A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

How old is this Fluke

Posted: Mar 2, 2012

Has anyone looked into the background of this so-called co-ed? Just wondering.

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/

;

Careful. Your desperation is showing. - I ssume you are referring to Ms. Sandra Fluke.

[ In Reply To ..]
OK, I'll bite, but before I get started here, did anyone do any research on this Ms. "Just a Grunt" (an appropriate moniker if ever there were one), the author of this scathing expose? How about the site itself, Jammie Wearing Fools, which is so infected, every time I tried to follow its links, my computer kept spitting out IE errors and recovering tabs every 30 seconds or so, in an effort to protect me from the acidic vitriol in the comments section, no doubt? In the absence of an "About" tab on the site, it remains a mystery what sort of ax-grinding experts lurk behind its sourceless narratives.

For starters, I never heard or read anything referring to Ms. Fluke as a 23-year-old co-ed, and since Ms. "Just a Grunt" only vaguely alluded to some interview (with whom, where and when not disclosed) during which Ms Fluke discussed the influence Georgetown's insurance policy on contraception had on her decision to enroll, and claimed at that time she was described as a 23-year-old coed, I guess the details of that original alleged deception will have to remain unknowable. Fine. If that actually happened, it was obviously a mistake, perhaps a typo….or maybe the interview in question was held 7 years ago when Ms. Fluke was 23. Who knows? Who cares? Her age is SO not an issue. Just for the record, the definition of coed (without the quotes) is a female student attending a co-educational university. No age range is included in the definition.

What is knowable is that not only have I seen her referred to as a 30-yer-old student in the LA Times (link 1), which openly discusses Ms. Fluke’s activism, Think Progress (link 2), and MSNBC (link 3), but I also heard her age announced right out loud over national television on the Ed Show and on Chris Matthews. Guess Ms. “Just a Grunt” only hangs out on wingnut blog sites and gets her news from Focks, where they’re all obsessing over discrediting Ms Fluke, which explains how she missed this information, clearly visible in broad daylight. Incidentally, Ms. Fluke introduced herself as a “former president of the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ)" in her opening remarks during her House Committee testimony (link 4). I guess Ms. “Just a Grunt” didn’t bother reading that either, since her sole purpose is to belittle and smear Ms. Fluke, whom she is so vociferously trying to convince us all is an irrelevant twit with nothing of value to bring into the conversation.

Now, you’d better sit down while I deliver this next piece of news. Being a reproductive justice advocate and a law school co-ed are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can do both at the same time, kinda like walking and chewing gum. I know this since I was also extremely politically active in the anti-war, civil rights, pro-immigration, labor and….wait for it….the women’s liberation movements during my college years. I can assure you that I was not paid to do so, and was certainly not a secret government agent sent to the campus to agitate or advocate one way or the other. Quite the contrary. The campus “plants” were the undercover law enforcement folks attending the rallies, taking down names and trying to figure out who the leadership figures were within the various movements. None of these activities negated my legitimate status as a college co-ed.

Sandra Fluke has an extremely impressive record of extracurricular activities and has assumed wide variety of leadership roles in promoting and advancing causes such as domestic violence, human trafficking and slavery, child labor, LGBT, crimes against women, and legal and educational access issues. All of these pursuits are perfectly in line with her Public Policy Analysis and Management and Feminist, Gender and Sexuality academic programs which were the focus of her undergraduate work. To suggest that ANY of these accomplishments amount to “her start in government” as suggested by Ms. “Just a Grunt” is as asinine as it is ignorant. Sandra Fluke has done an excellent job of building a formidable record of accomplishments, which is all too common for students of law. BTW, she is well on her way to becoming imminently qualified to pursue public office, should she choose to do so some day. I suspect that is precisely what it is about her that rattles Lamebaugh’s cage so much. I also believe these same traits help explain why Issa’s inquisition refused to allow her to testify. They knew she could expose their hearing process for the sham that we all now know it was. Despite their best efforts, in the 21st century, women are not tarred, feathered or stoned for daring to aspire to such positions and no amount of degradation or disparagement of her moral character is going to change that.

