Wednesday, June 01, 2016
The sad tale of Ina Drew
One for the feminists. There are rather a lot of women running very large companies these days. Did the men who put them in those roles know about Ina Drew? It is hard to imagine that they did. Ina Drew undoubtedly got her job because of what she had between her legs. Surely she's a warning about doing that: From Wikipedia:
Ina R. Drew is a former high-ranking executive on Wall Street. She was the Chief Investment Officer for JPMorgan Chase before resigning after the company suffered a trading loss of $9 billion in April/May 2012. A report produced by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that she did not understand the trading strategy, and could not explain it to the subcommittee. Furthermore, she lied to the subcommittee by stating she had not seen or received the "decision table" which outlined the various trading options for her in January 2012.
She was one of very few high-ranking female executives on Wall Street. "Until the loss was disclosed late Thursday [May 10, 2012], Drew was considered by some market participants as one of the best managers of balance-sheet risks. She earned more than $15 million in each of the last two years."
Her reported compensation for 2011 was $14 million. In 1993, she was profiled as one of "40 under 40" by Crain's New York Business. She was CIO of JP Morgan Chase & Co. since February 2005. "Prior to that she was Head of Global Treasury [at JPM]".
She earned a master's degree in international economics from the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
Drew and her husband have been residents of the Short Hills neighborhood of Millburn, New Jersey.
Food correctness at the FDA
Thanks to pressure from Michelle Obama’s campaign to end obesity, the Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved an update to the nutrition facts label that may or may not disregard nutritional science. Thanks to the regulatory tweak, food manufacturers must now print the calorie count larger and disclose how much added sugar the food contains. The change was based off the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, which The Washington Free Beacon notes was created without the help of any expert who focused on sugars. So the change on sugar labeling was based on what sounded good. Actual food scientists find that consuming food with added sugar isn’t as insidious as the Obama administration might like everyone to believe.
A dozen scientists — including an expert that worked on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines— wrote in a letter to the government, “We are concerned that U.S. public health policy in this area may be progressing down a path that history suggests to be counterproductive. Specifically, the FDA’s proposed rule revising the Nutrition Facts Label with regard to an added sugars declaration … lacks both the scientific rigor based on careful consideration or evidence-based reviews and a thorough appraisal of unintended consequences that will surely arise.”
Trusting big government’s ideal diet has always been a dubious proposition. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines, for example, implore citizens to eat a diet with climate change in mind. Ideally, the government would like you to lay off the red meat to lessen everyone’s environmental impact. And it wasn’t too long ago that the government scared everyone away from eggs, a source of inexpensive protein. This nutrition label change is merely par for the course.
Deborah Samson Fought for Liberty, Not a Required Draft
In 1782, a 21-year-old lady wrapped her chest with linen bandages, styled her hair into a more masculine fashion and donned a uniform of the Continental Army on her 5-foot, 7-inch frame — a smidge taller than the average 5-foot female of the day. Deborah Samson was one of several women during the Revolutionary War who disguised themselves as men to fight in battle, either out of patriotism for our fledgling nation or desire to keep their family together by fighting alongside a spouse.
Ms. Samson received an honorable discharge at West Point for fighting 17 months on the field of battle.
Today, there are talented women serving our nation within the military by pursuing careers and exercising their tremendous skills. Our nation is grateful for and is served honorably by our all-volunteer fighting force.
Yet back in 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered reviews that would lift all gender-based restrictions within the military for the purpose of complete integration of women into all combat positions by 2016.
The announcement by the Obama administration’s current Secretary of State Ash Carter in December 2015 that “there will be no exceptions” to roles of military combat based on gender was regaled by the Left as a victory for women. We all know the military exists for the purpose of social integration and experimentation, right?
This new status of gender neutrality has now created the natural conflict within the current practice of the Selective Service, the government agency that enforces the federal mandate that “all male persons” register within 30 days of their 18th birthday for military conscription, or draft, in the case of a national security need. This registration data must be kept current until the male is 26 years of age. Failure to comply may result in a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.
As part of the enforcement, young men seeking financial aid using the U.S. Department of Education’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) must indicate their status as a current registrant in the Selective Service in the qualification process.
Yet the Selective Service website now declares, “Females as well as female-to-male transgender individuals who identify as male or have had sexual reassignment surgery are not required to register.”
Just last week, the U.S. House Rules Committee stripped a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would equally mandate the military conscription to women. Despite the U.S. House Armed Forces Committee narrowly approving female inclusion in the draft, Rules Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas described the notion as “reckless policy” in “coercing America’s daughters to sign up for the Selective Service.”
The U.S. Senate’s version of the NDAA includes the mandatory draft registration for both men and women, which will take effect in 2018. The conflicting versions of the defense bill guarantees a House-Senate Conference Committee and a guarantee of more debate.
Despite the military not using conscription since 1973, the dread of the draft remains as another avenue through which the federal government exerts its control. The debate surrounding this topic seems to be currently driven by one’s view of the role of women in our society, with some fearfully standing with the politically correct crowd calling for equality.
The debate should, instead, be driven by the discussion about the purpose of the U.S. Military. Does the military function under the priority of equality and “rights,” or to defend our nation from all enemies foreign and domestic?
