - especially if they make a living out of voicing opinions - but many of the folks in this thread may not be at one with you about just what it means to validate an opinion through the use of informed reason, and not just through clever words or hectoring.
The public arenas of debate - newspapers, magazines, radio, parliament, town halls - used to hold up the promise of a reflective discussion (I'm deliberately omitting tv because it hasn't, in general, been much to compare with in reasoned debate, not on its own anyway) where the weight of people's different viewpoints and passions could be brought face to face, and could be weighed and fairly discussed. But they are hardly working that way anymore. The fact of having your shouty voice heard, and getting heard fast, counts for more in those arenas today than actually having something solid and relevant to say, at least that's often how you get to the privileged places where you can get many to hear your soundbites. Both Limbaugh, Palin, Maher, Santorum and Schulz know that.
The way I figure it, you can't really separate logic and emotion, but the two do have to work in harmony when you work at public policy. Ideally, emotion should drive you towards fixing things, but logic should determine how you do so. It's far too easy for someone to put up a plea for a fix to something, but it's logically not the best course of action.
For example, we all saw the Haiti relief funds last year. Pathos demands compassion and that we send money. However, when you look at how the money was squandered, logic shows that giving money to those relief funds isn't a proper course of action.
If we accept that purely pathos methods are acceptable, then ad hominem attacks would be acceptable as well, and people wouldn't have any problem with Rush's statements.
I would love to see a return to a more reflective discourse, but if either a Republican or Democrat wanted to do so, they should begin by cleaning out their own party before attacking the other. Doing otherwise usually leads either to a double standard or to the exasperation that nothing will ever get better.
It's kind of a sensitization issue. My theory is that, up until now, the shock jocks got away with it because we could roll our eyes and say 'Yes, these guys are jerks, but - you know - it's his schtick. It's not like real people think like that.' Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that. Then, all of a sudden, we have 'Everywoman' getting completely misrepresented on the show (like I said, a person that any one of us could run into in our daily lives), and boom.
Another thing that's been pointed out in other places is the pay-vs.-public aspect of the various shows. ClearChannel is something that is carried by numerous public radio stations (as opposed to those only available on Sirius or other pay services).
Going from SilentScream's earlier list:
Bill Maher is on HBO.
Olbermann is on basic cable (although he recently left MSNBC for a satellite TV channel after a suspension).
Matthews is also on basic cable, but I would point out that his comments about Clinton did spark protests outside the studio - so there was outrage.
Taibbi seems to be a print journalist only - I saw Rolling Stone and a weblog listed in his current outlets.
Ed Schultz is an interesting case, and probably the only close comparison, since he is also on a syndicated radio show. He was suspended over the Ingraham insult, and issued a public apology. (I finally found the text to it.) Compared to the apology issued to Fluke - there really isn't much of a comparison. Schultz spends the entirety of his speech on saying he was wrong, and Limbaugh spends over half of his saying 'why are we even talking about this?' Also, Laura Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.
I'm not really convinced it's that the public noticed it so much as that the mainstream news media jumped on this story, which they aren't so quick and vehement to do with similar cases. I need a clarification of one part of your post, though, if you'd be so kind:
Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.
There's a number of possible ways to read this, and I'd prefer to just let you clarify rather than make a fool of myself again.
I appreciate that. The confusion over insurance companies vs. getting it 'for free' seems to be rampant, unfortunately.
I think I figured out why. It's at the bottom of this post.
Slander and lies. I have a closet full of ballgowns for my sex. Sure, I get some odd looks when I show up at the biker bar downtown to get my one-nighter on, but I certainly wouldn't call it casual.
Why is it that I know you're kidding and yet the plot bunnies still make demands of me? ;_;
Saw this and thought it'd add to the debate:WARNING! Watching This Video Will Lower Your I.Q.
As usual, ignore any comments that people add (including the title) and it's a clip from where they had Sandra Fluke on CNN. It mentions she has an op-ed piece, listed here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/opinion/fluke-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I'll cover the video first.
One thing she mentions on there is how the staff gets access to contraception and the students are asking for the same. Stupid question, but she is actually paying for insurance, right? Does she only have access to the health insurance of Georgetown University, or is she getting it free with her education?
If it comes as part of the cost, I'd consider dropping that part because it seems like it's part of the anti-monopoly thing that they went after Microsoft for. I could well be wrong; someone please explain.
I really like the points Will Cain (I think he said his name was; it went by fast) made, and was a little sad she didn't give a straight answer there. This, however, is how we rapidly get into the question of whether it should be free. I'll quote her statement:
“I think there are multiple ways to limit access. Certainly making something illegal would be the most extreme form, but not covering it as a health care benefit the way other types of health care benefits are covered is another way to limit access and that’s what many women across the country are currently experiencing when they — even if they have insurance, co-pays, can be as high as $50 a month, which is significant for a woman not making a lot of money.”
Oniya, I think you can easily see how people get confused here and start thinking she's talking about more than just the private insurance matters.
On to the op-ed.
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.
So part of the new health care law is that all private insurance plans are required to include contraception, regardless of religion. Furthermore, the mandate that everyone has to purchase private insurance means that everyone has to pay for this.
Now, I realize that you aren't required to get or use birth control, only that you're paying for a plan which would get it for you free of charge should you choose. However, not only will the cost of the health care rise in order to pay for birth control (because nothing is truly free), but by the very nature of insurance, you're paying for everyone else.
Now, this part of the law I'll disagree with. Alcohol isn't against my religion, but I'd be against a mandated food plan in which you pay so much per month and get all the free food, drink and alcohol you want. Granted, I'd be against a mandated food plan on principle, but doubly so if it forced people in this way.
I see commercials on TV all the time that say "Free with purchase." It's a blatant oxymoron. If you see a commercial that says "Buy this TV and get a DVD player free," then of course you're buying both a TV and a DVD player. It's just a marketing gimmick. The same rule applies to buffets, insurance, and any other such package deals.
If health insurance wasn't going to be mandated, though, I'd probably still be against the federal government forcing health insurance companies to carry contraception. I'd imagine that being more the type of deal where auto insurance can be dirt cheap if you don't care that it'll do absolutely nothing to cover any damage to your car. Explanations to the contrary are welcome.
I could imagine an argument that if you had a minimal deal, employers would only offer that plan. However, logic would suggest that an unscrupulous employer who gouges his employees on things like health insurance would also not pay more than minimum wage, given how both require a minimal payment on the part of the unscrupulous employer. If that's the case, however, it doesn't seem to hold up.http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm
It's 2007, but it's .gov so I figure it's going to have minimal party bias.
Among those paid by the hour in 2007, 267,000 were reported as earning exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Nearly 1.5 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum. Together, these 1.7 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
If only 2.3 percent of people are actually getting minimum wage, with any number of those jobs being places like McDonalds which got a waiver from the health care law anyway, it seems like most places wouldn't hold to a minimum health care coverage deal either.