Most female Americans are the equivalent of male Americans in every category of comparison (and superior in many – I know first-hand, having taught engineering to the impressive first class of female Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy – and, no, it’s not “midshipwomen” – midshipman is rank, like lieutenant) except one – total physical strength, especially upper body strength. Can some women outperform some men in some feats of strength? Of course they can. But for the vast majority, they struggle.
Knowing this, you would think that the Commander-in-Chief, for whom the military works directly, would ensure that women who do not have the requisite strength, as tested in boot camp, would not be assigned to those combat elements for which they were not physically suited. You would be wrong.
The civilians in the federal government merely directed the military to lower the standards. American women are eminently qualified to serve in all areas and at all levels of our military – but it is not in the best interest of combat effectiveness and the safety of all of our precious service members for them to be assigned to active ground combat units or in isolated deployed commands where direct, physical contact with an enemy is possible.
Yet American women, God bless them for their courage and patriotism; have been placed in many combat roles with our male soldiers and Marines where total physical strength is critical. Through no fault of their own, they have compromised the combat effectiveness of their units. I have no doubt that service men and women have died in combat because of this policy and if you doubt my belief, we’ll just call for testimony published online.
Women have also been assigned to deployable U.S. Navy warships for decades, some even rising to positions of command. Aside from the strength issue, this confirms my earlier observation about the ability and character of the female American service member. Unfortunately, warships deploying for long periods of many months to more than a year in some cases have had to deal with the undeniable fact that men and women service members are, first and foremost, human beings. As human beings, they interact as human beings do (despite regulations regarding fraternization). The outcomes of some of these interactions are detrimental to the ships’ combat effectiveness.
This issue is bad enough on ships that operate on the surface, where sailors can get a breath of fresh air every now and then. Put the problem on a submarine, with confined spaces, no privacy and hormones – and where each and every crew member can sink the ship with one mental mistake in its operation – they’d never do that. Oh, wait. They’ve already decided to put a mixed crew on a deploying submarine. Once again, if you doubt my belief, we’ll just call for testimony online. And what of the wives left behind? Talk about a “war on women” …
Pregnant sailors are not allowed to serve at sea in a combat zone by regulation – and a forward deployed combatant is considered to be in a war zone once they “chop” to a combat area-commander. When a sailor, officer or enlisted, becomes pregnant on deployment (or during workup to deployment), they are immediately transferred from the ship to a non-deployable unit. The resulting manning shortage must then be filled with current assets.
Should this occur aboard a submarine on strategic patrol, it could become a national security crisis. The boat must pull off-station, transit at high speed to a point within helicopter rescue range (potentially revealing its top secret position in the process), execute a dangerous aerial transfer off the deck that is probably awash by sea and swell and, hopefully, recover a replacement crew member. More PLDC insanity!
When the pregnant sailor is in a highly technical rate, having completed (sometimes) years of education and training, she is hard to replace without suffering a significant loss in effectiveness due to cost-cutting minimal manning practices. It also causes a loss of morale, additional mental stress for those involved and perhaps discipline for the offending male sailor if he is identified.
Finally, let’s talk about the distinctly Western tradition of American boys learning to respect and defend the women in their lives – moms, aunts, sisters, wives, daughters, girlfriends, significant others, etc. Do you think they don’t take this behavior to war with them? Just imagine an American male from the mid-west fighting alongside an American female. Could good judgment about the best course of action for the success of the unit’s mission be skewed because of the presence of an American woman in the group? Of course it could. Could that result in unnecessary casualties or the failure of the mission? Of course it could.
Just consider the decisions made by the most highly trained American combatants in the “Lone Survivor” saga – made because of the mere presence of a child – even possibly the child of a terrorist. Why would the presence of an American woman in a combat situation be any different for an American soldier? It wouldn’t. It’s who we are.
Another candidate for social engineering – income inequality – is the latest “hot button” item on the progressive’s/liberal’s agenda. The fundamental contention is that it is unfair that some citizens have more income than others. Great sheaves of statistics are brought out to prove that, in the private sector, men make more than women and whites make more than blacks for doing the same job.
