It’s Wednesday, January 16th, 2019…but before we begin, can anyone explain why and when corporate America came to believe we wanted their moral guidance any more than a festering hemorrhoid, let alone required their assistance in understanding proper masculine conduct?!?
Sorry, that was role of our Mother and Father, who we frankly believe did their job exceedingly well. Besides, as Jim Freeman suggests, given its history, Proctor & Gamble is the last company to be offering such advice. Freeman goes on to note:
“It is perhaps self-evident that masculinity involves an absence of femininity, and along with some positive attributes on that list, even violence is unfortunately sometimes of great societal value. This column is not the first to note that over the last century American masculinity has proven quite toxic to Nazis, communists and Islamic terrorists, for which we can all be grateful.“
What continues to amaze us is the continued refusal of Progressives, whether individually, politically or corporately, to recognize the undeniable connection between poverty, underperformance in school and anti-social behavior and the explosion of female-led single-parent families. With no father to teach them proper respect for women, is it any wonder so many young boys take their example from a society which honors over-sexualized Hip-Hop artists and misogynistic rappers over Nobel laureates and engineers?!?
And while we’re not calling on anyone to boycott P&G, like Dick’s, Nike, Target and other firms who’ve embraced or bowed to political correctness, we’ve reviewed a list of their products and, wherever possible, will be taking our business elsewhere.
Speaking of the mindless, miseducated Millennials motivated by the lynch mob who borked Brett Kavanaugh, courtesy of Joe Flood, here’s one of the funnier memes we’ve seen in recent days:
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, since we’re on the subject of She Who Knows So Much Which Is Not So, writing at FOX News, Michael Knowles profiles…
The majority of American Millennials identify as socialist, according to surveys by both Reason-Rupe and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. That’s the bad news. The good news is that just 32 percent of Millennials can define socialism. The frequently-wrong but never-in-doubt freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., may indeed be the voice of her ignorant generation.
During an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Anderson Cooper asked Ocasio-Cortez, “When people hear the word socialism, they think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela. Is that what you have in mind?” He neglected to mention the vicious socialist regimes of Cambodia, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, North Korea, and China, among others.
Ocasio-Cortez retorted, “Of course not. What we have in mind—and what of my—and my policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden.” In fact, her economic proposals bear little resemblance to British and Nordic public policy.
As early as the 1950s, Britain began to privatize its social security and pension programs. By the 1990s, as decades of socialism caused economic growth to stagnate, Sweden followed suit. Neither Sweden nor Norway mandates a minimum wage, and Britain demands a minimum wage well below Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed $15 per hour. Britain and Finland offer a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, and all the nations she names have lower rates than her proposal of 28 percent.None has a health care regime as socialistic as her proposed Medicare-For-All scheme, which constitutes a full federal takeover of health care.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of economics and foreign affairs typifies her generation. Despite holding expensive degrees(>$60K/year)in both Economics and International Relations from Boston University , Ocasio-Cortez threw up her hands in exasperation during an interview on Margaret Hoover’s “Firing Line” program, laughing, “I’m not the expert on geopolitics.” Fortunately for her (and unfortunately for the rest of America), in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king; and among a blithely ignorant generation, the lightly educated activist is congresswoman.
The seed of Millennial miseducation (purposefully sown), which grew into the Tree of the Lack of Knowledge as activist educators substituted ideology for scholarship, is finally bearing its rotten fruit. According to one survey, one third of Millennials believe President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Over 40 percent of Millennials have never heard of Mao Zedong; another 40 percent and 30 percent, respectively, are unfamiliar with Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara.Two-thirds of Millennials cannot identify Auschwitz, and 22 percent have never heard of the Holocaust, twice the percentage of American adults on average.
Millennials might not know much, but according to a 2016 Harvard survey, they know they don’t support capitalism, with 51 percent of young adults rejecting economic freedom.
During the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed 42 candidates for local, state, and federal office across 20 states. Of those candidates, 24 won their primary campaigns, and 18 won in general elections. Millennials have largely cheered them on. Raised in the United States after the fall of the Berlin Wall, these young Americans have been sheltered both empirically and academically from the myriad horrors wrought by socialism throughout history. And so the problem worsens.
Socialism is an economic disease born of envy and ignorance. Unfortunately both abound in our present politics. The sickness has found an attractive spokeswoman—perhaps, sadly, the voice of her generation.
Millennials: they’re taking educated idiocy to new heights, as this video reveals:
And make no mistake about it: Liberal miseducators have deleted requirements for teaching history deliberately!
Is it any wonder Progressives are so intent on allowing millions of even less-educatedforeigners, individuals with no real understanding or appreciation of either America or Capitalism, into the country to vote?!?
And in the History Repeats Itselfsegment, courtesy today of the WSJ, Heather Mac Donald affirms an opinion we formed in the Summer of 1976, when, as a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy, we personally participated in the training of the first female Plebes:
The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.
In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat.The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles.Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.
Ignoring the Marine study, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in December 2015.Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting “gender neutral” standards in the hope that more women would qualify. Previously, women had been admitted to noncombat specialties under lower strength and endurance requirements.
