« Thought for the Day | Main | Logical and Moral Consistency »

May 07, 2009


Cpl. Susy H. Aguilar, USMC:

“There was a time when we were out in what seemed like the middle of nowhere,” said Aguilar, recalling her first combat experience. “I was already scared as it was, and then we started to get mortared.”

FL_FemGunner_050109.jpg “There was a little [Iraqi] boy who I had been interacting with,” she said. “He was really scared and wouldn’t leave my side. One of the grunts came back, gave me his flak jacket and told me to put it on the boy.

“He had no problem giving up his flak and risking his own safety. That is when I decided I wanted to do a more combat-related [job]. I wanted to be more like them.”

More Great Americans.

Also, photo of the day:


Posted by Cassandra at May 7, 2009 08:20 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Nothing beats a little 'green tea' on a hot day while providing cover.

I will remember our troops and their families in harm's way on this our National Prayer Day!

Posted by: vet66 at May 7, 2009 09:36 AM

“He had no problem giving up his flak and risking his own safety. That is when I decided I wanted to do a more combat-related [job]. I wanted to be more like them.”

I'd bet the Marine's attitude of risking his own safety is not exceptional in the Corps. (Where do these courageous people come from?) God bless each and everyone of these heroes, including the "exceptional" Lioness.

Like Vet66, I will also lift up to the Lord **All** our troops in harm's way on this National Prayer Day.

Posted by: ziobuck at May 7, 2009 11:11 AM

Uncle ZioBUCK; You are correct. It is not exceptional but the norm and the rule for our military family. That is the difference between a liberator and an occupier. I daresay that given the opportunity, you would prove exceptional also in like-minded circumstances. There is a little 'hero' in each of us if we choose to get involved in helping others expecting no reward or recognition for the effort.

Pray for humility, strenght and courage of conviction in bringing strength to the weak and defenseless.

Semper Fi Cpl. Aguilar.

Posted by: vet66 at May 7, 2009 11:57 AM

Like the overwhelming majority of the young people who are in the service of the nation, Cpl. Aguilar is a shining example of who we really are.

I would be honored to have her in my detachment. My people are some of the very best, and they try every day to be better than they were the day before. Generally, they succeed, and make my life and job easy, while making me proud to say that I am on their team.


Posted by: kbob in Katy at May 7, 2009 01:58 PM

i hope the one accepting tea realizes that a soldier in a combat area doing that is a good way to ahve no soldier in that position when needed.

human nature in war is a liability...

while most of the time it would probably work out, it only takes once to ruin a good day.

congrats to the lady soldier. (and i am sincere in meaning it, so dont think the next statments have anything to do with making a case for or against, they are just facts. i am not making a case either way). But with a birth rate in the US of 1.6 there isnt going to be anything to defend (go ahead you do the simple math and realize the subversion of 40 years), since 1.9 is the point of irreversable demographic change. They won. for every lady that does not have children, another one has to have FIVE to maintain the culture and population.

demographically speaking, unless the women suddenly change their mind and have babies similar to the islamics (8 per woman), there is nothing to defend.

the west is alareay dead and doesnt know it.

there are other ways to be erased than the ones we focus on... with abortions at over 40%, women serving (again, stating whats happening, not stating it to make a case), women waiting till they are infertile, and more...

1.6 means that the population is halving so fast that if the dems didnt keep the borders open, we might notice that they are replacing the bricks in the wall of free individuials with bricks of uneducated more fecund people.

if they closed the borders, we might see the end result of all these polices we have been convinced are good and more moral...

we may have noticed that we lost 50 million in births but gained 50 million in less capable people (see genetics too as to denying differences that are there. the problem is being worked on all over teh chess board... so each thing seems to stand alone and isnt bad, but togethyer, they converge and cause the end regardless of all our arguments.


thats a less than 50 year progression at 1.6 births.

each lady out int he field is going to cost the state a future. but she will be fulfilled.

the point is that women had a lot of value before these cahnges, now they are as disposable as the men.

no state that ever did this ever survived.

maybe we will buck the trend.

but i dont see the birth rate going to families that large, so the end result is now a given.

ESPECIALLY now that there is no question as to the lifestyle being the best that causes it.

