Far East Cynic

One particular item I have neglected to comment on in the last couple of months, primarily because I have been rather busy, and also America has been involved recently in Benghazi! Benghazi! BENGHAZI! ( one of the series of non scandals that is warming the hearts of the moron class in America)-something a lot worse happened in my second favorite city in the world.

Hong Kong's top court has ruled that domestic workers are not eligible to apply for permanent residency, ending a two-year battle that has split opinion.

The case had centred on Evangeline Banao Vallejos, a maid from the Philippines who has worked in Hong Kong for more than 17 years.

Domestic workers had argued that denying them permanent residency was unconstitutional.

The ruling has implications for Hong Kong's 300,000 domestic workers.

These workers come mainly from the Philippines and Indonesia, often spending years in the territory.

"The FDH [foreign domestic helper] is obliged to return to the country of origin at the end of the contract and is told from the outset that admission is not for the purposes of settlement and that dependents cannot be brought to reside in Hong Kong," the Court of Final Appeal said in a written judgment.

Ms Vallejos was "speechless but calmly resigned", her lawyer, Mark Daly said.

The decision was not a surprise. Hong Kong's Chinese middle and upper class population had been vehemently opposed to the idea.  All kinds of straws were grasped at by various folks in Hong Kong's power structure to justify their opposition to allow the "vermin" to enjoy basic rights that are actually written into Hong Kong's Basic Law. Regina Ip stated that the government would have to allocate more resources to deal with the increased workload resulting from right of abode applications by domestic workers. 

Hemlock kind of summed up the Chinese attitude well-but don't ever call them racist:

Middle class spared need to wash own dishes

To no-one’s great surprise, the Court of Final Appeal rejects foreign domestic helpers’ claim to right of abode in Hong Kong. This is a story with several very distinct angles.

….

 

 

There’s a subliminal nationalism angle. Most of the helpers concerned are from the Philippines. The Philippines is a joke country; it is the Asian nation China can most easily bully, but it is also the one most likely to mishandle or overreact to intimidation. From Beijing’s point of view, it is appropriate that Hong Kong keeps Filipinos in their place. To Manila, this case could be a reminder that the most demeaning treatment Filipinos receive is from their own country’s incompetent leadership, which leaves them with no option but to migrate – but it probably won’t.

There’s the principles vs populism angle. The government was desperate to get this result because of overwhelming public opposition to allowing Filipino maids’ kids into Hong Kong (as with Mainland mothers, subject to a separate court case). This is the same government that constantly tells us that we have a pressing demographic crisis that can only be solved through a boost in the number of children – and that we shouldn’t discriminate against brown people and Mainlanders.

And that leads to a cultural and racial angle, summed up by the New York Times, which asks if Hong Kong will embrace a more multi-ethnic future. As with legal systems and age demographics, this case highlights Hong Kong’s values schizophrenia. On the one hand, the city is supposed to be part of the People’s Republic of China, with the national anthem on TV and smiling patriotic schoolchildren – sons and daughters of the dragon – waving red flags to greet visiting Chinese astronauts and Olympians. On the other hand, the city fancies itself as a diverse melting pot like New York or London, attracting the brightest and the best from around the world, as indeed it must if it is to maintain the region’s biggest clusters of financial, legal, technical and other skills. In practice, much of Han Hong Kong is insular, culturally solidly Chinese and fears external competition, while a smaller part of the ethnic Chinese populace are cosmopolitan and, often, Western-educated. The first group are in Beijing’s eyes surely the ‘politically correct’ population; the second group plus some non-Chinese are what keeps the place ticking. It is a contradiction Hong Kong government officials can’t resolve, so they wing it.

It is rather interesting, what with the faux outrage going on in the US about the supposed mistreatment of women in the service-and the so called glass ceiling-very little attention is given to these women; who actually live-in some cases-with REAL harassment; A REAL hostile work environment; and a wage that is well less than what their services can and should be on the open market. Yet not a peep is heard from the US feminists about it-afraid to show solidarity with the sex, I suppose. And worse yet- the Philippine Government is so inept that they create the conditions by which literally over 5 million Filipinos have to work overseas. As I have pointed out before-it should be a national embarrassment to the country. But somehow successive Philippine governments never get around to recognizing that.

