ThinkProgress Logo

Media

Sixth Advertiser — Carbonite — Drops Limbaugh Despite His ‘Apology’ Because He’s Beyond The ‘Bounds Of Decency’

Moments ago, Carbonite – a company providing backup software for computers – announced that it will no longer advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show. CEO David Friend made clear in a Facebook statement that, despite Limbaugh’s “apology” issued tonight, the company was still pulling its ads because it wants to “contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:

No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

Indeed, evidencing the point made by Friend, Limbaugh’s “apology” is riddled with offensive statements, comparing contraception to “sneakers” and implying that birth control is only a subsidy for personal sexual activity.

According to a ThinkProgress count, Carbonite is the sixth company to drop Limbaugh in the last couple of days. We will continue to keep an updated count HERE.

Update

The Huffington Post notes that AOL — the parent company of HuffPost — has not yet dropped Limbaugh.

Media

BREAKING: Rush Limbaugh ‘Apologizes’ To Sandra Fluke

Four days after his vicous personal attacks on Sandra Fluke sparked national outrage, Rush Limbaugh apologized to the Georgetown Law student today, acknowledging that his comments were “insulting.”

Limbaugh has lost at least five advertisers to uproar, and drawn condemnation from Democrats and Republicans alike.

In a statement posted on his website, Limbaugh wrote, “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke.” But in the “apology,” Limbaugh offensively compared contraception to “sneakers” and incorrectly states that taxpayers, rather than insurers, are paying for it:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. 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? 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.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

In his “apology,” Limbaugh continues his false implication that Fluke and others who advocate for contraception coverage are only interested in subsidies for their personal sexual activity. In fact, women use birth control for many reasons, including for health reasons. Fluke herself was motivated by a friend who used birth control because she had polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Limbaugh often sparks controversy, but it is exceedingly rare for him to apologize. On his show Friday, he ticked off a series of other furors he’s been embroiled in, but said the one surrounding his attacks on Fluke was the worst yet. And it should not obscure the fact that he traffics in bigoted and misogynistic rhetoric on a near-daily basis.

It’s also unclear where this leaves other conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin, who have largely defended Limbaugh and attacked Fluke in a similar personal and vicious manner.

Justice

Why Romney’s Immigration Policies Will Take Him Nowhere In November

Our guest bloggers are Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy, and Philip E. Wolgin, Immigration Policy Analyst, at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

After Mitt Romney’s easy win in Tuesday’s Arizona Republican primary, a number of commentators pointed to the fact that immigration just did not seem to be a big issue in the state. So does Romney’s win mean that immigration is fading as an important issue on the campaign?

Not at all. Arizona was a closed Republican primary, and when it comes down to it, all of the Republican candidates have taken a harsh stand on immigration. The real contest, however, is down the road in November.

In advance of Super Tuesday, we review Romney’s immigration positions, and explain why his policies will imperil his candidacy with Latino voters across the country.

Romney’s Views Are Still Outside of the Mainstream

Mitt Romney has taking an ever increasing hard-line on immigration, telling audiences nationwide that he would veto the DREAM Act, and most recently calling Arizona’s anti-immigration law, S.B. 1070, a “model” for the rest of the nation. He enthusiastically touted the endorsement of nativist attorney Kris Kobach, and most recently accepted the endorsement of Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, who signed S.B. 1070 into law nearly two years ago and has defended the draconian law every step of the way.

But even as he cruised to victory in Arizona, Romney’s tough immigration positions did not resonate with Latinos in the state. In a Public Policy Polling poll released a week before the Arizona primary, Mitt Romney had only a 27 percent favorable rating with Hispanics, and a 66 percent unfavorable rating. Nationwide, 74 percent of Latino voters oppose or strongly oppose Arizona’s S.B. 1070, the model of self-deportation that Romney and Kobach want to make a national policy.

And these negative views are not confined to voters in Arizona. The most recent Latino Decisions poll of Latinos nationwide, released on January 25, found that most Latinos saw immigration reform and the DREAM Act as the most important issue facing their community that Congress and the President should tackle, with fixing the economy coming in a close second. Overwhelmingly, voters stated that if the election were held today, they would vote for Barack Obama 67 percent to 25 percent over Mitt Romney. Likewise when asked about their views on what the government’s policy toward undocumented immigrants should be, 71 percent chose a program of earned citizenship, while only 11 percent thought that the government should make all undocumented immigrants felons.

Most importantly, the issue of immigration is deeply personal to Latinos – 53 percent know someone who is undocumented, and a full one-quarter of Latino voters know a person facing deportation or who has been deported.

The general public as well has time and time again supported a balanced approach to immigration, with increased border security on the one hand, and a pathway to earned legalization on the other, rather than simply making life more and more difficult for unauthorized immigrants.

Self-Deportation is a Myth

Among the centerpieces of Romney’s immigration policies is the idea of self-deportation, or that if individual states and the government as a whole make life as difficult as possible for immigrants, then they will choose to leave the country on their own. Romney touts this plan as the better alternative to sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers after each and every one of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country.

