Limbaugh is not too big to fail: 34 Advertisers and Counting Leave

Voting with money, voting with one's feet, works as well in an election year as any ballot at a polling place.

If enough people express their position on this, if enough companies decide to look at consumer response instead of only short term profits, then people win, then the marketplace and free speech combined both work.  One station in Washington actually is POLLING listeners about dumping Rush, specifically.

If Rush Limbaugh is the proponent of capitalism and the free markets, then he has to acknowledge when it tells him he is bad and when he is wrong (and he is both, doubling down on his misogyny in subsequent broadcasts).

The best twist of all is that in his apology, Limbaugh satisfied no one.  In his apology, apparently he finished himself, he shot himself down with his listeners, his rabid rabble of reactionaries, to whom he had pandered with his rants in the first place.  Apparently they are angry with him for 'caving'.  It never was about being a joke, or being absurd, what Limbaugh said.  He was ALWAYS absolutely serious in his statements, and now they don't like it that he is claiming he was joking.  They weren't joking, not one bit, they really believe that what he said was true, they really hold those opinions of women and sexuality and contraception.  They are a certain stripe of conservatives, stripes like those that would be found on a diseased, ill-tempered skunk.  In Missouri, Limbaugh's home state, a state legislator wants to induct Limbaugh into a hall of fame for famous people from Missouri, ranging from Harry Truman to Dredd Scott.  There is a petition, one of so very many petitions, to stop that inclusion in the Hall of Fame; I hope Penigma readers will take a few moments to sign it.  There is a huge difference between the sex tourist with the suitcase full of Viagra who cruises the Caribbean for underage girls, and who makes the kind of attacks Limbaugh does, and two of the most revered figures in our history.  The heroes are famous; Limbaugh is merely notorious, a celebrity of sorts, but in a bad way.

There are a few conservatives who are better than that, who aren't afraid of Limbaugh, like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who more emphatically condemned Limbaugh for his appalling words.  There ARE principled conservatives, but the conservative side of the aisle has largely been hijacked by special interests, as evidenced by the ALEC legislation they funnel for special interest big money, both corporate and individual, and by extremist culture war ideologues.  Moderates are not welcome and women are not tolerated if they fail to fall in line, which  more than explains the retirement of Olympia Snowe from the Senate, a blow to Republicans, because they do not have a strong candidate to replace her, and are not likely to find one.

As of this writing we are at 34 sponsors who have abandoned Limbaugh - you can read the list here, with more contemplating doing so.  There is not a big pool of people, other than Nut Gingrich's SuperPAC who want to take up that slack.  It was the same kind of advertiser boycott in response to similar excesses by Glenn Beck that led to his eventual disgrace with Faux News, and the loss of listeners.  Beck became an embarrassment; Limbaugh is becoming an embarrassment, for his arrogance, his over-reach with his hatred. 

Beck used to think he had a loyal power base; they left him.  Limbaugh thinks he has a loyal power base; he puts the number of his listeners at 20,000,000.  That number is false, it is inaccurate, and it is grossly overinflated.

Unlike big banks, Limbaugh is NOT too big to fail.  The 34 Advertiser number, that is growing; the listener numbers, that is not.  When the money stops being generated, when the influence is no longer perceived to be real, Rush goes down that long circular swirl into well-earned, well deserved drain of obscurity.  Romney, and Bain Capital, and the Republicans who have had to be nice to Rush even if they didn't really like him...well, let's just say that I don't see them keeping a toothless attack dog on their leash.

Update to Limbaugh - 2 stations dump him, 11 - 12 Advertisers quit him

According to ThinkProgress, the bad ship Rush Limbaugh begins its slow swirl down the drain into obscurity, with a total of an even dozen advertisers leaving, and now two radio stations dumping him.

The trend appears to be continuing, he hasn't hit bottom yet.

An interesting aspect to the Rush Limbaugh show is the claim that he has 20 million listeners.  Apparently that is an unsubstantiated number that exists only in press releases from the Limbaugh radio show, which, given the most casual and rare acquaintance he demonstrates with facts, makes the number less believable.

Here is the summary from ThinkProgress of the rats, or in this case, the MONEY, that is leaving the Titanic Limbaugh.  First the news update/ news flash:

Second radio station drops Limbaugh

Earlier today, a Hawaii radio station announced they would no longer air Rush Limbaugh’s radio show because he “crossed a line of decency.” Now, a second radio station — in Pittsfield, Massachusetts — has said it is no longer going to put up with Limbaugh’s antics. “The nature of Rush’s programming has always presented challenges for us and he’s always pushed the envelope. But this time he’s taken it too far,” said WBEC’s General Manager Peter Barry. Armed Forces Radio is also under pressure by VoteVets to pull Limbaugh out of its programming.

A Hawaiian station, why that's Obama's home state.  A Massachusetts station?  But ... but.......isn't that ROMNEY territory?
A rumored dozen advertisers have left; although there is some question as to one of the companies being cited widely actually having been an advertiser.  Here is the ThinkProgress list:
Moments ago, Bonobos, a men’s outfitter, announced on Twitter that it was dropping any of its advertisements that are appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show:

Scott Candage

@ScottCandage 5 Mar 12 .@Bonobos Thank you very much for that. Very gladdening to hear. Let us know your findings, if you could.

Bonobos

✔@Bonobos @ScottCandage Looks like we were running on it, but we've told them to pull us from the show indefinitely. Thanks for letting us know!

5 Mar 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Sears announced that they, too, are dropping Limbaugh:

Sears and Kmart did not intentionally advertise on the Rush Limbaugh show. Sears Holdings has taken actions to ensure our ads do not run on this show. We appreciate our customers, fans and followers and thank you for your business.

According to a ThinkProgress count, Bonobos and Sears are the 10th and 11th advertisers to drop Limbaugh in the wake of his sexist and hateful attacks on Sandra Fluke.

Other companies are considering doing so, and monitoring the protests of Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh’s Advertisers Facing Social Media Firestorm


By Adam Peck on Mar 2, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Rush Limbaugh’s latest misogynistic tirade against Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke may be the last straw for many of the shock jock’s corporate sponsors. Thousands of angry customers have been inundating dozens of Limbaugh’s corporate sponsors, demanding that they cut ties with the program.

So far, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Carbonite, ProFlowers, Tax Resolution, AOL, Bonobos, Sears, and Allstate Insurance have pulled ads from the program, and several others are considering following their lead.

ThinkProgress is collecting reactions from social media sites like Twitter and Facebook on Storify. Here’s a look at some responses so far:

Other companies though have been slow to react, or are simply ignoring mounting feedback.