Spike pointed out a while back that the decision fails a test of reasonableness-both for being against Hong Kong's Basic Law- and that it doesn't pass any test of basic fairness and decency:

So that’s legal. But is it fair? Each of these women who sued for resident status has been living and working in Hong Kong for more than 20 years. If they lose their jobs, they have an insanely short period in which to either find a new job or get out of the country – even when they’ve been here for decades.

Even if they have family back in the Philippines or Indonesia, they see that family perhaps once a year, perhaps only once every other year. They have essentially given up their lives to work a six day work week.  They’re on call 18 hours a day and usually have a curfew on their day off. They receive well under US$500 per month in salary (much more than they can earn in their home countries) plus room and board. In return they are an important component of Hong Kong’s economy. They enable two-income families, the only way the average Hong Konger can afford a 500 square foot shitbox from Li Ka-Shing or Sun Hung Kai.  

Opponents of giving residence status to domestic helpers use fear tactics.  Hong Kong will suddenly have 300,000 new permanent residents, all of whom will quit their jobs and live off welfare.  (What welfare?)  Others say that they should have no right to resident status because they never paid Hong Kong income tax, which ignores the fact that their salaries are too low to qualify to pay.

So there’s legal and there’s what’s fair and the two are often not the same.

 

I have a soft spot in my heart for these women-who deal with a lot; who have children they seldom see; hope for a better future; and in some cases get treated really badly. I think Spike is really right here-the masters in Beijing just want to bide their time and destroy everything unique about Hong Kong bit by bit.

Its been a really lousy week for a bunch of reasons. I have been really depressed and angry-but I woke up this morning and decided that I am not going to let the bastards win. I get to publish the content I want to-and in the same vein I owe it to my readers to step up the quality of that content. The politics will still be there of course-delivered from the factual side, not the lunatic conservative side. But I will try to branch out some more to other-more interesting areas.

So in doing that, its always best to start with some humor:

Billy Graham was returning to Charlotte after a speaking engagement and when his plane arrived there was a limousine there to transport him to his home. As he prepared to get into the limo, he stopped and spoke to the driver.

'You know' he said, 'I am 87 years old and I have never 
Driven a limousine. Would you mind if I drove it for a while?'

The driver said, 'No problem. Have at it.'

Billy gets into the driver's seat and they head off down the highway. A short distance away sat a rookie State Trooper operating his first speed trap.

The long black limo went by him doing 70 in a 55 mph zone.

The trooper pulled out and easily caught the limo then got out of his patrol car to begin the procedure. The young trooper walked up to the driver's door and when the glass was rolled down, he was surprised to see who was driving.

He immediately excused himself and went back to his car and called his supervisor. 'I know we are supposed to enforce the law…. but I also know that important people are given certain courtesies. I need to know what I should do because I have stopped a very important person.'

The supervisor asked, 'Is it the governor?'

The young trooper said, 'No, he's more important than that.'

The supervisor said, 'Oh, so it's the president.' 

The young trooper said, 'No, he's even more Important than that.'

After a moment,the supervisor finally asked, 'Well then, who is it?'

The young trooper said, 'I think it's Jesus, because he's got Billy Graham for a chauffeur!'

Speaking of heavenly views:

(This is Joceyln Chew from Singapore)

Two weeks ago the sun actually saw fit to make an appearance here. The S.O. and I decided to take advantage of it and go walking through the woods behind our house and to the nearby town of Waldenbuch. Who, unbeknown to us, was having the festival celebrating their 650th birthday.

Here are some pictures I took along the way:

The pasture is quite open right behind our house-then it feeds into the woods:

After about 3km of walking you come out into the town of Waldenbuch

And it was festival time:

And they had the old cars out on display:

This is an interesting and small BMW:

An Early 60's Opel:

After a few bratwursts, a few beers and some ice cream-it was time to head back into the woods and home:

John Cole has a great post up summing up the way those of us who used to be in the GOP camp have been abandoned completly by the party we grew up with. I liked it so much I wanted to quote his statement of belief right here. It is excellent.

What’s on my mind, Facebook? I will tell you. For decades I was a Republican, but they lost their shit, and I left the party in 2005. I was always pro gay rights and pro-choice and anti death penalty as a Republican, but they decided I did not belong, so I left.

