[FOX] A rising number of women are succumbing to alcohol-related deaths, a new study published in JAMA Network on July 28 found.
While males historically have been more than twice as likely to die from alcohol-related conditions than females, the gap appears to be narrowing.
Researchers from Hofstra University in New York, Harvard Medical School and the University of South Carolina analyzed nearly 606,000 deaths linked to alcohol between 1999 and 2020, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.
Mortality has been rising for both genders, but the spike has been sharper among females.
Men’s mortality rate increased by 12.5% between 2018 and 2020, while the rate among women increased by 14.7%, the researchers found.
The most prominent increase was seen in the last three years of the study.
#3
Cause men are now lesser engaged in 'households' and women more. Someone is finding out why men drank themselves to death more often a priori. It's what you wanted baby.
#6
^ The half of parents that say it didn't are so proud of their trans children...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/01/2023 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Equal rights means equal responsibilities, equal stress, equal stress related events. Sadly, welcome to our world.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/01/2023 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I blame the vintners.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/01/2023 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
If this means more box wine liberal suburban moms being too drunk to vote, it works for me.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/01/2023 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
As a veteran of 47 years of married life, raising a family, living a traditional American lifestyle, enjoying a lifetime of succesful career and family evolution in the way most American of my generation experienced, I can say with certainty that nothing matches the bonding of two people more than that collective life experience.
The traditional American family unit, is the keystone of American exceptionalism and prosperity.
To me, everything about this screams of women who did not choose that path, and who at the backend of their alternative choices, face the dreary, soul-crushing emptiness of solitude, or shallow alternatives, and turn to medicating themselves to support the outcome. Easy life choices rarely remain so.
#11
^ That's why there are so many Karens now. It's their social life.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/01/2023 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#12
#10 NoMore BS nails it.
People (feminists) who make really stupid decisions when they are young do not realize that the consequences will come. It may take decades, but eventually you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
Posted by: Tom ||
08/01/2023 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#13
...you mean all those cats aren't a good substitute?
#14
eventually you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
But some people are only happy if the gummint inflicts those consequences on you, too.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/01/2023 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
People (feminists) who make really stupid decisions when they are young do not realize that the consequences will come.
Yep. By the end they are doing the OPP. Old, Poor and Powerless. Liberal women are the most heavily medicated with mental illness than any other demographic in the US. 3rd wave feminism has completely betrayed them and I will not grieve over that generation of pathetic narcissists going to the grave.
"The deaths were linked to alcohol-related poisoning, gastritis, cardiomyopathy, myopathy, liver disease, polyneuropathy and pseudo-Cushing syndrome, among others, according to the journal article."
Same complications as the jab.
Probably a coincidence. Unless we're "caught up in the clouds" we will all die someday.
[Breitbart] Chicago residents are increasingly turning up at community meetings across the city to express their outrage over City Hall’s so-called “sanctuary” policies that are “welcoming” scores of illegals into their neighborhoods.
Last week, for instance, citizens in the Woodlawn neighborhood gathered to express anger and frustration over the degradation of their neighborhood after a city-sponsored border crosser shelter opened up in the old Wadsworth Elementary School there.
“I would ask you all to go out there — go out there at night, in the middle of the night — and see what goes on,” one woman warned representatives of the Chicago Police Department during the meeting, according to CBS 2 News.
Another blasted the illegals on a personal level saying, “They disrespect us, they rob us, they harass us.”
One even warned that as illegals continue to act out, “street justice” might be employed to deal with the issue.
“Let me say this — they’ve got one more time to deal with it, because otherwise, next time they deal with it, they’re going to deal with it from the streets. We’re going to take over,” a man told the police at the meeting. “Nobody is going to be able to stop us from what we’re going to do to them.”
Members of the Woodlawn community are not alone.
Complaints from constituents also spurred 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly to send a letter to City Hall complaining that illegals being housed in a Loop hotel are disrupting his neighborhood with drug use and sales, prostitution, loitering, littering, and rude behavior.
Reilly told City Hall that his voters are expressing “concerns about migrants loitering, littering, illegally parking their vehicles, and leaving human waste on the sidewalks near the hotel.”
There have been many other clashes between city officials and enraged citizens at local meetings, as well.
At the end of May, Chicago’s recently seated Mayor Brandon Johnson settled more than 300 border crossers at Wilbur Wright College despite the objections of residents.
The opening of the college as a shelter sent dozens of angry residents to a meeting in May to protest the move.