We need to take a stand now against his revolting behavior. Sign our petition and let Sandra Fluke know that you are on her side.
Update

An earlier version of this post listed the Cleveland Cavaliers as one of the companies that dropped Limbaugh, based on a report from WFNY. Although the Cavaliers have the same owner as Quicken Loans, WFNY’s report was subsequently removed. It does not appear that the Cavaliers advertised on Limbaugh’s show

Limbaugh - Romney Surrogate? GOP Enforcer? All of the Above?Absurd?Obscene? They sound similar, but they mean very different things

I think there is an excellent case to be made that Romney and Limbaugh are inextricably linked by money and influence.  Limbaugh appears to function as both a Romney surrogate, stating the things that Romney and conservatives want said, but doesn't want to be caught saying them.  It appears equally evident that Limbaugh is a hatchet man, a political enforcer, given the number of right wingers he's forced to recant and to conform. 

In the following clip, I was particularly intrigued with the observations of Michelle Bernard, a woman prominent in conservative and independent politics,  a woman of color, and as she notes here - a graduate of the same Georgetown University Law School attended by Ms. Fluke.  Ms. Bernard has had both public and private interactions with Limbaugh which apply to this controversy.  Those comments occur approximately 7 minutes into this clip, but watch the lead in as well to those 7 minutes; it is well worth it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is not only the conservative Ms. Bernard who makes the observations about Limbaugh as enforcer; similar observations have come from a variety of conservative pundits, like this interview with George Will:

ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Limbaugh doesn't appear to be the only one that Romney has on a Bain-owned leash; Hannity and the disgraced Glenn Beck are on the same radio shows roster.  While Romney's holdings are operated by a blind trust, it is no secret that approx. 45% of his holdings are Bain Capital.

The latest efforts to be a surrogate, and to be an enforcer have appeared to backfire, if the intent was to create a controversy that would energize the base for Romney and the GOP.  Advertisers are departing, and continuing to suspend their business, in some cases terminating business, despite the non-apology apology.

The wording between Romney and Limbaugh has been similar; that they woulda coulda shoulda used different words.  It was not only the choice of words that is the problem; it was the intent, it was the concept, it was the entire position.

Sandra Fluke spoke about contraception used for non-contraceptive therapeutic use.  She spoke about a woman who needed it in order to preserve her remaining ovary due to an ovarian condition, a disease.  The woman in question who needed but could not afford contraceptive therapy for that condition is gay; I do not know as of this writing if she is married or not.  Ms. Fluke did not assert that she was seeking contraception coverage for her own sexual activity, or indeed for any one's sexual activity specifically.  She wanted an important form of medication to be available to students who needed it.  What Limbaugh said was a gross misrepresentation of fact, and how he said it was an extremely offensive personal attack.  That the attack came from a man who appears to have been a Dominican Republic sex tourist, stopped with an unusually large amount of Viagra by Homeland Security in 2006, which you can read about here.  The Dominican Republic is notorious not only for its sexual tourism, but specifically for the availability and sexploitation of underage girls.

In that context, I found Limbaugh's observations about underage girls and sex that he made on March 1, 2012 particularly disturbing:

"Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?"

So not only do we have a leap that a young woman who is seeking hormone therapy to help her friend save her ovaries from disease, pain, and expensive surgery; not only do we have an unfounded leap that this woman is sexually promiscuous; we have Limbaugh publicly asserting that this woman has been sexually active since she was 11 or 12 years old.  But he would have us believe this is not a personal attack on her, or that it is not an attack on girls and women?  He wants us to believe that this was......some kind of attempted humor, and that he is the real victim here?  NO. NO WAY. HELL NO.

The right would have us believe there is no 'culture war on women'; the evidence that there is very much a war on women is to overwhelming for that denial to be credible.  The right would have us believe this is a ploy by the left to shift attention away from the economy-----except that the topic has been brought up, consistently, by the right, not the left.  The economic news is largely better for the policies of the left than the right; no way that the left wants to change the subject now.  These are 'spaghetti' arguments; throw  half-cooked ideas at the public, like a wall, and see what sticks.  NOTHING ABOUT THE APOLOGY FROM LIMBAUGH HAS BEEN CREDIBLE OR PERSUASIVE. Even  Limbaugh's fellow conservatives are not buying it, and his advertisers continue to leave him, one after the other, despite his crappy non-apology apology.

But there was more that was offensive, more that exceeds, by vast distances, the notion of a mere bad choice of words' line of crap from both Romney and Limbaugh.  From the wikipedia article on the Limbaugh Fluke controversy - and yes, there IS one :

He continued that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk".

Seriously, THIS from the man who was engaging in apparent sexual tourism with huge quantities of Viagra, in a third world country noted for underage prostitutes?

He also said Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlain scholarship ... exclusively for women". He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."[15]

Using her name so very frequently, with the false but very explicit statements that he does, that IS a personal attack.  It is the kind of attack, the specific use of sexual language that women recognize as a very specific form of intimidation, one that often goes with sexual harassment when it occurs in the work place.  It is nearly always something that the abuser, the harasser tries to pass off as just a little humor, in order to excuse his conduct.  Excusing one's conduct is not taking responsibility for that conduct, and in any apology, it negates that apology.  Effectively it says, 'I'm sorry for what I did wrong, except that I'm not sorry, and what I did was not wrong, and you're bad for making me the victim of what I did that wasn't wrong."

Limbaugh continued with his very personal attack on Ms. Fluke with factually inaccurate and not funny comments claiming rampant promiscuity, like these (again from the wikipedia article):

On March 3, 2012, Limbaugh defended his previous comments about Fluke and complained that "not one person says that, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?". Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is "no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.' "

And we are supposed to believe that Limbaugh ISN'T the person projecting HIS OWN sexual proclivities here?  It is his mind, not Sandra Fluke's, that went in this direction.
As of this writing, some nine advertisers have left Limbaugh, and others are considering doing so.  We can only hope all of the advertisers have the sense to do so, the decency to do so, and are more skeptical of these statements that are not political humor, and are very much an attack on an individual of the worst kind, and an attack on the residents of this country who are female as well.  Limbaugh promotes the worst women-as-subordinate women-as-sexual conquest-for-exploitation  view.  He does so, because there is a segment of his base that thinks the same way, and there are far too many others among the Limbaugh audience who do not object, or do not object much to that world view.  While Limbaugh may have miscalculated - or maybe not - he was correct that there was an audience among his listeners to whom he directed the rants, Rush fans who DID go on record in agreement with those statements, as fact, as political ideology, NOT as humor.  Those were the people to whom Limbaugh was pandering, and those are the people among the conservative base to whom all of the candidates are pandering.  So were these.  This is the basis, the world view, the ideology for the right wing attack on women, on feminists, on gender and sexual equality. This is the pro-perversion segment of the ultra-conservative right.  It is not by any stretch all conservatives; but it is an accurate characterization of many more than the ones who are open and vocal.

But it is not only Limbaugh and his radio show and his advertisers who should be held accountable; Romney and his buddies at Bain, through their ownership of Clear Channel, are the ones who have profited by this, not just Limbaugh.  They have made money, and one could argue that they have made REPEATED political use - political capital - out of Limbaugh and the other extremists  in their employ who are the sock puppets for their ventriloquism.  This is an ideology that is reactionary, this is an ideology that is attempting to reverse the gender and racial equality of the past century, this is an ideology of hatred.

