by westwood
The news angers me, most days. Hence I return to it morning after morning, a junkie looking for my daily fix of righteous indignation, followed by quiet fuming until placated by orange pekoe. Most days, I get over it. Some days, I take action in pursuit of change. The last few days, I’ve just stayed angry. Really angry.
Have you heard the whole U.S. contraception debacle? Let me break it down for you.
1. Obama introduces a bill to the Senate whereby religiously-based health care providers would have to cover the cost of prescription contraception for women.
2. The Senate’s Republican majority brings a panel to weigh in on the situation. Just look at how qualified this panel is to discuss women’s reproductive rights!

Image Credit: ABC News
Who are they? All-male religious figures, that’s who (scientists and doctors and women need not apply. Especially if women somehow are scientists and doctors… that’s just crazy).
3. The Democrats brought in a law student, Sandra Fluke, to testify about a friend who lost an ovary due to the inability to have prescription birth control covered (she had polycystic ovary syndrome). The Republicans decided she ‘wasn’t qualified‘ and barred her from testifying. Many Democrat women walked out.
4. The bill was narrowly defeated (51-48). Insurers remain the right to refuse to cover contraception.
The Icing On the Cake: Republican radio personality pundit idiot moron Rush Limbaugh blasts Fluke on his show (don’t read these quotes if you don’t want to turn purple and fume). His words:
“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? 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.“
The next day (because clearly that wasn’t enough), he spouted, “so Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Pardon me while I go vomit in my teacup. Again.
On a kind of sad and hilarious note, Rachel Maddow pointed out that Limbaugh probably doesn’t actually understand what birth control is, because his remarks indicate that he thinks a woman needs to take a birth control pill to avoid pregnancy after every (heterosexual) romp. Watch her do her thang here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
So what does all this mean? There’s good news, and there’s bad news.
The Good News: Limbaugh might actually have screwed himself over this time. He’s lost advertisers and actually had to issue an ‘apology’, which is a rarity for him. The average person will be outraged by his asinine and offensive remarks, and it may spark some healthy debate around the issue and perhaps make a few folks do something about it.
The Bad News. I originally wanted to argue that Limbaugh’s words constituted hate speech, and that he could be taken down on this basis, but unfortunately the structure of the legal system exempts what he’s done from formal consideration as hate speech (thanks Em. for being my consult on this). To qualify as hate speech, it must be both hateful and harmful. It is definitely hateful, but is it harmful? A court likely wouldn’t see it at such, given that his listenership isn’t wide enough and one would have to make the case that his words were against women in general rather than one specific woman.
However, I do think what he said is harmful as well as hateful. What’s the danger in his rant? The danger is that a few sicko whacked out dudes will hear his words and feel validated. They won’t understand that he is exaggerating for the effect of controversy and ratings. They wont realize that his outrageous statements are mostly an act designed to inflame. They will simply feel reinforced in their misguided beliefs about how contraception is for ‘slutty’ women only, and that it’s okay to say such terrible things about women (or people, for that matter). This is why as responsible citizens we need to demand that Limbaugh and people like him be pulled from public forum, no matter how well their controversy generates ratings. It’s words like his, and people like him, that make people with seriously messed up views think that it is okay to retain to those views… and to act on them, with disastrous consequences.
Filed under: conservatism, politics | 11 Comments
Tags: contraception, democrat, GOP, Obama, politics, pundit, reproductive rights, republican, rush limbaugh, sanda fluke, senate
Occupy Valentine’s Day!
by westwood
First, a Valentine’s Day present for you (and me). CPB is joining us as our in-house illustrator. Please let the joyous gyrating begin. CPB is a lovely, talented individual who is capable of arranging lines in a fashion more pleasing than randomness (and we are lucky to have her).
So, let’s proceed to the meat of this fleshy red day, shall we?
What is Occupy Valentine’s Day? It has nothing to do with the formal Occupy, and there will be no delicious chocolate occu-pies, and definitely no recitations of occu-pi to the 137th decimal place.
