Obama

University of Texas to treat unrestrictive masculinity as a ‘mental health crisis’

6782E319-828E-4677-87FF-3DCAA6BA1E38.jpeg

What will they think of next? Why doesn’t The University of Texas (UT) tackle unrestrictive ‘femininity’ as a mental health crisis too? Seems a bit odd in the struggle for gender identity and equality that only masculinity is deemed a problem.  “MasculinUT” is being organized by the school’s counseling staff and most recently organized a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” The program is built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles to “act like a man”, be “successful” or “the breadwinner.” Arise the unsuccessful breadlosers. The question is whether the UT Counseling and Mental Health Center (CMHC) will offer post-graduation counseling when these students realize the real world doesn’t operate that way?

Little did I know that the day my parents thrust a Tonka truck in my hands at the tender age of three, they were recklessly setting of a ticking time bomb of traditional masculinity and enforced gender expression. The untold damage they caused by preventing any chance to express my gender identity via experimenting with a Barbie doll and making me wear dresses. Let’s get serious. My parents would recall from as young as two I had a passion for cars and could even rattle off the names of Boltsdragon and Meladies Benz before I could walk. I’ll be damned if loving mechanical things (I still do) wasn’t hard-wired in my DNA from birth. My parents didn’t force it for one second.

So what is a mental health crisis surrounding masculinity?  UT would have us believe it is toxic. Surely the need for pushing restrictive masculity should extend to the animal kingdom too.

Perhaps lions and wolves must be re-educated so that the weaker male lions/wolves in the pride/pack get equal opportunity to sire the females during mating season. Seems a bit wrong that the clear and present mental health issues of the strongest lion in the pack – indoctrinated by the evil, oppressive and overbearing Mother Nature – causes him to feel he can’t delegate such a responsibility to other no less fertile males.  How conflicted he must feel at times? Or could it be that the lionesses (apologies for forcing gender identities here) on heat prefer to be sired by the strongest male in so far as it ensures in her mind she will have the strongest cubs? Surely not a factor? Stands to reason that the raging hormones of the male lion youth get so worked up by their unrestrictive masculinity that they are led to fight the strongest male lion in order to attain sexual dominance. Why is it the strongest male leaves the pride/pack when he’s overthrown by the new kid? Same for marsupials too. Kangaroos have the same rules.

What about unrestrictive femininity? How can the civil rights of male praying-mantises be protected? Is it fair that the female of the species gets away scot-free after decapitating the male after conception? This is murder in the first degree. Mother Nature is far too cruel. She is also sexist given the lionesses do the ‘lion’s share’ of the ‘shopping’ when it is time to feed the family. Something must be done immediately.

Yet think to one’s own youth. Whether male or female it was more likely that your desires were hormonally driven rather than pre formed based on education. Was your first sexual experience guided by a pre-foreplay restricted checklist or was it simply letting unrestricted nature take its course? Was undressing uncomfortable or was the power of pheromones so overriding that it was but an irrelevant detail?

Was it a surprise to see many women at your university ogle, envy or date the fit young men rather than make a b-line to ogle, envy or date the fat slob with no dress sense and poor hygiene? Did you ever experience unrestrictive femininity at play where the girls fought to date the hottest guy and had no compunction in deposing the current girlfriend through every possible means? Trophy boyfriends were just as sought as trophy girlfriends. Survival of the fittest works both ways.

Surely it should come as no surprise that the UT American football coach explicitly looks for the most masculine players for the team. No sense putting a 150lb weakling as a line blocker if he must challenge a 300lb opponent? Will the ‘jocks’ be required to pave way for the ‘nerds’ to satisfy the restrictive msaculinity guidelines put forth by the UT CMHC. Now the coach can say, “we may have lost our exemplary decades long win record team, but I am proud we represent restrictive masculinity!

The irony is that other schools running the program (UNC-Chapel Hill and Northwestern being but two) admit there is no evidence that masculinity itself contributes to violence. So if there is no fact/theory behind the ‘unrestrictive masculinity is a mental health crisis’ it must mean that it is nothing more than an ideology. What a surprise to see the cultural Marxists looking to spread their backward thinking in the classroom.

To the women reading this, would you prefer random men didn’t trigger their unrestrictive masculinity and step in to protect you if you were being assaulted by another man? Social experiments like the video before and the history of how prison inmates deal with rapists and child molesterers shows that real men are deeply protective of their code and any violation is swiftly dealt with.