We need to call it what it is; we need to recognize it when we see it in the public square of politics, and most of all we need to identify and oppose the mechanism by which it works.  We do all of those things when we make the connections between the parties involved, and the working of the money flow and the power dynamic instead of regarding these events with only superficial understanding.

It is time for Limbaugh to be as 'over' as his colleague Glenn Beck.  Hannity and O'Reilly shouldn't be far behind in their departures to obscurity.  The line should form, appropriately, to the right for all the other right wing media hate mongers.  The exodus and the impetus needs to begin with the advertisers, continue with their audience, and end with those who made money from this ideology enforcement and surrogate speech repudiating the talking heads, emphatically, not sorta-kinda-maybe-justa-little.

Limbaugh Almost Apologizes...Sort of....But NOT REALLY

cross posted from MNPoliticalRoundtable:

I heard it on the radio news a few hours ago, and this article from the AP expanded on the information. Rush was just making 'a joke'. NO, Rush Limbaugh was not making a 'joke' for three days; he was on a nasty, vicious rant that was intended to be critical and intended to be anything but funny. But he was facing pressure, including advertiser pressure and pressure from both the Democrats and at least some Republicans in Congress. President Obama had personally phoned the young woman with his encouragement and praise, which further sent Rush's head spinning and then exploding with rage. Rage is not making a joke. Calling someone a slut, a prostitute, and suggesting that because college aged women - some of whom are married - use contraception which is a medically prescribed pharmaceutical under many health insurance policies, they should have sex recorded on video tapes and played for the public is not something said as humor. Especially it was not intended as humor the way it was said, with the venom and hatred and viciousness with which it was said, clearly intended to demean and humiliate, and yes, even intimidate women as part of the right wing culture war that seeks to put women in a subordinate place through such degrading attempts to establish an alternate 'cultural norm'. That would be the same norm I just wrote about where older men manipulate and exploit younger women, where women are objects of conquest, and where subordinating and dominating women is necessary to men feeling powerful and important and in charge. From the AP story:

Limbaugh apologizes to law student for insult

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press – 4 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program. The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control. "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," Limbaugh said on his website. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Really? Because it doesn't sound anything like Limbaugh is genuinely sorry about anything; his apology spends far more time trying to rewrite what happened and to deny his responsibility for how wrong he was, how wrong he is. Limbaugh continued, quoted in the same AP article:

"In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.

Apparently I'm not the only one unpersuaded of either his sincerity in making the apology, or of his intentions in the original statements. The AP article also noted:

Limbaugh's critics were not swayed by his statement. "In all seriousness, this isn't an apology. It's a public relations statement. It's hollow and deceitful. Don't be fooled," tweeted the account StopRush, the effort online to pressure advertisers to abandon the popular host. And even after the apology, some advertisers still planned to abandon Limbaugh. "Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show," Carbonite CEO David Friend said on his company's Facebook page. "We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."

What is really telling in the course of the Limbaugh obscenity in the guise of a radio show however was this:

"In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.

And yet, we never hear Limbaugh talking about the social issues of using Viagra, which was originally developed as a cardiovascular drug for its vaso dilating properties, which accidentally turned out to have a secondary use for treating erectile dysfunction. There is a good account of the origins of Viagra development here. And the Wikipedia article on the drug, under the name Sildenafil, has a whole section on the recreational use of Viagra - which appears to be the same recreational use that Limbaugh himself acquired it for, without a valid prescription. Pay particular attention to the part below about ILLEGAL DRUG USERS - which included Rush Limbaugh, sex tourist. If Rush had a legitimate and valid medical problem at the time he made his sex tourist trip where he was caught with an enormous quantity of Viagra, he would and could have gotten normal medicinal amounts from a doctor's prescription of his own - and he probably could have had it paid for by his health insurance IF IT WERE FOR A REAL MEDICAL PROBLEM INSTEAD OF RECREATIONAL USE AS A SEX TOURIST. The recreational uses of Viagra qualify as 'social decisions'; the medical use of contraception, particularly the very large number of therapeutic alternative uses of birth control pills, for various hormone therapies, does not. This is entirely about a double standard for women, about controlling women, about restricting women. It IS precisely about keeping women barefoot and pregnant. It is entirely about a world view double standard of women being sinful if they have sex, but not men. From wikipedia:

Recreational use

Sildenafil's popularity with young adults has increased over the years.^[24] Sildenafil's trade name "Viagra" is widely recognized in popular culture, and the drug's association with treating erectile dysfunction has led to its recreational use.^[25] The reasons behind such use include the belief that the drug increases libido, improves sexual performance,^[25] or permanently increases penis size^{[citation needed]}. Studies on the effects of viagra when used recreationally are limited, but suggest that it has little effect when used by those not suffering from erectile dysfunction. In one study, a 25 mg dose was shown to cause no significant change in erectile quality, but did reduce the post-ejaculatory refractory time.^[26] This study also noted a significant placebo effect in the control group.^[26] Unprescribed recreational use of sildenafil and other PDE-5 Inhibitors is noted as particularly high among users of illegal drugs.^[27][28] Sildenafil is sometimes used to counteract the effects of other substances, often illicit.^[25] Some users mix it with methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy), other stimulants, or opiates in an attempt to compensate for the common side effect of erectile dysfunction, a combination known as "sextasy", "rockin' and rollin'," or "trail mix."^[25] Mixing with amyl nitrite is particularly dangerous and potentially fatal.^[25]

That makes this quote particularly offensive and hypocritical:

"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities," he said. "What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"

I can't recall Viagra-abusing Rush ever arguing that Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs should be excluded from being covered by insurance, especially if the men are not married. Nor do any of the other fat old mostly white conservative men who banned Ms. Fluke from testifying before Congress about the NON-Sexual therapeutic uses by college women of hormone therapy through birth control pills ever hold hearings about male sexual social decisions, or contraception, or insurance coverage. Rush is right about one thing; it IS NOT his business to criticize women's use of medication. Like abortion, or any other moral and medical matter, it is between women and their doctors and women and their chosen moral advisers. What women don't need is the obscene world view of big old ugly misogynistic men like Rush OR the government interfering in those choices. It is doubly heinous when they do so by lying and misrepresenting what those choices are, because they don't have a valid position if they treat those choices with any accuracy. Responsible health choices, including responsible sexual choices, should be encouraged as a matter of public health policy. It is not a religious issue; religion is a private, non-governmental matter. Public health issues ARE properly within the purview of government policy, and in the case of insurance, also of regulating interstate commerce. I hope the public does not accept this poor excuse for an apology from Rush Limbaugh. I dearly hope that the pressure on him continues, and that he continues to lose his advertising support. It would be nice, but is probably too much to expect, that some of his listeners would be offended and leave him. They're largely a lost cause if they find him entertaining OR informative. Like the reason Rush Limbaugh needed all that Viagra for his sexual performance, his apology is far too little, too late, and fails to satisfy those on the receiving end of his efforts. With a bit more pressure from those who were offended, like his recreational use of Viagra as an illegal drug was dangerous to his health, his obscene attack on Ms. Fluke might be hazardous to his career health. I for one hopes he justly and justifiably goes the route to obscurity that Glenn Beck has, and soon.

