Girls can now join the Boy Scouts?

May 2, 2018

The recent announcement that girls can join the Boy Scouts, and that the organization will remove the word "Boy" from its title is a troubling sign that boys can no longer have places to congregate amongst themselves.

Is this good for the country at large?

______________________________

I was shocked and saddened to hear the recent news that the venerable Boy Scouts of America (BSA), of which I spent during my formative years, and had become an Eagle Scout, has now made the announcement that girls can join the historic organization.  While I am supportive of inclusion in certain instances, I strongly believe that having organizations for young boys and men to have a place to meet, learn from each other, acquire life skills, is a good thing. That the organization is no longer a haven for those individuals to grow together makes me sad.   I started as a Cub Scout with my friends from elementary school, and many of our fathers volunteered their time. It was a wonderful period for me.  I looked forward to Cub Scout meetings because I got to hang out with my friends and learn new skills, and ways to improve myself.  Some of those friends followed me into the Boy Scouts, and I had similar experiences, which included hiking 25 miles in the Sierra Nevada mountains, sleeping under the stars, and attending cookouts, canoeing down the Colorado River, and camping on Catalina Island's Cherry Valley.  I loved those times, precisely because I bonded with my friends and father.  Even though many of my friends eventually stopping going to meetings and traveling, I stuck it out, because I learned so much and gained skills with various merit badges (such as Aviation, Emergency Preparedness, and Archery to name a few), some of whom were taught by dedicated Scout leaders.

I am confused as to why the organization would do this, especially since there is already a healthy place for girls who want similar experiences called, wait for it...The Girl Scouts!  Young girls an women can enjoy the same types of camping, traveling and hiking that the boys have, and they sell delicious cookies to boot!  The Girl Scouts even put out an official statement of opposition to this measure and provided their own reasoning for the Boy Scouts to open such a decision.  The Girl Scouts do not believe that this will help the BSA but hurt itself and the Girl Scouts themselves. 

So, what was the primary reason?  It could be social media pressure, due to years of controversial decisions such as banning gay scout leaders and transgender individuals, which led to reversing those bans. This led to churches to stop sponsoring scout troops, including the Church of Latter Day Saints, which provides a large share of buildings for scout troops to use.  The Mormons have a significant percentage of Scouting participants, and this was a major blow to the Boy Scouts of America.  In fact, just recently, the Church of Latter Day Saints has made it official, that after December 31, 2019, the LDS church will remove itself from the Boy Scouts of America and create their own Mormon-centered organization for its members.

I think the reason that the organization opened the movement to girls is that with a large number of churches removing themselves from participating in the Boy Scouts, the organization had no choice but to find new members and entities that would be open to sponsoring scout troops.  Over 90% of young boys do not participate in the scouting experience so this measure could be a desperate attempt to stay relevant and keep the movement going.

This move by the BSA has been met with howls of anger, opposition and disgust by conservative commentators such as Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld of Fox News, and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA.  Others, such as myself, are saddened by this decision. I feel that boys and young men are losing opportunities to spend time with their peers and older adult role models.  There are ample times for boys and young men to spend time with girls, including at school events and social organizations.  I don't know why the BSA chose to do this.  Perhaps there was enormous pressure from women's groups, plus various social media platforms, which did their best over the years to bully and pressure the organization to include girls.  I am perplexed by their efforts since the Girl Scouts provide the same opportunities for young girls who get to engage their peers in the same learning environments.  It could be the part of the methods of the feminist movement which seeks to engage in conflict with organizations that cater to solely boys and young men and force these organizations to remove obstacles to any girls who want to participate.  Even though there is a similar organization for young women, I think the greater prize was forcing an organization that caters to young boys and men to finally allow girls to participate.  Especially when feminists have created places for women only to meet, network and engage in women-specific activism.  

So, what feminists label as "inclusivity" is actually access to anything they envy, while at the same time, protecting women-only organizations for "safe spaces" for females to congregate and spend time with each other. That is not inclusivity, but hypocrisy.  I do not support the decision of the Boy Scouts of America on this.  It is a sad day indeed.

In addition to Syria, there is another looming crisis, a financial one, this one coming from Asia.

April 12, 2018

If war breaks out in Syria, another type of war, a financial one, will open in the Pacific and Asia.

What is Trump doing?

___________________________________

With the temperamental and at times juvenile behavior in his first term as president, Americans are bracing for the worst with President Trump's decision as to what should be done for Syria.  As is American custom, military options are always the first choice, and cheerleading from corporate-owned media is part of the main course of the televised bombing.  Americans seem to be ok with this practice, but at some point, the citizens of the United States should ask serious questions about whether this policy will yield the type of results that will benefit the country in the long-term.  The fact that a volatile President Trump has access to sensitive information, and tends to show-off that information (for instance, when Israeli intelligence gave vital data regarding Syrian defenses before a prior bombing, and Trump bragged to a Russian delegation in the Oval Office, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about it) is not a good sign for other countries' intelligence services, who are rightfully doubtful about sharing future information with President Trump.  He lacks the respect and deep understanding that is required when American intelligence assets provide important information, and the dangerous conditions from which the information was gathered for decisions that affect the world.  If Trump is to coordinate an allied response to Russian aggression in the region, he needs to have NATO and other allies on the same page to work out what actions are prudent to support American foreign policy. To his critics, Donald Trump possesses the behavior of a teenager, and they rightfully question whether he truly understands the immense consideration these foreign policy decisions have on the United States and the men and women who serve our great country.

It begs the question of whether this president can handle another more serious issue that is developing in the Pacific region around China, Japan, and other prominent economies.  With his recent boast of enacting trade tariffs, I doubt the president understands that many countries possess American debt, and President Trump pursues reactionary policies that are intended to please his base will cause those countries who own our debt to make their own retaliatory actions that will seriously affect the American economy. 

