Not much. He's doubled down. Basically, more of the same, lots of government spending on his pet pork, with little to show for it come Nov 2010.
Other than Gays in the military, it was more of the same. [That was a strategic error -- hot button elite cultural issues in a time of economic crisis is not a winner.] It is looking like a wipe-out for Dems unless Obama can do a Fujimori self-coup. Which I would not put past him either.
The guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class, and so are most "Gentry Liberals" to quote Joel Kotkin.
"My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate."
Same old leftist agenda, delivered with all his usual chin-in-the-air, Dignified Negro classiness.
Apparently. I say apparently because I have not watched or otherwise followed a STOU for years.
President Obama said Wednesday night he will work with Congress and the military to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces.
Obama made the remark in his first State of the Union speech during a short litany of civil rights issues, which included his successful hate crimes bill, a move to "crack down on equal-pay laws" and improvement of the immigration system.
"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it," he said.
"We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate," he said.
Gays in the military -- how important is that, really? Lauding something as absurd as that 'hate crimes' bill, even after his AG said explicitly before Congress it was not meant to protect Whites. More of the usual pablum about diversity.
He reminded us what a race man he is in the second paragraph:
"It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain."
What? A minor clash between cops and demonstrators in which 17 people went to hospital threatened the nation like civil war, the struggle against totalitarianism and the Depression? Really?
Actually when southern authorities began beating Negroes in front of MSM news cameras they made their future very certain by cutting their own throats.
1. Blame Bush for the $1 trillion deficit he's inherited, caused by a. Bush's tax cuts b. Bush's spending increases
2. Promise...lots and lots of tax cuts and spending increases, especially those targetted to favored constituencies, like the State of California.
Why does the proposed $2.5 billion rapid transit system not include San Diego? Is it because SD is a historically Republican town? Knowing costs and construction battles in California, I'm guessing $2.5 billion will, in the end, build about 10 miles of track. It might just barely cover the legal tab.
The man is either an idiot or a thug. He will fail to keep these promises same as he failed to keep the last ones.
Steve - off topic, but Newsweek has posted this interesting debate on the question of whether California is a failed state. Lots of denial, of course, but some interesting observations, too. Van Jones is one of the participants, though they don't mention the controversy surrounding him.
Its hard to make interesting an experiment with a single experimental group. But that's what you get from the tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights".
Let's build a database of all the promises made in the SOTU speeches in the past twenty years. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama.
Better call for a dumptruck. This particular Washington D.C. celebrity event is a giant poop fest that leaves behind only a steaming pile of hope and intentions.
The guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class, and so are most "Gentry Liberals" to quote Joel Kotkin.
One of the nice things about the Obama presidency is that it gives the fewremaining whites in this country a pretty accurate glimpse into their future.
Whiskey, why do you randomly capitalize words and phrases? Gays: not a proper noun. Only capitalize it at the beginning of a sentence. Same for middle, and class. White and black when referring to racial categories are often capitalized in British English, so that's only mostly wrong.
I got bored after an hour, but no surprises, really. His soaring rhetoric is gone, and he sounds just like any other politician. He blamed Bush for everything and claimed everything he did helped. Tax the banks, and somehow get America working again by creating solar panels. The promised repeal of "don't ask don't tell" was to make up for his failure on gay marriage. Largely his speech was aimed at the (implicitly white) middle-class. Health care, child care, college tuition credits and so on. Unless he slipped it in late or my attention wandered, no mention of immigration reform.
Whiskey wrote "Other than Gays in the military, it was more of the same. [That was a strategic error -- hot button elite cultural issues in a time of economic crisis is not a winner.]"
When the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud. The Prez seemed taken aback and Biden & Pelosi were looking around, seemingly in reaction.
Or, maybe I was projecting my own mirth onto the TV show.
"Everything and everybody seem to be jumbled out of place, except a few men who are steeped in supine indifference, whilst meddling fools and designing knaves are governing the country...." John Randolph
I haven't been able to stand looking at these presidents giving speeches for many years, I switch the channel immediately. Reading something written by someone else off the teleprompter is just theatrics. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself and it took just a few minutes to deliver, one of the great American speeches. In the present age they drone on as so many aspiring thespians, the less said the longer it takes. Besides, it's all lies and spin anyway so why subject yourself to this form of mental abuse?
Somebody told me he wants new nuke plants, which is fantastic and we should start today. The rest, I was told, were byzantine tax "credits," pork and more pork, and the latest bizarre notion that we can become prosperous by getting more people in debt.
I don't generally watch such farces because otherwise I'll just end up screaming at the TV, "Cut spending! Cut marginal rates! How fooken hard is that?!"
I did see briefly that he wants Americans to continue spending blood and treasure so that the rights of Afghan men (AND WOMEN!) are guaranteed. Why not guarantee the rights of the whole bloody world you stupid, left-wing p***y, I refrained from screaming.
--The guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class
Very true, Whisky. He mentioned equal pay for women and amnesty for illegals, both red meat for McGovern liberals -- but not what Reagan Democrats want to hear.
Minus the baggage, hopes, fears, and fantasies that his viewers bring to him, Barry is a dull guy.
It's a case of the Emperor's New Clothes IMO. Many white people falsely assume he has a personality (style, pizzazz, groove) because of their neuroses over his epidermal hue. Subconsciously they feel their attention wandering when he speaks, but consciously they think "a vibrant man." This psychic tension is rather hard to maintain.
"that's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit"
In all the reporting and commenting I've seen this week about Obama's child care tax credit proposal, somehow no one is mentioning that the child tax credit will revert after 2010 from $1,000 per child to $500 per child.
I wrote last spring, "it will be pretty tough in 2010 for the Democrats to be 'for taxes' and 'against children' and allow the doubled Child Tax Credit to expire, but its recipients are largely not their supporters, and President Obama could probably get away with saying 'I don’t see why we’re giving all this money to people just because they want to raise their own basketball team,' to which his supporters will respond, 'Yeah, we shouldn’t be supporting large families.'"
So this is how Obama hopes to do it. He is going to shift the tax credit from single-income, two-parent families with any number of children to dual-income families or single-parent homes with just one or two children, from his opponents to his supporters.
I was doing some work last night while listening to the TV and couldn't believe how many times I switched back to the networks hoping for regular programming and heard him going still at it. I don't blame Harry Reid or Big Sis Napolitano for the heavy eyelids.
I was surprised he brought up gays in the military. I doubt it or cap and trade will pass. Immigration barely mentioned showing he does not care.
He mentioned taxing big banks which brought cheers from Dems while Republicans sat on their hands.
He directly criticized Supreme Court decision to their face.If he focuses on the fact the ruling opens the door to foreigners spending in US elections through owning US corporations he has a good issue.
He thinks government workers have low salaries and benefits. Maybe for lawyers and doctors but not in most fields.
I remember hearing a short statement on immigration reform, with emphasis on border protection and a vague statement about rewarding those who play by the rules. He didn't sound too enthusiastic about it. And I can't even find it in the printed version from yahoo. It doesn't sound like he plans to make a really serious push for amnesty.
Most of it was usual BS which a cynic like me ignores. But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine. Obama is no FDR, but this was very FDR-esque, which translates to arrogant, haughty, dismissive of the Separation of powers, and dismissive of individual freedom.
He gave voters and their recent electorial choices the bird.
He's been riding unicorns over rainbows from his prep school days in Jim Crow Honolulu, Columbia and Harvard to the MSM idoleration today.
Obama is uniquely gifted in being insensate to reality, valid criticisms and perspectives beyond his own navel. His callowness makes GW Bush seem profoundly introspective.
Our elites chose him well. He continued all of Bush's major policies: wars, expanding mil bases, trillions for Wall St, open boarders, bigger govt, etc. He'll either bend to their will or be so bad the electorate will whiplash into yet a 3rd consecutive empty suit like Palin.
First State of the Union I watched in years. I thought he did a good job as an orator and it was well organized. But, he did his College Professor routine and I think it's wearing thin among whites.
As a Conservative I did like the fact that he blamed some of the mess he inherited on George Bush because I completely agree with him.
Overall, I think this speech will help him at the margins because it will excite his base. But, if he called for the repeal of the 1965 Immigration Act I might actually vote for him and the Democrats. My vote is all about changing immigration back to National Origins and nothing else because basically nothing else matters besides that.
What we are seeing is the country's buyers' remorse on an Affirmative Action hire. Been there, done that on a much smaller scale.
There was a ton of support for BHO from all sides because he was a young, attractive, seemingly intelligent, well-spoken black man. Overlooked was that he had very little experience in much of anything that might make him adept at being the leader of the US let alone the free world. If he had been a white guy, he would never have gotten the nomination.
I worked for years in a non-profit in a department that was primarily technical. Mostly white men with one woman, all expected to produce real work. Our institution was big on affirmative action (AA hereafter) but our dept just didn't get applicants. Not many blacks in that field.
One day we got an applicant for a systems analyst job that was a young, attractive, seemingly intelligent, well-spoken black man. Swell! He interviewed well and seemed a perfect fit. We hired him and congratulated ourselves on our good luck. The director even insisted that this man report directly to him, not the manager that he would normally report to. Big mistake.