There is no smoking gun here, as Ms. “Just a Grunt’s” article is trying to suggest. No shocker. No conspiracy waiting to be exposed. If I were you, I would be much more worried about this Pandora’s Box the cons have opened up in the course of their bumbling, fumbling, stumbling journey through the primary process on their way to a nomination to nowhere. Just stop for a moment and take a long hard look at how well character assassination is working out for Slush. Sponsors are dropping like flies. I believe 3 at last count so far, with 3 or 4 more considering bailing on him shortly. Comprehensive lists of his sponsors are popping up everywhere on sites encouraging boycotts. This might ought to lead you to conclude that doubling down and escalating this obscene witch hunt will only further alienate and galvanize women to keep their issues very much alive between now and November….a lose/lose proposition for the republiCONS.

Survey says keep up the good work, but know (in the words of Ms. “Just A Grunt”) that you are most definitely being played. I'll leave the by whom part up to you to figure out.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sandra-fluke-obama-was-so-kind-20120302,0,1280757.story

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/437076/bill-oreilly-attacks-sandra-fluke/

http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/

http://lsrj.org/documents/Sandra%20Fluke%20Written%20Testimony_House%20Committee%20on%20Oversight%20and%20Government%20Reform_2.16.12.pdf

Careful - - your inobjectivity is showing

[ In Reply To ..]
X

Ouch! I am soooooooo crushed. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It is inconsequential which party brings the right side of an issue to the forefront in the national conversation. It is much more important that the messages get out there, regardless of how polarized the opposing sides are. The post I was addressing was as lacking in objectivity as they come. Hence, it received an equally sharp partisan response, which is what was called for. I see you offer no substantive rebuttal to my post, just the same ole worn out drive by personal slams, which do nothing to advance the dialog, but do reveal a certain degree of vapidity in rhetorical ammunition. To avoid such exchanges, it might be worthwhile to try posting articles that are not such easy slam-dunk-debunk targets.

It took me less than 5 minutes to locate the information, much of which was gleaned from links embedded in Ms. "Just a Grunt's" own post, to undermine her claims. This is a sure sign that she cares little about presenting a viable, let alone valid, argument. She's just out there floundering around in a sea of partisan spin, driven by highly-charged emotional backlash, void of intelligent, logical or rational essence. Instead of getting so upset with her political opponents, it would do her some good to step back, take a deep breath, count to 10, then realize, if but for a split second, what a ghastly, thoroughly untenable and indefensible position HER OWN PARTY has put her in with this absurd assault on women's health issues and their advocates.

This is not the first time the cons have picked the wrong fight since 2010. Not only have they succeeded in awakening the sleeping giant of women's activisim, they have also mobilized a brand new labor movement nationwide. Since it is becoming increasingly more difficult for them to run a successful hate campaign against the incumbent's so-called "failed" economic policies, they have instead pitched class (and now gender) warfare by resurrecting failed social engineering agendas from past decades. This tactic mirrors the same bankrupt bag-of-tricks they are trying to recycle on the economic front that brought our country to the brink in the first place, such as trickle-down economics, Bush-on-steroids tax initiatives and a slash-and-burn approach to debt resolution.

All this does is confirm just how ill-equipped they are to face the challenges of the future, both domestically as desribed above, and globally...the post-empirical era now being ushered in by the Arab Springs and their rapidly changing national landscapes, the US withdrawals from multiple war on terror battle fronts where our presence not only helped bankrupt our treasury coffers statewide, but left death, destruction, uncertainty and worlds of human suffering in their wake, and the inevitable imperatives of alternative energies and global warming, just to name a few.

The rest of us have moved on into the 21st century and have become increasingly more impatient day-by-day with the tag along too-loos, stuck back in the 50s, somewhere between Cold War hubris and the vestigial "innocence" of pre-civil-rights social orders. These new challenges cannot be met with remodeled stale ideologies. You know it, I know it and so do the the voters bound for the booths come November.

