TUCKER "STRAW MAN" CARLSON: Watching people in the media talk down a potentially life-saving medicine because a politician they donât like has endorsed it is probably the most shameful thing I, as someone who has done this for 29 years, have ever seen. Itâs making a lot of us ashamed to work in the same profession as those people. So reckless and wrong in the middle of a pandemic. It really is for real.
For weeks, some of Fox Newsâs most popular hosts downplayed the threat of the coronavirus, characterizing it as a conspiracy by media organizations and Democrats to undermine President Trump.
Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity and Laura InÂgraham accused the news media of whipping up âmass hysteriaâ and being âpanic pushers.â Fox Business host Trish Regan called the alleged media-Democratic alliance âyet another attempt to impeach the president.â
But that was then.
With Trumpâs declaration on Friday that the virus constitutes a national emergency, the tone on Fox News has quickly shifted.
On his program on Friday, Hannity â the most watched figure on cable news â lauded the presidentâs handling of what the host is now, belatedly, referring to as a âcrisis.â
âTonight, we are witnessing what will be a massive paradigm shift in the future of disease control and prevention,â he said. âA bold, new precedent is being set, the world will once again benefit greatly from Americaâs leadership. .â.â. The federal government, state governments, private businesses, top hospitals all coming together, under the presidentâs leadership, to stem the tide of the coronavirus.â (...)
"...Anyway, look how timeless. Look how timeless. Now we have researchers from Cornell University saying that marriage rates are down because women canât find men who can support them. Iâm not saying it. Cornell University reports itâs âthe lack of economically attractive men.â What does that mean? It means women want to marry somebody that has more than they do, that earns more than they do or at least has the potential. Thatâs what this says..."
As always, Limbaugh is misinterpreting a study, but that's what he does and he's certainly far from unique in that regard. That study offers those findings as "one explanation for declines in marriage". It is an interesting idea for a study though, and the findings are also interesting. Unfortunately we cannot access the methods, questions, and raw findings. Still, there are not really proofs in science, especially social science. There are countless reasons for the decline in marriage, for one thing, many women (and men) no longer believe the out-of-touch notion that they need to be married in order to "be complete", and as westslope pointed out, some people may not think it's worth investing in a venture with a 50% success rate.
Opinion is not fact. Taking stuff out of context is not the entire truth. Rush's take is going to come from his misogynistic vein that still holds that feminazis are 'gold diggers.' He wants that to be true. It can't be the 'men,' you see, its always the women. Women's roles are no longer dependent upon men, they can create their own future. Marriage was and has always been predominately a form of a 'survivor business deal.' To handle different needs or expand a dynasty. Rush's world is an old one, and along with many many men in this country, its become a difficult new zone. Dad's day sounded so great, but no one mentions the emotional voids, affairs or abuse that led to the the flush of divorces - alimony - custody courts - in the last six decades.
Most women I know love making their own money and just want a fella in their life to enjoy each other. This idea of "Us" vs "Them" routine is ridic. Who holds a gun to our heads to have a relationship? If someone keeps picking the slice of gender that's an azzhat, then the common denominator, The Picker, is the issue, not the entire gender.
"...Anyway, look how timeless. Look how timeless. Now we have researchers from Cornell University saying that marriage rates are down because women canât find men who can support them. Iâm not saying it. Cornell University reports itâs âthe lack of economically attractive men.â What does that mean? It means women want to marry somebody that has more than they do, that earns more than they do or at least has the potential. Thatâs what this says..."
As always, Limbaugh is misinterpreting a study, but that's what he does and he's certainly far from unique in that regard. That study offers those findings as "one explanation for declines in marriage". It is an interesting idea for a study though, and the findings are also interesting. Unfortunately we cannot access the methods, questions, and raw findings. Still, there are not really proofs in science, especially social science. There are countless reasons for the decline in marriage, for one thing, many women (and men) no longer believe the out-of-touch notion that they need to be married in order to "be complete", and as westslope pointed out, some people may not think it's worth investing in a venture with a 50% success rate.
I was looking at FOX on my phone and the headlines are Chicago police chief thinking of retiring, Eric Trump was on Hannity, the Mormon family killed, Trump has a hard fight in 2020...but only a single article about the elections in many of our nation's states. Why doesn't something like that tell FOX enthusiasts something about how they're being manipulated? If I were watching any network and they obviously skimmed over something that was so important, they'd be discredited in my mind.
