What Do Fluke, Hitler and Stalin Have In Common?

Sandra Fluke

What do Sandra Fluke, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin  have in common? They have all been nominated to be TIME magazine’s “person of the year.”

TIME magazine has announced that Sandra Fluke is a finalist for the 2012 person of the year. Yes, a condom rights advocate could possibly join the ranks of some of the world’s greatest people.

The current vote leader is Mohamed Morsi, followed closely by Kim Jong Un and Bashar Assad. These men being nominated at all should speak volumes as to the discernment of the nominating committee. The fact is, Fluke is fairly low on the list and is being beaten by “Undocumented Immigrants,” but is beating Mitt Romney and Jay-Z. This only goes to show that TIME has once again made a mockery of what was once a great honor.

Granted, TIME’s person of the year has been awarded to some less than honorable characters. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatollah Kohmeini are all past recipients. We all agree that these men are not models of great and honorable leaders. They are, however, very influential people. They made a difference in the world. They did something, even if it was evil and against everything decent in the world.

What has Sandra Fluke done? She has complained. She came to Washington, D.C. and whined about how difficult it was, as a woman going to school, to buy contraceptives and pay for all of those other pesky things like living expenses. Testifying before Congress, once, about your “hardship” of purchasing birth control, is apparently grounds to be the most important person on the planet.

Her argument wasn’t even that birth control was hard to come by. It was that Georgetown University should be forced to pay for it in its entirety. A woman — who is studying for her Juris Doctorate — went to the US Congress and complained that her school of choice wouldn’t pay for her contraceptive.  Note that Georgetown is her school of choice. No one forced her to go there. She chose that university, then wanted things done her way. This, of course, is now grounds to be nominated for the international person of the year.

TIME magazine has given us a wonderful list of choices for person of the year. Terrorist supporters, communist leaders, purveyors of genocide, and free condom advocates. This is what the nominating committee says is the best of the best. Can’t we find an honorable person in all the world who is deserving of this award?

Today, honor has a new meaning. Leadership has a new face. Heaven help us all.




  1. This is a great example of why healthcare costs are out of control, everyone wants everything for free.

  2. So which is cheaper? Providing “free” birth control of choice to a woman in college or tax payers paying for a pregnant woman to go to—at least a half dozen—doctor appointments, paying for the hospital stay and procedure for delivery, paying for prenatal vitamins, paying for WIC, possibly paying for the financially strapped college-age new mother to go on welfare and food stamps. I doubt it will be very easy to go to school and raise a newborn (alone (most likely given the circumstances)) so now this woman is not getting an education that would have led to a path of being an income tax payer, instead her life has been derailed and she has become another “taker” which the GOP so desperately despises.

    This is easy economics; provide the woman with birth control. It costs next to nothing in the short term and saves huge money in the long term.

    By the way, “You” [Yes, you!] were the Time ‘Person of the Year’ in 2006. You did this by providing content to the World Wide Web. Given the content on the web and this short-sighted Sandra Fluke article, I really do guess they’ll give the award to anyone.

  3. Tyson – Thank you for your comments, however, in the spirit of fairness, I must make some corrections to your views.

    First off, thank you for acknowledging that I was Person of the Year in 2006. I must also point out that I was also Person of the Year in 2003 and 2011. Accuracy is key.

    Economics has little, if anything, to do with free birth control for a doctoral student. If it “costs next to nothing” as you say, why should I have to provide it to her at no charge? Economics 101 clearly states that there is a cost for all goods and services and that if someone receives, someone pays. For a society to prosper and not go bankrupt, those people need to be one in the same.

    Why should I as John Q. Taxpayer be required to pay for a woman, any woman, to have protected sex? You are completely accurate in that it is far cheaper to prevent a pregnancy than to pay for the care during and after. My question to you is: Why should I have to pay for it? It is not my responsibility to pay for anyone else’s healthcare. It is not the responsibility of the government to do so either. If you want to have sex, go for it, but take the responsibility upon yourself to take proper steps to avoid pregnancy, or be ready to cut the cord.

    Our founding fathers set out in very clear words what the federal government was responsible for: Military, Currency, Piracy, Trade between states. Did I miss “Provide Condoms?”

    Lastly, I want to congratulate you on being the TIME Person of the Year in 2006 as well. Happy Blogging.