And now, I am happy to say I am a proud liberal who will stand up to right-wing douchebags who have decided that 2/3 of America doesn’t deserve the right to exist.

I support gay rights and the ability for gay people to marry.

I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion, but pro-choice.

I am against the death penalty. This used to be a libertarian position, but they are so corrupted by right wing money that they no longer are worried about the state executing the citizenry. Because, you know, freedom.

I think marijuana should be legal and taxed. Obviously, alcoholics like Orange John Boehner think this is crazy as he leads the House with a BAC of .20 every day.

I think religion can be a good thing, but I think religious people should respect that many people do not share their faith nor need lists of commandments to understand they shouldn’t fuck their neighbor’s wife or murder or steal. Some of us kinda figured that shit out on our own.

I don’t think video games or movies make people kill people.

I do think easy access to guns makes it really easy to kill people.

I think gay people should be able to adopt. In fact, I think we should stop calling them gay people and just call them, well, people.

I don’t think taxes are a punishment. I think they are what gives us roads and part of a great societal pact; an obligation for all of us to fulfill so we can be so lucky to live in this country.

I don’t think people who are poor are evil, stupid, or lazy. I just think they have no money and could use some help from me.

I think that this world is basically lacking in human compassion and empathy, and that bothers me. “I got mine” seems to be a refrain that is repeated too often.

I could go on, but these are the basics.

In recent days the military journals have run stories of how Congress wants to strip commanders of their authorities to confirm or overturn the results of courts martial. This due to several high profile cases where folks did not agree with the final decision of the convening authority.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., introduced legislation Thursday taking top commanders out of the process of deciding whether a sexual misconduct case goes to trial. For sexual offenses with authorized sentences of more than one year in confinement — akin to felonies in the civilian judicial system — that decision would rest instead with officers at ranks as low as colonel who are seasoned trial counsels with prosecutorial experience.

“‘What we need to do is change the system so victims know that they can receive justice,” Gillibrand said Thursday on CBS “This Morning.”

Let me state it clearly, to do this is a huge mistake. Commanders who have court martial authority HAVE to have the ability to decide how cases are to be prosecuted and the ability to affirm or reject the conclusions of the judicial proceedings.

There are fundamental differences between the civilian criminal justice system and the military justice system. Yet far too many people fail to understand those differences and the rationale for them.

It is important to remember that in a military proceeding there is no standing court -it has to be created. And because the commander is still trusted with the responsibility to maintain good order and discipline-he or she has to be quite careful not to create a stampede to make an example out of someone. That is a big difference between the military and civilian systems. The civilian court system is more removed from the proceedings after they occur. Not so in the military.

The specific case that prompted the desire for this change was one involving the 3rd Air Force commander overturning the conviction of a Lt Col accused of sexual assault. He had been convicted by court martial. LTG Franklin made the decision to overturn the decision, throwing out the sex assault conviction.

I don't know the details of the case-but I do know that the general, in making his decision,  did not make it lightly. He knew full well how particularly sensitive these types of cases are and how much visibility anything with the "sex" word attached to it gets right now. So I am convinced that he must have had access to some pretty good mitigating information to make the very serious decision that he made. We will never know that-but I am confident he would not have made the decision flippantly. Overturning a conviction happens very rarely.

And it should be his decision to make. If he made the wrong decision-then fine. Fire him and find a new 3 star. But don't take away the commander's ability to fully exercise his authority. That in the long run is a big mistake and is setting the stage for some innocent person to be wrongly convicted and railroaded for the rest of his life. Court Martial do make mistakes.

We claim that we want to enforce a culture of accountability. And then we turn around and deny commanding officers the tools they need to exercise their authority and lead their subordinates in fairness. That's not smart.

Steadfastness.

A word to myself.

Some people won't be happy until they've pushed you to the ground. What you have to do is have the courage to stand your ground and not give them the time of day. Hold on to your power and never give it away.
 

One day at a time and remember-this too shall pass.

And trust me-its not pretty.

