Skip to content

A Day Without Women is “Anarchy,” But Women Shouldn’t Receive Equal Pay

March 8, 2017

I was looking for coverage today about the “Day Without Women” protests, and I was rewarded amply with Fox News coverage about women who need to take care of children not showing up for work being “too busy protesting President Trump.” Note, if you watch that sort of thing, that no men are commenting on the story, because Fox News isn’t suicidal, but blonde women with southern accents, and a minority anchorwoman, discuss how women not working will hurt childcare. You think? Pretty much, that’s the point. Women who work in that industry don’t serve some altruistic means of meeting their own baby needs by caring for other people’s children who make more money than they do–childcare workers and teachers work to get paid. It’s actually called work, not altruism. Apparently that twist of irony is lost on Fox News.

Case in point, some teachers are calling it a massive strike, as pay for teachers is routinely abysmal. Why should women be paid when taking care of other people’s children is supposed to meet their every womanly need?

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers will be picketing schools on Wednesday to protest “five years without raises,” and the Chicago Teacher’s Union told NBC News its members would be rallying that evening.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told NBC News that Wednesday isn’t an AFT strike “in the traditional sense,” but a teacher who wants to participate would be making an “individual decision.” Weingarten will be speaking at the Women Workers Rising rally in Washington, DC.

Events are also taking place at colleges. Ghazala Hashmi, a faculty engagement coordinator at Reynolds Community College in Richmond, VA, told NBC News the school granted teachers permission to hold a rally on campus.

“We rally for the rights of girls and women throughout the world,” said Hashmi, “To quality education, medical resources, and social and legal protections from sexual violence and gender oppression.”

On one hand, parents complain of being inconvenienced by school closures, and on the other hand, imply that they are deserving of these women serving them without proper pay. Irony appears to be lost on deserving parents, as well.

Even CNN complained about how women are angry that other women working in childcare and education aren’t serving them when they strike:

The national strike movement on Wednesday coincides with International Women’s Day. It aims to draw attention to inequities working women face compared to men, from wage disparity to harassment to job insecurity.
Several school districts across the country are closing to allow staff and teachers the chance to participate. While some people in those communities applauded district leadership for the show of solidarity, others criticized them for leaving working families scrambling to find childcare.
Damn those women for not serving “working families,” as if they don’t have “working families” of their own. Most families work, so this is a specious argument.
The news media seem to miss the point that the whole reason for a strike is to inconvenience someone who depends on low-paid work.
 Politico, with no trace of irony, published a piece saying that women not working could end civil society and cause anarchy.
 Do organizers truly want to encourage a movement that would lead to nothing less than the breakdown of civil society? This isn’t a feminist ploy, it’s one for anarchy.
Umm, aside from the broken argument that a strike is a “feminist ploy,” might as well say “toy,” in equal tones of derision, the whole point is to show people how much society depends on women, and if a society doesn’t value women, then anarchy is a pretty powerful term for devaluing women. What would happen if women didn’t work? Society, according to Politico author, Amanda Carpenter, would collapse. A “breakdown of civil society” is awesome stuff. Yes, when 50% of the population is missing, society would break down, but again, that’s the whole point.
Miss Carpenter’s incoherent rant about how women should babysit because it’s important to other people is pretty typical of the emotional vomit online:
The “Day Without A Women” organizers made a severe misstep by making children and working families, many of whom who can’t easily skip work or get babysitters, into collateral damage for their dead-end, self-soothing political agenda. School may not be in session in Alexandria, in Prince George’s County, in Chapel Hill, or in parts of Brooklyn, but there’s a lesson the nation can learn from these closures. The modern progressive movement doesn’t have any goals. Just feelings, which come before all else.
First of all, children can’t get babysitters. That would be a parent’s job, so including children in that effluvia is an emotional misdirect: “don’t hurt the kids, you womanly beasts.” Then again, aren’t women the ones supposedly enjoying serving as babysitters? Sounds like Miss Carpenter finally learned her lesson about how important childcare is, but she doesn’t realize it. Miss Carpenter accuses there is no “goal” in the progressive movement, so she seems to have misunderstood that point about her arguing about the importance of childcare and schools all while saying that highlighting that only focuses on “feelings.”
Miss Carpenter uses the guilt trop to try to shame women for asking for more, arguing that “feelings coming before all else” is unworthy of women. It’s a common trope today: women aren’t important, but their loss hurts kids. Mirror, here is your reflection.
Getting attention paid to the importance of women is what this movement is all about. Anarchy is appropriate for a world without women. We should be paying attention to this. Women are important, and the stakes are high.
As one commenter stated, gender violence, gender-based healthcare, all have life-threatening consequences for women, so of course we should be paying attention:
A reminder that while the status quo is unacceptable, the longer-term trend is pointed towards gender equality. And this trend is global, not simply confined to the western world. Just look at healthcare. Maternal mortality remains a mass killer in the developing world. It may not be as newsworthy as gender-based violence or as stark and immediate as disease or starvation, but it is the second biggest killer of women of reproductive age in the developing world.
Of course, that quote was taken from the UK, The Guardian, not a US based paper. The US news media really struggles with this concept of women not bowing to pressure from guilt, from shaming.
In Mexico, this movement can’t come too soon. Viral video footage of a teacher telling students in school about how he beats his wife if she won’t have sex and rapes her has garnered nothing more than an administrative reprimand and emphasized how life-threatening domestic violence and gender violence are for women:
This is an international movement, not a self-centered US movement based solely on Trump. Women in the international community have spoken out:

The European Parliament’s Greek vice president, Dimitris Papadimoulis, greeted International Women’s Day with a shocking forecast from the World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum predicts that the gender gap won’t close entirely until 2186,” Papadimoulis told the parliament in a speech replayed on Greek media. “Yes, you heard well, until 2186. Only in 169 years! It is more than obvious that we have to speed up this process. We have to act now.”

Greek women have suffered the country’s ongoing economic crisis disproportionately. Although seven years of economic meltdown have narrowed a gap in the employment rate between men and women – because of soaring unemployment rates among men, not an increase in the hiring of women – Greece’s employment gender gap remains well above the European Union average. In 2015, the gap was 18 percentage points in Greece, compared with 11 across the rest of the EU.