In an article in Politico, author William Pesek wrote at length that President Trump may not understand the effects of what he says regarding trade with our Asian friends, and China especially.  Those leaders have political considerations of their own.  Perhaps he does not fully comprehend what can happen if he becomes too bellicose in trying to appease his reactionary base when those countries force counteractions to his own, and what it can lead to.  If China, Japan, and other powerful economies decide to dump American debt into the market, those sell-offs can have catastrophic consequences for international markets and the American economy.  Mr. Pesek states in the Politico article that if Trump follows through on his threats, China may decide to scale back their government purchases of US debt, and that will have massive spillover into the global economy.  I doubt Trump himself understands how the markets are so intertwined.  Not to mention his standing with his own party, wealthy donor base and how his re-election will be affected.  Personally, I am in the camp that despite his wealth, he lacks a basic understanding of economics, and the precarious position foreign governments are contemplating in terms of what to do with the dangerous idea of adding more debt to our way of life here.  President Trump seems to think his boasts will scare other countries into cowering in agreement with his ignorant stances on American government spending.  It is not 1945 (when the United States had the most influence by producing 50% of the world's GDP), which is the beginning position of so many American conservatives use when negotiating with foreign governments.

Mr. Pesek explains that China's leader, Xi Jinping, thinks in decades, and now that he has total control of the Chinese Premiership, can outlast any measures Trump uses to please his equally ignorant base of what could happen to the American economy.  The Chinese leader needs to have increased growth of approximately 6% and plans to have China be a worldwide leader in Aerospace technology, electric vehicles, biotechnology and high-speed rail.  If that aspiration comes to fruition, America could be in a position where its global perch would be challenged and eventually surpassed by China's wealthy economy.  The Politico piece provides a discussion that with a trade war, China would possess less American debt, and that will have scary consequences for American jobs and future rosy economic prospects, of which export-heavy China is dependent on.  Xi may react accordingly to protect his own position with his own base. There is a no win-win situation for this economic conflict, and President Trump would be wise to think twice about what he is doing.

President Trump may think military operations may be cut and dry, and to some extent (in terms of mission goals, successes and after effects) they are.  A conflict between countries, which focus on economic impacts, and be equally devastating and have negative outcomes for all countries in the Pacific.  The US removal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which pleased Democratic grassroots and America labor unions, was not received well by those countries that worked hard to sign on for the trade policy.   China will take advantage of that, since Trump's base may not understand how this plays into China's plan to win friends in the Pacific region, especially close to its borders and strengthen its position in conflict zones, such as the South China Sea. Those nations (Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan) will have to make important decisions (economic and military) and vigorously contest Beijing's claims to that mineral-rich area.

I hope the way President Trump handles the Middle East is not damaging to American goals in the Pacific.  The economic dangers can be far worse (outside of nuclear confrontation with Russia notwithstanding) and will put into question whether his administration, and the military and economic hawks who advise him, are capable of steering the next generation of American influence in a region of the world that China wants to own for its own future.

The new CIA Director: Proponent of Torture or Effective Spook?

March 18, 2018

Is the proposed appointment of Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA good for the country, or will it open new wounds that many around the country thought had healed?

_________________________

With the recent news that President Trump has plans to appoint career CIA official Gina Haspel to the directorship of the CIA, I wonder whether this a good move. Is she the right person for the job?  Many Democrats are against her appointment because it is rumored that she was part of the agency's notorious and controversial rendition program (approved by the Bush Administration), in which the spy agency worked with nefarious governments to transport suspected terrorists for interrogation and sometimes, alleged torture. It is illegal under current US and international law.  The Guardian newspaper, in a March 16th post, stated that she specifically ran a controversial "black" site in Thailand, and who believed the program was successful and should've been in use.  Democrats, who are desperately hoping to regain control of at least one or possibly both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections, are very upset about this possible appointment.  Some lawmakers feel that her appointment would signal to the world community that the United States government accepts torture again and would alienate allies who are against this practice.

Former intelligence officials, including Michael Hayden (former NSA and CIA Director under Bush and Obama, respectively), have supported her for the agency's leadership, saying she had done whatever her government and country have asked, according to The Guardian article.  The newspaper article's author, Vincent Warren, worked for a human rights organization wants those who torture prosecuted under the law.  Mr. Warren believes that the United States having a CIA Director who participated in alleged torture and working for President Trump is not a good symbol for the world to acknowledge.  It would make cooperation with those countries who do not see the value in torture to work collaboratively with American intelligence sources challenging. In addition, President Trump appears to admire and align his beliefs with known authoritarian leaders and dictators like Vladimir Putin, President Duterte of the Philippines and President Erdogan of Turkey.  Having Ms. Gaspel as CIA Director, who works on behalf of a president who fires those who do not comply with his policies and contradicts Trump's tweets, will anger allies who are trying to defend their own democracies and government transparency.  The Nobel Committee gave President Obama the Peace Prize his first year in office simply because he was the total opposite of President Bush, who approved "non-traditional" interrogation methods and gave his European allies immense fits for his behavior.  

I will admit that the image of President Trump standing next to his incoming CIA Director, one who is alleged to have run a torture site in a foreign country, accepting his recommendation for the top intelligence post in the national security apparatus does nothing for America's international standing.  Those who support the president, and his controversial policy positions (the so-called "Muslim ban, building a wall on the southern border with Mexico) do not see the negative and contradictory image of the United States perception as the "Arsenal of Democracy" and the "Leader of the Free World" and having a controversial CIA Director in charge of intelligence gathering.  I hope President Trump just considers her but chooses some once else. There are many other competent former spooks who could handle the job and the political dexterity that comes with the prominent position.  However, I think unless Democrats regain control of the House, and bring Ms. Haspel to testify before a powerful House committee, her position as Director of the CIA will be secure under the time under Trump Administration.

The Danger of John Bolton as President Trump's new National Security Advisor

March 14, 2018

Reports of President Trump considering Republican operative John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor is a scary idea

____________________________

With rumors of President Trump's current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster's impending dismissal, reports have stated that the president is considering GOP hack John Bolton to fill that role in the near future.  This troubles me.  Bolton is a neocon in the mold of those including himself, who argued for and supported the horrible foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq.  He is of the variety that feels that any foreign policy issue is easily solved by military invasion or combat operations.  Bolton has argued for the pre-emptive bombing of North Korea's nuclear facilities, regardless of the horrible consequences of a retaliatory response from that country and the catastrophic effects it will have on South Korea and its population.  No sane person will see this as productive that can have positive outcomes.  In addition, John Bolton wants Israel to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear reactors and force the United States, in conjunction with Israel, to engage in war with Iran.  If Americans think Iraq was a horrible foreign policy blunder, war with Iran will be worse.  Iraq has always been a divided country of various people, with a Sunni Muslim minority, a Shia Muslim majority and a large Kurdish population.  Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, who provided stability, albeit with crimes against its ethnic minorities, which included using chemical weapons to kill those citizens.