But that was not the first school Johnson turned into a migrant shelter. Last month the city’s Richard J. Daley College was also designated as a shelter where around 400 border crossers and illegal aliens were sent.
Many of the city’s police stations are also playing host to dozens or more illegals each.
However, some illegals were removed from a Chicago Police station where they were sent to shelter after officers were accused of sexually molesting at least one teen girl. And now Johnson’s office is claiming that migrants will no longer be directed to police stations for shelter.
Tellingly, so-called “sanctuary” policies that Democrat voters in the Windy City touted to puff themselves up as “tolerant” liberals are suddenly out of favor now that they are actually facing a flood of illegals.
Twitter user End Wokeness highlighted this fact by comparing two headlines from the Chicago media:
Indeed, residents of Chicago’s Edgewater community were thrilled with the idea of sanctuary policies in 2017 when liberals were accusing Donald Trump of “purging” immigrants, DNA Info reported at the time. But that hand wringing contrasts badly with last week’s fury in that same neighborhood as Chicago officials began flooding the area with border crossers and installing them in a shelter at Broadway Armory Park Fieldhouse.
While residents were pleased to have a “welcoming” city when only a tiny number of immigrants were dropped into the area back in 2017, they are singing a far different, and less tolerant tune now that hundreds are looking for shelter today.
#2
Saw a vid on Youtube from tiktok of Black community leaders in Chicago espousing this. The two black commentators were laughing and asking 'do these look like white supremacists?'.
Diversity will be a strength for some, a nasty liability for others...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/01/2023 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The sanctuary policy may be unpopular with the people, but it likely has federal cash flows associated with it that will discourage local politicians from doing anything other than make noise about the inflow. It is Chicago, after all. I would expect that many Aldermen have relatives involved in the shelter, food or cash distribution side of the sanctuary as a side hustle.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/01/2023 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
People in Lawndale are complaining about the deterioration of the neighborhood? When we lived there, Lawndale was the sinkhole of sinkholes in Chicago. It must be really bad for them to be complaining.
Posted by: Tom ||
08/01/2023 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
[Breitbart] More than 50 New York City Democrats are pleading with President Joe Biden to declare a “state of emergency” due to an “unprecedented” wave of illegal immigration to the sanctuary city as migrants flood the streets of Manhattan.
As more than 90,000 border crossers and illegal aliens have arrived in New York City since the spring of last year, 54 Democrats have written Biden asking him to declare an emergency and provide the city with billions in federal funds to handle the influx.
Likewise, rather than drastically cutting off illegal immigration at the southern border, the Democrats are begging Biden to quickly allow border crossers and illegal aliens to take American jobs.
“Our City is at a breaking point,” the Democrats wrote.
The plea from Democrats comes as New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) has started handing out fliers to border crossers and illegal aliens at the border warning them not to travel to the city, suggesting there is a lack of housing and resources.
Late last week, border crossers and illegal aliens started sleeping on the streets of Manhattan after migrant hotels, contracted with Adams’ office to house new arrivals, began running out of space.
[Breitbart] New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) has reportedly thrown hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at a medical company, tasked previously with testing for COVID-19, to bus border crossers and illegal aliens out of the sanctuary city.
Since the spring of last year, more than 90,000 border crossers and illegal aliens have arrived in New York City. Adams has long criticized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) for busing migrants to the sanctuary city, but recent reports reveal he has started a nearly identical busing program.
A report from the New York Times details how a medical company called DocGo was awarded more than $400 million in local taxpayer dollars by Adams’ office to bus border crossers and illegal aliens out of New York City to other towns in the state.
The Times reports:
More than 1,500 migrants have been sent to places as far as Buffalo, with more on the way. But many of the migrants have been greeted by protests at their new homes, as well as mistreatment and the false hope of jobs. [Emphasis added]
Behind the broken promises is a medical services company, DocGo, that once contracted with the city to provide Covid testing and vaccination services, but pivoted to migrant care as the pandemic waned and a new crisis emerged. [Emphasis added]
The city awarded DocGo a $432 million contract, which took effect in early May, without subjecting it to competitive bidding. The contract called for DocGo to house migrants and provide them with services including case management, medical care, food, transportation, lodging and round-the-clock security. [Emphasis added]
According to the Times, border crossers and illegal aliens have been subjected to threats of violence, lies, and false senses of hope under Adams’ busing program. In one instance caught on video, a security guard can be heard threatening a male migrant for talking to the media.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/01/2023 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The tidal wave influx is based on the wealth of benefits NYC gives illegals from places where they lived in deep poverty. Asking the Feds to intervene with more money, thus expanding the reason the problem has been created, requires a level of stupidity rarely seen.