  4. You give quite a bit of credit to the rational thought process of horny college students. I know when I was a full time college student I worked a part-time job with almost zero spending money. Car payment, insurance, food, rent, utilities…well that’s about it, but the money was always gone. I had so little for food that I didn’t have the freshman 15, I had the freshman 30…which I lost instead of added (An aunt of mine (whose son is a State Representative in Ohio (whose wife may run a political blog)) told me I looked really good at Thanksgiving a year after I moved away to school. I looked at her deadpan and said, “I don’t eat.”). My point being that “[costing] next to nothing” is relative. For many college students the cost of condoms actually could be a determining factor of use. The bigger problem though is the sexual frenzy that is a teenage brain away from home for the first time with alcohol thrown into the mix. Tom, you were a teenage male once, so give me a break. Back then I would have thrown a baby across High Street to share a dance and a soda with just about any respectable young lady. That is not for a second rational thinking! (It was nice hitting 30 and only having 50% of thought sexual in nature.) If “free” condoms are available in dorms and/or campus clinics then you can avoid the unpleasant costs involved in having a child.

    You can argue Constitutionality about this, but look around you, this isn’t 1776 anymore. There’s nothing on a lot of things in the Constitution but I appreciate knowing my drugs have been tested, that food quality is checked, and that unwanted children are at least given the minimum requirements for sustaining life. The courts ruled long ago that government agencies are legal and that cat is not going back in the bag, ever. So the government is involved, deal with it. Now do you want to pay to prevent a pregnancy or pay—possibly forever—for a human life? Unwanted kids have a greater chance at being criminals (check out Freakonomics) so that money saved on the condom is now paying for three square, lawyers, trials, room & board (plus, they have more cable TV than I currently possess). Is that a good trade off to you?

    This is a cheap one that Republicans can give Democrats in some future negotiation. It makes sense politically and economically. Put your head in the sand all you want, but this kind of thinking turns off women voters that don’t believe in abortion yet also don’t want to be shackled to a child for the rest of their lives because they made a stupid mistake at 19. Or we can just do as you suggest and rely on the “responsibility” of sexed up teenagers…well, that should go swimmingly.

    • Individuals should be responsible for their choices. Taxpayers should not be buying condoms because young men (and women) refuse to deny their lust. You’ll say, “I remember being young and how horny I was” as though that’s some excuse for failing to exercise self-control. Next, you’ll say it’s unreasonable to expect those in their teens and early 20’s to exercise self-control. But it’s not. We grant licenses to 16 year olds and expect them to pay attention when they drive, not to text or talk, or follow to close or engage in aggressive driving behavior. We spend thousands of dollars every year to send them off to college, expecting them to go to class and maintain their grades. We expect them to hold jobs to make money so they can pay for the things they enjoy. All of these activities require discipline and self-control. This idea that it’s just too much to ask of our youngsters to employ the same discipline and self-control when it comes to sexual behavior is the reason our society is so sexually permissive today. And no argument can be won that purports that sexual behavior today is so much better than 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The sexual freedom embraced today is not good for our society on any level.

      If college students want condoms, they should pay for them. You say there wasn’t money left over. But if you can afford car insurance, gas and alcohol, you can afford condoms. You just have to decide which is most important to you. If you choose insurance gas and alcohol, you’ll have to exhibit some self-control. If you can’t exhibit self-control, cut out the alcohol, gas or car insurance.

      I find it strange that you think there are only two solutions: birth control, or raising a baby you don’t want. Birth control is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Suppose condoms have a 2% failure rate. So two times out of 100, they will fail, possibly creating two pregnancies. But say you increase the number of condom users to 1000, now we’re looking at 20 failures, 20 opportunities for unwanted pregnancies. Ten thousand condom users would provide 200 opportunities for condom failure and unwanted pregnancies and so on. Now that tax payers bought those condoms that didn’t work for two, 20 or 200 couples, we still have to pay for their post-condom-failure care, including doctor visits and so on. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the child will grow up unwanted. Adoption is always an option, but one that few people discuss anymore when unwanted pregnancies are brought up. But I’ve gotten away from the subject.

      Taxpayers should not be responsible for the lifestyle choices of college students. If they want to engage in these risky behaviors, they should be responsible for them. Not me. Not you. (If you feel differently, you can start a condom-giveaway at the college nearest you, with your own funds.)

      By the way, using your rationale, taxpayers should provide clean syringes in a clean environment for those who choose to shoot up. If we don’t, and they contract HIV/AIDS, we, the taxpayers are going to be responsible for their medical bills. Or how about providing every smoker with electric cigarettes so we hopefully won’t have to pay for their cancer treatment down the road. I can’t think of anything we can do to possibly stop an alcoholic from ruining his liver, but I’ll leave it to the liberals to come up with a scheme for that, which of course, they’ll try to foist that on the taxpayers as well. It never ends.