Only two women have passed the Marine Corps’s fabled infantry-officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried. Most wash out in the combat endurance test, administered on day one. Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier. The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops. Most female aspirants couldn’t pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass/fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate’s ultimate evaluation. The weapons-company hike during the IOC is now “gender neutral,” meaning that officers can hand their pack to a buddy if they get tired, rather than carrying it for the course’s full 10 miles.
Lowering these physical requirements risks (“risks”; no, IS!!!) reducing the American military’s lethality. A more serious effect of sex integration has become taboo to mention: the inevitable introduction of eros into combat units. Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.
A Marine commander who served in Afghanistan described to me how the arrival of an all-female team tasked with reaching out to local women affected discipline on his forward operating base. Until that point, rigorous discipline had been the norm. But when four women—three service members and a translator—arrived, the post’s atmosphere changed overnight from a “stern, businesslike place to that of an eighth-grade dance.” The officer walked into a common room one day to find the women clustered in the center. They were surrounded by eager male Marines, one of whom was doing a handstand.
Another Marine officer, who was stationed on a Navy ship after 9/11, told me that a female officer had regular trysts with an enlisted sailor in the engine room. Marine Cpl. Remedios Cruz, one of the first women to join the infantry, was discharged late last year after admitting to a sexual relationship with a male subordinate. Army Sgt. First Class Chase Usher was relieved of his leadership position for a consensual relationship with a female soldier that began almost immediately after she arrived at his newly gender-integrated unit in Fort Bragg, N.C.
Long before infantry integration became a feminist imperative, evidence was clear that a coed military was a sexually active one. In 1988 then-Navy Secretary Jim Webb reported that of the unmarried enlisted Navy and Air Force women stationed in Iceland, half were pregnant.
President Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, had seemed a good candidate for reversing the integration of women in combat units. A former Marine commandant, Mr. Mattis had previously addressed the incompatibility of eros and military discipline. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand challenged him about these politically incorrect views during his confirmation hearings, but he left enough wiggle room to preserve his options.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump chose to ban transgender people from serving in the military rather than tackling gender integration. Mr. Trump cited the cost to taxpayers of sex-reassignment surgery for soldiers, but those costs are minute compared with the future medical bills for women’s combat-battered bodies(Not to mention the men they took with them!). And women pose a far greater challenge to combat-unit cohesion than do transgender troops, because of their numbers and the nature of sexual attraction.
The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs.But war isn’t about promoting equality. Its objective is to break the enemy’s will through precise lethal engagement, with the lowest possible loss of American life.The claim that female combat soldiers will perform as lethally as men over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality as great as the one underlying the transgender crusade.
Female engineers and others did return fire when attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan.But performing well in incident-related combat is a far cry from serving in a dedicated ground-combat unit, with its months of punishing physical demands.
The incoming Pentagon chief can expect an aggressive grilling on gender integration from the Senate Armed Services Committee. He should promise to resolve the claim that, when it comes to combat, there are no significant physical differences between men and women. He could do it by pitting an all-female infantry unit against an all-male unit and seeing how they measure up.“
As mentioned above, during the Summer of 1976, we personally witnessed the same lowering of physical standards for the first female midshipmen…numerous assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. Prior to the arrival of the fairer sex, among other physical standards, Plebes were required to perform three pull-ups and run a 6:30 mile. That was, until the powers-that-be discovered, owing to their lack of upper body strength, few if any of the women could do one pull-up, let alone three; and most could not runa 6:30 mile.
So, the Navy…lowered the standards, giving female midshipmen additional time to run the mile, and substituting a requirement to hang from the bar for 3 seconds rather than pulling their head up above it. Thus was national defense and the lives of our servicemen first sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and social change.
While we understand Carter, Clinton and Obama commencing and advancing this travesty, we greatly fault Reagan, the two Bushes and Trump, who all had the chance to end it, yet didn’t…and haven’t.
We’re reminded of a conversation some years ago with a friend over cocktails. When, given our personal experience and with our eldest in the Army, we expressed doubt over the wisdom of increasing opportunities for females in the Armed Forces, he, in the strongest terms and with gritted teeth (which we found somewhat incongruous, if not humorous coming from a librarian), averred no one was going to limit the career aspirations of his daughter, despite her genetically-determined height and body shape, not to mention her parental-determined politics, making her a highly unlikely candidate for the Service.
Without either raising our voice or clenching jaw, we replied, “Agreed,…up until the point your daughter’s career aspirations coupled with her lack of qualifications puts our son’s life at risk.”
At which point, to Hell with her! Which is where the entire policy of women in combat, and those promoting it, need to go.
Inspector Harry Callahan had it right:
Next up, courtesy of George Lawlor, Rasmussen Reports relates…
“Most voters continue to favor strongly controlled borders and reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s charge that it is immoral for the United States to build a border wall.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is better for the United States to tightly control who comes into the country.“
But here’s the truly scary part:
“Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say it is better to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal. (To see survey question wording, click here.)…”
Meanwhile, as Byron York details at Townhall.com, though pretending to back border security…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.