Asking the Administration to close the border, and deport the illegals, that would make sense
[WashingtonExaminer] A surge in "quiet gun owners," much like the so-called "silent majority" in political circles, is leading firearms analysts to believe that far more Americans own weapons than the accepted 30% cited in polls.
At the highest end, it’s possible that up to 60% of Americans own guns, especially with the pandemic-era rise in gun buying among women and minorities, especially in suburban and urban areas.
At the lowest end, it’s likely that at least 40% of Americans own guns, according to a groundbreaking study of those who lie to pollsters about firearms. "Not since that boating accident"
The study from Rutgers University's New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center is spreading like wildfire in the industry, which for years has tried to accurately estimate United States gun ownership and determine why polls show support for gun control, but then there is little follow through when legislation is proposed.
Reason Magazine’s J.D. Tuccille put part of the study in the spotlight in an early July post that began the buzz in the gun industry about the potential of far higher U.S. gun ownership.
He highlighted the study’s conclusion that nearly a third of those polled might be lying when they deny having a firearm.
Tuccille wrote, "The report dealt in probabilities, with the researchers building profiles of confirmed gun owners. They then applied the profiles across their sample of 3,500 respondents to estimate who was likely fibbing about not owning guns. The results depend on the probability threshold applied, but they came up with 1,206 confirmed owners, between 1,243 and 2,059 non-owners, and between 220 and 1,036 potential but secretive owners lying about their status."
That caught the attention of Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload blog, who featured Tuccille yesterday in a video post about the numbers and potential impact of the study.
"This is something that we assumed, perhaps, for a long time," said Gutowski. "But now there is a study that is quantifying it to some degree. I mean, the amount that they put on it is that almost half the people who said that they don’t own guns fit the model, at least to a certain threshold, for people who do own guns. So that’s a huge discrepancy. That put — the number would rocket up from something like 33% into the 60 percentage range," he added.
Tuccille described those who "fib" as "quiet gun owners" who may be driven to be untruthful to pollsters because they are worried about the government or their neighbors finding out they own guns.
For example, he said, those who live in urban areas where gun ownership can be frowned upon may deny owning one. Local culture may also drive denials.
He and Gutowski said that the likelihood of far greater U.S. gun ownership than cited by major polling outfits such as Pew and Gallup could have a big impact on lawmakers pushing gun control.
"There is actually a lot of import to this," Tuccille told Gutowski. For example, he said, if the study is accurate, then it’s not just conservatives who own guns and liberal efforts to "punish" the Right by targeting guns will fail.
"You’ll end up hurting your own political base," he said, adding, "It’s no longer safe to target a good if you want to punish an enemy."
He also wrote in Reason, "With gun ownership becoming increasingly common beyond the traditional ranks of white suburban-to-rural men, there are big implications for politics and policy. New gun owners will certainly resist proposals to strip them of self-defense tools they acquired out of necessity."
He continued, "They're also likely to resent restrictive policies that urban, left-of-center politicians promote to torment gun owners once assumed to be safe targets, but which apply to anybody who owns firearms no matter where they live and vote. Basically, the gun-ownership landscape is growing and changing, but new owners are even more reticent than established ones about revealing their existence to researchers and government officials."
Posted by: The Walking Unvaxed ||
08/01/2023 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Given the recent increase in Homemade. I am sure the Fed's number is way off. Plus the many "public" commissioned surveys, and the mandated annual doctor mental health firearm questions, also result in the opposite of actual factual numbers .
The LSD's & RINO's only really hope is the total control and regulation of ammo and reloading supplies.
However, Muzzle Loader / Fireworks grade Black Powder is easy enough to make. eg. skylighter.com 10lbs for $70+/-.
#3
I notice there is a large range in the estimates.
But it is still an estimate.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/01/2023 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
BRYAN CAPLAN:
But in a strange sense, both gun control and prohibition grow out of softness. A system with the moral courage to harshly, swiftly, and surely punish violence would have little need of gun control. A system with the moral courage to harshly, swiftly, and surely punish abusers for stealing, trespassing, vandalizing, and defiling would have little need of prohibition. In both cases, we haphazardly punish millions of innocents because we refuse to decisively punish thousands of clear-cut criminals.
Text taken from a V Kontakte post by Great France, based on material by A. Vinogradov
On September 1, 1939, speaking at a meeting of the Council of Ministers, Mussolini announced the forthcoming decision to declare Italy a "non-belligerent party" that was not going to "take any initiative whatsoever in opening hostilities." He motivated such a step by "persistent concern for the proper provision and protection of national interests" and "Germany's failure to fulfill its allied obligations."
