The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

Posts tagged ‘war on women’

HOLLYWOOD’S WAR ON WOMEN

While I hate to reveal my own ignorance I figure that if you’ve been following along for awhile it’s already abundantly clear to you.  As you know, I seldom go to see a movie in a theatre designed for cinematic display and selling junk food.  And because my interest in the latest tripe that comes out of Hollywood is nil, I don’t keep up with who’s who or who’s doing what in that liberal paradise.

It just happened that I saw a news story yesterday about a law suit that is proceeding that involves one Bryan Singer.  I didn’t recall even vaguely ever hearing that name so I had no idea who he was or what he did.  I read the story.

I learned from the story, Mr. Singer is a movie director.  Without going into the somewhat sordid details of the lawsuit, suffice it to say that Mr. Singer has allegedly apparently been employing a version of  the casting couch but has transformed it into an after-parties venue where friends and associates apparently recruit young gay men who want to mingle with the rich and famous director.

Okay, this isn’t a post about morality.  But I was curious if Mr. Singer had ever directed a movie that I had seen.  As it turned out, while he has many credits in his portfolio which I have not viewed, one of his efforts, “The Usual Suspects” was a movie that I saw several years after its release when it appeared on cable.  I rather liked it but remember it as being a little strange.

But it occurred to me that as unfamiliar with Hollywood directors as I am, I would do a little investigation into who directs the movies which cause hearts to flutter every Friday when something new is released.  And I was very surprised.

In the entire history of the Academy, there have only been four women nominated for the Best Director Oscar.  And of those, only two – Sofia Coppola and Kathryn Bigelow – were Americans.  None of the four won the coveted award.

So here we are, in the absolute epicenter of liberalism and is there a more discriminatory, anti-feminist environment in which a woman could find herself?  Let me be blunt.  In Hollywood, women are getting screwed right and left (and yes I did intend that pun).

I’m really hoping that the Huffington Post (which I’ve affectionately renamed the Huff and Puff Post) will carry a story soon in which the Democrats create a stink over the “War on Women.”  I plan on using some version of this post when it appears.

Of course I will have to do a bit of editing – first to get it by the censors and then to conform to their comment limit of 250 words.  But inspired by Hollywood, I will be able to pare this down to size, leaving the excess on the cutting room floor where it will keep company with the hearts and hopes of Hollywood’s female directors who are ignored and overlooked while their male counterparts talk about how life has been so unfair to them and others of their gender.

CHUMP CHANGE

Before he went into business for himself, I remember the night that we were having dinner and my dad made a big announcement to the family.  He had been offered a new sales position with a firm that was a competitor to his present employer and he had accepted it.  But the big part of the announcement was, “If I exceed my quotas, I can earn twenty thousand dollars in my first year.”  A hush fell over the table as mom, grandma and I were awestruck as we tried to contemplate  that massive amount of money.

To put that into perspective, a candy bar cost a nickel; a newspaper cost a dime; and a ride on either New York’s busses or subways cost fifteen cents.  As you’ve guessed, dad’s announcement was a few years ago – when being a millionaire meant being a person who could just about afford to buy or do almost anything.

The way the government throws money (yours and mine) around, we regard hundreds of thousands of dollars as mere rounding errors.  Millions barely get a second look and until we get to billions it doesn’t seem that we want to be bothered with much oversight of how we’re spending the taxpayers’ wealth.  Perhaps that’s how we’ve gotten to a debt that is in excess of seventeen trillion.  That’s seventeen thousand billions – or seventeen million millions.  However you slice it, that’s a whole lot of zeroes.

Now the reason for putting this all in perspective is so that I might mention what in my childhood would have been a massive amount but today is viewed as little more than chump change – the sum of $608,000.  What is this number and why devote a post to it?

Washington, D.C. businessman, Jeffrey Thompson, originally a Jamaican national, is alleged to have raised that sum to benefit a number of our politicians including the candidate-presumptive for president on the Democrat ticket in 2016, one Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Now fundraising isn’t in and of itself illegal if it’s done properly – in fact Obama is in New York today on exactly the same mission.  But what is illegal is for an agent or officer of a campaign to solicit illegal contributions.  Enter Minyon Moore, a top operative in Mrs. Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 nomination bid.

Thompson, who pleaded guilty today to illegal fundraising activity with respect to the 2010 election of D. C. Mayor Vincent Gray, apparently told federal prosecutors that he had been approached by Ms. Moore and was asked by her to conduct illegal fundraising activities in four states and in Puerto Rico.  The investigators went quickly on to add that “there was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton had any knowledge of this activity.”

Now think back a few months to that event in New Jersey known as “Bridge Gate” with which the media had a field day and which is being investigated by a committee of the New Jersey legislature.  In that event, one of Governor Chris Christie’s top aides apparently decided, out of political retribution, to constrict the traffic on the George Washington Bridge to “punish” the mayor of Ft. Lee because she did not endorse her boss.

One of the comments that came from the lead investigator looking into this matter was, “It’s hard to believe that the governor didn’t either direct this or at the least he should have known that it was going to happen.”   Christie in a now famous news conference accepted full responsibility for the event although he denied having any personal knowledge of it.  He fired his aide immediately.