So........Bain Capital OWNS Clear Channel, Which Broadcasts Rush Limbaugh?And Romney is one of the bigger owners of Bain

I found the kicker at the end of this piece from Truthout to be fascinating.  It's too bad Granholm is Canadian born; if she were born in the U.S., she'd make a fascinating presidential candidate in her own right...against the right.

Fired Up! A Call to Boycott "Repulsive, Misogynistic" Limbaugh and His Sponsors
Friday 2 March 2012

by: Jennifer Granholm, Current TV
Op-Ed and Video


When Rush Limbaugh doubles down on Sandra Fluke, a law student who was to testify in front of Congress about contraception legislation, Jennifer Granholm fires back.

Rush Limbaugh is a repulsive misogynistic blowhard. By now, no one should expect more than neanderthal grunts from him.

But, his radio program is owned by a syndicator, premiere, which in turn is owned by – Clear Channel. Should we not expect more of these companies? And the sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh show. Do you really want to be associated with this horrible man?

And Republicans in Congress, will you not speak up? What if this was your daughter?

What about the Republicans who are running for president, are you men enough? Do you have a backbone to stand up to the spewing volcanic mouthpiece that is Rush Limbaugh? A man who calls a college student who comes before congress to testify a slut? Don’t any of you want to say, “No. This goes over the line.”

This is offensive to anyone with a shred of respect for women. Do you want young women to fear testifying before a government hearing, lest they be subject to slanderous statements broadcast to millions of Americans? Republicans, do you want women to think he represents conservatism? Good luck with that.

I don’t know anything about Sandra Fluke. But I do know this. Her parents ought to be very proud of her courage and grace under fire. If she were my daughter, I would be.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California says these are the supporters of Rush’s show: Quicken Loans, Century21, LegalZoom and Sleep Number. She is asking the public to contact these companies to stop supporting his radio program and to hit the parent company where it hurts. And if you are outraged too, then go online and sign this petition asking Republican leaders to denounce Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
And oh, did I forget to mention? Clear Channel is owned by … Wait for it … Bain Capital.

So out of curiosity to see what other companies Bain Capital owns, that might for example be sponsors of Clear Channel and Rush, I thought I'd begin by fact checking the claim about Bain Capital owning Clear Channel.  Here is what Wikipedia had on the topic:.

The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

So, I decided it would be a good idea to find out if Bain was the sole owner, or just an investor in Clear Channel, since these two concepts of 'ownership' are frequently confused.  Here is what Wikipedia had to say about Clear Channel and Bain:

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.^[3] It was founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, and was taken private by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP in a leveraged buyout in 2008.^[4]

Leveraged buy-outs - where have we heard about THOSE before from Romney?  But I have to wonder if this doesn't provide a potentially interesting insight into the politics of Rush on the radio, and of any spin we might see from Clear Channel programming for the 2012 election.

For those of you who haven't gotten taking some form of action in response to Rush out of your system, if you're still angry and horrified, here is another petition you can sign as well, although I doubt Limbaugh will have any other response than to enjoy the attention.

Maybe the person we should be petitioning is not the Republican member(s) of Congress, but Mitt Romney.  It was Mitt who bragged about how much he liked to fire people who gave bad service; this would seem to qualify, and Mitt would seem to be, if at a sort of remove, Rush's boss, in that Rush broadcasts on his network.  If Romney DOESN'T fire Rush, then it would certainly suggest his brag is nothing more than hot air, without substance, or.........that he approves of Rush's statements and agrees with them.

Romney can't simply claim that the relationship is purely a business one, where he owes his fellow owners/investors a duty to make them money.  Rush Limbaugh is losing sponsors hand over fist, not unlike weepy and hateful Glenn Beck who is now relegated to well-deserved obscurity.  Let's hope Rush joins him sooner than later in the radio living purgatory of no-one's-listening-ville.

The advertisers reported a deluge of complaining tweets, Huffington Post reported. Sleep Train, a mattress retailer based in the Sacramento area that has advertised on Limbaugh's show for a quarter-century, was the first to announce it was leaving Friday.

ProFlowers responded to tweets with a message that it is "re-evaluating" its marketing strategy. Quicken Loans, Sleep Number and Legal Zoom also announced they are considering leaving Limbaugh or planning to do so.
"We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately," Citrix Systems Inc., a software development company, said.
The liberal Web site Talking Points memo reported the NBA Cleveland Cavaliers announced they were suspending " any and all on-air advertising with the Rush Limbaugh radio program, citing "inflammatory comments" coupled with valuable feedback from both clients and team employees."
Several other Limbaugh sponsors were looking into their advertising policies, businessinsider.com reported Friday.

Lets hope more of the sponsors come to their senses, and their dollars-and-cents, and leave as well.  Help make that happen by signing this petition to Limbaugh advertisers.

FactCheck.org Does Santorum's JFK Speech Screw Ups; and So Does Jon Stewart

Kennedy's speech made Santorum sick, not because there is anything wrong with the sentiments of the speech, but because Santorum is one extremely sick and corrupt individual.  Santorum was seeking to find a way to disrespect an historic figure, and to pander to a narrow and evil segment of the conservative base that has tragically warped ideas on religion, an ugly and intolerant segment of conservatives.  There was a time when moderates were the majority and in control of conservative politics, there was a time when the conservative side of politics was led by genuinely principled people.  Now it has been hijacked by extremists, liars, delusional conspiracy theory lunatics, and fanatics eager to coerce and compel the broad spectrum of our nation to their narrow and ugly views using government as their whip, because they cannot persuade the minds of most of us to their wicked positions.  The hallmark of such people is their aversion to fact, their appeal to emotion, and that they will so very willingly lie, and lie and lie to grasp power.

I am ashamed of Santorum's expectation that people are unfamiliar with the original, or that we are now so lazy that despite the easy access through the internet of the original material, we won't look at it for ourselves, and think for ourselves, and see for ourselves what an ugly liar he really is.  While the clips are a bit long - watch them.  This is one of the seminal speeches in our history; we should know it, we should revisit it when one side tries to make religion the issue. It is the same side making religion an issue this election that made it an issue in the Kennedy election.  Know your history, or you are doomed to repeat it; to know your history, make it a habit to go to the primary sources.  I'm angry that Santorum believes a lot of people don't know or care about history; and I'm even more angry that he might be right.  Santorum and his supporters demonize those who follow a different conclusion of conscience or religious practice than he does; these are the same people who fear Muslims, or even Protestants, and demean them as inferior, or to be feared.