According to D. Grandi, the then Minister of Justice, “confusion and anxiety, bitterness and disappointment, mixed with anger and irritation, showed through in every ... word and gesture” of the Duce. This "confusion of the soul" was also stated by Ciano, to whom Mussolini spoke on September 4 about "the desirability of an early attack against Yugoslavia in order to seize the Romanian oil fields." Through Prince K. Aldobrandini, who was a member of Pius XII's circle of associates,
The status of a "non-combatant" soon began to weigh Mussolini: publicly praising the "lightning and unparalleled brilliant victories of German weapons", he secretly envied Hitler, dreaming of his own triumphant blitzkrieg. Already at the end of January 1940, the Duce explained to Ciano that the further preservation of neutrality would certainly be fraught with "the inevitable pushing of Italy into the class" B "of the European powers." But the Savoy dynasty, the financial and industrial oligarchy, the largest agrarians, the commanding elite of the country's armed forces held the opposite point of view, believing that it was better to stay away from the war as long as possible.
The top hierarchs of the Fascist Party, who went behind the scenes in the frontiers of the Fascist Party, E. De Bono, C.-M. de Vecchi, D. Grandi, D. Bottai, I. Balbo. The latter has repeatedly stated almost openly, that an alliance with Hitler means "cleaning Germany's boots". However, all these figures since May 1939 preferred the line of "passive resistance", not advertising their enthusiasm for the alliance with Berlin, but not objecting to it either.
The Duce, willy-nilly, had to reckon at first with the “neutralist” views of King Victor Emmanuel III, who did not tolerate the Germans and was inclined to active behind-the-scenes searches for an agreement with the Western powers, primarily with Great Britain. The text of his telegram sent to Mussolini on September 17, 1939, revealed these moods of the monarch: “Now, after the liquidation of Poland, I express the hope that you will be able to negotiate through diplomatic channels and if the British, despite the sinking of their merchant ships, will agree on them, it will be possible, perhaps, to achieve some constructive solution.
By the end of the winter of 1939/1940. The Duce realized that his hopes of convening a "new Munich", where he would play the role of first violin, would not come true. At the same time, he seemed to believe without hesitation in the imminent and inevitable victory of his partner in the Axis, telling Ciano at the end of February 1940: “In Italy there are still fools and criminals who believe that Germany will be defeated. And I tell you that Germany will win.” This conviction was strengthened after the meeting with Hitler on March 18, 1940 at the Brenner Pass, which to a large extent influenced Mussolini's decision to enter the war.
During the conversation, the Duce repeated to the Fuhrer three times that "now we are ready to march towards victory together with you", emphasizing that "the government and the party now unanimously agree on the impossibility of remaining neutral, even for a short time." Mussolini told Hitler that Italy's entry into the war would "probably happen, perhaps in June or perhaps in August." Not the last role was played by the tough position of the Fuhrer, who explained to his ally that “he [Hitler] is absolutely sure of the inseparability of the future destinies of Germany and Italy, since the victory of Germany will mean the victory of Italy, and the defeat of Germany will immediately entail the instant end of the Italian empire.” Hitler thus made it clear to Mussolini that they were “tied with one rope” and thereby warned Italy against repeating the “variant of 1915”, which was memorable for Germany.
The Brenner meeting put an end to G. Ciano, D. Grandi, D. Bottai's still undisturbed calculations of reaching an agreement with the West, using the mediation mission of US Deputy Secretary of State S. Welles, who visited Rome, Berlin, in February-March 1940, Paris and London. In Italy (he visited there at the end of February and in the second half of March), the personal representative of the American president had conversations with Ciano and was twice received by Mussolini, to whom he hinted at the benefits that awaited Italy if she remained neutral. The promises of the White House, however, did not have the desired impact on the Duce. Then F. D. Roosevelt took a decisive step, sending him on May 27, 1940, a personal urgent message through the US Ambassador in Rome, W. Philipps.
The fate of this document was fatally affected, however, by an accidental combination of circumstances. The fact is that Welles, in a confidential conversation with British Prime Minister N. Chamberlain, described the Duce as “a tired and degraded, uncouth and vindictive village peasant,” which he did not fail to inform his ambassador to Italy, P. Loren. This secret telegram was intercepted and deciphered by Italian military intelligence.
