The Left Hates the Military, Repeals ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 31st, 2010

The Effete Left Retaliates for all those Wedgies

The liberal left hates the military.  Always have.  Always will.  It’s the manliness of the soldier these effeminate men hate.  Being weak on testosterone, the effete male tucks his tail between his legs and scurries away in the presence of the alpha male.  When they were in grade school getting wedgies.   When girls rejected them in high school.  Or when a woman’s husband caught them in an adulterous act.  They ran away.  They didn’t fight.  Which is why they hate the military.  Because they will fight to protect themselves.  Their fellow soldiers.  Their family.  God.  And country.

The Left has always had the military in their crosshairs.  To defund it as much as possible.  To boot ROTC off college campuses.  To protect the rights of a Muslim extremist in the U.S. Army that went on a murdering rampage on an Army post.  Anything to destroy the military.  They just don’t like it.  So when they fought to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, they didn’t do it to help gays who want to serve in the military.  They did it to further damage the military.  At least, that is their hope.

They hate gay soldiers as much as they hate straight soldiers.  Because a gay soldier is still an alpha male.  A tough guy.  Willing to fight to protect himself, his fellow soldiers, his family, God and country.  Everything that the effete left hates.  They see a gay soldier as just another tough guy that probably kicked their ass back in high school.  No, they pushed for this because a lot in the military were against it.  Not because they’re all homophobes.  But because it will radically change the military.

War is Hell and not for the Effete

To take boys and make them into soldiers in a short time requires a little shock and awe.  Training is hard.  And horrible.  The more horrible it is the less horrible actual combat will be.  That’s how you make boys into men.  Desensitize them.  How you keep them from panicking while chaos reigns all around them.  It’s how you keep soldiers alive in combat. 

Marine basic training was pretty harsh during the Vietnam War.  They’ve since lightened up a little since that time portrayed by R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket.  Ermey was in fact a drill instructor in the U.S. Marine Corps.  And he served in Vietnam.  Much of his lines in that movie were ad lib.  Drawn from his personal experience.  He was a real bastard in the movie.  But a great drill instructor.  I met Ermey at an air show one summer.  While I waited in line to get his autograph, there were Marines ahead of me past and present.  What did they want?  They wanted Ermey to tell them to drop and give him 20.  And he did.  It was a high honor indeed for these Marines.  He’s a god to them.  Because he made tough Marines.  Ermey’s the real deal.  And, though retired, he still serves his beloved Corps.  Once a Marine, always a Marine.

So what did these men go through in basic training?  Something like this (WARNING: The following video contains explicit language and adult content):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLDaZvTfU9k

Now, imagine Sergeant Hartman dressing down an openly gay man in that scene.  And how fast the ACLU would file suit.

You can say that much of what he said and done was inappropriate.  But when you’re training killers, you emphasize the chest thumping, testosterone teeming, alpha-male manly stuff.  So you call recruits ladies.  And homosexuals.  Until they prove themselves lean, mean and tough as mother [deleted expletive] who want to cut out the enemy’s living guts and use them to grease the treads of their tanks.  That last was borrowed from the movie Patton.  And that classic George C. Scott scene can be seen here:

War is hell.  And a manly thing.  It is not for the faint of heart.  As William Tecumseh Sherman said, the more horrible it is, the quicker it will be over.  And the less lives lost.  An effete liberal male, on the other hand, disdains such brutality.  They’d prefer to sit down with our enemies and resolve our differences through diplomacy.  Like the Allies did with Hitler.  Who lied.  We gave him the Sudetenland.  And he took the rest of Czechoslovakia.  Then Poland, launching World War II.  After we got his word that he wouldn’t.

The Ivy League Hates the Military and ROTC

There are some tough gay mother [deleted expletive] serving in the military.  But they’ve been hiding their sexuality.  Which for the above reasons is a good thing.  Now they’ve repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.  So now when a drill instructor slips and calls a recruit a lady or a homosexual, it’ll be a problem.   The Left will slip someone into basic training for just that reason.  So they can sue the military.  Because they hate the military.  It’s all that pent up frustration from all those wedgies.

