Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, January 26. 2013

More good info about Wolves.

There are no "mass extinctions" going on

Why We Have Guns

Being armed is a sign that we are neither slave nor serf nor willing victim

An "edgier strategy" for the obesity problem: "a carefully calibrated effort of public social pressure" to provide "a shock of recognition."

Unintended pregnancies on the rise in servicewomen

Obama: Reagan of the Left - The president sees himself as the unabashed apostle of the ever-expanding federal state.

The Worst Five Years

Aussies Strike Black Gold

Milwaukee Teachers Earn College Credits for Taking Class to Heal Their Racism

Natural rights and the Second Amendment:

Gun-rights supporters often say their right to keep and bear arms comes from the Second Amendment.

They're wrong. That right comes, as do all of our rights, from God.* The Founders and Framers presupposed and accepted as self-evident "unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator". None of the Amendments grant us any rights; what they do is forbid the government from infringing on them, as rulers have always done from the beginning of history.

In America, the government does not confer rights. The ideal of freedom, and self-reliance, preceded government. Many immigrants and descendents of more recent immigrants from lands with authoritarian histories don't understand that, nor do many African Americans whose ancestors were involuntary immigrants and even less free than indentured servants or serfs. My ancestors, however, did invent a government to ensure our freedom, and deliberately handcuffed government power for the same reason. Americans do not have delimited rights - the government has delimited powers. That was the radical idea which remains too radical for statists. Such was intended by our Constitution, anyway. Since then, government, intoxicated with its importance, has been at war with our radical Constitution.

From Eritosthenes (h/t Vanderleun):

The pattern continues: With our fever yet unbroken, we treat weakness and need as some kind of a commodity to be exchanged for products and services, and strength, capability and service to others as some kind of a blight to be tolerated only churlishly, or not tolerated at all. Strength and weakness, each one treated as the other, as the opposite of what it truly is.

Adding to our handy-dandy blogroll:

Acculturated

Real Psychiatry

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:59 | Comments (43) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Jan 27, 08:55

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Steve McCann: The Worst Five Years ...

The global financial crisis took place in the previous year, 2008, and based on the historical pattern of American economic recovery since the depression years, the United States should have been experiencing broad and significant economic and job growth by year three at the latest.

Um, no. The financial crisis was the worst since the Great Depression, and involved a collapse of the global banking sector, so we would not expect a recovery similar to those since then.

#1 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 09:23 (Reply)

That may be true, but what followed makes little sense.
A situation more dire than past events can only be damaged further by idiotic policies. Triple the yearly debt..throw money at union bailouts.."invest" in obviously bad "green energy" industrial complexes ..focus society into divisive groups focusing on race, gender, sexuality, fear laden environmental boogiemen, etc.
If these tactics were not intentional, they are the product of some of the most stupid and gullible people on the planet.
I suspect it is intentional.

#1.1 Dale on 2013-01-26 10:41 (Reply)

Dale: Triple the yearly debt.

Most of the increase in debt is due to the economic downturn. The U.S. was already running deficits, even during the housing runup. Add a couple of unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare expansion, a bubble in the securities shadow markets and you have a recipe for disaster. The U.S. broke its economy, and it's going to take time and money to fix.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 10:47 (Reply)

Uh... The Bush deficits were declining till he did the bail out - in spite of the wars. In the following table, the first $ figure is the nominal deficit, the second is the inflation adjusted deficit)

QUOTE:

2005 $318 Billion Deficit $373.24 Billion Deficit R R R
2006 $248 Billion Deficit $282.14 Billion Deficit R R R
2007 $161 Billion Deficit $178.1 Billion Deficit R D D
2008 $459 Billion Deficit $488.82 Billion Deficit R D D
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit D D D
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit D D R
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1100 Billion Deficit D D R
2013 $900 Billion Deficit $884.96 Billion Deficit D D R

Source: Whitehouse.gov - Historical Tables (Table 1.1)

Of course, a better way of analyzing the deficit is to compare it to GDP:

QUOTE:

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

Unfortunately, all presidents spend money on idiot programs and subsidies, though the trend has increased in the last 40 years, but Obummer had doubled down on solar and wind boondoggles as well as bailing out states for their profligate spending.

#1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-01-26 12:08 (Reply)

mudbug: The Bush deficits were declining till he did the bail out - in spite of the wars.