The Bush administration did not anticipate the tinderbox of rage that would envelop the country once the dictator was overthrown and the chaos that followed.  The Sunni minority through the Ba'ath party controlled all levers of government had the majority of jobs and was shown favoritism by Saddam himself.  The resentment of the Shia majority for those years under his rule exploded and caused needless casualties of American servicemen as a result.  Even the Kurdish population had visions of independence once Saddam was captured, tried by a puppet court and executed.  This made life difficult for the Iraqi population, who had to live with frequent bombings by the Sunni minority (many of whom were Iraqi Army officers and enlisted soldiers), who became a shadow army of terrorists and enemies of U.S. Army and Marines fighting in the country.  It has taken years of constant fighting to bring about a tenuous peace, which is frequently interrupted by chaos and bombings that kill hundreds of Iraqis each year.  I would venture to guess that if you took a poll of people who live in Iraq, many would prefer the stability of Saddam Hussein rather than the shallow peace that the American invasion has brought.  Even the billions of taxpayer-funded training of the new Iraqi Army, with military hardware given to the Iraqi military, have not brought about a better future for the country.

John Bolton was a strong supporter of this fruitless endeavour by the Bush Administration.  He foolishly believed that American military intervention would make for a sound foreign policy decision.  Bolton argues to this day that it was a good idea to invade Iraq and that the so-called "surge" during the last year of the Bush Administration was a success, even though all it really did was provide a false respite in terms of peace and stability.  It essentially bought off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting American forces, but that was never going to be a long-term solution.

Iran is a completely different beast.  Even though a large segment of the population does not like the religious orthodoxy of the controlling Mullahs, Iranians are largely supportive of the nuclear program and generally love their country.  The population does not share the divided nature of Iraq, which is smaller in size and population. The young Iranian population has positive opinions of the United States (but not its government) and is open to rapprochement with the United States.  However, invading Iran would dramatically change that image of the American people.  Iranians do not want to change their government through military force by an outside power.  It will turn the population against invading forces and become an even worse quagmire than what Iraq turned out to be.

I think Bolton is part of the belief that relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis in the American embassy shortly before President Reagan took office.  That shame that the American public felt was the catalyst for a hard line position from the American government since that time. However, that crisis was the culmination of years of oppressive rule by the Shah Pahlavi, who was installed as a puppet leader after the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was head of government from 1951-53. His overthrow was a result of Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize Iranian oil fields, which scared Western oil companies because of damaging monetary losses in the international markets. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, using the Savaak, a brutal secret police force to jail, execute and punish Iranians who did not approve of his rule.  This created an opening for religious mullahs, of which the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first and a fiery leader to boot. He had a passionate support from large swaths of the Iranian people.  His exile by the Shah gave him immense power, and once the Shah was overthrown, culminated in the hostage crisis of American embassy staff.

John Bolton foolishly believes that the presence of American military personnel will give the Iranian people a reason to support an American-installed government.  Has he not learned about the history of prior American involvement?  I cannot believe President Trump wants to have this dunderhead as his chief national security advisor for American foreign policy. What makes him believe that war with Iran will have a positive outcome?  Bolton has never served in combat (during Vietnam he served in the Maryland National Guard, which did not deploy to Southeast Asia at that time), but he seems to have the ear of prominent Republican establishment individuals.  That is what makes me so discouraged regarding the future of our country.  Another war, in addition to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, will break our military.  The Department of Defense cannot bear the burden of another costly war, not to mention the successive and debilitating deployments of our military personnel, many of whom are veterans who are just now transitioning back to civilian life.

In addition to the stupid idea of war with Iran, John Bolton wants military action against the regime of North Korea.  This will be even worse because the casualties of the South Korean population will be tragic.  Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery, and the deaths relating to that barrage will pale in comparison to the civilian deaths in Iraq.  American combat deaths will be far larger than those who gave their lives in Iraq.  Conquering North Korea through ground forces will take at least a decade of constant fighting, and I dare say that we might have another stalemate since Russia and China could, in theory, provide covert support.  I hope Bolton does not think we can fight both Iran and North Korea at the same time.  North Korea could even launch untested ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which could reach Japan and the west coast of the United States.  Who in their right mind outside of neocons thinks these military endeavours will be successful?  And beneficial for the American people?

If President Trump does appoint John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, I am concerned for America and the future of the country.  Mr. Bolton is an irresponsible war hawk and lacks any foresight into what is sound advice to give to the American president. It will show that Trump does not have any idea of what good governance is, nor what type of American foreign policy will be good for the country. John Bolton is a fool, who has no business having the ear of the Leader of the Free World. If America is in a constant state of war, with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and many Americans close to the poverty line, the great experiment that is the American idea will end in ignominy.  John Bolton, through President Trump, will be the architect of that demise.

California and the battle over Federal Authority and Power

March 12, 2018

How the battle over California, sanctuary cities, and the power of the United States government is the new battle between two Americas (liberal and conservative).

_________________________

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has initiated legal proceedings against the state of California over the state protecting undocumented immigrants.  This is the new battle over undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities.  Governor Jerry Brown and members of the state legislature have chosen to ignore federal policy regarding undocumented immigrants and will defy the federal government in terms of cooperating with ICE to remove and deport predominately Hispanic aliens who reside within the state.  While I empathize with those who want to remain in the United States, and I don't support separating families, there needs to be a better way than defy the U.S. government.  This was the essential reason the Civil War started and was the same reasoning the Southern slave states fought for independence from the United States.  This sets a dangerous precedent and will be the focal point for the ongoing war between Democrats and Republicans over the direction of our great country.  I do believe the government needs a proper and humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, but ignoring federal policy through challenging of a president's official directive is not going to be the best way to defend those who live in fear of deportation.  The best way to fight the federal government is through the courts, and the ballot box.  