The person who is inferior, and perhaps to be feared if he is successful as a liar because of what he intends to do with power if he gets it, is Santorum.

I was going to seek out the whole JFK speech, and fisk it with Santorum's ignoble rant, but factcheck.org did it first.  Please watch the speech before reading the factcheck.org analysis; doing so will give it more depth if you know the whole, not just the excerpts and sound bytes.

Santorum’s Twisted Take on JFK & Religion


Posted on February 27, 2012

Rick Santorum misrepresented what John F. Kennedy said in 1960 about church-state separation. According to Santorum, Kennedy said that religious people could “have no role in the public square” and “should not be permitted . . . to influence public policy.” But Kennedy didn’t say those things. He said he wouldn’t take orders from the Vatican if elected president.

On ABC’s “This Week,” the former Pennsylvania senator said Feb. 26 that Kennedy’s embrace of an “absolute” separation of church and state made him sick.

Santorum, ABC’s “This Week”: I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.
. . . Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith. . . . [T]o say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up.

And on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the same day, Santorum said Kennedy’s “absolute” separation means “people of faith should not be permitted in the public square to influence public policy.”

Santorum, NBC’s “Meet the Press”: That is not the founders’ vision. That’s not the America that was made the greatest country in the history of the world. The idea that people of faith should not be permitted in the public square to influence public policy is antithetical to the First Amendment, which says the free exercise of religion — James Madison called people of faith, and by the way no faith and different faith — the ability to come in the public square with diverse opinions, motivated by a variety of different ideas and passions, the perfect remedy. Why — because everybody is allowed in.

It’s true that in his famous address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, Kennedy stated his belief in an “absolute” separation. But Santorum reads into that speech things that Kennedy did not actually say.

Kennedy, who was then the Democratic nominee for president, was assuring Protestant ministers that he would not be taking orders from the Vatican should he become the first Catholic to be elected to the White House.

Kennedy, Sept. 12, 1960: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

But in his speech — and in his answers to several questions and answers that followed — he referred to the church “hierarchy” and the Pope, and church doctrine. He never said that religious people could not voice their opinions. We find nothing in Kennedy’s words that could be reasonably construed to say that Kennedy would not “consult with people of faith,” as Santorum claimed.

To the contrary, Kennedy made clear his support for “religious liberty” and said he wanted the president to be “responsible to all.”

Kennedy: I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. . . .

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.

In the questions that followed Kennedy’s speech (which can be seen in a video of the entire event posted by C-Span) the ministers asked whether the Vatican would “direct” him or would be “guiding” him as president.

For example, in an exchange that starts at about 28:08 on the C-Span recording, Kennedy was asked whether the Catholic Church had a right and “privilege” to “direct” members in areas including “the political realm.”
Question: [W]hat we would like to know, if you are elected president, and your church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be under those circumstances.

Kennedy: If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper, or which affected adversely my responsibility as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them this was an improper action on their part; it was one to which I could not subscribe; that I was opposed to it. It would be an unfortunate breach of, an interference with the American political system.

At another point, Kennedy was asked (starting at about 33:40 on the C-Span recording) about a statement attributed to Pope John XXIII, that “the Catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding” Catholics “to the common aid.”

Kennedy: Guiding them in what area? If you are talking about in the area of faith and morals, and the instructions of the Church, I would think any Baptist minister or Congregational minister has the right and duty to try to guide his flock. If you mean by that statement that the Pope or anyone else could bind me in the fulfillment, by a statement in the fulfillment of my public duties, I say no. … It all has to do with what you mean by ‘guide.’

But none of the ministers asked Kennedy if he meant that “faith is not allowed in the public square” or that he “won’t consult with people of faith,” the assertions that Santorum now puts in Kennedy’s mouth. Kennedy didn’t say those things, and if any of the ministers who were present in 1960 thought that’s what he meant, none of them said so at the time.
– Brooks Jackson

And then we have the equally astute, shorter, and more entertaining satiric take on Santorum from Jon Stewart, as counterpoint to the serious.


<

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - How Is It that Mitt Romney Hasn't Crushed this Guy Already?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

br />

Conservative Perversion

Earlier this week I was intrigued by the coverage of older men having sex with underage girls in Minnesota, done by MPR, courtesy of Dan Kraker:

"A courthouse shooting in Grand Marais last December shocked the small North Shore town. But the consequences now resonate far beyond the violence. The gunman was in his 30s when he was found guilty of having sex with a 15-year-old girl, and the news shed light a pattern in the town of older men sexually pursuing underage girls. A young woman, who asked not to be identified (above), said she became involved with older men but found it hard to distinguish between "new and exciting, and, 'I'm scared; this isn't OK.' " (Derek Montgomery for MPR News)

A man convicted of sex with a 15 year old girl shot three people, because he didn't like being convicted.  He shot those people, partly because it seems he didn't see anything wrong with what he did, and partly because other people were not caught and convicted for the same thing. 

He had a feeling, and he had a gun, and he felt entitled to use it, the same way far too many people wrongly feel entitled to use firearms against other people in this country when they feel aggrieved.  We have murders by stalkers, we have weekly murder suicides in this country.  Many of those acts of violence are committed with legally owned, legally purchased firearms.

This one event, and the excellent coverage given to it by MPR struck me for several reasons.  There is a pervasive attitude towards women and towards girls, and towards sex among a segment of people in this country that is fundamentally sick, twisted, perverted.  The majority of people comprising this segment are men.  It struck me that this same segment tends to be very big on having and using guns, and that their gun attitudes seem to be an extension of their debased attitudes towards women, the two topics are intertwined.

We have for example, Rush Limbaugh who believes that if a young woman wishes to use contraception, even if it is not for the purpose of having committed and responsible sex, including inside marriage, that she must be a slut, a prostitute.  No surprise, Rush is anti- women, at least as equal human beings, including sexually; and he is pro-gun.  That would be the same sex tourist to the notorious area catering to underage women supplied to men, the trip taken with huge quantities of Viagra by Rush, who demeans women routinely, who wants to keep women in their subordinate place, and who, judging by his multiple failed marriages, has problems with intimate relationships with women.

It's not a big reach to believe that the men in northern Minnesota who see nothing wrong with using behavior categorized as 'grooming' behavior to take advantage of women, women who are vulnerable and afraid when they enter these very unequal relationships.  Women who clearly, as evidenced by the shootings in the Cook County Courthouse have not only the social risks to fear, but guns and other violence to fear.

The Grand Marais story describes the sexual exploitation of women and girls.  The report quoted below is from the Virginia Department of Health, from the Coordinator of the Sexual Violence Prevention program; it describes how older men younger women exploitation works perfectly, who does it, and who is vulnerable to being victimized by it.  Look at the description below, and then look at the Grand Marais story details:

Recognizing sexual coercion and exploitation
Anytime an adult has a sexual relationship with someone who is underage, it is a form of exploitation, even if no overtly coercive behavior appears to be involved. The adult is using the sexual and emotional inexperience of the teen to get something from them.

