Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

From the New Yorker:

For decades, business owners have resisted higher minimum wages by arguing that they destroy jobs, particularly for young people. At some theoretical level, high minimum wages will distort job creation, but the best empirical evidence from the past decade is aligned with common sense: a minimum wage drawn somewhat above the poverty line helps those who work full time to live decently, without having a significant impact on other job seekers or on total employment.

Except it’s wrong, ignores the loss of jobs that are never created and the subsiziding impact of welfare and low-income benefits that also siphon funds away from job creation and into government redistribution.

I’ll let Orphe Divounguy explain it again:

(For example, a study of pairs of neighboring counties with differing minimum pay found that higher wages had no adverse effect on restaurant jobs.)

Of course, he doesn’t cite the study, the amount of difference in pay, or an analysis of what jobs were lost, not created, or where these counties were.

Even so, a federal minimum wage of ten dollars or more will not solve inequality. It will not stop runaway executive pay or alter the winner-take-all forces at work in the global economy.

And here we see the true intentions.  The objective is to make equality of outcomes.  The ideology is a belief that executive pay is “runaway” and that the economy is a “winner-take-all” scenario, rather than one of mutual cooperation for benefit.  Apparently the New Yorker’s Steve Coll doesn’t understand where pencils come from.

Coll continues:

Yet it will bring millions of Americans closer to the levels of economic security and disposable income that they knew before the housing bubble burst.

No, it won’t.  It will artificially increase wages, which will then result in employers increasing their expenses to customers.  There will be a transfer of wealth from the many to the few.  There will be a visible result of a handful of people with minimum wage jobs making more money, but it will result in a less visible loss of wages by everyone who uses those services, by employers whose payrolls will be adjusted in favor of old employees versus new ones – meaning jobs that would be created will not be created, and it will result in overall economic loss.

Coll starts his piece by talking about increases in wages for baggage handlers at SeaTac airport, where the minimum wage was bumped from $10/hour to $15/hour by a ballot initiative.  Businesses spent money pushing against it, and Coll celebrates that leftists emerged triumphant, that the “grassroots left, which seemed scattered and demoralized after the Occupy movement fizzled, has revived itself this year—with help from union money and professional canvassers—by rallying voters around the argument that anyone who works full time ought not to be at risk of poverty”.

Union money was sent in by union people who can now look forward to extracting union dues from those $15/hour workers at a higher amount than when they were $10/hour workers.  Professional canvassers are leftist marxist agitators and professional shit-stirring revolutionary groups who serve no function but to create conflict that they exploit for their own personal profit.  The businesses involved opposed it as best they could, but the leftists in Seattle & Tacoma voted for it.

What that means is that the expenses against the airport have gone up, and they’ll have to come up with something to balance it out.  That may mean layoffs, it may mean no new hires, but most likely it will mean increased rates and fees to customers.  The customer is hurt at the expense of the visible aid to the fictional oppressed proletariat.

…life on fifteen thousand a year is barely plausible anymore, even in the low-cost rural areas of the Deep South and the Midwest. National Republican leaders are out of touch with the electorate on this as on much else, and they are too wary of Tea Party dissent to challenge their party’s current orthodoxies of fiscal austerity and free-market purity.

Life on $15,000 per year is not something that someone manages alone.  First off, there are massive government handouts to those of that low income group; second, as Orphe explained, a lot of times, those workers are entry-level workers just getting started – like teenagers.

The Tea Party is composed of people who understand how economics work – that you can’t just arbitrarily say “we’ll make your employer pay you more” without that money coming from somewhere.  Again, Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote comes to mind:

thatcher socialism

Coll finishes with this bleeding heart plea:

The case for a strong minimum wage has always been, in part, civic and moral. Minimum wages do not create new “entitlement” programs or otherwise enjoin the country’s sterile debates about the value of government. They are designed to insure that the dignity of work includes true economic independence for all who embrace it.

The case for strong minimum wage laws has been couched in some people’s idea of what other people are entitled to.  If you pay the neighbor kid $5 to mow your lawn, it’s not moral for the neighborhood to tell you that you MUST pay him $20.  The result will be that the neighbor kid goes without the $5 and you mow your own lawn.  There’s nothing moral about dictating to people how much a worker has to sell his labor for or how much an employer has to pay for that employee’s labor – because it destroys entry-level jobs and harms the community.

The tut-tutting busybody who wants to put the government’s gun to someone’s head and make them do what they feel should be done is not moral.

Minimum wage laws inflict an entitlement by force.  The dignity of work comes from what people put into it – and earning a paycheck, not having the government hold a gun to your employer’s head – leaving you either paid more than you’re worth or unemployed entirely.

There is no “true economic independence” for a $10/hour job, a $15/hour job.  Idle rich and trust fund babies have “true economic independence” – and even they can lose it if economies change.  Economic independence comes from having one’s own skills that are marketable in different job environments.

If Coll and clowns who publish his Marxist drivel want to provide “dignity” and “true economic independence”, why not mandate a $100/hour minimum wage?  If people made $8000 every two weeks, they’d be doing pretty well.  Why not a $1000/hour minimum wage?  Or a $10,000/hour minimum wage?  You could work for a day and pay off student loans and buy a new car all in one.