He was given lots of high visability assignments, travel, etc. We drudges soldiered on.
After a while trouble started popping up regularly. The field office that he had visited a few times and was supposed to be servicing called and asked when they could expect any results. He announced that the complex program that he had reported working 20 hours on couldn't be completed on time. The SA that took it over discovered that he'd spent more like 20 minutes instead of 20 hours on it. Accounting kicked back a couple of travel expense accounts that didn't add up. Why was he in Boston? And so on.
Finally he managed to screw up in a dept where the top guy hit the ceiling instead of quietly complaining and having another SA take over.
It was decided that he really had to go, but our director had not filed one single piece of paper or had a serious talk with Mr AA. He'd just convey his concerns and then put another SA on the problem. Mr AA always had some excuse or other. I talked to the director later and he more or less said that he was afraid to treat Mr AA as a regular employee because he was afraid of getting sued.
Short end of story. Mr AA got fired, called all of us who had to report on his non-performance racists (what's new?), threatened to sue, got a small settlement, didn't sue, and went elsewhere. We were lucky. Our HR department was reorganized as a result and new regs put in. Our director was noted as an idiot and later replaced.
During all of this, I was called upstairs for a postmortum and was asked if I thought that he was actually capable of doing the work. I said I didn't know because I'd never seen any work that he had actually done.
My guess is that he was a figurehead used by tech sub-contract firms to qualify as a minority business or something like that and that he had never actually been expected to do any more than simply travel around and talk the talk, which he could do quite well.
I think that the country's been had, just as we were.
Found it--One sentence in a paragraph on equal pay for equal work. "And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system--to secue our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our system."
When the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud. The Prez seemed taken aback and Biden & Pelosi were looking around, seemingly in reaction.
Rush Limbaugh just played the clip at the top of the hour [1:06 PM] segment.
I can barely stand to listen to any president or presidential candidate since Bill Clinton, let alone listen to this preening peacock for the full duration of his speech, but I did channel surf back and forth through it. My observations:
1.) He said that americans didn't understand why the bad behavior of Wall Street had been rewarded. He might ask his own treasury secretary, little Timmy Geitner, who helped reward AIG and Goldman Sachs for their egregious behavior.
2.) There were two cops sitting in the gallery, next to Michelle Obama - a black man and a white woman. Their presence went unremarked as far as I know. Were these the two officers who shot down Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood? That's all I could figure. An unusual choice, I thought, though not a bad one.
3.) He called for a new emphasis on nuclear power, which was surprising. Last year however, he defunded the waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which would pretty effectively kill the future prospects for commercial nuclear power in this country. It's not clear what he means by nuclear power. Pouring money into nuclear fusion research, which is probably a pipe dream, and would mostly be a waste of money? Or does he mean actually developing fission breeder reactors, which is what we will need to truly and properly make use of nuclear power?
4.) He's still talking about climate change and Cap and Trade - a hobby horse which is starting to sound increasingly wobbly to most people. AGW is probably crap. Even if it is real, it will prove to be relatively insignificant. This is a loser for him. I hope he keeps pushing it.
5.) The overall tone seemed like an attempt to start to do what Bill Clinton did after his rebuke in 1994 - move to the center, or at least seem to do so. The problem is, while Clinton could at least lay claim to being a centrist, Obama - with his biography of being a de-facto socialist, activist mau-mauer, and follower of Ayers, Alinsky, and Wright - can't really pull that off.
6.) Aside from that it seemed like more of the same: Invade, Invite, In Hock. He intends that we should continue to tell people around the world how to behave. More empty paens to the wonders of diversity. A greater emphasis on "hate crimes" and ever more illusory forms of discrimination - in short, stickin' it to whitey.
In summary: He will still try to push as much of his left-wing program through as he can. He won't get as much as he had previously hoped, but he will still get a lot of it through. The Republicans will end up helping him on a lot of it, because they're idiots. The country will be worse off for it, but we're doomed anyway.
P.S. Anyone else notice the large fasci prominently displayed behind the speaker's podium? I know that they've always been there, but they now seem to take on a greater significance for our increasingly fascistic nation - once a republic, and now a declining empire.
I remember from my childhood watching the SOTU address,when that old dude John McCormack was the speaker of the house. (Oops,sorry Whiskey.House) That guy would sit there utterly motionless,looking like a dead man,or a wax statue,his mouth agape,his eyes hooded,staring into the abyss,no doubt contemplating the Eternity he would soon be entering. As a mere lad,I had no idea who he was or what he was doing there,he just looked so dang bizarre.It would be funny-to me,anyway-if he was the one sitting behind the Dear Leader as he droned on and on,a fitting simulacram of the grotesque emptiness and boredom of hearing Him speak. I cant stand the guy. And for that lunatic Chris Matthews to make the comment that he "forgot (the DL) was black",thats one thing I can never forget! His tagging (no pun intended)America as the "last,best hope of the world"(WTF???)always creeps me out,esp in light of the Haiti disaster.He's very Martin Luther Kingy:"OK whitey,you screwed up,but I believe in you,I believe you gonna make things right..."
Steve, Ellie Light always comes and visits your Obama threads.
John Mansfield, There seems to be so much confusion about this. The newspapers even differ from each other on whether it is a child tax credit or a child care tax credit. Thanks for your two cents.
You don't have be a Rapture believing Southern Evangelical Christian to know that the End Days are clearly are a comming-very rapidly. The United States is doomed.
How much longer will White Americans put up with the double standard:racial poltics only for nonwhites.
If White Americans do become racial in their politics, what happens next? Anybody know the answer to this question?
Steve You really should do an investigation into Soledad O'Brian's sister Maria O'Brian(law professor) and The Northwestern University School of Law. It was quite an incident. Just type into google:Maria O'Brian,affirmative action,Northwestern University school of law. You-and Joe Guzzardi and Nicholas Stix- will gain more insight into what motivates this very nasty Latina married to a White investment banker. Trust me, you won't be disappointed. If you think Soledad O'Brian is White looking, google a photo of her siser Maria.
Steve, you used to be in market research, so you probably are already doing this. I wonder about the average performance per minute of various topics. For example this SOTU topic seemed to pick up forty comments in an hour. Maybe an IQ article would pick up comments at a higher rate - maybe fifty per hour?
Armed with this knowledge you could tune your message. Is this a loony idea?
In a similar vein you might try an alternative to the PBS begging strategy for fund raising. I like to comment and I like to do it here at least partly because it's so easy and cheap. I used to watch PBS but I never paid them a dime. It seemed immoral for me to pay anything for something that could be had for free.
I would pay an annual membership fee that allowed me to get my too often silly comments published - say $10 or $20 per year.
The iSteve site would just need a membership layer. People already can read everything on your site with no sign-in effort but you need to declare some sort of identity if you want to comment.
It's pretty easy to create a membership site these days. There are many templates available for free in a number of different technologies. Your current site is written in PHP. I would build a new membership site in ASP.NET and SQL Server but it should be easy enough to get a volunteer coder who works in PHP and mySQL.
Rob -- It's the legacy of my German classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the verbs back at the end of the sentence. They make great cameras, music, and fountain pens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring pens).
Good call on the Anon take on AA buyer's remorse. Unfortunately we are stuck with him, and short of impeachment the only "fix" is Congress becoming what it was in the 19th Century after Lincoln, the dominant institution which has its own risks.
[Avatar? Will make a lot of money, but because of high costs will struggle to make a profit. Revenue != profit, ask GM. Home video sales are collapsing under the $1 Redbox rental model, TV rights under depressed ad markets. A 3-D epic best seen in IMAX is unlikely to generate huge home video sales, where the effects are washed out. Recall too, about 60% of tickets sold were IMAX 3-D, making the film less popular than it would appear (higher ticket prices). Hollywood makes money off mostly home video + TV rights sales, both under profound pressure now, not the least the enormous library of stuff people already have. I mean, if you have seen "Crank" do you need to see "Crank 2"??]
Obama is fortunate in that he has a Democratic Congress. If the Republicans controlled one of the two houses or both they could send up legislation that would force Obama to take a position either supporting or opposing controversial policies. Right now he is spared any embarassment. AA, Illegal immigration, hate crimes, etc. are all losers for him when he goes public.
Immigration barely mentioned showing he does not care.
But he does care. He's as enthusiastic about turning this country into a multiracial hellhole as anyone - more enthusiastic, in fact. In the Q&A at the Olympics vote in Copenhagen he mentioned how diversity was one of "the fundamental truths" of America, as though it were written in the Constitution. He never, ever misses a chance to bring up America's racial troubles. In the intro to his speech last night he mentioned the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement but not the Revolution. He mentioned racial discrimination at least thrice in his speech to schoolchildren last September. In his speech on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall he mentioned the fact that America 'now has a president of African descent' but didn't even bother to mention communism.
Obama knows what he's doing on immigration. He knows it only too well. He cares about it deeply. He's just smart enough to know that supporting amnesty won't help him get re-elected. It's an issue that would unify most Republicans. He also knows that a white minority America is an inevitability if he just sits back and does nothing, so why change that?
But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine.
I think it's perfectly fine for the president to rhetorically bitch-slap the Supreme Court Justices, in front of their faces, on national television, and even to invite the Congress to join in. They're an unelected branch. They frequently have abused their power, especially during the Warren Era. It's just that in this case Obama was (probably) wrong.