I have been in a very pessimistic mood lately. I think it has a lot to do with the transactional nature of the interactions we have with others on the internet. I’ll expand upon that in a couple of paragraphs, but it has me wondering whether the time has come to unplug entirely.  It would probably return a lot of time to me-but that said, I am not sure how I would use it. In the vernacular it is known by the more descriptive term, committing Internet suicide.

NOTE: Please not the word “Internet” in front of the “S” word. I am not mentally disturbed and will not do anything towards my real existence.

I first read about it in a computer article. Internet Suicide is the act of removing your online presence from cyberspace.

Sick of horribly embarrassing things showing up when potential employers Google your name? Tired of everyone knowing you live in a garden level dungeon apartment? Perhaps you just don't like the fact the internet makes you easy to find. Thankfully, it's not that hard to delete yourself entirely. Here's how to do it.

As most bloggers eventually discover, it’s hard to blog in anonymity forever. A lot of people now know my “real” identity and I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is the idea that people think they have a right to make comprehensive value judgments about a person based on solely on what one discusses or argues about on Facebook, in a blog, or on Twitter or any other venue. I am a lot more complex than that-and I think most people are the same way. Yet as I have pointed out in several humorous posts and not so humorous posts-gone on long enough-any internet discussion that goes on, spirals down into an angry oblivion. Especially in today’s politically polarized society. It is a coarsening factor in our American society-and its creating a lot of the political problems that we now have to deal with. Blogs and people were supposed to be better than that. Sadly, they are not.

The herd mentality is alive and well in the world of the blogosphere-a lot more so than when I started blogging back in 2005. The popular response is that “well both sides do it-it is not just a conservative thing”. That’s true-but there are differences between the way conservatives and liberals approach the tactics of internet discussions. Definitions of “civilized discussion” differ a lot. One man’s mannerly discussion is another man’s gang beating.

Conservatives tend to believe in moral absolutes a lot more than liberals seem to. Liberals-not near as much. ( Which is probably why they are liberal-they have seen the world and discovered the hard way that , in general, things are not simply black and white-but rather an overriding shade of gray).

Another thing is that conservatives hate it when you dismiss the source of their information. They come at you saying you are not discussing the main points or “dealing with issues”. I am sorry-in many cases the source is the issue. If you are quoting from Breitbart, the National Review, or several other sources-it means the veracity of the material you cite is suspect to begin with. Sorry, but it is true. There are many sources on the internet-not all of them are good. It is perfectly acceptable to be dismissive of the trash that resides in over half of Memeorandum. Liberals, I feel are not burdened so much-mainly because they place a higher value on providing scrutiny of sources anyway. The “well MSNBC is biased too” argument grows tiresome-they forget that MSNBC is not nearly as successful as Fox is. And as Jon Stewart loves to point out, they have not made it an art form to complain about control of content-while at the same time being the biggest practitioners of it.

One thing I have always been slow to recognize is that there are simply some people that can never be convinced-no matter how hard you try. These people live to make trouble and they love to reinforce their own self worth by trashing the merit of the other person. It has gotten me into online trouble far too often. More so in my early years of Facebooking and Blogging-but it still happens now.  The ideal solution to such a situation is never to play at all-or walk away early. It is not cowardly to that-its actually the more prudent path. Especially,  when you have been drinking. I have a hard time remembering that and I really need to do so. There are a lot of supremely self confident people out there who have perfect lives and hate your life because it does not meet their predetermined moral standard. It must be nice to have that level of self confidence. I know I don’t and certainly don’t place much value in their moral judgments anyway.

At some point, I believe, you have to come to peace with your internet personality-and accept yourself for who you are and be comfortable with who you are on line. If others don’t like that-it is their problem, not yours –and if that means you have to resort to the block button to regain some peace and sanity, then so be it. It’s a lot better than getting an ulcer. So I have made a resolution to be more comfortable in my own internet skin. I am who I am –and more importantly-you are never going to be me. So stop trying to tell me how to live my life.

If you are looking for a point in this post, there really isn’t one. I am writing to work through my own issues and and I am allowing you to be my “counselor” –so relax and enjoy the ride. This is nothing more than "a steam of my conciousness" post. I get to do that from time to time. Unlike the people in the lovely land of certitude-I do not believe in moral certitudes or self confidence. Such is the lot of the man of thought.

