This week, we had two salacious stories of outrage from the left:
One, about a Wall Street guy, Andrew Schiff, who “whined” about the difficulties of living on $350k/year in New York City:
Some Wall Streeters facing tough times on just $350,000 a year (MSNBC.com)
”Forget the one per cent. These guys are the WHINE per cent.” (DailyMail UK)
Wall Street Bonus Withdrawal Means Trading Aspen for Coupons (Bloomberg)
Obviously, it was reported with eye-rolling sarcasm by every news outlet. From The Atlantic’s, “The Poor Lives of Rich People”:
If one thing is clear about rich people, it’s not that their lives are any easier than the rest of ours. In fact, if anything, it’s hard to have money. Really hard.
Some reaction, in the comment section of Washington Post’s Smaller bonus checks lead to Wall Street whining:
Go F**K yourself. You are a crook. The fact that you make that much money from trading money is criminal. -Realist7598462
Speculators are leeches on society. The blood of untold Americans…is on their hands. They are immoral…I am a past county chair for the Democratic Party… -thelightofthenorthstarcom
These guys should have been arrested years ago and made to do at a minimum five years hard labor in Siberia. -sthomas1957
One of the big scoff-worthy lines from Schiff was “I don’t have a dishwasher.” That was met with disdain on the same comment board:
We have no dishwasher. And somehow we don’t feel deprived. -roblimo
I have a dishwasher but wash my dishes by hand anyway as it isn;t a big deal. Perhaps the little princess Schiff should get his hands wet and see what it feels like to do even a trivial amount of manual labor. -thevinman1
I was overcome with both tears and rage when I read he had no dishwasher.No dishwasher! -R49Thomas
Okay, sure. No one wants to hear someone making more money than them complain about financial hardships.
Actually, that’s not true for liberals. They are hypocrites here. They HATE when a mean Wall Street banker complains about money, but they LOVE it when a well-heeled liberal does the same thing.
To illustrate, let’s go to the week’s other source of outrage: Rush Limbaugh calling “free” birth control supporter, Sandra Fluke, a “slut.”
Personally, I don’t agree with him. I also don’t think that word has much meaning in a world where it’s considered “odd” not having been in a threesome by age 15. But, regardless, it set off a firestorm!
And, even though the internet exploded in indignation at Andrew Schiff’s befuddlement over not having a dishwasher, everyone rallied to the aid of Sandra Fluke - hell, she’s a hero!
…And she’s just as ridiculous as Schiff! Let’s read some of her congressional testimony (PDF):
My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law… I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan…On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage…Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
Reading her testimony, you’d think her class photo was taken by Dorothea Lange. She’s a student at Georgetown University! Their Law School! She’s basically studying how to make money! And yet, feels “powerless” to overcome the “burden” of paying ”about $15–$50 each month for recreational sex. Especially hard, I guess, since she also has to scrounge up $141,000 for tuition.
It’s enough for me to not only want free birth control, but to make it mandatory for the entire population.
Still, Rush Limbaugh shouldn’t have called her a slut. And there’s an argument to be made that religious institutions should be required to provide insurance plans covering contraception. But who is to say Andrew Schiff shouldn’t have a dishwasher? Fluke’s still making a mockery out of REAL suffering. I envision a dickensian female law student telling a guy, in a heavy cockney accent, “Sorry, gov’na, might you have a condom? I know it ain’t as good, but me pills ran out.”
Thank you, Sandra, for exposing the hardships of the elite law school student. Who knew the “huddled masses” had a median private sector starting salary of $160,000?
It’s hilarious how differently the two get treated because of their politics. They’re both ridiculous! Yet, Schiff is the devil-incarnate while President Obama is calling Sandra Fluke to offer his support (and, given her stance on birth control, it’s only a matter of time before Bill Clinton follows suit).
Here’s an intellectual exercise for you: what would the media response have been if, instead of a dishwasher, Wall Streeter Andrew Schiff had complained he couldn’t afford contraception?
Saying “dishwasher” instead of “birth control” is the only reason he wasn’t offered a show on MSNBC. (Although, I hear if you have sex in a dishwasher, you can’t get pregnant.)
I don’t listen to Limbaugh, but he ruined any good criticism of Fluke with his insults. And there’s plenty to criticize. She’s demogoguing this whole issue. Take her closing remarks, for instance:
We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
If the “insurance students pay for” is ”completely unsubsidized by the university” then what - the fuck - is this issue about? There’s no rule saying she has to buy the university plan. If it’s unsubsidized, then she’s paying market rates for individual coverage. If she’s already paying market rates, then she should call providers and find a plan covering contraception. If that plan costs more, she may have to pay more. But if the university has to provide those plans, then they will also charge more. That cost will never be avoided and contraception will never be “free.”
Testifying before congress seems like a very round-a-bout way to achieve the same results you’d get by calling customer service. Or just buying contraception. She’s mad students can’t afford birth control - I guess her aim is to make is so they can’t afford ANY coverage.
And it’s cute to hear “we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health,” (I’m sure that resonates with the unemployed and uninsured) and, “we resent that…anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice.” Life is choices. Sometimes women have to make choices men don’t. I believe that’s the crux of the aptly named “Pro-choice movement.”
And, unfortunately, we HAVE to consider the cost of things when making decisions. Otherwise, what’s to prevent us from ending up in a house with no dishwasher?
- dwangelo posted this