I also am glad that Alito wagged his head and mouthed whatever it was he mouthed ("not true," I guess). I like Alito. That took balls (and how was it more distracting than the 2 million times Democrats stood up and cheered?) If he and Scalia are what all Italian SC justices would be like then I want 9 Italian justices.
I heard this on the radio, and I found a copy on the web, but the author is unknown.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
A classic slam on Obama's speech by David Goldman, aka Spengler
In his attempt to emulate Clinton’s success, President Obama resembles nothing so much a the New Guinea aboriginals who built model airfields complete with straw control towers and airplanes after the Second World War and the departure of the American army. The Americans had summoned cargo from the sky through such magical devices, so thought the aboriginals, and by building what looked like airfields, so might they. But Obama can no more conjure up an economic recovery by doing things that look like what Clinton did, than the natives of New Guinea could draw cargo from the sky with straw totems. Marx’s crack about history repeating itself—the first time as tragedy and the second as farce—comes to mind.
Unfortunately we are stuck with him, and short of impeachment the only "fix" is Congress becoming what it was in the 19th Century after Lincoln, the dominant institution which has its own risks."
Do you realize, Whiskey, that it was the founders intention that Congress should be the dominant insitution, not the executive? The President is only supposed to be the executor of the government - he is not supposed to be a "leader" or a "visionary".
Germane to that topic, the other day on "Fresh Air", Terry Gross interviewed Gary Wills on his new book, the thesis of which is that it is the existence of nuclear weapons which led to the imperial presidency and the national security state. An interesting thesis, and I think a true one, although - it seems to me - somewhat obvious.
"I think it's perfectly fine for the president to rhetorically bitch-slap the Supreme Court Justices, in front of their faces, on national television, and even to invite the Congress to join in. They're an unelected branch. They frequently have abused their power, especially during the Warren Era. It's just that in this case Obama was (probably) wrong."
I quite agree. They could use some comeuppance once in a while, just not from this poppinjay (the only presidential candidate who opted not to take federal matching funds, BTW). It would have been nice if a President had taken them to task over Kelo.
Rob -- It's the legacy of my German classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the verbs back at the end of the sentence. They make great cameras, music, and fountain pens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring pens).
"Rob -- It's the Legacy of my german Classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the Verbs back at the End of the Sentence. They make great Cameras, Music, and Fountainpens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring Pens)."
As in 17th Century English.
And I do believe that only parts of the verbs go at the end: I have to Obama's speech listened, and I have decided, that he full of B.S. is.
"I would pay an annual membership fee that allowed me to get my too often silly comments published - say $10 or $20 per year."
Yeah, but when the day comes that the U.S. Multicultural Utopia Thought Police arrest and drag Steve to the Gulag, I don't want him to know my identity to reveal under torture.
How about this: He sets up a pay-to-post site. To access it, we send in an unmarked envelope by snail mail (dropped from a city we don't live in) a $20 with the handle you want to use? When he receives the money and the handle, his site will allow sign-in by that handle.
Steve - off topic, but Newsweek has posted this interesting debate on the question of whether California is a failed state. Lots of denial, of course, but some interesting observations, too. Van Jones is one of the participants, though they don't mention the controversy surrounding him.
Some debate...it was between people who think the state is ruined because of Prop. 13 and people who think it is not quite ruined despite Prop. 13. And of course immigration was never mentioned.
By my count, he uttered the word "I" 96 times during the speech. Even if I miscounted, I'll bet a wad of Benjamins that he broke the record. Retired the trophy. Our last three Presidents: a sociopath, a man with drug-induced brain damage, and a narcissist. And yet, we survive.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
Robert said...A very articulate and browner version of George Bush. >>
I had a similar reaction. At leat 80 percent of this speech was exactly the sort of crap "W" would say. Maybe more than 80 percent, but I don't want to go too far out on a limb.
One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that he thinks he can repeat the lies he was telling 9 months ago and they'll still work, despite the widespread exposure of their mendacity since then. The one that struck me was the one about how his health care plan will save the government over a trillion dollars in the next two decades, with the phony imprimateur of the GAO. An absolutely outrageous lie that even the generous folks at the NPR "On Point" wrap-up couldn't justify.
Why don't American Gay and Trans gender people just join private military companies? It's a booming sector of the economy, employers are not exactly too picky, and, as a shareholder, I look forward to quarterly video updates on our Elite Lesbian Watersports Force in action, somewhere in Central Asia...
A question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
Broadway, choreography, San Francisco, all kinds of places and professions have changed as a subgroup flocks to it.
I live near San Francisco, so unless you've seen this, don't laugh. Yes, straights have moved out. With a conscripted military such as Israel's, the gay military population mirrors the gay civilian population, but a volunteer military would find itself with different numbers.
If that happened, would young straights look upon enlisting differently?
The guy literally looks down his nose at the masses as he talks--the chin is always tipped up. I think people have already tired of his speech making.
He appears to be incredibly thin-skinned and the diss of the Supremes showed him to be classless and revealed his tendency to view himself as a monarch.
"When the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud."
"I was surprised he brought up gays in the military. I doubt it or cap and trade will pass."
Don't know how accurate their reporting is, but one of the networks as much as said that the brass were told by Obama when he took office that they "had to come up with a policy"--meaning one that discards the present "Don't ask" policy.
Last night Gates applauded (noticeably unenthusiastically) when Obama's mentioned getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" but he did applaud...so what does that tell you? I read that the most vociferous opposer of dropping the policy comes from the Marine Corps commandant who has made his feelings known behind closed doors.
The kid across the street from me returned from the Afghan theatre 6 months ago and is now a civilian. He maintains the Corp will lose recruits should they change the present policy.
"But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine."
I was aghast at that last night, but looking at it as the nets re-ran it today, I was even more disturbed by it. Should you see it again, take a load of Schumer literally bowing over to get a good look at Alito . Chuckie was gleefully clapping.
Barry's bad manners, along with his arrogance, are going to do him in.
In 1940, Robert Heinlein wrote a short story, Solution Unsatisfactory, in which the public-spirited head of the U.S. atomic weapons development becomes Dictator of the World by 1950.
He maintains the Corp will lose recruits should they change the present policy.
One of the big reasons is that if you allow "telling," a subset of homosexuals will go way too far with it. And it doesn't take many rotten apples like that to start spoiling the barrel. And we all know allowing "telling" means not just allowing "telling," but suppressing any organic reaction, too. It means no blanket parties for "telling."
These last few days---You've been failing at blogging.
I daresay SteveS is preparing a considered response to Unz/Khan's impressive article on Hispanic crime. It certainly made an impression on me as it makes the proper apples-to-apples comparison.
Had a similar experience with an AA hire I worked with. He finally got fired for stealing from the company but it took an act of congress and company investigators catching him on camera with the goods. He did such good work as writing graffiti on the South African (pre-Mandela) paperwork we had and stealing in the office from coworkers but when he dipped his hand into the company's money they fired him.
Mr. Anon -- the Imperial Presidency arguably dates back from at least McKinley and certainly Wilson. Far predating nuclear weapons.
Certainly Lincoln, Jackson, Polk, and Washington through Madison were aggressive in asserting the authority of the Executive. Even during the early days of the Republic, threats far and near (the Spanish in Florida, egged on by the British, Indians, pirates in North Africa, the British, the French) could not be dealt with by a legislature.
President Obama: Shit. I know shit's bad right now, with all that starving bullshit, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
Joe Wilson, South Carolina: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a dick! South Carolina, what's up!
A question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
My memory of the Navy in the 1980's is that lesbians were widely tolerated, and that certain duty stations, particularly Naval Air Facility Keflavik, Iceland and Naval Station Rota, Spain became regarded as duty stations to which lesbians tried to get assigned and at which they tried to extend their tours of duty. This is merely decades-old rumor, not researched and documented fact, but nothing I saw at that time led me to believe that those rumors could not have been true.
I suspect that it would be possible that the military might become a gathering place for gays, particularly as those individuals who prefer not to sleep and shower with homosexuals become less likely to enlist.
Another thing about the speech was that it seemed to be written to keep Obama popular. He hit all of the buttons that the MSM and the right thinkers all think are important and sided with what seemed to be the politically correct view on each.
I say let the armed forces be an all women and gay outfit. If they want it as bad as they claim to then just give it to them. Let them do the dying for a change of pace. Give the heterosexual males of this country a break for once. The mighty Afghans will flinch when we send our pink battalions against them.
"A question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
Broadway, choreography, San Francisco, all kinds of places and professions have changed as a subgroup flocks to it."
You live in San Francisco, and yet you ask this assinine question? Do you even know any gay men? The gay "takeover" of Broadway was easily predictable by anyone who actually knew any of us. A gay takeover of the military is about as silly a proposition as a gay takeover of the NFL would be, and for the exact same reasons.
Lesbians will be disproportionately represented, of course, but gay women are fairly thin on the ground compared to gay men. 1 - 2% of the (female) population is not going to be able to swamp the armed forces.
Gays in military, hmm. These are the folks least likely to reproduce, so does that make them more expendable. Save the moral outrage. I am just talking numbers here.