It is painfully obvious that the Democratic party is doing this to cultivate Hispanic votes for the long-term viability of the party.  Those who remember how Republican governor Pete Wilson in the 1990s, with the help of the California GOP, passed a proposition known as 187, which denied taxpayer public services to illegal immigrants.  This was done with public sentiment within conservative circles to punish those who were illegal, the ability to use public services.  While I understand the anger of non-citizens who see their tax dollars being used by those who came to the United States illegally, the racial undertones and perception were not productive.  As a result of this proposition (which was eventually judged unconstitutional), it produced a negative backlash towards the California GOP and produced heavily Democratic legislatures over the past 20 years.

By Governor Jerry Brown ignoring federal policy, it sets a horrible battle for the United States as a nation of laws.  The Civil War was fought precisely over this issue.  The slave states of the South did not want to adhere to the federal government and its position on slavery.  As a result, the South directly challenged the federal law and ignored the position of the President.  This is what California is attempting to do.  States can pass laws for the benefit of its residents, but any state law that contradicts the U.S. Constitution will be overturned in the courts because federal law supersedes any state law.  This was determined and approved by the states after the Civil War as part of the reconciliation of the union.  I understand that Republicans do this as well, especially when a Democratic administration is in control of the White House (see the Affordable Care Act).  That does not make it right.  We as a country cannot pick and choose which federal law and presidential authority we as citizens want to follow.  That is not how a country functions.  It sets a pattern for the destruction of the Constitution and the future of our democratic republic.

This defiance by the Democratic party in California is a shameless attempt to be political.  It is not productive and effective in the long term.  What is the benefit that Jerry Brown finds in this method?  Does he think that Republicans will not do the same thing when a Democrat wins the White House in the future?  How can the Democrats complain when that happens?  I know that Americans have a short memory, but this is getting to be ridiculous.  California is the most populous state in the union, and it has three of the largest industries in the world (tech, agribusiness, and the entertainment industry).  The state is the 6th largest economy in the world, and the world looks to California in admiration and with tremendous respect.  So, how does an influential state like California make decisions like this, and what is the end game?  The federal courts will reject this defiance and support President Trump and the federal government's prerogatives.  It is a wasted endeavor.  While I do not generally support the Republican party orthodoxy, they are right when they claim that the Democratic party is shamelessly attempting to curry votes with the state's large Hispanic population, and across the country as a whole.

I do not support the mass deportation of the millions of undocumented immigrants, and I do feel that Congress must get its act together and pass legislation that takes into consideration of the humane treatment of those who are here without proper documentation.  I agree wholeheartedly that many of the undocumented immigrants work hard and play a part in the nation's economic engine. Those who have obeyed the laws and play by the rules should be allowed to stay, with certain stipulations.  These include a delay in being eligible for a green card, provided they have no criminal history, learn English (so we can all communicate with each other) and assimilate into our communities.  Protecting and promoting their cultures is great, and makes our country better, but we all need to live under the same set of rules and way of life.  What the Democratic party in California is attempting to promote does not bode well for Americans to get along and live in harmony. Instead of grandstanding for Hispanic votes, the Democrats and Republicans must pass effective immigration reform instead of pandering to voters within their political parties and work to make this country a great place to live.

The Political Fire Bomb Regarding the FBI

February 25, 2018

How the dangerous game between Republicans, Democrats, and corporate media regarding the FBI will lay the groundwork for the destruction of the American Republic

_____________________________

The ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats and their allies in the media regarding the legitimacy of the Donald Trump presidency has reached dangerous levels for our democracy, government institutions and the future of our republic.  Democrats have been pushing the alleged collusion between members of the Trump Administration and the Russian government through Vladimir Putin's associates.  Democratic members of Congress have tried to paint Hillary Clinton's shock loss in November 2016 as a result of collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump's inner circle of friends and close associates.

The gist of their argument is that President Trump used his sons and others like Paul Manafort as background intermediaries to work to ensure Trump won.  I have yet to see any evidence from any member of Congress to prove that there is anything factual or newsworthy.  They are using a dossier compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to show that Trump has committed treason to win a democratic election in the United States. This dossier was promoted by a pro-Hillary organization called Fusion GPS. According to Ben Shapiro, in an article which appeared in the National Review, the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant based on the language of the Steele dossier, which was filled with unverified information.  Fusion GPS allegedly worked with Obama appointees in the upper echelon of the FBI to promote this idea and get the FISA warrant approved to investigate the Trump transition team staffers. The investigation did not begin with former Trump aide Carter Page, but instead with George Papadopoulos, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI recently.  Mr. Shapiro stated that Carter Page was being monitored over a long period of time because of his close ties to elements with the Russian government. There may be suspicion of a crime, but that does not constitute an actual crime once thoroughly investigated. President Trump is not known to have people of integrity on his campaign and White House staff, but unless the proof is irrefutable that there was collusion, I think it best that the country is allowed to move on from this episode and focus on protecting future elections from outside interference.

At some point, Democrats either need to reveal what they allege or they must move on to more productive things, such as trying to win back one or both houses of Congress.  If they don't, it will appear that they are sore losers and instead want to litigate the 2016 election they felt entitled to win. In fact, after watching Tucker Carlson on Fox News, he believes that if this investigation does not prove any malfeasance on the part of President Trump, the GOP will use the antagonist (and hoped career advancement as a result of this crusade) Congressman Adam Schiff as a campaign theme target so that the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2018 Midterms.  If the Democrats take back the House and use their new majority to impeach President Trump on charges that will not hold up in court, or the Senate, it is bad news.  It will trigger worse reactions from Trump supporters and begin a period of hostile confrontation between the two major parties. This will be exploited on the international stage of foreign policy by the Chinese and to some extent, the Russians themselves I believe.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to paint the prior Obama Administration as culpable in trying to derail President Trump's victory by using government institutions to thwart his win.  The GOP is attempting to show that Democrats wanted to stop at nothing to prove that President Trump is an illegitimate Leader of the Free World.  They allege that President Obama used political friends in the FBI to attempt to paint Trump as working to collude with a foreign government to help him win.  They may have something to cling to since there is recent evidence provided through emails from President Obama, that he did not notify the American public of alleged interference from the Russian intelligence community.

