Friday, March 09, 2012
An Open Letter
to Maureen Dowd
Or, "Bigfoot Debunked."
TAKING OUT THE TRASH. Dear Mzzzzz. Dowd;
I finally read your Sunday column. Didn't see it sooner because I only saw it in the Featured sidebar on Google News yesterday morning. Like all sensible readers, I don't seek out Maureen Dowd columns. Life comes front-loaded with enough retardation as it is.
But your title got my attention: "Have You No Shame, Rush?" I've been following the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy closely. I've been ¬fascinated by the stridently selective liberal narrative, and the utter self-confidence-- or is it lack of self-consciousness?-- with which it's been promulgated.
To hear you people (do you mind if I call you people "you people"? Good.) tell it, there's no question what Rush did and what the moral person's reaction to it should be, nor is there any question as to the character of Sandra Fluke or the factual and ethical validity of her testimony that provoked Limbaugh's comments. The science, so to speak, is settled.
My mentor thinks the contraception flap is a distraction. In the long term, he's right. In the short term, I think there's something to learn from it, or at least remember. I think your column, specifically, is the reminder.
I know a prestigious columnist like you holds her work to the highest standard. Reading your column, I noticed a few... inaccuracies you may want to correct or retract. A few inconsistencies in your narrative you may have completely innocently overlooked, with absolutely no malfeasance intended whatever in the slightest to any degree.
In this letter, I'll include about twice as many line breaks as real paragraphs would call for. Figure I'll try to speak to you in a language you'll understand. As far as understanding is possible for you.
Now he’s brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a "slut," "a prostitute" and "round-heeled" simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception.
No, no, no, stupid bitch. Do you mind if I call you "stupid bitch"? Awesome.
Rush called Sandra Fluke a prostitute because she wants to be paid to have sex. On top of that (pardon the pun), she thinks she's ENTITLED to be paid to have sex. Even if it takes the government to force someone to pay involuntarily.
That makes her not only a prostitute, but worse-- a thief. Poise and wholesome looks don't justify theft advocacy, Ms. Dowd.
Right away, you've botched a few facts that were not difficult to understand correctly¬. Therefore, you are either a) too stupid to understand them, or b) pretending to be stupid to make a stupid point.
I lean towards option b). Which doesn't exclude option a) entirely. To want to make stupid points, one has to be at least a little stupid.
You admit you understand the actual crux of Limbaugh's argument in paragraph 8: "Limbaugh leeringly suggested that were taxpayers to be stuck with the bill..." And since, unlike most of your fellow pundits, you seem to have read Limbaugh's actual comments, you know he recanted the "slut" comment moments after he made it. His exact goddamn words: "OK, so she’s not a slut."
The very next sentence is when he said "round-heeled," so you must have read the retraction. You can't be so stupid that you couldn't retain the information in your mind. A goldfish has better reading comprehension than that.
Here's what you did. You thought you had a juicy chance to hue and cry at the wickedness of a particularly reviled political opponent. Some of the facts added up to a lovely indictment. Other facts got in the way of your fun. Those facts are nowhere to be seen in your faux-authoritative history.
What I want to know is this: Do you know you're leaving out the parts you don't like? Or, having done it for so long, does your brain filter them out automatically? Not that it matters in the long run. I'm just morbidly curious. Do inconvenient facts reach your conscious awareness?
It's a lot like another lie you people love to tell. It should go without saying, but sadly can't, that there was no real "leering" in Rush's quip. The man was speaking facetiously. Duh. DUH. No leftist villainy is so transparent as when, to maintain a pretense of outrage, you people pretend not to recognize jocularity.
But do you know you're pretending?
On some level, you must know. Contrast this next paragraph with the first I quoted. At first, you pretended not to understand Limbaugh's argument. Here, you admit you understand it, but try to debunk it. There's an old quote about cake that applies here.
Sandra Fluke “goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?” Limbaugh coarsely ranted. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. The johns.”
Isn’t this the last guy who should be pointing fingers and accusing others of taking pills for recreational purposes?
I've read Rush's quote literally ten times. He never mentioned pills, sweetie. Not once. Only to the quote in your imagination was that a witty riposte. The quote you wish he'd said.
I understand you writing something this stupid, but how did it get past your editor? How was this published? Doesn't the New York Times have a reputation to uphold? Of some sort?
How does your career exist?
He said insuring contraception would represent another “welfare entitlement,” which is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would.
As long as I personally am not being stolen from, I ought to have no problem with it? I'm thinking of another quote, this one from Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere else but here is someone else's problem." I know it goes something like that.