I am inclined to believe Christie’s profession of ignorance.  However, I am also inclined to agree with the investigator’s comment that, “he should have known about it.”  It is exactly for that reason that I discredit the president’s statements that “he didn’t know about the insurance policies that would be cancelled; the fact that everyone is not saving $2,500 a year and people are losing their doctors because of Obamacare.”  It is exactly for that reason that I would not support Chris Christie for president.

But if we apply that logic fairly, how should we be disposed to the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton?  Should she not have had knowledge of impropriety that was ongoing during her campaign and take responsibility for her staff’s activities?  Or would even raising this issue be nothing more than another assault in the “War on Women?”

I guess if we want to be “gender blind” and fair we should remember the old adage,  “What’s good for the ganders should be good for the goose.”  Even if that goose is Hillary Clinton.

OBAMACARE AND THE “WAR ON WOMEN”

If you’re a mainstream liberal-left Democrat you undoubtedly subscribe to the mantra that all Republicans (in addition to being white, male and overweight) are uniformly misogynists, merciless and are actively engaged in the well-publicized “war on women.”  That’s true even if you can neither spell nor pronounce “misogynist” or know it’s meaning.  No matter.  When yelling slogans and enjoying the approval of the mindless mob, there’s no reason to think for yourself or form opinions which might conflict with what the politburo tells you to think.  Besides – thinking has been identified as a dangerous activity and has (or soon will be) outlawed – so why waste your time on it when you could be painting picket signs.

There is certainly some evidence that, if taken out of context, would suggest that those who are Republicans (code name conservatives) might fit the definition which you have been taught in your local cell.  After all, a lot of Republicans//conservatives (code name people who have a religious background) oppose abortion – and that, of course, is an assault on your “right to control your own body.”  Granted, there are some in that conservative camp who feel indisposed to pay for your voluntary indiscretion resulting in the need for an abortion.  Most would reluctantly agree to the procedure in the very rare cases where rape or incest is involved.  But rehashing Roe v. Wade is not the thrust of this post.

So you’ve hitched your star to those who are really concerned for the well-being of Americans – the Democrats – and point to all the wonderful things that Obamacare contains.  And there are some excellent features in the act.

It’s great that irrespective of pre-existing conditions, people will be able to get insurance.  Of course, given the fact that people with life-threatening or chronic conditions will pay the exact same premium as someone of his or her age who is disease or drug free means that you and I will contribute to their health insurance directly by paying higher premiums on our own policies and indirectly through the inevitable tax increases that will be forthcoming from Washington to reimburse the insurers when they fail to make money on the policies they are being mandated to sell.

It’s great that there is now portability of insurance.  If you lose your job you will be able to keep your current policy.  Of course, you will be required to pay the full amount of the premium a portion of which your previous employer subsidized.  It’s one of the benefits of having a job – something lost on approximately 13.6% of our populace who are unable or unwilling to find employment.

The main theory behind Obamacare is that in a nation that used to be as great as the United States it is unacceptable that thirty million of us should be without insurance.  Apparently, those who are in that condition are less impressed with their precarious perch than those in the marbled halls of Washington  since the latest polls indicate that three out of four or those uninsured mistrust Obamacare and do not plan on enrolling and a solid one quarter of them have never even heard of it – despite the hundreds of millions our government has spent on public relations to promote it.

We know from well-established studies that women, more than men, need health care and treatment.  Part of that is because women are child bearers and have internal configurations that are more complicated than their male counterparts.  In addition, women have a longer life expectancy than men which results in more medical attention for a longer period of time.  Therefore, it is not hard to conclude that women will be more impacted by the provisions of Obamacare than men.

Since women live longer than men, the $600 Billion cut in Medicare funding written into the law to pay for other parts of the law hits women especially hard.   One of those cuts will affect what are known as “home health services.”  Perhaps you’re familiar with this if you’ve seen commercials advertising “companions” who might assist an elderly woman who needs someone to prepare meals, do some cleaning or simply provide companionship.  There are 5.2 million elderly (the vast majority of whom are women) who will be losing insurance coverage for these services due to Obamacare.  That’s a lot of people who either are going to have to move into a nursing home or will be left to their own resources.

Now I realize that five million is not a lot of people.  After all, when that number lost their previous “crappy” insurance last year – the administration pooh poohed this as a “small number” so we shouldn’t really be too concerned about all these elderly people.  That is unless one of them happens to be your aunt, your mother, your sister – or you.  But there is hope.

Suddenly last Friday, el Presidente decided that those formerly “crappy” insurance policies were good enough so that people could keep them another two years.  Personally, I took that as an act of beneficence – not to mention an astute political move, deferring all the forthcoming cancellations beyond the mid-term elections.  (Shame on me for even thinking that there was a political motivation behind all this).

So ladies, if you’re lucky – you never know when Obama will whip out his pen and perhaps unilaterally change the law for the thirtieth time and restore the home health benefits that were dropped by the law and restore all the other cuts that were made to Medicare.  That would go a long way to end the Obamacare war on women.  And if you’re really fortunate, he may pick up his phone and call to let you know the good news.

Tag Cloud