[BBC] A politician in South Korea is being criticised for making dangerous and unsubstantiated comments after linking a rise in male suicides to the increasingly “dominant” role of women in society.
In a report, Seoul City councillor Kim Ki-duck argued women’s increased participation in the workforce over the years had made it harder for men to get jobs and to find women who wanted to marry them.
He said the country had recently “begun to change into a female-dominant society” and that this might "partly be responsible for an increase in male suicide attempts”.
South Korea has one of the highest suicide rates among the world’s rich countries but also has one of the worst records on gender equality.
Councillor Kim’s comments have been criticised as the latest in a series of out-of-touch remarks made by male politicians.
Councillor Kim, from the Democratic Party, arrived at his assessment when analysing data on the number of suicide attempts made at bridges along Seoul’s Han river.
The report, published on the city council’s official website, showed that the number of suicide attempts along the river had risen from 430 in 2018 to 1,035 in 2023, and of those trying to take their lives the proportion who were men had climbed from 67% to 77%.
Suicide prevention experts have expressed concern over Mr Kim’s report.
“It is dangerous and unwise to make claims like this without sufficient evidence,” Song In Han, a mental health professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University, told the BBC.
He pointed out that globally more men took their lives than women. In many countries, including the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men under 50.
#8
South Korean males observed what their mothers did to their fathers. Now I understand the Philippines has an excess of females (be careful of the ladyboys), if they weren't racists they might solve their problem.
#9
My brother taught in S. Korea for five years. Educational pressure is extreme and intense. Some young folks don't live up to parental expectations decide to cash out.
Sorta like Harvard...
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/10/2024 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
Betcha that's why they call it a security zone.
[JustTheNews] GOP leaders will gather in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from July 15 to July 18, for the national convention where former President Donald Trump will officially become the Republican nominee for president.
federal judge ruled on Tuesday that demonstrators cannot march or protest through a security zone that surrounds the Republican National Convention next week.
GOP leaders will gather in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from July 15 to July 18, for the national convention where former President Donald Trump will officially become the Republican nominee for president.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Coalition to March on the RNC 2024 filed a lawsuit against the city last month, claiming the security perimeter violates their rights to free speech because it does not bring them close enough to the Republican leaders, the Associated Press reported.
The protesters have asked the judge to establish a parade route for them that would put them within view of the convention center.
U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig
…nominated by PresidentTrump in 2020…
said the First Amendment does give them the right to protest, but that it "does not allow them to protest or parade in any way they choose.” He also claimed the security perimeter around the Fiserv Forum, where the convention will be held, makes sense for the event.
“The vast majority of the resulting security plan is a reasonable and valid time, place, and manner regulation on speech,” Ludwig ruled.
Demonstrators are allowed to protest in designated areas and along an established protest route that are located approximately five blocks from the convention center. The security perimeter blocks public access to the event, but attendees will be given credentials.
Ludwig did rule against the city on one issue related to the convention, by determining that the city overstepped when approving speaker and demonstration applications based on the applicant’s criminal history.
#1
I would expect the same ruling against protestors for the demoncrat convention. You can protest, you just can't get super close and intimidate and possibly hurt them.
Yesterday I posted a comment with some incorrect data, and I'd like to correct myself.
I failed to properly finish the math regarding the approximate cost of what a new federal holiday costs the taxpayers.
Something chew on:
(Correct) The Federal Gov. employs well over 2.5+ Million persons and the salary averages out to over $101++K according to several authoritative sources...
(Incorrect)
Juneteenth, (June 19th), and each Federal holiday costs US taxpayers over $252,500,000,000.000 each for NOTHING in return.
...
Finishing The Math:
$252.5B (approx Fed employee annual costs)
Divided by 2080 hrs the typical hrs per year
Equals = $121,394,230.76 staff cost per hr
Multiply that by 8hrs (per day) = about $971,15M per day of work.
But then there are those working that holiday, that get bonus paid.