According to the Washington Post's Phillip Bump, in an article dated February 21st, members of President Obama's White House staff wrote to their Kremlin contacts in early 2016 to warn them about interference in the upcoming American election. It was hoped that Russia would get the hint, and avoid any perception that it had a hand in determining a winner in November of 2016.  CIA Director John Brennan informed leaders of both parties and members of the intelligence community wanted President Obama to notify the American people.  However, without a consensus within the intelligence community, Obama did not act on those recommendations. Once it appeared that Donald Trump was going to win the White House, the stories of "collusion" started to begin in effect from the Hillary campaign, and senior members of the Democratic Establishment and other lawmakers of influence joined in the chorus.  It has now reached a crescendo.

The Mueller investigation may paint a few stupid and careless Trump associates as guilty of various things, but if collusion with a foreign government by President Trump himself is not one of them, this will have serious consequences for the United States to function as a constitutional republic.  It has been discussed on various online sites that the FBI allegedly used flimsy evidence from the Steele Dossier, which was put together by Fusion GPS, to secure the FISA warrant.  If this is proven true, and the Mueller investigation does not bear the fruit that the Democrats hopes for, then President Trump will use this "fake investigation" to solidify his base in time for the 2018 Midterms.  Even FBI Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein stated that he believes any allegations into the conduct of the charges against Trump's associates did not affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

As mentioned earlier, if nothing comes out of this investigation by Mueller, then an already divided country and hyper-partisan Congress will change the dynamics of how our country operates as a vibrant democracy.  One of the few government institutions that the American people hold in high regard (outside of the military) is the FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency in the world.  If partisanship infects this great agency, it will eventually be used by both Congress and future presidents as a secret police force that investigates political opponents and use it to paint members of the president's opposition as enemies of the state.  This is the first step in getting admired and respected members of the FBI, Department of Defense and overall law enforcement as non-partisan, unbiased people who took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic.  A strong democracy cannot effectively protect the American people and provide a service that makes our country one of the greatest democracies on earth.

What is the solution to this partisan mess?  First, Republicans and Democrats must show temperance and patience, and let this investigation by Robert Mueller play out, and make determinations based on the rule of law, rather than a promoted outcome by either party.  This will respect the process of proper legal investigations, and provide the American people with the way to conduct thorough investigations before anyone projects a biased outcome.  It will also ensure that investigations are just that, to research any allegations against anyone, and make a determination if charges are warranted.  Furthermore, members of Congress must leave the FBI rank and file agents out of the political sphere.  Even though there are extreme partisan feelings regarding Trump and his administration's policies, it is best to alleviate the nation's law enforcement agencies out of defending their work to political witch hunts on both sides.  The nation's institutions and democratic future are at stake.

What is the solution to having more women in Tech (Silicon Valley)?

February 1, 2018

Silicon Valley's Women Problem: Is there a fair solution?

____________________________

This past January, the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, along with Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, was interviewed by Kara Swisher of Recode (silicon Valley tech magazine) about the lack of women in the technology sector, specifically in the computer sciences.  This was a joint interview with MSNBC, who was represented by Ari Melber.  Other topics discussed included how Silicon Valley will adapt to new technologies in the 21st Century, gender equality and immigration and workplace diversity.

Ms. Swisher asked both Ms. Wojcicki and Mr. Pichai about the lack of women engineers and computer scientists in Silicon Valley.  Ms. Wojcicki stated that the computer sciences and other tech fields have a 'male-geek' reputation and that this does not encourage women to enroll in university programs that offer coursework in the computer sciences.  This did not sit well with Kara Swisher or the majority-female audience, who did not like the response from either of them.

I know that the tech industry is a coveted career, but in order for more women to be in its ranks, women need to pursue majors and coursework that will qualify them to work for admired companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Uber.  I believe that roughly 20% of computer sciences majors are women, which means men make up the vast majority of graduates that Silicon Valley recruits and retains for their workforce.  There is a United States law that states no company or organization can discriminate against anyone based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or political views, and this law has been in effect since the 1970s.

If Kara Swisher wants more women in tech, they need to pursue degrees in the fields of their choice and must be able to enroll in colleges in similar numbers to men, so those tech companies have an evenly split talent pool from which to offer positions.  Otherwise, critics like Ms. Swisher are openly advocating that tech companies discriminate against men so that the percentage of women within these companies are close to the mean for both sexes.  If these companies did this, they would be open to multiple lawsuits from men who are rejected simply because of their gender.  I doubt many of the senior executives of these companies would want that type of negative publicity or payouts that will affect their bottom line, not to mention anger from shareholders who would see their stock prices drop due to the negative attention.

Recently, a software engineer, Susan Fowler, wrote a blog post about how there was a toxic work environment at her previous employer, Uber. She stated she was propositioned for sex from a supervisor, ignored by Human Resources and that the company was more supportive of those senior executive managers she complained about.  As a result, she quit and pursued other offers other tech companies made.  It was widely read and made a huge impression on the Board of Uber, which removed founder and CEO Travis Kalanick, along with a few other Board members.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder became a consultant who reviewed the work environment and made recommendations to how it operates.  Democratic fundraiser and founder of the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, became an advisor to the company as well, and also made suggestions as to how it needs to function to support its female employees.  These were drastic measures to save the reputation of the company, and a new CEO was chosen as well.

The combination of these two large problems does play a part in the lack of women in tech.  Will the situation improve?  I cannot say for sure.  What can be done?  Well, part of the issue is the type of majors women choose.  Many enroll in the humanities, along with the social services, in addition to the legal and medical fields.  I think that women make up close to 50% of medical school students and that they are the majority of law school students.  Because of this, law firms and health insurance organizations hire a lot of women, and those fields are represented well.  Fields that women do not choose or lack a large representation include the computer sciences, engineering (all classifications) and business schools.

