Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do even a single pull-up, and a deadline mandating that by Jan. 1, 2014, they be able to do at least 3 pull-ups as part of their training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.RELATED: ‘New’ military rape policies make no progress
Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That's the minimum requirement for males.
Female Marines are required, however, to do a flexed-arm hang from a bar, and their PFT score is calculated based upon how long they can properly hang on the bar.
Currently, “women aren’t able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups,” Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).
Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule, they were afraid of losing “not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who can’t pass the test.”
Female Marines will be allowed to do the flexed-arm hang instead of pull-ups this year. With the arm hang, a person grabs the bar with both hands and pulls their body up and holds their chin above the bar for as long as possible.
If a female Marine can hold that flexed-arm hang for 70 seconds, she scores 100 points; 60 seconds, 80 points; 30 seconds, 30 points -- see chart.
The deadline for women to meet the men’s minimum standard of three pull-ups has been postponed a year and “will continue to be assessed,” Capt. Flanagan told CNSNews.com. The Marines' Twitter announcement on the topic was posted on Nov. 20. But by Dec. 27, few media outlets had mentioned the news.
Pull-ups have been used to test Marines’ upper body strength for over 40 years. The ability to pull-up one’s own body weight over a bar shows the upper body strength that, in combat, is needed to lift fallen comrades, pull one’s self over a wall, and carry heavy munitions. Combat Marines also carry a pack that weighs around 90 pounds, with gunners carrying an additional 50 or 60 pounds.
To Sam McNair, a 17-year-old high school senior in Duluth, Georgia, it was an innocent hug.
"You never know what someone's going through," McNair told CNN affiliate WGCL in Atlanta. "A hug might help."It didn't in this case because after McNair hugged a teacher, he ended up with a year-long suspension from Duluth High School, putting his college plans in jeopardy."He's a senior; he plays football. He was getting ready for lacrosse season, and you are stripping him of the opportunity to even get a full scholarship for athletics for college," April McNair, Sam's mother, told WGCL.The elder McNair, who says she and her son call themselves huggers, said she was dumbfounded to learn of her son's suspension after hugging a teacher.Surveillance video captures the hug in question, showing Sam placing his arms around the teacher and giving her a hug. The teacher then pushes him away.According to a discipline report obtained by WGCL, the teacher said Sam's lips and cheeks touched her neck and that she had warned Sam about hugging in the past.Asked if he kissed the teacher, Sam told the television reporter he did not. He said he has hugged teachers many times before, including this teacher, and has never been warned.In a statement, Sloan Roach, a spokesperson for the Gwinnett County Public Schools, told CNN, "Hearing officers consider witness testimony, a review of the known facts, and a student's past disciplinary history -- including long-term suspensions that result in alternative school placement -- when determining consequences.""If a parent has concerns about the outcome of a panel, he or she is entitled to appeal the decision to the Gwinnett County Board of Education," Roach added.Since this is a discipline issue, the law prohibits the district from sharing details about the student's situation or the student's past discipline history, said the spokesperson.Sam told WGCL he does have a discipline record and previous suspensions but not for sexual harassment.
"I have five months left in my senior year. I don't see why they would take that away from me," said Sam.
Presenting feminist radical Gloria Steinem with the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Wednesday, President Obama said that Steinem “changed how women thought about themselves.” He also labeled her a “game-changer,” a “disrupter,” and a “champion noticer.” Obama stated, “She’s alert to all the ways, large and small, that women had been and, in some cases, continue to be treated unfairly just because they’re women… because of her work, across America and around the world, more women are afforded the respect and opportunities that they deserve.”RELATED: FEMALE HYPOCRISY, A FEMINIST CONDITION
Obama did not mention Steinem’s disdain for heterosexual relationships (Steinem infamously remarked that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”), marriage and childbearing (“you become a semi-non-person when you get married”), her love for abortion (on her own abortion: “I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life”), her advocacy for confusing gender boundaries for children (“We’ve begun to raise daughters like sons…but few have the courage to raise our sons more like daughters”), and sexual promiscuity (“A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after”).
On May 17, 285 people graduated from the FDNY's Randall's Island training academy. Of those, 284 were capable of running a mile and a half in 12 minutes. Wendy Tapia, one of the five females to graduate from the academy, was not.
The graduating class was billed as the "most diverse" class ever, according to the New York Post.
