Bill Maher on Rush Limbaugh, Freedom of Speech, and Misogyny

Last week the right wing spent a lot of time claiming that there was a double standard according to which conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who say offensive things get excoriated in the media, whereas liberals like Bill Maher get a free pass.

Maher himself also tweeted that people should drop the pressure to get Limbaugh thrown off the air after he apologized. Maher lost his nightly network TV show Politically Incorrect in 2001 for agreeing with Dinesh Desouza that, contrary to George W. Bush’s claims, the 9/11 terrorists had not acted in a cowardly manner. He said,

We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right.

Burned as he was by the attacks on his sponsors over this bit of controversial honesty about his opinion, which was a fair enough viewpoint (even if wrong) that he should have had the right to express without hysteria, it is understandable he is leery of attempts to police discourse through people’s sponsors over disagreements, as a general rule. But I think there is more to be said about the issue. Here was his response to this week’s controversy on his show Real Time With Bill Maher, followed by my responses to his points:

First, Rush did more than make a bad joke, he made deep, sustained, potentially slanderous character assaults and lied repeatedly about the nature of Fluke’s testimony. He tried to bully and slut-shame all sexually active women in the country who are on contraception. In a disgracefully sexist double standard he conspicuously disparaged no men in the process. He degraded a young woman for defending her fellow students’ rights to medical necessities to be provided in their health care. He was an arm of a callous and cruel right wing patriarchal moralism that first has fought tooth and claw to keep in place a health care system where people are dependent on their employers for their health care plans, and now is vociferously fighting for right wing employers’ rights to use that leverage over their employees to dictate their private sexual behavior (or at least over whether they get pregnant from it).

Limbaugh’s cracks to the effect that “if Ms. Fluke and the Georgetown women want us to pay for their contraception, we want to see the videos” are expressing not the alleged absurdity of “the government paying for people’s recreational sex” as Limbaugh claims. Rather what Limbaugh was expressing and embodying was this disgusting attitude that if you take our money, you sacrifice your dignity and may as well be a slave.

Fluke was talking about coverage of employee or student health plans. Those are earned by employees or students either by their labor or by their scholarship. For women to have to go through employers who take a slaver’s attitude that decides whether you can get what you medically need after you have earned it based on whether they want to pay for it, is disgusting. Essentially Limbaugh’s jokes about forcing the women to make videos in exchange for contraception coverage elides the fact that women earn that coverage and the government is only trying to protect their equal access to what they medically need being given to them once they have earned it.

So what Limbaugh did was way more than make a bad joke. He expressed a morally abusive and denigrating ideology and did so in a way, using epithets, which was designed to simultaneously morally bully and shame any women who dissent from that harmful morality regime–even when their testimony does not bother to defend their sexual freedom or reproductive rights themselves but merely to emphasize the other medical necessities birth control aids with. He tried to whip up moral disgust against women who want the health coverage they earned and who want equal access to the health care they need that men get for Viagra. He tried to whip up feelings of moral superiority and reinforce the sense of entitlement of the owner class in this society that looks at everyone who receives from them either employment or entitlements through their tax payments as essentially a slave with no autonomy or dignity because of their dependency.

This is cultural moral warfare. Limbaugh was trying to enforce a cruel and abusive morality. He was not just expressing ideas. He was imposing them on Fluke and all women like her by using words and taunts that tried to strip them of their dignity and disqualify their ideas. He was trying to make it impossible for them to stand up for themselves. He was trying to send the message to them they will be grossly mischaracterized and disparaged for daring to assert their rights either to their health or to their sexual liberty. He is trying to control their behavior.

It is return cultural moral warfare for such women to try to control his behavior and silence the speech that has for centuries been used to silence and legally control them. They have every right to use their own free speech to try to silence someone who uses his speech to try to silence them and strip them of their very rights to health and unencumbered sexual happiness. Especially when he does so in such a piggishly sexist way. They have every right to send the message to all men that we will not get away with the use of such bullying language and taunts with no social or career consequences.

Ideas have power. They can be tools of oppression. In America we have the rights to express whatever ideas we like. No one is advocating for legal action against Limbaugh—except maybe for slander, which may be legally appropriate under the circumstances. Those laws do exist to prevent such false character assassinations that harm private citizens.

But we also retain the moral right to make people pariahs for disparaging and taunting black people with the n word. And it’s by doing that that we take moral control of the public discourse away from the racists.