As well, there are accusations that the private sector employment racial mix is not reflective of the population as a whole. The problem with the basic argument is that it is nearly impossible to compare individual jobs in the private sector because every employer has the absolute right to define the job requirements for his or her employees in any manner he or she chooses. After all, he or she is in the business of maximizing the potential for the company to make a profit. Hiring the best suited person into a position is the only sane way to run a successful business. As we shall see, the problem is not with the racial mix of employees, it is with the racial mix of candidates!
Let us look at the employer-employee dynamic. As the owner of several companies in my life, I can tell you that any employer wants to hire the very best candidate for the position in order to maximize the chances that this new employee will help make the company more successful. No successful owner would do any less because hiring less than the best would jeopardize overall company success in general, his own personal investment (stake) and his profit in particular. I can’t speak for the unsuccessful owner – he’s out of business.
It is virtually impossible to find two candidates for a position with exactly the same credentials. There are an infinite number of variables that come with each candidate. Hiring decisions are based upon an evaluation of whose credentials, qualifications and experience match up most closely with the requirements of the position. This is discovered during the employer interview process.
The next step in the process is a discussion of compensation – pay, benefits and perks. This time it is the candidate who is in charge of the interview and who must decide whether the employer’s compensation proposal adequately matches the candidate’s needs (probably pay and benefits) and wants (perks).
There can be, and usually are, negotiations on behalf of both parties – trading a job skill for a higher/lower salary or trading a perk for a certain salary level, or a salary level for a benefit, etc. The permutations and combinations are endless. The fairness of the compensation package compared to the job description is determined by whether or not the candidate accepts the best offer the employer believes is economically feasible and -accepts the job offer.
Entry level jobs are somewhat different because the candidate doesn’t have any job skills to offer the employer so the evaluation is by nature, very subjective, as the employer must guess whether or not the candidate has the potential to succeed and advance. It would be easier to uncover wage discrimination in this area but this is not the area the progressives/liberals are discussing. One factor however, is true – entry level jobs are never designed to support a family – they are designed to allow an individual to enter the work force and begin developing marketable skills skills that he or she do not yet possess.
There have been some massive class action suits on this point but it is problematic whether massive wage discrimination has ever been truly uncovered because a jury verdict in such cases is an emotional reaction to hardships presented by the defense to elicit just such a sympathetic verdict. The key word here is “sympathetic” whose root could be proposed as “symbiotic pathology”. A jury composed entirely of hourly workers would certainly render a much different verdict than a jury comprised entirely of small business owners.
Finally, let’s look at the logic of the argument: ” if everyone has more money to spend, they can buy more stuff and improve their standard of living”- the progressive/liberal arguments for a mandatory, federal minimum wage – with which they beat the opposition unmercifully year after year. The premise is that government can command fairness by requiring businesses to pay higher labor costs (wages, health insurance, paid maternity and paternity leave, etc.) and higher taxes (but not higher revenues) and still make a profit so as to remain in business. Really?
The economic reality is (proven by centuries of data about the operation of free markets), when more dollars chase the same amount of goods or services, the competition among buyers will result in higher prices for those goods and services. For example; at Christmas, if there is only one Gameboy console left in the store and two people want it – the owner will probably sell it to the person who says that they will pay more. It’s “good business”!
On a macro-economic level, it is known as the law of supply and demand. More money available to buyers (via a higher federally mandated wage) leads to more demand for goods and services. More demand leads to higher prices – since people have more money to spend. The economic result – higher prices for the same goods and services and no increase in the standard of living.
A higher federally-mandated wage does lead to several unintended consequences. Business owners, now forced to pay more in wages, will lay-off the less skilled workers – those making the (artificially) higher federally-mandated wage and consolidate tasks among remaining workers – effectively “lowering” their wages because they now work harder for the same pay. In addition, foreign companies who export goods to the United States – who are not subject to arbitrary government interference in their businesses – can now make greater profits because their products will now cost consumers more.
Finally, let’s look at the male-female pay gap.
