Thursday, January 31, 2013

Co-Ed Combat

Col. Allen West discusses women in combat here. He makes the distinction between being in a combat zone via support billets, and serving in a combat role.  There hasn't been much discussion on this, it just sort of happened. But the implications are serious even while there isn't any evidence to show this is in the best interest of the military.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

If you have one, you have to have two?

Here is an interesting statement from General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, on women entering combat arms military occupational specialties:
"If the numbers are so small with regards to qualification, then there very may well be (job fields) that remain closed," Amos said. "Those will be few and far between." Deploying only one or two female servicemembers in a unit, for example, would make it difficult for the women to succeed. "You want to have assimilation … so our females can mentor one another," Amos said.
On the one hand, this seems visionary, committed - thinking about what helps people succeed - mentoring! But a mentor is someone with experience, who guides another through challenges. There are no women that could be called mentors in combat arms right now.

So he really means that in small or individual numbers women will not succeed. Why is that? Will they be singled out for hazing, or given preferential treatment? If they are up to the task physically, we are supposed to assume that they will be surrounded by mature people who will treat them equally without regard to their gender, so why the need for multiple women in one unit? What would it be about small numbers of women in a group of men that makes it difficult to succeed?

Some ideas about the underlying meaning here: first, women will not be able to hold their own without strength in numbers; second, multiple women will dissipate the urge of men to treat them differently (whether the treatment is good or bad) so there is still a divide between the genders; third, multiple women are needed so they can keep each other in line-providing moral support (even women can behave badly) and keeping each other company in the bathroom or in the 2 man tent (not being funny here-everyone has to have a buddy and you can't very well pair a male with a female in those situations - or, if they want to be completely committed to equality they would do that, which, of course, would lead to other problems, so women can't be entirely integrated with the men); fourth, multiple women provide better protection for each other in the case of assault by male service members, and discourage males from making aggressive advances in the first place. Multiple females is not about mentoring, it's about preventing dangerous or detrimental (to the service) situations. But, allowing women to enter combat arms is all about providing equal opportunity for promotion? If women need so much support for advancement, their opportunity starts to seem more equal than a male's opportunity.

The disconnect is in what we are asking of our service members while in direct combat. We ask them to resort to the ultimate instinct of survival, to kill another person before that person kills them or one of their team. Killing is an act of barbarism, base and crude, kill or be killed self preservation. We expect them to act without hesitation, and now we will ask them to suppress instinct and be their most civilized selves, and to do this all at the same time. This is an impossible task for even the most refined warrior.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Seattle gun Buy Back meets The Free Market

"People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers. . . . But the BuyBack wasn’t a bust. On the contrary – their $80,000 supply of gift cards didn’t last but 2 hours, and by 11:00 am they began attempting to issue IOU’s at which point the entire crowd responded by turning and marching toward the gun dealers, forcing the police officers to pack it up for the day."

Hillary shouts louder = weaker case

Thomas Sowell has an amazing ability to say so clearly all the things we are thinking:
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton herself was not featured in this campaign, even though as secretary of state she was a key figure. Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for president of the United States in 2016.
He is explaining why Hillary wasn't on those five Sunday shows to sell the idea of a video being to blame for the Benghazi attacks. If you follow the money, or the power, you will find the easy answer every time. The rest of his column also makes clear the more immediate concern Obama had with pushing the video - he was in the middle of an election and an Al-Queda attack wouldn't be helpful to  the supposed brilliance of his Middle East foreign policy.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

From Zo: Malcom X's "You're A Political Chump!"

"Now I’m not saying that Malcom X had big love for republicans. He didn’t. But he loathed the democrats, and he reserved a special disgust for blacks who voted for democrats. And I’ll remind y’all. MLK and Malcom x were NOT assassinated by so called racist right wingers and republicans. MLK and Malcom x were assassination by left wingers and democrats. Again the majority of the black community literally allows democrats to get away with murder, and rather than waking up and owning up to this, they try to save face and say that the parties switched, which is a pathetic display of denial." -Zo

Zo calls out celebrities' hypocrisy

AlfonZo Rachel does a great job of exposing the hypocrisy of the celebrities who want to lecture us about guns. His video is here. The best line is how their excuse is always, "I'm a comedian," or "I'm just an actress" when confronted with disturbing things from their movies, and that we aren't expected to be influenced by them. But, when they make a public service announcement calling for gun control, they do expect us to be influenced by them.