The Ivy League hates the military.  They’ve kept ROTC off their campuses.  Because, they said, the military discriminates against gays.  Now that Obama has repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, will they welcome ROTC onto their campuses?  No.  Because they hate the military (see ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has been repealed. ROTC still shouldn’t be on campus. by Colman McCarthy posted 12/30/2010 on The Washington Post).

To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I’ve had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring.

Bull [deleted expletive].  He may admire a Taliban soldier, for they are killing American soldiers, but he hates American soldiers.  Who was it spitting on U.S. troops returning from Vietnam and calling them ‘baby killers’?  He and his fellow college students.  That’s who.

ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex.

Taint the intellectual purity of a school?  Give me a break.  The pompous and condescending Ivy League has tainted the intellectual and moral purity of a nation.  These people haven’t done a damn thing to make America great.  It’s the soldiers that have done that.  As Charles Province says so well:

It Is The Soldier

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Charles Michael Province, U.S. Army 

The Left Hopes Gays will Hurt the Military

God bless the soldiers.  The Marines.  The sailors.  The airmen.  And all who serve.

If you hate the military you hate the people in the military.  No matter how you try to spin it.  Do you think a liberal would let his daughter marry a soldier?  Would Colman McCarthy welcome a soldier into his family?  Or would he sneer with contempt?  I’m guessing the contempt thing.  So they don’t like the military.  Or the people serving.  And if you do, everything you do is against the military. 

And so it is with their fight to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.  They’re probably laughing and making gay jokes just waiting for all the trouble to start.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #28: “Politicians love failure because no one ever asked government to fix something that was working.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2010

THE TELEVISION SHOW Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. aired from 1964-1969.  It was a spinoff from the Andy Griffith Show.  Gomer, a naive country bumpkin who worked at Wally’s filling station, joined the Marines Corps.  And there was much mirth and merriment.  To the chagrin of Sergeant Carter, Pyle’s drill instructor (DI).  Think of Gunny Sergeant R. Lee Ermey’s Sergeant Hartman in the movie Full Metal Jacket only with no profanity or mature subject matter.  Sergeant Carter was a tough DI like Sergeant Hartman.  But more suitable for the family hour on prime time television.

Gunny sergeants are tough as nails.  And good leaders.  They take pride in this.  But sometimes a gunny starts to feel that he’s not himself anymore.  This was the subject of an episode.  And Gomer, seeing that Sergeant Carter was feeling down, wanted to help.  So he stuffed Sergeant Carter’s backpack with hay before a long march.  While the platoon was worn and tired, Sergeant Carter was not.  He was feeling good.  Like his old self.  Until he found out he was not carrying the same load his men were.  He asked Pyle, “why hay?”  He could understand rocks, but hay?  Because if he outlasted his men while carrying a heavier load, he would feel strong.  But knowing he had carried a lighter load only made him feel weak.

This is human nature.  People take pride in their achievements.  They don’t take pride in any achievement attained by an unfair advantage.  Self-esteem matters.  And you can’t feel good about yourself if you need help to do what others can do without help. 

AN OLD CHINESE proverb goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”  Let’s say I am a fisherman in a small village.  I catch fish to feed my family and sell/trade for other family needs.  There’s a man in my village who asks me for a fish each day so he can eat.  I’m a caring person.  So I give him a fish each day.  So a pattern develops.  Each day he shows up when I come in from my fishing.  He takes the fish and goes away.  It works out well for him.  He doesn’t have to work.  He can live off of my kind charity.  Then I move.  Without me being there to give him a fish each day, he no longer can eat.  And dies.  If I only had taught that man to fish. 

Kindness can lead to dependency.  And once dependent, you become lazy.  Why develop marketable skills to provide for yourself when someone else will provide for you?  The problem is, of course, what happens when that charity ends?  If you’re unable to provide for yourself and there is no longer someone providing for you, what do you do?  Steal?

Dependency and a lack of self-esteem are a dangerous combination.  And they feed off of each other.  This combination can lead to depression.  Behavioral problems.  Resentment.  Bitterness.  Envy.  Or a defeatist attitude.

These are often unintended consequences of government programs.  A failed program, then, has far reaching consequences beyond the initial economic costs of a program.