􀂙 The teen herself may not (probably doesn’t) see the relationship as exploitive or coercive.
􀂙 Many feel flattered that they are getting this affirmation of their attractiveness and maturity.
􀂙 Even if the teen recognizes that the relationship is going too fast, or that it feels scary or uncomfortable, they will probably not express these feelings for fear of seeming “immature” or “unworthy” of the attention.
􀂙 The exploiter will probably use grooming techniques to override resistance or objections on part of the young teen.
Threats: “I’ll tell everyone that you’re a slut if you don’t do it.”
Bribes: “I’ll take you to the prom.”
Status: “Hey, the other girls would kill to go out with me.”
Flattery: “You’re so sexy, I thought you were at least 18”
Intimidation: “no one will be able to hear you…”

An expanded description of grooming behavior follows:

Stages of “grooming” behavior
(note: the language below refers to the victim as “she” and perpetrator as “he,” but both may be of either gender).

Stage One: Testing
This is the tactic a sexual predator uses to “test” someone, to see if she is vulnerable. During this stage, the perpetrator will try to cross the teen’s boundaries in various ways: making sexual statements or innuendoes; giving inappropriate gifts; flattery; offering help with schoolwork; seeming to be emotionally nurturing or understanding; touching in seemingly “friendly” ways.

Stage Two: Desensitization
Desensitization is the tactic used to get someone “accustomed” to sexually coercive behavior. During this stage the offender tries to make the teen feel less sensitive to intrusive acts by minimizing her reactions to the offensive behavior—“I’m just being friendly!” The teen may begin to question her feelings, or to feel that she may be overreacting. The perpetrator will probably belittle the teen if she expresses doubt about sexual behaviors to force her to “prove” that she’s “worthy” of the attention he’s bestowing on her. He may also pretend to feel hurt, in order to make the teen feel guilty.

Stage Three: Isolation
Isolation means removing someone from sources of safety and support. The perpetrator may attempt to convince the teen that her friends are “immature” and that someone as mature as she should hang out with older teens/adults. He may insist that he is the only one who really cares about or understands her. Any objections the teen may express on behalf of herself or her family (“my parents told me I couldn’t date anyone older than me”) will be put down. If her friends try to convince her that she’s being taken advantage of, he will try to alienate her from them.

Stage Four: Control
Once the perpetrator has been successful in attempts to coerce the teen into a sexual relationship, he will usually try to maintain control over her with additional manipulative techniques. These may include:

• possessiveness • jealousy • further isolation from friends • threats and intimidation • threats of self-harm • expressions of love • anger and violence • gifts and bribery • playing on teen’s insecurity • constant presence
Sexual coercion may or may not include the use of force, threat, or intimidation. It may or may not include the use of “date rape drugs” to facilitate sexual assault. Alcohol is the most widely used “date rape drug.”

Other forms of sexual coercion may take place in the context of an abusive relationship. These forms include expressing anger, manipulating by appealing to sympathy (“you don’t love me”), jealousy and possessiveness and other controlling behaviors, including physical violence.

When I read and hear the comments of Rush Limbaugh, and the comments in support of his statements by conservatives who are waging culture war on women, what I hear is demeaning, what I hear is the reactionary concepts of masculinity and femininity, and the notions of sexuality as something dirty. That definition that is personified by Rush Limbaugh is described in that Virginia Department of Health Report under who is an abuser:

Who is at risk for being an exploiter?
Some of the same risk factors for being exploited apply to exploiters as well.

􀂙 Older teens who may not feel confident of their ability to attract and maintain a relationship with an equal may turn to someone younger as a way to bolster self-esteem.
􀂙 Men/older boys who have rigid, stereotyped views of masculinity may see the “conquest” of a young girl as an affirmation of their masculinity.
􀂙 Older teens and adults who have control issues may find it easier to control someone who is younger.
􀂙 Adults who have not been successful in their relationships with other adults may turn to preying on young teens.

These pro-Rush conservatives see relationships between men and women as one of conquest, not a relationship of equals.  These conservatives waging culture war on women have no problem denying women easy access to contraception, which puts women under the control of men because of an inability to have control over their own bodies, their reproductive choices.  These conservatives waging culture war on women seek to humiliate and violate women through trans vaginal ultrasounds, through demeaning and insulting factually inaccurate government intrusion into their medical decisions relating to sex and reproduction.  These conservatives are the people who are trying to make it legal to commit certain kinds of rape, including statutory rape and date-drug rape where a woman is incapacitated. These are the conservatives who want to repeal equal pay for equal work laws, so that women can be financially controlled by men, and be financially less secure, and less independent by being unable to earn a fair wage for equal work.

So it should come as no surprise that where women are viewed as conquests, as conquered, as people to be controlled and exploited for male sexual gratification, as less then equals, that violence and intimidation are also present either overt threat, or by implication.  The numbers of women who are victims of intimate partner violence, of domestic abuse, of murders and  murder/suicides and stalking involving firearms is a matter of record.  It so very often involves men who possess firearms; that is not an accidental correlation.

According to the UNICEF Report on Women and Violence from June 2000:

“Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to  domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women...”

The United Nations Declaration on the EliminationGeneral Assembly Resolution, December 1993.

and in describing violence and gender based relationships

"violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men." It broadens the definition of violence by including both the physical and psychological harm done towards women, and it includes acts in both private and public life. The Declaration defines violence against women as encompassing, but not limited to, three areas:
violence occurring in the family,
within the general community, and
violence perpetrated or condoned by the State.

Whether it is the norm of sexuality espoused and demonstrated by Rush Limbaugh in his words past and present, and in his actions in the past, or the norms promoted by the older men exploiting younger and underaged female partners in Grand Marais, we have precisely the above-described attitudes of violence and exploitation of women.  In the legislative efforts of the so-called conservative and often religiously dominionist right wing extremists, also personified by Rush Limbaugh but also by many others, including those who have advanced subordinating legislation or efforts to repeal protective legislation for women, we have the State approved violence and subordination of women by conservatives.  It is no accident that their gun agenda supports that history of intimidation and violence, whether they express is specifically or not.   Whether it is Rush Limbaugh, or Rick Santorum, or Nut Gingrich, or Mitt's full of money Romney, or the conservatives trying to wage culture war on women at the local, state and federal level, we have men oppressing women in the most perverse possible way.

We have the choise, to return to the violent, exploitive, oprressive and unequal days of pre-feminism, of pre-equality where women are humiliated, exploited, demeaned and kept subordinate.  OR, we can recognize and oppose the conservative agenda for what it is, in the culture war on women, and in their ancillary pro-gun efforts for what they are.  The right abuses the word freedom, but they are trying to make us anything but free; they pervert the word, they pervert the concept, they pervert the most intimate relations between men and women, they pervert the value and dignity of human sexuality.