The good thing about community organizing, and liberalism in general, is trying is the most important thing. Results don't matter.
You can use that prism to review Obama's policies and speeches: trying counts, results don't.
Anyhow...this article notes Barack Obama lists community organizing on his resume, but that community is still in shambles with a 75% illegitimacy rate. He failed, but he at least tried.
"One of the big reasons is that if you allow "telling," a subset of homosexuals will go way too far with it. And it doesn't take many rotten apples like that to start spoiling the barrel. And we all know allowing "telling" means not just allowing "telling," but suppressing any organic reaction, too. It means no blanket parties for "telling."
I think you are entirely right. I can see the military, especially some services and some sections of it, becoming gay destinations--I mean, why not? Where else could gays find thousands of young, fit men in handsome uniforms?
Im sure Ive seen somewhere that gays drawn to the military end up as medics, that sort of thing. Im thinking of the British army here but I wouldnt think the US was much different.
I live not in the City, but near it. I have worked with gays for decades and count more than a few as friends. Two are particularly close.
Many young straight professionals (they could afford living in the City as they worked there and didn't want to commute) have left the City for social reasons: women can't find a huge pool of straight guys to date; many straight guys see fewer and fewer young straight women to date, and not a few straight guys I know just didn't like the numbers of gay men around them. Yeah, a few have said they were eyed as meat and they didn't like it.
Yes, we know there are laws about such sexual harrassment in the job place, but if you want upward job mobility, you know better than to cause problems. You can't blame them for finding that situation a major turn-off. With their skills and education, they decided to pick up and leave.
Then there's the couple living across the street from us now. They owned the family home in SF but on more than one occasion (twice IIRC), they went outside only to see two guys getting it on along the side of their house. Did they ever find hetero couples getting it on along the side of their house? No. Go figure. One would think that in a city that is as gay friendly and one that has plenty of private places for "coupling," that such men could have easily found another place to do their thing, but it's kind of like Copenhagen and drugs, you know? There are people who take advantage.
I think it's safe to say that there is evidence that young gay men do tend to be, shall we say, rather rambunctious and indiscriminate in certain behaviors when they are part of a large population of young, gay men.
Thus, our neighbors moved. They had a two year old at the time and saw the handwriting on the wall. Like they say, lucky they chose to do it when they did, before the housing crash, at least.
About Broadway and such? My uncle was a suppoting player in several musicals on Broadway in the forties before becoming a stage hand for the rest of his life, first for NBC and then for the Met. It's his contention (and he's no homophobe) that the stage has become more and more a bastion of the gay population. It's just a matter of social dynamics.
I'll return to my first point: in a military that draws fairly equally from all segments of society because of a draft, I wouldn't expect a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy to be of any use. However, in a volunteer service, the dynamics could change.
The "could" is my point. I am sure that it is this very point that the brass is thinking about as it tries to come up with a policy that is not only pc, but that works in practice.
Sorry, last point in answer to something you brought up.
I did think about how likely or unlikely it was that gay men, effeminate or unaggressive as many of them are, would see the military as a welcoming destination.
I don't know. Depends. Other than 9 weeks of proving you can do push-ups, run a few miles, march a little bit and such, it's not hard for most guys to get through basic or boot camp, unless of course, you are talking about the Marines or any kind of Special Ops training.
After that, there are many special fields into which gays might go that might suit them. Like the language services. In fact, we might be losing some good minds and abilities by not attracting gays into such military specialites.
"In fact, we might be losing some good minds and abilities by not attracting gays into such military specialites."
"Or so I have heard it argued" I should have added. The
I think it's simplistic to state a new policy be adopted simply because "it's the right thing to do" any more than I think the Lakers should recruit and play some Asian, Hispanic and white guys because it's the right thing to do.
I say let the armed forces be an all women and gay outfit. If they want it as bad as they claim to then just give it to them. Let them do the dying for a change of pace. Give the heterosexual males of this country a break for once. The mighty Afghans will flinch when we send our pink battalions against them.
Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds FOXNews.com Updated January 28, 2010 foxnews.com
As if U.S. troops and diplomats didn't have enough to worry about in trying to understand Afghan culture, a new report suggests an entire region in the country is coping with a sexual identity crisis...
The report details the bizarre interactions a U.S. Army medic and her colleagues had with Afghan men in the southern province of Kandahar.
In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually -- "because they were not homosexuals."
Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."
The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment.
The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.
The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong'"...
"The gay "takeover" of Broadway was easily predictable by anyone who actually knew any of us. A gay takeover of the military is about as silly a proposition as a gay takeover of the NFL would be, and for the exact same reasons."
I know, militaries have always been very straight places. Like the British Navy.
"Had a similar experience with an AA hire I worked with. He finally got fired for stealing from the company"
Yeah the place I work had a black employee once. One day he walked out the door with the owner's checkbook and briefcase. Somehow they haven't hired anyone but whites and asians since then, except for one hispanic guy. Coincidence no doubt.
Attracting talented people (gay or straight) into our military would be a worthwhile thing, if our military were actually protecting us from dangers. But it's mostly holding down angry natives in godforsaken places all over the globe, for domestic political reasons having nothing to do with making us safer, so funneling more talent into it is pure loss.
Search engine rankings are never really all that surprising. Google is definitely first, Yahoo! is always second and Bing comes in third every month, without fail. Sometimes Yahoo! or Bing will rise or fall a little bit and one will benefit from the other's loss, however it's never a massive drop.
January's rankings were also on the same lines. Google came first, Yahoo! came second and Microsoft came third, experiencing a slight gain over the previous month. However, in a most unusual turn of events Microsoft gained at the expense of Google for the first time.
According to ComScore (via CNet), Google's dominant share of the search market slipped by 0.3 percentage points to 65.4 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. As a result, Bing increased by 0.6 percentage points to 11.3 percent of all searches. Yahoo! lost another 0.3 percent, dropping to 17 percent of all searches.
Microsoft Bing has experienced almost consistent growth since it launched last May, rising from 8.4 percent in June to its current 11.3 percent. Bill Gates once told the press that the search engine created by microsoft is the best product till date created by Microsoft. Hope that turns out true. People are already fascinated by the interface provided by Bing. [url=http://technoages.com/articles/bing-is-eating-googles-share-of-search-engine-traffic/]Let us wait and see if Bing can sustain its growth[/url]
Well I just got a text message from my girl friend that she broke up with me! Bad news for me but great for you. Just log into http://www.GF4Free.com/ and search for sexyerica488. Enjoy!
I didn't see it, but I gather it boiled down to "Screw you Rethuglicans, I'm gonna do what I want".
ReplyDeleteNot much. He's doubled down. Basically, more of the same, lots of government spending on his pet pork, with little to show for it come Nov 2010.
ReplyDeleteOther than Gays in the military, it was more of the same. [That was a strategic error -- hot button elite cultural issues in a time of economic crisis is not a winner.] It is looking like a wipe-out for Dems unless Obama can do a Fujimori self-coup. Which I would not put past him either.
The guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class, and so are most "Gentry Liberals" to quote Joel Kotkin.
He said that 2 million people would be out of work if not for the bailout. that's all i heard.
ReplyDeleteThis pretty much sums up the night:
ReplyDelete"My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate."
Same old leftist agenda, delivered with all his usual chin-in-the-air, Dignified Negro classiness.
A lot of nothing, i.e. the usual.
ReplyDeleteApparently. I say apparently because I have not watched or otherwise followed a STOU for years.
President Obama said Wednesday night he will work with Congress and the military to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces.
Obama made the remark in his first State of the Union speech during a short litany of civil rights issues, which included his successful hate crimes bill, a move to "crack down on equal-pay laws" and improvement of the immigration system.
"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it," he said.
"We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate," he said.
Gays in the military -- how important is that, really? Lauding something as absurd as that 'hate crimes' bill, even after his AG said explicitly before Congress it was not meant to protect Whites. More of the usual pablum about diversity.
I mean, why bother with such formulaic drivel?
He reminded us what a race man he is in the second paragraph:
ReplyDelete"It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain."
What? A minor clash between cops and demonstrators in which 17 people went to hospital threatened the nation like civil war, the struggle against totalitarianism and the Depression? Really?
Actually when southern authorities began beating Negroes in front of MSM news cameras they made their future very certain by cutting their own throats.
1. Blame Bush for the $1 trillion deficit he's inherited, caused by
ReplyDeletea. Bush's tax cuts
b. Bush's spending increases
2. Promise...lots and lots of tax cuts and spending increases, especially those targetted to favored constituencies, like the State of California.
Why does the proposed $2.5 billion rapid transit system not include San Diego? Is it because SD is a historically Republican town? Knowing costs and construction battles in California, I'm guessing $2.5 billion will, in the end, build about 10 miles of track. It might just barely cover the legal tab.
The man is either an idiot or a thug. He will fail to keep these promises same as he failed to keep the last ones.
Steve - off topic, but Newsweek has posted this interesting debate on the question of whether California is a failed state. Lots of denial, of course, but some interesting observations, too. Van Jones is one of the participants, though they don't mention the controversy surrounding him.
ReplyDeleteNothing really interesting.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to make interesting an experiment with a single experimental group. But that's what you get from the tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights".
