Часть I: http://david-2.livejournal.com/451423.
Ну а теперь мы добрались и до танковых войск конкретно.
На самом деле возможность для женщин служить танкистами проверялась и в 2001, и в 2009, и результаты тоже были отрицательные, просто это не привлекло особого внимания. В 2002 в качестве промежуточной меры и эксперимента шесть женщин было допущено на небоевые должности механиков танков в танковой школе. По отрицательным результатам в 2004 приняли решение больше женщин на эти должности не принимать, главным образом из-за проблем с поднятием тяжестей. В 2014-2015 танковые и медицинские войска провели большое исследование, где снова проверяли возможность для женщин служить танкистами. Результаты показали неспособность переносить требуемые физические нагрузки, в первую очередь для заряжающего и водителя, а также невозможность обеспечить нормальные условия службы смешанного экипажа в танке, поэтому решение было принято отрицательное.
( Read more... )
В мае 2015 после решения АОИ не открывать для женщин должности танкистов и соответствующего шума в СМИ меня попросили написать об этом отдельный пост. Тогда меня посередине отвлекли другие дела, но сейчас аналогичный шум прошел снова, и меня снова попросили. Поэтому я его дописал.
Сначала общие положения.
1) Задача армии это оборона государства, а не продвижение равноправия, самореализации и т.д. Теоретически с этим обычно согласны, но раз за разом в дискуссиях я вижу, что это каждый раз необходимо подчеркивать, чтобы не забывали. Все за и против нужно рассматривать именно в свете этой задачи.
2) В плане распределения личного состава это превращается в вопрос его эффективного использования для боеспособности армии. Боеспособность мы понимаем как совокупность характеристик подразделения либо части, включая расходы на достижение требуемых показателей и получаемый на выходе "товар".
3) Речь идет не про абстрактную армию в вакууме, а про реальную АОИ с ее реальными характеристиками: география, демография, ТВД, метод комплектации, условия службы, способы применения. Отсылки к иностранным армиям релевантны только для конкретных деталей, а не как аналогия в целом.
( Read more... )
Но Вагнер ЧВК - и девять их осталось.
Девять ополчат ведут "народный суд",
Но нас покинул призрак, осталось восемь тут.
Восемь ополчат на свадьбу едут в дом,
Один грозился флэшкой - остались всемером.
Семь ополчат - судимость, вроде, есть.
Посылка в Первомайск - и их осталось шесть.
Шесть ополчат сидели "на подвале" -
Один теперь "висит", а пятеро сбежали.
Пять ополчат в оплот играли в тире,
Но легкий "ветерок" и их теперь четыре.
Четыре ополченка шутили про абхазов
Один остался в лифте, а три ушли на базу.
Important Question for the GOP "Intellectual" Class: What Percentage of the GOP Do You Estimate Actually Are Irredeemably Racist Deplorables?
There are several possible answers to this.
One answer -- which "Consistent Conservatives" used to offer as a matter of course -- is that of course there are some racists and anti-Semites in the GOP, or at least who try to mix in GOP circles, but 1, this is a small fraction of the GOP, a fringe which has no power nor influence, and 2, the Democrat Party has a roughly equal fraction of racists and anti-Semites. Probably more, actually.
Witness Obama's condemnation of those ill-educated racists of Pennsylvania who "cling bitterly to their guns and religion" and harbor a hatred of those who look different or hail from different countries.
Another possible answer is that there are so many racists -- or near-racists ready to become full racists are soon as the Go Sign, the Racist Bat Signal, is flashed up to the sky -- that it requires the extreme measure of throwing a presidential election to make sure that this faction is checked and the party is kept from being "hijacked" by this largish force.
No conservatives have previously claimed this -- though a lot of ex-conservatives have claimed it on their way out the door, in their The Party Left Me salutation.
So for the NeverTrumpers making the argument that Trump must be stopped to keep this faction from being "empowered:"
Just how large of a force do you think these Racist, Anti-Semitic GOPers constitute?
Apparently the latter -- apparently it's such a large fraction that if they are given any succor, anything that Team Racist can call a "win" on Twitter, the party will naturally and inexorably join the Dark Side and hate on minorities.
So it seems that question is answered, by implication.
So let me ask you some more interesting questions:
1. At what point did you realize the party was jam-packed full of racists and anti-semites, so many, in fact, that it becomes a moral necessity to tank an election to prevent them from taking over the country?