If he’s got intellect greater than that of a grapefruit, he’d respond with “but businesses can’t afford to pay $10,000/hour.”  And just the same, they can’t afford to pay any other artificial minimum wage without modifying their business model.  Some businesses could handle $10,000/hour minimum wages, but it would harm them severely and result in cutting many employees, hiring no more employees, and passing costs off to customers.  Some businesses can handle a bump to $15/hour minimum wages, but it will harm them as well, it will harm future employment, and the business will pass costs off to their customers.

He wonders why the Midwest and South have a lower cost of living – and that is due in no small part to not having to deal with wage inflation – those costs are passed on to businesses, which pass them back on to us.

-

Update: Some leftist union organizers have decided to stage strikes for higher fast food wages across the country.  When they get the government to force their employers to pay them $15/hour, they’ll find that those businesses can’t stay open because no one wants to pay $17 for a Whopper or $13 for a Big Mac.  They won’t be able to afford the Taco Grande meals they make.

The fast-food effort is backed by the Service Employees International Union and is also demanding that restaurants allow workers to unionize without the threat of retaliation.

It’s like I should just write “the usual suspects are at it again”.

Beating a dead horse – if they’re not worth the pay, they’re not worth the pay.  That’s not a measure of their value as a human being, just their respective value in their chosen job.   Demanding more wages because you’ve chosen to make an entry-level job a career is a problem with the individual’s ambition and drive and desire to sit on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, not a question of whether their employer is a greedy robber baron capitalist pig-dog.

A stupid op-ed from WaPo:

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”

Which is as stupid today as it was then.  Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation.  Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.

…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria.  Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s.  As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:

Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.

The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today.  The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist.  While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes.  The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power.  With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.

Quit Stalin' and get countin'!It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:

Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.

Economically, people were suffering under it.  And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.

H

Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat).  The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.

Zimmerman finishes:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Translation:

“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party.  Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years.  The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life.  Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader.  Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”

That’s the real crux of it.

Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy.  In his time, it would work.  In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.

Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism.  Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”

Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”

-

Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more.  Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.

Now that the shutdown’s done and the intentional failure of Obamacare has been shoved onto the citizenry, it’s time to bring in some more Democrat voters to ensure the thousand-year reign of the left will not be stymied.

From Reuters:

“Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform,” he told the Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network Univision.

From Breitbart:

“[I]n the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further,” Obama stated. Historically, “balanced” has been code for tax increases.

Obama then pushed on to immigration reform: “Number two. We should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system.” Naturally, he blamed the Republican House for stalling his preferred immigration bill.

They also note the Farm Bill is on the agenda, which is interesting because it tends to be just about farm subsidies and food stamps.

Obama’s push for amnesty is considered the “smart play” because it comes as opposition is weak from opposing his dictates in Obamacare.  He keeps throwing things out there at a pace so fast that no one can keep up with it.  News junkies struggle to keep up, and the average Joe who has a life and things to do is going to be asking “what?  They’re doing this again?”

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

For those who’ve missed it, the patron government of one major illegal alien group has been out helping its invading citizens break US laws, and other illegal alien activist groups have been getting more vocal in demanding that they be allowed to take your stuff and invade your country and you need to shut up and take it.

…many say, recent weeks have seen activists use chains and pipes to tie themselves to the tires of buses that carry immigrants slated for deportation to court, block traffic on Capitol Hill and get arrested, surround Tucson police when they targeted two immigrants during a traffic stop, and chain themselves and block the entrance of a federal detention center.

More such actions, they vow, are coming.

“It’s absolutely out of frustration and impatience,” said Marisa Franco, campaign organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which helped coordinate some of the more provocative actions. “Immigrant communities who are losing 1,100 loved ones every day to deportation cannot wait for Congress to end its political games or for the President to rediscover his moral compass,” she added.

“The people will take power back into their own hands and set a true example of leadership that the Beltway will have to follow,” Franco vowed.

Criminals being criminals are mad because they broke the law and are getting caught and punished.  Those 1,100 “loved ones” are criminals who broke laws and are being removed.  That there is an entire racist organization that exists solely to try to break the will of the US in enforcing its own immigration laws, to get American citizens and legal aliens to surrender to home invader illegals, is absurd.

To give contrast to this, the immigration enforcement of Europe from the lefty government of declining Britain has been taking this form recently:

illegal immigration britain van

A quote from Mark Harper, Britain’s Immigration minister:

“I don’t see any problem with saying to people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom they can’t be here anymore,” he told BBC Question.

They’re also going out and sending messages to illegals to let them know to leave or they will be arrested.

Officials have sent messages to almost 40,000 people they suspect of not having a right to be in the UK, instructing them to contact border officials to discuss their immigration status.

Meanwhile, in the US, our government prepares to tell us that illegal aliens have more right to our nation than we do.  And this time it’s again the Ruling Class against the Country Class, as business leaders who pretend to be on the right are now out to fight anyone who believes in borders and laws.