So, what did Obama have to say?
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter?
Let's build a database of all the promises made in the SOTU speeches in the past twenty years. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama.
Better call for a dumptruck. This particular Washington D.C. celebrity event is a giant poop fest that leaves behind only a steaming pile of hope and intentions.
Hillary was right about the prose. The rhetoric is tired.
ReplyDeleteI un-subscribed from the Obama email list. I'm sure I'm not alone!
ReplyDeleteThe guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class, and so are most "Gentry Liberals" to quote Joel Kotkin.
ReplyDeleteOne of the nice things about the Obama presidency is that it gives the few remaining whites in this country a pretty accurate glimpse into their future.
Hopefully they will draw some lessons from it.
These last few days---You've been failing at blogging.
ReplyDeleteWhiskey, why do you randomly capitalize words and phrases? Gays: not a proper noun. Only capitalize it at the beginning of a sentence. Same for middle, and class. White and black when referring to racial categories are often capitalized in British English, so that's only mostly wrong.
ReplyDeleteMore of the same meddling in the affiars of other countries.
ReplyDeleteI got bored after an hour, but no surprises, really. His soaring rhetoric is gone, and he sounds just like any other politician. He blamed Bush for everything and claimed everything he did helped. Tax the banks, and somehow get America working again by creating solar panels. The promised repeal of "don't ask don't tell" was to make up for his failure on gay marriage. Largely his speech was aimed at the (implicitly white) middle-class. Health care, child care, college tuition credits and so on. Unless he slipped it in late or my attention wandered, no mention of immigration reform.
ReplyDeleteWhiskey wrote "Other than Gays in the military, it was more of the same. [That was a strategic error -- hot button elite cultural issues in a time of economic crisis is not a winner.]"
ReplyDeleteExactly right! This will hammer the Democrats.
Did anybody else notice this?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud. The Prez seemed taken aback and Biden & Pelosi were looking around, seemingly in reaction.
Or, maybe I was projecting my own mirth onto the TV show.
"Everything and everybody seem to be jumbled out of place, except a few men who are steeped in supine indifference, whilst meddling fools and designing knaves are governing the country...."
ReplyDeleteJohn Randolph
I haven't been able to stand looking at these presidents giving speeches for many years, I switch the channel immediately. Reading something written by someone else off the teleprompter is just theatrics. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself and it took just a few minutes to deliver, one of the great American speeches. In the present age they drone on as so many aspiring thespians, the less said the longer it takes. Besides, it's all lies and spin anyway so why subject yourself to this form of mental abuse?
ReplyDeleteSomebody told me he wants new nuke plants, which is fantastic and we should start today. The rest, I was told, were byzantine tax "credits," pork and more pork, and the latest bizarre notion that we can become prosperous by getting more people in debt.
ReplyDeleteI don't generally watch such farces because otherwise I'll just end up screaming at the TV, "Cut spending! Cut marginal rates! How fooken hard is that?!"
I did see briefly that he wants Americans to continue spending blood and treasure so that the rights of Afghan men (AND WOMEN!) are guaranteed. Why not guarantee the rights of the whole bloody world you stupid, left-wing p***y, I refrained from screaming.
--The guy is just clueless in dealing with the White Middle Class
ReplyDeleteVery true, Whisky. He mentioned equal pay for women and amnesty for illegals, both red meat for McGovern liberals -- but not what Reagan Democrats want to hear.
He said he was going to push for more nuclear power. That was a surprise.
ReplyDelete>What did Obama have to say?<
ReplyDeleteHe's so boring I couldn't watch.
Minus the baggage, hopes, fears, and fantasies that his viewers bring to him, Barry is a dull guy.
It's a case of the Emperor's New Clothes IMO. Many white people falsely assume he has a personality (style, pizzazz, groove) because of their neuroses over his epidermal hue. Subconsciously they feel their attention wandering when he speaks, but consciously they think "a vibrant man." This psychic tension is rather hard to maintain.
"that's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit"
ReplyDeleteIn all the reporting and commenting I've seen this week about Obama's child care tax credit proposal, somehow no one is mentioning that the child tax credit will revert after 2010 from $1,000 per child to $500 per child.
I wrote last spring, "it will be pretty tough in 2010 for the Democrats to be 'for taxes' and 'against children' and allow the doubled Child Tax Credit to expire, but its recipients are largely not their supporters, and President Obama could probably get away with saying 'I don’t see why we’re giving all this money to people just because they want to raise their own basketball team,' to which his supporters will respond, 'Yeah, we shouldn’t be supporting large families.'"
So this is how Obama hopes to do it. He is going to shift the tax credit from single-income, two-parent families with any number of children to dual-income families or single-parent homes with just one or two children, from his opponents to his supporters.
Good call on "Avatar," Whiskey.
ReplyDeleteI was doing some work last night while listening to the TV and couldn't believe how many times I switched back to the networks hoping for regular programming and heard him going still at it. I don't blame Harry Reid or Big Sis Napolitano for the heavy eyelids.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised he brought up gays in the military. I doubt it or cap and trade will pass. Immigration barely mentioned showing he does not care.
ReplyDeleteHe mentioned taxing big banks which brought cheers from Dems while Republicans sat on their hands.
He directly criticized Supreme Court decision to their face.If he focuses on the fact the ruling opens the door to foreigners spending in US elections through owning US corporations he has a good issue.
He thinks government workers have low salaries and benefits. Maybe for lawyers and doctors but not in most fields.
I remember hearing a short statement on immigration reform, with emphasis on border protection and a vague statement about rewarding those who play by the rules. He didn't sound too enthusiastic about it. And I can't even find it in the printed version from yahoo. It doesn't sound like he plans to make a really serious push for amnesty.
ReplyDeleteI get SOTU and STFU mixed up - is there a difference?
ReplyDeleteMost of it was usual BS which a cynic like me ignores. But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine. Obama is no FDR, but this was very FDR-esque, which translates to arrogant, haughty, dismissive of the Separation of powers, and dismissive of individual freedom.
ReplyDeleteI hope the Justices do not attend henceforth.
He gave voters and their recent electorial choices the bird.
ReplyDeleteHe's been riding unicorns over rainbows from his prep school days in Jim Crow Honolulu, Columbia and Harvard to the MSM idoleration today.
Obama is uniquely gifted in being insensate to reality, valid criticisms and perspectives beyond his own navel. His callowness makes GW Bush seem profoundly introspective.
Our elites chose him well. He continued all of Bush's major policies: wars, expanding mil bases, trillions for Wall St, open boarders, bigger govt, etc. He'll either bend to their will or be so bad the electorate will whiplash into yet a 3rd consecutive empty suit like Palin.
Obama doesn't have the courage for a self-coup.
ReplyDeleteFirst State of the Union I watched in years. I thought he did a good job as an orator and it was well organized. But, he did his College Professor routine and I think it's wearing thin among whites.
ReplyDeleteAs a Conservative I did like the fact that he blamed some of the mess he inherited on George Bush because I completely agree with him.
Overall, I think this speech will help him at the margins because it will excite his base. But, if he called for the repeal of the 1965 Immigration Act I might actually vote for him and the Democrats. My vote is all about changing immigration back to National Origins and nothing else because basically nothing else matters besides that.
What we are seeing is the country's buyers' remorse on an Affirmative Action hire. Been there, done that on a much smaller scale.
ReplyDeleteThere was a ton of support for BHO from all sides because he was a young, attractive, seemingly intelligent, well-spoken black man. Overlooked was that he had very little experience in much of anything that might make him adept at being the leader of the US let alone the free world. If he had been a white guy, he would never have gotten the nomination.
I worked for years in a non-profit in a department that was primarily technical. Mostly white men with one woman, all expected to produce real work. Our institution was big on affirmative action (AA hereafter) but our dept just didn't get applicants. Not many blacks in that field.
One day we got an applicant for a systems analyst job that was a young, attractive, seemingly intelligent, well-spoken black man. Swell! He interviewed well and seemed a perfect fit. We hired him and congratulated ourselves on our good luck. The director even insisted that this man report directly to him, not the manager that he would normally report to. Big mistake.
He was given lots of high visability assignments, travel, etc. We drudges soldiered on.
After a while trouble started popping up regularly. The field office that he had visited a few times and was supposed to be servicing called and asked when they could expect any results. He announced that the complex program that he had reported working 20 hours on couldn't be completed on time. The SA that took it over discovered that he'd spent more like 20 minutes instead of 20 hours on it. Accounting kicked back a couple of travel expense accounts that didn't add up. Why was he in Boston? And so on.
Finally he managed to screw up in a dept where the top guy hit the ceiling instead of quietly complaining and having another SA take over.
It was decided that he really had to go, but our director had not filed one single piece of paper or had a serious talk with Mr AA. He'd just convey his concerns and then put another SA on the problem. Mr AA always had some excuse or other. I talked to the director later and he more or less said that he was afraid to treat Mr AA as a regular employee because he was afraid of getting sued.
Short end of story. Mr AA got fired, called all of us who had to report on his non-performance racists (what's new?), threatened to sue, got a small settlement, didn't sue, and went elsewhere. We were lucky. Our HR department was reorganized as a result and new regs put in. Our director was noted as an idiot and later replaced.