So the $971.15M per each holiday figure is likely closer to $1 Billion for what Juneteenth costs the US taxpayers in 2024.
Posted by: NN2N1 ||
07/10/2024 01:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
[PJ] In the hail storm of epiphanies — real or imagined — that have been hitting the Democrats since Joe Biden's debate disaster, the realization that First Lady Jill Biden isn't much of a team player seems to be a surprise to many of them. A lot of us here on the Right have known all along that she would be the immovable object when the rest of the party finally admitted that it was time to insist that her husband step aside.
I still maintain that Joe didn't really want to run all that badly in 2020, but the missus had it on her "honey do" list and would not be denied.
This is something I wrote in the Morning Briefing four years ago yesterday:
The longer the Joe Biden Obvious Decline Circus is allowed to go on, the more I’m convinced that Jill Biden is a power-hungry madwoman who so desperately wants to be in the White House that she is willing to subject her husband to what has now become bipartisan ridicule. If Joe Biden were your grandfather you would be worrying yourself into an ulcer about him and making sure that you helped him maintain as much dignity as possible.
Four months before the 2020 election, and we all knew the truth about Joe Biden that the Democrats are just pretending to have figured out at the end of last month. The headline of that Briefing was "Jill Biden Wants to Trash Her Husband's Dignity to Be Edith Wilson 2.0."
Nothing has changed, despite the crescendo of cries from more and more Democrats for Biden to remove himself from the race.
Her First Ladyship is more combative than ever. This is from a post my friend Stephen Green wrote yesterday:
The stress has been phenomenal these past two weeks after that brutal cold/jetlag/stutter got Democrats publicly wondering whether Biden should step aside and open the nominating process back up. And so DOCTOR Jill Biden, who is known in her own mind for being effortlessly cool under pressure, lost it ever-so-slightly on Monday while deigning to speak to the press.
The video in Stephen's post makes it clear that Mrs. Biden is NOT in the mood to entertain questions about her husband's future. She's dismissive and rude and displays the contempt for the press that has been her husband's trademark for decades. The Bidens do not like it when the press minions forget their places and challenge them. They fancy themselves royalty, not public servants. The media is there to — as President LOLEightyonemillion infamously said in June — "play by the rules" and do the Bidens' bidding.
Jill Biden has no doubt been assailed by Dem elites since the debate because they know that they need her blessing to make the change at the top that they're so desperate to make. Those conversations can't be very pleasant. As Matt Vespa writes over at Townhall, Mrs. Biden doesn't share their interests, "so the party is in Purgatory."
The Democrats are deep in "be careful what you wish for" territory, and it is Jill Biden who brought them there. If the power brokers in the Democratic National Committee really did think that Joe Biden would relinquish power and not run for a second term, they were obviously overlooking his wife. If she is feeling slighted, it's only going to strengthen her resolve to keep her husband propped up in the Oval Office for as long as she can.
Jill Biden is the de facto President of the United States now and most likely has been for most of her husband's time in office. That's a gig that she isn't giving up without a bloody fight. If I were betting on the winner of the brawl, all of my money would go on her.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
07/10/2024 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's really unfair to Edith. Presidents back then didn't have the power or the pomp and ceremony of today. Edith was pretty much protecting her husband and both parties, back when Congress had far more power, weren't in a hurry for the VP (about as bright as Harris) to take power.
Jill has more in common with Elena Ceaușescu with the lust for power and position in the government.
#4
#2 - doing bang-up bizness for drapery and upholstery fabric designers
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/10/2024 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I personally liked her mailing box tape dress.
There are those who noticed his condition at the Iowa Caucus 2020, where he got pummeled by Bootygig. Think he came in 4th? Yup, Bootygig, Sanders, Warren, Biden, Klobacher, Yang.
It was a far cry from his Paul Ryan debate, and it was obvious to anyone who has had a family member go through dementia that his gears were slipping.
#8
Clooney in on the lie, trying to protect his branding. That event was billed as a vigorous grass roots campaign targeting youngsters whose donations may not be much, but represent a much larger percentage of their bank account vs. The Big Donors.