According to the Wall Street Journal, groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are thinking about “backing challengers to tea-party conservatives in GOP primaries, increasing political engagement with centrist Republicans.” The Chamber of Commerce is reportedly “researching” what races they can influence in GOP primaries “in hopes of replacing tea-party conservatives with more business-friendly pragmatists” who would include support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Even before the government shutdown and the fight over defunding Obamacare, business groups “pressing for an immigration overhaul were venting frustration that the full House has been unwilling to consider any immigration legislation.” Reportedly, “several business executives said they were counting on establishment GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to move immigration and future fiscal legislation.”

They don’t care about the nation, they care about cheap labor.  They’re short-sighted and stupid and don’t care that the illegal aliens they import will result in more Democrat-leftist ideologues in business, more regulations and government force against business, because they think they’ll get a seat at the table and their cronyism with politicians will save them.

They don’t listen when Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters says she wants to take over their companies – to destroy oil companies.  They don’t listen when Obama says energy prices will skyrocket – to destroy the coal industry.  They don’t pay attention when Obama and like politicians say they want single payer – to destroy the insurance business.  Many of the highest-ups of the companies live wealthy enough not to care and thus are oblivious that things can happen to them, and the rest of them are just fodder anyway.

Businessmen at high levels still think they’re playing the same old game with conventional crooked politicians instead of ideologically-driven leftist radicals.  They don’t realize they’re the useful idiots helping to plot their own demise.

From the Gannett-owned MarineCorpsTimes:

QUANTICO, VA. — Fifteen female Marines began enlisted infantry training this week as part of the Marine Corps’ ongoing research into which additional jobs it should open to female personnel, officials said.

The women will attend the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Geiger, N.C., on an experimental basis, focusing on the 0311 infantry rifleman program of instruction after the first few weeks of training, said Leon Pappa, a retired lieutenant colonel with Training and Education Command who oversees the research. They will not receive the 0311 military occupational specialty if they graduate, but Marine officials will note it in their record for tracking purposes.

“We’re not changing the standards on how we track performance,” Pappa told reporters in a meeting here Wednesday. “We’re doing it the same way we do it for the males.”

I’ve already explained how women in combat MOSes is a bad idea, in Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six.  One of the biggest consistent arguments, not just from me, but from plenty of other combat vets, is that not only is there no real benefit to adding women in combat-specific roles for a variety of physical and social reasons, but also that when they invariably fail, some social engineer will change it so that women will succeed.  2+2 will be made to equal 5.

Combat is a heartless monster, and while training can be gender-normed to uselessness by political correctness, combat will not accede to social planners’ designs.

mountain infantry

Someone will have to carry a substandard troop’s weight.  There are already substandard men who sneak by.  That there will be a whole category of substandard women, protected by politics, will help no one, and will harm the mission, the men who have to carry the extra weight, and the women who should never have been put there to begin with.  It will also hurt the superhuman amazon who might have been able to pass an unchanged standard and do the job with a waiver – she won’t be challenged to meet a grueling standard, she’ll be able to pass the weaker one.

Retiree-who-doesn’t-have-to-fight-with-them Pappa says that there’s no change in standards on how they track performance.  That doesn’t mean the requirements are necessarily the same, just the tracking is the same.  Because buried in the bottom of the story is this, about women who failed the Infantry Officer Course:

The research is similar to work that began here last year at the Infantry Officer Course. Female volunteers have been allowed to try the grueling course, but none has passed. The next version of IOC begins next week, and the Corps expects four female volunteers to participate, Pappa said.  (ST: Emphasis mine.)

Note those few words there – “the next version of IOC“.  Not “the next session”, not “the next class”, not “the next group of candidates”.  The “next version of Infantry Officer Course”.

If you were going to buy a new car and had to order it from the factory to specific specs just how you wanted it, and you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next group of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d probably be thinking your car was on the way pretty soon, built to exacty what you wanted.  If you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next version of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d be wondering what changed.  What happened to the car you ordered, that you wanted built to your specifications?  You’re not getting “the next order of cars” or “the next allotment” or “the next run”, you’re getting “the next version“.

The behind-the-scenes is most likely what has played out every time.  Retiree Pappa is tasked with making sure women pass the course.  Instructors at the IOC are told “the women will pass the course”.  Their jobs, their careers, their futures are on the line.  Politics will order a lowered standard, and failures will be passed.

Everyone in the military has seen it in one form or another already (what immediately comes to mind is one male academic failure who failed his MOS school final, but was passed anyway because he was well-liked… he went on to show himself to be a coward in Iraq).

No one in the military will benefit, everyone will be hurt.  The only benefit is in the cocktail party leftist political correctness social engineer circles, politicians and elite snots who will pride themselves on creating a more equal military, patting themselves on the back with false comparisons to righting historical wrongs that their own progressive party inflicted on others.  They’ll say how wonderful and progressive they are, and good men and women will die for their desire to see “progress” where such a thing is a physical impossibility.

Yesterday we brought up KU professor David “Death to Your Kids” Guth, but that’s not the only leftist wishing death to children.

California Democrat party communications chair Allan Brauer wished death to Ted Cruz’s staff and their children:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz

He and other Cali Dems apologized by saying that his kind of rhetoric distracts from the discussion of how evil Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz-like people are, so he’s sorry that people missed sight of hating Ted Cruz.