Despite being given an unprecedented five chances to run a mile and a half in under 12 minutes and failing each time, Tapia is still employed by the FDNY thanks to an organized effort by United Women Firefighters. The group reportedly intervened to protest her firing.RELATED: FDNY Diversity Recruitment Prompts Protests From White Firefighters
Normally, a person who fails any portion of the fitness test is not allowed to graduate from the training academy and is forced to repeat the course the following year. Tapia claimed that a "foot injury" was the reason why she was unable to pass the test, and was placed on medical leave to recover. Following her return from medical leave, she began doing "light duty" at the FDNY headquarters. She has not yet actually worked at the firehouse she was assigned to following graduation.
Tapia's colleagues, both male and female, are furious with how the FDNY has continued to coddle her despite being unable to complete required tests.
“We have to do our job in all types of situations,” she said. “If I go to a fire, what am going to do — tell the guys I’m staying out by the engine because I’m not feeling so good? It’s 100 percent unheard of.”She said FDNY brass, under pressure from a court order to hire more minorities, “want their numbers — that’s all it is.”But that does female firefighters no favors, she added.“It’s making us look bad. It’s undermining everything we’ve strived for and achieved of our own accord,” she said.Tapia's female colleague makes a good point. The job of a firefighter is to put out fires and to rescue people trapped in them. I am fairly certain that nobody being rescued from a fire has stopped to question the race, gender, or ethnicity of the fireman doing the rescuing. The FDNY's treatment of Tapia is unacceptable, and it is pretty clear that she's run out of chances to pass the test.
The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried. A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Feministing.com. Erin Gloria Ryan, on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”
Argued Yoffe’s Slate colleague Amanda Hess, “We can prevent the most rapes on campus by putting our efforts toward finding and punishing those perpetrators, not by warning their huge number of potential victims to skip out on parties.”
Excuse me, but no one’s suggesting that our daughters should be holed up in the library studying every night, forswearing any semblance of a social life. Yoffe (disclosure: she’s a close friend) is saying that the responsible advice is the one that I’ve been trying to impart for years to my now-teenage daughters: When you drink (because, let’s be serious, they’re not waiting until 21), don’t drink too much. Consider the female Naval Academy midshipman who started with seven shots of coconut rum and woke up in an off-campus “football house” wondering what had happened. (Answer: Sexual encounters with three midshipmen, two of whom are being court-martialed.)
None of this — none of it — excuses men, sober or drunk, who prey on women, sober or drunk, to have sex without giving consent. Men who behave that way ought to be punished. Parents should warn their sons: Not only does “no mean no,” being too incapacitated to say “yes” also mean “no.”
But it is important to underscore two points here. The first concerns the disturbing culture ofbinge drinking on college campuses. This phenomenon is, at least in part, an unfortunate and perhaps inevitable artifact of raising the drinking age to 21. That has had the perverse consequence of transforming alcohol from a no-big-deal substance that was readily attainable into the bizarre focus of social planning. Without knowing whether they’ll be able to drink later, our children, male and female, resort to “pre-gaming,” doing shots — and too many of them — to steel themselves for the evening ahead. This tactic lowers inhibitions among both genders — indeed, that’s kind of the point — but the unavoidable facts are that women get drunk more quickly than men and that intoxication is highly associated with campus sexual assaults. Yoffe cites a 2009 study finding that, by the time they are seniors, almost 20 percent of college women will be victims of sexual assault on campus, overwhelmingly by a classmate, and that more than 80 percent of such incidents involve alcohol.
“I’m not saying a woman is responsible for being sexually victimized,” Christopher Krebs, one of the study’s authors, told Yoffe. “But when your judgment is compromised, your risk is elevated of having sexual violence perpetrated against you.”RELATED: A Biblical Feminist’s Take on Porn
“[A] young woman has attracted attention from culinary world icons such as Emeril Lagasse, Michael White and Ken Friedman with 300sandwiches.com,” a New York Post story published on Tuesday began. The Post revealed that this mystery woman was, in fact, New York Post Page Six reporter Stephanie Smith. The Post story revealed that she not only enjoys making sandwiches for her boyfriend, he requests them frequently. Now, outrage is swelling over Smith’s boyfriend’s sandwich requests.RELATED: ‘I’m 124 sandwiches away from an engagement ring’
“My boyfriend, Eric, is the gourmet cook in our relationship, but he’d always want me to make him a sandwich,” Smith begins.