Excellent posts. Thank you. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Brava! Brava! - well said

[ In Reply To ..]

good old days - sabado

[ In Reply To ..]
I wake up to a radio programme with open microphone and a man is going on about brietbart being given invisible poison to cause heart attack by Chicago style politics and about 6 more minutes of paranoid nonsense. I come here and there are insinuations about Sandra Fluke. Once upon a time, people would say "hold on, none of this is substantiated and you must stop. let us return to the actual topic." Now every bit of nonsense is given a platform.

There are things that you don't know about - and things I didn't know about

[ In Reply To ..]
Until I had a friend who knew people who told them about the stuff. Maybe you were still asleep and misunderstood but I know exactly what you are talking about (rather what the station was talking bout). It's not invisible. It is in the form of ice. It penetrates and then of course the ice melts and there is not trace. Not saying I believe or don't believe any of that, just saying I know exactly what they were talking about.

There are things going on and things out there that a lot of people don't want to know about and will just say its paranoid, etc. But just because someone doesn't know about it doesn't mean its not real.

There was a really good speaker I heard once, former KGB. He said things I had no idea was actually going on. Sometimes I think it would be easier to just be dumbed down to it all.

I realize there are things - we do not know about

[ In Reply To ..]
but to let anonymous people (or well known for that matter) to go on and on with wild,baseless accusations of murder by the president no less serves no good purpose. I cant believe I even have to make such a statement. . .

No one said it was by the president - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
What was said was there needs to be an investigation into his death. A healthy 43 year old guy walking home after telling people he's going to publish some information unexpectedly dies, yes of course that needs to be investigated and an autopsy etc. He's no different than anyone else if that happened to them.

Of course people are going to question it, but nobody ever said it was by the president. People need to calm down. The president was never accused of anything and it's totally absurd people would come to that conclusion.

I want to know what happened to him. My sympathy goes out to his wife and family. They have lost a great husband and father. My heart breaks for them.

Didn't he have a heart condition? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
:

He was in good health - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
He was not sick. His heart condition was in good control. A man just doesn't keel over for no reason.

I will wait for the results of the investigation.

Aneurysms and aortic dissection can be keel-over events. - Family thought it could be heart attack.

[ In Reply To ..]
They probably made those statements based on first-hand knowledge of his health status. Even if the condition was controlled, people with heart disease who do not take good care of themselves (diet, exercise, rest, regular MD visits) are asking for trouble. He strikes me as the type who lived his life at 100 MPH and certainly was no stranger to negativity, stress, and anxiety.

Okay, I admit it; I was the shooter on the - grassy knoll

[ In Reply To ..]
A bit of overkill, I know, but I wasn't even born then. While I was addicted to the X-Files, I realized the difference between fiction and nonfiction. I also believe that wild speculations and accusations (IMHO, Nancy Grace is one who goes out of her way to do that to capture an audience- yes, off course, but just had to throw it in) lead the sheep to panic. Unleash your fury on me now, UFO believers.

they're trying to liken it to Vince Foster's demise - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
:

Vince Foster - nothing substantial - inpost - just a flamer

[ In Reply To ..]
Who is they?

Who linked it to Vince Foster?

Why shouldn't ABs death be investigated?

What's it to you?

Vince Foster - nothing substantial - try Googling

[ In Reply To ..]
"Andrew Breitbart murdered." It's all over the blogosphere, for what it's worth. Michael Savage has raised the question, among others. Knowthelies.com is talking about it. From what I've read, these types of deaths are routinely investigated, so I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just saying I highly doubt it's some government conspiracy to keep Breitbart from releasing the so-called damning tapes of Obama's college days.

i think the republican paranoia - about being murdered

[ In Reply To ..]
is because deep down they feel they deserve it.

Similar Messages:

Sep 09, 2012
Right on, Joe ...

Sep 06, 2012
link below ...

Feb 02, 2013
Now birth control is a disease treatment. Oh my. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXLv3NY1Njk&noredirect=1 ...

Oct 21, 2012
of 10 PEOPLE!!! ROFLMAO ...