Don't let them.

Limbaugh has departed the world of the rational

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said that a woman who went to DC to testify about contraception was a prostitute because she wanted health care plans to pay for contraception.

She wanted to testify that a friend of hers needed contraceptive medicines not strictly for preventing pregnancy, but instead to treat a medical condition (i.e. endometrial disease, hyperplasia, etc..).

Limbaugh was trying to say that this woman, a women denied the chance to testify, wanted to be "paid" to have sex because she wanted her employer to pay for contraceptive pills. But, what Mr. Limbaugh apparently didn't understand, and certainly he expects his listeners wouldn't understand, is that of course she wasn't asking anyone to pay her FOR sex, that's just a Limbaugh sized pile of crapola. She, even if she was wanting contraception herself, for the prevention of pregnancy, was wanting her employer to pay for CONTRACEPTION, she didn't want to be pregnant. She wasn't wanting money for sex. That's simply a disgusting, vulgar, base, immoral, and in this case, untrue slur from an ugly, vulgar voice.

This simple reality, I suspect Mr. Limbaugh knows. Yet still he said it.

By contrast, someone went to Jamaica, with illicit drugs which weren't HIS prescription. He shopped for prescriptions allegedly. So, following his logic, Mr. Limbaugh is a prostitute, because in fact he asked his employer to pay him, and to provide him with medical coverage, coverage which included paying for Viagra for himself. HE, the enormous hypocrite he is, expected his employer to pay for him to be able to have more sex. Yet he has the indecency to call someone else a prostitute.

Apparently expecting your listeners to pay for your Viagra, because it is those listeners who fund indirectly the radio stations on which Mr. Limbaugh is carried (paid for by advertisers who those listeners frequent) is "A OK", and males having sex in a another country with prostitutes IS ok, and using the pay of from your listeners FOR prositutes is OK, but asking your employer to help to pay for your medical plan, and part of that to help prevent pregnancy, THAT's not ok. Next time he complains about someone being a prostitute, Mr. Limbaugh, the world's biggest shill for big business, needs to consider whether he knows the word, and maybe even defines the word. He then needs to let his help/aides/someone do the rational thinking, because any man complaining about "prostitutes" when allegedly he wants to be "paid" (by his logic) to get an erection to allegedly screw ACTUAL prostitutes, well, that man has departed controlled thought.

Those of you who consider this man a "prophet" or "wise" in any realm, on any subject, need to seriously re-evaluate whether a man who so seriously and frequently uses such disgusting allegory, who so resolutely ignores basic logic and reason, is capable of actually offering you anything close to wisdom.

Nathan

This is a somber post - whether it's cathartic, I can't say, but I ask the indulgence of those who read "Penigma" to allow me to use this venue to pass along some personal news.

Last Friday night, my 36 year old brother, Nathan, took his life.

He was a phenomenal teacher of Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Forensics at a private high school in Baton Rouge. Over 250 of his students, ex-students, and parents of students (current and former) took the time to attend the funeral and reminisce on a wonderful person, someone whom many said was simply the best teacher they ever knew - funny, tough, a believer in them and their dreams.

But, like many of the funniest among us, he had a very dark side. He drank more than he should have last weekend. That along with the confluence of a number of difficult personal tragedies lead him to unexpectedly end his life here on earth.

I am in part a little angry, a little hurt, but most of all sad at the waste, sad for his sadness. I cannot know his mind, I knew he hurt inside. I did not know how much. I am sad beyond words, beyond my own comprehension.

For my parent's sake, for my sibling's sake, for my sake, but mostly for his, may he find the peace in the next life which personally eluded a brilliant mind in this life.

Rest in Peace, Nathan Lloyd Bryant, brother and friend.

Update, 2nd Student Dies in Ohio School Shooting

Another gun death.  We need to be asking why it is people who shoot others did so, but more important is how did they get the guns with which to kill, wound, or threaten.

From MSNBC.com:
Second teen confirmed dead in Ohio school shooting

By NBC News and msnbc.com


A second teen was confirmed dead after a shooting at a high school in Chardon, Ohio, the medical examiner's office said Tuesday.

Russell King Jr., 17, was flown to Cleveland's MetroHealth Medical Center where he was treated but pronounced brain dead on Monday, NBC News reported.

Sixteen-year-old Daniel Parmertor also died when a teen opened fire inside a high school cafeteria at the start of the classes on Monday.

But hey - Wal Mart was a good corporate citizen.  It made money selling guns and ammo that winds up killing people in the communities where it operates.  Wal Mart sold Jared Loughner the ammo he used to shoot Gabby Giffords and so many others.  Why? Because there is money in selling ammo, no matter who uses it or what they use it for, so Wal Mart makes big donations to those who promote buying, selling, and using guns and ammo.  Legislators who make it easier for those sales to take place, and easier for people to shoot - including shooting other people -  get big donations from the Waltons and Wal Mart.  Fewer restrictions, less regulation, less accountability translates into private and corporate profits.

It makes big donations to ALEC and right wing politicians who promote easy guns and write laws like our own Shoot First legislation.  And then it allowed their local parking lot to be used to medivac the dead and dying and injured to the local hospitals by helicopter.

You can't criticize that kind of corporate responsibility can you? I think you can.  I think you should.

And we should criticize the gun culture and the right wing politicians as well as the individual shooter; they are all part of this shooting; some of them are simply more indirectly so than others.  These occurrences are far less frequent where there is more effective and more stringent gun regulation.

Also from MSNBC.com and the news services, more evidence that gun violence is learned, that it is a part of our gun culture we can choose not to embrace or to legitimize, including with our shoot first laws that leap too quickly to a deadly force solution.  Violence begets violence, and everyone who uses violence has some kind of justification for it, some excuse, even when it is not justified.  Shoot first legislation gives the emotional need to justify an importance, a validity, whether it is right or not, over the legitimizing of force by more objective criteria.  That criteria condemns the actions of this shooter, and would condemn the actions of other shooters if they did not conform to that objective, rather than a subjective criteria, in shootings.  It is no coincidence that it is the sellers of guns and ammo who want more lax standards for acceptable shootings. It makes them money, bloody money.  Follow the money.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Report: Teen in frame for Ohio shooting came from violent family
By msnbc.com staff, NBC News and news services


The teen who authorities believe was behind a shooting Monday in Chardon, Ohio, that killed two students and wounded three others had violence in his life from early on, Cleveland's Plain Dealer newspaper reported.
Court records showed that the suspect's father, Thomas Lane Jr., had been arrested several times for abusing women he had children with, including the teen's mother, the newspaper reported. The father had been warned to stay away from the teen's mother at least once, the records reportedly showed.

The suspect's family said through an attorney that they were struggling to comprehend what had happened a day after the worst U.S. high school shooting in nearly a year. Students at the high school outside of Cleveland were told to stay home Tuesday.


