As an English teacher and writing tutor, I spend a lot of time thinking about words. Lately, it seems like many other Americans are thinking about them too. From Rahm Emanuel, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to John Mayer to Shaun White, people are taking flak for the words they are using.

First, we had the spat between Rahm Emanuel and Sarah Palin over Emanuel’s use of the word “retard.” Then Rush Limbaugh jumped into the fray, repeating the word half a dozen times and accusing Palin of trying to be “politically correct.” Now you can go about 50 different ways with this argument.  You can go the Mom direction: if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. You can go the political route: liberals are all about political correctness, so Emanuel’s use of such a word is particularly egregious. You can even go the etymological route: “retard” is derived from the Latin “tardare” which means “to slow,” so there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word itself. I’ll let other people take on those debates.

What really interests me in the classroom, at the tutoring table, and in the news lately is the issue of audience. I was talking with some students the other day, and we decided that the world is made up of two kinds of people – those who are only concerned with getting their point across for their own sake and those who want to communicate in a way that affects their audience appropriately. In all the recent language scandals, what has made the difference to me is the audience.

Take Rahm Emanuel first. He actually used the word “retard” months ago in a private meeting with staffers (telegraph.co.uk, 2/4/10). His intended audience was a small one, a group of people with whom he works on a regular basis. Did he offend some of them? Maybe. He probably didn’t surprise any of them, though, since he’s known for his brash, Machiavellian, potty-mouthed style. But he never intended everyone in America to hear his remark. It only came to light in recent weeks because of a tell-all book and Palin’s attempt to jump into the spotlight again by calling for his resignation. I’m not excusing Emanuel. It’s not a word I use, and I don’t like to hear other people use it. I’m not sure I can give Emanuel a pass. It’s pretty insensitive language to use with any audience, but he’s certainly not as guilty as Limbaugh.

Limbaugh used the word multiple times on his radio show which reaches millions of Americans. He not only repeated it, he defended its use. He was talking about the word, its meaning and his right to use it. To me, that kind of conscious discussion in front of a huge audience of whom you are proudly aware is far more egregious than an incidental usage in a private meeting. Limbaugh fail. As usual.

Evidently, Sarah Palin does not agree with me. Shocker. For her, it’s all about the speaker. Emanuel is a Democrat, so his use of the word is wrong. Limbaugh gets a pass because he’s a conservative. Just more evidence of Palin’s deep thinking.

But word snags are not hitting just the political world. The music world got a dose of the drama when John Mayer’s Playboy interview went public (Associated Press, 2/11/10). His use of the n-word and rude comments about his ex-girlfriends offended millions. Does he get a “pass” because he’s an artiste? Full of angst and creativity? No. At least not as far as I’m concerned. The guy was doing an interview with Playboy. It has millions of readers and subscribers all around the world. What an idiot. Did Mayer really think no one would notice his racism or misogyny? Fail.

I woke up this morning to another word snag, this time at the Olympics. It seems the sports world can’t get enough of this language craziness. Today it’s about Shaun White’s coach, Bud Keene. Evidently White and Keene were at the top of the snowboard run. They knew White had the gold medal wrapped up. They were excited and happy, and they were talking. To each other. Unfortunately, NBC had one of its huge boom mikes close enough to pick up a couple of F-bombs (Chris Chase, Yahoo! Sports Blog, 2/18/10). So the NBC announcers immediately had to apologize “for Bud Keene.” Wrong. Bud Keene was talking to his athlete, a guy he’s known for years. They have trained for this moment for ages, and they were thrilled with the outcome. Two adult professionals should be able to say anything they want to each other. The fact that NBC felt the need to eavesdrop that closely in that situation is not Keene’s fault. Would I have been angry if I’d been watching with my kids? Sure, but not at Keene. His intended audience was Shaun White. He gets the pass.

Language is a tricky thing, and these days it’s getting harder to keep track of your audience. Cell phones can record anywhere at any time. Sometimes we post things on Twitter or Facebook, forgetting that certain of our friends may be offended. As technology becomes more and more invasive, those of us who actually try to consider our audience when we communicate are going to find it ever more difficult. For the other folks who don’t care who’s listening as long as they get to say what’s rattling around in their head at the moment, I guess they’ll just go on offending everyone in their wake. Soldier on, Limbaugh and Mayer!

