Your editor has been somewhat busy for the past few days, and hasn’t had much new about which to write. So, he will take the easy way out will point readers to some other interesting articles from the blogroll.
William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove points to a chart from the American Enterprise Institute that has some liberals just hopping mad. The chart, of course, comes from the President’s own economic team; it’s simply that the current official unemployment rate was added by others. And the AEI story notes several things wrong with the 8.3% official unemployment number, including how many people have dropped out of the workforce, and the Congressional Budget Office’s projection of what the size of the labor force should be this year; if that figure is used, unemployment would actually be 10.4%.
The Lonely Conservative had a different chart, but it tells the same story: the economic results of President Obama’s stimulus plan were the exact opposite of what we were told they would be, and that, using his own projections, we’d have better off if we had done nothing at all. Gee, I wonder if anybody had ever suggested that before.
Sister Toldjah notes, quoting Jonah Goldberg, how the professional media treats Sandra Fluke, and compares it to their treatment of Joe Wurzelbacher, made famous as “Joe the Plumber” when he had the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to challenge Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s (D-IL) economic, taxation and business ideas.
When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism.
Our friends on the left have complained that the conservative resistance to Miss Fluke’s political positions amounts to “slut shaming.” They, it seems, are only into small business entrepreneur shaming.
Hube, on the Colossus of Rhodey, notes why people like the late Andrew Breitbart are so important: they shine the light on things the professional media would just as soon sweep under the rug. It’s quite the similarity: when you turn on the light, both liberals and cockroaches scramble to hide.
ALa of Blonde Sagacity noted seventy years of progress for American women! From “We can do it!” to “We can get someone to do it for us!”
It may have been noticed that THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL has dipped its editorial toe into Rule 5 Blogging, which Robert Stacy McCain described as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat deshabille, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Anne Hathaway in few clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put heir lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.
Tania of Midnight Blue addressed the silliness of the Sandra Fluke kerfuffle:
According to Sandra, students in the midst of law school are suffering over Catholic principles; not midterms, finals or demanding law professors? Wow, Georgetown Law School seems to be a cakewalk, where do I sign up?
Actually, Sandra’s statements to House Democrat Steering and Policy Committee brought illumination to the ease of access and low cost of contraceptives. Today, American women have easy access to a wide range of safe, affordable contraceptives than in any time in our nation’s history.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for women struggling to provide healthy, nutritious meals for their families. Sadly, it is easier and less costly for a women to purchase contraceptives than it is to provide healthy meals for their families.
Feeding America shares sobering statistics on hunger in America:
- In 2010, 48.8 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 32.6 million adults and 16.2 million children.
- In 2010, 14.5 percent of households (17.2 million households) were food insecure.
- In 2010, 5.4 percent of households (6.4 million households) experienced very low food security.
- In 2010, households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.2 percent compared to 11.7 percent.
- In 2010, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.2 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (35.1 percent) or single men (25.4 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (25.1 percent) and Hispanic households (26.2 percent).
- In 2009, 8.0 percent of seniors living alone (925,000 households) were food insecure.
- Food insecurity exists in every county in America, ranging from a low of 5 percent in Steele County, ND to a high of 38 percent in Wilcox County, AL
My hometown, Philadelphia county, has a child food insecurity rate of 20.4% according to Feeding America. Interesting to note that unemployment rather than poverty is strong indicator for food insecurity in families.
Looking at these statistics, I can’t help but be appalled by the sheer arrogance of Sandra Fluke. While women struggle to feed their families, Sandra most likely has never gone a day without a meal, yet demands public support for an expensive lifestyle choice.
You know what sounds like a good idea. Show Ms. Fluke where she can purchase contraceptive for $9/month and use the money saved to support food banks providing meals to food insecure families. According to Feeding America, $100 dollars equals 800 meals. In the end, Fluke can maintain her lifestyle choice and actually make a meaningful contribution to society – a win/win situation.
We have bigger issues in this nation, a moribund economy forcing more and more families into food insecurity situations and we are being distracted by a woman with an inflated sense of entitlement. Let’s keep our focus critical issues such as building a better economy and finding ways to provide low cost healthy food to families at risk.
John Podhoretz at Commentary on the controversy unleashed by the Breitbart.com video:
Michael Powell of the New York Times reflected conventional opinion in liberal media circles when he tweeted: “Derrick Bell, Radical? We’re to pretend our history cleansed? He fought 4 Civil Rights in Mississippi.”
It is incumbent on Powell and others, if they want to get in on the conversation about Bell, to explain what on earth is mainstream about comments he made in an eye-opening New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, that is not available online. Among other remarks, Bell denounced Henry Louis (Skip) Gates for writing a New York Times op-ed condemning black anti-Semitism:
I was furious. Even if everything he said was true, it was inexcusable not to mention what might have motivated blacks to feel this way, and to fail to talk about all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.
Bell went on to say, “Now, that wouldn’t excuse anti-Semitism, which is awful, but it would at least provide a context for this anger…”
And more from Mr McCain on his site.
That’s it for now; I’m off for a very long overdue haircut, and other things.