Log in Register

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Create an account

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *

fb mb tw mb

Sunday 25th Feb 2018

I am taking off for Phoenix, and LABR and some spring games tomorrow, and look so forward to it, that I really hate to divert from baseball, let alone to a serious subject, but can we please boycott--as in simply ignore--Rush Limbaugh?

In saying this, I am not trying to be political. And, though I confess to being a left wing Berkeley hippie of the highest order--one who thinks our president is awesome, and doing as good a job as could possibly be expected considering the hand he was dealt and what he has to work with--I don't see this as a left versus right issue, nor one of Democrats against Republicans. There is enough of that.

And, I don't want to act overly indignant about Limbaugh's inexplicable attack on Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, though his behavior is the impetus for this tirade, if you will.

But, kind of like Newt Gingrich, Limbaugh is now officially on a moon colony, at least in his head.

Forget that Fluke's "crime" consisted of not being allowed to testify--as the only non-male--before Darryl Issa's Senate Subcommitte Hearing on women's reproductive rights.

So, she gave a statement suggesting that the birth control pill might be prescribed--by actual doctors--for purposes other than contraception. You know, like Viagra was developed as a medicine to control blood pressure. It just happened to have a secondary application.

In fact, the example Fluke used was for a friend who enlisted the pill to control ovarian tumors, which, when the friend lost her health care coverage, and thus subsedized pills, the tumors ran amok, threatening the health (and costing a lot more money in the long run to us taxpayers for any resulting emergency hospitalization) of the friend. And, the cost of her perscription was around $3000 a year.

Innocent enough. And, well, we have to take Fluke at her word.

So, somehow from this, Limbaugh connected the dots and seemed to have determined that Fluke is a slut. Well, I lived in the Bay Area in the 60's, and I suppose were I a woman, I surely would have earned that moniker in my collegiate years, so to me that is not the worst thing someone can be called.

But, in all I can hear in Limbaugh's voice, is he does not mean the term in any kind of respectful way. Then he pushed his criticism the next day by suggesting if Fluke was so horny (he does not seem to understand that unlike Viagra, birth control pills are not taken as needed, but once a day over a monthly cycle to regulate the system, hence the cost is fixed to the day, and not the number of daliances), and that if we as taxpayers had to subsidize Fluke's prescription, she should make videos of her trysts and let the same taxpayers view them.

Hmmm. Once, I told Bill Gilbert that I was pro choice because well, it was up to the woman, her partner, and her spiritual belief system to determine what the right thing to do about any given pregnancy. I said I did not know why I felt this, other than it is each person's individual right to determine their path.

Bill countered with, "That is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals use feelings, and conservatives logic."

"What kind of logic?" I responded, "Euclician? Aristotelian?"

Well, Bill did not understand my question any more than Limbaugh seemed to have understood the whole point of the example of Fluke's friend. So, I guess it must have been the same kind of logic, though not one associated with any related math or philosophy.

But, let's just look at Rush, personally. He has been married four times, which I would guess by conservative standards makes him kind of loose. Not to mention, despite those marriages, he has no children, which suggests he is either involved with someone who uses birth control, or Limbaugh is shooting blanks.

But, let us also not forget that Limbaugh was convicted of illegal possession of Oxycontin. Yeah, prescription meds (hmm, like Fluke's friend needed?).

And, you know, I don't care about either of these things. I don't mind that Limbaugh had a drug problem, nor do I mind that he had to work himself through a number of relationships.

But, it is that sort of "Judge not lest ye be judged," thing, which I think comes from the Bible?

Anyway, let's think about other like comments. Like Howard Cosell referring to Alvin Garrett as a "cute little monkey." Or Jimmy the Greek noting African Americans have a superior body for sports? How about Don Imus referring to the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team as "nappy-headed hos." Or, Dr. Laura's offensive use of an epithet to make a point to a caller?

All of these incidents were enough to cost these folks their gigs, and Limbaugh is certainly in their class (and I mean in every sense).

So, I say we ignore him. Stop listening to him. Stop putting him in the news. Not that I am saying we stop our discourse and debate over issues, no matter how much rancor is involved, or how stupid either side is.

But truly, Rush has no redeeming social value at all. Oh, he is a mouthpiece for a segment of the population. But so does Katie Morgan (and I would rather listen to and watch her anyway).



0 #12 Andrew Kirkaldy 2012-03-08 22:11
Agreed about Rush, and more. And agree that those who don't want to hear about hit can just move on to the baseball content, no harm, no foul. Keep up the good work.
0 #11 Lawr Michaels 2012-03-05 14:32
there ya go. it always used to crack me up when groups would demand that tv shows be taken off the air. i mean if a show offends you, just don't watch it. duh.

thanks all you guys for your comments, insight, and support!
0 #10 Dan Hayes 2012-03-05 10:49
Alston...that's exactly what I did. I read what I want to read. I only have a few moments in the morning before work. If an article isn't what I'm looking for, I pass over it.
0 #9 Ryan Carey 2012-03-04 20:33
They were indeed.