It is long fucking overdue that someone take moral control of the public discourse away from the sexists who regularly create hostile environments that effectively exclude and intimidate away women’s voices. Part of preserving genuine freedom of speech in practice is using private means of ensuring a climate of at least minimal respect and decency, and pushing back with full moral force against those who try to bully an anti-egalitarian and degrading archaic morality onto vulnerable groups using hate speech. And the word “slut” is hate speech. So is cunt—at least as used by an American or towards an American woman by someone who understands the nastiness of the word in our cultural context.

You want to argue for viewpoints you think are true and I think are sexist or racist. Okay, I can respect that. We can disagree. But throwing around the “n” word or calling women “sluts”, “cunts”, or “prostitutes”, and demanding they give you sex tapes in return for the health care they earn from their employers is not discourse, it’s moral bullying. And we don’t need to stand for it without morally pushing back and asserting our more humane standards which demand inclusion of people of all kinds—including the long disparaged female half of the population.

No one is taking away any one else’s freedom of speech. But having a big microphone in this country comes with at least some moral responsibilities, like that you not use it to cudgel vulnerable and routinely slandered groups with moral impunity. No one is taking away Limbaugh’s legal rights. We’re fighting for a climate defined by egalitarian morality rather than the old school double-standard based, sex-repressing, slut-shaming, woman-silencing, religion-revering moralities Limbaugh is embodying as an astounding, repugnant self-caricature.

BUT. All that said. I am worried that the advertisers are getting the wrong message and fleeing Limbaugh for the wrong reason. Rather than learning that what they should specifically never support is degrading language (and taunts) towards women (or other groups), which is directly comparable to using the “n” word for demeaning and excluding blacks, advertisers are instead asking to be pulled from content which is “controversial” and “likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public”.

They should not avoid supporting controversial speech altogether. Controversial speech which stirs negative sentiments among “a very small percentage of the listening public” is in itself a good thing that advertisers should stand up for out of the moral principle of free speech. Exclusionary, bullying speech which degrades half the population and on that account alone rightly offends at least half of the population was the problem with Limbaugh.

Unfortunately, hitting advertisers in their pocketbook only encourages them to continue thinking with their pocketbook and does not teach them to make moral discriminations. Therefore, fear for their pocketbook means they are more likely to defund minority controversial viewpoints that deserve public airing and more likely to cave to moralistic minorities who have no legitimate grievance except that others disagree with them. This is indeed a problematic unintended consequence.

Moving on: Bill is not a just a “potty mouth”, he is a misogynist. He constantly trades in denigrating stereotypes towards women and uses words that are not merely “dirty” (which would be fine) or harsh criticisms of women which are merely fact based and fair, but he uses words like “cunt” and “twat” which are equivalent words for women what the “n” word is for blacks.

I admit to being a bit sympathetic but ultimately not convinced by his appeal to his status as a comic. I do grant comedians (like satirists) much greater latitude to be the national court jesters who may offend all equally—as long as their routines are not rooted in abusive hostility to the groups skewered or perpetuate injustices against them. I see satire as a valuable vehicle for truth and I think that coming from comedians who aren’t mean-spirited or socially clueless, they are impersonal enough to be inoffensive. Coming between friends with an established mutual respect and no malice between them, otherwise offensive jokes can also be totally copacetic. And to an extent Maher is right that the proof that it’s all in fun is that the jokes make people laugh rather than call for the comedian’s head.

But Maher’s takedowns of women are consistent with his dubious actual adversarial conception of relations between men and women. His actual thinking about them can genuinely be analyzed for misogyny quite apart from a word choice or two. And the choices of the words “cunt” and “twat” for attacking women, even in stand up, are as out of place as resorting to the “n” word would be in almost any context that a white comic might take recourse to it. It’s the word choice that expresses hostility to women themselves.

When he says,

But if I offended women I’m sorry, I have no problem saying I’m sorry. I don’t know why women would want to ally themselves with Sarah Palin, I don’t know why an insult to her is an insult to all women, but if it is I’m sorry.

This is a notpology (and not the good kind). This is like saying that if you selectively call one black political figure that is disreputable the “n” word all black people shouldn’t be offended because they shouldn’t have wanted to be associated with that guy anyway. It doesn’t fly.