Help me to always give 100% at work
12% on Monday.
23% on Tuesday.
40% on Wednesday.
20% on Thursday.
5% on Friday.

And help me to remember…
When I'm having a really bad day,
and it seems that people are trying to piss me off,
that it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4…
to extend my middle finger and tell them to bite me!
Amen."

I have been watching with great interest the cries of anguish over the so called "scandals" that have your dyed in the wool member of the Teabag set, salivating and dreaming of the day they get their revenge. Just for grins I actually dropped in on the group "that prides itself on its civilized discussion"-even though they very seldom actually do that. The members of this community are, by and large,  are a self reinforcing community-trading conspiracy theories among themselves and viciously attacking anyone who dares to challenge the conventional orthodoxy.

"I got a chuckle out of the intolerant part. That really is a pretty good joke. Lex would have gotten a chuckle from it as well."

Probably he would have-because the simple truth was they could not see intolerance if it bit them in the ass. But just because they cannot recognize-or they choose not to recognize,  their shortcomings, does not mean they don't have them. I reinforced that knowledge quite well-I got my fair share of abuse and am good to go for about 6 months. No need to return.

In case you have been in cave somewhere-here is a rundown for you:

Alex Pareene at Salon has an entertaining rundown of the three “scandals” that could supposedly lead to the impeachment of the president: Benghazi, the AP phone logs and the IRS-Tea Party thing.

Pareene figures the Benghazi issue is kaput because the GOP stupidly focused on meaningless talking points on Sunday shows rather than the real issue, which was inadequate security. And since austerity-humpers in the House were slashing security budgets like Fruit Ninja addicts in Arcade Frenzy mode, it’s a good bet they don’t want to go there. That and the preening Sunday performances of would-be soap opera stars like Senators McCain and Graham led the GOP to focus on the dud aspect of the Benghazi affair, soiling a once-promising bit of dirty laundry.

Likewise, Pareene points out that while the AP logs issue may have a built-in advantage due to its implications for the very media that would be charged with ginning up impeachment-level outrage, the GOP can’t claim clean hands there either: The Republicans are the ones who demanded that the administration investigate the leaks that led to the AP investigation in the first place. And the GOP isn’t really opposed to spying on reporters, at least if Republicans get to do it sometimes. This might lead to another brogressive boner for Rand Paul, but perhaps nothing more.

According to Pareene, the jackpot scandal has got to be the IRS-Tea Party thing because, even if, as seems likely, no one at the White House knew about it, it’s the “conservative movement’s dream scandal.

He is most certainly right about the last part-the IRS "scandal" is a Tea Party wet dream. The agency they hate the most-second only to their hatred of Obama, screwed up in actually trying to do their job. Which was namely, to weed out hack political movements that are trying to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of the tax code, in order to hide the fact that their donations are not just from the grass roots.

Tea Partiers love to lecture you on how its not just one movement, but several. And they love the idea that it is a grass roots movement-not orchestrated at all. Never mind that it ignores the fact that the Tea Party was the rebranded rump of the Bush dead-enders. It was a convenient fiction that they all tell themselves in order to hide the fact that their policy prescriptions are nonsense, that they would directly suffer the most if their plans were enacted, and that they are in fact-being exploited by men a lot richer than themselves. The media conveniently cooperated too-clinging to the absurd notion that it was a genuine grassroots movement. And they cling to it still, "like turds to a moth-eaten pair of faux-Colonial breeches."

And so they are shrieking with glee that they may finally have the chance they have been dreaming about since January 20th 2009. They think they can , dare I say it, impeach Barak Obama.

Never mind that none of this hardly rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-never let the facts get in the way of a good, old fashioned, blood libel. The fact that they are so determined is enough to give any sober American pause. Pause and fear-that a significant portion of the nation's citizenry is so brutally demented.

I think the notion of impeachment is industrial-strength insane. There is utterly no proof that the President Obama even knew anything directly about the shifting Benghazi responses, let alone did something about them (yes, folks; under the Constitution, the President must do something). And as for the Internal Revenue Service story, from what we now know, those transgressions were committed by IRS staffers in Cincinnati who have never been closer to Obama than their television sets… Impeachment is crazy… and the idea that Obama has any direct culpability in either of these matters is, given what we know today, utter madness. Okay?

