Conquer Club

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” (but isn't that exactly what she did )says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."

Indeed, in a video made after she was denied the opportunity to testify, Fluke raises two “stories” from women who had emailed her, supposedly about their non-sex-related need of contraceptive medicine. She does not identify the emailers by name, or even by school, saying simply that they are students at an unnamed Catholic University.

The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is another matter entirely. In several interviews, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status.

Bones2484 wrote:Honest question (I agree that she's an activist above a "wronged student"): Do you disagree with people pretending to be something they aren't in order to try to expose something they feel is wrong?

Bones2484 wrote:Honest question (I agree that she's an activist above a "wronged student"): Do you disagree with people pretending to be something they aren't in order to try to expose something they feel is wrong?

thegreekdog wrote:Really dude?

First of all, the president already compromised with Catholic institutions on this whole issue.

Second of all, she's not an activist plant, she's just an activist.

Third of all, she didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell. Nothing has changed for the worse because of her. No Catholic institutions were forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control. Rush got his bell run, which happens to him every few years. Who cares?

You're making this a far bigger issue than it should be.

pimpdave wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:Honest question (I agree that she's an activist above a "wronged student"): Do you disagree with people pretending to be something they aren't in order to try to expose something they feel is wrong?

I bet he doesn't!

GreecePwns wrote:What is a plant, Scotty?

A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he or she is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).


Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictionsbecause of the frequently fraudulent and damaging [vague] character of the shill's actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.

"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity. The origin of the term shill is uncertain; it may be an abbreviation of shillaber. The word originally denoted a carnival worker who pretended to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction. Some sources trace the usage only back to 1914.

Corporate owned media outlets of radio and television are often accused of being shills for establishment political candidates. By limiting the dialogue and discourse between specific candidates and political parties, the media psychologically limits choices in the public mind and thus assures that only politicians acceptable to the ruling class and corporate structure are elected to public office. By highlighting the disparities of each candidate, the media appears as an honest broker and fair minded third party to the public, but is acting as a shill for the wealthy investment class. This methodology was one of Edward Bernays favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion by the indirect use of "third party authorities" to influence the public, without their conscious cooperation.

More specifically, there are historical cases of journalists in private media organizations being covert representatives of government and/or businesses. In these roles the journalists will present positive/negative stories about their respective interests at key moments in order to influence public opinion. This is often achieved by claiming to have access to anonymous government or business sources. At other times, the links may actually appear overt to some, but not to the intended audience.

rockfist wrote:The real question that arises from this whole thing is who in the hell would want to have sex with an ugly activist?

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

Juan_Bottom wrote:So ahhh.... what happened was that a congressional committee heard arguments about their female birth control/contraceptives policy. The members of the congressional panel were all men, and all of the people testifying were men. Fluke was invited in so that at least one woman could say something, and then the panel told her that she wasn't qualified to speak on the issue. That's why the Democrats decided to have their own panel and allow her to have her say.

IMO it was a political trap that some dumbass Republicans walked right into. Some like Santorum still don't understand that they've been played. Though Santorum's numbers have been effected by his anti-female rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh also lost a sponsor over this non-issue for calling her a slut.
That's the funniest thing about this trap. It wasn't an issue until the Republicans made it an issue, and their own party has been telling everyone to drop it. Most American's favor woman's choice and so it's a losing stand to take. Just ask Santorum.

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:So ahhh.... what happened was that a congressional committee heard arguments about their female birth control/contraceptives policy. The members of the congressional panel were all men, and all of the people testifying were men. Fluke was invited in so that at least one woman could say something, and then the panel told her that she wasn't qualified to speak on the issue. That's why the Democrats decided to have their own panel and allow her to have her say.

IMO it was a political trap that some dumbass Republicans walked right into. Some like Santorum still don't understand that they've been played. Though Santorum's numbers have been effected by his anti-female rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh also lost a sponsor over this non-issue for calling her a slut.
That's the funniest thing about this trap. It wasn't an issue until the Republicans made it an issue, and their own party has been telling everyone to drop it. Most American's favor woman's choice and so it's a losing stand to take. Just ask Santorum.

right, so they just make up their own phony congressional committee and pass it off as real. They were all men because they are priests and rabbis, sometimes known as "fathers"... Fluke was invited, at 5pm the night before the hearings. I guess people assume they can make last minute changes and force their specially trained plant onto a congressional panel. It was not only a matter of not being disqualified to testify, but also of not having enough time to vet the shill (sniff out what you realize is a trap, which means denying her was the right thing to do!), and even further, everything she said was hearsay.

I am glad you acknowledge that it was indeed a trap, as I will acknowledge at least 1 dumbass Republican fell into it.

I'm not a Republican, but I for one am in no hurry to "drop it".

lastly, most Americans also favor the 1st Amendment.

Prior to her statements to congressional Democrats, did Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke have any prior connection to Obama administration officials?

Did the congresswomen who pushed Fluke’s testimony coordinate with a marketing and polling outfit that recently conducted a survey to determine whether contraception mandates can become a possible presidential election issue?

According to reports, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. pushed for Fluke’s testimony. Maloney also initiated the call for Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for his on-air derogatory remark about Fluke, according to the Daily Beast.

Maloney is tied to a progressive pollster, Celinda Lake, who recently ran extensive polling in an effort to gauge voters’ reactions to including birth control or contraception in insurance coverage.

Lake heads Lake Research, which lists both Maloney and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as recent clients.

