Tuesday, March 13, 2012

What do Sandra Fluke and Arthur Fonzarelli have in common?

That's a tough one for the kids, not so much for geezers in my g-g-g generation.

They both jumped a shark.

The false contraception controversy, now exposed as a clear and most cynical political contrivance, looked to be gaining some ground last week.  The liberal spin machine that dominates American news, entertainment and academic media were actually starting to convince American women that somehow, without ever saying it, Republicans had an unspoken scheme to deprive women of the right to purchase contraceptive drugs and devices.

The liberal argument was, of course, preposterous.  Most Republican women of child bearing age use contraception.  This is "most" as in 80-90 percent "most".  Most Republican men who get lucky with Republican women, or women of any political stripe 'cause we understand human biology fails to recognize political differences, know, assume or perhaps hope without asking that the girl on the other side of the transaction is jiggy with the concept of contraception. 

But somehow, in the face of all known reality, the liberal spin was working.  Then came Sandra Fluke, with one whiny demand for a welfare entitlement too many.

Yes, at first Ms. Fluke seemed like another perfect liberal victim.  Rush even called her a slut.  The liberal spin machine shouted that Republicans hate women (which must seem odd to the tens of millions of Republican women).  Republicans hate women so much, came the scree, that they don't want to make the Catholic Church and its constiuent charities and universities, for example, pay for birth control pills and devices for their employees and students.  Then, for a change, a whole lot of conservatives started to shout back.

Surprisingly people started to listen and then, worst case for liberals, think.  If Republicans were not saying that the sale of contraceptive drugs and devices should be restricted or denied then what were they saying, asked a curious public.  Even more surprisingly, the thinking public began to inquire as to what Sandra was saying.

Then it hit the public-Sandra Fluke and American left were not protecting a woman's right to purchase birth control products-no one was challenging that right-but rather were demanding the creation of an entitlement that required others to pay for her birth control. 

Sandra Fluke was intended to be the face of victimization for the election of '012.  Now granted, the average American fails to see hardship on the face of someone attending a law school with tuition north of $23,000, per semester.  Harder still to see a victim when we learn that the people who own and operate the law school are partially subsidizing that law student's very expensive education.

But when that law student demands, not asks but demands, that her benefactors violate their own conscience to subsidize not only her education but also her physical recreation (which would be quite prodigous if she truly spends $1000 a year on contraception) the demand becomes, well, just a bit much of a load even for the self imposed and misplaced guilt of the American public. 


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Law student, eh? Started thinking about that future job yet? May I make a suggestion? Check out JD Match in between the papers and exams. I work with JD Match and it’s a great step for any law student looking for an AmLaw firm job and a little weight off their shoulders. http://bit.ly/ygn5UY