I’ve been in the hospital all weekend with my daughter who is very sick with pneumonia. There’s not much to do here. We got hit with a snowstorm on Friday, and today is Super Bowl Sunday. Most of my friends and family are either hunkering down trying to stay warm or prepping for Colts’ parties. So in between my daughter’s breathing treatments and meals, I’ve been reading and surfing the net.

This morning I noticed that the Yahoo! News page had three Associated Press stories in a row on Sarah Palin: “Palin assails Obama at ‘tea party’ gathering,” “Palin says ‘absurd’ not to ponder presidential bid,” and “Palin: Obama could win votes by playing ‘war card’.” I read all three, but it was the last one that just blew my mind.

The article is only four sentences. The first: “Sarah Palin says that if President Barack Obama ‘played the war card,’ he could improve his chances of being re-elected.” So sending troops to risk their lives is akin to a card game? Or even worse, the president should use troops to improve his political chances of re-election? I know many soldiers in our armed forces who have already served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know they were proud to serve their nation and felt they were doing good things for the people in those countries, but I also know they would not appreciate being “played” as pawns in some political game. Such an assertion is disgusting.

The second sentence: “Palin says that declaring war on Iran or showing stronger support for Israel might convince voters that Obama is tougher than they think on national security and doing all he can to protect the U.S..” Obviously, Mrs. Palin subscribes to the George Bush school of foreign policy: do whatever you have to do to other countries, regardless of the impact on their citizens, as long as it gets you votes back home. Again, a disgusting notion. Mrs. Palin claims to be a Christian, but evidently she has forgotten the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Should Vladimir Putin invade the U.S. or show more support for China to improve his chances of re-election? Somehow, I don’t think I or my fellow Americans would appreciate that much.

The third sentence: “Otherwise, according to Palin, Obama won’t be re-elected if he continues on his current path.” Palin seems to have forgotten that one of the main reasons Obama was elected was because Americans were worn out with the Iraq War. Not only that, but she assumes that all voters are hawks who would welcome another politically motivated conflict. I thought voters made it pretty clear to the G.O.P. in ’08 that we did not think much of that behavior. Maybe Palin believes in SSDEC – Same S#!^ Different Election Cycle.

The final sentence of the article: “Palin was interviewed on ‘Fox News Sunday’ — the network where the former GOP vice presidential nominee is a paid commentator.” This final line was really the icing on the cake. So let me get this straight. Palin is a Republican poster girl; she is being interviewed on Fox News, which, despite their protestations, is just a mouthpiece of the Republican party. She is also now employed by this “news” outlet which “interviewed” her about her speech at the tea party convention. Does anyone else see the irony, not to mention the conflict of interest, in this?

It just so happens that this article was the last one of the three listed and the last one I read. But I couldn’t help synthesizing the points Palin made in this article with a line in the “Palin assails Obama at ‘tea party’ gathering” article: “Aside from broad conservative principles like lower taxes and a strong national defense, the speech was short on Palin’s own policy ideas that typically indicate someone is seriously laying the groundwork to run for the White House.” Evidently, she did her usual sweeping-generalization-folksy-jokesy-talking-point speech style during her tea party speech. (That would play well with that audience, which she ironically described as “fresh” and “young” although the average age of the attendees was about 95.) Her “interview” on Fox News Sunday filled in some of the blanks in her policy ideas, though: use the troops for your own political gain, invade whenever it will promote your career, assume that all Americans love war, and use any outlet necessary to forward your ideas, even when it’s unethical. So those are some of the things we can expect from Candidate Palin in a couple years?

Sarah Palin ’12? Excellent.

All my liberal friends are mourning today. All my conservative friends are gloating.

Last night, Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election for the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Pundits on both sides are having a field day. It’s the “Democrats’ Nightmare.” It’s the return of “The Reagan Revolution.” To be honest, I’m just not that fussed about it.

The Democrats put up a candidate with the personality of a warm rattlesnake, then let her run a half-hearted campaign. At the last minute, when they realized she’d blown it, they tried to throw the president at it. Didn’t work. Now they’re all freaking out, and the Republicans can hardly contain their glee.

The G.O.P. wrested the old Kennedy seat from the Dems, and now they can stop President Obama’s socialist agenda. Well, sort of.