  5. We grant licenses to 16 year olds, they then go out and die at the highest rates on the road (Table 3: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5807a1.htm). We don’t trust them with alcohol until 21. But really, you’re missing the point, this is economics. The government WILL aid a young parent and her children. You may hate that but no elected Republicans are trying to take aid away from children. Period. So the “I shouldn’t have to pay for someone to have a child” argument doesn’t hold any water…you already are paying for it and you will continue to pay for it. You can hope and pray all you want for college kids to be chaste (I mean, I know my daughter will be) and responsible but they’re not. It seems ridiculous to me to try and prove to an adult that teenagers are not the best decision makers (most people (having been teenagers) “get it” I imagine) but here is research from Pitt (http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/lncd/media/The%20Teenage%20Brain%20_%20Protomag_Fall%2010.pdf). Kids have crappy impulse control! Allow me to file that under ‘But I Knew It All at 18.’

    Let me change the angle of my argument. If you believe that college students make rational decisions then why did they overwhelmingly vote for Barack Obama?

    Adoption is an option, I never claimed it wasn’t. But the adoption argument still requires the government shelling out money for 9 months.

    So condoms have a defect rate you say. *gasp* But that’s why we shouldn’t use them? So avoid the expense of 98 kids, because 2 will be born. That’s a rationale worthy of a teenage brain. Now I see where you’re coming from. You know bullets misfire, right? So cops shouldn’t carry any bullets since there is a failure rate for bullets? Hell, I’ve had light bulbs that claim to last thousands of hours last a month; I didn’t abandon light bulbs for candlelight.

    The conservative argument should be prevention. You are absolutely right about syringes too and those programs exist. You know why, economics. It is cheaper (much cheaper) to prevent, than to cure. You already pay for HIV/AIDS treatment in taxes and insurance, you already pay for pregnant teenagers in taxes and insurance, you already pay for criminals in jail in taxes and insurance, and you pay for alcoholics every time you pay for your car insurance (you think the insurance company isn’t passing that drunk’s accident along). Again, it is much cheaper to prevent. You are already paying, so why pay more?

    • Compare the teen/unwed mother birth rate to 1970, 1960, 1950, 1940, 1930, and so on down the line and the statistics are lower and lower and lower. We still had teens in those decades. They still had “poor impulse control.” But they were expected to make good decisions anyway. This whole, “Well, they’re going to do it, so we might as well pay for prevention” argument is one reason why they never bother to exercise their impulse control. Somebody else will always rush in and take care of it for them. I have teen boys. I raised them to behave a certain way. Now, when they go off to college, will they stray from the values they were raised with? To a certain extent, I believe they will. That includes the possibility they might get some girl pregnant. But they know that if they do, THEY are responsible for taking care of that girl and their baby. It is one of the reasons they’re adamant they’re going to wait until they’re married. There was a time when today’s sexual behavior was considered disgusting, abhorrent, and deviant. So your answer is to continue to define deviancy down?

      The lower you set the bar for society, they more society will slouch to fit under that bar. It’s time to expect something more.

      P.S. If birth control is so effective, why are the statistics for unwed mothers so high? It’s not like birth control is kept under lock and key in this country.

  6. “There was a time when today’s sexual behavior was considered disgusting, abhorrent, and deviant.” Are you familiar with history? Rome for example. Greece. Sexually these societies make modern America look like a Disney movie, well not the Disney movie where the unmarried woman lived with seven single guys, but the other ones. Not to mention the common practice of sending pregnant teenagers away and pretending that the grandmother gave birth again and not her daughter; or the fact that people use to get married at a much, much younger age than they do today. It’s easier to wait until marriage when you get married at 18 or 19 or 20 (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/). I applaud you for raising your children to be responsible, but kids waiting until marriage are not the problem (although it is quaint and, as you’ll see at the end, also a part of the problem), the problem is the vast majority that doesn’t wait and is impulsive to boot. Here (http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/31/4/271.abstract) is information from an academic journal on free condoms, the use of condoms, and the attitudes toward condoms. The results: “Obtaining free condoms from services predicted greater condom self-efficacy and personal responsibility, and lower negative feelings relating to sexual pleasure when condoms were used.” So free condoms made teenagers more responsible about condom use and lowered the chance that the teenager would say “it doesn’t feel as good” or “it doesn’t fit.” How about this study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html)? “Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do.” Please continue to hope we return to some fanciful time when teenagers didn’t have sex (but they did), I’ll continue to live in reality; a reality where I hope enough people understand that money spent on prevention goes farther than money spent on raising children.

Leave a comment or question. Report abusive, harassing or annoying behavior by clicking on Tips/Contact in the top menu.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: