Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Whatever Happened to Uniform Standards?

From Townhall.com


Courtesy of Eliana Johnson, here is a video contrasting two interviews: Steve Kroft's love-fest with President Obama and Secretary Clinton vs. Leslie Stahl's much-less-friendly sit-down with Eric Cantor.
I'm not complaining about Stahl's treatment of Cantor.  There's nothing wrong with the press interrogating our elected representatives -- indeed, it's necessary.
What's so contemptible is the difference between the way Democrats and Republicans are treated -- just on the basis of their political affiliations (and that of the MSM).   So-called "journalists" should be ashamed of themselves.
But if you need a cheap laugh, consider what Steve Kroft said when explaining why Obama chose to speak with him.  My favorite part is when he says of his show, "We do -- you  know -- a good job of editing."  Well, yes, if you're a Democrat partisan; remember how "60 Minutes" hid important information about how the President misled on Benghazi?

Media Bias Exposed: MSNBC Doctors Video to Push Agenda

From Townhall.com


The elite media and scores of journalists on the left are outraged today because a group of pro-gun rights activists allegedly “heckled” Neil Heslin, the father of six-year-old Jesse Lewis -- one of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre -- during a Connecticut hearing on gun violence on Tuesday. Here’s the MSNBC clip making the rounds on Twitter:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking newsworld news, and news about the economy
But wait. As Twitchy points out, the original video has obviously been altered and tampered with (fast forward to the 15:05 mark):
It’s abundantly clear that someone at MSNBC doctored the original video in order to (a) push their agenda and (b) to portray gun owners as evil and heartless nut jobs. But the truth is that it was only after Mr. Heslin asked out loud why anyone would want to own an “assault-style weapon” that the activists spoke up in the first place. This is a far cry from “heckling”; Mr. Heslin actually sought their opinion. If anything, this proves once again that the MSM is misleading the public and maligning those with whom they disagree for political purposes. How sad.

Ted Cruz Schools Baltimore County Police Chief on Gun Crime

From Townhall.com


Senator Ted Cruz wonders: If gun control works, why are the cities with the most gun control so violent? Watch and learn.
 

Wisconsin Sheriff Who Encouraged Residents to Arm Themselves Goes Head-to-Head with Piers Morgan

From Townhall.com


Milwaukee Country Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett joined Piers Morgan on his show to discuss the sheriff’s radio ad, which urges citizens to consider taking a firearms safety course because “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.” Clarke’s point was that with officers laid off and furloughed, police might not be able to respond as quickly as needed. Thus, citizens may want to consider giving themselves another option: learn how to responsibly use a firearm for self-defense. This, of course, doesn’t fly with Morgan, a staunch gun-control advocate, or Mayor Barrett, a co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
In a two-against-one match-up, the gun control gang (mostly Morgan) took issue with everything from Clarke’s “Hollywood” voice in the ad, to the role of the sheriff’s office, and Clarke’s inability to give a figure on how many people in Milwaukee have defended themselves or their family at home with a gun.
Clarke stood his ground, though—particularly when he brought up the 2009 incident at the Wisconsin State Fair when Mayor Barrett was severely beaten by a man with a tire iron. “I’m sure that if you had a gun and a plan that day, the outcome would have been a little different,” Clarke said.
“Personal safety is an individual responsibility,” Clarke argued. Learning how to responsibly use a firearm is just one of the options available to citizens in a life-threatening situation when seconds count and police are only minutes away. Like he pointed out in the radio ad, “You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back.” 


Monday, January 28, 2013

Recipe for conservative revival

From The Jewish World Review

Happy days are not here again, but they are coming for conservatives. Barack Obama - with the lowest approval rating (
according to Gallup, 50 percent, four points lower than that of the National Rifle Association) of any reelected president when inaugurated since World War II - has a contradictory agenda certain to stimulate a conservative revival.

