And The Greatest Living Woman Is . . . .

new-york-statue-of-libertyJust when I thought that I could not get more depressed about humanity, Fortune Magazine released its second annual list of the “extraordinary men and women.” The greatest female leader? Taylor Swift. Not German Chancellor Andrea Merkel. Taylor Swift. She was just two below Pope Francis.

Fortune Magazine selected those people who “are transforming business, government, philanthropy, and so much more.” The list was (1) Apple C.E.O. Tim Cook, (2) European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, (3) People’s Republic of China president Xi Jinping, (4) Pope Francis, and (5)India prime minister Narendra Modi. Then at 6 comes Taylor Swift according to Fortune.

Fortune based its ranking on the fact that Swift “the highest-paid woman in the music business.” After all what has Merkel done? She does not have a single POPS song to her credit.

251 thoughts on “And The Greatest Living Woman Is . . . .”

  1. Fortune likes rich people. Taylor swift makes ridiculous amounts of money.

    1. commoner – you put as many butts in seats as Taylor Swift and you can make that kind of money, too. 😉

  2. Oh, as an after thought, I’ll take Taylor Swift over twerps like Al Sharpton anyway, let alone Ms. Hillary. Yep, I can be a chauvinist where pretty women are concerned. Taylor Swift has done several things charity wise, including for veterans, that have given her standing above and beyond the usual. Gotta go with that, too.

  3. For the record, tomorrow evening I am going to a dinner to celebrate 3 nearly simultaneous birthdays. Two gay guys and my daughter, an “Amer-Asian” in some parlance. One or two black guys will also be there, because we all know each other and care about each other. I will be sure to ask them all about what they think of the RFRA dust up. However, I already know their answers. Along the lines of “Say what?” Given that most of that little group are professionals earning 6 figures+, not including me these days, I’m pretty sure they don’t feel discriminated against much. The last guy who called my kid a “Gook” got flattened by my charming kid. Consequences. They matter. Taekwondo helps 🙂

  4. Max-1 said…

    Airdog [Aridog] …. Duh… It’s 2015 not 1965.
    Again, why the need to hang onto principles from 1965 that reasoned it perfectly logical to discriminate? Progress is moving forward… And Indiana and now Arkansas are regressing.

    You seem to answer your own question here. And was the “duh” necessary? Then you further go on to cite the KKK at least twice, and post a photo collage showing the 60’s & prior evils. Who is hanging on to just what in this thread?

    I am not hanging on to those principles, I lived through those days, and hated all it encompasses. I still do. You’ve done a good job of citing and re-citing the 60’s past on this thread….yet you suggest it is me? It is the new untutored “advocates” of all this discrimination mantra that refer to the potential to return to Jim Crow and worse…when they have no clue and never lived in it or saw it or were embarrassed by it. I am merely pointing out there is NO comparison what-so-ever….thus this dust up today is 90% propaganda and 8% publicity seeking.

    Now I may be misunderstanding you and your point(s), so correct me, by addressing my words, not new stuff, if necessary. I am not omniscient.

  5. Paul:

    “So, you are one of the LGBT owning a bakery and they type you don’t like comes in for a cake for their wedding. Can you refuse?”

    Years ago, my brother’s family went on vacation with my parents. My niece and nephew were very young. When they checked into the hotel, they were horrified to discover that there was some sort of gay convention going on, complete with a lot of guys in butless chaps, having very passionate encounters in elevators. They rode down to the lobby with a pair of guys who started completely making out right in front of their kids. It wasn’t about gay rights or equality. It appeared to be about sex. My brother complained bitterly to the manager that they would never have come if they’d known an adult sex convention was going to be held at the same hotel, because they have small kids. They wouldn’t have wanted to stay there for a straight porn con, either. The manager said they could not refuse the booking, or warn guests, because they would have been accused of intolerance or bigotry. This is what happens when businesses feel like they can’t say no.

    If it had been a convention where grownups talked about serious issues facing the gay community, it would have been fine. But it turned into a seriously adult gathering.

    When I went to the Halloween parade in Hollywood, I expected to see guys in chaps with only a jock strap on, and gay couples making out. It’s Hollywood. I was an adult who supported gay rights. But a business that catered to families was afraid to say no because of the backlash. They could have said no to a straight porn convention, but not a gay convention because they would have been boycotted, etc. So my little niece and nephew got to see men writhing around on each other when they didn’t even know what sex was yet. Typically, you would expect to check into a hotel with your kids without seeing straight or gay couples hooking up. Unless it’s spring break at Havasu.