First, the Democrats really gave this one away. They couldn’t imagine that seat in that state going to a Republican. Much less could they imagine going to THAT guy. He has a truck. Did you know that? I don’t even live in Massachusetts, but I know he has a truck. (I have a truck, but I still want healthcare reform.) He also posed naked in Cosmopolitan a while back. Classy. You know, Burt Reynolds posed naked in Cosmo too. Maybe he should run for the Senate. And Mr. Brown is not above using his political platform to marry off his daughters. In case you missed his acceptance speech, they are both “available!” Gentlemen, step up for your chance to play Levi Johnston to Brown’s Sarah Palin!

Second, the G.O.P. is still the minority in both House and Senate, and a Democrat sits in the White House for another 3 years. (Which is also, by the way, how long Brown has in that seat, but more on that in a minute.) So if the Democrats could get their act together, they could still pass some good legislation. The Republicans managed for years without a filibuster-proof majority. Of course, the Dems aren’t ideological and dogmatic, so they don’t move very fast. They actually think about the consequences of their actions. So maybe they will never get anything done. Meh.

Okay, so Brown won the remainder of Kennedy’s term. He will be up for re-election in 2012, and I believe that he will lose. See, I’m pretty sure the independents didn’t even show up for this election. They usually don’t for non-presidential years. And Coakley was rude and out of touch; liberals couldn’t get excited enough to get outta bed for that. But EVERY conservative in the state was ready to pounce on this, even if their candidate was a Cosmo pin-up! In 2012, when all of Massachusetts votes, Mr. Brown and his big…truck will be driving into the sunset.

I wonder if anyone in the Republican party is at all concerned about their recent champions. A full-frontal pinup, two beauty queens, and a loudmouthed drug addict. Brown, Palin, Prejean and Limbaugh - now there’s a team I could get excited about. If they were on a reality TV show. Or maybe a remake of “Boogie Nights.” Brown can take Burt Reynolds’ part. And then Reynolds can take Brown’s Senate seat.

Alright, all you folks out there screaming “NO! NO! NO!” to the Obama administration’s healthcare plan, you’re entitled to your opinion. You don’t like his plan? Fine. Let’s hear yours.

Seriously. I’m listening.

Leave it as it is? That’s working for you, is it? How nice for you! Evidently, you’re just super-lucky and have never been very sick. Congratulations. Or maybe you and your family have amazing health insurance from some little company I’ve never heard of because I’ve worked for or had insurance with the four largest health insurance companies in the country, and let me tell ya, they didn’t work for me. I get to pay a lot of money for health insurance, and then when we get sick, they pay a little bit of the bill.

So those people who are very sick, those people who don’t have health insurance or those people who have crummy health insurance just have to suffer? Very nice. How Christian. How family-values. How Republican.

I’ll be very honest with you - Obama’s plan is not my ideal. It worries me, as does all change. Change is scary, but in this case, SOMETHING has to change. The status quo is not working, and when I hear people say, “Leave it alone. It’s fine,” I think, “Don’t be such a chicken. Let’s make a change. If it doesn’t work, we’ll change it again, but you’re a fool if you think America can’t improve.”

People say, “It’s going to cost too much.” Do you know how much the uninsured already cost us? Homeless people who walk into ER’s every other day? Uninsured people or underinsured people who never make payments?  Or consider the case of a friend of mine. As a hemophiliac, he contracted HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion when that great Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, refused to act to protect the blood supply from the “gay disease.” (In his wisdom, Reagan chose the stick-my-fingers-in-my-ears-and-hum-loudly approach instead.) My friend was a teenager. His mother, like most mothers I know, could not bear to watch her son die, but his meds were astronomically expensive. Even if she’d been wealthy, she would’ve run out of money on them. So to keep her son alive, she took minimum-wage jobs and lived in poverty on purpose so she could qualify for Medicare. All you folks who think her son should’ve just been allowed to die, would you have done any differently? (Say “yes” and you’ll either be lying or admitting to being the worst parent ever, but feel free.) So we taxpayers paid for most of my friend’s medical bills, and you know what? As a Christian, not to mention his friend, that is okay with me.

Anyway, do you know how many BILLIONS of dollars the health insurance companies make every year? Why do we have to give these paper-pushing middlemen that money? Why couldn’t we just eliminate them and give the money directly to doctors, nurses, lab technicians, researchers and other people who actually DO something? The CEO of United Health Group made $1.6 billion dollars in 2006. That’s one CEO at one insurance company, and that’s disgusting.