Consider his vow to expend political capital on climate change. The absurdity of the Kyoto approach - global climate treaties agreed to by 190 nations - is now obvious even to most former enthusiasts. Obama can propose cutting U.S. fossil-fuel emissions (just 16 percent of the global total) with a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, but Congress will pass neither. So he will be reduced to administrative gestures costly to job growth, and government spending - often crony capitalism - for green energy incommensurate with his rhetoric.

He says that "the threat of climate change" is apparent in "raging fires," "crippling drought" and "more powerful storms." Are fires raging now more than ever? (There were a third fewer U.S. wildfires in 2012 than in 2006.) Are the number and severity of fires determined by climate change rather than forestry and land-use practices? Is today's drought worse than, say, that of the Dust Bowl, and was it caused by 1930s global warming? As for "more powerful storms":
Because Sandy struck New York City, where the nation's media congregate and participate in the city's provincialism, this storm was declared more cosmically momentous than the 74 other hurricanes that have hit or come near the city since 1800. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was called a consequence of global warming and hence a harbinger of increasing numbers of Category 3 or higher hurricanes. Since then, major hurricane activity has plummeted. No Category 3 storm has hit the United States since 2005. Sandy was just a Category 1.
Obama's vow to adjust Earth's thermostat followed the report that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous 48 states. But the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins, who has concisely posed the actual climate policy choice ("How much should we spend on climate change in order to have no effect on climate change?"), has noted that although 2012 was 2.13 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than 2011, "2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006." And "2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998." Such is the rigor of many who preen as devotees of science that they declared the 2012 temperatures in the contiguous states (1.58 percent of the Earth's surface) proof of catastrophic global warming.
A flourishing American economic sector is fossil fuels - especially oil and natural gas - which the Obama administration seems to regret and often impedes (see: fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline). Yet the natural gas boom is one of the main reasons why, in 2012, U.S. fossil-fuel emissions were the lowest since 1992. Obama's wariness about the pipeline suggests that he subscribes to some environmentalists' stupendously weird theory: If the pipeline is not built to carry oil from the (supposedly dangerous) development of Canadian tar sands, Canada will leave those sands undeveloped rather than sell the oil to China.
Small businesses create most new jobs, but many businesses are avoiding hiring a 50th employee, or are replacing full-time employees with those working fewer than 30 hours a week, to avoid Obamacare's costly requirements regarding provision of health insurance. Some colleges and universities are reducing to 29 the number of hours adjunct professors can teach, which is condign punishment for those professors - most of them, surely - who favored Obamacare.
It and other regulatory burdens, combined with the subsidization of not working (47.5 million people receiving food stamps, 8.6 million receiving disability payments, unemployment benefits extended from 26 weeks to 73 weeks - so far), partially explain this fact provided by Richard Vedder of the American Enterprise Institute: "If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy." Fourteen million is more than the combined workforces of 18 states.
In the rhetorical cotton candy of his inaugural address - sugary, and mostly air - Obama spoke of "investing in" rising generations and said: "America's possibilities are limitless." He ignores the encroaching limits imposed on the nation by his policies that are funded by debt that will burden those generations.

North Dakota struggles to cope with its oil-boom prosperity

The Star Tribune


  • Article by: PAM LOUWAGIE , Star Tribune 
  • Updated: January 26, 2013 - 10:32 PM
The oil boom has meant explosive growth for North Dakota, but life there can be frustrating and lonely, as well as lucrative.

WATFORD CITY, N.D. -- His tan overalls splattered with oil field mud, 41-year-old trucker Scott Brevig sat next to his semitrailer truck inside a rented machine shop and cracked open a Full Throttle energy drink. It was 9:45 p.m.
Brevig still had to fix a leak under the hood before he could huddle to sleep in a camper where he lives with his fiancée, housing too scarce and expensive in this booming region.
A former Anoka painting contractor, Brevig took his car to the shop for repairs back home. Here, he's had to figure out how to fix his own giant diesel machines because local shops are overloaded. "There's no resources here," he said, shrugging.
But Brevig's enthusiasm trumps his exhaustion. With an economy fueled by new oil-drilling techniques, "It's a land of opportunity, by all means," he said. "You can grow into whatever you want here."

