Why Limbaugh and Maher Aren't the Same

A couple of weeks ago, while visiting my parents' local brew pub for Happy Hour, an argument broke out between some of their friends over some current events. I was mostly quiet at the time, but I thought I'd share my thoughts here. The argument was about whether the words Bill Maher used to describe Sarah Palin are comparable to those that Rush Limbaugh used to describe Sandra Fluke. The issue clearly struck a chord with several of the participants and positions were expressed with a healthy dose of fervor and emotion. Here's my analysis:

Before we get started, just to clarify for those who prefer the under-rock lifestyle, Sandra Fluke was/is a Georgetown Law School student who had been called to testify before a congressional committee to support a federal mandate that insurance coverage include contraception. In his coverage of this, Rush Limbaugh used words like "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Fluke and summarized her argument by saying that Fluke "want[ed] to be paid to have sex." Meanwhile (kind of) Bill Maher had been criticizing former Alaskan Governor, former VP candidate, and current -- I don't know, commentator? -- Sarah Palin. In doing so he used words like "twat" and "cunt". To make a long story short, an argument has arisen over whether these two examples are similar enough that they illustrate a hypocrisy on the Left, which was quick to criticize Limbaugh's comments while rationalizing Maher's. Got it? Great, let's begin.

First of all, since both sides have down-played their comments because he who uttered them is "just doing comedy", I want to take a moment to utterly reject that point of view. I believe, as Jon Stewart expressed about himself, that neither of these comedians (if they can be so-called) are "just" doing comedy. They may do comedy, but it isn't "just" comedy. The kind of political commentary that these two practice is a serious business. They attempt to speak truth to power and their words mean more than a Knock, Knock joke. Furthermore, speaking truth to power is vital to the health of a democracy like ours: it's one of the ways we try to keep people in power accountable. Satire is part of the Fourth Estate.
That brings me to my first point: Rush Limbaugh was not speaking truth to power. First, he wasn't speaking truth. He misrepresented Ms. Fluke's argument to an absurd degree when he said she wanted to be "paid to have sex". This is like saying that supporting insurance-covered bypass surgery is the same as wanting to be paid to eat cheeseburgers. There are many reasons to receive the treatment, all of which are no one's business but the person who gets it. Second, Sandra Fluke was not in a position of power. In fact, the issue he was commenting on was that she had been barred from testifying in what became an all-male panel which was entirely against the measure for some poorly-explained procedural reason. It's not hard to see why supporters of the measure would be shocked and outraged at her exclusion, but the larger point here is that Fluke had already had her voice diminished and nearly-silenced. This brings me back to my beliefs about comedy: Again, I refer to Jon Stewart who said that there are a lot of good Goliath jokes but very few good David jokes. Kicking someone when they're down isn't usually seen as funny and Limbaugh, who has something like 45 years of broadcasting experience, should and probably does know that.

To discuss Bill Maher's comments, I want to first look at whether they are essentially the same as Limbaugh's and then move on to whether they are defensible. It should be fairly clear by now that I believe that his comments about Sarah Palin are demonstrably different than Limbaugh's regarding Fluke. Context is everything and, in our minds, Sarah Palin is already a well-defined media/political personality. She has had many opportunities to express herself and her beliefs and continues to do so for a living. So, whether you love her or hate her, Bill Maher's petty words probably aren't going to change your mind about Palin or her stance on issues which are relevant to you. This brings up another important difference: Sarah Palin's job, what she does every day, is express her opinions in the public sphere. Implicit in that is the understanding that some people will not agree with, and will criticize, her and/or her opinions.
To address whether his comments are defensible, let's look at whether those words ("twat", "cunt") hold some intrinsically misogynistic meaning, and here I'm more sympathetic to the affirmative argument. The casual use of words, like these, that carry disparaging gendered meaning should be avoided. Obviously, "twat" and "cunt" are maledictions that mean that the target is stupid/wrong and is female. Worse, they often mean that that person is stupid/wrong because she is female. The context seems to show that Maher only meant the former, that Sarah Palin is stupid and a woman, but it doesn't help the progressive cause with which Maher seems to ally himself to use a gendered word rather than a neutral one. Even then, though we routinely use such words to criticize people in places of power, it's a reductionist and ad hominem argument to just say someone is, essentially, stupid. Should we have put pressure on Maher to apologize and use different language? Yes. I'm sure you'd find many organizations that did make that request, but maybe it should have been more widespread.
Finally, if I can be so bold, I'd like to claim this bit of justification for the Left that may have let Bill Maher slide. Whether we like it or not, those of us on the Left who care deeply about feminism are still a part of the culture that we seek to correct. It's easy to let things, like Maher's choice of words, slide when words and opinions, like Limbaugh's that are much more damaging to the feminist movement seem to be uttered all the time and without rebuke from the politicians he supports. Mitt Romney said that it was "not the language [he] would have used" while Rick Santorum said, simply, that Limbaugh was "being absurd" and that "an entertainer can be absurd." Newt Gingrich refused to even comment on Limbaugh's words. To many on the Left, the shaming of a private citizen whose only crime was to try (and nearly fail) to have her voice heard is far worse than Bill Maher, a professional envelope-pusher, using some offensive words to describe a very public figure and her very public opinions. Should we be more vigilant? Perhaps, but it usually seems to us that, if a woman can't voice her own opinion in the first place, she'll never even get to the level of power where someone like Maher will call her a "cunt", even if he shouldn't.