During all of this, I was called upstairs for a postmortum and was asked if I thought that he was actually capable of doing the work. I said I didn't know because I'd never seen any work that he had actually done.
My guess is that he was a figurehead used by tech sub-contract firms to qualify as a minority business or something like that and that he had never actually been expected to do any more than simply travel around and talk the talk, which he could do quite well.
I think that the country's been had, just as we were.
It should be called "Bullshit from the Frontman of the Collusion between Jewish radicals and billionaires."
ReplyDeleteFound it--One sentence in a paragraph on equal pay for equal work. "And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system--to secue our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our system."
ReplyDeleteIn re: "child tax credit" -versus- "child care tax credit".
ReplyDeleteBingo.
the tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights".
ReplyDeleteIf Obama has lost Jim Bowery, he's lost America.
if he called for the repeal of the 1965 Immigration Act I might actually vote for him and the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteLa Raza is more likely to come out against illegal immigrants from Latin America.
Did anybody else notice this?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud. The Prez seemed taken aback and Biden & Pelosi were looking around, seemingly in reaction.
Rush Limbaugh just played the clip at the top of the hour [1:06 PM] segment.
I can barely stand to listen to any president or presidential candidate since Bill Clinton, let alone listen to this preening peacock for the full duration of his speech, but I did channel surf back and forth through it. My observations:
ReplyDelete1.) He said that americans didn't understand why the bad behavior of Wall Street had been rewarded. He might ask his own treasury secretary, little Timmy Geitner, who helped reward AIG and Goldman Sachs for their egregious behavior.
2.) There were two cops sitting in the gallery, next to Michelle Obama - a black man and a white woman. Their presence went unremarked as far as I know. Were these the two officers who shot down Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood? That's all I could figure. An unusual choice, I thought, though not a bad one.
3.) He called for a new emphasis on nuclear power, which was surprising. Last year however, he defunded the waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which would pretty effectively kill the future prospects for commercial nuclear power in this country. It's not clear what he means by nuclear power. Pouring money into nuclear fusion research, which is probably a pipe dream, and would mostly be a waste of money? Or does he mean actually developing fission breeder reactors, which is what we will need to truly and properly make use of nuclear power?
4.) He's still talking about climate change and Cap and Trade - a hobby horse which is starting to sound increasingly wobbly to most people. AGW is probably crap. Even if it is real, it will prove to be relatively insignificant. This is a loser for him. I hope he keeps pushing it.
5.) The overall tone seemed like an attempt to start to do what Bill Clinton did after his rebuke in 1994 - move to the center, or at least seem to do so. The problem is, while Clinton could at least lay claim to being a centrist, Obama - with his biography of being a de-facto socialist, activist mau-mauer, and follower of Ayers, Alinsky, and Wright - can't really pull that off.
6.) Aside from that it seemed like more of the same: Invade, Invite, In Hock. He intends that we should continue to tell people around the world how to behave. More empty paens to the wonders of diversity. A greater emphasis on "hate crimes" and ever more illusory forms of discrimination - in short, stickin' it to whitey.
In summary: He will still try to push as much of his left-wing program through as he can. He won't get as much as he had previously hoped, but he will still get a lot of it through. The Republicans will end up helping him on a lot of it, because they're idiots. The country will be worse off for it, but we're doomed anyway.
P.S. Anyone else notice the large fasci prominently displayed behind the speaker's podium? I know that they've always been there, but they now seem to take on a greater significance for our increasingly fascistic nation - once a republic, and now a declining empire.
I remember from my childhood watching the SOTU address,when that old dude John McCormack was the speaker of the house. (Oops,sorry Whiskey.House) That guy would sit there utterly motionless,looking like a dead man,or a wax statue,his mouth agape,his eyes hooded,staring into the abyss,no doubt contemplating the Eternity he would soon be entering. As a mere lad,I had no idea who he was or what he was doing there,he just looked so dang bizarre.It would be funny-to me,anyway-if he was the one sitting behind the Dear Leader as he droned on and on,a fitting simulacram of the grotesque emptiness and boredom of hearing Him speak. I cant stand the guy. And for that lunatic Chris Matthews to make the comment that he "forgot (the DL) was black",thats one thing I can never forget! His tagging (no pun intended)America as the "last,best hope of the world"(WTF???)always creeps me out,esp in light of the Haiti disaster.He's very Martin Luther Kingy:"OK whitey,you screwed up,but I believe in you,I believe you gonna make things right..."
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteEllie Light always comes and visits your Obama threads.
John Mansfield,
There seems to be so much confusion about this. The newspapers even differ from each other on whether it is a child tax credit or a child care tax credit. Thanks for your two cents.
You don't have be a Rapture believing Southern Evangelical Christian to know that the End Days are clearly are a comming-very rapidly. The United States is doomed.
ReplyDeleteHow much longer will White Americans put up with the double standard:racial poltics only for nonwhites.
If White Americans do become racial in their politics, what happens next? Anybody know the answer to this question?
Steve
You really should do an investigation into Soledad O'Brian's sister Maria O'Brian(law professor) and The Northwestern University School of Law. It was quite an incident. Just type into google:Maria O'Brian,affirmative action,Northwestern University school of law. You-and Joe Guzzardi and Nicholas Stix- will gain more insight into what motivates this very nasty Latina married to a White investment banker. Trust me, you won't be disappointed. If you think Soledad O'Brian is White looking, google a photo of her siser Maria.
Steve, you used to be in market research, so you probably are already doing this. I wonder about the average performance per minute of various topics. For example this SOTU topic seemed to pick up forty comments in an hour. Maybe an IQ article would pick up comments at a higher rate - maybe fifty per hour?
ReplyDeleteArmed with this knowledge you could tune your message. Is this a loony idea?
In a similar vein you might try an alternative to the PBS begging strategy for fund raising. I like to comment and I like to do it here at least partly because it's so easy and cheap. I used to watch PBS but I never paid them a dime. It seemed immoral for me to pay anything for something that could be had for free.
I would pay an annual membership fee that allowed me to get my too often silly comments published - say $10 or $20 per year.
The iSteve site would just need a membership layer. People already can read everything on your site with no sign-in effort but you need to declare some sort of identity if you want to comment.
It's pretty easy to create a membership site these days. There are many templates available for free in a number of different technologies. Your current site is written in PHP. I would build a new membership site in ASP.NET and SQL Server but it should be easy enough to get a volunteer coder who works in PHP and mySQL.
Rob -- It's the legacy of my German classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the verbs back at the end of the sentence. They make great cameras, music, and fountain pens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring pens).
ReplyDeleteGood call on the Anon take on AA buyer's remorse. Unfortunately we are stuck with him, and short of impeachment the only "fix" is Congress becoming what it was in the 19th Century after Lincoln, the dominant institution which has its own risks.
ReplyDelete[Avatar? Will make a lot of money, but because of high costs will struggle to make a profit. Revenue != profit, ask GM. Home video sales are collapsing under the $1 Redbox rental model, TV rights under depressed ad markets. A 3-D epic best seen in IMAX is unlikely to generate huge home video sales, where the effects are washed out. Recall too, about 60% of tickets sold were IMAX 3-D, making the film less popular than it would appear (higher ticket prices). Hollywood makes money off mostly home video + TV rights sales, both under profound pressure now, not the least the enormous library of stuff people already have. I mean, if you have seen "Crank" do you need to see "Crank 2"??]
Obama is fortunate in that he has a Democratic Congress. If the Republicans controlled one of the two houses or both they could send up legislation that would force Obama to take a position either supporting or opposing controversial policies. Right now he is spared any embarassment. AA, Illegal immigration, hate crimes, etc. are all losers for him when he goes public.
ReplyDeleteImmigration barely mentioned showing he does not care.
ReplyDeleteBut he does care. He's as enthusiastic about turning this country into a multiracial hellhole as anyone - more enthusiastic, in fact. In the Q&A at the Olympics vote in Copenhagen he mentioned how diversity was one of "the fundamental truths" of America, as though it were written in the Constitution. He never, ever misses a chance to bring up America's racial troubles. In the intro to his speech last night he mentioned the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement but not the Revolution. He mentioned racial discrimination at least thrice in his speech to schoolchildren last September. In his speech on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall he mentioned the fact that America 'now has a president of African descent' but didn't even bother to mention communism.
Obama knows what he's doing on immigration. He knows it only too well. He cares about it deeply. He's just smart enough to know that supporting amnesty won't help him get re-elected. It's an issue that would unify most Republicans. He also knows that a white minority America is an inevitability if he just sits back and does nothing, so why change that?
But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine.
I think it's perfectly fine for the president to rhetorically bitch-slap the Supreme Court Justices, in front of their faces, on national television, and even to invite the Congress to join in. They're an unelected branch. They frequently have abused their power, especially during the Warren Era. It's just that in this case Obama was (probably) wrong.
I also am glad that Alito wagged his head and mouthed whatever it was he mouthed ("not true," I guess). I like Alito. That took balls (and how was it more distracting than the 2 million times Democrats stood up and cheered?) If he and Scalia are what all Italian SC justices would be like then I want 9 Italian justices.
Rob -- It's the legacy of my German classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time.
ReplyDeleteMostly just nouns, proper or not.