But in a tweet collected here, it’s easy to see what the problem is:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz 2

He’s doing the same thing that Alinksyites always do.  They polarize the problem and then stalwartly refuse to accept that there is any other side but theirs.  They are the angels, the other side are demons, and they must act, and act now against the demons.  They dehumanize and hate their opponents, and they will do anything to win and destroy and kill their political opponents.

Allan “Death to Your Children Tapeworms That Slithered Out of Your Asshole” Brauer is not only is he a violent cretin, he’s a ignoramus.

The Republican party doesn’t take bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick.  It asks: Why should someone who’s worked hard to provide food for their children and medicine for their own sick have government’s gun shoved in their face and be forced to provide food and medicine for those who don’t prepare?  Why is the ant being robbed by the government to provide for the grasshopper?

The ant has a natural right to the property earned by his labor, yet the emotional Democrat maniac sees Person A need, often whose life choices have undoubtedly taken some part in getting them to their crappy situation (or whose parents life choices have) and decides that Person B, who lives three states away and is working to take care of his own family, children, and friends, should have IRS Agent Z take money from Person B’s pocket, food from his table, and create a health-care system that penalizes Person B in order to provide for Person A.  Person B has been declared to owe Person A, while Person A has done nothing but exist and fail at life, and the Democrat solution is to subsidize failure rather than allow Person A to learn from mistakes.

IRS Agent Z and Democrat Candidate Y can claim moral superiority for feeding the poor and providing for the sick, but they do so by robbing from Person B (and of course buying Person A’s vote with handouts).  When Person B objects and elects Candidate C to represent him, IRS Agent Z and Democrat Y go after them for being “pubic lice whose asshole-slithering tapeworms need to die” because they want to keep more of the products of their own labor, and want to know where this debt to Person A came from.

There is no rational response.  There is either some gibbering about nebulous “social contracts” which are non-existent and then a whole lot of rage and hate from the would-be masters against the questioning workers.

Brauer’s rage is based on a completely false premise, but one that cannot be corrected because he has chosen his targets, he has polarized them, he has frozen them, and he is on the side of the angels and they the demons.  So of course their children must die.

The left always says they want things like gun control  or health care “for the children”, but they sure do want them to die.

First, from a journalism professor at the University of Kansas:

ku prof nra death to children

First off, he’s wishing death to children, because somehow he’s decided that the children of NRA members are deserving of death.  Why?  Because he has assigned blame for the actions of a murdering madman in DC (a gun-free zone, remember) to the NRA.  “Journalism” professor David Guth clearly does not understand that the NRA is an anti-murder organization.  The NRA offers training for John Q. Public and Officer Murphy alike in order to help provide them with self-defense skills to avoid being murdered.  But Guth is one of those enlightened, anointed intellectuals to whom “guns are bad, m’kay”, and thus any organization which is pro-gun must also be held accountable for the actions of anyone using a gun.  Sort of like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

Second, it’s idiotic in a practical way.  As a leftist, he’s blaming the NRA for the actions of a madman and feels that the NRA is responsible, feeling that the NRA’s push for self defense rights are the reason murders happen.  The problem here is that if NRA members have their way, madmen are stopped PDQ.  The NRA’s School Shield program offers training and assistance to any school that wants to have an active defense.  There have been a few schools in states like UT and TX that have started offering the ability for teachers to carry firearms at school, which offers an immediate response to a madman.  Liviu Librescu saved a lot of kids by sacrificing himself to barricade a door, a courageous and selfless act of a hero.  But Nick Meli saved a lot of people by presenting an armed threat to a madman and didn’t have to sacrifice himself.  Thing is, this journalism professor is angry, but he can’t even see that if the NRA gets its way (which he hates), then the children of NRA members won’t have to deal with this threat at all.

He is demonstrating the leftist media-academia mentality of feeling over thought.  He wants people to feel pain because he thinks all it takes is for them to feel and they’ll come to his side and share his feeling, that guns are bad, m’kay.  It’s flawed to begin with, rests on an infantile understanding of human nature, and is not just reprehensible, but bonesnappingly stupid.  It’s also entirely impossible for him to understand that the real problem is that good people are left defenseless, and beyond the madman, fault lies with those who left good people defenselessDr. Suzanna Hupp explained this to congress once, but not all of them listened.

Also, last I checked, God is probably more likely to damn people who wish death to others’ children, but maybe Guth stopped reading right around the part with Pharoah not letting people go, and he didn’t understand what the other warnings like the frogs were about.

Or he could be a leftist lunatic who wants your kids to die for revenge so you can feel pain.

He’s been placed on administrative leave, but he defends his words.

Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little on Friday issued a statement regarding Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth.

“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members,” Gray-Little said in the statement.

That’s a start.  The Kansas Senate majority leader is calling for his removal.   But Professor “Death to Your Kids” doubled down by defending his words by saying you’re too stupid to understand him.

‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.”  Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”

It takes work to lie that much.

He posts his explanation on his blog that make things even more clear.  First off, he’s wearing a Maryland shirt, which makes a lot of sense.  Most Kansans, even the leftiest leftist in Lawrence, aren’t liable to become his brand of violent, hate-filled idiot.