Relatedly, I have in the past written on the general moral rightness and wrongness of taking offense and talked about why Limbaugh’s language matters in the posts in the posts Moral Offense is Not Morally Neutral and Why Misogynistic Language Matters. I also discussed why, as someone who grew up an evangelical Christian, I am distinctly disgusted and disillusioned by the silence (and support) for Rush by evangelical leaders. Finally, and possibly most importantly, in my post How Atheist Reddit Doesn’t Get It, I explained in more detail how curtailing hate speech through private means (not repressive legal ones) helps free speech flourish by including more speakers and not letting the bullies who create a hostile environment exclude them.

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • magistramarla

    I’m a middle-aged woman, have been a liberal feminist all my life, and I happen to be a big fan of Bill Maher. My husband and I finish our dinner quickly and then sit down with drinks to laugh our way through Real Time every Friday evening.

    Bill is an equal-opportunity insulter. He manages to see everything from an odd angle that makes me laugh. I don’t always agree with him, but I usually do. I get the feeling that he strongly believes in equal rights for women, and has a certain amount of respect for most women. However, he isn’t afraid to skewer those women who are voting and working against their own interests, like Sarah Palin. Frankly, I call her a cunt myself!

    I also get the feeling that Bill has never found love and is a bit afraid of falling in love with a woman. For that, I feel a bit sorry for him. I will continue to support and enjoy his show. I love the lively debate and the truths that he exposes. His show is the major reason that we pay for HBO.

    • John Morales

      However, he isn’t afraid to skewer those women who are voting and working against their own interests, like Sarah Palin. Frankly, I call her a cunt myself!

      So, you have one but you aren’t one and Sarah not only has one, but is one?

      (Obviously, you think it’s a bad thing to be a cunt.

      (Must be even nicer not to have one, eh?))

      PS I take it you meant “Frankly, I myself call her a cunt!”, since calling her “a cunt myself” seems rather odd.

    • http://aratina.blogspot.com Aratina Cage

      I take it you meant “Frankly, I myself call her a cunt!”, since calling her “a cunt myself” seems rather odd.

      No, John, I don’t think so. There is nothing odd at all about putting “myself” at the end.

      But here’s the thing about that statement: magistramarla can call herself any damn thing she wants, but that doesn’t make her a liberal or a feminist. I’d like to know how one rationalizes their self-ascribed liberalism or feminism with their referring to Sarah Palin as a cunt. I think doing that kind of negates any pretensions of liberalism or feminism one might have for oneself.

    • julian

      I get the feeling that he strongly believes in equal rights for women, and has a certain amount of respect for most women.

      There has to be a Disingenuous Liberals for this.

      I’d like to know how one rationalizes their self-ascribed liberalism or feminism with their referring to Sarah Palin as a cunt.

      Probably the same way one can call themselves trans-friendly and belittle Ann Coulter for looking like a man and being a tranny.

    • http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com Bret

      Ann Coulter is clearly not a “tranny.” Most male-to-female transexuals would never leave the house looking that mannish.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Bret, please refrain from borderline transphobic humor. It does more to reinforce the marginalization of trans people than it will ever do to generate laughs.

      (I know, I know, more stick in the mud restrictions on your speech. You will actually be forced to use your imagination and come up with humor that does not rely on pot shots at vulnerable targets—what a drag!)

      Seriously, I’ve read you enough to know you can be funny without perpetuating bad memes. Do it.

    • Adam Hayes

      Denigrating and demeaning women is NOT the same as denigrating and demeaning men. In a patriarchal sexist society like ours, attacking women is far more harmful than attacking men.

    • julian

      Ann Coulter is clearly not a “tranny.” Most male-to-female transexuals would never leave the house looking that mannish.

      No wonder you’re defending Bill Maher. You’re not funny and there’s more callousness than concern or insight in your commentary.

    • Mark

      too much political correctness can be a negative. i hope magistramarla hasn’t been driven away. i see too many people coming to ftb, some with confused sympathy being viciously knocked down. if a child makes a mistake don’t slap, punch and then kick them when they hit the floor. you’ll ruin their efforts to fit in. it was totally appropriate for magistramarla to call sarah palin a cunt. sarah is nothing more than a sexual object used as bait to lure the old white misogynist dicks to vote the way they’re supposed to.

  • Physicalist

    Spot on, and very well said. Thanks for articulating what should be obvious, but clearly to many is not.