And for the record - Limbaugh officially apologized yesterday. That tells you how big this was getting behind the scenes. Good for Rush - now we can get back to baseball.
0 #8 Lawr Michaels 2012-03-04 18:41
i remember well, ryan. i remember having the #6 pick and taking tulo which surprised everyone and cory schwartz blurted out "I love drafting with Lawr Michaels." I always took that as the highest of compliments.

and, i do remember the jelly beans. somehow being disappointed when the cherry and licorice ones were gone.

they were jelly belly's no?
0 #7 Ryan Carey 2012-03-04 17:16
I will add this. Cubfan and Black Sox are two of our best message board posters, so I appreciate both of their views.

That said, you are on a fantasy site - true. But, you are also on a fantasy site that features Lawr Michaels. He is who he is and I for one wouldn't ask him to be anything else. I know for me, Lawr's spirit is a large part of why I am a part of this site.

A quick story. A couple years back Lawr and Todd were drafting a team in the NFBC in NY. I was the facilitator for their draft. It was technically Lawr's team and Todd was more of a Consigliere. I will never, ever forget Lawr's approach to that draft. He approached it with a purity and careless joy (which at times exasperated Todd I think) that IMO served as a reminder of what is best about this game we play. I had a bag of jelly beans, which I kept sharing with Lawr throughout the draft. I'm sure he remembers, because those jelly beans seemed to fit right in with the fun he was having. I will never forget his approach to that draft as it is what we all should aspire to achieve. The other 14 guys at that table were tense with the pressure of the moment. Lawr was just having a ball. I doubt he would ever claim to be the smartest guy at any draft table, but as I witnessed, few enjoy the event more. They don't call him the Zen Master for nothing.

I guess all I am saying is that while I agree with you that this is not why any of us are really here, if anyone in this industry has earned the right to share their thoughts on subjects such as this from time to time- it is probably Lawr. I myself have very strong political views. I don't intend including them anytime soon in my weekly AL column or with you guys on the message boards. But Lawr is Lawr. He is who he is and this I believe is likely a significant part of who he is.
0 #6 Todd Zola 2012-03-04 14:40
Something else I'd like to point out is our readers are free to post anything they want in the "water cooler" section of the forum as well as in the comments to the main page articles.

Our friends down the dial, the Rotojunkies,probably have more non-baseball talk than baseball talk on their forums. The reason their community has survived this age of social media is the relationships that have developed over the years as they got to know each other, and the primary was they got to know each other was posting about non-baseball topic, both serious (very serious at times) as well as more casual.

And the fact is, both Lawr and I have often used are more stream of conscious type columns to stray, this is by no means the first time and will not be the last either of us write 1500 words, not one of them fantasy baseball related.
0 #5 Lawr Michaels 2012-03-04 13:27
thx allston. and, i did think of mr. robinson when i was concocting this (baseball is our national soul, i would like to think).

that said, i more than appreciate Cubs and Black Sox both taking the time to express their opinion, and then posting.

and, it is valuable reader input. i mean, the objective is to keep you guys coming here right (btw, it is kind of interesting that a lot of fantasy guys, like alex patton and nate silver and jason collette like to crunch roto and political numbers, huh?)

one other thing, Black Sox.

i would go by the same comment posting guidelines i have told writers who worked first at CREATiVESPORTS, and now with my partners Todd and Brian.

you can write whatever you want, as long as it is thoughtful, respectful, and accurate.

if you think jamey wright is poised to be the greatest pitcher on earth, say so. just do it with stats and logic and hopefully some solid prose. and without denigrating anyone, please.
0 #4 nathan ouellette 2012-03-04 12:51
No one is forcing anyone to read this column. If you choose to do so, it's because you are curious about the subject matter. You could also stop reading the column at any point after starting if you don't like what the column is about.

The local sports radio station in Boston is WEEI. The AM drive guys are D&C. They talk sports, but mostly focus on current events. Would I rather they talk sports? Hell yes. But, since I can't change what they talk about, I just stopped listening to their show. Or sometimes I do listen, but will change the channel if they get on the topic of politics. I still listen to WEEI, but know that D&C is not the program for me.

And there are times when sports and politics do meet. Think Jackie Robinson and Pat Tillman.

Keep on keepin' on Lawr.
0 #3 Michael July 2012-03-04 05:54
Lawr, while I respect and enjoy your work on fantasy baseball I'm in agreement with Black Sox comments. Once Pandora's box is open where does one draw the line if/when other writers or posters feel it necessary to voice their approval/disapproval of any other political commentator/politician? There are a number of politicians who I feel just as strongly as you do about Rush. What's to stop me from posting my opinion? And if this site were to censor me then how does that justify allowing you or any other Masterball writer to keep what you have posted on the same topic? I have no intent to do such but just pose the thought that this site is noted for its in-depth fantasy work. Just my 2 cents.

Add comment

Security code

Latest Tweets

CS 20 ball 600