Yes, that's the inflated nature of market bubbles. But even with the bubble, the U.S. continued to run deficits. That means when the bubble burst, deficits inevitably exploded. You're supposed to set aside money during expansions.

#1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 13:28 (Reply)

Was there ever in our lifetimes a bigger market bubble than the dot.com bubble under BJ Clinton....despite which, and despite the rising government tax revenues, the national debt continued to increase, all the while setting the stage for the problems in the housing market that remain with us today, thus weakening the US economy so it had little resilience when 9/11 came along to shatter our long-held myths of invincibility? I don't think so.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Agent Cooper on 2013-01-26 15:55 (Reply)

Agent Cooper: Was there ever in our lifetimes a bigger market bubble than the dot.com bubble under BJ Clinton

Absolutely. The bubble in the security shadow markets during the Bush Administration was orders of magnitude larger. The collapse sent the entire world economy into a tail-spin. The early 2000's recession was the mildest of the post-WWII period. Real wealth was created during the 1990s as the economy restructured for the Information Age.

Agent Cooper: despite which, and despite the rising government tax revenues, the national debt continued to increase,

The federal budget was virtually balanced at the end of the Clinton Administration, with huge structural cash surpluses that were being applied to the publicly-held debt.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 08:01 (Reply)

Are we in an expansion now? Should we be setting aside money now?

Deficits explode because the govt. spends much more money than it takes in. When the income to the govt. fell, if the spending level had stayed the same, the deficits would have increased, but not exploded. Obummer didn't leave spending at the same level, He increased it. There are all sorts of subsidies he could have ended, but instead, he added more. Smart move!

#1.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2013-01-26 16:02 (Reply)

mudbug: Are we in an expansion now? Should we be setting aside money now?

Most economists believe the U.S. economy is still anemic and the recovery tentative.

mudbug: When the income to the govt. fell, if the spending level had stayed the same, the deficits would have increased, but not exploded.

Then the economy would have shrunk even faster sending the U.S. economy into a downward spiral. . In any case, much of the additional spending was built into the system, population growth, inflation, rising unemployment, aging demographics, etc.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 08:06 (Reply)

I am fully aware that govt. spending is part of the calculation for GDP, however, the quality of that spending makes a difference.

Maybe you can explain how wasting money on solar companies that build lavish headquarters and then go bankrupt, how giving money to electric car companies that could not make it without subsidies and in some cases spends the money in other countries for their labor, how wasting money on wind farm subsidies that have been shown to be a loser can increase the GDP (other than in the very short term).

Maybe you can regale us with how there is a 1.5 multiplier effect for welfare, food stamp, and unemployment benefits (check with Obummer's first Budget Director, Christina Romer first).

The govt. is doing the same thing it did during the depression (only worse, because it isn't spending the money on productive projects like infrastructure that it keeps bleating on about, but rather unproductive ones), and (surprise) we'll get the same results.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2013-01-27 13:11 (Reply)

mudbug: I am fully aware that govt. spending is part of the calculation for GDP, however, the quality of that spending makes a difference.

Sure it does, but it can still have a short-term stimulatory effect.

mudbug: how wasting money on wind farm subsidies that have been shown to be a loser can increase the GDP (other than in the very short term).

It's the short-term you're worried about when an economy is in free-fall.

mudbug: The govt. is doing the same thing it did during the depression (only worse, because it isn't spending the money on productive projects like infrastructure that it keeps bleating on about, but rather unproductive ones), and (surprise) we'll get the same results.

Real growth in GDP was about 7% per year from 1933-1939.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 16:24 (Reply)

Then we agree it is a short term econ. fix.

Zach: It's the short-term you're worried about when an economy is in free-fall.

Those subsidies have been going on for far longer than the recent "Great Recession". By your own admission, the strength of the economy is very weak so all that "stimulus" and money printing has done very little. At some point, the Fed will have to stop buying bonds and when that happens, the price of them will start heading down (and thus the interest rates will start heading up). At some point, and I expect not far into that, the debt will be unsustainable and we will look at the Great Recession as the good old days.

Zach: Real growth in GDP was about 7% per year from 1933-1939.

And unemployment was horrendous. The average level of spending compared to the GDP was 15.4%. Today it is in the neighborhood of 40%. Where is our GDP revival?