I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined.  The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue.  Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact. The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.  I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.  I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.  But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point. There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security. Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.  There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?
X
That’s it for now. Fear the Turtle

This is worth dissecting because it’s such a wonderful raging microcosm of the singular leftist anti-gun worldview.  The senseless slaughter at the DC Naval Yard was perpetrated by a madman who ignored laws against murder.  The madman killed a guard and killed people with the dead guard’s sidearm.  The madman had secret clearance and authorization to be on base and worked there, in that gun free zone.  He was also an avid video gamer (note this is just to illustrate a point, not a statement about video games).  Some of the earliest FPS games start with a player with a knife who needs to kill a guard to acquire better weaponry.

wolfenstein knife

It’s not a difficult concept, and it’s how the DC Naval Yard shooter was able to double or triple his available weapons in a matter of a moment.  As someone who was authorized to be there and familiar to people on base, he could’ve just stabbed the guard.

Point being, a madman with access to a weapons-free zone and desire to do harm can and will acquire a weapon.

The time has passed for niceties and tact.

 

Ah, a declaration apropos of nothing, and a justification for being an emotional twit.

The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

 

No, it’s not.  Again, a wild declaration with no connection to reality.

I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this.

 

Translated: “I said something reprehensible and called for the murder of the children of my political enemies.  I will turn this on them by saying that they are misrepresenting my words and spreading lies about me.  Now I can accuse them of lying about me and claiming I called for God to damn them and death to their children.  Which I did.  But now my own words can be used against them, claiming they smeared me.  I am a clever journalism professor and no one can see through my veil of bullshit.  I am a genius.”

One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

 

Another wild declaration that is completely and 100% deniable because it’s dead wrong.  Gun culture doesn’t support murder, it supports self defense.  And bullets aren’t armor-plated, just in case you needed any more proof the prof is an ignorant fool.

Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens.

 

Translation: “I’m saying this for shock value.  But you should be shocked at yourself!  Bwahaha!  I am so clever by saying horrible things while accusing you of being the horrible thing!”

Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

 

Translation: “Question I intend to tell you the correct answer to.  Lip service to gullible fools.  Rights only extend until I think that force should be applied to stop them and they offend me, which is whenever I feel like.”  End result, rights are meaningless, law is meaningless, the rule of man is all that’s important.

A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

 

There is no right to be safe anywhere.  There is a right for you to protect your safety, but there is no protection the government can grant that can make you safe.  You can be in a gun-free zone on a military base protected by guards and still get murdered.  As in the case with the DC Naval Yard and Fort Hood, by people who were trusted by the government.  Students at a school who are left undefended and unprotected are just a defenseless to madmen as they are to teachers who molest their students, or fires in buildings.  No amount of wishful thinking will make any of them go away.

Also, I don’t stockpile WMDs, and I don’t know anyone who does.  My local range wouldn’t let me use the one Trident II missile I bought at a gun show, so why should I stockpile more of them?  I need to find a new range because of it.  Freedom.  ‘Murica.

I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.

 

Translation: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

 

Like I just translated: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

Those fools don’t get it.

 

Translation: “I don’t understand their point at all, so they must be fools.”  This is where that disconnect comes into play.  Conservatives do understand liberals, but not the other way around.

If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

 

Then what was the point, prof?  Because yours is completely wrong, all your facts are wrong, and all your opinions based on those facts lead to failure and more wrongness.

The death toll absolutely would be lower when people can fight back.  It works every time it’s tried.  The only thing that’s guaranteed when people are disarmed is that the government will be armed.  In the short run, it means Major Nadal Hassan and Sergeant Hasan Akbar and Sergeant John Russell can kill at will, in the long run, it means Major General Vasili Blokhin can kill at will.

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

The price of security (no sarcastic quotes) is easily bought with armed citizens.  Police officers and law enforcement tend to be filled with people with massive egos, yet there aren’t gunfights in police stations every day.  Gun stores are filled with massive egos, yet gun stores don’t erupt into gunfights over .45 ACP vs 9mm arguments.

There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets

 

“Assault weapons and high volume magazines” are effective tools, but are no more evil than the people behind them.

A leftist crusading against hollow point bullets is again demonstrating he’s an idiot.  Hollow points allow for more effective energy transfer in a target.  Whether you’re blasting Bambi or a bad guy, they provide more immediate damage that results in “stopping power” by opening as they enter the target and destroying more inside.  The objective is to stop the threat (or not to injure a game animal and make it suffer).  Police carry hollow points for the same reason most citizens do – pistols are relatively weak when it comes to stopping people (you may kill an assailant with a .22 LR, but he may bleed out in an hour after he’s crushed your head with a brick), and hollow points allow for more effective expansion of the bullet and doing more immediate damage that will stop someone.  Often, pistols with hollow points won’t even penetrate far enough to kill, but they’ll wreck enough on the way in to stop someone – which is the point.

The sale of ARs, standard magazines, and hollow points, none of which were likely used by the DC Naval Yard shooter initially, and if he used a standard capacity magazine, it was only by killing a guard first (and the military tends to use FMJ rounds, not HP, because of better barrier penetration).  So that argument is meaningless again.

