I’m just an old Norman Rockwellian raised in the Eisenhower era, trying to come to grips with this different culture we have nowsaday. Forgive me my old ways and ideals. That’s what’s below, my ideals in conflict with today’s news.
The rich in America pay 86% of all income taxes and are rounded accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.
Our country collects more tax dollars than any nation in recorded history, still it spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year.
In America, people who believe in balancing the budget, speaking the obvious truth and respecting the country’s Constitution are thought of as “extremists” and “out of touch.”
The CIA announced 10 June 2014 that 16 folks (men?) were disciplined for sexual harassment.
Let’s be clear. That’s gender affirmative action.
This though our gov’t’s and academia’s affirmative action programs have been dismal failures. You cannot show me ONE single positive achievement. Millions involved. Zero successes.
Here’s something… In 1995, the agency paid $990,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit by 450 women. The settlement included promotions, raises and better assignments for about 100 female officers. Did this make the agency a more effective organization? I don’t think so. Did it place in positions of authority people who deserved it, who knew what they were doing? Not necessarily. And how ‘bout those men who didn’t get the “better assignments” those 100 female workers got… was their treatment fair, regardless of what the women had claimed about episodic offenses against their gender? I know one fine, competent agency officer who had dedicated his life to work as an overseas intelligence officer, who had his swan-song COS assignment out to a small, dangerous and important country cancelled after he had already sent out his personal effects. He was replaced by a woman recipient of this “sexual harassment” windfall. In disgust he quit and went to ground in Utah. Unforgiving of the way he was treated.
Here’s something else:
Following is from a New York Times Op-Ed piece February 2006 by Kelly M. Greenhill, an assistant professor of government at Wesleyan and a research fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
“Four decades ago, during the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara created Project 100,000, a program intended to help the approximately 300,000 men who annually failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test for reasons of aptitude. The idea behind Mr. McNamara’s scheme was that the military would annually absorb 100,000 of the country’s “subterranean poor” — people who would otherwise be rejected.
Using a variety of “educational and medical techniques,” the Pentagon would “salvage” these Category IV recruits first for military careers and later for more productive roles in society. Project 100,000 recruits — known as New Standards Men — would then return to civilian life with new skills and aptitudes that would allow them to “reverse the downward spiral of human decay.”
Mr. McNamara further concluded that the best way to demonstrate that the induction of New Standards Men would prove beneficial was to keep their status hidden from their commanders. In other words, Project 100,000 was a blind experiment run on the military amid the escalation of hostilities in Southeast Asia.
Despite the skepticism of the military leadership and objections from some of Mr. McNamara’s own advisers, the first New Standards Men began entering service in October 1966. By the time of the Tet offensive in 1968, approximately 150,000 had been inducted.
While standards were lowered for entry into the services, they were not lowered for acceptance to the military’s technical schools. After basic training, only the most technically qualified moved onto advanced training. The rest ended up in “soft skill” areas, including supply, food service, clerical and, most significantly, the infantry.
In the program’s first three years, nearly half of the Army’s and well over 50 percent of the Marines’ New Standards Men were assigned to combat specialties. The results were not surprising: a Project 100,000 recruit who entered the Marine Corps in 1968 was two and a half times more likely to die in combat than his higher-aptitude compatriots. After all, they tended to be the ones in the line of fire.
But Project 100,000 recruits fared poorly outside combat as well. A tenet of the program was that participants would be held to the same performance standards as their higher-aptitude peers. If they fell short, their only options were reassignment or remedial training.
Research conducted in the late 1980′s revealed that across the services Project 100,000 recruits were reassigned at rates up to 11 times greater than their peers. Likewise, 9 percent to 22 percent of these men required remedial training, as compared to only one to three percent of their higher-category counterparts in the Army, Air Force and Navy.
Depending on the task, New Standards Men required up to four times as much training time and up to six times as much prompting as did their higher-aptitude counterparts. Their skills training dropout rates — and their arrest rates — were higher, too. In short, Mr. McNamara’s enterprise, which was abandoned in 1971, did not prove especially beneficial to the military from either a skills or a manpower perspective.
But what about Project 100,000′s effects on the Category IV recruits themselves? Did they reap the promised rewards of military service? If the program had been successful, the proof would have been higher rates of employment, earnings and education for New Standards Men as compared to their fellow low-aptitude, non-veteran peers.