DNA is a funny thing. To think the UT Dean gives any credibility to the CMHC for pushing such absolute institutionalized snowflakery is beyond comprehension. It is the CMHC that has the mental health crisis, not the other way around. Unrestrictive stupidity is a curse which seems to be spreading wider by the day. May I suggest a StupidUT program?

 

Who will get the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Korean War – Kim, Moon & Xi or Trump?

AABD5B18-73D0-42FD-8A03-6942C0B2EBA5

Will President Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for getting Kim & Moon to the peace table? It is unlikely in so far as the Norwegian Nobel Committee would fear the full weight of international opinion (aka mainstream media) for doing so. Surely they wouldn’t risk making a mockery of such a coveted award? Then again a one Barack Obama was handed one less than 9 months into his first term on the stated basis of a noble quest for the Holy Grail of world peace rather than anything actually achieved. In 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped 26,171 bombs on enemies. Not bad for a serial appeaser. A Nobel prize has even been awarded to a multi billion dollar embezzling terrorist of a self appointed authority, so Kim Jong-un is in with a shot.

Will Trump receive any credit (even without a Nobel) for pushing ‘Rocketman/The Fat Kid’ to the negotiating table? Probably not. How come no other administrations were able to achieve something that was relatively easier when the state of the North’s arsenal was considerably less lethal? Kim threatened Guam less than half a year ago. Trump didn’t back down and the North Korean dictator clearly realized from Twitter that the most powerful man in the world wasn’t all bluster. President Xi may well have played a solid hand in pushing Kim to sue for peace negotiations. In the interests of President-for-life Xi, his foe Trump has a maximum 7 years left to meddle. If Korea gets a peace deal, Xi can play hardball on the peninsula if a softer President enters the White House thereafter. Then he can take a stab at Taiwan. Xi can afford to wait.

We should not forget that Kim Jong-Un travelled to China on his first ‘overseas’ visit earlier this year. Best get the approval of a real dictator before progressing. Kim was there to get Beijing’s blessing to ensure North Korean sovereignty come what may so as to maintain the desired geographical buffer to pro-US nations.

Noone said peace isn’t desirable. The question is what price must one pay to get it? There are too many incidents in the past where signing peace treaties with dictatorial regimes have ended in disaster. Hitler/Chamberlain (Munich Agreement), Hitler/Stalin (Pact of Steel), Putin/Merkel/Macron (suggestion of UN in Ukraine), Le Duc Tho/Kissinger (Paris Peace Accords over Vietnam), Xerxes II/Leonidas (Greece) etc.

Will part of the denuclearization ‘deal’ call upon a withdrawal of US Forces from the Korean Peninsula? Would the US go for that? Highly unlikely. Would Moon be so gullible as to suggest a (slow) withdrawal? Of course he has the right to demand a foreign garrison pack up and go home. Trump may have pushed China and NK to act but he’d prefer the status quo than to roll over and vacate the premises. China wins in either scenario. America certainly doesn’t want to pay for the same real estate twice. Some quarters in South Korea must surely want the US military to stay as an insurance policy. Afterall how can one trust someone who comes from a dynasty that kills its own people and assassinates family members? Worryingly Moon looks to have a certain ring of Chamberlain about him.

It was clear that North Korea was dictating the moves at the Winter Olympics. It was South Korea who funded the $3mn in travel costs for the cheer squad. Anything that looked to mock the North Koreans was swiftly dealt with. It spoke volumes about which Korea was calling the shots. Anyone impersonating any other world leader could do so with reckless aplomb. Anything resembling Kim Jong-un  was quickly removed from sight. Tyrannies rarely do humour and sadly not enough democracies defend it. Still it is hardly an encouraging sign for even handed peace talks when one side looks to appease in this way.

Kim Jong-un is smart enough to realize at such a youthful stage in his life that he probably has another 40-50 years left in him. Reunification only works if he is given sanctuary. Idi Amin saw the beauty of a life in exile in Saudi Arabia. If Kim Jong-un can relax in Sichuan Province it maybe a dignified way out. One can bet his ‘some are more equal than others’ inner sanctum would rather the two stay separated. They would stand to lose way more than Kim.  It would be ridiculous to assume that Kim could be a major cog driving a reunification process with such an abysmal human rights record. Name a despot who would willing cede authoritarian rule much less without a deal which would exonerate him from any international criminal court that he would be held accountable for under a functioning democracy?