And women would not be getting paid just “to have sex.” They’d be getting insurance coverage toward the roughly $1,000 annual expense of trying to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and to control other health conditions. This is something men and conservatives should want too, and not just because those outcomes actually do cost taxpayers money.
All elements of the liberal narrative of this controversy have been discredited (can't stress that enough), but none more than Fluke's $1,000 figure. NRO and Alexa Shrugged, as well as anyone who's managed to pay for their own birth control without first- or third-party theft, have conclusively debunked this nonsense.
For the sake of argument, let's break this down. On average, abortions run about 300 bucks a pop. How many abortions a year can a woman safely have?
I kid. Pardon the pun.
And in what fantasy world do men never buy their own condoms? Same fantasy world where Rush mentioned pills?
He branded the reaction of Limbaugh and some other commentators as “misogynistic, vitriolic and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.” Given this season’s lava spill of hate...
I'm tempted to cite the many, many instances of liberal hypocrisy on this issue. I'd bring up incidents like Olbermann calling Michelle Malkin a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick and Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingram a-- hey, what do you know-- slut, and Montell Williams asking Michelle Bachman to kill herself. But there's no point.
In an essay almost as old as the Constitution itself, my mentor provided the key to all liberal critical thought. Reviewing Al Franken's book The Truth, Robert Laird cracked the code of liberal hypocrisy.
Again, I've kindly chopped up the original adult-length paragraphs into newspaper column size. No need to thank me.
...We have all the pieces spread out before us. Lies are disgusting, revolting, repellent things. Republicans tell long lists of lies, ranging from errors of fact to misinterpretations of complex issues. Their immorality in such matters makes it fair to pile abuse upon their motives, their characters, and even their physical shortcomings and defects.
It is even fair to condemn them for piling abuse of a similar kind upon Democrats and to deliver such condemnations with all the self righteousness one would expect from a writer who has never engaged in such low practices.
Is there some key we can use to unlock the ‘right description’ at the heart of the book? Perhaps there is. At one point Franken pillories Ann Coulter for using end notes rather than footnotes in specifying the charges she makes against Democrats. Is it a coincidence that Franken employs the very same device to document his own charges?
It is not a coincidence. Indeed, all the available evidence points in the same direction. In this book Al Franken is cleaving the world in two, and different standards are to be applied to the two halves. Here is the only ‘right description’ which is consistent with all the content and all the ‘wrongs’ he attacks. The truth is what Democrats and liberals are. Lies are what Republicans and conservatives are.
It is therefore appropriate to demonstrate what Republicans and conservatives are by enumerating instances in which they lie or can be accused of lying. Significantly, it is not appropriate to use documented lies to demonstrate what Democrats and liberals are, because such an exercise is entirely irrelevant to their unassailable definition as truth....
...by the same token, it is perfectly fine and appropriate for Democrats to make the kinds of statements and representations that would be lies if they were uttered by Republicans or conservatives, because everything done or said by Democrats and liberals is fair, by definition, because it is right, since they are truth.
This is how, for example your colleague Paul Krugman can blame general Republican "hate" for the shooting of Gabby Giffords and call for a civility, then only a month later basically call for war against Republicans. It's how blame for the shooting could be laid at Sarah Palin's feet for a graphic that depicted a target on Giffords' district, while almost identical MoveOn and Daily Kos graphics received no criticism at all from the left.
And it's why, in the liberal mind, no abuse is out of bounds when aimed at conservative women.
Every right-leaning outlet took great pains to document the hypocrisy at play, as though it would spark some shame or even recognition in the left. I took some of those pains myself. And liberal self-regard didn't take a single dent.
But a lack of conscience is, at bottom, a lack of awareness. That's your weakness.
We not only know what you do, but how you do it, and why you do it. We not only know that you're sick, but how you're sick.
We know where you can't bear to look. That's where we'll be. That's where we'll strike.
I'm telling you this because it won't do you any good. Your politics are purely a function of fashion. They are accoutrement, no different than a necklace or an arm full of gold bracelets. To perceive any more of the real world than you do now would require dangerous critical self-reflection, as well as a focus on the external would that would take away time from contemplating all the great things about Maureen Dowd.
In closing, I'd like to point out that you are very old and physically unappealing, and that your twat flaps like the mouth of a balloon when you let it go without tying it, and everyone knows it.
Cheap and vulgar? You bet your wrinkled old ass. But I'll never be so cheap and so vulgar that I try to hide my cheapness or my vulgarity.
Sincerely, go fuck yourself.
P.S. Tell you what. You stop acting like a stupid bitch, I'll stop calling you a stupid bitch. Happily.
But I'm not waiting by the phone for that call.