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-01-27 18:48 (Reply)

mudbug: By your own admission, the strength of the economy is very weak so all that "stimulus" and money printing has done very little.

That doesn't follow. It depends on the depth of the downturn, the lack of utilization, and the size of the stimulus. In this case, the fiscal meltdown resulted in losses in the $10 trillion range. The stimulus was only $0.8 trillion, far smaller than the size of the gap.

mudbug: At some point, and I expect not far into that, the debt will be unsustainable and we will look at the Great Recession as the good old days.

Conservatives have been claiming that for some time. In any case, the U.S. does have to address its long-term deficit problem. It is quite possible for the U.S. to return to fiscal health.

mudbug: And unemployment was horrendous.

But better than it was. The Great Stimulus of WWII finally ended the employment depression.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 19:13 (Reply)

I wouldn't say there was much of a sustained employment recovery:
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
While it did improve, it ended up in near 20%. Some recovery!

As for the "stimulus" of WWII, there was little production other than military production. The lives of people were somewhat better because they had jobs, but there was little on which to spend the little money they made. The end of the war was a shock for Keynesians. There was little money to spend and 6 million soldiers coming home to look for jobs. Keynesians predicted calamity if spending was reduced drastically. It was AND taxes were lowered. The economy soared giving the soldiers jobs and their wives and girlfriends went back home.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-01-27 20:14 (Reply)

mudbug: While it did improve, it ended up in near 20%. Some recovery!

The trend proves the point. GDP and employment dropped precipitously from 1929-1933 under Hoover weak response. When Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, the situation improved from 1933-1937. Then Roosevelt largely ended the New Deal in order to balance the budget, the country slipped back into recession. So Roosevelt changed course again, and things began to improve again. The Great Stimulus of WWII ended the Depression once and for all. It's a pretty direct on-and-off again experiment.

mudbug: As for the "stimulus" of WWII, there was little production other than military production.

That's right. The strong U.S. economy and national morale created during the Depression were crucial elements of the allied victory.

mudbug: There was little money to spend and 6 million soldiers coming home to look for jobs. Keynesians predicted calamity if spending was reduced drastically.

You seem to be somewhat confused on this point also. Keynes indicated that the huge amount of under consumption represented as savings would help keep the economy afloat. Was Keynes a Keynesian?

In addition, the calamity was predicted to occur only if the U.S. simply dropped the soldiers into the economy, such as happened at the end of WWI. Instead, the U.S. kept many soldiers on the payroll in Europe and Asia, slowly filtered the the majority back to the U.S., and provided a huge amount of help to restructure the economy, such as the G.I. Bill of 1944, including mortgages, business loans, tuition, and unemployment compensation.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-28 08:12 (Reply)

...yet the countries like Iceland that said to their banks and their banks creditors "tough luck, you took the risks, we won't use taxpayer's money to bail you out" have had recovery right on schedule. While countries like the UK where subsidy was laid on to support the banks because the "economy couldn't take the shock of their failure" have slow recovery or (like the UK) a triple-dip recession.

#1.2 Douglas2 on 2013-01-26 12:12 (Reply)

Douglas2: ...yet the countries like Iceland that said to their banks and their banks creditors "tough luck, you took the risks, we won't use taxpayer's money to bail you out" have had recovery right on schedule.

Iceland is not without its troubles, and they are a much smaller economy than the United States. Yes, the banks should have been decapitated, though they had to be stabilized first, regardless.

Douglas2: While countries like the UK where subsidy was laid on to support the banks because the "economy couldn't take the shock of their failure" have slow recovery or (like the UK) a triple-dip recession.

The U.K. is usually cited as an example of an austerity policy.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 13:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Anthony J.Ciani: Image how much better our country would be if politicians still had to worry about getting shot, in addition to loosing elections, every time they consider a new flaming hoop for us to jump through; they might not make the hoop.

They do have to worry about being shot. A congressperson, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was recently shot in the head, along with members of her staff, and other bystanders.

There have been four presidential assassinations in U.S. history, and one failed attempt (a rate of 4/44 presidents, counting Grover Cleveland as president twice), about what the Romans called "decimation". Obama and his family have been threatened many times since his running for president, including by American racists and Islamic extremists.