The South Koreans have had a think tank in Berlin researching the effect of reunification in Germany. The former West is still heavily subsidizing the former East. Depopulation (-15% between 1989 & 2013), unemployment rates (higher today that 1989) and inferior GDP per capita (27% less) are all a feature of the former communist state vs the federal republic over the last three decades.

How easily could South Korea absorb the North? West Germany had a population of 63mn in 1989 vs 16mn in East Germany or 4:1. South Korea has 53mn vs North Korea’s 24mn or 2:1. West Germany had a 2.3x GDP/capita ratio to the East in 1989. South Korea has a 52x GDP/capita ratio to the North. Reunification for Korea isn’t an apples to apples comparison with Germany. While Samsung might relish the prospects of tapping a cheap labour pool to build washing machines, the South would likely face far higher integration costs than the Germans. Even 30 years ago East Germany had a GDP/capita 17x that of North Korea.

In any event the only sure outcome of peace on the Korea Peninsula is that President Trump will get next to zero credit in the media. Wailing about the reckless diplomacy of an unhinged dictator will be the main with a few conceding it was at best a fluke.

What happens when you poke a Russian bear?

EDE6C915-0C4C-4067-9899-E88968C0D996.jpeg

As written earlier in the week, regardless of one’s views on the righteousness of any attack on Syria, Putin is being faced for the first time in a long time, a leader of a foreign nation (nations as it turns out) prepared to stand up to him. Obama fled the Syria battlefield after being given a two hour window when Russia first went to the aid of Assad. If that wasn’t the ultimate sign of a bully in the Kremlin it is hard to think of what is. While sanctions may have bitten to a degree post Ukraine and the shooting down of a Malaysian Airlines flight, Syria is essentially a testing ground for Putin to weigh up Western (specifically Trump’s) resolve. If we look at Russia’s response post the Syrian strike,

The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard…A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences…All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris…Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

Kind of says it all really – Russia hasn’t been insulted. Putin has. He must have a glass jaw  like Trump! Two bullies flexing muscle. In a show down Should Putin wish to pick a direct conventional fight against 3 nuclear powers (explicitly mentioned), he knows that ‘mutually assured destruction’ is the very last option in the drawer and next to no chance of being selected despite all of the media beat up. On a conventional basis, Putin wins more battles by stirring up the hornet’s nests in other regions. Lending more support to Iran, Lebanon and Yemen. Destabilize Saudi Arabia and antagonize Israel.

CM wrote,

It is worth nothing that Syria is Rosoboronexport’s (Russia’s military export wing) 2nd largest customer after Iran. Putin is sick of having the West try to remove his clients. Assad is key to Russia’s foothold in the Middle East. With an essentially pro-Iran Iraqi government and Syria as well as Hezbollah Putin has a geopolitical doormat from the troubled separatist states to Russia’s south to Lebanon.

Some arguments have been made about the risks of the American, French or UK strikes killing Russian troops or civilians on the ground in Syria handing Russia free will to attack its enemies. Scroll back to November 2015 when the Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian Su-24 fighter it claimed entered its airspace. Two Russian pilots were killed in the shooting and subsequent rescue. The Russians were incensed but President Erdogan is still in power and Ankara isn’t flailing after seeing its capitol turned into smoldering rubble.

This argument that the Russians weren’t given advance warnings of the attack is ridiculous. Had the Russian defence forces been on proper alert (they most definitely weren’t passed out behind their radar screens after a vodka binge) they would have detected the missile launches. Wind back to the 59 missile launch earlier last year against Syrian chemical facilities. We didn’t hear a peep from Putin. Why now? Of course he is incensed over the booting of diplomats on the nerve agent scandal but this is a showdown of ego.

Think of the long geopolitical chess board here. Should Trump have backed down on Putin’s threats, wouldn’t China’s Xi feel equally empowered to annex Taiwan by telling POTUS that he risks ‘grave reprisals if he meddles with Chinese sovereign territory’?

For all the initial snubbing of Trump by Macron on his historic election win in France, there is no way he would have gone in alone to attack a chemical facility without the guarantee of the military might of America. It is unlikely Theresa May would have done it either. So for all of the ‘unhinged’ lunatic rhetoric bandied about by the media, foreign nations don’t gamble their own sovereignty lightly, especially over something like Syria.

General Mattis has said they plan no further strikes at this stage. Does Putin order his forces to sink a US destroyer in the Mediterranean which launched those missiles? Highly unlikely. He does have the best weapon available to do that (the ‘Sunburn’) but sending US naval vessels to the bottom of the sea on a strategic strike would seem a big response to a targeted hit.