According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of developed world by the year 2050. The US Census Bureau notes that the 74 million people added to the world's population in 2002 were fewer than the high of 87 million people added in 1989–1990. The annual growth rate was 1.2 percent, down from the high of 2.2 percent in 1963-64.

the US is for ourselves, as there is no more posterity...

the game is over..

unless there is a sea change in cyulture, goals, life and such... its over.

now this may piss everyoen off. but fighting my facts will not change them, but winning over them will insure the end result comes with no opposition.

i only discuss whats happening, not waht choicesa are to be made. i dont promote a end...

thats up to every one to decide based on the facts. each as individuals.

no matter what everyone chooses, i will just live on as i always do.. i have no skin in this fight, nor do i favor sides.

all i am saying is if you want X you have to do Y
you cant do W, and keep Y...

Posted by: artfldgr at May 7, 2009 02:49 PM

Your math is off.

300mm people -> 150mm couples(women) @ 1.6 children = 240mm children.
240mm people -> 120mm couples(women) @1.6 children = 192mm children.

Given that a generation is about 25 years in 50 years there will be 192 million children not 37mm.

To reach 40mm children for a single generation will take 225 years.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2009 03:01 PM

Additionally given a 825/100000 death rate we would expect to lose 62mm people per 25 years.

The number of births wouldn't drop below that level for 175 years.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2009 03:06 PM

OK, more back of the napkin math:

Assumptions: 1) 50% of population is female 2)1.6 births per female is constant 3) 825/100,000 per year death rate is constant 4) Generation is 25 years 5) 0 immigration

Current population is 300mm which leads to 150mm females having 240mm children this generation.
Deaths will be 2.5mm/year for each of the next 25 years so 62mm people will pass away.

300mm people + 240mm children - 62mm deaths = 478mm people in 25 years (1 generation)

478mm people + 192mm children* - 99mm deaths** = 572mm people in 50 years (2 generations)

Iterating this procedure yeilds a max population of 607mm people in 100 years (4 generations).

The population will not reach less than 300mm people for 275 years and not reach less than 40mm people for 575 years.

I don't think it's quite time to be sounding the death knell for the U.S. any time soon.

* since only 240mm of which are child-bearing one generation later: 240mm*.5*1.6 = 192mm
** There are now 178mm more people so number of deaths rise

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2009 04:29 PM


lol. Let me break out my Pickett log-log slip stick and validate those numbers...after coffee!!!


Posted by: kbob in Katy at May 8, 2009 08:05 AM

"Let me break out my Pickett log-log slip stick..."
Whoaaaaaa.... I'm getting a tingle running up side mah leg! batteries included!

But in all seriousness, I think I'll throw in with ya Kbob, and vet66 and Zio... and of course most everyone else round he'ah.

Every time the bile begins to rise due to too much exposeure to current affairs in politics, finance or culture, I read the milblogs and have my faith in our nation and her sons and daughters restored.

Posted by: bt_slide-out-that-funky-logarithm_hun at May 8, 2009 10:12 AM

Thanks, Cassandra. I loved the Lioness article and the tea-time picture. However some of the comments here and at military.com made me sad. I know there's a lot to worry about and a lot to fight about but I think it would be very nice if we could declare one day a year - heck, I'd settle for one day a decade - when everyone would look at stories of courage, service, and kindness and either say, "Great" or just say nothing at all.

Posted by: Elise at May 10, 2009 10:20 AM

Here, here, Elise. I was trying to figure out how to say that very thing, but couldn't find the *right* words.

Posted by: DL Sly at May 10, 2009 01:46 PM

replacement is 2.5 births per couple.

that is each parent has to replace themselves and make a bit extra to make stagnant population sans everything else.

we are at 1.6

somehow you guys figured out how, throug bad math, that 1.6 is enough to replace the population

yes i made a mistake applying it to the whole population as if the elderly and children can have babies too... but no one caught me on it

instead you all joined in and tried to use it to make a mish mosh.

every pair of male and female has to have 2.5 babies during their life time to replace the population and keep it stable.

the US population is stable, but thats because islamics and spanish have 8 and 5 babies per pair, unlike the US caucasians that are having 1.6 per pair.

and now want to know where the worst math mistke is?

you start with 300 milloin and then apply 1.6..

then you take the result, and apply 1.6 again

ah, the first 300 million had already shot their wad and do not get to make another 1.6 again!!!

so its 300 mill times 1.6

yes if you want the total population then you ad them... but if your going to continue and do the math, then the RESULT of 300 X 1.6 is then used... and the 300 million is dropped.