    And that’s the problem with taking away a business owner’s rights to say no. Either business owners can never decline service, no matter the customer’s personality, political affiliation, topic, etc. “No” is not allowed ever. Or a business owner has the right to do business with whom they please, and let customers vote with their feet.

    Businesses ALREADY had the right to refuse business based on sexual orientation. How big of a problem was it? How often did it happen?

    I would not want someone to serve me against their will, and I certainly wouldn’t trust my wedding photos or eat a cake that someone was forced to make for me. Do you want a bitter photographer memorializing a loving moment?

    1. @Karen S: ” When they checked into the hotel, they were horrified to discover that there was some sort of gay convention going on, complete with a lot of guys in butless chaps, having very passionate encounters in elevators.”

      It looks to me like you have tried to talk this up into some kind of beef against the LGBT community. That does not stand up to scrutiny.

      The real basis of you complaint relates to body display and what we used to call public display of affection. Would it make any difference to guests or their children if it were men with women in g-strings and push bras making out in the elevator? Do you really think the elevator and corridors would have looked much different if the hotel had been hosting a swingers convention? I think not.

      The problem comes down specifically to the standard of the hotel. You can claim that the hotel was afraid to turn away business. But that makes no sense to me. I would bet anything I own this event was brought the hotel by the marketing efforts of the bar and convention manager.

      Even short-stay by-the-hour-rendezvous joints can and do specify dress and decorum for the lobby, common rooms, and common passage ways.

      If you found the display of body parts in the elevator objectionable, your beef is not with the LGBT community but with the hotel management that did not post that little sign that says something like ‘proper attire required’.

      I sympathize with your family and their children; although my bet is the children were less shocked than amused. But lets complain to the right party – hotel management. And lets not get confused when management gives some corporate BS that avoids taking responsibility for their corporate standards.

      If you are taking your family to a resort you might want to first make a inquiry regarding dress code in the lobby, elevator and corridors.

      BTW, the last I heard places like Club Med, which maybe wonderful for some adults, may not be the best place for couples with young children.

    1. If you actually look at the facts all anyone is asking for is the same freedom that you enjoy.

      What exactly is wrong with that?

      How would you like it Richard if the people in your town started saying ‘we don’t like that Richard. Richard’s ideas are offensive. We are not going to serve Richard’

      What if they stopped selling cake, groceries, gas, or renting to you.

      What about it Richard? Would you champion their right to decide not to sell to you? Would you really say you can ostracize me, you can starve me out, but that is OK?

      The only reason you dare to make these ridiculous claims about dictatorship is that you think you are beyond the danger.

      But you are not, Richard. If they can ostracize anyone they can target you as well.

      We are all safe together. Or none of us are safe.

      Join with me Richard. Stand up like a true citizen and make clear that every one has the same rights. We are all safe together.

      We all enjoy the same rights. Or any one of us can be made the target and taken down.

    2. @Richard: “FREEDOM OR….DICTATORSHIP?”

      I think it is also important to point out that Richard’s idea that it is either dictatorship or freedom is simplistic.

      Even the great Scalia has pointed out that in the constitution with its list of defined rights, there are certain things that we take out of democracy.

      In other words there are certain limitations we place on freedom. Usually we accept these limitations on freedom in order to ensure greater protection and freedom for all of us. We agree to ‘equal protection’ and take out of democracy the ability to apply the laws selectively or to make laws against specific individuals or groups.

      Further, it seems to me, that absolute freedom from government control leads inevitably to anarchy. But anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy implies domination by the strongest and best armed.

      We give up some limited freedoms to regulation by the government so that we can all be protected and enjoy widest possible scope for our actions.

      If we make wise choices through our democratic institutions the limitation of our freedom will be minimal and everyone will be able to enjoy the maximum of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      The system is not perfect. But between dictatorship and anarchy there are a broad range of possible outcomes. It is our duty to try to find the best choices that protect all of us.

      Even the Richards of the world deserve to be able to live and work and shop where they please.

  6. It’s all about the Benjamins.

    What a wonderful culture.

    History will not be kind.

Comments are closed.