Let there be no mistake. There is a new sheriff in town. Russia has a bloody nose it didn’t think it would find itself. Putin miscalculated that Trump isn’t all Twitter-fueled bluster. Uncertainty in foreign leaders is always a risk for enemies. Trump has shown Putin he won’t be bullied like his predecessor.

Putin doesn’t want a hot war with America. The best way to strike at the US is like the last 6 decades. Undermine her at every opportunity. Supply her enemies. As mentioned before, if the Russians didn’t think it worth hitting back at Turkey for deliberately targeting its fighters, it is unlikely that Putin, no matter how ‘insulted’ he might feel will take a strike not aimed at Russians as a pretext to pick a fight with Trump. Putin has worked out the US president’s measure. He miscalculated. He won’t make that mistake twice.

For the media, running all the scare campaign stories is not only highly irresponsible (as it did over Yemen’s attacks on Saudi Arabia) but proving the lack of depth of analysis. They can beat Trump over the head all they wish but should note the actions of Macron and May following him into the region as a tacit approval of the US leader. Was he the madman they portrayed him as in the first place they would have stayed well out of it.

Watch for Putin’s response (unlikely but will threaten it will come when the evil Americans least expect) and think deeply about why it is important that the real despots (Putin, Xi, KJ-U, Erdogan) around the world no longer have the ability to exercise free will in knowledge that the worst they face is a slap on the wrist from the UN.

Sounds more like grounds for congratulation than censure. 

US military aircraft deaths up c.40% since 2013

D55E5AE0-0DD2-4EEE-89F5-92978CA4EEC0.jpeg

Of 5,500 aircraft accidents since 2013, almost 4,000 were generated by the military’s fleet of manned warplanes — bombers, fighters, cargo planes, refuelers, helicopters and tiltrotors. In 2013, those aircraft reported 656 accidents per year. By 2017, the rate had jumped to 909 per year, an increase of 39% according to Military Times. It’s doubled for the Navy and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. 133 service members were killed in those fiscal year 2013-2017 mishaps.

The rise in military aircraft incidents and deaths has been tied in part of the massive congressional budget cuts of 2013. Since then, non-stop deployments of warplanes and crews, a vacuum in maintenance personnel and deep cuts to pilots’ flight-training hours have been factors.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who led the Pentagon in 2013 when defence budget cuts were enforced, said, “We stopped training, for months…Of course, all of that affected readiness. It’s had an impact on every part of our defense enterprise…And that means, surely, accidents.

Wartime is the worst thing for defence budgets. 75% of a military budget is put toward wages, salaries, housing, education and healthcare. Then there is the operations and maintenance slice. This leaves little left over for the development and procurement side. Go to war and the easiest place to find cuts is to defer new purchases. The logistics of stationing 100,000 troops in a foreign country and maintaining tanks, feeding and housing them costs a fortune. So budget cuts lead to deferred servicing of equipment and lower preparedness. This data presented by the military comes as no surprise. The air force now leases aircraft on commercial terms to the defence contractors as a way to get new equipment and drop feed the payments.

World on the brink of WW3? Press on the blink more like it

9C37D7FB-6B41-492C-9481-F19515C18AB7.jpeg

When you read a title like “world on the brink” it is easy to be misled to thinking this is a Trump/Putin related incident. The fact is the Iranian backed Houthi in Yemen have been lobbing ballistic missiles at Riyadh and staging border skirmishes for years. The Americans have been advising Saudi Arabia where to strike the Houthi in Yemen. This is a decades old fight and since the death (assassination) of former President Saleh last year the Houthi have become even more emboldened than they were during the Arab Spring 8 years ago.

Yet it is so easy to draw conclusions. Did the mainstream media report the sinking of a Saudi naval frigate in the Bab-al-Mandeb strait in Jan 2017 which took the lives of 176 sailors? Has the Israeli shekel collapsed since Trump and Putin exchanged verbal salvos? No. The Tel Aviv indices? No. Surely a relatively liquid financial barometer in a country that has been warned not to intervene by Putin too. Would quickly price in any fears.

The situation over Syria may be tense but if you look at what Putin is really trying to do he is weighing the size of Trump’s guts to call his bluff. We shouldn’t forget when Russia first intervened in Syria several years ago, Putin told Obama that US forces had two hours to get out of harm’s way. That is the warning one would give the Luxembourg armed forces, not the most powerful military in the world. Obama heeded Putin. Putin had carte blanche. That’s why nothing happened with the Ukraine. Sanctions were put in place but no one made any attempt to ‘change behviours.’

