Anyone who’s read my Blogs knows I admire the positive accomplishments women have gradually been able to confirm to misogynous men.
However, one prominent female journalist is, I believe, an exception. Ms. Jennifer Rubin is an avowed Conservative Editorial writer for the Washington Post. She is less Conservative in my opinion than Radically Rightist Radical. Take the President’s State of The Union speech last night as an example. Her comment today about the Affordable Care Act [ACA], which Obama remarked upon, is that his “biggest government scheme flopped.”
The ACA has not “flopped.” Ms. Rubin may not like it, but it is the Law of the Land. And like Social Security, which also took time to iron out its initial inherent flaws, the ACA is gradually working out its admittedly imperfect aspects. It will be here 100 years from now, likely in improved form, when Congress finally learns how to work across its widely divergent aisles instead of bazooka shooting one another on national TV news shows.
She speaks of Mr. Obama’s, “cramped vision.” Again, Ms. Rubin may not like Obama’s concepts of addressing poverty. But, no one with even a limited education in philosophy, political science, history, psychology, and literature could criticize Obama on his ideologically motivated vision for middle income and poorer citizens of the United States. He obviously cares. And asks for opposition input on solutions.
Still commenting on the Affordable Care Act, Ms. Rubin contends that, “Republicans have plenty of plans to solve” rate hikes for pre-existing illnesses. Really? Would some one please write me and outline a couple? Apparently, I’ve missed them. Other than constantly and consistently confronting Mr. Obama on almost every one of his attempted health care proposals, it strikes me that Republicans have been as adamant in their opposition to Obama as Democrats were to the last Bush presidency. Neither was rational. Both were prejudiced in the extreme.
Finally, Ms. Rubin says the answer to our Economic Inequality issues are simply to, “re-install behaviors and institutions (like the family) that are the key to escaping poverty.” My-oh-my: so it’s that simple? Family destruction is a result of despicably inept policies by government and corporations regarding American job protection; family destruction is not the cause of government and corporate economic ineptness. Claiming so is an embarrassingly simplistic example of shallow thinking: a banal concept.
Ms. Rubin’s ideological biases are well documented by the Online reader comments that follow most of her writings. It is rare for readers to praise her for any kind of objective factual analysis of anything. Like Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman, she is a confirmed ideological thinker, rather than a rational, fact-based, deep-thinking analyst of the passing political scene. One wonders how she keeps her job.
Any ladies out there [or non-misogynist men] who think otherwise: I’d like to hear from you. I’m as susceptible as anyone to my own ideological biases. If you can help prove to me I’m caught in one here about my discomfort with Ms. Rubin’s thinking, my ears are wide open to your refutation. If you’ve never read her, go to the online site, washingtonpost.com, find her column, and give her a try.