A threat against the president is a threat against democratic governance. It replaces the choice of the people with the anger of one disgruntled person. The president, who is also the commander-in-chief, needs whatever protection is required to guarantee his constitutional role.

QUOTE:

Anthony J.Ciani: The reason we have guns is to fight against armies, possibly our own, to protect our life, liberty and property from thieves, that might even be our own government.

Which is why every patriotic American should have a cache of missiles and explosives in their underground bunker—just in case.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 09:49 (Reply)

No - there have been four actual assassinations and 22 attempts at assassination that were stopped prior. And those attempts are just the ones that are known. So it's a fact of political life and has been for a long time.

According to Diane Feinstein, politicians and government employees should be allowed to carry semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines - I agree with that.

Diane Feinstein would like to disarm any citizen who is not a politician or government employee. I disagree with that.

And then there is this tidbit - a sheriff actually acknowledging that he can't guarantee adequate response times so the citizenry should take measures to protect themselves and their property with firearms.

Don't you just love it when the liberal narrative screws itself over? I do.

#2.1 Tom Francis on 2013-01-26 12:58 (Reply)

Tom Francis: No - there have been four actual assassinations and 22 attempts at assassination that were stopped prior. And those attempts are just the ones that are known. So it's a fact of political life and has been for a long time.

Your number concerning attempts is certainly more accurate than ours.

Tom Francis: Don't you just love it when the liberal narrative screws itself over?

Are there any limits to what civilians can arm themselves with? Based on what rule?

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 13:34 (Reply)

As a starting place to answer your question, [url] http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#legally-acquire-nfa] AFT's web page[/url] which tells which weapons you need federal paper to own (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc) , then there is state law and local laws (check your own on this point). Which in my case, mean I could not own a cane rifle or shotgun but could own a .17 caliber varmit rifle, a 50+ y.o 8mm French Hotchkiss machine gun or if had the money, stamina and time, a fully functional anti tank gun.

#2.1.1.1 walt moffett on 2013-01-26 16:48 (Reply)

walt moffett: As a starting place to answer your question

Sorry, our question wasn't clear. We're aware of current law. We're interest in resolving the Second Amendment with the claim that people have the right to military weapons as proposed in Ciani's essay.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 08:12 (Reply)

have has there ever been a time when there was a difference between civilian and military weapons? Though you might want to ask your congress critter the question.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 walt moffett on 2013-01-27 08:45 (Reply)

That's our question. Where is it appropriate to draw the line?

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-27 09:53 (Reply)

This is a question you must resolve for yourself and then act accordingly.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 walt moffett on 2013-01-27 12:58 (Reply)

Re unintended pregnancies in the military:

Lots of lulz!

"...if they are potentially at high risk for unintended pregnancy..."

We used to call that being "easy."

"Women in the military certainly deserve more than that. This needs to be addressed across all branches of the military."

Absent rape, what's with the victimhood talk? Deserve more? More what? More talks about the birds and the bees? So the military is supposed to sit down supposed adults and explain how if you don't want to get pregnant, keep your pants on, or use protection but understand you're still taking a risk?

"Clearly unintended pregnancy is an important public health problem for everyone."

Actually, I believe it is a problem for exactly two people--mommy and daddy. And for the taxpayers who wasted money on training and outfitting a soldier/sailor/airman/marine who voluntarily disabled herself.

I realize that these are young people brimming with hormones, but a little self-control shouldn't be too much to ask.

#3 Ruby Lennox on 2013-01-26 09:55 (Reply)

I was in the military. I can tell you right now, probably most of these 'unintended pregnancies' were very likely intended. Intended in order to get out of duty. I saw it happen time and time again when I was in the Navy (about 10 years ago).

You are never told the stories about women who get pregnant on deployment (on aircraft carriers or smaller ships) who must be helicoptered off and leave them short people to cover them. Readiness has suffered due to this stupidity of assuming you can put men and women in their 20s together in close quarters and NOT have sex happening. DUH.