Have you always suspected this? Or did this revelation occur the day Trump won enough delegates to become nominee?
And if it's the latter: Do you think maybe you're living in the echoes of a powerful emotional experience, and perhaps should discount your emotional response a little bit?
2. Do you think that, after you successfully throw the election to Hillary, all these racist voters can be successfully re-programmed to be non-racist?
Or do you just hope to use the racists for more useful ends, such as being needed votes for TPP and amnesty and bombing Syria or whatever?
On that last point: If you intend to re-assimilate the racists into your party to regain political power, but use them to your own ends, you're still kinda depending on/courting these racists, aren't you?
3. Assuming, once again, you agree that the party is so stocked with racists and anti-semites that it's necessary to throw an election to keep their twisted claws off any kind of real political power: In what sense do you disagree with Hillary Clinton's claim that "about half" of Trump's supporters could be put into a "basket of deplorables," irredeemable in their racism?
It seems to me the only sense you could disagree with her is in aninsincere sense. You would disagree out of obligation -- without actually finding any large error in her claim. Maybe you'd disagree it's not one half of Trump voters; merely two fifths.
4. If you really believe the party is this stuffed with Jim Crow revanchists, White Supremacists, and outright Nazis -- what could possibly compel you to remain part of such a disgusting company?
I know if I believed those premises, I wouldn't stay.
I know, for example, that I now believe the party to be controlled by people with very deep cultural sympathies to the urban left, to such an extent they feel more of a tribal loyalty to the left than with the party they ostensibly champion - and that alone is enough to drive me out of the party.
I personally have no more emotional attachment to it -- and note that my objection is a lot less serious than objecting that it's a nest of vicious racists.
So what's keeping you guys here, if the party is indeed so filled with irredeemable deplorables?
I expect absolutely no answers to these questions, by the way.
It has become the practice that the conservative media, like the liberal media it shares so many affinities and inclinations with, to ignore any impertinent questions from the cultural inferiors whose opinions must be managed, guided, and kept on the road via cultural guard-rails.
5. We're still all claiming the Southern Strategy wasn't racist though, right? We're all still on board with that spin, huh?
PPS: Are you guys who think the party is chock-a-block with racists sure you're not just spending too much time on Twitter?
Yes, it was a weird, alarming thing when several hundred "CelticWarrior69" and "OdinsTears77" accounts sprung up at once and began tweeting out racist and anti-semitic memes.
But many of you suspect -- with good reason-- that many of those accounts are actually bogus accounts created by Russian Intelligence to fuck with American politics.
So... why are they being treated as real in some circumstances, and fake in others?
Also: Do you not get that Twitter isn't real?
It's, at most, a simulacrum of the real world. It is emphatically not the real world, however.
You know that, right?
The map is not the territory, guys.
Last night I wrote:
The establishment right, sharing zip codes, baristas, and beds with the left, are past-masters at confirming and enforcing New Thought Control Rules the left just initiated five minutes ago.
What to know what massive changes the left imposed on society ten years ago? Just look at the things the right is currently enforcing the rules on -- and that tells you what victories the left won a decade past.
Basically, the right has a fetish about enforcing rules, even rules they violently disagreed with ten years ago. But as soon as the left makes it a rule that has a bare plurality of the country's support, the right is Ready to Die for That Hill.
The hills the right is ready to die for seem to be only the hills that the left itself has built and fortified.
I first noticed the creeping Social Justice Warriorism in the case of Sarah Palin.
There were various claims made that the left was attacking her because she was a woman. To some extent, that was true; as a woman with a magnetic charisma, she posed a threat to the left's coalition-wrangling efforts. Therefore it was especially urgent that she be destroyed.
However, the attacks against her were usually not "genderized," as the Social Justice Warriors would say. The attacks were animated by her gender -- or, more accurately, the threat Sarah Palin posed to their political lock on women -- but they usually did not mention gender.
Yet some on the right -- encouraged by Sarah Palin -- began claiming they did.
It began with some remark Obama made about Sarah Palin trying to refashion herself as a moderate or something, where he said "you can't put lipstick on a pig" or something like that.
There was suddenly a hue and cry -- they're saying she's a pig! Because she's a woman!
Was he really saying this?
Note in this situation, there are two ways to make an issue of someone's words.
The first is "What if a Republican said it?" Here you'd argue that if a Republican said this, the left would claim, disingenuously, that the statement was for some reason Forbidden Words, a Speechcrime. And then one can argue the left should suffer the penalty it would itself impose on others.