Each morning, he would ask, “Honey, how long you have been awake?”“About 15 minutes,” I’d reply.“You’ve been up for 15 minutes and you haven’t made me a sandwich?”“To him, sandwiches are like kisses or hugs,” she continues. “Or sex.”
“Sandwiches are love,’ he says. “Especially when you make them. You can’t get a sandwich with love from the deli.”“Wait a second,” MSNBC host Chris Hayes reacted. “This asshole was literally waking up every morning and saying “Why haven’t you made me a sandwich yet?’”
“No matter what’s on the menu, Eric smiles and says thank you,” Smith concluded in her revealing article.
“He’s just happy I cook for him at all.”
She seems happy too.
As if the Onion’s use of the c-word to describe nine-year old Quvenzhane Wallis wasn’t humiliating enough, now we have self proclaimed feminists encouraging us (society) to let it go because the word ‘cunt’ shouldn’t be a bad word.RELATED: Where Were White Feminists Speaking Out For Quvenzhané Wallis?
No. ‘Cunt’ should be empowering and freeing. It should be used to describe sexual passion and women (and men perhaps too) should be able to use the word liberally; at least that’s the message from Jezebel. In their most recent article about why the insult, which was hurled at a child, should not be cause for concern, they had this to say:
“Basically, empowered women are dangerous women” and “there are no other truly empowering words for the female genitalia” besides the c-word.”Cunt” isn’t scientific, it’s erotic. “Cunt” doesn’t refer to a baby cat or a treasure chest. It conveys purposeful sexual power, not submission. It’s mature. Women get called cunts when they reject sexual advances and assert themselves in the workplace; in other words, when they don’t play nice.”
So, by the online magazine’s definition, the word ‘cunt’ is sexual in nature and is only used when a woman doesn’t “stay in her place.” If that’s the case, then we collectively should be even more outraged that the Onion called Quvenzhane Wallis the c-word. Because little Miss Wallis has a sense of humor beyond her years, seems completely at ease in interviews as she would be in school and is radiant and, god forbid, confident, she was called out of her name in a most horrendous fashion. Because this sexualized word should be empowering, society should just let it go? Never mind that a child was called a sexually demeaning term. Never mind that it was a completely inappropriate way to describe how one feels about the way someone presents themselves publicly. Let’s just let it go…because ‘cunt’ shouldn’t be a bad word. Right?
One commenter on the site suggested that people might be less sensitive to how ridiculous, sexist and demeaning that insult was because the target of it is an African American girl. In her comment, she compared this incident with Wallis to Kanye West’s infamous interruption of Taylor Swift’s MTV video music award acceptance speech in 2009 and the outcry of response to it.
“Even after he (West) issued a public apology, I don’t recall anyone saying, “well let’s move on he apologized” as I have seen with Miss. Wallis. Calls to boycott his music, the story was covered on major news outlets for weeks, months and even for about a year or a blurb would pop up. It took quite some time for his career to bounce back. Will the Onion lose some readership, some sponsorship, maybe, but I have a feeling that it will be business as usual soon enough.”
The commenter went on to say, “There was also a tidal wave of out pouring, love and support for Taylor. Not that she didn’t deserve it, but could you imagine if at the time how millions could rush to the defense of America’s Sweetheart/Girl Next Door for being humiliated and rudely interrupted what would have happened if the C word was applied to her or the next popular child star/It girl.”
Indeed, the reaction to Miss Wallis being called a ‘cunt’ is business at usual. The powerful women over at Jezebel are encouraging people to focus on the big picture and forget the ‘distractions’ that detract from the real issues. They write, “Focusing on the word “cunt” is a distraction; for example, the Onion debacle kinda overshadowed how sexist the Oscars were overall. And that’s the goal, right? If we’re busy being outraged over how “cunt” is the nastiest nasty thing to ever nasty, we’ll waste the energy we need to fight against a system that denigrates women for wanting to be treated as equals.”
Clutch magazine must have read the Jezebel article and had the same reaction that we at Popular Critic did. In their latest piece on this issue, they wrote, “They (white feminists) encourage us to shrug off our Blackness for the greater feminist good…” It certainly seems as though that’s what the writer at Jezebel was implying in the statement above.
If decrying an online publication for calling a nine-year old a cunt is a waste of energy, then it’s unclear what issues feminists should be wasting energy on. As far as this feminist is concerned, this issue is certainly worthy to be tackled…and publicly at that. In a culture of routine slut-shaming, turning a blind eye to the targets of such sexist comments being pre-pubescent girls would be a colossal failure in feminism. In fact, by not tackling this issue and actually advocating for people to ‘move on’ from Academy Award nominee Quvenzhane being called a ‘cunt’ is empowering those who think it’s okay to insult women and girls based on nothing more than their disdain for how they carry themselves.