Of course, perhaps these folks are thinking "why don't the other networks cover the Epstein murder? They've lost credibility!"
If you think Fox news is the only media outlet that manipulates then...all together now......"you're gonna have a bad time!"
so they're telling the kids to debate marriage at school?
Dear children,
Why would ever want to get married if the probability of success of that marriage was no better than a coin flip, i.e., 50/50.
Debate.
Sure, a good topic actually. obtw, I did give you some straight answers to the questions you asked me in the Trump thread you may have missed.
Anyway, happened to hear El Rushbo talk about this very subject whilst having my lunch Friday in my Honda Café. So this is in the appropriate thread, too.
RUSH: How about this headline: “Why Are Marriage Rates Down?” Did you know that, Brian? Fewer people getting married? Why do you think it is? Mr. Snerdley, if you were to be told – and I’m telling you now — that marriage rates in America are down, why do you think that would be? There’s no wrong answer here. I’m just curious. What’s the first thing that pops – (interruption) What? Yeah, but why aren’t the Millennials getting married?
... the reason people are not getting married, according to this study in the Journal of Marriage and Family, is a lack of economically-attractive men.
“Marriage rates have steadily declined over the past few decades, and now researchers from Cornell University are offering up a possible explanation: there just aren’t as many economically-attractive men for unmarried women to meet as there used to be.”
Now, let me share something with you. Way back in the 1960s when I was a kid, and many of you who have been lifers will remember the story or elements of it, that I did not want to go to college. I knew what I wanted to do. It was radio. Anything I did I wanted to further that. I looked at college as a four-year halt, as a four-year obstacle in the road. I didn’t want any part of it.
My father was devastated. He came from the Great Depression. The only way out was with a college degree. If you didn’t have one, in his lifetime, if you didn’t have a college degree, you had no prayer of ever amounting to anything. So he spent countless hours and years trying to impress upon us — my mother, too — the importance of going to college. And I remember one night he sat me down and he told me all the things that would happen to me, all the bad things that would happen if I didn’t go to college.
Now, I don’t remember all of them. But a couple of them were, you will not be able to maintain the economic standard of living you have become accustomed to. You’re not going to be able to get a job that pays you enough. You’re not going to maintain your current social circle of friends. They’re going to go way above and beyond you and they’re not going to have any interest or anything in common with you once you become adults because you didn’t go to college and they did.
And then he said — you’ve got to remember this is all generational stuff — then he said to me, “Son, you’re never going to find a woman to marry you. No woman wants to marry a man that can’t support her.” Remember, this is the ’60s — and he grew up, he was born in 1918, and in that era women didn’t work. They were housewives and any number of things. They didn’t work en masse. But that was the generational belief system.
Of course, I’m listening to all of this as a teenage know-it-all thinking none of it is going to apply to me. I remember saying, “If that’s all I’m going to be to some woman, I don’t want to get married under those circumstances. What do you mean?”
“Well, son, I’m just telling you the way of the world. There isn’t a woman worth her salt who is going to marry somebody who can’t support her.” He said, “Son, women marry up.”
I said, “What’s wrong with me marrying up? What happens if I find a woman that’s wealthy?”
“That’s not going to happen, son, not to you.” (laughing) Anyway, look how timeless. Look how timeless. Now we have researchers from Cornell University saying that marriage rates are down because women can’t find men who can support them. I’m not saying it. Cornell University reports it’s “the lack of economically attractive men.” What does that mean? It means women want to marry somebody that has more than they do, that earns more than they do or at least has the potential. That’s what this says. ... If you've read this far you might be interested in the full transcript of this segment. If not, the above is the gist.
More reading about the study. The full study is behind a paywall.
so they're telling the kids to debate marriage at school?
The "not-washing-my-hands" Fox host seems to think it's a good idea to have kids debate against gay marriage in the name of tolerance. The religious tool that's interviewed just wants to proselytize...
Maybe this "Bring your favourite Scripture to School!" should be followed by Satanists and Muslims as well. Ideally on the same day. You know, make it more inclusive and diverse...