If critics of the lack of women in glamorous fields like tech want to see better representation, they need to put a plan in place for universities to recruit harder and intensively women so they can see what their careers will be like.  Schools cannot force women to pursue fields that they are not interested in.  What more can they do?  Perhaps go into high schools and introduce successful women who have thrived?  Sheryl Sandberg comes to mind, but the book she wrote ("Lean In") focused more on the selective type of partners women need to choose to succeed in those fields, which places an emphasis that a women's career should be first and foremost than the marriage she enters into.  I tend to not support her ideas.  She wants to place men as a second priority, and the women I know want a work-life balance that has rewards for both a woman and her family.  Tech companies do make an effort to support this idea, but everyone's life is different, and women have a choice as to what they value and prioritize.  Nothing can be forced, it needs to be what women want to do with their lives.

In regards to the toxic environment that Susan Fowler described, perhaps now is the time for tech companies to be aggressive in how they treat their employees.  With the recent allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and other prominent men in the entertainment, media, and political fields, now is time to make serious changes to the workplace.  I would recommend that companies force their HR departments to have a written record of complaints and that those women who file grievances can be interviewed and find positive solutions to make the workplace better. Companies must also show those who complained that people who made them uncomfortable were dealt with. New male and female employees must attend sexual harassment workshops and prove written documentation that men (especially) understand what is acceptable behavior and what type of negative behavior will be held against them, and that all who file complaints will be heard and taken seriously.

Hopefully, these measures will be looked into, and whatever percentage of women seek success in these fields, they can be assured that they will be valued and every opportunity for upward mobility will be afforded to them.

The dangerous cartel that is the US Soccer Federation & Major League Soccer

The US Soccer Federation (USSF) is an unhealthy cartel that works in collaboration with Major League Soccer (MLS) to stunt the growth of the men's game in the United States.

January 25, 2018

_________________________________

Soccer over the past twenty-five years has made tremendous gains in terms of viability, partial financial success, and popularity.  Certain players have become household names (Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey) from their play on the world stage (FIFA Confederations Cup, FIFA World Cup), but all of that came to a crashing halt (at least temporarily) with the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) missing the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia this summer. This epic disaster has caused a lot of soul-searching in the United States, on the men's side, and forced current USSF President Sunil Gulati to not seek another unpaid term as its president. The election for a new president is one that for the first time has national interest from the American media.  Former women's national team goalkeeper Hope Solo is a candidate, as is former men's national team players Eric Wynalda and Paul Caligiuri.  There are a few other unknown candidates but they do have work experience involving soccer as a whole, including Kathy Carter, the current head of Soccer United Marketing (SUM) which is a promotional and business endeavor amongst the owners of MLS teams.  SUM owns the television rights to all US national teams, plus the lucrative rights to the Mexican national team telecasts in North America.  It allows MLS owners to collect necessary revenue for a sport that does not have the financial heft of other men's leagues in the United States have (NFL, NBA, NHL, and motor sports-NASCAR, Indy Racing League).

The sudden soul-searching by the soccer community as a whole has forced me to look into the sport I am so passionate about.  [Full disclosure: I am a die-hard supporter of MLS as a whole, along with my favorite professional sports team, the Los Angeles Galaxy].  I attend games regularly, and hope to see the league ascend the lofty heights I dream about before I die.  The bedrock of the league's business model is something called "single entity," which is that the league is a single monolith that owns all player contracts and teams and generally controls where certain national team players can ply their trade, and attempts to improve the fortunes of smaller clubs. "Owners" are considered investor/operators and get to control the team they pay a fee for. It is designed to protect less wealthy owners by having all owners share losses and split profits according to whatever monies they collect from gate receipts, television contracts, and merchandise sales.

The goal is to make sure that no one team has a monopoly on talent and big names from the USMNT and focus more on slow and steady growth. At times this works, and other times, it causes fans to question the league's motives.  For instance, Jermaine Jones, who starred in the 2014 FIFA World Cup by scoring a goal against Portugal for the United States, wanted to come stateside and play for the LA Galaxy, since he has a home in Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley, to be precise).  However, with a rule that most fans did not know of, he was assigned to the New England Revolution, the MLS team based in Boston, and plays in the home of the NFL's New England Patriots.  That was not even his second choice, but he nonetheless played there for two seasons before finally playing the last few years of his career in Los Angeles.  In most other leagues, this would never have happened.  Jermaine Jones would get to play wherever he chose.  MLS does this to protect teams that generally are not a draw for elite players, since New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the preferred destinations, in most cases.

I believe this was a good strategy in the beginning years when MLS was struggling to gain a foothold in the American sports landscape.  The last 20 years have proven that was acceptable, since the league allegedly was losing money, and needed a format that would share those losses with owners who did not have the finances to make their teams better.  Most of these teams are in small markets, such as Colorado, San Jose, Columbus and Salt Lake City.  I understand this was needed because most teams are dependent still on gate receipts, and the teams mentioned above really need those to have that necessary revenue streams.  

The USSF comes into play in helping the league by assigning MLS "First Division" status, which gets an advantage for talent coming into the league, as opposed to lower division soccer.  Part of the reason that the Federation and MLS work together is that lower division soccer, like the National American Soccer League (NASL), does not have a salary cap.  This could threaten MLS if someone with deep pockets provides a massive infusion of new revenue.  This would put MLS in a precarious position of being the first division for soccer, but trail a lower division in terms of financial power to attract top male talent.  It is a problem because MLS gets to control competition, and ensures that the business model it uses, single entity, does not lose any competitive advantage against another league.  MLS does this to protect the parity it promotes to potential owners and current ownership, in that they can move as slowly as possible on their own terms, to the detriment of the sport, in my opinion.