But take a closer look at the idea of self-deportation, and the facts just do not add up. As our recent report “Staying Put but Still in the Shadows” illustrates, unauthorized immigrants are not leaving the country even in the face of harsh anti-immigrant laws. They choose to stay in the U.S. regardless of what the government tries to do to them because most have been here for more than 10 years and live in families, they understand the risks associated with making the return trip, and they know that if the job market conditions are bad in the United States, they are even worse in their home countries.

Worse still, even while state and local anti-immigrant laws fail to achieve their self-deportation goals, they wreak havoc on the communities in which they are implemented. Arizona’s S.B. 1070 cost that state over $141 million in conference cancellations alone, while Alabama’s law, H.B. 56, could cost that state up to $11 billion in lost economic value not to mention the disruptions caused to everyday life as immigrants and Latinos in the state live in fear of being stopped on the street.

Conclusion

Whether or not Republican voters continue to vote for Mitt Romney, or whether they shift toward the other candidates such as Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in the primaries, the ever increasing hard-right turn of Romney, and the continued talk of “self-deportation” is only further alienating Latino voters, as well as mainstream Americans. The Kobach-line on immigration might play well today, but the real contest is to come in November.

Climate Progress

Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest

NOAA concluded in 2011 that “human-caused climate change [is now] a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts.” Reds and oranges highlight lands around the Mediterranean that experienced significantly drier winters during 1971-2010 than the comparison period of 1902-2010.  [Click to enlarge.]

by Francesco Femia & Caitlin Werrell, in a Center for Climate & Security repost [Addendum by Joe Romm]

Syria’s current social unrest is, in the most direct sense, a reaction to a brutal and out-of-touch regime and a response to the political wave of change that began in Tunisia early last year. However, that’s not the whole story. The past few years have seen a number of significant social, economic, environmental and climatic changes in Syria that have eroded the social contract between citizen and government in the country, have strengthened the case for the opposition movement, and irreparably damaged the legitimacy of the al-Assad regime. If the international community, and future policy-makers in Syria, are to address and resolve the drivers of unrest in the country, these changes will have to be better explored and exposed.

Out of the blue?

International pundits characterized the Syrian uprising as an “out of the blue” case in the Middle East  - one that they didn’t see coming. Many analysts, right up to a few days prior to the first protests, predicted that Syria under al-Assad was “immune to the Arab Spring.” However, the seeds of social unrest were right there under the surface, if one looked closely. And not only were they there, they had been reported on, but largely ignored, in a number of forms.

Water shortages, crop-failure and displacement

From 2006-2011, up to 60% of Syria’s land experienced, in the terms of one expert, “the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.” According to a special case study from last year’s Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR), of the most vulnerable Syrians dependent on agriculture, particularly in the northeast governorate of Hassakeh (but also in the south), “nearly 75 percent … suffered total crop failure.” Herders in the northeast lost around 85% of their livestock, affecting 1.3 million people.

The human and economic costs are enormous.  In 2009, the UN and IFRC reported that over 800,000 Syrians had lost their entire livelihood as a result of the droughts. By 2011, the aforementioned GAR report estimated that the number of Syrians who were left extremely “food insecure” by the droughts sat at about one million. The number of people driven into extreme poverty is even worse, with a UN report from last year estimating two to three million people affected.

This has led to a massive exodus of farmers, herders and agriculturally-dependent rural families from the countryside to the cities. Last January, it was reported that crop failures (particularly the Halaby pepper) just in the farming villages around the city of Aleppo, had led “200,000 rural villagers to leave for the cities.” In October 2010, the New York Times highlighted a UN estimate that 50,000 families migrated from rural areas just that year, “on top of the hundreds of thousands of people who fled in earlier years.” In context of Syrian cities coping with influxes of Iraqi refugees since the U.S. invasion in 2003, this has placed additional strains and tensions on an already stressed and disenfranchised population.

Climate change, natural resource mis-management, and demographics

The reasons for the collapse of Syria’s farmland are a complex interplay of variables, including climate change, natural resource mis-management, and demographic dynamics.

Read more

Climate Progress

Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Party Get What They Want With False Attacks on Chevy Volt: 1300 GM Lay-Offs

Yesterday, General Motors told 1,300 Detroit employees “they will be temporarily laid off for five weeks” due to lower than expected demand for its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle.

No doubt there are many contributing factors, but in January, GM CEO Dan Akerson explained:

We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.

He had been called in to testify by the Tea-Party crowd running the U.S. House in a hearing witch-hunt titled, “Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?” Yes, that’s a reference to Nixon and Watergate!

In fact, NHSTA concluded it does not believe the Volt and other electric vehicles “pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.”

Media Matters put together this video of the conservative media misrepresentations:

As TP Green reports, those who launched “conspiracy-tinged partisan attacks” got what they wanted:

Relentless attacks on the Chevy Volt from Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians have taken their toll, as General Motors has announced a five-week suspension in production of the range-extended electric car. Conservative enemies of clean energy and the Obama administration seized on isolated reports Volts with battery fires, calling the cars “Obama-mandated death traps.” Limbaugh even said GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers.”

Has there ever been a more relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs than this?

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up