LinkedIn Dating Tips

Most people seeking love on LinkedIn have their favorite tips and tricks that help them land that "perfect someone" -- whether they're re-entering the dating pool after months (or years) of wallowing, making a sexuality 180 heading into the new year or even if someone has just been "laid off", so to speak, and is looking for a new position (pun always intended). Here's a comprehensive list of 10 steps one should take on LinkedIn, and elsewhere, while trolling for booty:


1. Begin your hunt early.

Give yourself at least six months before your desired start date for your new relationship. Let's face it, you're probably no prize or you wouldn't be trawling the depths of social networking for hook-ups. Take time to review your goals and to examine whether or not they are realistic. If you're just looking for some strange ass, then you might not need much in the way of "revamping" -- there are lots of lonely suckers out there. However, if your new relationship requires additional education -- say, tantra lessons or yoga classes -- you may have to begin even earlier.

2. Revamp your toolbox...yes, we said "toolbox".

Take a look at the types of people you're interested in and make a checklist of the ways in which you'll probably disappoint them. If you have too many weak spots, consider taking classes at a community college...there are usually lots of lonely, desperate people there. If you don't have time to attend classes (or if pride is an issue) another option is to browse and/or send messages anonymously on OkCupid! (don't tell them we sent you) so you can completely enumerate your deficiencies for later elimination. Remember, it's more important to be the person that they want to sleep with than to be the person you want.

3. Be a news hound.

This is where all your years of Facebook stalking can finally pay off. Remember that cute guy/girl you sat across the room from in that class you barely attended? Now remember the way you found what dorm she was living in or who his roommate was or who she slept with on prom night just by looking at his/her pictures and reading the comments? Good. Do that, except with a special emphasis on people who recently went through a nasty breakup, or even the loss of a close relative. Nothing says "I've always loved you." like "We haven't ever met in person, but I'm sorry for your loss and am free to console you over drinks this Friday."

4. Give your LinkedIn profile a face lift.

Now it's time to work some magic. There are plenty of tutorials on YouTube on how to do subtle Photoshop work on some of less attractive self portraits (which are all of them). In fact, have you considered getting an actual face lift? That might help, too.

5. Update your Status.

If you recently got dumped, make sure to change your status to reflect this. Being creative is a great way to get attention when you desperately desire it. Some past winners include "Good Friend with Benefits", "Open to Horizontal Advancement", and "Cunning Linguist".

6. Do your homework.

Sign on to LinkedIn or Facebook and look at people who are already in relationships. Take special note of the ways in which they are better than you. While browsing their pictures you may notice that some guys appear smugly disinterested while their girlfriends have their tongues sticking out while seemingly about to kiss them. If you're a guy, try sedatives to achieve the same effect. If you're a girl try drinking more. If that hasn't worked, consider a lobotomy. TIP: Something that doesn't always show up in these pictures is the other 95% of their night. That time was spent texting. If you don't have friends just send text messages to yourself, making sure to disguise your own number with a different name.

7. Rekindle relationships/build your network before you need it.

If you're recently single, consider contacting old flames, but use caution: If you dumped them, consider it charity and maybe they'll consider sleeping with you based on hollow statements about how you've "really grown up". If they dumped you (much more likely), consider writing them a rambling e-mail that subtly hints at how you've "really grown up" before asking if they'd like to platonically get some coffee sometime (platonically). TIP: Consider watching I Am Sam just before heading to the coffee shop to ensure that you're body can't produce any more tears.

8. Confidence counts.

...and if you're drinking it counts double! Let's imagine you're a friend's party:

If you're a guy you probably want to try the old "One in a Million" tactic. This is the strategy in which you give out one compliment to a girl you'd like to sleep with for every million insults (give or take). Try some harsh shit-talking while playing her and her friend at beer pong, or blatantly hitting on her beer pong partner! Just make sure the compliment comes when her friend is in the bathroom and can't help her with the necessary judgment call.

 If you're a lady, consider dressing too formally for the party and showing up late and already drunk as if you just came from a much cooler party. Make you're selection quick (you're perception can't be trusted much longer anyway) and hang on his every lame joke no matter what. Don't be bothered if he seems disinterested or has a girlfriend already -- he's just playing the game. When his girlfriend confronts you, remember that guys like feeling like Caesar in ancient Rome: He'll happily watch a gladiatorial fight to the death and sleep with the last woman standing.