The Brevigs of the world are flocking to North Dakota in droves, modern frontiersmen transforming this recently dying flyover land into the fastest-growing state in the nation, according to the Census Bureau. Storefront signs scream "now hiring." Pickups and semis jam long stretches of two-lane highways. Backhoes claw the ground even in frozen January. Recreational vehicles occupy former farm fields next to row upon row of box-like modular living pods.
In Williston, the epicenter of the growth, the local hospital opened a new birthing center, workers are building a giant new rec center and students are overflowing in a school that once sat empty. Civic leaders have been approving building permits and hiring police and teachers and nearly every kind of government worker.
"We really can't grow fast enough," said Shawn Wenko, assistant director of economic development for the city of Williston. But amid the boundless opportunity, he conceded: "I'd be lying if I said it was all roses out here."
Lines at restaurants and stores are often frustratingly long, with few workers willing to take service jobs when more lucrative oil industry work is available. Rents have skyrocketed. With mostly men flooding into town to work, women hesitate to go out alone at night. There are more bar fights. Young parents can't find day care for their kids.
Easing his sport-utility vehicle through vast fields of new construction, Wenko likened life on the booming prairie to a kitchen remodel: "It's pretty stressful right now," he said. "You're washing your dishes in the bathtub and you're cooking on a hot plate ... When the remodel is done, it's gonna be a pretty nice kitchen. And that's the way we feel with Williston."
High pay, high rent
Twelve years ago, Williston's population stood at a little more than 12,500 people. Now, officials there estimate the town services 38,000 on a daily basis, based partly on water and sewer use. They expect it could hit 50,000 by 2017.
North Dakota's population grew 2.2 percent to 699,628 in the year ending July 1, according to the Census Bureau. Many newcomers are from Minnesota. For years, more people moved from North Dakota to Minnesota than vice versa. That trend has changed in recent years, with North Dakota gaining approximately 4,500 to 6,500 Minnesotans each year between 2009 and 2011.
Housing is the region's biggest problem. Most apartments and extended-stay hotels command rents that only those with lucrative oil field jobs can afford -- not government or retail jobs.
On a large flashing sign next to the highway, the Value Place hotel advertised rates of $699.99 a week, well above rates for its other hotels around the country. Some people living in campers said they pay RV park owners $800 a month to park and hook up to water and sewer. Classified ads in the local Shopper listed a furnished two-bedroom apartment for $2,200. A trailer with a queen bedroom listed for $1,650 a month.
Though some longtime residents are getting big mineral payments from the oil, others struggle to continue living there, even though wages are going up, too.
Gordon Weyrauch, manager of Williston Home & Lumber, said it's hard to keep good employees even at $16 an hour: "Seems like when you get somebody that's really good, there's always another company stealing them away."
A sign outside the local Wal-Mart advertises starting wages of $17 an hour.
Some desperate employers are acting as landlords.
The new Love's truck stop built a small yellow apartment building next-door for employees. The Williams County government erected an apartment building to offer new county workers an affordable place to live.
Long lines, frustration
Locals complain that daily life has changed, too. They can't run an errand quickly anymore. The area's small towns feel more like urban centers.
About 45 miles south of Williston, Watford City has a 2010 census population of 1,700, but local officials estimate it is serving 8,000 to 10,000, including trailers that have packed into RV parks. License plates traversing the town's main street range from California to Texas to New York. "When you walked in the grocery store, you used to know everybody," longtime resident Vonnie Johnsrud said.
She stood in a slow-moving line at the post office last week to pick up mail-ordered blue jeans over her lunch break. "This is like road rage. Totally frustrating," she said, to the knowing nods of mostly strangers around her.
When she finally reached the front, her lunch break over, the clerk found another small package, but no jeans.
