Ethics Dunce (Hyper-Partisan Hate Division): Merritt Tierce

Blood-money

I don’t think “blood money” means what she thinks it does…

Having just criticized Rush Limbaugh for one of his irresponsible uses of his influence, I think it’s an appropriate time to shine some harsh light on one of his unethical critics.

Merritt Tierce is a feminist author whose first novel Love Me Back chronicles her time at a high-end Dallas steakhouse. In a recent interview, she recounts how she twice served Rush and a guest.  Both times the radio host left her a $1,000 in tip on bills that would normally call for a fraction of that even if she had given the best service in the history of her trade. Was she grateful? Oh, no, she says. The cash felt like “blood money” to her, she explained. Since Tierce served as the executive director of the Texas Equal Abortion  Fund during her waitressing period, a non-profit group that provides financial assistance to low-income women seeking abortions, she donated the tips to her charity. “It felt like laundering the money in a good way,” she said. “He’s such an obvious target for any feminist or sane person. It was really bizarre to me that he gave me $2,000, and he’s evil incarnate in some ways.”

“You’re welcome, Merritt!”

Are we now at the point in the national discourse where money earned legally and ethically and given freely for services is regarded as “blood money” and so dirty that it is in need of laundering because the previous owner dares to have a different belief system and opinion on social policy? This is the ugly place where self-righteous, hateful activists like Tierce are dragging American society. In this exchange, Rush Limbaugh proved himself beyond a doubt to be a better, more ethical human being than the indignant, hate-filled feminist.

He gave her a generous tip, twice. This would normally be called a random act of kindness. She resented him for it, insults him in public, derides the money, but of course, accepts the cash. Then she claims to “launder” the money by sending it to her own charity (and, presumably takes the deduction for doing so.) “It was really bizarre” to her that he gave you $2,000? I guess to some people it is incomprehensible that political opponents can also be nice people, good people, just like them —or, in the case of Tierce, just like she thinks she is.

Tierce, despite her presumed saintly virtue of encouraging as many women as possible to end the human lives in their wombs, is not a nice person. She is an ungrateful person, an ungenerous person, an unkind person, and a mean person. She responds to a significant act of kindness by publicly calling her benefactor evil. If she felt that way, she had two ethical responses available to her: refuse to accept the gift on principle, which would have been unfair and insulting, but at least would demonstrate some integrity, or say thank you, and shut up about it thereafter. Ah, but Tierce wanted the money, you see! So she justifies her own hypocrisy while denigrating a benefactor.

This is an ethics corrupter at work. Ethically weak fans will read her snide attack on a man who just was trying to be kind—and succeeded!– and conclude it is the right way to think, live, and treat others. It isn’t. It makes our communities course and our public discourse assaultive and unproductive.

And if this kind of ingratitude causes Rush to stop his practice of giving extravagant tips to hard-working waitresses—and I wouldn’t blame him if it did—they will have Merritt Tierce to thank for not having that blood money to dispose of.

What an awful woman. Feminists, abortion advocates, progressives, authors, waitresses and women generally should be embarrassed to have anything in common with her.

ADDENDUM: I meant to include this, but forgot: the Mediaite reporter writing about this engaged in double misrepresentation and betrayed her own anti-Rush bias by concluding her article,

If you have absolutely no idea what Rush Limbaugh does, needless to say, he’s not a fan of abortions or contraceptives.”

Who is a “fan” of abortions, Tina?  The Clintons, Democratic Party Rock Heroes, have said that they want  to make abortions “safe, legal and rare.” If you want to keep something “rare,”can you be said to be a fan of it? Is Tina a fan of abortion? As for contraceptives, Limbaugh has never said that he wasn’t a fan, or implied it. Most men are “fans” of contraception. Rush just said—Blasphemy!—that he didn’t think he should have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception, since it’s her own choice to have sex. That was flipped into the ridiculous canard that Rush, conservatives and Mitt Romney opposed contraception, one of the more despicable–but effective, so it’s just fine, right?—Democratic smears that gave us the government we have today.

________________________

Facts: Mediaite

23 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce (Hyper-Partisan Hate Division): Merritt Tierce

  1. Actually, just reading it made her seem petty. It only made Rush look better and the fact that she could not even conceive of that puts her close-mindedness on full display.

    But, would this change Rush at all. I doubt it. He does what he does out of goodwill, gratitude, and generosity. It is not because of who the recipient is that he acts the way he does. It is because of who he is.

    This reminds me of the shock and outrage that came up because Elton John agreed to perform at Rush’s wedding. Liberal heads exploded all over the place as they attempted to comprehend how Elton could perform for him. One only needed to know that Sir Elton has class to realize that personal differences are personal and need not interfere with business. Same could be said for Rush instance, I suppose.