Women are desperate. Gender disparity ending in 169 years? They can’t afford it, literally.
I like the term anarchy. I like the power of the movement, but I also like the people are talking about how women not accepting abuse is “inconvenient” and “hard on working families,” because it highlights how frequently US society expects to get ahead by taking advantage of women, by shaming them. The shaming, shaming, shaming. Shame women over childbirth, bodies, reproductive choices, daycare or no daycare, babysitters, not babysitting, not serving as nurses, not serving as teachers… Notice that women aren’t supposed to ask for anything? They’re not supposed to have feelings. They aren’t supposed to be safe with medical care. They aren’t supposed to have equality for another 169 years because it’s inconvenient now, and that, Dear Readers, is the point. Anarchy sounds about right.

Michael Flynn Resigns Amid Russian Revelations: “Dishonest or Forgetful”

February 15, 2017

Let’s not tarnish Michael Flynn’s reputation or anything, thirty years in the armed forces service, serving under two Presidents (even for only a few days), and lying to the general public about calling Russia to discuss how he would lift sanctions when he became President. Whoops, Michael Flynn was never elected. Michael Flynn was acting under orders from then-President Elect Trump. Tellingly, Trump hasn’t admitted that Flynn misled him about calling Russia to discuss sanctions then-President Obama had imposed, because Flynn wouldn’t have been in the position of calling Russia were it not for his position with Trump.

Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin at dinner honoring Russia

Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin at dinner honoring Russia

Obama had fired Flynn back when Obama was President for “insubordination,” and the scuttle is that Michael Flynn used increasingly hostile rhetoric toward Muslims. The AP reports that Flynn has maintained a rocky history:

Fired by one American commander-in-chief for insubordination, Flynn delivered his resignation to another.

The White House said Tuesday that President Trump asked for the resignation of his national security adviser, a hard-charging, feather-ruffling retired lieutenant general who just three weeks into the new administration had put himself in the center of a controversy. Flynn resigned late Monday.

At issue was Flynn’s contact with Moscow’s ambassador to Washington. Flynn and the Russian appear to have discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia late last year, raising questions about whether he was freelancing on foreign policy while President Barack Obama was still in office and whether he misled Trump officials about the calls.

The uncertainty about his future had deepened Monday when the White House issued a statement saying that Trump is “evaluating the situation” surrounding Flynn. In his resignation letter, Flynn said he held numerous calls with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the transition and gave “incomplete information” about those discussions to Vice President Pence.

The center of a storm is a familiar place for Flynn. His military career ended when Obama dismissed him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014. Flynn has said he was pushed out for holding tougher views than Obama about Islamic extremism. But a former senior U.S. official said the firing was for insubordination, after Flynn failed to follow guidance from superiors.

What a reputation. How could we tarnish Michael Flynn’s reputation when he has done such a smashing job of it himself? Indeed, it’s impossible to believe that a man who as in the military for about thirty years suddenly called Russia on tapped phones, unknowingly, of course, and discussed what would happen to Russian sanctions just as a concerned citizen. Why would Russia take calls from just any American citizen?

The Washington Post and other U.S. newspapers, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported last week that Flynn made explicit references to U.S. sanctions on Russia in conversations with Putin’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. One of the calls took place on Dec. 29, the day Obama announced new penalties against Russia’s top intelligence agencies over allegations they meddled in the election with the objective of helping Trump win.

While it’s not unusual for incoming administrations to have discussions with foreign governments before taking office, the repeated contacts just as the U.S. was pulling the trigger on sanctions suggests Trump’s team might have helped shape Russia’s response. They also contradicted denials about such sanctions discussions by several Trump administration officials, including the vice president. Some Democratic lawmakers want a congressional investigation.

Michael Flynn worked Intelligence. He made no mistakes. Either he felt he was immune to impropriety because Trump told him to call Russia, or he believed that Russia could protect him from fallout. The Japan Times had covered the story quoted above, and they also had a synthesized summary of Flynn’s military history, demonstrating that when a shake up this big happens in US intelligence circles, everyone notices.

Flynn’s sparkling military resume had included key assignments at home and abroad, and high praise from superiors.

The son of an Army veteran of World War II and the Korean War, Flynn was commissioned as a second lieutenant in May 1981. He started in intelligence and eventually rose to senior positions, including intelligence chief for U.S. Central Command.

Ian McCulloh, a Johns Hopkins data science specialist, became a Flynn admirer while working as an Army lieutenant colonel in Afghanistan in 2009. At the time, Flynn ran intelligence for the U.S.-led international coalition in Kabul and was pushing for more creative approaches to targeting Taliban networks, including use of data mining and social network analysis, according to McCulloh.

“He was pushing for us to think out of the box and try to leverage technology better and innovate,” McCulloh said, crediting Flynn for improving the effectiveness of U.S. targeting. “A lot of people didn’t like it because it was different.”

A man who started his career in intelligence and rose to Intelligence Chief for U.S. Central Command doesn’t “accidentally” “forget” his calls to foreign governments would have been monitored. Which leads us to the next question: What did Michael Flynn think would protect him from criminal charges when he began issuing deals for the US with Russia back in December 2016, before Trump was even President?

Flynn wasn’t the only Trump associate contacting the Russians during a time when it was confirmed that Russia interfered with the United States elections. News outlets seem to believe Trump’s motive for mentioning Electoral College numbers is merely hubris, but it’s also a way to distract any attention away from the fact that Trump would most likely have lost the election without Russia’s help. How can Trump’s win and Russia’s help ever be separated? When cornered, which is easy to accomplish with Trump, Trump responds by talking about the size of his win.

But there is more. Trump associates were also linked to stealthy calls to Russia, and those calls haven’t been openly discussed yet. The NY Times reports there are multiple calls from Trump’s team to Russia, with love, and they aren’t limited to the Michael Flynn scandal.

The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.

But the cases are part of American intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ routine electronic surveillance of the communications of foreign officials.

The F.B.I. declined to comment. The White House also declined to comment Tuesday night, but earlier in the day, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood by Mr. Trump’s previous comments that nobody from his campaign had contact with Russian officials before the election.