"I tracked it online. It's here," Johnsrud said, her voice spilling with anger.
"It's here, but it's not on the shelf. We haven't inventoried yet," came the helpless reply. "It's in a big box full of 200 other packages."
"I'm not gonna wait in line another hour tomorrow!" Johnsrud snipped before storming toward the door.
Paying a price
While towns are bustling, the lucrative life can be lonely.
Erik Morin, of Oscoda, Mich., sat in a Watford City laundromat on a day off recently, waiting for his clothes to dry and taking calls from his teenage children and wife.
Bankrupt after he was laid off from General Motors, he now works overtime six days a week and pays $600 a month to live in a sparse crew camp.
He had planned to stay a few months, but 1 1/2 years later, he's still there because "a hundred grand a year is kind of addictive."
But Morin, 34, knows he's paying a price. His 15-year-old daughter complained over the phone that her mom wouldn't let her go to a wrestling match. Then his wife called, asking him to talk to the girl. "I'm trying to mediate that from 1,500 miles away," he said.
"I'm watching my kids grow up in pictures," he said, adding that his family visited over the summer but didn't like it. "Every time I go home, it's sooo hard to come back."
Across town, three single men gulped bar food and beer at Outsiders Bar & Grill, bemoaning the lack of women in the area.
"Any guy in his 20s wishes there was more women," said Brett Rowley, 23, of Nebraska.
"Companionship would make a big difference," agreed 26-year-old Brandon Bernhard of Iowa.
They hope to put up to $100,000 in the bank annually working long hours as apprentice electricians, but all three said they plan to go back home.
There's not much to do besides drink, they complained. They've seen workers on drugs. One guy offered them his girlfriend for sex for $150, they said.
"I definitely don't plan to settle here," Rowley said. "I'll go home and start my life then."
Arriving without a plan
Many come to North Dakota without a plan for where they'll live or work, hoping to earn big money at least temporarily.
Locals worry that too many of them have questionable backgrounds and can't get jobs back home.
Crime rates have gone up with the population, police said: Calls for service in Williston more than doubled in three years, ending with 15,954 calls in 2011.
Detective David Peterson said many companies do background checks on workers they hire. "I think there are a lot of hard-working individuals out here that are trying to save their homes and save their families in other parts of the nation," he said.
Concordia Lutheran Church Pastor L. Jay Reinke has been allowing job-seeking newcomers to sleep on cots in the church hall -- raising concerns even in his congregation.
Dressed in jeans, Reinke welcomed "overnighters" filing into the fellowship hall at 8:30 p.m. one recent night.
"I've always favored the underdog," Reinke said. "If I was in their spot, I don't know what I would do, really. ... They're men looking for a job."
Lorenzo Harris walked in with a friend after driving his 1996 Ford Escort from the Twin Cities. Harris said he needed work after he was laid off at a catalogue company and bills piled up.
"My wife didn't like the fact that I was leaving, but you gotta do what you gotta do," said the 43-year-old. "Mount Rushmore is here, right?"
Concordia limits guests to 30 each night, with Reinke occasionally allowing one or two extra to sleep at his house. That night, he looked down at a list and shook his head.
"Gonna have to go to Plan B tonight," he quietly told Harris and his friend. "I'm sorry."
Harris, 6-foot-5 and 270 pounds, nodded and sighed. "Ain't gonna be the first time I slept in the car," he said.
Still trucking
Though their four years in North Dakota have been lucrative, Brevig and his longtime fiancée aren't sure how long they'll stay.
They lived in their truck for a few months, with him carrying about $90,000 debt.
He has since paid cash for four more trucks, put money in savings and hired a small crew of fellow Minnesotans, including his fiancée's son and nephew, he said. They live in campers and trucks, too, though Brevig is adding a shower and bunks to the heated repair shed.
Brevig said he knows living there is hard for everyone in his company.
"She'd pack up and leave tomorrow," he said, nodding toward his fiancée. "I can't pass up the opportunities. ... There's money to be made."
Pam Louwagie • 612-673-7102