LIQUIDITY CRISES CAUSE a lot of economic damage.  If capital is not available for businesses to borrow, businesses can’t grow.  Or create jobs.  And we need jobs.  People have to work.  To support themselves.  And to pay taxes to fund the government.  So everyone is in favor of businesses growing to create jobs.  We all would like to see money being easy and cheap to borrow if it creates jobs.

But there is a downside to easy money.  Inflation.  Too much borrowing can create inflation.  By increasing the money supply (via fractional reserve banking).  More money means higher prices.  Because each additional dollar is worth a little less. This can lead to overvalued assets as prices are ‘bid’ up with less valuable dollars.  And higher prices can inflate business profits.  Looks good on paper.  But too much of this creates a bubble.  Because those high asset values and business profits are not real.  They’re inflated.  Like a bubble.  And just as fragile.  When bubbles burst, asset values and business profits drop.  To real values.  People are no longer ‘bidding’ up prices.  They stop buying until they think prices have sunk to their lowest.  We call this deflation.  A little bit of inflation or deflation is normal.  Too much can be painful economically.  Like in the Panic of 1907.

Without going into details, there was a speculative bubble that burst in 1907.  This led to a liquidity crisis as banks failed.  Defaults on loans left banks owing more money than they had (i.e., they became illiquid).  They tried to borrow money and recall loans to restore their liquidity.  Borrowers grew concerned that their bank may fail.  So they withdrew their money.  This compounded the banks problems.  This caused deflation.  Money was unavailable.  Causing bank runs.  And bank failures.  Business failures.  And unemployment grew. So government passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.  The government gave the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) great powers to tweak the monetary system.  The smartest people at the time had figured out what had gone wrong in 1907.  And they created a system that made it impossible for it to happen again.

The worst liquidity crisis of all time happened from 1929-1933.  It’s part of what we call the Great Depression.  The 1920s had a booming economy.  Real income was rising.  Until the Fed took action.  Concerned that people were borrowing money for speculative purposes (in paper investments instead of labor, plant and material), they put on the brakes.  Made it harder and more expensive to borrow money.  Then a whole series of things happened along the way that turned a recession into a depression.  When people needed money, they made it harder to get it, causing a deflationary spiral.  The Great Depression was the result of bad decisions made by too few men with too much power.  It made a crisis far worse than the one in 1907.  And the Roosevelt administration made good use of this new crisis.  FDR exploded the size of government to respond to the unprecedented crisis they found themselves in.  The New Deal changed America from a nation of limited government to a country where Big Government reigns supreme.

ONE PROGRAM OF the New Deal was Social Security.  Unemployment in the 1930s ran at or above 14%.  This is for one whole decade.  Never before nor since has this happened.  Older workers generally earn more than younger ones.  Their experience commands a higher pay rate.  Which allows them to buy more things.  Resulting in more bills.  Therefore, the Great Depression hit older workers especially hard.  A decade of unemployment would have eaten through any life savings of even the most prudent savers.  And what does this get you?  A great crisis.

The government took a very atypical moment of history and changed the life of every American.  The government forced people to save for retirement.  In a very poor savings plan.  That paid poorly by comparison to private pensions or annuities.  And gave the government control over vast amounts of money.  It was a pervasive program.  They say FDR quipped, “Let them try to undo this.” 

With government taking care of you in retirement, more people stopped providing for themselves.  When they retired, they scrimped by on their ‘fixed’ incomes.  And because Social Security became law before widespread use of birth control and abortion, the actuaries of the day were very optimistic.  They used the birth rate then throughout their projections.  But with birth control and abortion came a huge baby bust.  The bottom fell out of the birth rate.  A baby bust generation followed a baby boom generation.  Actually, all succeeding generations were of the bust kind.  The trend is growing where fewer and fewer people pay for more and more people collecting benefits.  And these people were living longer.  To stay solvent, the system has to raise taxes on those working and reduce benefits on those who are not.  Or raise the retirement age.  All these factors have made it more difficult on our aged population.  Making them working longer than they planned.  Or by making that fixed income grow smaller.