When Trump is questioned about his ties to Russia, Trump complains that “illegal leaks” were the only reason he essentially fired Flynn anyway. Trump never asserted that he didn’t support Flynn making side deals with Russia during Obama’s Presidency. Trump just complained that it was illegal for people to tell the public that Flynn had been talking with Russia.

President Trump lashed out at the nation’s intelligence agencies again on Wednesday, saying that his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, was brought down by illegal leaks to the news media, on a day of new disclosures about the Trump camp’s dealings with Russia during and after the presidential campaign.

From intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked,” Mr. Trump said at a White House news conference with Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel. “It’s a criminal action, criminal act, and it’s been going on for a long time before me, but now it’s really going on. And people are trying to cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton.”

Dodge and parry. That’s all Trump has left. “Dumpy Trumpy” as my father calls him, has no other options other than to keep evading questions he can’t answer without perjury at a later date.

 

CNN reports that the sheer volume of communication between Trump’s team, at a time when Russia was being sanctioned for interfering in the US elections, is enough to warrant investigation.

However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations.
Adding to US investigators’ concerns were intercepted communications between Russian officials before and after the election discussing their belief that they had special access to Trump, two law enforcement officials tell CNN. These officials cautioned the Russians could have been exaggerating their access

Republicans are no longer rank and file supporting Trump and Michael Flynn with emerging Russian connections.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday it’s “highly likely” the Senate intelligence committee will investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s discussions with the Russian ambassador.

“I think the fundamental question for us is what is our involvement in it, and who ought to look at it,” the Kentucky Republican said. “And the intelligence committee is already looking at Russian involvement in our election. As Sen. (Roy) Blunt has already indicated, it is highly likely they will want to take look at this episode as well. They have the broad jurisdiction to do it.”
The Senate’s second-ranking Republican and other GOP senators have called for an investigation into the episode, building on a string of investigations underway on Russian interference in the US elections. Sen. John Cornyn told reporters Tuesday that the Senate standing committees with oversight of intelligence needs to investigate.
Asked by CNN if he wanted the Senate’s committees to investigate Flynn, Cornyn replied: “Yes.”
The UK reports on the Flynn controversy in a way that people here in the US haven’t pounced on yet: characterizing Flynn as EITHER “dishonest” or “forgetful.” Strange that a National Security Advisor with 30 years in the intelligence field suddenly became “forgetful” in the middle of his position. But either we have had a NSA with dementia or a case of lying to the feds. Neither is palatable.

Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway made it sound like a mutual decision on Good Morning America as she gently ushered Flynn out.

Flynn resigned because he realized he’d become a distraction for the administration, she said. ‘It became increasingly unsustainable for him.’

The president accepted the senior aide’s resignation because he ‘misled’ the vice president, Conway said. He was ‘dishonest or forgetful.’ 

Kelly Conway Calls Flynn

Kellyanne Conway Calls Flynn “Dishonest or Forgetful”

Careful, careful Trump, because now the Republicans have backed away, and Russia appears unhappy with Flynn’s resignation. Those love affairs can turn brutal fast. The Independent of the Uk  reports that Russian diplomats have even written Facebook posts about Flynn’s resignation.

Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s upper parliamentary chamber, wrote on Facebook that Mr Flynn’s resignation was “not just paranoia but something even worse.

“Either Trump hasn’t found the necessary independence and he’s been driven into a corner… or Russophobia has permeated the new administration from top to bottom.”

Even the Russians see the writing on the wall, especially when Trump isn’t willing to face it.

“‘Flynn is out, but the Russian problem remains in the Trump White House,’  The expulsion of Flynn was the first act. Now the target is Trump himself,” Pushkov said in another tweet.

Perhaps the Valentine Trump sent to Russia with love is already fading.

Shia LeBouf Arrested on LiveCam After Shouting Down Racist

January 26, 2017

It’s a form of performance art, one that has already drawn attention from people looking to thwart it. If you thought that Trump’s presidency attracted white supremacists, racists and bigots, and if you feared that they now have a voice to spew across the nation, you might have proof from the video clips below.

It sounds innocent enough: Shia LeBouf has set up a live cam for people to approach and say “He will not divide us.” It is simple, but it’s message threatens white supremacists, because the live cam was set up on Donald Trump’s inauguration. Or, because white supremacists are just easily threatened and incredibly rude. Someone has a video stream set up, and people are talking on it, and the racist enters and wants to ruin it. Why?

At some point during the charged interactions, LeBouf is arrested. Watch that video below. But why was he arrested?

What is certain about that video is that Shia appears unrepentant. Perhaps his arrest stems from this incident below, in which a white supremacist approaches the camera to shout inflammatory comments. I watched the seen and thought there was a fight brewing. It’s clear that Labeouf doesn’t appreciate racists shouting into his camera, but is this really enough for arrest? Why not arrest the man who clearly is shoulder to shoulder with Lebeouf to shout racist comments? He is laughing. Shia is not.

Lest you think that this sort of harassment was unintentional, accidental maybe, check out the conversations below, where BuzzFeed reported that white supremacists have been using chat rooms to try to organize to take down Shia’s protest.

We can ask why, but I don’t think there is a good answer except that the discourse has changed. Trump has made it politically acceptable to attack people with outright lies (Alternative Facts, a term coined by Kellyanne Conway, but that’s a whole other post), and it’s not met with rebuttal.

The white supremacist using Shia’s feed approaches to make incendiary commentary, words used by white supremacists and Nazis, a tribute to Hitler and the deeply disturbing concept of the Aryan race (white, blonde hair, blue eyes). According to BuzzFeed, the commentary from the the disruptor means this:

“14, 88” is a code among neo-Nazis and white supremacists referring to one of two 14-word pledges repeated by members of the Aryan Nation: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” or “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.” The repetition of “88” refers to the eighth letter of the alphabet, “H,” which is how neo-Nazis abbreviate “heil Hitler” so they can quietly signal each other.

Not only does Shia instantly grasp what the white supremacist is saying, he actively blocks it. While I hate to see two men pushing in a dance that leads to punching, I am proud of Shia for not letting his project be railroaded. I am proud that there is a person who is willing to fight to block the rising level of racist dialogue emanating from Trump’s presidency, not to mention Nazism, which has been name-dropped more frequently with a Trump presidency than any other in recent history.