To demonstrate the illogic of the progressive/liberal template that says that greedy employers always pay women less than men, consider an employer, hoping to make as much profit as possible, presented with two identical candidates, one male and one female, would logically always hire the female and get the same work for a cheaper price – thereby enhancing his own profit.
But, the progressive/ liberal illogical argument is that he hires the more expensive male candidate. That makes no logical or economic sense – perhaps because progressive/ liberals – champions of the “working class” – don’t really understand business all that well.
Is there a male-female pay gap? Probably, but not for the reasons that the progressive/liberal cabal would have you believe. Career factors that drive men and women are different. Things that are important to males are not important to females and vice-versa. These kinds of considerations in the employment process probably have much more to do with any pay disparity than employer bias against women. Women are not, as the PLDC mistakenly believes – a monolithic group of “Stepford Wives”.
The quest for a policy emphasizing income equality conjures up the idea of guaranteed equal outcomes – the polar opposite of the Constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity.
Social engineering, diversity, equality of outcomes are all code words for the changing of America from a “meritocracy” – work smart and reap the rewards of your labor, to a “collective” where success is punished through takings and sloth is rewarded through gifting – income redistribution on a grand scale. In this way, the constitutionally promised equality-of-opportunity is replaced by the communistic promise of equality-of-outcomes, where all citizens are reduced to the lowest common denominator. The intent is to change the ethos of Western Civilization.
The question I have is “Why?” Why did the progressive/liberals feel the need, indeed the passion, to fundamentally change the American culture from a culture that literally just saved the world from a modern “dark age” under Nazism, Fascism, violent Japanese imperialism and athiestic Communism to something else?
Social activism has been present in America since before the Constitution, in the works of James Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia Colony, who outlawed slavery during his term from 1732 – 1743, and the evangelical leader Jonathan Edwards.
We have seen, or will see, that the noble abolitionists Fredrick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, William Lloyd Garrison and siblings Henry Ward Beecher and his sister Harriet Beecher Stowe were followed by what were now called “progressives” who transformed social activism to political activism, seeking to change the American culture through an adversarial process that compelled behavior rather than an advocational one that sought to enlighten hearts and minds to a righteous end.
Fresh from their “victory” over slavery, the likes of Eugene Debs, William Jennings Bryan, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, George Norris, Jane Addams, Susan B. Anthony, the anarchist Emma Goldman, ‘Mother’ Jones and Margaret Sanger plunged headlong into the new “slavery” – laborers in the new industrialization of America.
They were joined in the 20th Century by the likes of John Reed, Woodrow Wilson, Rex Tugwell, Stuart Chase, James Hudson Maurer, John Brophy, John L. Lewis, Paul Douglas, Robert Dunn, Harold Ickes, David Lilienthal and Raymond Moley. It was here that labor and liberty collided with the progressive concept of freedom – freedom under government supervision – freedom for some, supervision for others.
In turn, these were followed in the Cold War period by such luminaries as Alger Hiss, Henry Wallace, Saul Alinsky and his star disciple, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Ayers, Earl Warren, Gore Vidal, Frank Church, Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore and Barrack Obama, as well as crooks like Elijah Mohammad, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Through the years, progressives were all of the same mindset: We know better than – the People and their “outdated” Constitution, what is best for them and for America and will continue to do whatever is necessary to change America in other ways, despite Constitutional roadblocks. After all, their heroes had worked hard as abolitionists to end slavery.
Forgotten, I suppose, was the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans had actually died to end slavery and probably hadn’t thought they were special at all – just Americans doing the right thing.
As progressives/liberals continued to gain influence through subterfuge, they began to actually personify the cautionary thought first expressed by realist author Fyodor Dostoevsky in the 19th Century: “Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves [enough] to pick it up.”
Even present-day intellectuals don’t seem to be able to grasp the real purpose of our Constitution – which is to reserve power to the People. An esteemed president of a highly respected university recently defined law (by which governments regulate the People) as: “…an instrument for arranging, ordering, making a just and equal society.”