As a result, the enraged Mussolini categorically refused W. Philipps an audience and the message fell into the hands of his son-in-law. In particular, it said: “President Roosevelt invites the Duce to immediately inform him of all the wishes and requests of Italy, which he is ready to immediately bring to the attention of the French and British governments. Whatever the nature of a possible future agreement, concluded on the basis of these Italian proposals, President Roosevelt promises to vigorously petition England and France for a firm commitment to keep it in force until the end of the war, while guaranteeing Italy participation in the post-war peace conference on equal terms with the belligerents. All that is required of Italy is to give clear assurances that it will not further unduly increase its claims, as well as it will unfailingly maintain its neutrality throughout the conflict.
But the Duce has already “bitten the bit.” Ciano noted in his diary: “You need something completely different, unimaginable, to dissuade Mussolini. In essence, the problem is not at all that he wants to achieve this or that, but that he longs for war. If he could peacefully have even twice what he demands now, he would reject it.”
As early as March 31, 1940, in a secret memorandum addressed to Victor Emmanuel III, Mussolini, bluntly speaking about the "inevitability" of Italy's entry into the war, emphasized that "we are talking about an independent and parallel war to that waged by Germany, and pursuing the goal: freedom on the seas and a window on the ocean ... Therefore, the question is not to decide whether or not to enter the war, but only to determine when and how to do it in the best possible way, postponing our entry to the latest possible date into the war also because Italy is absolutely unable to afford a long war, in other words, she cannot spend hundreds of billions.
However, the capture of Denmark and Norway by the Nazis in April 1940 prompted the Duce to force things. On April 11, in the presence of Ciano, he dropped the historic phrase: “It is humiliating to sit back while others are making history. To make a people great, you must send them into battle even with kicks in the ass, which I will do. To the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces, General F. Rossi, who dared to recall the low level of combat readiness of the army, Mussolini said: “If I had to wait until the army was completely ready, then I would have to enter the war in a few years, while I must join immediately."
The belligerents - both the Western allies and Germany - did not at all rule out the possibility of Italy's participation in the war and took this into account in their plans. During the Brenner meeting, Hitler informed Mussolini that the Wehrmacht High Command, in developing the upcoming operations on the Western Front, proceeded from the fact that Italian troops would conduct active military operations against the French in the Alps and in Savoy. The French Military Committee, having considered the probable actions of the Allies against Italy, recognized on May 6, 1940, the most expedient to confine itself to defense in the Alps, Tunisia and other African possessions. By agreement with the British General Staff, it was also supposed to hold key positions in the Mediterranean and disrupt the sea communications of Italy, exposing its coast to heavy shelling from ships and air bombardments,
On May 10, 1940, at 5 o'clock in the morning, the German ambassador in Rome, N. G. Mackensen, informed Mussolini that the troops of the Third Reich had launched an offensive in Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg an hour ago. Duce commented on this: "The Allies lost the campaign ... In a month I will declare war on them." Nevertheless, Italy continued to adhere to the wait-and-see tactics for the time being. And only at a closed meeting on May 29, chaired by Mussolini, which was attended by Crown Prince Umberto, Chief of the General Staff of the armed forces P. Badoglio, chiefs of the main headquarters of all three types of armed forces - General M. Roatta (land army), General D. Prikolo (Air Force) and Admiral D. Cavagnari (Navy), its members set a date for entry into the war - immediately after June 5.
In Berlin, this decision was received without much enthusiasm. Hitler and his inner circle were aware that it was dictated solely by political considerations - the Duce, fearing to be late for the division of the "French pie", wanted to get what was due to him, and, as he believed, legally, a large piece. Mussolini frankly revealed to P. Badoglio, who was trying in vain to delay, at least until the end of June, the country's entry into the war, the true motives for his decision: “The war will be short, and I need to have only a few thousand dead to sit down at the negotiating table conference among the other winners. To match his prime minister and "dear cousin", Victor Emmanuel III unexpectedly demonstrated fighting ardor, usually extremely indecisive and doubtful.
By June 10, Italy had concentrated Army Group West against France under Crown Prince Umberto. It consisted of the 4th Army, which occupied the northern sector of the front - from Monterosa to Montgranero, and the 1st Army, stationed south - from Montgranero to the sea. The group consisted of 22 divisions (12,500 officers and non-commissioned officers, 300,000 soldiers), it was armed with about 3,000 guns and over 3,000 mortars. She was opposed by the French Army of the Alps - only six divisions (175,000 people). The terrain along the Italo-French border is such that the valleys parallel to it served as excellent natural trenches for the French, who skillfully equipped them in terms of engineering, fortification and fire. And the Italian General Staff, judging by its behavior, intended to storm this powerful barrier head-on.