The other big point the opposition brings up is somehow the Canadians’ fault. Evidently, Canadians have to wait in long lines for doctors and beg for treatment from their legislators. Of course, I have friends from Canada who have told me that is not true, but what do they know? So all the Republicans point to Canada and say, “Look how awful they have it up there!” Guess what? Canada’s not the only country in the world with universal healthcare. There are other models, better models. Sweden has government-funded health care, and it appears to be working very well. (Have you ever seen a Swedish person? They’re beautiful AND healthy!) Their system is universal, but very decentralized compared to Canada’s. Surely, if the Swedes can put together a universal healthcare system that works, we bright and industrious Americans can too!

The current American system is essentially Social Darwinism. I find it ironic that so many conservatives support it. They hate Darwin’s evolutionary theory; they hate it in school, but in healthcare, they’re all about “survival of the fittest.” If you don’t have the money, die. If you don’t have insurance, watch your kids die. Republicans will, however, fight to let you buy a semi-automatic to off yourself with if you don’t want to suffer a prolonged death. If you don’t have insurance and get pregnant, though, they still want you to have the baby. Good luck with that.

So we’re back where we started. Our healthcare system doesn’t work. It may have worked fifty years ago when people worked for one company all their lives, insurance was simpler, and medicine was more primitive. Nowadays, people change jobs all the time, insurance companies have come up with ingenious ways to make billions of dollars without really covering anything, and we have miraculous cures most patients can’t afford. President Obama wants to do SOMETHING.

You don’t like his plan? Fine. What’s YOUR idea?

Please. We’re all listening.

Governor Sarah Palin announced yesterday that she will resign as governor of Alaska at the end of this month.

Okay. Weird.

Her reasons are a little muddled, but here is what she said in her press conference:
1. “I am not wired to operate under the same old ‘politics as usual.’”
2. “I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.” (Anchorage Daily News, 7/3/09)

She spent a lot of time enumerating her many accomplishments as governor. She spent some time answering those who criticized her during her vice presidential nominations. She spent a little time talking about her family. So I’m confused.

She has accomplished so much as governor that she needs to quit now? If you’re trying to justify a decision to step down and convince your constituents that it is “what’s best for Alaska,” shouldn’t you play down what a good job you’ve done?

I’m inclined to think this is a stunt designed to gain more attention and maintain the “maverick” label she and McCain worked so hard to attain: however, this seems like a pretty risky gamble. She and McCain also tried to garner reputations as defenders of the Constitution and representatives of “real America” (Palin, 10/16/08). Well, the constitution of Alaska sets up the governor’s job as a four-year gig. The people of Alaska hired her for a four-year job. Does that mean she would be a “lame duck” for the next year and a half? Yes. Since she decided not to run for re-election in 2010, she would have the “lame duck” label. That is the way the Alaskan constitution is set up. Palin said she rejects the “fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade” ((Anchorage Daily News, 7/3/09). Fine. Keep working to effect the change you wanted to achieve, Gov. Palin. Don’t travel. Don’t have “fun.” But don’t chuck your constitutional role out the window along with the faith of your constituents.

If I were an Alaskan who had voted for Sarah Palin, I’d be pretty ticked off now. Evidently, many Alaskan Republicans do feel this way. As I read through the many reactions to Palin’s announcement on the Anchorage Daily News site, I saw many people who felt betrayed by the woman of whom they had once been so proud. Not only did she take 3 months out of her job to run for vice president, now she can’t even be bothered to complete the term she was elected to? Taking office in December of 2006 and stepping down at the end of this month, she will have completed 32 months of her 48-month term. If you subtract the three months she spent campaigning with McCain, that’s 29 months working as governor of Alaska. In private enterprise, she could be sued for breach of contract. Is that what “mavericks” do?  Let down the people who elect them to serve?

Finally, I noticed a rather odd omission from her speech. I guess I expected her to say something about wanting to spend more time with her family. Not because she’s a woman, but because most politicians talk about their families when they announce a decision like this. Also because she was supposedly such a family-values candidate; however, she said nothing about leaving office to spend more time with her family or her children. Every time she mentioned her husband or her kids it was to use them as a supporting detail: “I choose, for my State and my family, more ‘freedom’ to progress,” “this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children.” Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by this. Sarah Palin prides herself on being different. Perhaps that means spending more time with family is not high on her priority list.

This announcement is just another move in a long line of unusual decisions by Sarah Palin. I understand her desire to do something other than “politics as usual,” (Anchorage Daily News, 7/3/09) but often politicians do the same thing as all their predecessors because it is the right thing to do. Like serving out the term for which you were elected as defined by the constitution of your state.