This cartel hurts soccer in the long term.  For US Soccer and the national team to be able to compete on the world stage, it needs to work to cultivate talent.  Part of this responsibility falls on MLS teams, but since they have no motivation or urgency to develop young talent, takes its sweet time in seeking out top soccer players throughout the country.  Critics say that this includes not searching for talent in minority communities and especially in the urban centers and inner cities. Additionally, a critical element of how soccer provides talent is that is it a sport for primarily white families since they are the ones who have money to send their kids on travel teams and receive good coaching.  Most minorities do not have the time or money to provide their kids the access to succeed. It is why I feel that soccer will plod along at its own convenient pace, and that does not bode well for international success.

How does one change this?  Well, since there is a new election for the President of the USSF, I hope that the new person in charge will force MLS to modify its ways.  This would include promoting and supporting lower division soccer, and allow those who want those leagues to succeed can do so.  Lower division soccer needs to have more financial support, and the Federation needs to seek wealthy individuals to provide a necessary cash flow that will allow it to compete on some level to MLS.  This can motivate MLS to either buy those players, and give much-needed financial help to those leagues, or provide MLS with another pipeline of talent with which to cultivate.  The Federation should also on its own develop talent that MLS does not find, and either send them to MLS clubs or allow them to ply their trade in Europe or South America.

These are some steps that soccer can do to promote the sport as a whole and provide a new foundation to succeed on the international level.  I sincerely hope that this happens for the sport I love to move in a more positive direction.

Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea

January 5, 2017


President Trump's idea to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a bad idea.

________________________

There was a shock, surprise, and anger that the United States, at the urging of Israel and its allies in Congress, moved the official US embassy to Jerusalem.  President Trump signed the documents on his desk and then released that order throughout the world.  Since then, there have been small riots in Arab cities, and diplomatic anger as well.  The United Nations and many members of the European Union are against it since many leaders within the U.N. feel that accepted reconciliation by both parties for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Jerusalem shall be part divided into two capitals for two states.

I don't believe President Trump really took the time to figure this out and made this decision based solely on his gut and the "help" of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Sheldon Adelson, and certain Republicans in Congress, all of whom are against a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

There are many Jews throughout the world who want a peaceful end to the Palestinean conflict and want a two-state solution. Not because they see the Palestineans as their true friends, but that in order for Israel to have a safe and secure future, the Palestinean issue must be addressed.  In fact, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is in agreement with this argument (disclosure: I heard Mr. Barak echo these sentiments in a speech I heard in Redondo Beach in 2016).  However, Israeli society has changed over the years, from the group of early founding Zionists who had a shared sense of destiny with each other, and saw the solution to end Palestinean suffering as part of that shared destiny.  The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist, and settler who believed Israel was given to the Jews by God, changed all that.  Over time, those Israelis were replaced with new immigrants to the country by Aliyah (right of emigration to Israel) and the population that had some sympathy toward Palestinians was eroded.  Losing those older Israelis has hurt the peace process considerably.

I cannot believe President Trump did not consider all this before making his order official to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  While rioting in Arab capitals may soon start up again, there is a pause now because Islam's Shia and Sunni communities are beginning a global war against each other.  Saudi Arabia (supported by Israel and the United States) is on one side, and Iran, Yemen, and other affiliated countries on the other side. That may save the Trump Administration some fallout for now over his embassy decision, but over the long haul, this decision will hurt American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.  It will go down as one of the dumbest decisions by an American president and affect the Middle East in a negative direction (that might be irreversible) for last peace.

Trump to create secret spy network that answers to POTUS and CIA Director Pompeo

December 6, 2017

Secret Spy Network created to protect and report directly to President Trump and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.  

Will this network serve America or an individual? 

Is there a danger of this network going rogue and loyal to President Trump only?

_________________________________________________________________

The scary answer to the above questions is "possibly."

There was a recent article written in The Intercept by Matthew Cole and renowned war reporter Jeremy Scahill, who wrote a book on private security firm Blackwater (since disbanded).  It makes sense that Scahill would be involved with this article. He is a self-pronounced expert on the former Blackwater firm and its founder, former Navy Seal Erik Prince (whose sister is the current Department of Education Secretary in the Trump cabinet).  Mr. Prince now runs a consulting firm from Hong Kong, with a Chinese firm providing a partial equity stake in the company.  Additionally, the former intelligence official, and disgraced Reagan administration official Oliver North is a consultant for this plan, which makes me believe this is more than a benign idea. This network would not be required to share their information with the wider U.S. intelligence community.  I would hope this new group is not going to move forward with regard to this type of selfishness, because not sharing information between law enforcement and spy services led to a collapse of necessary information which eventually led to Al Qaeda operatives attacked the United States on September 11th.  It would be very sad for this secret unchecked network to form and operate, which would mean as a country, those elected to serve and protect the nation have not learned a single thing.  Additionally, this secret network would not adhere to the Constitution and serve an individual rather than the nation.

This new idea by White House staff is a dangerous path that the country is being led down to.  I am not sure why Republicans would want to go along with this.  What happens when a Democrat retakes the White House?  Will the GOP go along with this now that the opposition has access to its own secret intelligence group? The authors at The Intercept sought on the record affirmation, but sources told the authors that there is no concrete support for this plan, although investigative questions asked to the National Security Council denied any such plan.  There is no real definitive proof either way that this plan is going forward.  Although, with the involvement of Erik Prince (and his former associate and CIA veteran John McGuire), who has operated a private security force since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, my hunch is that he would run the secret intelligence group.

The Trump White House does not operate under the parameters of previous administrations. This idea would seem to have merit, once one looks back on the previous year of President Trump's policies and methods.

I am very troubled by this issue.  Since America is a very divided country, and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political spectrum create wildly inaccurate ideas that have no merit, there is no way to determine how this secret group will function.  I am worried that this secret group will spy on Americans and members of the "official" intelligence community.  Since President Trump is a paranoid and insecure man, the idea of this rogue intelligence group is something I feel he will get behind.  No telling what this group, and the intelligence apparatus that serves in a legitimate capacity for Congress and the White House do if there are two different conclusions regarding a serious foreign policy crisis.  If the White House tells the press that there was no rendition of a suspected terrorist in a country that will not allow extraction and the secret intelligence group that is authorized by Trump administration to go ahead and gets that individual out of that country.  That could cause a massive crisis, and might affect serious blowback that will harm Americans throughout the world and inside the United States.