Although the Italian army was still very far from the final completion of the training of the first echelon troops, Mussolini ordered an offensive along the entire front on June 18, when the defeat of France by the Wehrmacht was already a fact. The Duce himself, accompanied by Ciano, flew to Munich at the invitation of Hitler to discuss the terms of the truce requested by the Vichy government on 17 June. As is clear from the memorandum of the Italian Foreign Ministry, handed to Ciano Ribbentrop, Italy was going to present France with a large bill. She claimed French territory up to the Rhone River, including the cities of Lyon, Valence, Avignon, expected to get Corsica, the French colonies of Tunisia, Djibouti and Ojali, naval bases in Algiers and Morocco (Algiers, Oran, Mers-el-Kebir, Casablanca ), insisted on the transfer to her of 40-45% of the French military and merchant fleet, military aviation,
But the Fuhrer besieged his partner, referring to "the political inexpediency of presenting unnecessary demands to France, since it is much more profitable for the Axis powers at the moment to preserve the existence of the French government, which not only has sovereignty, albeit limited in some way, but still, but is also ready to cooperation". Ribbentrop also allowed himself to rebuke Ciano: "You can't have your eyes bigger than your stomach, you have to show moderation." Frustrated, Mussolini reluctantly agreed to Hitler's proposal to postpone the satisfaction of Italian territorial and colonial claims, as well as the problems of future indemnities and reparations from France, until peace negotiations.
June 20 Mussolini returned to Rome, where he was waiting for another "surprise". His favorite offspring of the OVRA - the secret fascist political police - intercepted and recorded a telephone conversation that took place on June 19, 1940 between the Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces, General M. Roatta and General P. Pintor, who commanded the 1st Italian Army in the Alps. The latter, not embarrassed in abusive language against the king, Mussolini and Badoglio, reported to his boss that "the troops entrusted to him are absolutely unable to attack, since they have not yet reached the appropriate level of combat readiness."
This news stunned the Duce, who, pouring out his soul to his son-in-law, exclaimed in his hearts: “And this is happening now, after nine months of waiting and taking into account the hopeless conditions in which the French are now! And if we had entered the war in September [1939], what would have happened?!”
In an effort to somehow "save face", the Duce ordered Badoglio and Prince Umberto to attack the enemy at all costs on June 20-21. However, the desperate attempts of the Italian troops to storm the "Alpine Line" failed. The French troops fiercely resisted, and the only thing that the Duce's army managed to achieve was to move deep into foreign territory in the Menton region by only 1 kilometer. Mussolini, however, counted on the landing of a large landing of Alpine paratrooper shooters in Lyon in order to occupy this city on June 22, but the final act of the French drama confused his last cards.
On June 22, 1940, representatives of the French and German high command signed a ceasefire agreement. A day later, on June 23, the Germans, who felt themselves masters of the situation, showed their allies the courtesy of flying a French delegation to Rome, authorized to negotiate surrender. Realizing the meagerness of their "successes" in the war, the Italian side considered it good to be satisfied with the occupation of French territory with an area of 832 km² with a population of 28,000 people. Under the terms of the armistice signed on June 24, France undertook to create a 50 kms wide demilitarized zone along the Italian-French border, as well as to demilitarize the naval ports of Toulon, Ajaccio, Bizerte, Oran and some areas in Algeria, Tunisia and on the coast of French Somalia.
For all the time of the fighting, the Italian army lost 631 killed, 616 missing and about 3,700 people wounded, frostbitten and captured. The total losses of the French did not exceed 410 soldiers and officers.
Based on materials: A. Vinogradov. Italy's entry into World War II. "Questions of History", No. 10 (31), 1992.
[TheHill] A $1.17 million settlement with a former Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General employee who flagged issues with embattled Inspector General Joseph Cuffari is raising a fresh set of questions from Congress.
The settlement, signed earlier this month but revealed by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) on Thursday, admits no wrongdoing by Cuffari’s office but makes a substantial whistleblower reprisal payment to Jennifer Costello, the employee.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) investigation into the matter surfaces a number of bizarre clashes between the two employees, including a beef over Costello’s refusal to print thousands of pages of documents she asserted Cuffari could read online to his initial plan to try and assign her to a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dealing with countering weapons of mass destruction.
But lawmakers are also raising questions over whether Cuffari misled Congress about the need for a $1.4 million contract to investigate Costello and others.
The settlement received by Costello is the largest known settlement for an employee of an inspector general office and among the largest ever given to a federal employee.