But this is my point: utter madness is what today’s Republicans do. You can present to me every logical argument you desire. Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office. I get all this, and I agree with you.

But what we think doesn’t matter. I can assure you that already in the Pavlovian swamps of the nutso right, the glands are swelling. Theirs is a different planet from the one you and I inhabit….

… They do their base’s bidding, not America’s. How many times do you need to see them do this before you accept that it is the reality? And now there’s an added element. They want to gin up turnout among their base for next year’s elections. And if they gin it up enough, and the Democratic base stays home, they could end up holding the House and taking the Senate. And if they have both houses, meaning that the vote in the House would not be certain to hit a Senate dead-end, well, look out.

I hope the White House knows this. I hope they understand, I hope the President himself understands, that the fever has not broken and will not break. It might crescendo right up to his very last day in office. And yes, a lot of this Benghazi stuff is about Hillary Clinton. But not all of it. And the IRS thing, which Drudge led with for two days in a row and may yet be bigger than Benghazi, isn’t about her at all. If my worst fears are never realized—well, good, obviously. But it will only be because they couldn’t identify even a flimsy pretext on which to proceed. Never put the most extreme behavior past them. It is who they are, and it is what they do.

Yes they are that messed up and they are that crazy. These people are not caricatures-they really exist.

And that should scare the bejesus out of you.

The S.O. actually got a part time job. So she can actually start paying some of her share of the load around here. ( Since she has seen fit to disdain to do her womanly duty with the requisite frequency).

Wonders will never cease.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

The New Asian Sirens web site is up and running! A great day for all connoisseurs of hot looking Asian tuna………..

Links to be updated this evening.

Speaking of things that are degrading to women, back in January,  Martin Van Creveld published a fine article in Small Wars Journal. In it he makes the point that got RDML Gaouette fired, namely that there is a double standard existing in today's military-and its one where one gender is in fact devalued-but its men that are being devalued, NOT women.

Last not least, as figures from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show, relative to their number military women are 90 percent less likely to be killed than military men. In other militaries around the world, incidentally, women’s share among the casualties is much lower still. Uniformed women, in other words, are not pulling their weight. Whether this is because public opinion will not stand for large numbers of dead servicewomen or because the women themselves have found a thousand ways to avoid going where the bullets are is immaterial. Probably both factors play a role. Instead of fighting, women get all the cushy jobs. For anyone who serves in the military, or whose livelihood depends on public approval, the prevailing climate of political correctness makes it impossible to mention the problem even in a whisper. Obviously, though, it is bound to have some effects on the morale of male personnel.

Van Creveld makes a key point about the thought processes behind the feminization of today's readiness. If you view the military as just another large corporation (in fact the largest American corporation) than increasing numbers of women in the force is just a reflection of the trend in society. So too are the large numbers of men unemployed and losing opportunity due to the reduced total numbers and increased numbers in the work force. Which is fine if you support the "corporate" point of view. On the other hand, " If the reason for having armed forces is to guarantee national security, then [having large numbers of women] the answer is clearly no."

As I have pointed out repeatedly in this space, discussions about women in uniform rarely deal with the true issues at hand and instead tend to focus on ideas of "fairness" and "opportunity"-when in fact the execution of wars in defense of the country is not a fair premise, and in a proper world would not exist at all.

So, it might do you well to understand the Professor's key point about what the "transformation" of our military force has wrought. You asked for it, you got it. Welcome to the world mediocrity built.

Looking back, clearly what we see is two long-term processes running in parallel. The first is the decline of U.S. armed forces (as well as all other Western ones, but that is not our topic here). The second is their growing feminization. Critics will object that, even as they were being downsized, the forces went through one qualitative improvement after another. In particular, the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs” is supposed to have increased their fighting power many times over. That, however, is an illusion. To realize this, all one has to do is look at Afghanistan. Over there, “illiterate” tribesmen—not, take note, tribeswomen—are right now about to force the U.S. to withdraw its troops after a decade of effort in which they achieved hardly anything.