    -Jut

  2. The ethical thing to do might be to refuse to serve him, a la another server who was lauded as an ethics hero for refusing to serve a family who made disparaging remarks about special needs children. How hard would it be to go to the maitre’d, say you aren’t comfortable serving this person because of his publicly professed politics, and request another assignment? It also might be ethical to donate the money to whatever, and then keep quiet about it.

    That said, it’s obvious what’s going on here, a first time feminist author is trying to establish her feminist bona fides by showing that she hates all the right people and is hyper-pro-abortion. You know this post is going to go crazy with “likes” and “rock on, sista”s. It is kind of pathetic when you have to prove yourself by demonstrating hate against designated targets. That said, if I landed some kind of generous tip from a very liberal figure I might find it a nice touch of irony if I donated part of it to Focus on the Family or an LDS charity or some other organization that opposes gay marriage.

    • She’s claiming these are her bona-fides. I’d like to see the paper trail to make sure she actually did what she said, and didn’t just keep the money.

      • Don’t you know? Feminist bona fides require bilking people for money, saying it’s going to good causes, and instead buying shiney things. See Zoe Quinn advertising a percentage of sales from “Depression Quest” would go to iFred (A Depression Help Website) and forgetting to tell the folks at iFred, and forgetting to send the cheque. Or Anita Sarkeesian, who received $160,000 on a kickstarter that asked for 20,000 to produce a series of YouTube videos…. And produced a grand total of three 10 minute videos.

    • The most ethical thing for her to do would be to hold her nose and give Rush, or anyone else who sat in her section, the best possible service. Her employer pays her to wait tables, not for her political discourse, and refusing to serve a customer would be decidedly UNethical.

  3. This is typical for today. If you listen to liberal activists, only their ideas are valid. The ideas of others cannot be allowed. The main place you see this operating is the schools. This attitude is the reason you have fathers in uniform refused entry to their child’s school, students punished for having the picture of a firearm on their shirt (in any fashion), and why universities are unable or refuse to allow conservative speakers on campus. There is only one right opinion and the other one is hateful. I know at my schools growing up, my teachers all told us that abortion was good, affirmative action was good, Democrats are good, Republicans are evil and must be defeated, and so on. Only when I got to college did I see the overt thought control, the speech policies, the damage affirmative action did to black students, and the overwhelming efforts to root out dissent. I woke up and realized that this is more like totalitarianism than the democracy I though I lived in. I guess the people who decided they liked the totalitarianism ended up like Merritt Tierce.

  4. (and, presumably takes the deduction for doing so.)

    I think this is an unnecessary cheap-shot, but mostly because she probably isn’t in a category to take the deduction. People always told me to buy a house because the mortgage interest would be a great deduction. I’ve got to say: With the standard deduction at ~$12,000 I never got close to that in interest and charitable giving.

    I wonder if she did donate all of the $2k, or just the after-tax portion. I wonder if she genuinely did launder the money by not reporting the income. It seems like you would be able to refuse income money and direct it to charity, but I’m not sure how that really works in this situation, tax-wise. If she did “divert” it without recognizing the income, then it should be Rush’s donation & deduction. (whether he knew it or not.)

    • Shoot away. This woman deserves all you can inflict on her, and I’d go total Donald Silverman/Michael Savage here with the profanity and gender-based insults if Jack hadn’t retired that spot with Scott’s exit.

    • I don’t know where you are, exactly, but I don’t think you quite understand how tax works. I’ll use my local numbers, as an example. Where I live, you have the same $12,000 basic deduction, and then pay taxes on a tier from there, so someone who earns between $0 and $40,000 AFTER the basic deduction pays 15%, then if you earn between $40,000 and $80,000 AFTER the basic deduction, you pay 15% on the first 40,000 and 29% on the rest.

      So lets say you earned $60,000. You would owe (60,000-12,000=48,000 40,000*.15 = $6000 8,000*.29 = $2320.00 $6000+$2320) $8320 for the year. Charitable donations deductions reduce that number. Where I live, we receive a 15% tax credit on the first $200 of donations and 29% on everything after that, so the tax credit from a $2000 donation would be (200*.15 = 30 1800*.29 = 522 522+30) $552.

      To make enough money to use the entire amount of that tax credit, you would have to earn (522/.15 = 3480 3480+12000) $15,480.

      So if this waitress took the money, didn’t declare it as income, donated it and took the tax credit, And made 15,000 in that year, she would have still reduced her tax burden by $550.

      • Sorry about being late on the reply – we’ll see if you’ve got notifications set better than I do.

        I’m in the U.S. and I file 1040. If I want to itemize my deductions, I have to file Schedule A. If I don’t want to itemize, I can take the standard deduction of 12,200 for married filing jointly.