A joint letter from top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee and House Oversight and Accountability Committee obtained by The Hill indicates lawmakers plan to probe the deal, as well as why Cuffari’s deputy was able to sign off on the agreement without alerting other officials.
A deposition in front of the board “raises serious concerns about your possibly retaliatory actions and lack of candor, improper use of taxpayer dollars, and lack of truthfulness in your communications with Congress,” Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) write in the letter to Cuffari.
Costello in 2019 made disclosures about Cuffari to both Congress and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which is now investigating Cuffari. He likewise complained to the organization about her.
Costello’s complaints included that Cuffari delayed a report on DHS’s struggle to track children and parents separated at the border under a Trump administration policy, according to records Costello supplied to the POGO.
Costello was dismissed in June 2020, but Cuffari told the MSPB his plan to assign her to the Office for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction — despite her lack of relevant experience — was made before an investigation into her conduct.
“Your testimony appears to show that at least one of the allegations brought against Ms. Costello as a basis for her proposed removal was frivolous,” the lawmakers wrote.
“Specifically, the deposition transcript reveals that after you requested that Ms. Costello print thousands of pages of DHS OIG policies, she expressed concern to you that it was not a ‘valuable use of the staff resources or appropriated funds.’ You then decided that this suggestion was grounds for removal because she ‘was making a determination on whether or not [the printing] was appropriate.’”
The POGO report indicates Cuffari made other inaccurate claims to justify his firing of Costello, including that she ordered a criminal review of his travel shortly after taking the job — a review that was initiated by another employee.
Cuffari spent $1.4 million on a contract with law firm WilmerHale to investigate Costello and others, one that lawmakers contend “did not substantiate any illegal conduct.”
They say Cuffari also failed to disclose to Congress that other inspectors general he asked to probe the conduct of Costello declined to do so.
“Your omission of this important information raises questions about your intentions when you informed Congress that you conferred with other Inspectors General and whether or not you accurately reflected the events preceding your decision to hire WilmerHale,” they wrote.
The settlement with Costello was signed by his chief of staff, Kristen Fredricks, something Thompson and Raskin say should have prompted an alert to ethics officials, as federal regulations require that they be consulted when the conduct at issue involves the head of the agency.
“It is unclear whether you raised concerns regarding your subordinate’s approval of the $1.17 million settlement to resolve allegations pertaining to your misconduct. It is also unclear whether or not you sought an opinion from a DHS ethics officer,” they wrote.
“However, it is deeply troubling that the individual who approved the settlement is someone whom you directly oversee and promoted to the position of Chief of Staff. This decision raises a potentially serious and flagrant abuse of your position.”
Cuffari’s office did not respond to request for comment over the POGO report or the letter from Democrats.
An attorney for Costello said she was pleased with the result of the years-long battle.
“My client stood for what she believed was right. Time has revealed that she was indeed right. And now she has a balm for the sacrifice she made to preserve the integrity of the work of the faithful civil servants of DHS OIG,” Costello attorney Eden Brown Gaines said in a statement.
The matter adds to the growing complaints about Cuffari, who has earned the ire of lawmakers after failing to notify them that Secret Service text messages from Jan. 6 were lost in software migration.
He most recently came under fire for saying that he routinely deletes text messages from his own government phone — an action that appears to violate record retention laws.
Lawmakers are also reviewing reports he censored findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees.
#1
The other week, I asked why the Inspector General of Homeland Security was not all over Mayorkas for his law breaking policies. Looks like I have my answer. We can officially toe tag the idea of accountability with Homeland Security, the McRib of departments.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/01/2023 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
[JustTheNews] Florida governor says he fears Biden’s weakness in Pacific may lead to war.
Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor and 2024 presidential candidate, is calling for the United States to create a stronger military alliance in the Pacific to counter China’s rising aggression, as well as wage a strategic decoupling of the American economy from Beijing.
“We need a declaration of economic independence from China. And that's something that will need to be done methodically and need to be done thoughtfully,” DeSantis told Just the News in a wide-ranging policy interview last week in Tallahassee.
DeSantis, the lone 2024 presidential candidate with military service, said the pandemic exposed a significant and unhealthy U.S. supply chain reliance on China, one that would be exploited if there ever was a military confrontation.
“You just can't go where they are responsible for things that we really need,” he said of China. “And so that's going to involve, you know, a very thorough approach. But that has to be done."
He called on American corporations to ease their entry into Chinese markets and blamed 1990s U.S. policy for creating the unhealthy reliance.