In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

 

There is no “well documented national security threat”, except maybe in a Mother Jones op-ed.  Now, if a leftist wannabe tyrant gets his way into power and starts dictating to people how they must live, then they are… but arms in the hands of US citizens are only a threat to tyrannical regimes.

Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.

 

Bluster bluster bluster.  You just got her a lot more phone calls against your ideas than for.  You just energized the NRA and KSRA and other pro-gun groups.  Their whole ethos can be summed up with the saying on a Gadsden flag: Don’t Tread On Me.  They want to be left alone, and they will defend themselves.  That’s it.  They defend themselves against madmen and against political attackers both.  Leave them alone and they’re harmless.

He finishes with this very telling line.

There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?

 

Where have I heard that before…

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

As soon as Obama decided not to decide on Syria and passed the buck to congress, anyone looking at it could see he’d play politics with it and use congress as his scapegoat.  If congress said no and he chose not to go to Syria, he could blame congress for Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  If congress said no and it was a wise choice, he’d pat himself on the back for staying out.  If congress said yes and the war went well, he could claim credit.  If congress said yes and the war went sour, he could blame congress.

Obama has chosen to completely and 100% pass the buck in order to shift blame.

Now he’s even blaming others for his own red lines:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Obama set a red line a year ago.  Now he’s saying he didn’t, the world did.  Now he’s saying it’s not his credibility, it’s everybody else’s – everybody else who he can blame.

And he’ll blame everyone:

My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

“Norms?”

norm cheersAnd he blames the world:

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

“International norms?”  When the hell do we go to war for “international norms?”  Are we the conformity police now?  This is a very thin veneer of an excuse for war.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

So what?  Syria isn’t a signatory.

If you want to lean on them with sanctions, great.  But military actions against them for breaking a treaty they’re not party to is like going into your neighbor’s house and spanking your neighbor’s kid for not cleaning his room.  Make all the arguments about the greater good that you want, it’s really not your place, no matter what the neighborhood “norms” are.

That is progressivism at it’s core, though.  Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get involved in the Great War, and Teddy Roosevelt’s desire to get involved in all sorts of noble little wars – we belonged in none of them but there was always some great moral argument for going to war – to save Europe from the Hun or to avenge the Lusitania or the Maine.

If we’re going to be the world’s policeman, we’re two years late to the hundred-thousand conventional deaths in Syria, and we were smuggling anti-air missiles to Al Qaeda in Syria (which is why Ambassador Chris Stevens was out in Benghazi and not in Tripoli).  But this isn’t about being the world’s policeman or the role that would entail, this is about the president covering his ass, using classic progressive rhetoric to say “We must act!  Now now now!  Action!  The time for talk is over!  We must act!” and force congress into a decision that gives him a scapegoat.

Obama and his willing media sycophants are phenomenal liars.  They can convince people that their own words don’t mean what they say, that a war isn’t a war, and that Obama didn’t say what he said, that nations that don’t sign treaties must have military force used on them to enforce “norms”, that 1000 nerve gas deaths are worse than 100,000 conventional deaths, and that congress is to blame no matter what goes wrong.

It really is masterful propaganda.

-

One last bit here, from Real Clear Politics:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Again, Syria isn’t a signatory to chemical weapons treaties.  But the Syria Accountability Act is rather interesting, since it was passed in 2003, and that means Obama’s been ignoring it since 2008, and his party was ignoring it when Kerry and Pelosi were busy sitting down to dinner with Assad.  It also only applies to international terrorism, not a civil war, and nowhere in the bill is there a provision for military strikes, only sanctions.

I’ve been reading about this and listening to this for a while, and as someone who’s had to fight in the Middle East before, I’m hearing a replay of 2002-2003, but a much worse one, with an imperial president who ignores the law as opposed to a neocon president who even his staunchest critics when confronted with the data can see at least jumped through the required hoops.

So far, it’s heavily suspected that Syria has used chemical weapons on its own rebels and population, though it’s also possible that the rebels themselves (who are affiliated with Al Qaeda) may have used them to garner international sympathy – mideast terrorist groups and their allies do use propaganda, after all.   Reuters even has rebels saying it was rebels (but Reuters in the mideast isn’t exactly trustworthy, as is evidenced one link ago). The use of chemical weapons is pretty much accepted, but by whom isn’t wholly decided.

The Obama administration has attacked Bashar Assad’s credibility when asked for proof.  If you’ve heard the audio (Charley Jones on 1080 KRLD played some of it last night), you know it starts off with a question asking about where the proof is that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime, and sounds even less convincing when spoken than written.

Q:   But based on the President’s own criticism of the previous administration, not being able to clearly establish the use of WMD — if you’re now acknowledging the U.N. doesn’t have the mandate to determine that anyway, what will the President use to decide whether or not to take U.S. military action –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we are continuing to assess the matter of culpability.  We believe, and I think the evidence is overwhelming, that there is very little doubt that the Syrian regime is culpable.  But we will continue to establish, or assess the incident, and we’ll have more information for you, as Secretary Kerry mentioned, in the coming days about that matter.