Police have not formally identified the suspected gunman, but students, parents of students and local media said his name was T.J. Lane, which was confirmed by NBC News.


It was not clear if T.J. Lane and his father had any contact, the newspaper reported.
Sketchy reports emerge on alleged high school gunman

Officials believe T.J. Lane opened fire inside a high school cafeteria at the start of the classes on Monday, killing 16-year-old Daniel Parmertor and wounding four others, police said.

Seventeen-year-old Russel King Jr. was pronounced dead on Monday, the medical examiner's office said Monday.

Second teen confirmed dead in Ohio school shooting
Three other teens were wounded in the shooting.

The suspect was taken into custody near his car a half-mile from the suburban Cleveland school after a teacher chased him from the building, according to FBI officials.

'Good kid'

When asked about the suspect, his lawyer called him a "good kid," according to NBC News' WKYC.

"By all accounts T.J. is a fairly quiet and good kid. His grades are pretty impressive," Bob Farinacci told WKYC. "He's a sophomore. He's been doubling up on his classes with the intent of graduating this May. He pretty much sticks to himself but does have some friends and has never been in trouble over anything that we know about."

Some fellow students called the 17-year-old quiet and sweet, although others said he had a temper, the Plain Dealer reported.

His now-deleted Facebook page showed one picture of him bare-chested and glaring at the camera, and another behind a huge teddy bear that bore a heart and the words "Be Mine," according to the newspaper.

He listed "primitive hunting" among his interests, the newspaper said.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The suspect's family said they were struggling to comprehend what had happened.

"The family wanted me to convey to the citizens of Geauga County and Northeastern Ohio that the family is devastated by this most recent event," Farinacci said in a statement. "They want to give their most heartfelt and sincere condolences to the family of the young man who passed and their continuing prayers are with all those who were injured. This is something that could never have been predicted. T.J.'s family has asked for some privacy while they try to understand how such a tragedy could have occurred and while they mourn this terrible loss for their community."

Seriously Republicans; Wyoming DOESN'T NEED IT'S OWN Aircraft Carrier

As I read this, it occurred to me that the Republican Crazies are running the Asylum in Wyoming, and the nut house is their state capital building.  Which is bad enough - but it's worse when you put the lunatics in charge of it.

What led me to think that the good legislators of Wyoming had cracked their nuts, gone mental, lost their grip on reality, or were perhaps suffering from some form of delusion, possibly dementia or schizophrenia was THIS news article.

Wyoming lawmaker introduces doomsday bill
By msnbc.com staff

CHEYENNE – Fearing an economic and political collapse nationwide, Wyoming lawmakers are moving ahead with legislation to deal with a doomsday scenario -- complete with plans to create a state currency.

“Things happen quickly sometimes — look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations,” the bill’s GOP sponsor State Rep. David Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper. “We wouldn’t have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond.”

According to the Star-Tribune, House Bill 85 would create a state-run “government continuity task force,” to prepare Wyoming for potential disruptions in food and energy to a complete breakdown of the federal government.

Miller is also asking for the task force to look into creating its own state currency in the event the dollar loses value entirely.


The Wyoming House of Representatives advanced the legislation on Monday, but eliminated language calling for plans to implement its own military draft, army and acquire an aircraft carrier.

The bill now must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration.


“I don’t represent people in Illinois or New Jersey. I represent people in Wyoming,” Miller said. “And I want them to be protected from any catastrophic events that may beset the rest of the country.”

Now, it just makes sense that the good legislators, especially the more bizarre and stupid Republicans and Tea Partiers among them, and the good citizens of Wyoming could be better spending their time on things like jobs bills and real-life real-world real-time practical matters, and less time on either culture war legislation requiring state religion and pseudo-scientific fantasy.

State Representative Miller, do you get your ideas on the same Internet sites as the right wing idiot in the Indiana state legislature, the one who believes the Girl Scouts are sexy Communist Lesbian Abortionists? Are you afraid, Representative Miller, because we have a black President? Are you marking on your calendar in red crayon the End Time Dayz, and maybe drooling just a little bit as you do so? Do you have this sign in a prominent place in your office -

or is this an image from your family Christmas card?

Sir, what did you think you were going to do, IF you could get an Aircraft Carrier - put it up on blocks in front of the capital building?   Maybe surround it with Buffalo grazing on the rolling grasslands of the prairie?

Just to refresh my memory of the state of Wyoming, from prior visits as a child - my parents thought I should be educated in the regional differences of the United States - I took a quick look at both topographical maps of Wyoming like this one, and a satellite photo of Wyoming.  Those confirm what I remember - no major bodies of water.  That water, behind the Buffalo Bill dam?  The reservoir from damming up the Shoshone river - it's NOT BIG ENOUGH for an aircraft carrier, sir.  But  more than that, there is no way to get an aircraft carrier there.  It is not practical to take one apart and reassemble it; they don't make them out of Legos.

Were you unaware Representative Miller, that Wyoming is not only a very landlocked state, having no ocean or Gulf/Sea access, but also a state which lacks a sufficiently large body of water for an aircraft carrier.  It's not like you're a Great Lakes state either, which could maybe, kinda, sorta, with a shoe-horn manage an aircraft carrier, if we could get one into the lakes in the first place - a big IF.  They are quite large, you know, those aircraft carriers.

You do realize that is a crazy idea, don't you Representative Miller?  Do you understand that ALL of your proposals under this legislation, like creating your own "apocalypse buffalo bucks" currency are equally stupid? 

I was a Girl Scout as a child; I do respect their motto 'Be Prepared'.  But Representative Miller, and all your right wing tin foil hat wearing colleagues in the legislature, that pertained to real solutions to real potential problems.  Despite the silly idea that the other right wing nut, the one in Indiana, has about the girl scouts, you could do far worse than to follow their motto, the very pragmatic and reality based way they do so.

Thank goodness the health care reform that you and your other crazy conservative buddies like to demonize as 'Obamacare' provides good mental health coverage; because you and anyone who supports this crack pot idea are more batshit crazy than Orly Taitz -----and that is pretty darn crazy.

Seriously, there was a time and place where conservatives were not so closely associated with off-the-wall out-to-lunch fringe lunatic ideas and legislation, where conservatives were reality-based intelligent people, who were moderate and savvy, thoughtful and well educated.

Then people like you came along Representative Miller, and changed all of that - and not for the better.

I am waiting and wishing that moderates, that less ideological fringe lunatics, will emerge from wherever they have gone into hiding, and will take back the GOP.  I'm waiting for that sunny, wonderful day when sanity will prevail on the right again, when the right will not be synonymous with stupid any longer, or with religious extremism, and some sort of demented Christian theocracy contrary to the Constitution.

Resign from the state legislature, Representative Miller; check yourself out of government and into a mental health facility with padded rooms.  It will bring that right wing swing back from the fringe lunacy to reality a little sooner.