We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If your aim is to destroy the US military, a longterm goal of the left, you should be heartened by "No sex. permission to speak freely sir."
Why is anyone surprised that mixing young men and women in training and combat has led to the problems predicted by Jim Webb in a 1979 article entitled something like "Women can't fight." I'd say shouldn't, rather than can't, but small quibble.
Open homosexuals are another nail in the coffin, and the nomination of John Kerry to be secretary of defense the final blow.
We are fortunate that the 'No sex' young lady chose to return to civilian life. She openly bragged of dishonorable behavior at West Point and failed to understand the difficulty of sex when deployed.
To simplify, it isn't the dipping the pen in the ink that is the problem. It is the emotions that arise. Since you can't control emotions, you control the act. Sex happens, yes, but also jealousy, anger, pettiness as well. Either from those spurned or when lovers fight. It is the pre-occupation the emotions cause that is the problem. I once knew of a couple who became involved on a ship. Not a huge problem as they were on the same level in the chain of command. However, they then had a spat. The couple couldn't be professionals and did not brief each other properly when changing the watch. I don't know if the CO was aware or if he was weak but both should have been broken, not only removed from watch but forced out of uniform. Their pettiness endangered dozens.
It is not the sex, it is problems it causes. By having a 'No sex' rule, you avoid the problem with many, you force others to at least take actions to prevent the problems from impacting their duty and for those who cannot behave as adults, you have the means to break them from the service.
And do we really want unplanned pregnancies going on in war zones? This is the undiscussed problem. How intermingling males and females on Navy ships, for example, has created problems with readiness. Pregnant women cannot serve on ships/aircraft carriers. So what happens when a gal on board gets pregnant? She gets removed...with no one to take her place...or a period of time when there is no one there to take her place. Therefore, everyone's job is harder. Fewer people to do the work.
I thought it was a big mistake to allow women in combat positions and aboard ships. Most women I knew in the military (myself included) did NOT want ship duty...because most of us had children to worry about. However, those women who stayed in for a career knew that the only way to advance would be to do sea time. Is that what we really want?
Wish we could go back to 1993 before Clinton screwed things up.
Coyote Blog: Can the Majority Vote to Have A Minority Send Them Money?
While it is conceivable that the poor majority could run democratic roughshod over the rich minority, that is rarely the case. Historically, the rich have disproportionate power (xposted). Indeed, democracy is largely designed as a check on plutocracy.
The Other McCain: Why do we give a damn whether the Egyptians have democracy or not?
It's only important if you believe in universal human rights. However, democracy is not something imposed from the top, but comprised of the multitude of institutions that constitute civil society. The story in Egypt is not over yet.
Hans Bader: Law professor Stuart Benjamin argues that the Supreme Court will view this ruling as ludicrous and reverse it by a 7-to-2 vote. The ruling certainly does contradict common sense, since the Constitution’s equal protection clause requires states to treat people equally, not to allow discrimination against them by arms of the state government, like state universities.
Affirmative action has been on the books for half a century. While it might be argued that the time for affirmative action is past, it would be wrong to claim it never had a reasonable purpose.
The article argues that treating people differently due to race contradicts "common sense" understanding of the equal protection clause, and that the Supreme Court, which has upheld limited affirmative action for generations, would now find it ludicrous.
The reason companies like Microsoft and Apple like the H-1B program and other forms of getting foriegners here to work for them is NOT because there aren't enough citizens to do the work. The reason boils down to two things: 1)The foreign worker will willingly work 60 and even 80 hour weeks without complaint (no overtime for most of these jobs). 2) They will work for less money. U.S. citizens in software and engineering like to switch jobs for more money and better opportunity and pay is a big factor. To most H-1B workers $60k is a lot of money and they are happy with it.
All in all I don't blame the employer for preferring H-1B workers but don't try to convince us it has anything to do with not enough U.S. engineers.