Fluke's testimony before congress back in 2012 was especially appalling, not so much because she pretended women must use birth control to maintain their health, and that a business can properly be forced to provide a service just because someone decides they want it, but also because she completely exaggerated the cost of birth control.
Of course, it was also simply idiotic that no one seemed to understand that a viable insurance plan has to charge more than it spends on claims, so any insurance plan that covers regular maintenance expenses must cost more than those expenses (obviously the plan will fail, if this isn't the case), so someone who can't afford to purchase birth control regularly, wouldn't be able to afford the coverage for regular purchases of birth control -- just like someone who can't afford eye glasses, couldn't afford to purchase vision insurance, because you can always get cheap eye glasses for less than the cost of those plans. Of course, I guess that's the point -- it's the old entitlement mentality again -- if I can pretend I have enough of a need, then I can try to make someone else pay part of my costs through some kind of forced government subsidy.
It's instructive to watch Sandra speak on the birth control issue -- there's a video of it here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
She even get's emotional at one point, as if it's a dramatic tragedy being played out.
Sandra Fluke doesn't give any indication that she's qualified to serve in government, but she has that pretentious, morally presumptuous and self-righteous attitude that many people respond to, so that means she's likely to be a popular candidate.
Here's a good analysis of the absurdity of Fluke's statements --
http://online.wsj.com/news/
https://www.google.com/
The author points out how inexpensive various forms of birth control are (nowhere near $3,000 per year, as Fluke claimed), and also that birth control pills are only one of the treatments for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome -- the condition Fluke emphasized in her testimony.
And I found it especially frustrating to hear Fluke denounced as a slut in the media, because these comments helped to obscure how ridiculous her testimony actually was, and also helped to turn her into a kind of folk hero for corrupt progressives, who want to treat society as some kind of play toy that they can control and manipulate at will, to satisfy their smug moral presumptuousness.
And notice the vacuous content on Sandra's campaign website. Here's a link to an issue she's prominently supporting -- equal pay for women --
http://www.standwithsandra.org/huffington_post_sandra_fluke_equal_pay
As one might expect who is familiar with political discourse and vote buying, that issue is a complete myth, but it's very useful for demagoguery. So it's no surprise that she would get behind it, given her testimony on birth control.
Here's an article by Hanna Rosin (a woman!), published in August, 2013, on Slate.com (no anti-feminist bastion) explaining the myth --
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/2013/08/the_familiar_line_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man.html
How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.
The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case.
...
Of course, it's not surprising that men make more than women on average, if you pause and think for a moment.
Men should make more than women, on average, not because they're smarter, faster, or bigger, but because (again, on average) they're willing to do things women will not do.
When's the last time you saw a crew replacing a roof, and noticed any of them were women?
When's the last time you called for a plumber, and a woman showed up?
Ever see any women on an Alaskan crab boat? (I wouldn't try this either)
http://www.discovery.com/tv-
This is just one obvious point that explains part of the pay difference -- another I've read is that women work fewer hours than men on average -- a point Hanna Rosin also makes in her article quoted above.
Sadly, I'd say we can expect to see more of Sandra Fluke -- she's already demonstrated a talent for the kind of pretentious demagoguery that is effective with the public, and it seems like she's just getting warmed up. She'll fit right in the California State legislature.
It's almost comical how she gets behind these bland uninformed conformist positions, and then acts like she's waging this lonely battle against entrenched power.
The road to hell being paved by so-called 'good intentions'.
No comments:
Post a Comment