        From my limited knowledge of the federal filing process, charitable giving is itemized on 1040 Sch A. It combines with qualified medical expenses, primary mortgage interest, & other taxes paid.

        Where are you? Am I just tax inept?

    • You are vastly underestimating how much servers make. The people I know who work in modestly-priced restaurants make over $100/shift on average. The people who work at ‘casual dining’ make more like $150/shift. Since she is working at a high-end steakhouse where celebrities frequent and people give her $1000 tips, lets say she makes $300/shift on average. If she works 5 days/week, 50 weeks/year, that works out to $75,000/year. Very few of the full-time wait staff at our local Red Lobster make less than the average college professor in my state.

  5. “He’s such an obvious target for any feminist or sane person. It was really bizarre to me that he gave me $2,000, and he’s evil incarnate in some ways.”

    That hits the hammer on the nail in so many ways. If someone disagrees with me, they hate me. I don’t have to listen to them. I don’t have to think they might be a nice person. That’s the prevailing attitude today among a great many people, particularly those claiming the tolerant progressive label.

    How dare Rush Limbaugh, by all accounts a genuinely friendly guy, give a very generous tip to a member of the waitstaff? Doesn’t he know he’s supposed to be an evil conservative who hoards money for himself along with the other one-percenters? Is that really what she’s saying?

    I don’t listen to Rush. I don’t read his books. I don’t agree with everything he says, but do agree with some of it. It’s too bad she’s so close-minded that she can’t reconcile the fact that someone she disagrees with politically can also be a nice person.

  6. This what I don’t understand. It is carrying cognitive dissonance to an absurd degree: political opinions are just not that important. I am told by people who know him that James Carville is one of the nicest guys alive. I have similarly been told that Pat Buchanan is just a terrific human being. I dislike the opinions of both these guys, but I have no basis on which to hate them personally, nor would their political beliefs stop us from being friends, if I had the opportunity.

    • James Carville is a partisan bomb-thrower who I think revels in the hate the other side has for him. Pat Buchanan is just wacky. I wouldn’t want to meet either of them. I have a scathing essay all written which I will post on line the MOMENT Jimmy Carter’s death is announced. I think he was bad for the country and I hate him enough to do that. I can’t even read Dan Savage’s stuff anymore, my doctor has told me it’s bad for my blood pressure, but I would cheer if he met an untimely death.

      Scottish ultra-left politician George Galloway made one too many anti-Semitic speeches in public recently and somebody hit him in the mouth and broke his jaw. I applauded, I believe it was richly deserved. Sometimes I think we might be better off if we had another Preston Brooks-type approach to some of our politicians, where if someone overreached with what he said he was at risk of someone else beating him into a bloody heap.

  7. Jack,
    “Tierce, despite her presumed saintly virtue of encouraging as many women as possible to end the human lives in their wombs ..”

    This was a cheap-shot in an otherwise good post. She’s an asshole, no doubt, but nothing about her work is aimed at “encouraging as many woman as possible” to have abortions; only to make them affordable for those women who do.

    Moreover, whatever your feelings on abortion, I would argue the work is nonetheless “good” in that (if nothing else) it encourages women to have abortions in safe, sterile environments overseen by actual doctors — as opposed to some of what pass for “clinics” in countries where it’s outlawed or heavily restricted.

    • In countries where it is outlawed, it doesn’t matter to consider the conditions of the “clinics” who provide them. By that logic, we ought to moan anytime a thief is shot at night for breaking into someone’s home.

    • I agree it was a cheap shot but a deserved cheap shot. This activist gets a whopping $2000 in tips from someone who, has the temerity to be a conservative talk show host, and then has the audacity to say that the cash felt like “blood money” so she ‘laundered’ the cash by donating it to her charity that provides abortion funding to low-income women seeking to terminate pregnancies, apparently completely oblivious to the irony. She sounds like an ungrateful jerk to me. It seemed to me that her choices were:

      1. Not serve someone as repulsive (to her) as Rush Limbaugh;
      2. Serve him with courtesy and professionalism and be quiet about it;
      3. Accept the tip and quietly donate it to her charity;
      4. Accept the tip and publish her book with the funds, or
      5. Find something else to do if she can’t serve those whose views she abhors. .

      To do what she for cynical the purpose of self-promotion seems unseemly. Who in the situation was the better, more ethical person? Rush Limbaugh giving a big tip (and never mentioned it) or the waitress who couldn’t bring herself to accept a big tip from a right-wing talk show host she hates and publicizes her actions for her moment in the spotlight to promote some book? Her conduct is down right despicable and should be roundly rejected as disgraceful.

  8. If I hated Rush, I’d have a hard time holding on to it in the face of Merritt Tierce’s behavior. As it is I sometimes agree with him and sometimes not and he emerges from her statements as a bit of a hero.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.