It is worth nothing that Syria is Rosoboronexport’s (Russia’s military export wing) 2nd largest customer after Iran. Putin is sick of having the West try to remove his clients. Assad is key to Russia’s foothold in the Middle East. With an essentially pro-Iran Iraqi government and Syria as well as Hezbollah Putin has a geopolitical doormat from the troubled separatist states to Russia’s south to Lebanon.

The problem Putin faces is if Trump yanks his chain, does he shoot US missiles down as threatened? He said they’ll attack launch sites which effectively equals sinking US naval vessels as that is how they are launched. This is perhaps the easiest way to escalate a skirmish out of Putin’s control. If Putin doesn’t do anything, Trump holds one over him. So Putin is hoping by the use of very strong language that Trump backs down. It is not exactly the best way to handle on either side but this is the first time in almost a decade where the US has a leader that won’t be pushed around. Unpredictablity is a strength not a weakness

Looking at history. The NVA was supplied by the Russians during the Vietnam War and the Afghans were supplied by the Americans in the war with Russia. Nothing new. The Russians returned the favour when the “Coalition” deposed Saddam and entered Afghanistan. Proxy wars have been fought for over 50 years.

The US is dispatching a carrier battle group to the Mediterranean. Theresa May is sending a UK submarine. The Russians are conducting military exercises with 11 warships in the same area. Of course scare stories are amock and clickbait media will report how we’re two seconds from a thermonuclear exchange.

It begs the question had Obama suggested to Putin he was bombing Syria, he would be praised for level headed genius. If Trump managed to bomb Syria with no Russian response then would we see the media have a mea culpa moment? Not a chance. It would be palmed off as a lucky break. If we go back in history, we can see good nations that did nothing let tyrants get away with murder. Have a look at Russia and China in the last decade. Man made military bases in territorial waters of other nations, early warning systems on the contested  Spratly’s and agreements in Vanuatu and Sri Lanka which provides naval ports for China. Putin is getting the old ‘union’ back together and there are plenty of willing despots happy to ride his coattails.

Putin is livid at the outcome of the nerve agent scandal seeing the expulsion of so many diplomats. He is not one that likes criticism as many an oligarch has found out the hard way. The question for those that fear what Trump might do should worry more about what will happen if he doesn’t. The downside is that the media likes Putin more than Trump. For a president with a glass jaw, his moves will be far more heavily scrutinized than Putin’s. He’s damned whichever way he turns. Putin on the other hand  willl be excused for being a dictator, whatever he chooses to do. The media will hope it dies down as they turn a blind eye and pillory their own governments for not taking in enough refugees.

Appeasement is an ever widening feature of governments in the West today. There are Neville Chamberlains everywhere. Who will stand up to Putin if Trump doesn’t? Whether Syria is the right battleground is beside the point. Because if it isn’t Syria it will end up being somewhere else.  The problem is only Trump “can” credibly shirt-front the former KGB officer.

 

Food insecurity & poverty levels by US state & the 2016 election result

Food Insecurity.png

The US Department of Agriculture listed the level of food insecurity by US state as at the end of FY2016. Looking at the data, Deplorables (states that voted Republican (red) in the 2016 election) made up 20 of the 25 states that suffered the most from it. Coincidence? Looking at the % below the poverty line and 19 out of 25 states voted for Trump. Coincidence? There is a touch of irony that the Democrats, which push for citizens to be married to the state, were by and large rejected by those suffering the most and want to be free of the shackles of poverty. So is it any wonder they’d reject the establishment. Should also be a signal for the Democrats to think more widely about what makes the Deplorable tick – not free hand outs. Opportunity!

Below poverty line.png

Trump’s approval hits 50%

165F3F30-54C5-4F7D-A7FD-97F119B10A64.jpeg

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds President Trump has cracked the 50% approval rating among likely voters, putting him ahead of where Barack Obama was at this point in his presidency. On the same day in Obama’s administration – April 2, 2010 – Rasmussen found 46% approved of the 44th president’s performance. Suggests that people are more interested in their daily personal issues than the media’s obsession in trying to find out whether Trump humped a porn star over a decade ago.

The fact is that Trump is polling well ahead of the most recent approval ratings for Macron, Trudeau, Merkel, Theresa May, Turnbull, Shinzo Abe or Pena Nieto. When Obama was in Japan last week he spoke of wantiong to create “a million young Barack Obamas” to take on the baton of “human progress”. No thanks.