It’s an amped up “discussion,” with pretty sick commentary.

It’s pointed, and it’s designed to attack Shia, very intentional.

Confession time: I made a mistake and read the comments under posts like this.

It’s shallow, and usually I don’t indulge because one person’s “comment” is another’s form of hate speech, but this time, I wanted to see if there was any brevity. For some Trump supporters, there is the argument that America was “great in the 60’s” because Republicans led the civil rights movement (no, I didn’t make that up), and for others, it’s a point of person pride to attack people who profess Nazi beliefs. There were also comments about how Shia succeed in producing performance art, pretty indicative of what is going on in American politics, and my own perspective? It’s fascinating that so many people are willing to join in the performance art. So many people have started alternate threads, argued points, showed up to speak. Pretty amazing involvement. Now, if we can just prevent violence there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serena Williams Calls On Rude Reporter To Apologize For Criticizing Her Performance: Reporter Wins Asshole of the Week Award

January 25, 2017

Part of the problem with the Trump presidency seems to have spilled over into Australia, namely: criticizing women, particularly for a perceived lack of “womanly” (as defined by white men) daintiness (which would be way less threatening to the impotent male ego dishing here than say,equality). Most men, good men, recognize value in other people, even if those other people are of a different gender, nationality, or appearance, because only an idiot writes off the human race when it is different from oneself. But, there are plenty of assholes out there apparently, and this one wins the Asshole of the Week Award for criticizing Serena’s performance by calling her “scrappy.”

Let’s put “scrappy” into context here. “Scrappy” translates to “bossy,” as applied to women here, meaning that which is threatening to men suffering from ego issues. “Scrappy” relates the same way, as if a woman playing tennis should be concerned with her eyeshadow as opposed to her total physical dominance of a sport, worldwide dominance actually. Fuck that guy. “Scrappy” is not accurate, but “world domination” is. Dude, any time you call Serena “scrappy,” you just exposed your impotence.

Not just my aggravation with that term being applied to women as a form of insecure male misogyny. Check out the internet definition:

  1. consisting of disorganized, untidy, or incomplete parts.
    “scrappy lecture notes piled up unread”
  2. 2.
    NORTH AMERICANinformal
    determined, argumentative, or pugnacious.
    “he played the part of a scrappy detective”

“Pugnacious” or “Argumentative,” and Serena might as well apologize for having breasts AND, gasp, being determined. This is the issue with all white men (like Trump and his cabinet) spewing their insecurity: it leaks around the edges and spills into normal conversation as if it were accepted, apparently worldwide. It just infected the Australian Open. It just festered enough that women  wrote about it. My daughter showed me this clip, asked me to write about it, saying: “Mom, you have got to see this…”

The New York Post provided a transcript of the exchange here:

Reporter: Looked a little bit of a scrappy performance. A few more unforced errors, a few double-faults.

Williams: I think that’s a very negative thing to say. Are you serious?

Reporter: Just my observation.

Williams: Well, you should have been out there. That wasn’t very kind. You should apologize. Do you want to apologize?

Reporter: I do. I’m sorry.

Williams: Thank you very much. That was a great performance. I played well. She’s a former top-10 player. The last time we played together was in the finals of a Grand Slam.

Honestly, Serena doesn’t look totally comfortable dressing him down, looking away, but maybe that is just holding her temper. She calmly holds him accountable for his offensiveness, and then she moves on. In reality, no woman should have to apologize for not having a dainty tennis game, ever. Slayed, Serena.

 

Men Doing the Dishes Leads To Better Sex And Staying Married: Wives Will Divorce Over Housework “Second Shift”

January 19, 2017

Sounds like every woman’s dream, watching a man lather up and suds the dishes? Actually, it is, especially if he rinses well and puts them away. Studies show that men who do more housework get better sex. No, for real, do the dishes, man.

A new study from the University of Alberta found that male-female couples hadbetter and more frequent sex when men chipped in with the chores. The findings revealed that when a man felt he was making fair contributions to household chores, the couple had more sex and each partner reported more sexual satisfaction.

Could be about investment. A partner who does the daily maintenance in a house is willing to do the daily maintenance in a relationship. The dishes may just be a symptom of a partner who is willing to work at the relationship. One of the people who authored the study described it as  respect, but in either case, having another adult pull his own weight to maintain his own home is, shockingly, healthy…

“A division of household labor perceived to be fair ensures that partners feel respected while carrying out the tasks of daily life,” Johnson wrote in his paper. “Completing housework may or may not be enjoyable, but knowing that a partner is pulling his weight prevents anger and bitterness, creating more fertile ground in which a (satisfying) sexual encounter may occur.”

 

 

It’s a lot of wording, but a 2014 study demonstrated that concepts of egalitarianism, such as who actually does the work versus who perceives how the work is done, matter greatly in a marriage. Need it broken down further? Does he actually do the housework he says he does, or does he just believe he pitches in more than he does:

We used multi-level modeling to examine associations between cognitive egalitarianism, behavioral egalitarianism, and marital quality with a specific focus on discrepancies in the reports of husbands and wives. As hypothesized, both husbands and wives had lower marital quality when their cognitive egalitarianism was discrepant from their partner, and such a discrepancy had a greater influence on wives’ reports of marital quality, especially for wives with higher cognitive egalitarianism. Although we expected similar results for the associations between behavioral egalitarianism and marital quality, we found that the strength of the association between wives’ behavioral egalitarianism and marital quality decreased as the discrepancy from their husbands’ behavioral egalitarianism increased.

In other words, if he doesn’t walk the walk, a wife can tell, and it never makes her happy to do all the housework. “Man Tip #42” may well be accurate…

Expectations and follow through seem to most affect wives, when it comes to household chores, but tellingly, men didn’t notice either way:

“These results were interesting because usually marital satisfaction is studied in only one spouse. Here we were able to see what happens when there’s a discrepancy in spouses’ attitudes on this issue,” Brian G. Ogolsky, a lead author of the study, said in a press release. “If a woman believes that household chores should be divided equally, what happens if they adopt a traditional approach to the matter? The most satisfied couples have similar expectations and follow through on them.”

