Calling her ‘Hillary’ is now ‘sexist’
Now that Hillary is officially in the running, prepare to start hearing the s-word. Don’t like her politics? Sexist! Disagree with her positions? Sexist! Still have issues with Benghazi? Sexist!
The s-bomb will be dropping left and right over the next 18 months during an election season that’s bound to witness a violent collision of culture and politics. Obama’s exit will end the age of racial politics just in time for Hillary to usher in the era of gender politics.
But for many of her female supporters, the gender war has already begun, and the first big battle is being fought over her name.
You see, if you do what I just did and call her “Hillary,” that makes you sexist now, too.
Since we’re used to calling presidents and candidates by their last names (i.e. Obama, Bush), some are claiming that calling Hillary “Hillary” is too informal and therefore disrespectful and therefore demeaning and therefore, of course, sexist.
One sweet soul on Twitter wrote: “It’s Hillary CLINTON you f?-?-?-?s, not ‘Hillary!’?”
Oh, boy, er . . . girl. This will be a long 18 months.
First of all, she’s actually not the only one. Once upon a time we had a “Teddy” and a “Silent Cal” and an “Honest Abe,” and even today, plenty of people say “Mitt” or “Jeb” without eliciting any raised eyebrows. (And hey, it’s not like we’re reducing her name to just letters — remember “Dubya,” FDR and JFK?)
But even if she were the first or only, doesn’t that just make sense? It might bother feminists, but the fact remains that Hillary first came onto the stage as First Lady Hillary — he was “Clinton,” she was “Hillary.”
And doesn’t sticking with that model actually help avoid confusion? Today, when someone talks about Clinton this or Clinton that, isn’t it fair to wonder, “Wait — which one?”
And this isn’t unique to Hillary — we would have the same scenario if Michelle Obama ran for office someday. We would refer to Barack as “Obama,” and to Michelle as “Michelle.”
Sorry folks, but it’s just easier that way. Both Bill and Barack got there first, so they got dibs on the association with their last names.
But speaking of last names, shouldn’t feminists be just as upset at the thought of calling her Mrs. Clinton? Don’t true feminists recoil at the idea of referring to a woman by her husband’s name?
I thought they were moving away from that stifling, antiquated tradition.
So, first it was sexist to make a woman take her husband’s name, but now it’s sexist if you don’t call her by her husband’s name? Is anyone else confused?
Either way, all of this ridiculous hullabaloo can be summed up in three words: First World problems.
Right now, there are tens of millions of women across the globe who are not allowed to work, not allowed to run for office, not even allowed to vote.
But here in America, we’re squabbling like children about what name to call our female presidential candidate working to be democratically elected to the highest office in the country to become one of the world’s most powerful people . . . and I’m supposed to believe some part of this is somehow sexist?
Call her Hillary, Hillary Clinton or whatever variation you like, but please, don’t cry sexism where there is none.
WikiLeaks republishes all Sony hacking scandal documents
Julian Assange says data ‘belongs in the public domain’ and says hacked files shed light on extent of cooperation between government and Hollywood
WikiLeaks has republished the Sony data from last year’s hacking scandal, making all the documents and emails “fully searchable” with a Google-style search engine.
The move provides much easier access to the stolen information. Searching the name of, for example, former Sony Pictures chief Amy Pascal, whose controversial comments were revealed by the hack, immediately yields nearly 5,700 results.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, said: “This archive shows the inner workings of an influential multinational corporation. It is newsworthy and at the centre of a geopolitical conflict. It belongs in the public domain. WikiLeaks will ensure it stays there.”
But Sony accused WikiLeaks of contributing to the damage done by the data theft, which it condemned as “a malicious criminal act.”
“The attackers used the dissemination of stolen information to try to harm SPE and its employees, and now WikiLeaks regrettably is assisting them in that effort,” a Sony spokesperson wrote in an unbylined statement.
“We vehemently disagree with WikiLeaks’ assertion that this material belongs in the public domain and will continue to fight for the safety, security, and privacy of our company and its more than 6,000 employees.”
Former senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the MPAA, also spoke out against the republication of the material. “This information was stolen from Sony Pictures as part of an illegal and unprecedented cyberattack,” he wrote in a press statement. “Wikileaks is not performing a public service by making this information easily searchable. Instead, with this despicable act, Wikileaks is further violating the privacy of every person involved.”
Much more to read found HERE.
The Death of the Left
The left is winning, but for the left winning is indistinguishable from dying.
The West didn’t defeat Communism; it held it at bay long enough for it to defeat itself. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China crushed Communism more decisively than Goldwater could have ever dreamed of.
The embargo didn’t turn Cuba into a hellhole whose main tourism industry is inviting progressive Canadian pedophiles to rape its children. Castro did that with help from the dead guy on the red t-shirts.
“One of the greatest benefits of the revolution is that even our prostitutes are college graduates,” Castro told Oliver Stone. In real life, his prostitutes are lucky if they graduated from elementary school.
American admirers eager to get to Havana claim to be worried that Starbucks will ruin their Socialist paradise. What really worries them is that American businesses might give Cuban teens an economic alternative to sexually servicing decrepit leftists from Berkeley for $10 a night in the revolutionary version of Thailand where everyone is free, especially the political prisoners and raped children.
There’s no embargo to blame in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez destroyed his own Bolivarian revolution by implementing it. The Venezuelan economic collapse really took off while Obama was in the White House leafing through the tract Chavez had gifted him blaming America for all of Latin America’s troubles.
Now Chavez, the tract’s author and the Venezuelan economy are all dead.
Chavez’s successor has desperately tried to blame America for his crisis, but Uncle Sam had nothing to do with the lack of toilet paper in the stores, the milk rationing and the soldiers stationed outside electronics retailers. It’s just what happens when the left wins.
When the man in the White House wanted a Latin American revolution to succeed, it still failed.
The left is at its best when it’s trying to take power. It unleashes its egocentric creative impulses, it writes poems, plays and songs as its heroes die in doomed battles or pump their fists at protests. And then they win, get rich and fat, the people grow poor and the country becomes a miserable dictatorship. Try putting a 300 pound Che on a t-shirt. Or get inspired by Obama lazily playing golf.
A successful leftist revolution quickly becomes indistinguishable from an ordinary oligarchy. Millions may die, but decades later all that’s left is a vast pointless bureaucracy that runs on family connections, an ideology no one understands anymore and an impoverished population ripe for outside exploitation.
And then before you know it, Moscow is full of fast food joints, China uses slave labor to make iPhones and aging hippies can buy children in Cuba for the price of a Happy Meal.
The left rams through its ideology by force and when the ideology is gone, all that’s left is the force.
Now that the left has gotten its way in America, crushing its enemies, inflicting everything from socialized medicine to mandatory gay marriages on the masses, the excitement is gone. Even pro-criminal policies, the straw that once broke the left’s electoral back, have been accepted by Republicans.
Read all of this HERE.