Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Matt Walsh is ticked off.
After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.
Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.
:
I disagree with the fools who like to pretend we’re living in a Charlie’s Angels movie, where ladies can shout “girl power” and then kick butt and take names with the best of ‘em.
:
I disagree with every single thought process and ideological dogma that goes into creating a scenario where the home of the Few and the Proud is transformed into a place for the Many and the Physically Incapable.When the DC elite declared their plan to move women into combat positions, supporters of the move tried to assuage the concerns of rational Americans by insisting that physical requirements for combat roles would NOT be altered or adjusted for the sake of women. But rational Americans — being, well, rational — knew from the get-go that this was a lie. Women are not men. Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not. This fact, while scientific and undeniable, seems quite insulting to the legions of childish Utopianists who’ve been hypnotized by Disney movies and college professors into believing that women can “do anything men can do.” Anything. And, in order to please these types, military brass will cave and kowtow, eventually rigging the fitness tests so as to achieve a paradise where our daughters and wives can charge into combat and be mercilessly slaughtered.
And the rational Americans were right. Again.
One of the (Army) Sergeants at work was telling me this is a falsehood, that the Corps is not delaying the standards and the girls actually have to do SIX pull-ups, right-freakin’-now. Seemed to know what he’s talking about…but…dunno. Seems to me we’re going about this all the wrong way at any rate. Let’s say the “Charlie’s Angels” people turn out to be right and women can meet every physical challenge that men can meet. That’s provably false, but let’s grant it anyway. Can’t we all agree, even given that, that they’ve reached the right conclusion by going the wrong way?
Can’t we all agree that they did not pick out samples of men and women of significant quantity, and hold stopwatches by them, clipboard in hand, as they did their squats, sit-ups, pull-ups, 2-mile runs, etc.
No, they didn’t do that. They didn’t run tests. They decided ahead-of-time, before even so much as a single speck of data was in, that WomenCanDoEverythingMenCanDo. Then, they felt obliged to follow suit on that, re-announcing this incorrect opinion every time the question came up. Can’t we just acknowledge that’s how it works? The problem isn’t that this is wrong — although it is. The problem is that once people invest their egos in such things, they are easily seduced into terrible ideas.
And we’ve got a lot of that going around lately. The problem isn’t that Barack Obama is a bad President of the United States, or that everyone who’s black would be equally terrible. The problem is that there is so much valuable information being tossed out, by those determined to toss out any evidence that even superficially suggests how much Barack Obama sucks at His job.
It’s also probably not true that gay married couples are any more “loving” than straight married couples, or that they can provide better homes for children. Once again, people who think so didn’t decide that by visiting a thousand married gay couples and a thousand married straight couples and meticulously comparing them. They just refuse to consider any other possibility. That’s the wrong way to go deciding things.
That all is just obvious. Isn’t it?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Even if women can perform at an equal level to the men….for the love of Sam Houston, would someone PLEASE answer two simple questions for me amid all this controversy about women in combat:
1) What advantage(s) does an integrated combat force offer over an all-male one, in terms of combat power or battle readiness?
2) Why would you consider anything other than (1) when making personnel decisions about the military?
Rush Limbaugh asked these questions over twenty years ago in one of his books, and nobody even attempted to answer him, either. He correctly pegged that this change was being considered solely for political reasons, then went on to ask why you’d want political considerations being brought up…when you’re talking about the organization tasked with defending our shores from invasion and/or making sure hostile foreign actors don’t get any bright ideas. He also pointed out (again, correctly) that the military is a unique institution with unique requirements.
It’s bad enough that this sort of silliness might infect the Dept of Agriculture or the National Endowment for the Arts, but the DoD? Are you kidding me?
I always want to ask liberals, “Do you think China, Iran, and North Korea spend a lot of time thinking about how to integrate women and homosexuals into the Armed Forces, or do they spend their time and resources getting ready for war with us?”
- cylarz | 01/14/2014 @ 22:38