No sir. It is not! It is, of course, the People, who have been given the power by the Creator to regulate themselves so as to arrange and order their own society. Law is a necessary evil – necessary because of evil – and does not guarantee either a just or equal society. The “Golden Rule” is a much more productive means of assuring justice and equality of opportunity than any government politically generated law.
It is, in fact, the People in the jury box who deliver justice – not the law – and the absolute proof is in the unpredictability of a jury verdict where the People, in fact and in practice, judge the law as much as they judge the defendant. And how demeaning of the government, in the person of the judge, to tell the people what they must think. How dare they imply that the People are incapable of sound judgement.
But, it is through the weaponizing of law that the progressive/liberals can wake up every day with the intention of “… making a difference in someone else’s life.” – a direct quote from a sitting progressive executive officeholder. The question is: What kind of a difference, and to whom? It is the banal generality of that comment that is troubling.
Shouldn’t the goal be to make a positive difference in everyone’s life? If not, you are picking winners and losers. Where is the justice and equality in that? There isn’t any, but that contradction is lost in the zeal for wielding political power through the courts – where accountability to the People is absent. How? Lifetime tenure for judges and justices, that’s how.
The modern progressives have surreptitiously and skillfully centralized non-accountable political power in the Democrat Party, chief executives, congresses, courts, academia, public schools, the press and media and in the vast entertainment industry – through the cultivation of fellow travelers along the road to the constraint and control of others who do not agree that living free is the natural human condition.
The result of this insidious undertaking is called the Progressive/Liberal/Democrat Cabal – the PLDC. Here is a classic example of their clandestine tactics:
“The makers of a documentary on gun violence, produced by media celebrity/journalist Katie Couric, deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists. A review of the raw audio recording of the full interview shows that, in an apparent attempt to humiliate and destroy the credibility of the activists, an astounding and audacious journalistic fraud was committed.
Under the Gun bills itself as a documentary that “examines the events and people who have kept the gun debate fierce and the progress slow, even as gun deaths and mass shootings continue to increase.”
At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun, a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown. Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”
The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, apparently unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. Thankfully, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists was provided to the Washington Free Beacon and shows conclusively that the scene was deceptively and fraudulently edited.
Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately [instantly is more accurate] with concise, coherent, [detailed, specific] and pertinent answers from the activists. A lively back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of the 2nd Amendment, background checks and access to guns proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League labeled the deceptively edited segment featured in the film “unbelievable and extremely unprofessional.” Philip Van Cleave, the organization’s president, said the editing was obviously done deliberately to make it appear that league members didn’t have a response to Couric’s question.
“Katie Couric asked [the] key question during an interview of some members of our organization,” he said. “She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”
When questioned about the deceptive editing – which, in fact, perpetrated a lie – the makers said they were proud of the film. [Of course they are. They have carried out a classic, crafty PLDC attack on the truth. They are celebrity heroes.]
Progressives/liberals desire to impose their will on others – in an extra-constitutional manner – is due to a belief that their views on life and liberty are superior because they can guarantee equal outcomes for all – which, in their minds – is only fair. Gone would be the stress that comes with struggle and the anguish that comes with failure. Gone also is the truth about their intentions through control of the means of disseminating the truth about their activities. Their world would allegedly benefit everyone – especially the progressive elite – who, of course, define what “equal outcomes” means.
As an example of the fascist mindset of the PLDC, I offer this as a demonstration that, for the PLDC, it is more than an ideological battle – it is a war of conquest:
A private college in Arizona is now charging all legal students a mandatory fee to fund a scholarship for illegal immigrants, a controversial move supporters say gives a hand to those who need it but anti-illegal immigration advocates call irresponsible.
Prescott College is tacking a $30 annual fee onto its $28,000 annual tuition to establish an annual scholarship for “undocumented” students, as part of a policy first proposed by students and faculty from the undergraduate and Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts divisions. Backers say it helps reverse what they call Arizona’s reputation as a “national example of discriminatory politics” – an example of another classic tactic of propagandists – embellish a lie enough and it takes on the mantle of truth.