  • http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com Bret

    Thank god for the word police… without them, people might actually focus on ideas over vocabulary. Truly the world will be saved by semantics.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      I’ve already answered you. Why Misogynistic Language Matters. Either show me where I’m wrong or stop hiding behind pot shot words like “word police”.

    • julian

      I’m certain your heroism in the face of such terrible censorship will be celebrated in generations to come.

    • http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com Bret

      Yes, I read that post and commented on it and I still think this stance is bullshit. There are 99 reasons to hate Rush Limbaugh, but the word “bitch” ain’t one.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      It’s not the words it’s what they do.

    • http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com Bret

      If you say so, I guess I’ll believe you. I just don’t get the message of “it’s his views, not his words” from the words of you or most liberals I read on the matter.

      Still no outrage about him suggesting women have to videotape themselves having sex? That’s less offensive than using the word “slut” or “whore?” Oh right, that would require actually knowing what he said…

      I get the feeling people who criticize him on this matter may not even know what he said, given how they talk about it. They’re sort of swinging blindly at a big, fat, cigar chomping pinata, and while it’s an easy target (and I would argue a justified one), I see what seems to be very lazy and ill-informed commentary on the matter (which just gives fuel to conservatives, who are right in saying the left is only focused on word-policing).

      The next time this sort of thing happens (and we all know it will), the target might not be so deserving as Rush, though I expect the outrage will be equally as knee-jerk. Is that the legacy liberals want?

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Bret, you have some serious reading comprehension problems if you didn’t see that I situated Limbaugh’s uses of the words slut and prostitute within the overall meaning and ideological expression and institutional context in which they occurred. I mean did you see where I analyzed in detail “how the videotape your sex” bit tried to express and reinforce a horrible logic of patriarchal/owner class power in this country? Did you see the part where I said that Maher’s use of “cunt” and “twat” were problematic not because they were magic words but because they fit broader misogynistic patterns of thought he routinely expresses and because I have a hard time seeing those words used in good will?

      Keep mischaracterizing this as a matter of words over substance and ignoring all the analysis I’ve done about the functions the words play as part of the broader “cultural moral warfare” and pretend I’m picking on someone for word selections and not how their uses of epithets performatively do the bullying of archaic moralists. It only shows you don’t know how to read.

  • John Morales

    This is like saying that if you selectively call one black political figure that is disreputable the “n” word all black people shouldn’t be offended because they shouldn’t have wanted to be associated with that guy anyway.

    Nigger.

    The word to which you allude is “nigger”, and may I say I’m disappointed at your mealymouthedness.

    (Sheesh! Did you make the aversion sign to the evil eye when you wrote that, too?)

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      I’m not mealymouthed. I just figure there’s no reason to use it when a suitable allusion to it will do the job. I don’t think any black person who does not want to see it should ever see it from a white guy—even one who has a nice legitimate excuse to use it given that he is making substantive arguments and treating it as an ugliness, etc.

      What does it add except boldness points about how I’m willing to face the word straight on because I’m such a free speech guy and this is an acceptable context. Nah. I’ll pass. I don’t mince the words that matter. I’m not mealymouthed about ideas or judgments.

    • John Morales

      I don’t think any black person who does not want to see it should ever see it from a white guy—even one who has a nice legitimate excuse to use it given that he is making substantive arguments and treating it as an ugliness, etc.

      So, you buy into the idea of collective guilt?

      (A short step from there to punishment by proxy)

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      So, you buy into the idea of collective guilt?

      No, not in the sense you mean it anyway. I’m not guilty of slavery. The “N” word is just even today a form of verbal violence when wielded against blacks. And for many black people, according to what I have heard them say, it is upsetting to hear it in any context because it has associations from their lives which are painful and demeaning. I’m not going to say no white person should ever use it. South Park did an episode on white people who use the N word and become media sensations which was poignant and hilarious and good for the public discourse about race. And as part of the episode I understand their coarse satirist’s role required going ahead and using the word for that episode. It was part of how the episode worked best. Blacks who may not have been able to stomach it could skip it.

      But is it really important I take recourse to spelling out the word when discussing it academically just because I can? Would it have added anything necessary to readers’ comprehension of my point, either cognitively or emotionally? And if it would would it be of greater value than sensitivity to those black people who never want to hear the word, especially from a white person? I would rather come down on the side of not being the white guy who decides for black people when “they shouldn’t be so sensitive” and be as cautious as possible.