300mm people + 240mm children - 62mm deaths = 478mm people in 25 years (1 generation)

478mm people + 192mm children* - 99mm deaths** = 572mm people in 50 years (2 generations)

that second one does not start off from scratch again... the 300 million above already shot their wads and so do not get another 1.6

no.. the next increase ONLY comes from the 240 million...

and if he kept doing it... he would note that when the baby boomers died off (the original 300 million), he would have less than half left alive.

the point is that by adding the old people back in to get the current population your hiding the trend that shows smaller and smaller amounts, and so when they die later, the populatino will suddenly plumit.

in your example 300 million are missing from the third generation, and they start subtracting at the point yous topped.

Posted by: artfldgr at May 18, 2009 05:05 PM


Please don't take offense, OK?

When men choose not to have kids (and many don't) you don't hear comments about how it's the fault of "men's lib".

I agree that, in the aggregate, the fact that women are choosing to have fewer kids, have them later (which impacts fertility), or not have them at all is not a good thing. In fact, I've written many posts on this subject.

That said, it does grate a bit to have the problem ascribed to just one half of the old genetic equation. Both men and women have become more self-centered and less willing (for that reason) to have kids.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 18, 2009 05:10 PM


The 192 million do not count the 300 million that already had kids. There were 240mm children from that generation. Those 240mm kids which have not had children already spawn those 192mm for the next generation. I even explicitly said so.

Second, if you follow the numbers, I never said 1.6 was a replacement rate. The population numbers do, after all, go down in the long run. They just don't go down near as fast as you ascribe.

While the *rate* is going down, the nominal numbers will still go up in the short term because more people are being born than they are dieing. Due to this, it'll be a while before the raw population numbers fall, and fall they will. It'll just take a couple of centuries before that happens and a lot can change between now and then.

Lastly, Cass has an excellent point. It takes two to make a baby. It is the guy's fault everybit as much as the lady's.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 20, 2009 10:01 AM

actually they DO go down that fast. i am just bad at this area compared to other areas i discuss.

take a look at the numbers compared to when i was a child... a minority that was rare enough that they were introduced to america through i love lucy and the jets in west side story is now more than 25% of the population exceeding the africans who have been here for much longer.

Lastly, Cass has an excellent point. It takes two to make a baby. It is the guy's fault everybit as much as the lady's.

this does not fly... not when the women who are representing women are not nice or the kind of women that women really want to be like. (read the authro of bridget jones recently!!!)

and by that logic, i should go out and rape a woman, cause the low birth rate is my fault that they are not cooperating being baby factories.

by the way, that attitude is carried by some actual third world people in some really nasty socialsit dictatorships.

its not mens fault that the period of maximum fertility and lowest incident of genetic problems is between 14 and 28.. that perimenopaush starts at 27... that the rate of downs syndrome doubles very soon after 30.

its not me or te men who are telling the ladied to behave in a way that mroe than half ot them have an STD (that makes them infertile)... that they have multiple abortions preventing later fertility that they desire.. that they think they can fix the probme using 50k of state money when they are 55 for an implant.

us men dont refer to women as breeders...
they are who we love and want to share life with, not the locak farmers pig we put on hip waders for romance.

our president thinks pregnancy is a punishment

even roe of roe v wade has a differnt opnion.

while i am neither for nor against ideologically.. by desired otcome the answer is clear...

either you want to maintain the culture and yuo think its ok.. or you dont.

this planet has been here fro more than 4 billion years.

you and i exist as a being who has been the result of billions of births in lineage over a billion years with you being the culmination of that long unbroken chain.

i personally thinki that just that alone says the person is special...

everyone always acts as if what i report is somethig i tooled around at home making up.. no..

how many here have read or studied demographics at all..

the numbers int he example above PLUMMIT once the first large group starts to die out.

300 million... willprocue 2.1...with immigration. which is stagnant.

the spanish in that group will have 5 kids for every 1.5 that a person of western descent will, and a islamic will produce on average 8 kids per 1.6

you dont think that will make for a fast change in demographics once the baby boomers are gone in 20 years?

and the man who invented the birth control also has changed his mind...