The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.RELATED: Panetta lifts Pentagon ban on women serving in direct combat
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.
"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.
The officials cautioned, however, that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.
The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.
The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.
"It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly invited two of her favorite female commentators on her show this afternoon to discuss ESPN’s apology for announcer Brent Musburger‘s over-zealous praise of Katherine Webb, Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron‘s beauty contest-winning girlfriend.RELATED: Katherine Webb says she didn't need a Brent Musburger apology
After Musburger spent what some considered to be an inordinate amount of time praising Webb’s beauty on air, the internet exploded with condemnation and ESPN released a statement that read, in part, “we apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far and Brent understands that.”
Kelly began her segment by recapping the details of the story and asking her guests to “raise your hand if you think Brent went too far.” Suffice it to say, no hands were raised. The three women proceeded to lambast the politically correct liberal media for dictating when men can and cannot call women beautiful.
Conservative radio host Monica Crowley exclaimed, “Here’s what’s wrong with a man calling a woman beautiful: Nothing!” She went on to say that if would have been more offensive if Musburger had said nothing.
Columnist Kirsten Powers added “He hardly said anything. He called her lovely and beautiful. People act like he was drooling and saying inappropriate things. To me, this is just Feminism gone awry.”
Megyn Kelly reiterated that there’s nothing perverse about commenting on a woman’s beauty, asking “didn’t we all admire her? We are not perverted.”
And Crowley doesn’t think open praise of beauty should be confined to just women. “When I’m watching the NFL and Tom Brady comes on screen, I have some choice words about him. He’s such a hunk!”
Kelly summed up the story by lamenting the fact that ESPN felt pressure to apologize for something that should never have been a story to begin with. Noting that Webb put her beauty on display by competing for and winning the Miss Alabama competition Kelly said, “It’s crazy to me that ESPN felt that he went too far in doing what all the judges at the competition did and millions of Americans did as well. I don’t know a woman who doesn’t like to be told she’s beautiful.”
For her part, Webb has not sought any sympathy in the aftermath of the remarks, appearing on the Today Show this morning and telling Matt Lauer she was simply “flattered.”
What angry, radical feminism has brought us (besides more lesbians that is):
The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.
As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.
To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.
In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.
But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?
You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
A 63-year-old Vietnam veteran from Queens was stabbed on a Manhattan subway train Sunday after making a sarcastic comment about a rowdy gang of eight girls and young women, cops said.
Ralph Carnegary of Queens said the raucous riders were being so loud “you couldn’t hear yourself think” as their downtown-bound 6 train neared the 23rd St. station about 6 a.m, officials said.
Carnegary, who lives in a veterans shelter in Long Island City, was on his way to work as a souvenir vendor on Wall St. “I couldn’t identify the girl who stabbed me. All my attention was on the knife coming at me,” Carnegary told the Daily News Sunday night.
He said the girls turned on him after they overheard him talking to his pal, James Santiago, about how noisy they were.
“I just said, ‘Those girls must be retarded because they can’t hear each other talk,’” Carnegary recalled.
Within a second, the furious gals, whose ages range from 15 to 20, went berserk and started pummeling Carnegary with their fists.RELATED: Pictured: 'Wolf pack' of drunken girls who 'stabbed 63-year-old veteran on NY subway after he told them they were being too noisy'
He was trying to block the blows when he heard another girl yell, “Go for him” and a third girl say, “Cut him.”
One of his attackers plunged a knife into Carnegary’s left shoulder, leaving a wound that required seven stitches.
“I didn’t think they were actually going to knife me. The oldest one didn’t look no more than 18 or 19. I couldn’t believe they did that,” he said.
Santiago, 46 a former Marine who also lives in the shelter, said he jumped in to defend Carnegary when he saw two of the women charge his friend from behind.
“I feel like I owe my life to this guy right here,” Carnegary said of Santiago.
Carnegary’s wife, Connie, 50, was outraged by the attack. “It’s terrible,” she said. “You can’t even ride the train. You can’t even go to work in the morning.”