    • http://aratina.blogspot.com Aratina Cage

      John, you might want to take a look at an example of the kind of person who prefers to spell out that word regardless of anyone else’s feelings: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptics/2012/03/10/why-im-marching-against-religious-patriarchs-and-woman-hating-pornographers-this-saturday/#comment-3229

      When it’s still being employed frequently as a term of violence, there is nothing mealymouthed about indirectly referencing it.

    • Nepenthe

      Daniel, why do you say “the N word” but not “the C word” if they are equivalent?

    • John Morales

      So, you maintain a personal Index Verbum Prohibitorum?

      (Such power, words have!)

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Daniel, why do you say “the N word” but not “the C word” if they are equivalent?

      I felt like since its objectionability was in question and Maher’s culpability in resorting to use the word was being assessed, I wanted the full ugly force of the word to be there for readers. I didn’t want to sugarcoat the nastiness of what he said when arguing he should take it back. There was no comparable reason to spell out the “N” word.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      So, you maintain a personal Index Verbum Prohibitorum?

      (Such power, words have!)

      Of course words have power. Even children understand this (profoundly). Only culpably anti-social people pretend not to understand this.

    • khms

      Well …

      Ideas clearly have power. And words are used to communicate ideas. So obviously words have power indirectly.

      Also, if someone is traumatized, lots of usually harmless things can become triggers, and obviously words are not exempt from this.

      On the other hand, it doesn’t happen for everyone. There are quite a number of words closely associated with seriously bad memories for me, but they only trigger those memories in relevant context, not always. Maybe it’s because I wasn’t traumatized enough, or maybe it is just that different people react differently – like the fact that some mistreated people react by mistreating others when they finally can, whereas others tend in the opposite direction. I guess I’m just lucky that way.

      People are complicated, and different – sometimes very different.

      What I doubt is that just changing words can make firmly and widely held bad ideas go away. People are too good at just changing to new words to communicate the same old ideas. And incidentally, when you can force people to change words, you’ve already successfully started to attack the ideas themselves – otherwise, why would they even listen to you? So, just keep attacking the idea, and language will follow even absent campaigns to change it, once people no longer want to communicate those bad ideas.

      It doesn’t matter, when a WASP makes a joke about this particular minority, if they use “the N word”, or say blacks, or Negros, or coloreds, or African Americans – what matters is the joke itself, and who is telling it, and the associated nudge, nudge, wink, wink. The ideas communicated. That is what needs to stop.

      Look at Rush’s notpology. He can communicate his abusive ideas just fine without using those particular words. The words aren’t the problem, they’re just a symptom of the problem.

      So – when you’re around traumatized people, watch your language for triggers, whatever they happen to be in that case. But when trying to fix society, I strongly suspect fighting words is wasted energy – fight the ideas the words are used to communicate. It’s the ideas that do the actual damage.

  • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

    I’ll just comment here that if your other posts had been as clear as this one, there wouldn’t have been an issue and I wouldn’t have commented, which wouldn’t have required your other post with the almost 200 comments on it now [grin]. The only nitpick would be if Limbaugh really did mean what you say he meant (ie the idea of slavery as opposed to pointing out what it means to get others to pay you to have sex) but if that was the implied idea you were against, then that’s fine.

    So in this paragraph:

    You want to argue for viewpoints you think are true and I think are sexist or racist. Okay, I can respect that. We can disagree. But throwing around the “n” word or calling women “sluts”, “cunts”, or “prostitutes”, and demanding they give you sex tapes in return for the health care they earn from their employers is not discourse, it’s moral bullying. And we don’t need to stand for it without morally pushing back and asserting our more humane standards which demand inclusion of people of all kinds—including the long disparaged female half of the population.

    My whole point was against the idea that you need not respect viewpoints or persons that you strongly disagree with. If you accept that — as you say in the first two sentences — then we’re okay, at least from my perspective. And I’m all for more humane and respectful standards as long as we apply them consistently across the board. With your criticism of Maher here, you seem to, but some others are not as consistent as you are.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Glad to hear we can see eye to eye here. Does this mean you’re willing to drop your claim to have a right to call women sluts?

      And, yes, with the “Rush is endorsing a de facto slavers’ mentality” stuff I was talking about the implications of the logic of his position. He was putting it in terms of “let’s exploit these women coming to us as taxpayers” and I was pointing out it’s of apiece with an attitude that also is prevalent and perverse in business attitudes as well as tax contexts. It was an “owner class consciousness” that Limbaugh was typifying. I don’t think he’d articulate it or maybe even grasp the thread himself.