Are the two processes linked? You bet they are. Consider a work by two female professors, Barbara F. Reskin and Patricia A. Roos, with the title Job Queues, Gender Queues. First published in 1990, it has since been quoted no fewer than 1,274 times. As they and countless other researchers, both male and female, have shown, over time the more women that join any organization, and the more important the role they play in that organization, the more its prestige declines in the eyes of both men and women. (emphasis mine) Loss of prestige leads to diminishing economic rewards; diminishing economic rewards lead to loss of prestige. As any number of historical examples has shown, the outcome is a vicious cycle. Can anybody put forward a reason why the U.S. military should be an exception to the rule?

Welcome to the brave new world. To hell with it!

Warning notice: I am leaving comments on. However if someone spirals down the same rat hole we went through last year-and refuses to discuss issues but instead engages in personal attacks, your comment will be deleted immediately.

This is why the Navy cannot have nice things.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered a close-up and comprehensive inspection of all military offices and workplaces worldwide to root out any “materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment.”

The extraordinary searches will be similar to those the Air Force conducted last year and prompted officers to scour troops’ desks and cubicles in search of photos, calendars, magazines, screen-savers, computer files and other items that might be considered degrading toward women.

The inspections will now target soldiers, sailors and Marines. They come amid heightened concern about sexual assault in the military and a new Defense Department report that suggests more than 70 troops every day experience some type of sexual assault.

To borrow a quote from comedian Rick Dukaman, " It's against the law to like beautiful women? Well, lock me up and take me to Russia".

It reminds me of the story a classmate told me once-about how some shrew fellow professional member of the team got upset with a "glamour shot" a guy kept of his wife on the desk in his office. Her complaint? It showed too much cleavage. Like that's a bad thing.

Besides it violates the Public Affairs Diktat Rule #1.

It is to weep………Guess I will have to take down my Lily Wong screensaver now.

Ever spend any time on a staff-or at Fleet Forces Command in the past 5 years? You know this scene quite well:

I have long maintained that the Navy has some serious problems that it refuses to address up front. Its biggest problem is not, despite the opinion of others, its coming need to replace its SSBN's. That's a problem-but its a distant one. The nearest problem for the US Navy is its continuing inability to address its OPTEMPO.  When a guy like Greenert can calmly say something like this, you know the Navy is well and truly fucked:

“Right now that’s just an estimate, but we think it’s just about right,” Greenert told Navy Times after his talk with sailors. “We’re expecting them to fall between eight and eight and a half [months] I project.”

I want that present my Sailors gave you in 2006 back.

Eight months should be the lone exception-not the rule, and the very fact that the USN seems compelled to do it is sign #1 that it is over committed and should do something about that.

Because what really happens is that 8 months normally becomes 9 months-at the drop of a hat. Gone are the days of six months portal to portal-and any extension required approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and had better have a good reason.

Does the Navy need to two carriers in the Gulf? No-and it finally came to that realization after the sequester hit. It should have been a decision made 4 years before. The Navy, in its quest to be "relevant" is eating itself. And it is going to find out just how much damage it has done to itself when the economy recovers and the companies start hiring and JO's and junior Sailors start leaving in droves.

Anything beyond six months sucks with a capital "S"-and should be avoided at all costs. There are ways to reduce OPTEMPO-and they need to be quickly considered. Here are a couple I can think of:

1) Divorce the service of the idea that the CV and the CVW always have to deploy together. Just as at the beginning of OIF there was no need for 5 carriers in the Gulf-maybe they needed 5 Air Wings ( something I truly doubt- especially as it became apparent what a long haul Iraq was going to be)- sometimes the wing can go forward without the carrier.

2) Look at rotating crews out at intervals. Go drastically at the "Navy's overhead"-its shore establishment to free up bodies to do more meaningful work at sea.

3) Finally, learn how to say no.

This cannot go on-and that it has gone on this long without a large number of people fired for their inept management-is beyond me.

I could go on and on about the ways 8 months could be avoided-but it is clear no one is listening. Welcome to 1972. Did we learn nothing in 40 years?

Nothing to see here folks, move along. Don't ask yourself the obvious question of , "would a man have been allowed to serve beyond a DOPMA limits in grade?" Of course not.

Vice Adm. Michelle Howard was nominated for reappointment to the rank of vice admiral today by President Obama, a move that allows three-star officers to serve longer than 38 years without being promoted.

But if you disagree about her qualifications, well,  go back and look here for the results.