Note, however, that this argument does not actually buy into the claim being made by the left. It is saying that, since this is the left's rule, pushed by the left, used to hunt scalps for the left, the left should be the first to observe it. The left made this Procrustian bed; they should be the ones most willing to lie down in it, to check it for comfort and fit.
Actually, this argument is, implicitly, an argument against the Left's claim here, because the argument being made, though usually not stated, runs like this: Since the people pushing this bullshit rule are unwilling to abide by it themselves, it's not really any sort of ethically-sound "rule" at all; it is simply a partisan attack selectively applied to political enemies to disadvantage them. As it's no "rule" at all, the "rule," and the left pushing for this bullshit, should be disregarded and indeed derided as dishonest and special-pleading.
The other argument that could be made -- and in fact frequently was made by the right -- was thatthis really is an "attack on women," and women really do deserve to be "protected" against such affronts to their feminine dignity like saying "you can't put lipstick on a pig," and, generally, that women are owed a Special Level of Protection just like any other "minority." (And note: Women are the majority.)
Claiming that it really is an egregious Speechcrime to say of a woman's political claims that you "can't put lipstick on a pig" is exactly like saying of a political plan put forth by an Asian, "the chink in the armor is the problem of who pays for all this."
Or of saying of a budget put forward by a black politician, "the budget is too niggardly as regards defense spending."
Yes, you certainly could jump up and down like a retard screaming that "chink in the armor" is a dog whistle intended to disparage the Asian politician (even if he is of Japanese descent, and thus is not even covered by the "chink" slur), and yes, you could choose to show off your illiteracy and claim "niggardly" is derived from the slur for blacks, but you'd be an idiot and a special-pleading, identity-politics liberal Cultural Marxist for doing so.
And the right used to say just that.
Until Sarah Palin began encouraging her supporters to brand every attack on her as an attack on girls, and began pitching her political appeal, and directing her political endorsements, to women above all others.
I first noticed this going on at Twitchy, I'm sad to say, because I used to like that site. Some of the writers there would take a leftist's insult or words which could be construed as having a double-meaning and use the first sort of argument -- What if a Republican had said this?
Fine. That is perfectly fair to do. Certainly the left would club you over the head with such an attack. It's completely reasonable to ask why the left does not abide by the rules they impose on others.
But a lot of writers there began crossing the line to explicitly endorsing the left's "rule," not just asking "What if a Republican had said this?," but arguing (implicitly) that the Marcottes and Valentis of the world were actually right all along, and women are in fact owed special protections not extended to men, and damnit, they wanted those protections themselves.
This spread further than Republican (or "conservative") women, of course. The left tried to trigger men's protective instincts about women for years, asking "What if this was your daughter?" and so on. Trying to cast Feminism's goal of casting men as infected by "Toxic Masculinity" as some kind of "family-friendly, pro-Christian-morality" measure.
Note that half of Republican policy consists of endorsing and enacting the policy goals of the left, simply by recasting them with a (slight) pretense of a conservative basis -- oh we can have universal health-care, as long as they're based on "market-based" solutions, and oh, we can a bit of industrial-policy protectionism in the inner cities, by just calling them "Enterprise Zones" and pretending this is a "free market solution."
The right is forever making up "conservative" reasons why it must now pursue the left's agenda as its own.
Little by little, "conservative" men began buying into this. Slowly they began embracing the idea that, because they'd sired a daughter themselves, suddenly any man expressing a sexual interest in a completely unrelated and random woman was, kinda-sorta, by some alchemy not precisely explained, insulting the dignity of his daughter.
The left succeeded in convincing many men of the right that their machismo and natural instincts to protect those close to them meant that they must, in order to be a man, shriek over the idea of a dude having sexual thoughts about any woman.
And thus, the birth of the Dad Avenger, an otherwise conservative-leaning dad who'd been seduced into endorsing, in major part, the feminist agenda of speech and thought patrolling.
I sort of understand how one's natural protective instincts for one's actual flesh and blood could be leveraged this way, but I do have to note this -- it's become a meme on the right to mock the left for "not knowing where babies come from."
When the left claims that "transwomen" (read: men) should be included in any law about pregnancy or abortion, the right gleefully mocks, "I guess the people who Love Science don't understand that you need a womb and eggs to become pregnant."
I have to ask these same people: Where do you think babies come from?