The takeaway? Ogolsky notes that since expectations play such a large role in marital happiness, couples should discuss these matters early on. “Newlyweds need to thoughtfully plan how they can make their expectations about sharing chores work out in real life, especially if the new spouses strongly value gender equality in household labor. This issue will only matter more after children start arriving,” he advised.

Guys, just do the dishes already. Clean the bathroom… No, really, the idea is about setting expectations in the concept of preparing to get married and follow through once the marriage begins.

The problem is that almost 70% of divorces are filed by women, so when expectations don’t meet practice, those seemingly unimportant household chores can be predictor of divorce trends.

So what is it about marriage that leaves women less satisfied and more likely to walk away? Rosenfeld told HuffPost that the findings give credence to the feminist idea that some women feel stifled and oppressed by heterosexual marriage. 

“It supports the theory that sociologists refer to as ‘the stalled gender revolution,‘  meaning that as much as women’s roles in society have changed, women’s roles within the families have changed very slowly,” he said, citing husband’s expectation for wives to do the bulk of the housework and childcare, even when both spouses work.

“Women feel stifled and oppressed by heterosexual marriage…” Sounds like a post I wrote before, one of my most famous posts and most popular among women: Women Don’t Want to Get Married and Have Children Because It’s A Lot Of Work–Who Is Surprised.  The reality amongst my friends who got divorced is that they separated from their husbands because they wanted to lower their workload. They haven’t chosen to get remarried. So I pulled this from my old post, an oldie but goodie:

Today’s European Union-funded report, which examined working practices across member states, says that the average man in full-time employment works about 55 hours a week.In the UK that figure includes about 3.6 hours commuting, and eight hours of domestic work such as cleaning, cooking and child care.By contrast, the average working week for a woman in full-time employment in the EU is 68 hours.

For British women that comprises 40 hours in the office, 3.3 hours commuting and 23 hours a week spent doing domestic work.

“The stalled gender revolution,” as it was more famously made into a book, “The Second Shift,” by Arlie Hochschild and Anne Machung. The Second Shift refers to the stats of women performing more work than men in the home, and therefore, no matter their careers or jobs, are force to work a “second shift” not shared by men. Heterosexual marriage seems to reinforce this increased workload for women, which also leads to the statistic of almost 70% of divorces being filed by women.

The NY Times summed it up as a woman working an extra month more than her husband each year, or marriage forcing women to just work harder and longer:

Women, Ms. Hochschild reports, bear the brunt of what she calls a ”stalled revolution,” one that got wives out of the home and into the first shift of paid employment but resulted in surprisingly meager change during the domestic second shift. The wife, her research confirms, typically is still the primary parent and remains ultimately responsible for keeping house. In most marriages, the woman’s paid work is still considered a mere job, in contrast to the man’s career. Thus the woman’s first shift – her employment – is likely to be devalued, thereby rationalizing her continuing responsibility for the second shift. The language of domestic economics, in which husbands still ”help” wives, suggests how little conceptual change has taken place. The additional hours that working women put in on the second shift of housework, she calculates, add up to an extra month of work each year.

When this second shift plays out in a family situation, unsurprisingly women with fewer financial resources complain about the added work, but in situations where the couples have more money, it is simpler to just pay for the “role of of the mother,” whatever that may mean, and hire household help that would normally be assigned to the woman.

In principle it’s easier to traverse these chasms if you’re rich. After all, professionals address the conflict of home and career by hiring small armies of surrogate wives. But as it turns out, very few use their enhanced income to purchase leisure or more time with their children. Surprisingly few husbands choose to work part time. In general, the upper-income professionals in Ms. Hochschild’s sample tend to be the worst hypocrites. ”Other couples, however, seemed to capitulate to a workaholism a deux, each spouse equitably granting the other the right to work long hours, and reconciling themselves to a drastically reduced conception of the emotional needs of a family.” Such couples ”almost totally parceled out the role of mother into purchased services.”

The trick is the role of a wife. Does hiring a “surrogate wife” mean household help? I have always said that marriage is a demotion for women’s roles when it means taking on a maid’s status without pay. The role of a wife has changed in our society, from being a woman who supervises household help to the wife being the only one who works in the house.

Consider the following graphic, which while a funny assertion on the value of cleanliness, nevertheless assigns cleanliness to women.

Getting married may actually hurt a woman’s relationship, as dating couples tend to equally break up around gender lines (meaning the dating splits are initiated equally between genders), while divorce filling are disproportionately filed by unhappy wives, as opposed to girlfriends. What makes this statistic true? The role of a wife is inherently unsatisfying to 70% of women filing for divorce because of gender roles. According to a social scientist who studies the phenomenon, marriage doesn’t favor gender equality:

“I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality,” Rosenfeld said. “Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage, which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable to modern expectations, including women’s expectations for more gender equality.”

So I look up the term “unhappy wives” in Google images, because why not choose photos to demonstrate how people view marital relationships? Any trends? Well, not very good ones…

She is angry and he doesn’t care. Or, she is angry and it’s not rational.

She is unhappy in bed, or with sex, and he is oblivious.

He doesn’t listen to you unless you cry. Use tears to get what you want.

Notice the heading doesn’t say “Girlfriends” and use that title to cry for a toaster. The role of crying to receive an appliance to reduce work is aimed directly at a wife, who is assumed to be doing all the household chores by hand. The husband is assumed to control the money, and the gender roles of marriage reinforce women as domestic servants rather than as equal partners.

According to a recent paper, published in 2015, it’s the institution of marriage that causes the problems, because the institution of marriage imposes gender roles that are unequal and unrewarding for women, something a dating relationship doesn’t do:

Jessie Bernard (1982) famously wrote: “There are two marriages, then, in every marital union, his and hers. And his… is better than hers.” The feminist critique of heterosexual marriage is consistent with wives being more likely than husbands to want to divorce. The feminist critique of heterosexual marriage, however, has less direct application to nonmarital heterosexual relationships. Nonmarital heterosexual relationships generally involve lower levels of commitment, fewer children, and nonmarital unions are less influenced by the legal and cultural history of marriage as a gendered institution (Cherlin, 2009; Poortman & Mills, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2014).