On Occupy Valentine’s Day, it’s about bringing down the man. Specifically, this man:
OV-Day (which to me seems an awkward combination of ‘Ovechkin” and ‘Venereal Disease’) was started by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, who has a track record of being fantastic. She, and the OV-Day supporters, bring their ire for two reasons in particular.
1. Valentine’s Day purports to celebrate love, but only places value on certain kinds of relationships. Those that are
- committed
- heterosexual
- exclusive
- permanent-leaning
Honestly, if you can’t see the logical problems in there already, then your very presence is facepalm inducing. The quick logic of it is that V-day’s main value is love, but there is nothing in definitions of what love is or means between people that includes any of those listed caveats (especially buying shit). If you aren’t yet convinced that V-day is a bit of a crock, then lets see what the facts say.
- The average Canadian male spends $138 on a V-day gift. The average Spanish man spends $239.
- Young adult couples are more likely to break up on or around V-day than other times of the year.
- Approximately 1 billion greeting cards are sent out each V-day (I shudder to think at the trees that died so some bozo could put ‘You are my honeybear’ on a piece of paper).
- The overwhelming response by men, when asked about their motives for gift-giving, was obligation
- Scientists report the holiday as “fostering materialism, togetherness, and gender roles.” Take that however you will.
I think that about settles it for me. And I’m not alone. There is a long history of anti-consumerism and alternative consumerism rallying around this day. Ultimately, as the scientists say, it is merely a day “worthy of study due to the unique consumption, gift/card exchange, grooming, dating, and romance-based consumer behaviors associated with this holiday.”
Lets make it more than that. Lets make it about love, like it ought to be, and show someone that you care (which hopefully you do the other 364 days a year as well). But not with stuff, and by golly, not with a paper card. Trees need their lives more than your shnookums needs your throwaway chicken-scratch love notes.
So what will you do/did you do for V-day or OV-Day? Did you spend a pile of money and then break up with your sweetie, or did you take Mukhopahyay’s suggestion and “Have a sexy conversation by candlelight with your partner about structural inequity?”. I sure hope it was the latter.
Filed under: critical thinking, logic | 8 Comments
Tags: cupid, feminist, gifts, mukopahyay, occupy, romance, valentine's day
Getting faithful about science
by westwood
You’ve heard of theism, atheism, polytheism, monotheism, whatevertheism. But have you heard about scientism? It’s time to learn a few things about it, because the chances are pretty high that if you live in the Western world and subscribe to principles of logic, you might subscribe to it. I know I did.
So, what the heck is scientism?
Simply put, it is the view that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. All knowledge is that which can be measured and counted. All that which we know can be tested by the scientific method.
Sounds decent, right?
I thought so too, until on closer inspection it is revealed… not so much.
Scientism is actually self-refuting.
How, exactly?
I mean, after all, it seems rational and reasonable that the only things that are real are that which can be measured, observed, counted. The supernatural, which cannot be observed scientifically, is not real. And there are some great logical claims to support that.
The inherent problem with scientism is the claim of scientism itself. After all, the claim that all knowledge can only be acquired by science isn’t a scientific claim. It is self-refuting.
The idea that everything can be measured isn’t a claim that can be tested scientifically. Science presupposes that that there is an objective physical world, and the things in it can be explained through the use of human intellect. To argue for these presuppositions using science is circular.
What the heck should we do, then? Turn to religion, or spirituality? Well, while scientific has one logical problem, appealing the unprovable and supernatural has many, many more.
We turn to philosophy. Rational inquiry doesn’t depend on science, but science is a form of rational inquiry. After all, there is a reason that the first scientists were called natural philosophers. There’s a reason that those who earn a PhD are awarded a doctor of philosophy. The thinking of the natural philosopher is something we need to bring back, and give some weight to. No, I’m not talking about pot-smoking hippies. There’s something to be said for using logical deduction rather than waiting for funded studies to prove things we already know.
(this post featuring hyperboleandahalf for all sorts of awesome!)
Filed under: logic, science | 8 Comments
Tags: atheism, circular, logic, philosophy, scientism, self-refuting, theism