During the hearing, Maloney thanked Pelosi “for bringing Sandra (Fluke) to this hearing and for your commitment to these issues that are so important to tens of millions of women and men across our country.”

In a Politico article two weeks ago titled “2012: The year of ‘birth control moms’?” Lake was quoted as saying Obama’s stance on contraception is enough to “really irritate” independent suburban moms and “re-engage” young, single women who haven’t tuned into the campaign so far.

Lake said that she and other Democrats see the strong Republican opposition to contraception as a way to win women back after they swung right in 2010, even though they backed Obama in big numbers in 2008.

Politico also quoted Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, as warning of a major female backlash if the Republicans overreach on contraception.

Lake, quoted by Politico, is no bystander on the contraception debate.

WND has found that her Lake Research is one of the driving forces behind the progressive strategy to use contraception as an election issue.

According to Lake’s website, her company conducted polling on the contraception issue in conjunction with an organization called the Communications Consortium Media Center, or CCMC, and the Herndon Alliance marketing firm.

WND previously reported how the Herndon Alliance helped to market Obamacare, even providing suggestions on which words supporters should use to promote the bill.

Lake’s research on voters attitudes on contraception found Catholic voters tend to mirror voters overall when it comes to reproductive healthcare services that the Affordable Care Act will cover.

Related Lake’s website: “Not only are Catholics favorable to including birth control or contraception in insurance coverage, these inclusions also make them more favorable toward the Affordable Care Act.

“Moreover, a majority of Catholics say that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ criticism of the requirement to cover contraception and birth control with no co-pay or deductible makes no difference in how they view the Affordable Care Act.”

Lake also found affirmative reaction on the following issues, according to the Women Donors Network.

* Can communicating these new preventive health services to women boost public support for the Obama administration’s premiere domestic policy initiative?
* What are communication strategies to shift the discussion on health care to a winning one for progressives?

The Women Donor Network noted the polling was funded by Lake and conducted by CCMC and the Herndon Alliance.

CCMC says its work focuses on a cluster of issues, including “children and families, early education and child welfare reform, health care, women’s equality, reproductive rights, global population, the environment, voting, civil rights and immigration.”

CCMC is funded in part by the Fulfilling the Dream Fund, a project of the Public Interest Projects.

Prior to Georgetown, Fluke worked with Sanctuary for Families in New York City, where she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative.

Another Sanctuary employee was Berta Colon, who now serves as president the Public Interest Projects that funded the CCMC.

Fluke’s Georgetown bio, meanwhile, says that through Georgetown’s clinic programs, she “conducted proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases.”

Fluke is also co-president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, where she has been helping lead the push to have the Georgetown student health-insurance plan cover contraception.

More possible Obama ties?

This week, faculty members, staff and students of Georgetown University Law Center and other law schools signed a statement that “strongly condemn[s] the recent personal attacks on our student.”

One signatory was Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks, who served from 2009 until June 2011 as the Obama administration’s adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.

Brooks serves as faculty director of Georgetown Law School’s Human Rights Institute. Brooks may have worked with Fluke, who co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking, according to her Georgetown bio

Brooks previously served as special counsel to the president at billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute. She has consulted for Human Rights Watch and served as a board member of Amnesty International USA.

Another close Obama associate, John Podesta, is currently the visiting professor of law Georgetown.

Podesta is chairman of the Center for American Progress, which is influential in helping to craft Obama administration policy. Podesta co-directed Obama’s transition into the White House in 2008.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

Symmetry wrote:Not really an answer there Scotty...

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Not really an answer there Scotty...

yeah I have not yet addressed your post. When I posted that you posted before and it asked me if I still wanted to post and I tried to put an answer in there but chose to do it separately. Get at ya in a few minutes, cuz I'm the dodge king!

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:So ahhh.... what happened was that a congressional committee heard arguments about their female birth control/contraceptives policy. The members of the congressional panel were all men, and all of the people testifying were men. Fluke was invited in so that at least one woman could say something, and then the panel told her that she wasn't qualified to speak on the issue. That's why the Democrats decided to have their own panel and allow her to have her say.

IMO it was a political trap that some dumbass Republicans walked right into. Some like Santorum still don't understand that they've been played. Though Santorum's numbers have been effected by his anti-female rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh also lost a sponsor over this non-issue for calling her a slut.
That's the funniest thing about this trap. It wasn't an issue until the Republicans made it an issue, and their own party has been telling everyone to drop it. Most American's favor woman's choice and so it's a losing stand to take. Just ask Santorum.

right, so they just make up their own phony congressional committee and pass it off as real. They were all men because they are priests and rabbis, sometimes known as "fathers"... Fluke was invited, at 5pm the night before the hearings. I guess people assume they can make last minute changes and force their specially trained plant onto a congressional panel. It was not only a matter of not being disqualified to testify, but also of not having enough time to vet the shill (sniff out what you realize is a trap, which means denying her was the right thing to do!), and even further, everything she said was hearsay.

I am glad you acknowledge that it was indeed a trap, as I will acknowledge at least 1 dumbass Republican fell into it.

I'm not a Republican, but I for one am in no hurry to "drop it".

lastly, most Americans also favor the 1st Amendment.

I'm a little unclear, are you saying that was a phony congressional committee she testified to, or that she was forced as a plant in to a real congressional committee?

You seem to be trying to discredit her in two separate directions and seeing if one will stick.