Only going to get worse with this decision of allowing women in all roles in the military. There will be plenty of women killed on the front lines who will be unknowingly pregnant. How are we going to handle those stories? Such a bad decision, I don't even know where to begin. (and I'm a woman, by the way)

#3.1 KJB on 2013-01-26 14:39 (Reply)

Rape in the military is a big deal to the media. However it is a lower rate then rape in college or civilian life in general. But the media has a "hard on" (sorry it was so appropriate to the issue) for the military so they are always under the microscope. Imagine the horror when the recent searches turned up porn (playboy) in the possession of militaary men. Oh the humanity, the horror of it all. Grown men being interested in women's bodies. What is this world coming to. Heads should roll...

#3.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-01-28 12:33 (Reply)

Great link to House of Eratosthenes, where I also found this gem about Hillary ("What Difference Does It Make?") Clinton:

"We we have our Secretary of State . . . reminding us that the whole point is to find out what happened, and therefore 'what does it matter' . . . what the hell happened. Sheer nonsense."

#4 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-01-26 10:07 (Reply)

Better to shout into this wilderness than into comments areas of media websites:

Political Correctness strikes me as a means of social control that is more and more effective as the collective intelligence of the populace declines. PC leads to "Idol"-style selection of candidates and specious media-mediated debates during campaigns. People with reduced analytical thinking abilities can just be guided by political correctness; resulting logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy won't bother them one bit.

The occasional incident of anti-PC comedy on TV serves to relieve any lingering worries. We can just laugh at the idea and move on.

#5 Claritas on 2013-01-26 11:01 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Willis Eschenbach: There are no "mass extinctions" going on

There are several problems with the Loehle & Eschenbach paper. Most notably is the limited definition of species. For instance, most leopards are considered a single species, Panthera pardus, but ecologists understand the importance to the individual ecosystems of the various subspecies, such as the African, Indian, Javan, Arabian, Indochinese, Amur, Persian and Sri Lankan leopards. Remove any of these from their respective environments, and it unbalances that environment, even if not counted as a species extinction. Most biologists and wildlife lovers see these subspecies as valuable in their own right.

#6 Zachriel on 2013-01-26 11:01 (Reply)

About: "all of our rights, from God."

This is treacherous turf, especially for a democracy. I prefer to have my rights guarenteed by a secular government, with elected representatives who are more like Thomas Jefferson (or Ben Franklin, who did not run for election): those who will protect the religious rights of all without imposing their personal religious ideas.

Why? Because it is too dangerous for governments to claim that they are safeguarding what God(s) tell them to do. Look at the Arab MIddle East; pity the Tarir Square activists who are now saddled with Muslim Brotherhoods.

Don't tell me what you believe God guarantees you (or me) politically. God will do his or her business and I will elect representatives to take care of my secular rights.

#7 ns on 2013-01-26 11:59 (Reply)

Even if you look at it as rights you firmly believe are inherent in yourself, without reference to a Creator, you'll have a more healthy relationship with your government than if you believe the government creates the rights. The government should be an association of people who believe that the arrangement secures them in their rights. If the government conflicts with the rights, it's the rights that the people should be loyal to, because the government has undermined its own purpose.

#7.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-01-27 09:36 (Reply)

#8 another one on 2013-01-26 12:37 (Reply)

Forgive my ignorance, I am a little confused about military policy vs. reality. Now, let me see if I get this right: a gal in the military gets rank/job, get pregnant, cannot be in harm's way, gets free medical and a cushy job behind the lines while either a. deciding to abort, or b, deciding to deliver. My guess is that if you are a normal woman and have some guy on the hook the military is a great place to be! Best of all if she just gets promoted to a "combat" position-then gets pregnant she gets a salary increase and gets to be a "leader" of some type.

This is the reality...you end up encouraging more women to join the military by opening up more jobs to them (Clinton 1990s). However, these women are young and in the prime childbearing years (20 year military career fits right in with 18 to 38 childbearing years). You fill vital jobs in the military with 10% women - or more. These women end up pregnant at some point in those 20 years...for most women, at least twice. For 9 months plus 6- to 8-week maternity leave some women are unable to do their jobs...unless they happen to have a desk job already. So, someone else has to take over their work. Because these women are not given permanent billets elsewhere, pretty much their job duties are spread out over the other military men/women in their department without additional personnel. In other words, you can't just put a new person in that job b/c according to the military, the pregnant woman in is that slot...so you can't ask for a new person to fill the empty spot.

So basically, it sucks.