A female U.S. Marine appeared on Fox & Friends on Monday where she said that a combat role for women in the armed services would be dangerous for both those women and the military. She says she suffered irreversible medical maladies due to her combat training and fears more women will suffer from those conditions if the military is forced to put women on the front lines.Men and women are emotionally and biologically different. This doesn't mean that any gender is less important than the other when it comes to our roles on this planet and our future well-being, it simply means that God had a plan and knew what the hell he was doing when he created us in his image. Only non-believers, hateful radical feminists and social liberals fail to accept this, which is why they all tend to be one and the same.
Marine Corps Capt. Katie Petronio has been speaking out over the last week against women being integrated into frontline combat duty in the infantry.
Petronio said that women occupy a number of support roles in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but she objects to being mandated to join combat duty on the frontlines by U.S. lawmakers.
“Females have definitely played a strong role in combat operations in a supporting capacity,” said Petronio. “My specific concern is opening up infantry for females.”
“The costs definitely outweigh the benefits,” Petronio continued. “It’s not going to help the individual and it’s not going to help the institution. We’re a war fighting institution and combat readiness needs to be at the front and foremost when we make decisions like this. I think this change isn’t going to benefit anybody.”
When asked why she felt that way by co-host Gretchen Carlson, Petronio said “there is a misconception outside the Marine Corps that preventing women from taking on these roles possibly restricts our opportunities for promotion. In the Marine Corps, men and women are promoted at the same rate.”
“The other question I present is longevity,” Petronio went on. “My concern, that I point out in my article, there’s these gender-specific medical concerns that come from opening these fields that I’m not so sure we’ve really thought about that.”
Petronio noted that there is also a higher cost burden associated with medical treatment for women in combat and asked “are we willing to pay the price for that?”
She said that she went through rigorous combat training and she endured “weight loss” and “muscle atrophy” and suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome which resulted in infertility. “It’s the type of combat environment these days is very strenuous and I was only doing a portion of what our infantry brothers do,” said Petronio.
She said that female service personnel will have no choice but to serve in combat if these new rules are adopted.
Last month, the Obama campaign tried to sell women — especially younger, single women — a life of government dependency in its unwittingly Orwellian “Life of Julia.” Even women inclined to support Barack Obama objected to the characterization of women as wards of the state. Polling results two weeks later showed that Obama lost significant ground among the demographics he had hoped to improve, and ever since, the Obama campaign has apparently relegated the eyeless, mouthless “Julia” to the Island of Misfit Campaign Mascots.
That doesn’t mean that critics have forgotten “Julia,” though. A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity features Emily O’Neill, who accurately deconstructs the message from Team Obama within the first minute, with devastating impact. Emily then proposes an alternate reality, called “The Life of Emily,” which relies on hard work, good economic choices, and rejects the need for a Hubby State for young American women — such as herself:
Dan Mitchell hails this a good instruction on the difference between empowerment and dependency:
But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101″ video.
It’s narrated by Emily O’Neill, who contrasts the moocher mentality of Julia with how she wants her life to develop. To give away the message, she wants the kind of fulfillment that only exists when you earn things.
RELATED: Julia: A paean to subservience in the Hubby State?Emily’s view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that government-imposed coercion and redistribution erode the social capital of a people.Women have a choice, as Emily demonstrates, at least for the moment. They can aspire to become Julia the Moocher or Emily the Empowered. Which message do you think will sell better over the next five months, and which offers the kind of paternalistic attitude that represents the antithesis of the women’s movement?
A Democratic consultant with ties to the Obama administration sneering that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life” is an opportunity for the Romney campaign, but a small problem in the big picture. In the big picture, women who are unable to find work in Obama’s economy are a bigger one.RELATED: Ann Romney Responds to Hillary Rosen: ‘I Know What It’s Like To Struggle’
Having said that, White House visitor logs indicate that “Hilary Rosen” visited the White House 35 times.
Gen. David Petraeus, head of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current CIA director, nine times.
Further perspective: Energy Secretary Stephen/Steve Chu visited 16 times. (Guests are listed by name, not by title, so it is theoretically possible these totals count a separate person with the same name. In the case of Chu, I’m presuming he is the one listing of “Steve Chu” as well as the 15 “Stephen Chu” listings.)
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki has visited 19 times.
Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, 12 times.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the name “Joseph R. Biden” appears . . . 6 times.
At least Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner managed to get into the White House more frequently than Rosen, but not by much. He has visited 40 times.
So the notion that Rosen is just some Democrat talking head, completely disconnected from the Obama administration and campaign is . . . not plausible.
Posts
All Comments