The chemist who made a key discovery leading to the invention of the birth control pill has written a commentary calling demographic decline in Europe a “horror scenario” and a “catastrophe” brought on in part by the pill’s invention.

Mr. Carl Djerassi, now 85 years old, was one of three researchers whose formulation of the synthetic progestagen Norethisterone marked a key step in the creation of the first oral contraceptive pill, the Guardian reports.

In a personal commentary in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, Djerassi said his invention is partly to blame for demographic imbalance in Europe. On the continent, he argued, there is now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction.”

“This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete,” he wrote.

Djerassi described families who had decided against reproduction as “wanting to enjoy their schnitzels while leaving the rest of the world to get on with it.”

here is the demographics of russia..

they instututed no fault divorce, free love, and abortion in 1918... and we copied..

care to see how the demographics pan out?


and FERTILITY RATE is what i am talking about... as i said i am not a demographer.

the boomers are entering the last 20 years of their lifes..

Estimated number of baby boomers, as of July 1, 2005. 78.2 million

they are about to drop off so fast that 10 years ago large corporations started buying all the funeral parlors and business they could, the industry is almost a monopoly in anticipation.

Overall, minorities have accounted for 83 percent of the U.S. population gain during the decade.

Percent Increase in U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2007

hows that for numbers... the total population increas between 2000-2007 was 7%... 2% were white... 8 percent were black... 9 percent american indian... 25 percent chinese. and 28 percent spanish.

from U.S. Baby Boomers Moving Out, Minorities Moving In

so far i dont see anyone but me putting up links to back what they are saying.. just a lot of assertions i ,ust be wrogn...

Experts wrangle over ‘birth dearth’
Rates decline rapidly in some nations, complicating debate
In fact, no major industrialized country has a fertility rate above 2.1, known as the replacement rate because it is the number of children per woman at which a population replaces itself. The average fertility rate in Europe is 1.45, a rate that could lead, one day, to a severe decline in population. And 22 developing countries have also dropped below this threshold.


populations professor Joel Cohen says that while 44 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where fertility is at or below the replacement rate, the average number of children per woman across the world is almost three, 50 percent over the replacement level. And many developing nations have fertility rates as high as five times that of the countries Wattenberg cites. Yemen, Ethiopia and Uganda all have fertility rates above 7 and in Nigeria, the fifth largest contributor to the world’s population, the average woman has almost 6 children.

so MY POINT was if you want your culture, art, music, religion, history, and such to survive, then it matters if your people have babies.

i am not talking about whether there will be enough people.

i am talking about whether those people will have the beliefs of americans and be free, or the beleifs of mass movemetns of very fecund islamics and communists?

lets make the idea small..

you have 100 fertil families.

the blues the purples and the greens...

the blues are the dominant ones. there are 70 of them... the purples are the next with 20 of them, and the greens are the smallest with 10.

but the birth rates of the blues are 1.5, purples are 4, and greens are 7

each can live through 3 generations (we live through 3-4 on average).

70, 20, 10 - has 52, 40, 35 - makign population total 122, 60, 45 - 227 so population appears to grow (remember when the math above was done to disprove me, it started arbitrarily like this too, it didnt take into accoutn how many of the number was previous parents and things. which means that the TOTAL starts at 300mil, but the number of fertil ones that have yet to do their thing is much lower)

so 100, becomes 227.. look at the agregate and it appears to grow..

start from
70, 20, 10 = 100
so we now have this after one generation
122, 60, 45 – 227 they have 39, 80, 122.5
161, 140, 167 – 468

but now the minorities are higher than the others, but the laws havent changed. i could have selected rates that would have made the TOTAL stay almost static or go up slowly, but would in only about 5 generations completely flip the demographics. there is one more generation before deaths start, THEN the real flip happens like a flash..

