Jump to content
Having entered a profession that was extremely 'non-traditional' for women 40 years ago, I'm all in favor of testing boundaries, and allowing women to go as far as they are capable of going. What scares me, both for the profession I entered and for merit-based programs like the Rangers, is the tendency of utopian liberals to decry any disproportionality as proof of discrimination and/or something "wrong" with the profession that needs to be "corrected."
I doubt if one man out of 100 men is suited to a career in a special forces unit of any kind. Men have come to accept that. What if only one woman out of 10,000 women is suited to such a career, without changing what that career is all about? If the utopians could only live with that and stop trying to impose "equality in numbers", then I'd be a lot less concerned. But all the evidence is that they won't. Instead, they'll demand more recruitment, lower standards, accommodations for this, that and the other, and finally, a wholesale redefinition of the essential functions of those programs so that they are more "welcoming" for all the women who wouldn't make it otherwise.
If we truly need those programs, and I think we do because every society needs its warriors (and also had better channel them into a disciplined, controlled system or suffer in other ways than militarily), opening them to women is great in principle but could be dangerous in practice.
From McKinsey & Co.'s 2007 Report:
"Annual GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the U.S. are projected to rise from 7.2 gigatons CO2e in 2005 to 9.7 gigatons in 2030 - an increase of 35 percent - according to an analysis of U.S. government reference forecasts." (measured in metric tons, i.e., European tonnes = 2,204 lb.)
From the European Commission Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands EAA 2014 Report on Trends in Global CO2 Emissions:
The United States' 2013 emissions were "5.3 billion tonnes". (A billion tonnes is a gigaton.)
So six years down the road toward 2030, rather than increasing as predicted by McKinsey and the U.S. government, U.S. emissions decreased by 26% -- and all without draconian government restrictions, taxes, regulations, etc.
All we had to do is have a Great Recession. Imagine how much better we'll do if Obama, Inslee and their supporters can induce a Greatest Depression!
Yes, the electorate is pretty evenly divided between Group 1 - people who believe they are entitled to live, and live well, on OPM (other people's money), Group 2 - people who make their living and derive their power from servicing and encouraging the entitlement mentality of Group 1, and Group 3 - the other people, who are still willing to support themselves on their own efforts and even carry the burden for the truly needy, but are increasingly demoralized by the home-grown and imported expansions to Groups 1 and 2.
What's worse, Mr. Hamilton's figures address only federal revenues, spending and debt. When state and local numbers are added, government spending amounts to 42% of GDP. With tax revenues at 25%, debt must necessarily skyrocket, and it is.
"It is not up to public officials, whether elected or appointed, to decide how laws will be enforced. "
While I agree with this basic statement of our system of separation of powers, a constitutional law professor by the name of Barack Obama has raised serious questions about the extent to which it remains valid in our political system. No wonder that poor Clerk is confused!
The ordinance may seem to apply generally to all "existing structures that are used to house indigent populations" but the fact is only one structure is at issue, motivated this ordinance, and would benefit from it, and that structure happens to be owned by Mr. Clark's LLC. Pretty much any law intended to benefit one particular business could be couched in general enough terms so that it seems to apply to more than the intended beneficiary.
Refusing to recuse herself after this obvious conflict of interest is pointed out shows a very poor understanding on Ms. Clark's part of the damage such self-dealing does to citizens' confidence in their government. We would all like to believe our laws are passed based on their merits, and not on "who you know (or are married to)".
The Clarks may be well-intended - probably are - but good intentions don't trump integrity in governance. "Helping others" is a growth industry and big business these days, with billions of taxpayer and donor dollars being directed to the "helpers". Wherever there's money or the potential for money, conflicts can exist and should be guarded against.
Hey, we agree on something!
Cabins without plumbing? What about sanitation?
Another warning that has been sounded for decades is that our forest management practices, taken over by kooky eco-wackos, were failing to clear in a controlled way the fuel these fires have now cleared with the loss of lives and property.
Do you understand that there is a difference between being offended by something and proposing to criminalize it? I'm offended by swastikas, Confederate flags, and numerous other symbols, words and ideas. Doesn't mean I believe they should be banned, i.e., criminalized.
Of course he doesn't forfeit his right to express his hypocritical, smug, self-righteous opinion. No one says he does.
Last login: Saturday, August 22, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.