“I am proud that our students take on the role of scholar activists,” said school President John Flicker, adding that the university is committed to “broaden access to higher education for a diverse group of students” and “mobilize its resources towards social justice.” Can’t forget those PLDC code words and deconstructing “mandatory” to now mean “taking on” as in “voluntary”. If these progressive/liberals had the courage of their convictions, they would allow anyone to opt out of the fee. Don’t hold your breath.
“Making legal residents enrolled at the school pay for illegal immigrants’ education is a slap in the face to a generation already facing its post-college years saddled with enormous debt”, said Andrew Kloster, legal Fellow for the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at Heritage Foundation – not to mention the message it sends to students – “Law? What law?”
“At a time when student loan debt is over $1 trillion, it is irresponsible for Prescott College to offer this privilege at the expense of other students,” Kloster said. “While the dollar amount seems small per student, the fee does send a message to potential donors to Prescott College that the administration is less concerned with sound financial management than it is with making a political statement,” Kloster added.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said poor students in the country legally should take precedence. “It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” Vaughan said. “It’s a shame these students and faculty don’t have the same drive to help some of their fellow citizens who can’t afford college and who are forced to compete with illegal workers for [low-paying] job opportunities.”
The program, which likely will be expanded beyond a single scholarship beginning next year, will help celebrate “Coming Out Day,” an annual event hosted by United We Dream in support of undocumented students, the school’s web site said. Arizona has an estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates in the state (who cost Arizona taxpayers at least $650 million), with as many as 6,500 pursuing higher education, Prescott College officials said.
The college, which has 400 undergraduate students on campus, maintains undocumented students “are not expressly prohibited by law from admission to state colleges and universities” and “no federal statutes require disclosure and proof of immigration status and citizenship for students to enter higher education.”
The new scholarship can go to full or part-time undocumented students in undergraduate or graduate programs that demonstrate financial need – even students set for deferred removal action under federal immigration law. Applicants may not be a legal permanent resident and may not possess a green card, visa, or other legal documentation.
Miriel Manning, founder of the Freedom Education Fund and a student in Prescott College’s Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts program, said students were inspired by “courageous leadership and organizing of undocumented leaders across the country.” “Within the current political landscape of Arizona it is critical that Prescott College shows our commitment to education as a human right,” Manning said. I will not be surprised when the Supreme Court discovers that right skillfully hidden deep within the Constitution by the drafters.
Critical thinking is apparently not a strong suit at Prescott College. I wonder how one of these master’s program students will react when they lose out on a job to one of these “undocumented-scholarship” students because the employer is practicing “diversity”?
Only one other school in the nation, Chicago’s Loyola University, is known to have a similarly funded scholarship. Students there pay an extra $2.50 to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants. You can bet that there’ll be more.
Oh, by the way, the illegals are exempt from the mandatory fee.
What a meaningless existence the envision – and one that wouldn’t last very long before a determined enemy, hardened by long and bitter struggles in the real world, conquered an America devoid of leadership because the PLDC has achieved “equality” and all standards of accomplishment have been reduced to the lowest common level – the uneducated, dependent, drug-addled masses yearning to be entertained. Welcome to the new Epoch of Conquest.
Some suggest that Big Business and Big Finance should be part of the PLDC. I disagree. The true power of these entities is their ability to coerce and corrupt the members of the cabal – the ones who control access to information – with money, favors, exchanges, etc. This is the information that is critical for the People to make informed decisions (the result of being able to intelligently process the whole truth) about the great (and complex) issues of the day – where it was intended by the Founders that they exercise their ultimate power with the vote – a vote designed to produce an environment where corruption is minimized due to the People’s access to the truth.
In the age of celebrity, progressives/liberals believe that power is the path to glory, but glory is not gained by power alone – it is in how power is used for the benefit of the People – and, of course, they get to define (read deconstruct) the meaning(s) of the word “benefit” and to select the people. We’ll discuss this central issue in the following sections and in the prescriptive section entitled “Where Do We Go from Here?”
Continued in my next post.