Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Further Musings prompted by Sgt. Mom

    Posted by Ginny on December 7th, 2017 (All posts by )

    Another Minnesotan, whose reputation like Keillor’s is pretty tawdry, seems about to be pushed from the Senate. Well, I am not all that sorry. Franken is reputed to be truly obnoxious. I was appalled by his posturing during the questioning of Gorsuch; his first election was shady. But Minnesotans re-elected him. The willingness of the Senate Democrats to discard him may say something about his general unpleasantness but probably a good deal more about their political calculations – recording preening, virtue signaling statements for use later.

    Given his colleagues’ demands, we might remember the first came from Gillibrand. This is the woman who tied herself firmly to the Clintons, both of whose actions toward women were far more despicable than anything Franken has been charged with; on the other hand, she was quite willing to destroy the accused and comfort the accuser in what turned out (as any mature person expected) a hoax (or delusion) by a drama queen with mental problems, mattress babe. She dealt cynically and opportunistically with a girl who needed counseling a good deal more than a seat at Obama’s “State of the Union” address.

    Perhaps my experience has been uglier than others (clearly than friends who consider the charge that Franken forced a sloppy kiss on an unwilling damsel a major act), but even if all the charges were true, they seem more crass than prosecutable. Not that he isn’t a thug. He should have had better friends who held him to account and told him he was a louse; he should have developed a reign on his ego and his impulses; he should have learned humility -would this were his lesson.

    I certainly don’t want our standards to be defined by the shifts in the democratic caucus which has shown itself repeatedly unwilling to deal with either graft or lechery except in an opportunistic way.

    And maybe we had to go through this crap to get over Woodstock (etc.), but surely the goal for men (and women) is an inner check – one more common than might seem from these scandals. We would like fathers to teach sons and their community (especially the males with whom they bonded) to reinforce the values of a gentleman which should be virtues so often practiced they become second nature. Then, respecting, cherishing and even protecting women comes automatically – as it is as men protect women, risking their lives or merely gently holding doors open. We would like representatives who are gentlemen. Of course some men beat their wives, some men put their hands up women’s skirts, and some men harass underlings. These are not the majority, but probably a larger percentage do who are politicians/celebrities/immensely wealthy and have been tempted by the perks of those positions. I suspect a gentleman does not want his son to think of him as a “player” but maybe he likes it if his pride has been massaged 27 times by the voters of his district.

    So, here’s something removed (or not). I avoid the msm so haven’t heard much of Fox’s troubles. O’Reilly had seemed a bit of a bully and certainly sufficiently confident to have not considered no a real answer. (I figure most of these guys thought they were Sean Connery and most of the women saw them as the pervert that creeped into the next theater seat.) Such delusions by the “heroes” of their own dramas should have been checked: the consequences when we leave reality are often harsh and properly so. Probably a swift slap or sarcasm works for the only mildly deluded. But for others reality awaits to bite them in the rear. The joke about Weinstein at the Academy Awards (that now these women were nominated for best actress and they wouldn’t have to pretend to like Weinstein) was pointed and said much about his delusions and the industry’s opportunism.

    I wasn’t a fan of Eric Bolling but, I was used to seeing him for five minutes before Baier. His son’s suicide has been in the back of my mind through these following scandals. I haven’t seen references to it (and haven’t really searched online to know more – that I know that fact seems enough of an intrusion). But if that didn’t make men pause and consider the consequences of their actions (though imagining the woman before them as having integrity and pride might also be nice), I don’t know what would. And it highlights the complexity when the personal realm of sex isn’t walled off from the public one of work (Pence’s wisdom in drawing those distinctions seems more and more wise). And, yes, that’s tragedy.

     

    24 Responses to “Further Musings prompted by Sgt. Mom”

    1. Bill Brandt Says:

      “And maybe we had to go through this crap to get over Woodstock (etc.), but surely the goal for men (and women) is an inner check – one more common than might seem from these scandals. We would like fathers to teach sons and their community (especially the males with whom they bonded) to reinforce the values of a gentleman which should be virtues so often practiced they become second nature. Then, respecting, cherishing and even protecting women comes automatically – as it is as men protect women, risking their lives or merely gently holding doors open. We would like representatives who are gentlemen.”

      Ginny, at age 67 I have seen a lot. Went through a time in the 70s when holding a door open for a woman would just as easily get you a scowl, with an “I’m not helpless” admonition.

      There is tons of hypocracy in Hollywood and Congress (no great revaluation there).

      My 93 year old mother and I have had a few discussions on this. She, from another time, makes a good point. If you are a woman and don’t have enough sense to stay out of Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom or Charlie Rose’s bathroom (where he keeps his shower unless he has one in his office?) you should not be surprised at what ensues.

      Me, I made the point (maybe self projecting?) that most of us men have dirty little minds but most have enough sense (or decency) to recognize women as human beings first and govern our behavior.