161, 140, 167 – 468

29, 160, 427

190, 300, 594 - 1194

as long as the original population looks at the total, they wont notice the changes till too late.

its the next generation when the boomers go from the first year that makes all the diference.

these are the births
21, 320, 1494
these are the totals before deaths

211, 620, 2088 - 2919

and numbers after first generation dies

141, 600, 2078

so stopping the computations before the first generation giving birth does not show that what starts out strong, and is weak, collapses at that point.

so the next year the first column then only adds
16 new kids, but removes 52 in deaths.

now. if your a profewsional mathemetician and bronx science guy like me, you might look at the math before you discount what i am saying.

that once a coutnry has a nuclear weapon, there is no way to take it over by force. period. you have to take it over by subversion and replacement and manipulating the demographics. then you can get them to vote away the old and then make the new.

whats nice for the left is taht as this goes, the presumed and targeted oppressor group will become a minority, while the laws will still favor the new dominant replacements.

the reason is that minority is not defined by numbers!!!!!!!!!!!

so 6 billion chinese in the world are a minority
but less than half a million latvians are not.

well, as long as thats the idea, and your borders are open, then they are replacing the population whiel keeping the total growing or near static.

the people looking at the total, says everythign is fine. the mathematically challenged will argue wrongly agaisnt it and not really understand.


look at that total again after they start dying.

do you think the new dominant class who now feels the new minority class that owes them will then be fair and level the laws, or remove advantage, or will they do to tehm what they beleive was done to them (but was actually different peple who weren teven born doing the doing!).

the thing here is which is more important to YOU!

i know what is important to ME... and i am making my choices not from blindness.

this is why i think its great that SOME women are inthe army and such. but think its bad to socially engineer them in droves to do so..

i think the manipualtino of socuial engineering is bad. i like free people making their choices.

but when yuu read women who lead the movement saying this, and being advisors to presidents, then do you really think that these few women really want the rest of them free to make their OWN choices, or free to make the choices they impose on them through social engineering?

does this woman represnt how you feel?
cause its her policies that are listended to and put forth using YOUR power.

and us men.. we have no power to save our families, cause our women dont stand with us for that. so we either marry foreingers, or we live in mom and dads basement while thye yougn chippies are hardening themselves, collecting deseases, making themselves miserable, and then suddenlyt hey want the ones they didnt want before

thats fine!! thats their choice.

but choice has to do with knowing.
and i dont care what people choose, as long as they know!!!

freedom requires choice
and choice requires knowing

do these women represent all women to YOU
thats because we follow THEIR policies.
which is fine if they are doign what you want.

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"Marriage is a form of slavery." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 216.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men." -- Wendy Dennis.

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Women's Room

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

do these women represnt you? they dotn represent me... they dotn represent my mom, sister or granmotehr (When she was a medical research scientists in 1930)...

they represent totalitariansim.. they hate men..

the women here never made me feel hated... they dotn hate men any more than i hate women..

funny thing about lenin and free love... the woman that started it said... Kollontai is her name. do you know her? do you know the history of the soviet union, the laws, and such

for if your arguig agaisnt me, your arguing FOR communism...

belief does not beat reason
imagination does not beat experience

In periods of turmoil, it is easy for sexual relations to be overturned. The French Revolution is a classic example of this. During the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war, the past order, authority, and morality were completely rejected, collapsed, and were overturned, and a new order and morality emerged. In such an age, it was inevitable that sexual relations among young people would also be very confused and tend towards being impulsive.

A “communist” theory that encouraged this also emerged, and the “glass-of-water theory” criticized here is one example. There was much talk at the time of a new sexual lifestyle, and Kollontai’s history of women sang the praises of absolute free love.

Lenin opposed this tendency, and sought “self-control and self-discipline” even in affairs of love, warning that “dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois [and] a phenomenon of decay” and that this should not be imitated. He asked how this “glass-of-water theory” was any different from bourgeois decadent thought.

“I feel bound to make one point right away. I suggest you delete altogether paragraph 3 dealing with ‘the demand (on the part of women) for free love.’ This is, in fact, a bourgeois, not a proletarian demand. What do you really mean by it?” (Jan. 17, 1915 letter to Inessa Armand, Collected Works vol. 34)

thiis all from Marxist Comrades group.. excerpted from "lenins own words"

“You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desire, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. The glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 49)

in the quote is the reason for pushing this on us, and now refusing to take it back by them.

they took decadence and pushed it to the point of harm.

they knew that most men would not want to drink from a dirty glass, and that alone with every other point will push down fertility.

and so, facilitate the change from a free coutnry into a communist state, as the dying out lose power and ability to teach the young the principals of their ownculture and history without revision

my family came from these states...

how about yours?

Posted by: artfldgr at May 22, 2009 05:24 PM