9. Check your surroundings for other resources.

A number of communities offer resources for people returning to the dating pool. These are called "bars", but if you're hard up for cash try just walking around the local bar scene and looking for drunk guys or gals who seem to have "lost" their friends. Remember to wear earplugs; these people tend to be very, very loud.

10. Pay it forward -- help a brother (sister) out.

Once you've found someone with personal and physical deficiencies you can overlook, go out with your friends (or hers -- whichever group is cooler) to a bar to give your single and, thus, inferior friends a chance to score. Guys, ready your smug, disinterested expressions. Girls, remember: if you see a camera stick your tongue out until it gets put away or its batteries die.

One final note on dating: It's easy to get bogged down in the present with things like "happiness" or "potential for marriage". When in doubt, just remember that relationships are just like jobs: there's always a better one out there and you might just be one Happy Hour away from your next big career move!


Used without permission from LinkedIn: This here.

Just a Phase

Okay, it's been over seven months since my last post and, at the risk of becoming an XKCD stereotype, I thought I'd start trying to make myself put more things in here since I'm newly unemployed. In fact, it may not be surprising that my period of inactivity coincided almost completely with my period of receiving steady paychecks. Maybe it is true that sitting in a that sitting in a windowless office for eight hours every day saps your will to create.

It's not really true, though. I did do some writing, albeit in more archaic forms (e.g. paper and pen) and a lot of it was pretty unbearable to read. If the same mood strikes, I'll try to type some of it up and post it, if only for posterity. In five years I'll look at it the way I look at my LiveJournal now. (NOTE: DO NOT investigate old LiveJournals...especially mine) For now I'm just going to find contentment where I always have: in having my focus work at a frantic pace while I try to keep up and re-reading sentences like these a week later only to rue how angst-y I was "back then". This is just a phase right?

[Empty Post]

[Empty Body]

Modern Eloquence

I didn't mean for this to be the next thing I wrote about in this blog. In fact, I actually had a couple other ideas fairly fleshed out in my head. However, this has taken over my interest today so I'm writing it immediately. This means with only minimal research so beware, and feel free to post any relevant findings you may have in the comments.

Today, as I was clicking around various political/new-related links posted by friends and follows on Facebook and Twitter, I came across this article: Teddy Roosevelt on the Estate Tax, 100 Years Ago.

It's definitely worth a read, especially since it's very short. I agree with TR wholeheartedly, but I'm actually not interested in discussing the estate tax. What I'm thinking about today is a question I've heard from many of my young politically-minded friends; that is, "Why do historical figures sound so much more eloquent than modern people?" Usually, I dismiss it because it tends to fall under the category of "Things were so much better back in [some arbitrary time]." However, I think there may be a case to be made that speech in political rhetoric is far less eloquent than it used to be.

Here's a sample of Teddy's speech, if you happened to not click on the link (jerk):

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

The reason I think this is a fairly good example is that this speech isn't particularly flowery. TR meant for this speech to be accessible to his audience (which was probably less literate than a modern one) and there aren't a whole lot of "big words" in it. To modern folk it may present a challenge, but only because some words aren't used as commonly anymore. We probably wouldn't say that something "by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind..." Rather, a politician might say "Extreme wealth is inherently different from middle-class savings because..." or a regular person might just say "Having lots of money is different from living paycheck-to-paycheck because..."

However, even these examples are hard to come up with because I find it unlikely that anyone would talk about these issues in this way. This is why it seems to me that our standards for eloquence in rhetoric have declined. TR was making an argument for something he believed in: progressive income and estate taxes to fund social initiatives like child labor laws and minimum wage laws for women. The words are less accessible now but, for people who understand it, the point becomes wonderful and reasonable rather than just an opinion and I don't think our current language is incapable of doing this.

Why is this the case? Well, first, it should be said that we definitely ascribe heavier meaning to archaic sounding speech. And why shouldn't we? It makes sense that only the most significant (inspired, blasphemous, prejudiced) examples survive to be remembered. This is why we don't have quotes from Thomas Jefferson which describe what he ate for breakfast.

One of the big reasons, I think, that things have changed is that pernicious concept of objectivity. In the '90s especially it became very important for talking heads on the 24-hour news channels to never voice anything that could be construed as an opinion. "Are there WMDs in Iraq?" became irrelevant because the Democrats said the answer was "no" so, therefore, it must be an opinion. This being the case, it's not that our language doesn't contain that amount of meaning and passion, it's that opinions aren't worth defending anymore because they're just the counter to someone else's opinion which we have no interest in debating. People, maybe, have become so entrenched in their ideas that taking the time to persuade someone is a waste when you could just yell louder or come up with a more convincing graphic.

These are all the unorganized thoughts I have for today's topic. Let me know what you think. Maybe my next creative project will be taking a political opinion I feel strongly about and trying to write a similarly-eloquent speech explaining my point-of-view. I encourage you to do the same.