      Still, I have to think for a young woman to see Harvey Weinstein emerge au naturel and not run for the hills – egad – how bad do they want to be in show business? Or seeing Charlie Rose emerge from a shower? As my late aunt would say, That’s enough to make a dog throw up

    2. dearieme Says:

      Maybe show biz and politics attract not only bullying males but also sluttish women who are inclined to let them have their way. Should there be more fuss about misbehaviour towards women in the sorts of businesses populated by a better grade of female?

    3. Jonathan Says:

      I suspect a gentleman does not want his son to think of him as a “player”

      I’d think a player would have looks and/or social skills that attracted women. Weinstein and some of these other guys seem more like essentially unpleasant men whose positions of power gave them access to ambitious young women. IOW they didn’t need to be players.

      most of us men have dirty little minds

      Old guys lust after pretty young women. Woman lust after high-status men. Two sides of the same coin.

    4. Ginny Says:

      Conyers was younger, but again it may be a son’s perspective (or spin – or the way a son might want to describe what someone else would see as unattractive in act and person). (A link from this.) And the modeling effect of a father really comes through.

      Jonathan sums up neatly why this messy virtue signaling isn’t going to last. But keeping our children’s point of view in mind might have a positive effect on our actions – or perhaps it is the bourgeois gentleman who does that, too, automatically.

    5. dearieme Says:

      The Right Coast blog quotes a wag who refers to Groperdämmerung.

    6. Mike K Says:

      ” his first election was shady.”

      His first “election” was vote fraud and Colemen let him get away with it by being unprepared/too passive,

      Transgender military is back. We are to have another “training session” on it tomorrow.

      On the present sexual “molestation” hysteria, I recommend this Fernandez column.
      A sample: Opposed to the Deplorables are “liberals turned radicals” called the “Resistance.” In the words of the New York Times, “Donald Trump’s election inspired such moral revulsion and political outrage that … parts of the American electorate had taken to calling themselves ‘the resistance,’ evoking the guerrillas who took to the hills and fought the Nazis during World War II … self-styled revolutionaries.”

      After a period of sheer disbelief these liberal revolutionaries are now going head to head with the Deplorable rebels. The game’s afoot and nobody can easily call it off.

      Which will win has yet to be determined by history. All one can do is compare their present strengths and strategies. In the matter of strength there should be no contest. A survey of federal government employees has the liberals over the Deplorables by almost 19 to 1. Over 99% of Department of Education employees backed Hillary.

      Read the rest, as Insty says,

    7. David Foster Says:

      Claire Berlinski on the Warlock Hunt

    8. PenGun Says:

      “And maybe we had to go through this crap to get over Woodstock (etc.),”

      Here is your problem. We tried to show you the way, but no, you knew better. We hippies still wonder why you did not take our example and learn to live like humans, rather than whatever you have become since.

      “Hi ho” Kurt Vonnegut’s comment on Dresden.

    9. Sharon W Says:

      “…the consequences when we leave reality are often harsh and properly so. Probably a swift slap or sarcasm works for the only mildly deluded. But for others reality awaits to bite them in the rear.” Well-put and so true!

    10. Anonymous Says:

      “A survey of federal government employees has the liberals over the Deplorables by almost 19 to 1. Over 99% of Department of Education employees backed Hillary.”

      That my friend is what is known in the military as a target rich environment. If you want to drain the swamp, we have a great placer to start.

      Death6

    11. Anonymous Says:

      >Transgender military is back. We are to have another “training session” on it tomorrow.

      Why? How?

      Why aren’t there legions of pissed off servicemen writing Mattis and the CiC asking WTF this has to do with war fighting?

      Why is one rogue judge able to cockblock the military chain of command?

      Why is Mad Dog seemingly helpless before the administrative shenanigans of people that are supposed to be working for him, but act more like Soviet-era moles?

      Why are we supine for this Orwellian BS?

    12. Mike K Says:

      Why aren’t there legions of pissed off servicemen writing Mattis and the CiC asking WTF this has to do with war fighting?

      I thought Trump had ended it and taken the generals off the hot seat but I guess these are still Obama generals and are acting accordingly.

      The training was “top secret” as they are still writing the regs.

      Millennials, I am told, think 25% of the population is gay, I guess this is just more absence of math skills.

      The descriptions of some of the complications are pretty hilarious. “Females” with male genitals, for example. No pregnancy test is necessary for them, though.

    13. MCS Says:

      What about those that feel that they have too many arms or legs? An amputation is much simpler than sex reassignment.

      It seems so clear to me that all these are profoundly troubled people that have latched onto the notion that “this” change would solve all of their problems. How having them work this out in a war zone, let alone a battle field, is in anyone’s interest escapes me. Flat feet probably remains too much of a possible liability.

    14. Brian Says:

      Manning was a known transgender wannabe before being deployed. Once deployed, it was clear he had no business being there, so they made sure to put him in a position where he couldn’t get anyone killed. As an analyst in a trailer with access to all government communications. Genius, right? His being transgender was widely known during his trial, but the media refused to report it. Clearly his team thought it would hurt his case. Then as soon as convicted it was determined it would gain him sympathy, so it became public. The fact that his sentence was commuted, while this Russia collusion garbage is ongoing, is a complete disgrace.