I also remember plenty of us gals saving up our regular leave to tack on to our maternity leave. So sometimes women had an additional 4 to 6 weeks of leave they used stacked on top of medical leave. Basically, a woman could be out of her usual job for a year! How is this leaving the military ready to do its job?

Just looked it up, some aircraft carriers have 20% women (or 500 women on board). If 5% of those women become pregnant during deployment, you are talking about a loss of 25 personnel to do the work necessary to keep that carrier operating. That carrier is at sea for a 3-month to 6-month deployment, so you aren't getting any replacement personnel anytime soon.

The whole idea of adding women to these combat roles is just ridiculous.

#8.1 KJB on 2013-01-26 14:49 (Reply)

At a press conference at the Pentagon Thursday, when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked if women would be serving in elite ops groups like the Rangers or SEALS, he said the Army and the Marines are committed to "work on the standards" to ensure there'll be a critical mass of women in those units, not just one or two isolated candidates, who can expect to advance in rank. I wonder how many newspapers subsequently reported the general's remarks that the services are going to adapt (i.e., lower) their standards so that more women get into elite combat units. The social experiments continue. Women helped pioneer the frontier. I suppose they can have a shot at killing and being killed on the front lines of war.

#9 Agent Cooper on 2013-01-26 21:19 (Reply)

Of course they HAVE to lower the standards otherwise only a tiny number of woman would ever qualify; not enough to justify all of the modifications to various logistics and procedures required to accommodate them.

But the whole physical ability and standards argument is just a red herring. These are just purely materialistic points made by a purely materialistic society. For this to make sense everyone just has to pretend that there's no real difference between men and women other than that XY chromosome thing and the little biological difference that follows. Otherwise they're exactly the same...assuming we make some accommodations for that inconvenient fact that the vast majority of women could never pass infantry and Marine training...and should thus be treated equally. We'll just ignore away real documented differences in emotional, mental, attitudinal attributes...things the legacy culture knows instinctively.

Funny there's no demanding equal rights to garbage truck work, plumbing, electrical, heavy construction and a myriad of other dirty, physically demanding jobs.

This is a political attack on our culture and nothing more. This at best is yet another silly, this time dangerous, experiment of social engineering, at worst a purposeful attempt to further weaken and destroy the military.

#9.1 phil g on 2013-01-27 12:31 (Reply)

"In America, the government does not confer rights."

Something that far too many people fail to understand. The government's job is not to grant rights. It's job is to preserve rights - and it's effectiveness in doing so is it's sole source of legitimacy.

#10 RonF on 2013-01-26 22:30 (Reply)

Nice to hear from other women out there who believe in the old standard of excellence, skill, ability, and merit as the primary criteria for job advancement--even for women.

Cooper--I saw that press conference. You know what I noticed the most? The body english. Dempsey was sitting in that classic body pose that says I am not connected to this guy next to me (Panetta)! My intuition tells me that Dempsey is re-thinking his recent political connectedness! As was shown with Petraeous that Clinton/Obama crowd are not a bunch of sweethearts--even when you are there favorite patsy!

#11 apple pie on 2013-01-27 00:21 (Reply)

Isn't it weird how we lurch between the two extremes: (1) No women can even apply for this position, no matter what her qualifications, and (2) OK, then, women can apply, but we'll be devastated if none qualify (or only one or two "tokens"), so we have to lower the standards. It's not just women and the military, it's all kinds of demographic groups and all kinds of institutions, from Jews to blacks, from universities to police forces. We go straight from Jim Crow to affirmative action, skipping the "sanity" territory entirely.

How about if we keep the standards and stop pre-judging who may be able to meet them? And stop worrying about the outcome looking like a perfect demographic slice-of-life?

#11.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-01-27 09:43 (Reply)

It's never enough to simply open the opportunity to anyone who can qualify for the required standards, there always has to be some sufficient numbers, quota.

#11.1.1 phil g on 2013-01-27 12:33 (Reply)

I'm all for gender equality, but can't help wondering about our soldiers who are captured by the enemy --gonna be rough on women combat troops.

#12 buddy larsen on 2013-01-27 14:00 (Reply)

What you talkin' about, we're all signatories to those civilized rules of war defined by the Geneva Convention and rigidly follow them, no?

#12.1 phil g on 2013-01-27 17:26 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, January 26. 2013

Saturday morning links