I heard this on the radio, and I found a copy on the web, but the author is unknown.
ReplyDelete"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
A classic slam on Obama's speech by David Goldman, aka Spengler
ReplyDeleteIn his attempt to emulate Clinton’s success, President Obama resembles nothing so much a the New Guinea aboriginals who built model airfields complete with straw control towers and airplanes after the Second World War and the departure of the American army. The Americans had summoned cargo from the sky through such magical devices, so thought the aboriginals, and by building what looked like airfields, so might they. But Obama can no more conjure up an economic recovery by doing things that look like what Clinton did, than the natives of New Guinea could draw cargo from the sky with straw totems. Marx’s crack about history repeating itself—the first time as tragedy and the second as farce—comes to mind.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/01/clinton-as-cargo-cult
"Whiskey said...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we are stuck with him, and short of impeachment the only "fix" is Congress becoming what it was in the 19th Century after Lincoln, the dominant institution which has its own risks."
Do you realize, Whiskey, that it was the founders intention that Congress should be the dominant insitution, not the executive? The President is only supposed to be the executor of the government - he is not supposed to be a "leader" or a "visionary".
Germane to that topic, the other day on "Fresh Air", Terry Gross interviewed Gary Wills on his new book, the thesis of which is that it is the existence of nuclear weapons which led to the imperial presidency and the national security state. An interesting thesis, and I think a true one, although - it seems to me - somewhat obvious.
"I think it's perfectly fine for the president to rhetorically bitch-slap the Supreme Court Justices, in front of their faces, on national television, and even to invite the Congress to join in. They're an unelected branch. They frequently have abused their power, especially during the Warren Era. It's just that in this case Obama was (probably) wrong."
ReplyDeleteI quite agree. They could use some comeuppance once in a while, just not from this poppinjay (the only presidential candidate who opted not to take federal matching funds, BTW). It would have been nice if a President had taken them to task over Kelo.
Rob -- It's the legacy of my German classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the verbs back at the end of the sentence. They make great cameras, music, and fountain pens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring pens).
ReplyDelete"Rob -- It's the Legacy of my german Classes. Germans capitalize Lots of Words all the Time. With the Verbs back at the End of the Sentence. They make great Cameras, Music, and Fountainpens though (I highly reccomend the Rotring Pens)."
As in 17th Century English.
And I do believe that only parts of the verbs go at the end: I have to Obama's speech listened, and I have decided, that he full of B.S. is.
A very articulate and browner version of George Bush.
ReplyDelete"I would pay an annual membership fee that allowed me to get my too often silly comments published - say $10 or $20 per year."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but when the day comes that the U.S. Multicultural Utopia Thought Police arrest and drag Steve to the Gulag, I don't want him to know my identity to reveal under torture.
How about this: He sets up a pay-to-post site. To access it, we send in an unmarked envelope by snail mail (dropped from a city we don't live in) a $20 with the handle you want to use? When he receives the money and the handle, his site will allow sign-in by that
handle.
Yeah, I'm paranoid.
Steve - off topic, but Newsweek has posted this interesting debate on the question of whether California is a failed state. Lots of denial, of course, but some interesting observations, too. Van Jones is one of the participants, though they don't mention the controversy surrounding him.
ReplyDeleteSome debate...it was between people who think the state is ruined because of Prop. 13 and people who think it is not quite ruined despite Prop. 13. And of course immigration was never mentioned.
By my count, he uttered the word "I" 96 times during the speech. Even if I miscounted, I'll bet a wad of Benjamins that he broke the record. Retired the trophy.
ReplyDeleteOur last three Presidents: a sociopath, a man with drug-induced brain damage, and a narcissist. And yet, we survive.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
ReplyDeleteAlas, that is the problem.
Robert said...A very articulate and browner version of George Bush.
ReplyDelete>>
I had a similar reaction. At leat 80 percent of this speech was exactly the sort of crap "W" would say. Maybe more than 80 percent, but I don't want to go too far out on a limb.
One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that he thinks he can repeat the lies he was telling 9 months ago and they'll still work, despite the widespread exposure of their mendacity since then. The one that struck me was the one about how his health care plan will save the government over a trillion dollars in the next two decades, with the phony imprimateur of the GAO. An absolutely outrageous lie that even the generous folks at the NPR "On Point" wrap-up couldn't justify.
Why don't American Gay and Trans gender people just join private military companies? It's a booming sector of the economy, employers are not exactly too picky, and, as a shareholder, I look forward to quarterly video updates on our Elite Lesbian Watersports Force in action, somewhere in Central Asia...
ReplyDeleteAbout gays in the military...
ReplyDeleteA question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
Broadway, choreography, San Francisco, all kinds of places and professions have changed as a subgroup flocks to it.
I live near San Francisco, so unless you've seen this, don't laugh. Yes, straights have moved out. With a conscripted military such as Israel's, the gay military population mirrors the gay civilian population, but a volunteer military would find itself with different numbers.
If that happened, would young straights look upon enlisting differently?
The guy literally looks down his nose at the masses as he talks--the chin is always tipped up. I think people have already tired of his speech making.
ReplyDeleteHe appears to be incredibly thin-skinned and the diss of the Supremes showed him to be classless and revealed his tendency to view himself as a monarch.
Hey Rob,
ReplyDeleteAmerican English rules of capitalization actually allow for some "diversity." LOL
That is, one can either capitalize or not capitalize "middle class."
frost said,
ReplyDelete"When the Prez stated how proud he was that the US was a leader in the fight against climate change I thought I heard someone in the audience laugh out loud."
I heard that too.
"I was surprised he brought up gays in the military. I doubt it or cap and trade will pass."
ReplyDeleteDon't know how accurate their reporting is, but one of the networks as much as said that the brass were told by Obama when he took office that they "had to come up with a policy"--meaning one that discards the present "Don't ask" policy.
Last night Gates applauded (noticeably unenthusiastically) when Obama's mentioned getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" but he did applaud...so what does that tell you?
I read that the most vociferous opposer of dropping the policy comes from the Marine Corps commandant who has made his feelings known behind closed doors.
The kid across the street from me returned from the Afghan theatre 6 months ago and is now a civilian. He maintains the Corp will lose recruits should they change the present policy.
"But the slap on the Supreme Court while the justices are sitting there silently, and the incitement to lawmakers to join in en masse was despicable and sent a chill of fear down my spine."
ReplyDeleteI was aghast at that last night, but looking at it as the nets re-ran it today, I was even more disturbed by it. Should you see it again, take a load of Schumer literally bowing over to get a good look at Alito . Chuckie was gleefully clapping.
Barry's bad manners, along with his arrogance, are going to do him in.
Nuclear weapons and Pearl Harbor.
ReplyDeleteIn 1940, Robert Heinlein wrote a short story, Solution Unsatisfactory, in which the public-spirited head of the U.S. atomic weapons development becomes Dictator of the World by 1950.
He maintains the Corp will lose recruits should they change the present policy.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big reasons is that if you allow "telling," a subset of homosexuals will go way too far with it. And it doesn't take many rotten apples like that to start spoiling the barrel. And we all know allowing "telling" means not just allowing "telling," but suppressing any organic reaction, too. It means no blanket parties for "telling."
Anonymous 1/28/2010 said...
ReplyDeleteThese last few days---You've been failing at blogging.
I daresay SteveS is preparing a considered response to Unz/Khan's impressive article on Hispanic crime. It certainly made an impression on me as it makes the proper apples-to-apples comparison.
No doubt SteveS will respond in nerdy kind.
This should be good.
Had a similar experience with an AA hire I worked with. He finally got fired for stealing from the company but it took an act of congress and company investigators catching him on camera with the goods. He did such good work as writing graffiti on the South African (pre-Mandela) paperwork we had and stealing in the office from coworkers but when he dipped his hand into the company's money they fired him.
ReplyDeleteMr. Anon -- the Imperial
ReplyDeletePresidency arguably dates back from at least McKinley and certainly Wilson. Far predating nuclear weapons.
Certainly Lincoln, Jackson, Polk, and Washington through Madison were aggressive in asserting the authority of the Executive. Even during the early days of the Republic, threats far and near (the Spanish in Florida, egged on by the British, Indians, pirates in North Africa, the British, the French) could not be dealt with by a legislature.
President Obama: Shit. I know shit's bad right now, with all that starving bullshit, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
ReplyDeleteJoe Wilson, South Carolina: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a dick! South Carolina, what's up!
Jack Strocchi,
ReplyDeleteUnz's article may have compared Apples to Apples, but the Apples were very carefully Cherrypicked.
Here's my article showing the article to be a tissue of deception contradicted by publicly available Bureau of Justice data:
http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/2010/01/according-to-american-conservative.html
A different anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeleteA question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
My memory of the Navy in the 1980's is that lesbians were widely tolerated, and that certain duty stations, particularly Naval Air Facility Keflavik, Iceland and Naval Station Rota, Spain became regarded as duty stations to which lesbians tried to get assigned and at which they tried to extend their tours of duty. This is merely decades-old rumor, not researched and documented fact, but nothing I saw at that time led me to believe that those rumors could not have been true.
I suspect that it would be possible that the military might become a gathering place for gays, particularly as those individuals who prefer not to sleep and shower with homosexuals become less likely to enlist.