It comes down to what most men in heterosexual marriages expect women to do for housework and care taking, and that role is that the wives will take care of all the housework and childcare:

Research on housework has consistently found that the gender housework gap was larger in marriage than in nonmarital cohabiting relationships (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 2007; Gupta, 1999; Shelton & John, 1993; South & Spitze, 1994). Married men resist housework to an extent that cannot be explained by practical considerations and constraints (such as the presence of children or men’s higher earnings, see Brines, 1994; Shelton & John, 1993).

“Married men resist housework to an extent that cannot be explained…” makes me laugh and laugh. There is no logical reason married men resist housework more than dating men, other than the reactions of men to marriage roles.  He’s a man, and even he can’t explain the gendered behavior patterns.

Is it the kids? Who takes care of the kids? Who makes more money? Who has the higher education? Nope, turns out that marriage isn’t as good for women as it is for men. When all other factors have been taken into consideration, women don’t get as much out of marriage as men do:

Table 3 provides an explanation: women’s relationship quality is slightly lower than men’s relationship quality in marriage regardless of whether the marriage later broke up.8 In additional analyses (available from the author), I show that the gender marital satisfaction gap in HCMST is not mediated by age, relationship duration, earnings gap, religious affiliation, education, income, race, prior marriages, or the presence of children.

It’s not the kids or the money, but the relationship that drives the divorce rate, and since women initiate far more divorces than they do dating break-ups, marriage plays a part in a women’s relationship satisfaction rates.

The researcher studying the trend of why women file for divorce more so than men lays it on the line for marriage: catch up or be thrown out:

“I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality,” Rosenfeld said. “Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage, which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable to modern expectations, including women’s expectations for more gender equality.”

Just not as good for her as it is for him, or maybe it’s not that simple. Dating couples tend to break up more frequently than married couples, but among married couples, women overwhelmingly exit the marriage when their expectations of gender equality erode their lives. According to one paper, most marriages are stable, but more women are unhappy in marriage than men:

Most married women are happily married, and married couples are relatively stable. Across 6 years of HCMST data, the weighted marital breakup hazard rate was 1.2% per year for heterosexual married couples,9 compared to 9.4% per year breakup rate for unmarried heterosexual couples who ever cohabited, and a 30.3% per year breakup rate for unmarried heterosexual couples who never lived together. Even though most married women are happily married, a modest difference in husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction can result in most divorces being wanted by the wife.

Guys, doing the dishes, taking care of your own housework, showing gender equality, those are the things that lead to better sex and long-lasting marriages.

As Trump Cozies Up To Russia, US Deploys Troops To Poland and States That Gave US Intel That Russia Pushed Money Into Trump Campaign

January 13, 2017

As Trump leans in to Putin, a daily bromance through Twitter, Obama deploys troops to Poland to help secure the border as Russia inexorably edges closer.

American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia.

Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. Poland’s prime minister and defense minister will welcome them in an official ceremony Saturday.

“This is the fulfilment of a dream,” said Michal Baranowski, director of the German Marshall Fund think tank in Warsaw. “And this is not just a symbolic presence but one with a real capability.”

U.S. and other Western nations have carried out exercises on NATO’s eastern flank in past years, but the new deployment — which includes some 3,500 U.S. troops — marks the first-ever continuous deployment to the region by a NATO ally.It is part of a larger commitment by President Barack Obama to protect a region that grew deeply nervous when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and then began backing separatist rebels in Ukraine’s east.

The link above focuses on the Golden Showers element of Trump (read about the Golden Showers here: Russian Documents Leaked Showing Trump’s Campaign Links to Russia And “Perverted Sexual Acts” “Golden Shower Presidency”), but setting Trump aside for just a moment, let’s take a look at the significance of NATO-backed troops moving into Poland.  Why is it so important that US troops move into Poland? Putin considers it an act of aggression, moving into his back yard, if you will. It appears he already believes Russia controls Poland, as he has taken this latest installment of US troops as an insult.

“These actions threaten our interests, our security,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday. “Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. It’s not even a European state.

How near is Poland to Russian borders?

Actually, Poland doesn’t directly border Russia, but it’s telling that Putin believes that US troops in Poland are at its border. Sounds like Russia believes that US troops in Poland are in its borders.

When Russia first started talking about nuclear arms, Obama promised Poland that the US would match it, but Poland feels that this latest move is yet another round of promises by the US that fall short of real protection.

Poles still feel betrayed by Obama’s “reset” with Russia early on in his administration, which involved abandoning plans for a major U.S. missile defense system in Poland and replacing it with plans for a less ambitious system, still not in place.

All recent U.S. presidents have thought there can be a grand bargain with Russia,” said Marcin Zaborowski, a senior associate at Visegrad Insight, an analytic journal on Central Europe. “Trump has a proclivity to make deals, and Central and Eastern Europe have reason to worry about that.”

Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski expressed hope this week that any new effort at reconciliation with Russia “does not happen at our expense.”

The armored brigade combat team arriving in Poland hails from Fort Carson, Colorado. The troops arrived last week in Germany and are gathering in Poland before units will fan out across seven countries from Estonia to Bulgaria. A headquarters unit will be stationed in Germany. After nine months they will be replaced by another unit.

In a separate but related mission, NATO will also deploy four battalions to its eastern flank later this year, one each to Poland and the three Baltic states. The U.S. will also lead one of those battalions.

Baltic states were also the region from which intelligence accounts from Russian interference were verified. I wrote about this in the Golden Showers post:

Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

In other words, those very states to which we are now sending troops were the same states that had intercepted intel info that money from the Kremlin was going directly to the US presidential campaign of Donald Trump.  The information about the money flow from Russia to the US came from none other than our allies in the Baltic States.

