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.
re AP-GfK poll: Most voters believe media biased against Trump
Geez, I don't know why.
New Email Leak Reveals Clinton Campaign’s Cozy Press Relationship.
Internal strategy documents and emails among Clinton staffers shed light on friendly and highly useful relationships between the campaign and various members of the U.S. media, as well as the campaign’s strategies for manipulating those relationships.
At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted “on background” and what should be described as “on the record.”
One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them.
Given more than 24 hours to challenge the authenticity of these documents and respond, Merrill [campaign press secretary] did not reply to our emails. Haberman declined to comment.
As The Intercept previously reported, pundits regularly featured on cable news programs were paid by the Clinton campaign without any disclosure when they appeared; several of them are included on this “surrogates” list, including Stephanie Cutter and Maria Cardona:
Women not succeeding in the infantry? Who would have guessed. Of course, on the average women have about 1/2 the upper body strength of men and 2/3 of the lower body strength. If you believe that they can do the same physical things as men you are living in fantasy land.
Hayden is an excellent example of the faux peace advocate who says "I'm personally against all violence, so don't blame me if I tell people you deserve to die and they come after you."
Assistant Village Idiot
The problem with women in the military is complex. Prior to the late 60's the percentage of women in the military was 3% or so. less for the marines of course. Mostly they were in health care and admin. Then cam the effort to increase that to 10% and open up all non-combat jobs to women. Seemed to go 'OK' with some expected problems but clearly a woman can do many/most of those jobs. Then the feminists and female politicians got into it and there is this effort now to put women in all positions and have the percentage increase far above 10%.
Here's the problem:
As already stated women in general don't have the strength to do what combat requires. The combat loads run from 50lbs to over 100 lbs. For reasons that should be obvious to any adult your average male high school graduate can hum a 70 lb pack for miles. Some will whine, some will require more training but generally speaking most of them can do it and in fact thrive on it. While literally 99% of the women cannot. That doesn't mean they aren't physically fit and in fact they might be able to run marathons, perform physically demanding workouts at the gym and no doubt run circles around some men. But it is a simple matter of gravity vs carry weight. They cannot do it, period. AND to put them into a combat unit knowing they cannot do it is a crime perpetrated on the rest of the unit.
For the Navy the problem is somewhat different. Where the navy first ran into problems was they had a lot of jobs that weren't on the ships and thus by default were not combat jobs. So easy to integrate a lot of women into the navy, right? Wrong, these jobs were part of the rotation system that allowed navy men to not endure long sea duty and were a necessary billet for the men. So to fix this the navy was forced to allow women on ships. Well every ship is a combat ship, even the ones that are not. If war breaks out they will all be targets and will all be assets for the battle. Although the navy problem is not as severe as the armies and the Marines it is still 'combat', and when they are in combat their mission will become incredibly physical.
The bottom line is women should not be forced into military jobs that will cause harm to their fellow soldiers or hurt the countries military capabilities. And the feminists will not rest or allow women to only serve where they are physically capable of serving. So one of those two things needs to change and our country depends on us getting it right. The worldwide threats are increasing and one day we will be tested. I am not happy about what our political leaders done to our military forces. We could lose the next big one.