Another thing about the speech was that it seemed to be written to keep Obama popular. He hit all of the buttons that the MSM and the right thinkers all think are important and sided with what seemed to be the politically correct view on each.
ReplyDeleteI say let the armed forces be an all women and gay outfit. If they want it as bad as they claim to then just give it to them. Let them do the dying for a change of pace. Give the heterosexual males of this country a break for once. The mighty Afghans will flinch when we send our pink battalions against them.
ReplyDelete"A question--in a volunteer military such as ours, if "don't ask, don't tell" is dropped, is it possible that the military might become a happy destination for gays, a great place to congregate?
ReplyDeleteBroadway, choreography, San Francisco, all kinds of places and professions have changed as a subgroup flocks to it."
You live in San Francisco, and yet you ask this assinine question? Do you even know any gay men? The gay "takeover" of Broadway was easily predictable by anyone who actually knew any of us. A gay takeover of the military is about as silly a proposition as a gay takeover of the NFL would be, and for the exact same reasons.
Lesbians will be disproportionately represented, of course, but gay women are fairly thin on the ground compared to gay men. 1 - 2% of the (female) population is not going to be able to swamp the armed forces.
Gays in military, hmm. These are the folks least likely to reproduce, so does that make them more expendable. Save the moral outrage. I am just talking numbers here.
ReplyDelete>A classic slam on Obama's speech by David Goldman, aka Spengler<
ReplyDeleteI made the same slam against BO back in June. However, the PP, being a hobby blog, has - deservedly - 1.5 readers including myself.
I like that Chris Matthews is in trouble for his (I paraphrase) "Not bad for a black guy" comment.
ReplyDeleteThe good thing about community organizing, and liberalism in general, is trying is the most important thing. Results don't matter.
ReplyDeleteYou can use that prism to review Obama's policies and speeches: trying counts, results don't.
Anyhow...this article notes Barack Obama lists community organizing on his resume, but that community is still in shambles with a 75% illegitimacy rate. He failed, but he at least tried.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html
"One of the big reasons is that if you allow "telling," a subset of homosexuals will go way too far with it. And it doesn't take many rotten apples like that to start spoiling the barrel. And we all know allowing "telling" means not just allowing "telling," but suppressing any organic reaction, too. It means no blanket parties for "telling."
ReplyDeleteI think you are entirely right. I can see the military, especially some services and some sections of it, becoming gay destinations--I mean, why not? Where else could gays find thousands of young, fit men in handsome uniforms?
Chris Matthews is an ungodly mess and he is clueless when it comes to seeing his sense of superiority, about race or anything else.
ReplyDeleteI finally watched a bit of his colleague, Rachael Maddow--another rigid, clueless thinker.
The smirking that goes on on the network is just unbelievable.
Im sure Ive seen somewhere that gays drawn to the military end up as medics, that sort of thing. Im thinking of the British army here but I wouldnt think the US was much different.
ReplyDeleteIve just thought of a fictional example!
Kenneth Griffith as a gay medic in the Wild Geese.
OK, they were mercenaries, but a British unit in all but name.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI live not in the City, but near it. I have worked with gays for decades and count more than a few as friends. Two are particularly close.
Many young straight professionals (they could afford living in the City as they worked there and didn't want to commute) have left the City for social reasons: women can't find a huge pool of straight guys to date; many straight guys see fewer and fewer young straight women to date, and not a few straight guys I know just didn't like the numbers of gay men around them. Yeah, a few have said they were eyed as meat and they didn't like it.
Yes, we know there are laws about such sexual harrassment in the job place, but if you want upward job mobility, you know better than to cause problems. You can't blame them for finding that situation a major turn-off. With their skills and education, they decided to pick up and leave.
Then there's the couple living across the street from us now. They owned the family home in SF but on more than one occasion (twice IIRC), they went outside only to see two guys getting it on along the side of their house. Did they ever find hetero couples getting it on along the side of their house? No. Go figure. One would think that in a city that is as gay friendly and one that has plenty of private places for "coupling," that such men could have easily found another place to do their thing, but it's kind of like Copenhagen and drugs, you know? There are people who take advantage.
I think it's safe to say that there is evidence that young gay men do tend to be, shall we say, rather rambunctious and indiscriminate in certain behaviors when they are part of a large population of young, gay men.
Thus, our neighbors moved. They had a two year old at the time and saw the handwriting on the wall. Like they say, lucky they chose to do it when they did, before the housing crash, at least.
About Broadway and such? My uncle was a suppoting player in several musicals on Broadway in the forties before becoming a stage hand for the rest of his life, first for NBC and then for the Met. It's his contention (and he's no homophobe) that the stage has become more and more a bastion of the gay population. It's just a matter of social dynamics.
I'll return to my first point: in a military that draws fairly equally from all segments of society because of a draft, I wouldn't expect a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy to be of any use. However, in a volunteer service, the dynamics could change.
The "could" is my point. I am sure that it is this very point that the brass is thinking about as it tries to come up with a policy that is not only pc, but that works in practice.
Sorry, last point in answer to something you brought up.
ReplyDeleteI did think about how likely or unlikely it was that gay men, effeminate or unaggressive as many of them are, would see the military as a welcoming destination.
I don't know. Depends. Other than 9 weeks of proving you can do push-ups, run a few miles, march a little bit and such, it's not hard for most guys to get through basic or boot camp, unless of course, you are talking about the Marines or any kind of Special Ops training.
After that, there are many special fields into which gays might go that might suit them. Like the language services. In fact, we might be losing some good minds and abilities by not attracting gays into such military specialites.
"In fact, we might be losing some good minds and abilities by not attracting gays into such military specialites."
ReplyDelete"Or so I have heard it argued" I should have added. The
I think it's simplistic to state a new policy be adopted simply because "it's the right thing to do" any more than I think the Lakers should recruit and play some Asian, Hispanic and white guys because it's the right thing to do.
I say let the armed forces be an all women and gay outfit. If they want it as bad as they claim to then just give it to them. Let them do the dying for a change of pace. Give the heterosexual males of this country a break for once. The mighty Afghans will flinch when we send our pink battalions against them.
ReplyDeleteAfghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds
FOXNews.com
Updated January 28, 2010
foxnews.com
As if U.S. troops and diplomats didn't have enough to worry about in trying to understand Afghan culture, a new report suggests an entire region in the country is coping with a sexual identity crisis...
The report details the bizarre interactions a U.S. Army medic and her colleagues had with Afghan men in the southern province of Kandahar.
In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually -- "because they were not homosexuals."
Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."
The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment.
The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.
The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong'"...
"The gay "takeover" of Broadway was easily predictable by anyone who actually knew any of us. A gay takeover of the military is about as silly a proposition as a gay takeover of the NFL would be, and for the exact same reasons."
ReplyDeleteI know, militaries have always been very straight places. Like the British Navy.
"Had a similar experience with an AA hire I worked with. He finally got fired for stealing from the company"
Yeah the place I work had a black employee once. One day he walked out the door with the owner's checkbook and briefcase. Somehow they haven't hired anyone but whites and asians since then, except for one hispanic guy. Coincidence no doubt.
I'm not sure whether this was in the State of the Union or not, but it needs commenting/protesting
ReplyDeletePresident Obama proposes to reduce NASA's function in exploring space. The agency is to focus more on climate change etc
this is gutting one of the most essential and visionary US programs. Most of the other stuff is trivial by comparison
Attracting talented people (gay or straight) into our military would be a worthwhile thing, if our military were actually protecting us from dangers. But it's mostly holding down angry natives in godforsaken places all over the globe, for domestic political reasons having nothing to do with making us safer, so funneling more talent into it is pure loss.
ReplyDeleteSearch engine rankings are never really all that surprising. Google is definitely first, Yahoo! is always second and Bing comes in third every month, without fail. Sometimes Yahoo! or Bing will rise or fall a little bit and one will benefit from the other's loss, however it's never a massive drop.
ReplyDeleteJanuary's rankings were also on the same lines. Google came first, Yahoo! came second and Microsoft came third, experiencing a slight gain over the previous month. However, in a most unusual turn of events Microsoft gained at the expense of Google for the first time.
According to ComScore (via CNet), Google's dominant share of the search market slipped by 0.3 percentage points to 65.4 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. As a result, Bing increased by 0.6 percentage points to 11.3 percent of all searches. Yahoo! lost another 0.3 percent, dropping to 17 percent of all searches.
Microsoft Bing has experienced almost consistent growth since it launched last May, rising from 8.4 percent in June to its current 11.3 percent. Bill Gates once told the press that the search engine created by microsoft is the best product till date created by Microsoft. Hope that turns out true. People are already fascinated by the interface provided by Bing. [url=http://technoages.com/articles/bing-is-eating-googles-share-of-search-engine-traffic/]Let us wait and see if Bing can sustain its growth[/url]
Well I just got a text message from my girl friend that she broke up with me! Bad news for me but great for you. Just log into http://www.GF4Free.com/ and search for sexyerica488. Enjoy!
ReplyDelete[url=http://www.gf4free.com/][img]http://www.gf4free.com/members/surferdude23/uploads/9.jpg[/img][/url]
unjubbefs981
ReplyDeleteThere is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it