How back can hacking be? Trump declared “hacking is bad,” but his simplistic rendition means he is no match for a former KGB operative like Putin. Newsweek reports that Russian hacking is more extensive than finding out that Clinton got debate questions before Trump:

The Russian penetration in the United States is far more extensive than previously revealed publicly, although most of it has been targeted either at government departments or nongovernment organizations connected to the Democratic Party. Russian hackers penetrated the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department. The State Department cyberattack, which began in 2014 and lasted more than a year, was particularly severe, with Russian hackers gaining entry into its unclassified system, including emails. (Hillary Clinton left the State Department in 2013, which means that if she had used its unclassified email system rather than her private server—a decision that has dogged her throughout the campaign—any of her emails on the government system could have been obtained by Russian hackers.)

The breadth of the cyberattacks of nongovernmental organizations is astonishing. Russian hackers have obtained emails and other information out of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, but also have struck at organizations with looser ties to the party, including think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, where some of Clinton’s longtime friends and colleagues work.

Dismissing the intelligence information that determined Russia had “kompromat” on Trump requires disbelieving European states to whom we have just delivered military troops. While the United States blithely determined there was no factual merit to the intelligence briefings, Trump’s organization had been disseminating Russian media to the United States media outlets at news to cover:

Even as Trump was disputing the role played by the Kremlin in the hacking, his campaign was scouring sites publicly identified by American intelligence as sources for Russian propaganda. Ten days before the third debate, Newsweek published an article disclosing that a document altered by Russian propagandists and put out on the internet—ultimately published by Sputnik—had been cited by Trump at a rally as fact. (The information distributed on the internet placed words that had appeared in Newsweek into the mouth of Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante. Taken in that context, they suggested that her closest allies believed she bore responsibility for the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya.)

Subsequently, Sputnik, which took down that article, published another one essentially denying the news organization was controlled by the Kremlin and attacking Newsweek. Before the day was out, the Trump campaign was emailing links to the article from the Russian propaganda site to multiple reporters, urging them to pursue the story.

Before we launch into our denial diatribe again, let’s just remember that troops haven’t entered the Baltic states like this since the Cold War. It’s as though the US government is run by two different arms attached to the same body. Trump is Putin’s mouthpiece, and Obama deploys troops to push back against Putin. Think that the US deployment is a joke? No joke when tanks are sent in. The chilling statement echoed by Germany of war, is starting to look more and more real, even as Putin and Trump puppets deny the reality.

While Trump denounces Golden Showers as “fake news,” which may occupy him for years to come, we are inexorably drawn closer and closer toward the flame of war. It’s as simple as distracting a crying baby, and with Trump, it appears nothing else is needed. Compliment him or attack him, any attention given, and Trump immediately becomes fixated on the attention and its inescapable ego stroking. Trump argues about “fake news” while NATO deploys troops to bolster Baltic states. It’s as though Trump can’t even feel his own hands when they move from the from of his face.

Luckily for Americans, Trump’s cabinet picks, who aren’t agreeing with him, have responded to this threat of military troops. NATO is hoping that Trump being just one person, that the US will continue to back NATO efforts to push back against Russia’s expansion through Europe. The Guardian, a UK based news outlet, has already moved on from salacious Trump details and is more focused on the pressing matters of Russian aggression and the newly appointed cabinet response to troop deployment Poland, namely hoping that US troops won’t be prematurely withdrawn:

That prediction was reinforced by Trump’s proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation hearings.

Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that Putin was trying to break Nato.

Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “as an act of force” and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount “a proportional show of force”.

Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has struggled to cope with Russia’s use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda, cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.

Of course everyone in the US is distracted with Trump’s sexual perversion and maybe won’t acknowledge Russia’s advances. However, the CIA nominee from Trump’s cabinet is a former veteran who fought in the last Cold War against Russia, and he doesn’t underestimate Russia. The NYTimes reports that Pompeo, Trump’s CIA nominee, is literally a Cold War veteran:

 The first battle that Representative Mike Pompeo prepared to fight was against the Russians, when he commanded a tank platoon in Germany in the twilight of the Cold War. On Thursday, he made clear he was ready to take on America’s old adversary if confirmed as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

…The question hanging over Mr. Pompeo, and America’s 17 intelligence agencies, is how to handle a president who embraces President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia while the agency tries to keep Russia in check. So far, nothing in the C.I.A.’s 69-year history has prepared it to deal with a president who is as openly derisive of its work as Mr. Trump.

Trump never commanded a platoon of tanks against Russia, and it appears that Pompeo is not swayed by Trump’s bromance with Putin or Trump’s Golden Showers distraction. Pompeo appears committed to keeping Russia in check, despite NATO fears that the President Elect won’t understand Russia’s moves:

Mr. Pompeo may have somewhat assuaged those concerns on Thursday when he was asked at his Senate confirmation hearing if the C.I.A., under his leadership, would continue to pursue intelligence on Russian hacking — allegations that have come amid a swirl of unsubstantiated rumors about links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

“I will continue to pursue foreign intelligence with vigor no matter where the facts lead,” Mr. Pompeo said. He added that he would do this “with regard to this issue and each and every issue.”

The C.I.A. under his leadership, he said, would provide “accurate, timely, robust and cleareyed analysis of Russian activities.”

Perhaps the Republicans won’t let Trump slide on Russian war tactics, but while Putin may have sent in a clown when he pushed to elect Trump, Putin may have underestimated other Americans who remember all too well the last time they engaged with Russia. Putin has made lots of enemies, and one man, no matter what news-grabbing headlines he may command, even as salacious as sexual perversion, can hold the attention of the country when troops are deployed. This is a much more arresting sight, wouldn’t you say?

News commentators have also noticed escalating tensions between the US government and Russian government, outside of the Trump/Putin tango, and I am not the only one forecasting dangerous times ahead. PressTV commentators note that US troop deployment could be viewed as a ramp in more hostile relations:

Press TV has spoken to Brian Becker, member of the ANSWER Coalition, as well as Brent Budowsky, columnist with The Hill, to discuss this issue.

Brian Becker sees the US troop deployment to Poland as a very “provocative” move, adding that Washington and NATO have been “relentlessly” pushing eastward toward Russia’s border since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“25 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was an agreement – ratified again in 1996 – that the United States would not take advantage of the end of the Soviet Union by expanding NATO into Eastern and Central European states that had been Russia’s principal allies. And in fact, it has done just that. It has pushed relentlessly,” he said.