Because, prior to the physical action of sex -- assuming this is a consensual situation, which is usually is -- there is a physical attraction, that is, a sexual attraction, on the part of one or both of the parties who will ultimately consummate their sexual desires.
Where do you think babies are going to come from if this sexual desire (which, get this, sometimes also affects women as well as men) is effectively outlawed as anti-social affrontery to the dignity of women?
And, as to the Dad Avengers, the well-meaning conservative men who have been convinced by the left that simply because they themselves had a daughter, they must now shriek and glower over any other man expressing any interest in any other woman:
Do you denounce yourselves as well? You know, your wife was also "someone's daughter," and yet I imagine -- ideally -- you had sexual urges pointed in her direction. I assume -- if this a more ideal situation -- your sexual interest in your wife is not wholly directed towards childbirth and other such enduring, life-affirming goals; I assume that there might be a little somethn'-somethin' of sexual gratification on your own end too.
And if you say, "Yes, but I married her and treat her with respect" and et cetera, um, yes, but was she the first woman you ever slept with?
I imagine most of the Dad Avengers have slept with other women before their wives. Did theyalways have childbirth and marriage on their minds when doing so?
Do they curse themselves for having sullied Someone's Daughters in pursuing their own selfish desire for sexual gratification?
When they watch porn -- or ogle a cheerleader -- or have an unchaste memory of a previous girlfriend -- do they curse themselves for thinking impure thoughts about Someone's Daughter?
I don't think they do. I think this is all bullshit. I think people are really, really good -- amazing, actually -- at finding reasons to judge and criticize others, thus reducing the target's status andimplicitly rasing the status of the person doing the judging, and yet somehow managing to completely forget that he himself is guilty of the same sins. Either he conveniently forgets this, or he invents a quickie explanation as to how it was "different" or that there were extenuating circumstances.
A lot of people love living in a place called Pretendistan. Pretendistan is a place where we can pretend that No Honorable Man ever has any sexual thoughts about a woman, but whose sexual drive is employed for one reason only: to obey the command of God Himself to be fruitful and multiply.
And if he finds himself up at three a.m. one night masturbating furiously to an xhamster video about lesbian cheerleaders: Well, he'll excuse that away as "just practicing," so to speak, for actual procreative sex. Just keeping his hand in, I suppose.
And definitely no worries that those two women going down on each other like sharks with big tits who haven't eaten in a month are Somebody's Daughter.
And meanwhile "conservative" women who've bought into the idea of Pretendistan want no man ever to have sexual thoughts about other women -- you know, their sexual competitors, the ones they're in direct competition with for status and mating opportunities -- and do not want any man to ever have sexual thoughts about themselves.
Except, of course, The Cute Boys.
The Cute Boys, the ones they actually have sexual thoughts about themselves, are not only invited to have sexual thoughts about them, but, coming soon, I'm sure we'll be hearing they're morally required to have such thoughts.
Anything Princess wants, Princess gets.
Are you allowed to have sexual thoughts about a woman? Well, if you're Not Cute, the answer is no. If you are Cute, the answer is you cannot have sexual thoughts about anyone except Princess.
If you have sexual thoughts about a woman who doesn't look like Princess, then that is, implicitly, saying Princess doesn't cut it in your own private mental sexual marketplace, and that makes Princess feel bad, and that insults her dignity as a woman.
I don't live in Pretendistan. I live in America, or whatever the fuck is left of its ruins.
I do not pretend that men do not have sexual thoughts about women, or, let's be real here ladies, that women do not have sexual thoughts about men.
Often without their consent!, if you can believe such an outrage.
Now I'm usually not one of those men women have sexual thoughts about, so I guess I could and should shriek "I'm offended!" and scream that women must have no sexual thoughts about any other man (so that I am myself not disadvantaged in the mating race), but again, I choose to live in the real world, where people might be attracted to people more attractive than me, and where sometimes people I'm not attracted to are attracted to me, and I don't feel the need or the right to shriek about this State of Unfair Affairs because I believe in freedom of thought and speech, and I ergo do not patrol the minds of others for Forbidden Thoughts, nor silence the mouths of others from speaking Forbidden Words.
And most of the right used to believe this too.
Until they became Social Justice Warriors, and decided that they mostly agreed with the elite, taste-making class of the urban educated (white) left (and go figure on that one, huh?!), and really just had a couple of tweaks here and there to the List of Officially Outlawed Thoughts and Words.
I've got two words for the Social Justice Warriors of the Right, and those words aren't "Girls Rule."