But, in the meantime, we should make clear from here and from the State Department and elsewhere, and in capitals around the world, that the Syrian regime has very little credibility on this matter.  If the Syrian regime had any interest, as Secretary Kerry said earlier, in proving that they were not culpable, they had the opportunity to allow that U.N. inspection team to visit the site immediately.  Instead, they blocked access for five days while they shelled the neighborhood, killing more innocent civilians, in an attempt to destroy evidence.

And even today, when the inspection team began its trip to the region where the attack occurred, its convoy was attacked.  They had to turn back.  And then they were able to make it later into the region.  After they left, the Syrian regime started shelling again.  The credibility here does not exist.

Except saying Assad is an uncooperative liar doesn’t mean Obama has definitive proof.  Saying “we have evidence from sources on the ground and from surveillance” would be a point.  Saying “we are assessing culpability” isn’t the same.  Considering the numerous resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s WMDs and ultimately action taken because of them, Obama is setting us up for the very same thing he railed against and ran on as a presidential candidate and president.  But Democrats are always against terrorist regimes before they’re for giving up and abandoning the efforts against terrorist regimes:

The Syrians have allies in Iran and Russia and Hezbollah, and the rebels are allied with and often part of Al Qaeda.  There are arguments by interventionists that some rebels are regionally different, but ultimately it doesn’t matter.  All sides involved are villainous.  There’s no reason for the US to get involved.  Neither side winning is good for the US.

If Syria wins, America’s adversaries in Russia, Iran, and China as well get strengthened in the region.  If the rebels win, Al Qaeda and other extremist forces will take over… just like happened in Egypt and much of Libya.  Either way, non-combatants in Syria suffer.

But speaking of Libya, the reason Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead is most likely because he was out in the middle of nowhere in Benghazi trying to secure weapons for the Syrian rebels.

Lawmakers also want to know about the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

That’s from a while ago.  Realistically, we’ve probably been supporting Syrian rebels since then.

The problem is that as we’re supporing the Free Syrian Army, we’re supporting the same allies of Al Qaeda that we’ve been fighting since at least the 1993 WTC bombing, and for no particular reason.

One question that hasn’t been answered adequately is that if we intervene, who will end up with those 1000 tons of chemical weapons that Syria has?  If the rebels win, are we handing Al Qaeda 1000 tons of sarin or VX?

If we act against Syria, will they use chemical weapons on their neighbors in Israel and Jordan and Turkey?  Is that part of why Turkey, who got involved in Syria a bit, stopped getting involved?

-

So far the hypothesis has been that in a few days of air attacks, we could seriously degrade the Syrian air force and reduce Assad’s capability to fight significantly.  If we were to do that, basically providing Al Qaeda the use of our air force, and ultimately leading to an AQ/rebel victory and our actions were to protect the world from chemical weapons… then what do we do once they have those chemical weapons?  The answer ends up being boots on the ground.

There are only a few options in Syria:

  • We don’t get involved.
  • We support Syria’s government and push for stability against AQ.
  • We support Syria’s rebels and push for regime change and a new stable state that magically doesn’t turn into an AQ-state or Egypt redux.
  • We get involved and crush both sides, secure WMDs, and leave with them secured or destroyed.
  • We get involved and crush both sides, secure WMDs, and stay and nation build.

Carl Von Clausewitz stated as his elegant definition of war:

War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.

-

So what is our will in Syria?  To stop the use of WMDs?

There have been tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands killed in Syria’s civil war by conventional violence.  Why were those deaths less important than the ones killed by a nerve agent?

To control WMD proliferation and keep WMDs out of the hands of groups that would threaten the US and our allies?  Supporting Syria would lead to stabilization and keep weapons out of terrorist hands – because a regime like Syria is a nation-state with something to lose if it uses WMDs against us.  A stateless organization like Al Qaeda doesn’t care.

Or is our will just so Obama can say his “red line” means something and not look like a complete weakling in front of Putin and China?  Too late, they know our president is weak on US interests and more concerned with instituting self-destructive policies within the US.  Any angry, self-righteous response against Syria is just going to look like Obama going “oh yeah, I’ll show you guys!” and they’ll still think him weak, because he is.  Obama doesn’t care about US interests.  He does care about himself, but that’s not strength, that’s vanity.

-

The progressive left is interventionist, though.  They have been since the days when Woodrow Wilson dragged us into WWI, and before then the progressives under Teddy Roosevelt on the right dragged us all into other wars.

Consider this NYT editorial, titled “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”:

The latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad.

They don’t want to be the world’s policeman enforcing the law, they want to be the world’s angry disciplinarian out castigating people for things they don’t like.

But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.

There’s currently a big push by the administration to say that Syria is violating international norms and must be punished.  You’ll hear the word in news reports a lot as a new narrative is made.  Sort of like hearing about the hun.

Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.

Not only will Russia and China block any UN resolutions, it doesn’t matter, because there is no authority to something Syria isn’t a signatory to.  This is the very unilateralism the left railed against.

What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category.

Some acts are unlawful regardless of treaties?  What a joke.  Sudan is on the UN Human Rights Commission even though they were and are engaged in genocide.

If there is no law, they are by definition not unlawful.

…if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.