    • http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com Bret

      Why would anyone want to avoid a post that got almost 200 comments?

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Why would anyone want to avoid a post that got almost 200 comments?

      Because I’m crunched for time working 6 jobs as I do. And while there is a lot of terrific insight in what I’ve seen so far there is also a whole lot of redundancy. And I feel strong pressure to reply to counter-arguments on my site and VS has left dozens to parse. (Though of what I’ve seen, I’m happy to consider him answered by other commenters’ replies to him for the most part as I think they’re sufficient.)

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      Dan,

      I never made that claim, so there’s nothing to drop. I’m willing to concede that starting the discussion in the context of using that word was a mistake and I should have been far more clear in focusing on the specific idea, and not the word. So, as long as you accept that using the word itself was not my main intent, I think we’re probably okay.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Okay.

  • Michael V. Caldwell

    FIRST OFF, I ABSOLUTELY DO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY & DUTY OF ANY PUBLIC FIGURE IN AMERICA TO FIND WAYS TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, WHEN DOING IT PUBLICLY, ESPECIALLY NOW DAYS WITH SO MANY COMMUNICATION LINKS.. “OUR WORDS IMPACT THE WORLD”

    “It’s Up To All AMERICAN’S TO LEAD BY GOOD EXAMPLE” All of us make choices everyday that have a Major Impact on Our Country on Our World on Ourselves,on Our Children & Their Children. Our Children and Grandchildren, are always watching us to see how we treat each other when we have a disagreement. “FIVE LOST WORDS IN AMERICA”That, NEED TO BE FOUND AGAIN when disagreeing with each other Especially Publicly & Especially with anyone who is choosing to be “Part Of The Solution” by Using Common Sense, Ameri-Can-Do Attitude and Respect as their “Guideline To Follow At All Times” These Five Words that need to found again and used when disagreeing with with each other are; “I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOU” Each of us can choose to be “Part of the Problem” or to be “Part of the Solution” this choice is up to each individual to make in our daily lives by the words we choose to use and by our attitudes. “PART OF THE PROBLEM” Disrespectful Words & Attitudes that hurt Ourselves & Others, Lack of Team Work, Constant Criticism instead of offering Solutions to the Problem at hand.
    “PART OF THE SOLUTION”
    Mutual Respect, Ameri-Can Do Attitude, Team Work & Suggesting New Ideas That Solve Our Problems As A Respectful Nation, That Leads Our World, Our Next Generation By Good Example Not By Bad Example.

    What ever Choices that each of us choose Impact “OUR CHILDREN, OUR GENERATION, THE NEXT GENERATION & OUR WORLD ! !
    I choose to be “Part of the Solution” always trying my best to use Respect as my Guideline to follow at “All Times Publicly” it’s not an easy Choice to make at times but it is; THE RIGHT CHOICE TO MAKE FOR AMERICA & for “OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE” Respectfully, Michael V. Caldwell Who Is Always Striving to be “Part Of The Solution” Using Respect, Common Sense & Ameri-Can-Do Attitude as my Guidelines to follow at all Times, Especially Publicly Because Public Comments “Impact So Many Lives”

  • Dan L.

    Sometimes I wonder if Bill Maher is like a right wing version of Stephen Colbert, only in Maher’s case absolutely no one gets the joke.

  • cyberkatru

    I don’t agree with the assesment of Bill Maher. It is a long story to explain why the N-word came to be a word one just cannot say. I am happy with it’s status as such but I don’t want to see the list of unspeakable words grow, especially if they are essentially just potty words. The C-word, is not the equivalent of the N-word at all and I could spend pages explaining why but it should be obvious. The C-Word closer the analogue of A-hole or “dick” though perhaps a little harsher. Why the word m8ther f***er should be considered less offensive is really quite mysterious as well. And yet, you will hear the latter dozens of times in comedy acts, R-rated movies, and jovial conversation especially in certain hip hop type ethnic circles (sometimes in front of kids in my experience). The C-word does not directly attack a gender as such in the same way that the N-word attacks a race (just as the “D” word does not attack a gender). It just doesn’t and mavens of political correctness don’t get to simply declare it such. Some words are just in bad taste but context is everything. Let’s not start attacking comedians because the PC types have a new word they want to put on the list of words that can NEVER be used.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X