    15. Bill Brandt Says:

      @Brian – what i do not understand to this day is why they would put a Pfc in with virtually every govt secret – certainly compartmentalization is critical – or am I missing something? ;-)

    16. dearieme Says:

      “Once deployed, it was clear he had no business being there ..”: were there no posts available as bandsman, medical orderly, stretcher bearer, or on ceremonial duties or kitchen duties? What about logistics? Armies must have solved problems like his since time immemorial. Why was it beyond the US army?

    17. Mike K Says:

      “Maybe show biz and politics attract not only bullying males but also sluttish women who are inclined to let them have their way”

      Yes. Exhibitionism is a common characteristic of both groups.

      A commenter at Althouse points out that actors were considered as the same class as prostitutes until quite recently,

      I personally think the 19th Amendment along with TV have ruined politics. Of course , it wasn’t all that clean before.

      I am reading “Grant” and men did a pretty good job of corruption then but that was true back to classical Athens

    18. Grurray Says:

      I believe the traditional solution was canon fodder.

      All kidding aside, the problem wasn’t so much his deployment but the military classification system. Manning downloaded a few damaging secrets interspersed with hundreds of thousands of mundane bits of information like newspaper articles. Anything and everything can be stamped secret and lumped into the same bin. When everything is secret very soon nothing is going to remain secret.

    19. Brian Says:

      My recollection is that most if not all of what he stole was not even classified at all, due to differences in how State does things vs. Defense, so overclassification isn’t really the culprit. Someone figured that trying to increase sharing post-911 meant unclass stuff should be easily accessed by everyone.

      The military is above all else a massive bureaucracy, and no one gets stars on their shoulders for implementing a secure computer system, or a personnel process for quickly getting a menace shipped back to the states.

    20. Anonymous Says:

      “…no one gets stars on their shoulders for implementing a…personnel process for quickly getting a menace shipped back to the states.” [and out of the service ASAP]

      Correct, especially if they are a member of a specially protected snow flake group. That is the stuff of the media proclaiming the Big Green Machine is trampling on a poor, powerless victim based on White Male Privilege fostered institutional intolerance and lack of group sensitivity training.

      Send in the clowns.

      Death6

    21. Grurray Says:

      It’s my understanding from the DoD assessment ironically leaked thus summer that the most of the diplomatic cables were unclassi tactical reports from CENTCOM were

    22. Grurray Says:

      Sorry, bad connection. Changing cable companies soon.

      The report said the diplomatic cables were unclassified, but 400,000 CENTCOM tactical reports were classified up to ‘Secret– NOFORN’.

    23. Anonymous Says:

      In a theater of active operations, almost any real time reports of immediate past, current or future locations, movements, intensions and status are secret. That is as it must be to preserve operational security. This information is key to the enemy to target their operations and avoid ours. Even past operations, etc. require safeguarding to prevent analysis for determining our trends, patterns, capabilities, knowledge of the enemy, and sources of information.

      Obviously, the higher one goes in the level of command, the more sensitive the access is due to the compilation and scope of the aggregated info accessible. REMFs is a descriptive term for the mischief the higher levels can and often do to the front line troops, whether by neglect or intension. And not just in operational security.

      Imbedded civilians such as media, biographers/donut dollies and quasi-civilians, i.e. lawyers and contractors have greatly facilitated compromise of the front line unit operations with the active support of the upper levels of the chain of command.

      As to the Obama GO’s versus the Trump GO’s, there is no substantive difference. The membership rules are still largely bureaucratic and political. They all have risen in that system and hope to in the future. Their follow on field grades are groomed by the same system. Trump may have picked some key position guys from the litter, but there wasn’t much to pick from. The risk takers, warriors and innovators are systematically weeded out while the amoral, politically astute, managerial and cautious have survived at each cut. Even “Mad Dog” Mattis has embraced the transgenders, homosexuals and women in infantry squads, etc. We are on the cusp of finally breaking the internal cohesion of the tip of the spear units as these indulgences are forced to the front line. At that point we will have an institutionalized second rate military and little realistic hope of ever reversing that.

      These GO’s have never risked falling on their sword for anything and aren’t going to. They view their role as doing the best they can with blanket acceptance of the politically correct destructive policies and bureaucratic overhead imposed by the same swamp that controls 40% of our economy and all of our political system. Since each accommodation opposed to combat effectiveness has been able to be implemented without abject failure or attributed significant increases in casualties and degraded performance (but they know the truth), the trajectory is bound to continue until such time that it reaches that point where it is smoke and mirrors.

      Death6

    24. Grurray Says:

      Sure thing, Death. We can all agree that loose lips sink ships.

      But 400,000 lips? Over 5000 per month?
      Also 4 million people now have some kind of security clearance. Chances are it gives most of them access to something or other that shouldn’t see the light of day.

      The beast has just become too big.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.