“These corporations really need to understand that they're taking on a huge amount of risk by going over and in there, and, you know, I criticize them," DeSantis said. "But I also do acknowledge if you go back at the beginning of this experiment, a lot of U.S. policymakers were telling the corporations to go over there, which was a huge mistake.”
The Florida governor was harshly critical of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy, saying that it risked a military confrontation with China through ambiguity, concession and weakness.
“On Biden's path, my fear is, that the weakness he's showing, is going to lead us to getting into a war with China in the future that we will lose,” he said. “So we definitely need to do more in the Indo-Pacific from a military perspective."
“We have to be able to project hard power in the Indo-Pacific,” he added. “They (the Chinese) are not going to want to do something like invade Taiwan if they see the United States, Japan, Korea, if they see that power there, they're going to take the path of least resistance.
DeSantis said he would like to grow the current Quad alliance in Asia to build a stronger military alliance in the Pacific while avoiding some of the pitfalls of NATO in Europe.
“This should be U.S. led, and it should be based on U.S. interests, whereas NATO is like we write the check for everything, but like globalism and all this other stuff,” he said. “And look, those NATO allies, they're good allies for Europe, but they don't see eye to eye with us on China. Some of them don't."
He also said: “I think we should have an alliance. I think it's should should operate a little bit different than NATO."
DeSantis said he would like to spare more innovation and technology by increasing the research and development budget at the Pentagon.
“One of the things I think we need to do more of is R&D through the Defense Department,” he said. “When you look at some of the weapon systems that China is trying to do. We got to get ahead of that.
“What ends up happening with that is there are discoveries that gets spun off, because you're doing cutting-edge research about a weapons system that would not be viable in the private sector,” he added. "I think we need it to make sure maintain our military superiority, but I also think it will end up helping productivity and I think it will end up helping the broader economy.”
#4
Right, Ron. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither to be addicted to China nor to be "independent" from it. Besides, just ask the Yellow trucking company how being unionized is working out for the company and its workers.
[Fortune via Yahoo] F. Scott Fitzgerald famously noted that the rich are "different from you and me."
And indeed, some of the recent antics of the super-rich have been... sure, let’s call it "different." There’s the extreme risk-taking: billionaires jettisoning themselves into space, careening around in race cars, or plunging themselves into the darkest depths of the sea on questionable sightseeing tours. Then there’s the seeming immaturity: Elon Musk, for example, the wealthiest man on earth, could be doing untold good in the world—or simply basking in the sun sipping piña coladas—but instead he spends his days arguing online about wild conspiracy theories, or challenging a fellow plutocrat to a cage fight.
What makes a person with the savvy to amass such a spectacular fortune so erratic? Is there something about that pile of millions or billions that drives a person to distraction? Or is anyone with the guts and creativity to make billions just more likely to be a little strange in the first place?
These are questions that have stumped scientists from various disciplines for many years—after all, today’s crop of very rich guys (and they are mostly guys) are hardly the first to exhibit puzzling behavior, sometimes appearing to tip into mental illness. Howard Hughes hoarded his urine; Michael Jackson spent millions to bring giraffes, alligators, a bear, elephants, and apes to live at his ranch and private zoo; and Steve Jobs munched on nothing but carrots and apples for weeks, despite his skin turning orange. Filthy rich monarchs from England’s George III to the Roman emperor Caligula were widely considered "mad."
Probing the origins of these impulses has been the purview of psychology and neurology. There are wealth psychologists to analyze the super rich and help them deal with their guilt and angst. Neuroeconomics, meanwhile, attempts to take Freud and Jung a step further by combining neuroscience, cognitive science, behavioral science, and social psychology to lay bare the inner workings of the billionaire’s mind.
But when it comes to explaining the strange behavior of some of these ultra-high-net-worth individuals, the best that all this shrinkage has been able to come up with is a rather un-startling set of observations. Did we really need a professional to tell us that those worth more than $25 million are "focused more on themselves than on others"? Does it come as a surprise that the super-rich may struggle to feel empathy toward groups outside their inner circle—such as the legions of workers that create their wealth? It should not, perhaps, shock anyone that the self-made billionaire may possess an extra shot of narcissism, that they like to be in control, or that they are extremely competitive. The field’s conclusions could be summed up by the famous non-scientist Bernie Sanders, when he observed that billionaires have "psychiatric issues."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The tidal wave influx is based on the wealth of benefits NYC gives illegals from places where they lived in deep poverty. Asking the Feds to intervene with more money, thus expanding the reason the problem has been created, requires a level of stupidity rarely seen. 