He also opined that Russia has no intention of invading the Baltic States, but that it perceives the United States’ continuation of setting up missile shields in those countries as an attempt to gain “military superiority.”

The analyst went on to say that the United States initially positioned the missile shield systems in Poland and Romania under the pretext of stopping Iran’s nuclear threat which never really existed.

Therefore, he argued, now that the United States and the P5+1 countries have signed the nuclear agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Washington must remove those missile shields.

He further stated if the United States has no intention to start a war, there is no reason for it to carry out military exercises with NATO on Russia’s doorstep.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Becker noted that NATO troop deployment to Eastern Europe is like a “gravy train” that will connect the commercial interests in the region to the US military-industrial complex.

He also asserted that it is not the people of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia who have called for NATO troops to come in and save them from the “Russian menace,” rather the right-wing governments of those countries.

ANSWER stand for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, and bills itself as a US organization, but the quote above was published by PressTV.ir, an Islamic Republic of Iran news organization. ANSWER’s stated mission is to end war; however, Iran has used that information to portray the US as engaging in war against Russia, which would only serve Iran well if it could also inflame tensions between the US and Russia, distract both countries who want to stamp out ISIS. Iran has nothing to lose by highlighting tensions between the US and Russia in hopes to destabilize them further.

Lest we Americans miss what has been happening, troops were sent to Poland back in April 2014, when Russia moved into the Ukraine, and more troops were deployed in October 2016 when Russia amped up nuclear arms missiles plans:

NATO defense ministers are meeting throughout Wednesday and Thursday to map out plans for each of the groups.

‘Close to our borders, Russia continues its assertive military posturing,’ said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday.

‘This month alone, Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad and suspended a weapons-grade plutonium agreement with the United States.

‘And Russia continues to destabilize eastern Ukraine with military and financial support for the separatists.

This above pronouncement was published by the UK on Oct. 26, 2016, when the Americans were eclipsed by Russian hacking scandals and its Presidential election. The Russians distract Americans from electing Clinton while moving troops closer to Baltic states and preparing nuclear arms.

Americans played along, jumped on the bandwagon to fight Clinton, all the while playing into the Kremlin’s hands. Thank goodness NATO wasn’t distracted enough to miss Russia’s nuclear ams proliferation during that time. While Trump played the Clinton “hacking scandal,” Putin played with nuclear arms:

The pictures were revealed online by chief designers from the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau.

A message posted alongside the picture said: ‘In accordance with the Decree of the Russian Government ‘On the State Defense Order for 2010 and the planning period 2012-2013’, the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau was instructed to start design and development work on the Sarmat. ‘

The RS-28 Sarmat missile is said to contain 16 nuclear warheads and is capable of destroying an area the size of France or Texas, according to Russian news network Zvezda, which is owned by Russia’s ministry of defence.

The weapon is also able to evade radar.

Putin is capable of playing a shell in cups game, and Trump is only capable of watching one hand at a time. Unfortunately, Americans were bogged down by shaming Clinton, and couldn’t admit that Russian interference might have been subterfuge all along. I wondered why Russia would go to such lengths to antagonize Americans, and whenever Russia starts a campaign like this, I am always looking for the end game. What did Russia really want? Aside from hacking Clinton’s email? Russia wanted a distraction, cover for its nuclear arms program.

Trump Debate Question Scandal and Golden Showers vs. Putin Nuclear Arms Development. According to The Daily Mail.UK, this is what Putin has been working on, proving his ability to multitask far exceeds Trump’s:

It is expected to have a range of 6,213 miles (10,000 km), which would allow Moscow to attack European cities as well as reaching cities on America’s west and east coasts.

 Dr Sutyagin points out that the SS-18 missiles which the Russians currently rely on were designed in 1988 during the Soviet Union and were built at a factory in Dnipropetrovsk, in what is now the Ukraine.

He said: ‘Not only are they too fast but they have got rid of the predictable flight path.

‘It manouevres all the way so it is terribly difficult for any missile defence system to shoot it down.’

The Russian Defence Ministry plans to put the Sarmat into service in late 2018 and remove the last SS-18 by 2020.

The Sarmat has been in development since 2009 and is scheduled to start replacing the old ICBMs in 2018.

The new missile is said to be undergoing testing near Miass in Russia.

While the US is engaged in managing their clown, Iran uses propaganda to claim the US has declared war with Russia, Russia is developing nuclear warheads in the Ukraine, which Russia just happened to invade when it needed to upgrade its old nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian plant. Russia has had a plan all along: use propaganda to distract the US, use propaganda to get ISIS to fight the US and weaken it, use propaganda to destabilize the Presidential election and all the while, use the distraction as cover to build its nuclear weapons while it invades the Baltic states and moves across Europe. Once KGB, always KGB. Let’s not underestimate this man and call him a mere chauvinist, let’s just call him dangerous. And really, America, let’s wake up to the reality that he planning for war.

Amid Russian Hacking and Interference In US 2016 Presidential Election Justice Department Begin Investigation of FBI Influencing Elections With “Improper Considerations”

January 12, 2017

If all of you at home have been wondering why the US FBI has not reported on the explosive allegations of Russian involvement in Trump’s campaign, his sexual predilection for Golden Showers, or the fact that the Russians hacked the Democratic emails, news reports have just been released showing the Justice Department fears the FBI may have been influencing elections with “improper considerations,” or in other words “Russian shit has hit the fan.” The US Justice Department is investigating why the FBI chose to release documents the Russians hacked on Clinton’s email, but protected Trump:

The Justice Department is opening an investigation into whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s decisions during the 2016 presidential campaign were appropriate, Reuters reports.

According to a statement released by the department’s inspector general, the review will examine the following:

  • Allegations that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI director’s public announcement on July 5, 2016, and the director’s letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations;
  • Allegations that the FBI deputy director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters;
  • Allegations that the Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs improperly disclosed nonpublic information to the Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters;
  • Allegations that department and FBI employees improperly disclosed nonpublic information; and
  • Allegations that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI’s release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1, 2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize same, were influenced by improper considerations.

The Justice Department’s announcement on Thursday follows growing evidence that FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform members of Congress that it had comes across a new batch of emails connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign swung the election in favor of Donald Trump.