That is, they swindled the youth bloc, and Barry, George, Julia Roberts, and all those influencers were in on it.
[JPost] Not sure I buy the notion that Hezb and Iran were not informed of Oct. 7th
Iran would have known about the general plans, because they organized several years of training for it. But that doesn’t mean they were aware that 10/7 was Der Tag.
On June 19, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened that if Israel starts an all-out war against it, Hezbollah will conquer the Galilee, flatten the rest of Israel, and attack Cyprus. On June 29, Iran threatened that if Israel escalates the situation, "a war of extermination will begin."
These threats do not indicate self-confidence but rather hysteria. Even nine months after the start of the war, Tehran still estimates that in an all-out war, Israel will deal a fatal blow to Hezbollah, its most important ally. But no less important than that, in several months, there has been a dramatic change in Iran's position towards the war, and in order to understand where Iran and Hezbollah stand today, it is necessary to return to the beginning.
The massacre on October 7 was initiated by Yahya Sinwar without coordination with Beirut and Tehran. Khamenei and Nasrallah financed, trained, and armed Hamas, but that morning, they were as surprised as Israel. Sinwar decided to attack without coordination because he knew they would forbid him. First, because Israel was still too strong, and it could eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. Second, as long as Israel did not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran was not eager to endanger Hezbollah.
Sinwar nevertheless ordered the attack based on the assumption that the promise of public support his men received in Beirut in March 2023 would force Nasrallah to enter the conflict. Khamenei and Nasrallah were embarrassed, and the latter joined out of lack of choice.
Tehran praised the middle path chosen by Nasrallah: aid to Hamas by attacking Israeli forces and driving Israeli civilians out of their homes in the upper Galilee, but without getting involved in an all-out war. While in his speeches, Nasrallah pledged to be engaged in attacks on Israel as long as the war in Gaza continues, Hezbollah's restraint has raised criticism in the Muslim world of Iran and Hezbollah and made the whole event extremely embarrassing.
That is why Tehran made repeated desperate requests from the world to pressure the United States to force an end to the war.
NASRALLAH LONGS FOR CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT
In recent months, Tehran no longer demands this. Instead, Iran proudly notes the contribution of Hezbollah and the Houthis to the depletion of Israel, and I understand that they want the continuation of the war. They believe that Israel is losing the support of the West, that the IDF is exhausted, that Israeli society is crumbling, the port of Eilat is paralyzed, and the economy is crashing.
On the other hand, for Nasrallah, every additional day of fighting is a tremendous burden. He longs for a ceasefire agreement in Gaza, even if Israel alone announces the end of the massive war and stays in Gaza. But Iran will try to force him to continue.
If there is a general ceasefire agreement, Nasrallah will comply. There is even a chance that he will agree to retreat 15 kilometers and possibly to the Litani River to avoid a war.
This, however, could only materialize if a joint Israeli-American position is reached. Israel would announce that if Hezbollah does not withdraw, it will start an all-out war, and the United States will undertake to support it with weapons, intelligence, and support in the Security Council. Israel will have to concentrate very large forces in the North in order to convince Nasrallah of the sincerity of its intentions.
If Nasrallah and Tehran are convinced, he will likely withdraw on the assumption that his people will be able to infiltrate back as soon as possible, just as they did in 2006. Therefore, Israel and the United States must reach an early agreement allowing Israel to be the executor of Security Council Resolution 1701.
Displaced Israeli civilians will be allowed to return to the North, this time with large numbers of IDF troops permanently on the border. But every Israeli prime minister will be personally and legally responsible for preventing Hezbollah from returning to the border, even if this leads to war. Only in this way will the feeling of security in the North be renewed.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/10/2024 07:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
This piece is an op ed by a retired professor.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
07/10/2024 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
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.
Yesterday I posted a comment with some incorrect data, and I'd like to correct myself.
[JPost] 