This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

This can be summed up simply:

There is no law in this administration, there is only what people in power feel like doing, and whatever complex mental and linguistic gymnastics they can do to justify acting out how they feel.

Under Bush, the administration went through the processes that were necessary, getting approval along the way before acting on a perceived threat, regardless of the haste or individual opinions on the wisdom of those actions.  Under Obama, we have leftists actively advocating for ignoring laws they agree to with their wonderful UN-consensus ideals because it’s now magically moral to break the law, to do what feels good even though it’s illegal.

The rule of law is the foundation of a civilized society, but we have the rule of men, and of a man who feels what he’s doing is right means more than the law.  I’m sure Assad would agree with the decisions to ignore legality and do what you want as a ruler.

-

As a final note, I heard or read this story not too long ago:  A bartender saw a boyfriend and girlfriend fighting across the bar and saw the boyfriend slapping the girlfriend.  The bartender decided this was wrong, and he had to get involved and separate the two.  He stepped around the bar and got them apart, and the girlfriend then broke a beer bottle over the bartenders head.

As of right now, with no real evidence of a threat to the US or US interests, there’s no reason to get involved.

This is a cluster of our enemies fighting each other.  It’s tragic what’s happening to the non-combatants, but unless we want to wage a massive, all out campaign to suppress the rest of the world and pacify them, we can’t change that.

Away from wartime, we can change things through trade and commerce, but in wartime, there’s little we can do unless we go all-out.  And there’s while there may be some broader humanitarian desire to act, there’s really little reason to get involved, as both potential victors in the only likely outcomes are villains.

From Time:

Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him. …

What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms?

There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three:

– First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.

– Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm.

– Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics.

His points in general are the same ones hit on here in previous posts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

There is nothing to gain from this.  There is much to lose.

On the battlefield, there is no agency to appeal to for gender bias.  The enemy, the weather, the conditions, the misery do not care that things aren’t fair.

Torsion bars don’t care if you’re too weak to change them.  Track doesn’t care if you’re too weak to break it and rebuild it.

breaking_track mlrs

You can yell at artillery shells all you want that they’re sexist for weighing too much, but they will not care.

155 shells

90 pounds of gear on your back does not care… and the inability to do any combat job gets passed on to someone more competent, who then has to carry two loads instead of one.

US infantry

Your buddy who needs your help does not get lighter just because you’re a girl (or a weak man who only meets a girls’ standard).

Fireman_carry_Army

Men who do these jobs have to be physically strong athletes.  Those who can’t meet the standard are a continuing drag on their unit and/or are mustered out.

The few individual women who could meet the standard (and could probably get waivers and be welcomed into units that might find utility for them) are not who is being looked at here.  This is a push for cocktail party circuit politicians to say “look at the good social justice thing I did for women” that will put girls into positions that break many men, and will break women much faster and much worse.

Via Jawa Report, from FOX:

The federal government is hiring what it calls a “Behavioral Insights Team” that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.

To make society more efficient – because you don’t know how to make your own decisions, they will manipulate you into their chosen path.  They will adjust your choices, and create you into their image of the perfect efficient serf.

Milton Friedman famously said that we should be thankful for government inefficiency, because without it, we’d all be slaves.

Such policies — which encourage behavior subtly rather than outright require it — have come to be known as “nudges,” after an influential 2008 book titled “Nudge” by former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and Chicago Booth School of Business professor Richard Thaler popularized the term.

The term “nudge” has already been associated with the new program, as one professor who received Shankar’s email forwarded it to others with the note: “Anyone interested in working for the White House in a ‘nudge’ squad? The UK has one and it’s been extraordinarily successful.”

Cass Sunstein is one of the most vile men on the planet, who desires to corrupt institutions made to serve the people into institutions that control the people.  It’s for your own good, you stupid peasant.

Richard Thaler told FoxNews.com that the new program sounds good.

“I don’t know who those people are who would not want such a program, but they must either be misinformed or misguided,” he said.

“The goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government by using scientifically collected evidence to inform policy designs. What is the alternative? The only alternatives I know are hunches, tradition, and ideology (either left or right.)”

“Misguided” to this master of puppets is anyone who opposes him.  “MIsinformed” means you haven’t been properly indoctrinated to accept him as your master, as someone who knows better than him.

The goal is to control people, to force them to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t, to use a government instituted by the people as a tool to preserve freedom as a tool to coerce behavior.  It is the antithesis of freedom, and it is the most insidious form of tyranny.

Thaler is a would-be master of men, and a liar of the first order.

The alternative is that individuals make decisions for themselves, because no luciferian social scientist knows better than any individual in their own life.  He doesn’t know what’s best for you.  You have your own individual life full of information that you’ve collected that makes a difference in your own life that should inform your own decisions.  The “ideology” tack at the end is just to make him seem so “moderate” and “reasonable” by saying he dismisses both sides with his third way… of government leading you, you stupid, contemptible peon.  He mocks any other ideas as hunches, too, as though people don’t make their own decisions.

His ridicule of tradition is easily shot down by a man much wiser – Thomas Sowell:

“For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.”

But they are your masters, and they will lead, and they will educate you into believing that following is your natural condition, your correct place in life, and ultimately that it’s for your own good that you’re a serf.

-