Granted, many roles within the U.S. Armed Forces are led with excellence by those of the female chromosomal mix who are truly our “she-roes” of Liberty. But what if data existed that demonstrated a difference in outcomes between all-male teams versus mixed-gender within certain roles?
Published in the Marine Corps Times in September 2015, a nine-month study demonstrated “Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts.” According to the article, the Marines spent about $36 million to review and study the impact of combat integration through the lens of outcomes, not social equality. The analysis further showed “female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall.”
This information was made available prior to the Obama administration’s elimination of gender criteria for combat. A schism obviously exists. There are those who acknowledge through deduction, common sense and real data that women may not be equal to men in successfully completing some tasks simply based on strength, size and endurance. And there are those who claim there is no difference without any regard to outcomes or the actual purpose of a mission.
So while the Left continues in its “transformation” of our nation and every institution thereof, society continues to be asked to vacate common sense and wisdom in making critical decisions, such as our national security and combat readiness.
Deborah Samson and the lady patriots of the Revolutionary War stood in the gap to defend the freedom of an infant nation extracting itself from the clutches of tyranny. Today tyranny is disguised as the political activism of those who disregard the integrity and performance of critical institutions such as our military.
So, ladies, pursue the honor of defending our freedoms. At the same time, prepare to be endangered by those who operate from the foundation of fear and to be criticized by the politically correct police and the Left media, both of which oppose sound judgment and reason.
One could easily argue that our activist culture is so busy making women equal that the female gender is in danger of losing its value.
Australian Leftist leader: ‘Systemic racism’ still exists in Australia as there’s no agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people
He falls at the first hurdle. The country was NOT taken away from Aborigines. They still live here. And that others also now live here actually gives them rights and privileges that they never had in their tribal past.
But this racism accusation is deplorable coming from someone who thinks he can lead the country. He calls Australians racist but still wants their vote. Does that make him a racist too? Hate clearly blinds him. But Leftists do tend to hate the society they live in so it is not really surprising.
And if there is "systematic" racism, where is it? Where is the system or systems concerned? The only systematic racism I know of is the various affirmative action policies of the Federal and State governments -- which give privileges to blacks that are not available to whites. That is certainly systematic racism but Shorten is presumably not condemning that. His party is behind much of the racism concerned.
And to call racist a country that has for many decades welcomed immigrants from all over the world is the height of absurdity. Few countries have been as welcoming to foreigners as Australia. But Australia has always tried to select migrants in a way that excludes problem people and still insists on that right of selection. People who try to sneak in the back door are not sent away because of their race but because of their contempt for reasonable Australian laws.
That Aborigines live in a way that most whites deplore is their affair. If unemployed, they get the same dole money as any other unemployed person and many unemployed people live civilized lives. I lived on the dole for a couple of years in my youth and I lived quite well. Nobody would have thought me to be pitied.
There is no doubt that Aborigines envy whites some things but the solution to that is to work for what they want. Australia now has a very large minority of East Asian people who are very prosperous and contribute a great deal to the community. But many arrived here penniless and unable to speak English. And, like Aborigines, they look different. That they have nonetheless done so well shows that the opportunity is there for everyone in Australia.
If Aborigines fail to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, that is their decision and it should be respected. Let us not criticize them for being loyal to their own traditions
OPPOSITION Leader Bill Shorten has declared “systemic racism is still far-too prevalent” and says there isn’t “fundamental agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people”.
Mr Shorten made the comments at a Reconciliation Australia Dinner in Melbourne, after campaigning in Darwin on indigenous affairs issues. “Systemic racism is still far-too prevalent,” he said.
“The insidious nature of stubborn racism is still a reality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals — regardless of the status and stature they achieve in our society.
“Every generation of Aboriginal athlete, from Doug Nicholls to Nicky Winmar to Michael Long to Adam Goodes has known this.”
Mr Shorten said he knew “racism is not true of most Australians”, and that he was proud of those who stand up to it.
But he also acknowledged there was more to be done as “this sense of discrimination percolates down to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the street every day”.
Mr Shorten said real equality came from “being truthful”.
“Right now, there is not fundamental agreement about how the country was taken from Aboriginal people,” he said.
“Or the issues about settlement, and colonisation.
“We need a process to find the common ground, on such matters, for the common good of our nation.”
Mr Shorten went on to say the “disgraceful fiction of the doctrine of terra nullius has been disproved”.
“But without a future framework agreed with Aboriginal people, all the arguments from 1788 onwards will continue to plague us,” he said.
“Our goal should be to agree to a future which gives us all pride and respect.”
The Opposition leader went on to say it was important to acknowledge there was “unfinished business — and there are new pathways to be developed”.
“The reconciliation process has provided a constructive opportunity for our nation to find agreement on these fundamental issues — or at least help us settle them,” he said.
“But the concept of Reconciliation has — for too long — been split by some into a false dichotomy.
“‘Practical’ reconciliation on one hand — and ‘symbolic’ actions like compensation and agreements on the other.
“The truth is we need agreement on both paths.”
The Opposition Leader said the nation could not truly celebrate its achievements in the area of indigenous affairs while was “still a sense of injustice lingering in the hearts and minds of the first Australians”.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.