FDR used a crisis to create Social Security.  Now our elderly people are dependent on that system.  It may suck when they compare it to private pensions or annuities, but it may be all they have.  If so, they’ll quake in their shoes anytime anyone mentions reforming Social Security.  Because of this it has become the 3rd rail of politics.  A politician does not touch it lest he or she wishes to die politically.  But it’s not all bad.  For the politician.  Because government forced the elderly to rely on them for their retirement, it has made the Social Security recipient dependent on government.  In particular, the party of government who favors Big Government.  The Democrats.  And with a declining birth rate and growing aged population, this has turned into a large and loyal voting bloc indeed.  Out of fear.

A PROGRAM THAT straddled the New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Its original New Deal purpose was to help widows take care of their children.  When program outlays peaked in the 1970s, the majority of recipients were unmarried women and divorced women.  Because this was a program based on need, the more need you had the more you got.  Hence more children meant more money.  It also reduced the importance of marriage as the government could replace the support typically provided by a husband/father.  Noted economist Dr. Thomas Sowell blames AFDC as greatly contributing to the breakdown of the black family (which has the highest incidence of single-parent households).

With the women’s liberation movement, women have come to depend less on men.  Some affluent women conceive and raise children without a husband.  Or they adopt.  And the affluent no doubt can provide all the material needs their children will ever need.  Without a husband.  Or a father for their children.  But is that enough?

The existence of ‘big brother’ programs would appear to prove otherwise.  Troubled children are often the products of broken families.  Mothers search for big brothers to mentor these fatherless sons.  To be role models.  To show an interest in these children’s lives.  To care.  When no such role models are available, some of these troubled children turn to other sources of acceptance and guidance.  Like gangs.

AFDC has compounded this problem by providing the environment that fosters fatherless children.  And another government program compounds that problem.  Public housing.

POOR HOUSING CONDITIONS hurt families.  They especially hurt broken families.  Without a working husband, these families are destined to live in the cheapest housing available.  These are often in the worst of neighborhoods.  This is an unfair advantage to the children raised in those families.  For it wasn’t their fault they were born into those conditions.  So, to solve that problem, government would build good public housing for these poorest of the poor to move into.  Problem solved.

Well, not exactly.  Public housing concentrates these broken families together.  Usually in large apartment buildings.  This, then, concentrates large numbers of troubled children together.  So, instead of having these children dispersed in a community, public housing gathers them together.  Where bad behavior reinforces bad behavior.  It becomes the rule, not the exception.  Making a mother’s job that much more difficult.  And because these children live together, they also go to school together.  And this extends the bad behavior problem to the school.  Is it any wonder that public housing (i.e., the projects) have the worst living conditions?  And some of the highest gang activity? 

Government didn’t plan it this way.  It’s just the unintended consequences of their actions.  And those consequences are devastating.  To the poor in general.  To the black family in particular.  AFDC and public housing enabled irresponsible/bad behavior.  That behavior destroyed families.  As well as a generation or two.  But it wasn’t all bad.  For the politicians.  It made a very large constituency dependent on government.

THERE ARE SO many more examples.  But the story is almost always the same.  Dependency and a lack of self-esteem will beat down a person’s will.  Like an addict, it will make the dependent accept poorer and poorer living standards in exchange for their fix of dependency.  Eventually, the dependency will reach the point where they will not know how to provide for themselves.  The dependency will become permanent.  As will the lack of self-esteem.  Conscious or not of their actions, Big Government benefits from the wretched state they give these constituencies.  With no choice but continued dependence, they vote for the party that promises to give the most.  Which is typically the Democrat Party.

But how can you fault these politicians?  They acted with the best of intentions.  And they can fix these new problems.  They’ll gather the brightest minds.  They’ll study these problems.  And they will produce the best programs to solve these problems.  All it will take is more government spending.  And how can you refuse?  When people are hungry.  Or homeless.  Or have children that they can’t care for.  How can anyone not want to help the children?  How can anyone not have compassion?

Well, compassion is one thing.  When the innocent suffer.  But when government manufactures that suffering, it’s a different story.  Planned or not the result is the same whenever government tries to fix things.  The cost is high.  The solution is typically worse than the original problem.  And the poorest of the poor are pawns.  To be used by Big Government in the name of compassion. 

Of course, if Big Government were successful in fixing these problems, they would fix themselves right out of existence.  So as long as they want to run Big Government programs, they’ll need a stock of wretched, suffering masses that need their help.  And, of course, lots of crises.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,