Yet a 1991 study comparing Project 100,000 veterans and nonveterans with similar aptitude levels revealed that the former fared no better than their civilian counterparts and, in some respects, were worse off.
For instance, non-veterans were employed at higher rates, earned more and were more likely to own their own businesses than Project 100,000 veterans. Moreover, low-aptitude non-veterans had marginally higher average levels of schooling than did New Standards Men, more than 27 percent of whom never completed high school.
If Project 100,000 represented a real opportunity for self-improvement, why weren’t most if not all of these men better off economically, educationally and socially after their service? There’s no clear answer to this question. One possibility is that Project 100,000 veterans fared worse than non-veterans of similar aptitude because they also had to contend with the psychological repercussions of prolonged combat; another is that these veterans were simply less well-equipped to readjust to civilian life.
What is clear, though, is that Project 100,000 was a failed experiment. It proved to be a distraction for the military and of little benefit to the men it was created to help. Forty years later, amid new conflicts and a renewed manpower shortfall, we would do well not to make the same mistake again. “
Please note the last sentence ends with “… we would do well not to make the same mistake again.”
Listen boys and girls, affirmative action doesn’t work… has never worked. When there is zero tolerance for “sexual harassment” in a gov’t department’s work place – as the CIA claims is the case now at Langley – focus of what that department’s supposed to be doing is distracted… work place activities operate under the yellow caution flag… What’s sexual harassment? What isn’t? Who’ll report what? Zero Tolerance, what does that mean, exactly, when it comes to something as nebulous as “sly looks” and “innuendos”? Our gov’t is not a social lab. There is nothing in our constitution about affirmative action. Our founding fathers would be appalled.
Same with “immigration reform” which is the liberal way to discuss opening our southern borders. Our founding fathers would be appalled.
There was a case at the CIA training site down state Virginia several years ago when one of the best in the intel training course – brilliant, personable, with a strong sense of citizenship… a great communicator – in an after-hours session at the student lounge, stirred his drink with his penis, to the great appreciation of most of his classmates… except a couple of ladies who were offended. One filed suit after suit within the clandestine corps because of what she called an outrageous affront to her sense of decency. That’s what her job was after a while, filing suits against that guy, who was finally fired. And everywhere that lady went thereafter it was like she was toxic. She didn’t make for a happy workplace. You figure the bottom line to all this; the net gain/loss. What do you come up with? And this is the clandestine corps where people are hired to go out and operate on the mean streets of the world, where all manner of “indecent” behavior takes place. The recruiter that hired her to this job should have been the one to get fired.
And anyway… Clinton used his ding dong to give an intern a mouth wash, and he didn’t get fired. Nothing about the country suffering through his sexual peccadillos.
Can anyone suggest a way to get back to some sensibility in our gov’t? To allow common sense to trump “political correctness.” And what will happen if Hillary is elected to follow Obama? We purge the country of testosterone and honor… guns… re-write the constitution and embrace socialism… re-distribute wealth and power… become Amercastan?
An argument could be made that we’re in a country intent on destruction… casting aside tradition and common sense in pursuit of the liberal position that our culture’s flawed and needs to be re-engineered to their standards… Though this country is/was the best there ever was.
I mean look… Liberal politicians in Washington every day frivolously squander our country’s traditions and strength of character…. helter-skelter they replace competence with liberal-think … i.e., affirmative action, zero tolerance for sexual harassment, a limp-wrist foreign policy of appeasement, Benghazi, Bergdahl, immigration reform, Obamacare…
I miss the 50s when liberals were unemployed flower children and work the norm for the rest of America. When our constitution was the law and the soul of the land. When our gov’t was of the people, by the people and for the people… rather than a gov’t of “change.”
Here’s some Boombox cartoons that speak to my way of thinking, as outdated and extreme as they may be.
In closing. Pls note that this was written in 2014. Before Trump arrived on the scene.
On here's what I think about that:
I believe in fate. Not loopy predestination, but the occasional inexorable evolution of events to a point that some new reality is created.
I believe Trump is fate.
And it doesn't matter to me the minutia of right or wrong. It is simple the way it is anymore. You know what I mean?
I believe that we will have a year of civil upheaval as Trump and his good people arrest the slide of our gov't to something not intended by our founding fathers.
And again, that's not to me something on the good or not so good or bad way of thinking. It is the way it is.
And I'm OK with that, because... I have no choice.