Украинские хакеры воспроизводили гимн Украины через системы видеонаблюдения в разных учреждениях оккупированного Крыма.
Хакерам удалось получить доступ к ряду систем видеонаблюдения в Крыму. Использовав камеры с возможностью двухсторонней аудиосвязи была организована трансляция Гимна Украины в некоторых учреждениях Крыма.
Реакцию услышавших украинский гимн людей запечатлели на видео. Ролик появился на канале YouTube.
( ВИДЕО )
И эти люди запрещают нам ковыряться в носу...
- Пожалуйста, задавайте ваши вопросы.
- Скажите, а Игорь Владимирович запомнил лицо нападавшего?
- Нет, потому, что нападавший был в маске. - И в ластах! - Да, в ластах. Чтобы быстрее передвигаться по воде.
- Послушайте, а что, вашего кандидата не охраняют? - Охраняют. - А где ж тогда была служба безопасности во время покушения?
- Отвечает Ростислав.- Благодарю. Дело в том, что служба безопасности…в это же время... обезвреживала второго нападавшего. Он отвлёк внимание охраны тем, что устроил дебош в ресторане.
- А второй тоже приплыл на матрасе? - Да. Дело в том, что это был двуспальный матрас.
- Неужели вся служба безопасности занималась задержанием одного дебошира? Как-то сразу возникает вопрос о её квалификации.
- Да просто основные силы охраны в этот момент обезвреживали третьего члена банды!
- Вообще-то следователь просил нас не разглашать эту конфиденциальную информацию, но действительно приходится признать, был и третий нападавший, который… Дело в том, что он…
- А он минировал корабль. Вот вы видите мину? Вот она. Именно её нашли у нас в трюме сапёры. Ещё буквально секунда и мы бы все взлетели на воздух.
- Но всё обошлось! Правда, Игорь Владимирович не может говорить. - Но всё понимает!
1968-1974: Acolyte of arch-fiend and communist terrorist Saul Alinsky http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-
1974: She was fired from her role in the Watergate proceedings due to "Ethically Flawed Procedures" and her superior said he "could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-
1975: She defended a child rapist that she knew was guilty, using victim blaming smear tactics against a 12 year old girl. Later, she laughed about it. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/
1978: She invested $1000 in a cattle investment that should have cost $12,000 and after 10 months the investment turned a $100,000 profit. Either malfeasance or she is a trading savant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
1978-1989: Whitewater land deal. More shady investment profits for Bill and Hillary http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
1984-85: Rose Law firm; scandalous associations with the Madison S&L (related to Whitewater), the records of which were "lost" when subpoenaed but miraculously turn up in the White House in 1996 http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/
1993: Vince Foster; she either had him killed or browbeat him to suicide. She ransacked his office for embarrassing and incriminating files before his corpse was cold https://books.google.com/books?id=
1996: Selling Defense secrets to the Chinese. The Clintons took bribes from communist Chinese defense ministers via the intermediary Johnny Chung in order to allow the transfer of sensitive technology to the ChiComs http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/
2000: Pardons for pay. On their way out of the White House, the Clintons sold presidential pardons via Hugh Rodham (Hillary's brother). http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/the-
2001: Looting the White House. On their way out of the White House, the Clintons stole historic furniture and vandalized and defaced offices. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/
1996-2016: Having a Muslim Brotherhood agent as a girl Friday/ concubine. Huma Abedin has deep connections with the terrorist front group Muslim Brotherhood http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/the-
2010-11: Arab Spring/Libya. Clinton as Sec State fomented the mayhem across the Arab world in which radical islamists overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. The turmoil resulted in the public murder of Muammar Gaddafi and plunged Libya into chaos. It caused Egypt to fall temporarily into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and created the dumpster fire in Syria and led to the rise of ISIS. http://www.breitbart.com/national-
2012: Benghazi. After the downfall of Gaddafi, Clinton as Sec State colluded with Islamic radicals and the CIA to setup ratlines moving Libya's extensive weapons stockpiles to rebels in Syria for use against the Assad government forces. The annex in Benghazi was key to this and that fact led to the attacks on Sept. 11 2012 that left 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya dead. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/
2009-13: Sec State Emails. During her tenure as Sec State, Clinton used an unapproved, unsecure private email server for official communication, including classified and above top secret information. http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/msnbc-
1997-2016: Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative is a family slush fund / money laundering operation used to sell access and special favors to any interested party with the funds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=