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal

Marine Corps Gazette


Author: 
 Capt Katie Petronio
The Marine Corps Times recently published a handful of articles in regard to opening Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to females and the possibility of integrating women into the infantry community. In mid-April the Commandant directed the “integration” of the first wave of female officers into IOC this summer following completion of The Basic School (TBS). This action may or may not pave the way for female Marines to serve in the infantry as the results remain to be seen. However, before the Marine Corps moves forward with this concept, should we not ask the hard questions and gain opinions of combat-experienced Marines (male and female alike) as to the purpose, the impact, and the gains from such a move? As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.
I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.
There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?
Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.
Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.
Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.
Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'


An election-season essay

DO PENALTIES FOR SMOKERS AND THE OBESE MAKE SENSE?

From AP


NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates.

And attempts to curb smoking and unhealthy eating frequently lead to backlash: Witness the current legal tussle over New York City's first-of-its-kind limits on the size of sugary beverages and the vicious fight last year in California over a ballot proposal to add a $1-per-pack cigarette tax, which was ultimately defeated.

"This is my life. I should be able to do what I want," said Sebastian Lopez, a college student from Queens, speaking last September when the New York City Board of Health approved the soda size rules.

Critics also contend that tobacco- and calorie-control measures place a disproportionately heavy burden on poor people. That's because they:

-Smoke more than the rich, and have higher obesity rates.

-Have less money so sales taxes hit them harder. One study last year found poor, nicotine-dependent smokers in New York - a state with very high cigarette taxes - spent as much as a quarter of their entire income on smokes.

-Are less likely to have a car to shop elsewhere if the corner bodega or convenience store stops stocking their vices.

Critics call these approaches unfair, and believe they have only a marginal effect. "Ultimately these things are weak tea," said Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and fellow at the right-of-center think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

Gottlieb's view is debatable. There are plenty of public health researchers that can show smoking control measures have brought down smoking rates and who will argue that smoking taxes are not regressive so long as money is earmarked for programs that help poor people quit smoking.

And debate they will. There always seems to be a fight whenever this kind of public health legislation comes up. And it's a fight that can go in all sorts of directions. For example, some studies even suggest that because smokers and obese people die sooner, they may actually cost society less than healthy people who live much longer and develop chronic conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

So let's return to the original question: Why provoke a backlash? If 1 in 5 U.S. adults smoke, and 1 in 3 are obese, why not just get off their backs and let them go on with their (probably shortened) lives?
Because it's not just about them, say some health economists, bioethicists and public health researchers.

"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center.

Smoking has the most obvious impact. Studies have increasingly shown harm to nonsmokers who are unlucky enough to work or live around heavy smokers. And several studies have shown heart attacks and asthma attack rates fell in counties or cities that adopted big smoking bans.

"When you ban smoking in public places, you're protecting everyone's health, including and especially the nonsmoker," said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago's School of Public Health.

It can be harder to make the same argument about soda-size restrictions or other legislative attempts to discourage excessive calorie consumption, Olshansky added.

"When you eat yourself to death, you're pretty much just harming yourself," he said.

But that viewpoint doesn't factor in the burden to everyone else of paying for the diabetes care, heart surgeries and other medical expenses incurred by obese people, noted John Cawley, a health economist at Cornell University.

"If I'm obese, the health care costs are not totally borne by me. They're borne by other people in my health insurance plan and - when I'm older - by Medicare," Cawley said.

From an economist's perspective, there would be less reason to grouse about unhealthy behaviors by smokers, obese people, motorcycle riders who eschew helmets and other health sinners if they agreed to pay the financial price for their choices.

That's the rationale for a provision in the Affordable Care Act - "Obamacare" to its detractors - that starting next year allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

The new law doesn't allow insurers to charge more for people who are overweight, however.
It's tricky to play the insurance game with overweight people, because science is still sorting things out. While obesity is clearly linked with serious health problems and early death, the evidence is not as clear about people who are just overweight.

That said, public health officials shouldn't shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers.

National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren't working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.
"Emotions are what really count in this world," he said.

There's also this from NBC News:

Fat-shaming may curb obesity, bioethicist says