The Intercept article goes on to state countries where Erik Prince's security firm already operates, which include Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt and part of the African continent.  Prince prefers to operate with vague contracts that include plausible deniability, according to the authors (Cole and Scahill).  If there are two intelligence services operating throughout the world, one official and the other rogue, it will lead to massive problems for the reputation of the United States with its allies and will be used against it by its enemies, notably Russia and China's intelligence operations.

This idea is not going to be a good initiative for the foreign policy of the United States.  The country is already divided, and this will exacerbate tensions between Democrats and Republicans, and members of the State Department, the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.  I sincerely hope that Congress does its job and investigate whether this plan is just a pipe dream or a dangerous idea that is taking flight.  It will cause problems and expedite the dangerous tensions that are simmering within the populace.  If the Mueller investigation does not yield the results that Democrats are hoping for, the Republicans will feel that it was nothing more than a political witch hunt, and they might be open to having President Trump to operate outside the parameters of Congress.  The future of the country hangs in the balance.  I pray President Trump does not move forward with this dangerous idea.

Has feminism turned into "Feminism, Inc.?"

November 23, 2017


Has modern "feminism" been removed from its earnest beginnings, and is now a corporate and hypocritical behemoth?

___________________

Feminism is promoted as a movement for equality since its early beginnings with the Suffragettes in Seneca Falls, NY.  At that time, women were fighting for the right to vote and have an equal stake in the civic duty of all Americans.  After that victory, there were more fights relating to sexual harassment (which is making the news now because of Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Lauer etc).  Getting rid of hostile workplaces is a good thing, and hopefully, things will improve to the point it will be rare.  Women can make claims that will be investigated and those who are proven guilty will pay a heavy price.  I believe this is progress and that no woman will have to endure what those women who made claims against Harvey Weinstein.

However, on a political level, I think feminism is transforming into a corporate movement.  For one, it seems to me that now feminism is moving toward financial gain.  For instance, the "equal pay for equal work" language is now popular parlance for every issue.  There is already in place a federal law that states it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for salary based on gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. So, what does the "equal pay for equal work" mean?  To me, it is essentially the same thing, but for some reason, the Democrats and women's rights groups say that it needs to be in place. Is redundancy now an official position for women?  It does not change the current law throughout the country.  So, what is the main point of this agenda?

I think this is a political tool that tugs at the sense of "grievance" that certain liberal women hold. Why? Both the Democratic and Republican parties have focus groups and meetings with consultants to gauge what issues they can use to rally their base.  For the Democrats, single women are one of the largest group of voters that help them win elections (along with African-Americans, Millenials and a small share of white men).  For Republicans, older white conservatives, military veterans and large swaths of Christian evangelicals are the groups they target to win over voters. In order to keep that group happy, the Democrats need to create issues like the "War on Women," where the issue is framed that Republicans want to ban abortions for women who want or need them and protect companies and religious groups that do not want to cover birth control for their employees.

For the upcoming elections in 2018 and eventually the 2020 presidential campaigns, the Democrats will use the sexual harassment and assault allegations as a weaponized tool to force the party to favor women candidates and accuse those within the party and local officials of not "supporting women," or "don't want to see women succeed."  These are dangerous games the Democratic party is playing with the country.  Identity politics can only go so far, and it can be like Frankenstein's Monster, whereby the monster that was created (in this case, Identity Politics) will eventually turn on its creator.  The same thing will happen to Republicans, who are so dependent on their evangelical base that the GOP will see their own insurgency amongst the base they pander to (Trump was the first salvo in this war for the Republican party's soul).

For the Democrats, it will be more difficult to control the various factions within their party, especially the women's activist and rights groups who want to see more women run for Congress and the White House.  For the 2020 election, the high-dollar and powerful donors have already anointed Senator Kamala Harris (D-Ca) as President Obama's heir apparent. She is intelligent, biracial (black and South Asian) and a woman.  It is the perfect trifecta the Democratic party will hurl toward an unpopular GOP incumbent, one who brings out the hysterical in many Democrats and their party leadership.  Will this prove to be a good strategy? Who knows?  I doubt Trump will lose too many followers.  It seems that women who voted for President Trump will still vote for him so this pandering to women by Democrats may not be the best strategy.  Nonetheless, the party will try to work women into a lather by promoting certain policies.

I think that Democrats are hell-bent on running a woman because they have made many promises to the large segment of women voters in their party. Hillary Clinton was that promise, and it was a massive shock to the party that they did not get what they promised to those targeted voters.  So, what is next?  Here are the proposals I think the Democrats are planning for 2018 and 2020, geared toward the Feminism, Inc. (to turn envy and entitlement into a profit):

1. Use the current sexual assault/harassment in Hollywood, media, and Capitol Hill to push for more women in Congress (which is a good thing, but it should be based policies that benefit all Americans, and not geared to one gender under identity politics)
2. With the recent Matt Lauer sexual assault/harassment crisis front and center in the news, use that to force NBC News to have more women in power, and fire as many men associated with Matt Lauer, otherwise the lawsuits will drain Comcast (NBC parent) of its stock price and profits (this has nothing to do with envy, but more so profit for Feminism, Inc.).
3. Use the Lauer issue as a conduit for a (possible) Democratic control of both houses to pass legislation so that it would be legal for companies to hire more women (even though that would conflict with the current law that makes it illegal for companies to discriminate against anyone based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

I agree that it is a good thing to have people get paid close to what their peers make, but it needs to be nuanced.  When companies hire new staff, they base their salary offers on what work experience a person has, plus their educational qualifications.  It is very rare for any two people performing the same job to have the exact work history and educational experience.  While paying people the exact same wage is noble, the question becomes who do you promote if two people are getting paid the exact same wage for the same job?  It becomes a subjective decision and one that has no good outcome. So, while I agree that salary parity is a noble goal, the realities of the workplace is that a diverse employee pool will have diverse characteristics for its employees.  I do not think pandering to women will create a better work environment. In fact, it will create the opposite, a hostile work environment where men and women are more concerned as to who is getting paid more, rather than focusing on why they are working in the first place.