it's a nice speech and all, but there's two concerns.

1) unlike chemical warfare (where blowback is a problem) or mutually assured destruction, rape is an effective means to control a subjugated population. it is perhaps the single most effective means to control a subjugated population.
2) there have already been several agreements signed, including the rome statute. the united states will not ratify this agreement, for obvious reasons. rather than sign new agreements that are unlikely to get ratified, it would make sense to ratify and enforce the agreements that have been agreed to and signed.

it's difficult to take ol' johnny boy seriously on this. i don't doubt he means it on some level, but he's fighting against all this double think. this has been a sort of constant for boomer age democratic politicians. the gen xers don't even seem to have the moral conflict raging in them, so this administration might actually be the last moment of sanity for quite a while. like, you could see it with hillary all the time - she seemed to actually have difficulty articulating some of her speeches. she was visibly revolted at herself more than once. but, she couldn't fight against her careerism. that battle raged, but her career always won. every time.

with ol' johnny boy, it seems like it's more of a military oath. dies hard, i guess. so, again, i don't doubt that he'd like to see some movement on this. so, why not ratify and enforce the rome statute? the russians might actually go along with it, if you take the lead (the chinese, on the other hand, wouldn't sign an agreement to consider signing an agreement, as it would restrict their options regarding signing the agreement). because it's not what's really going on, and he's under no real illusions about it.

part of his job, as secretary of state, is to sell war. that means sanitizing it, to neutralize the opposition to it. and, women have a disproportionate opposition to war. if we can rebrand war to be free of rape, might it be easier to sell to women? the future of the democratic party in some sense rests on this proposal.

and, again, i don't think ol' johnny boy is really opposed to this sanitizing, either. i mean, if you can kill a few less troops and still get the same objectives? keep the kids at home, send out robots instead. yeah, i think ol' johnny boy would see some good in that.

but a realist needs to be a realist. and this is a public relations campaign.

otherwise, they'd ratify the rome statute. right?

almost all of them do have degrees. the reality is that you actually pretty much need a degree nowadays to even bother applying; not only are these not jobs for kids, but they won't call you back unless you have post-secondary. fuck, i have two degrees and i can't even get an interview in fast food. whatever cultural bias exists to suggest these are jobs for kids doesn't actually make any sense. think it through for a few seconds, rather than allow media to define it for you. you don't let kids play with that much money, or let them run dangerous equipment, or put them in charge of running an operation that requires strict adherence to strict rules. these stores face massive performance-based competition on a wide open market: they need to get things out faster than the restaurant across the street, they need to be cleaner, they need to have better service, etc. the owners can't afford to hire children to do these jobs, and risk underperforming. they need and desire people with experience, work ethic, maturity and mental discipline that they can plug into a high-paced, physically demanding work environment. the idea of the apathetic, slacker teenager working at mcdonald's is some kind of tongue-in-cheek early 90s snl skit, not anything remotely reflecting reality.

but my point of commenting here today is to point out that this is a complete waste of time from any kind of leftist revolutionary perspective. you can expect career unionists that just want to enforce the status quo to get behind this kind of thing. the union hierarchy obviously wants to increase union membership. but that's the extent of it.

an actual communist would look at the situation and argue that these restaurants should be abolished altogether. imagine the situation of a worker in detroit driving by a closed factory on a daily basis on her way to a fast food job serving other working-class people. do you think a socialist is going to look at the situation and say "gee. she deserves more money.". no. a socialist is going to look at the situation and say "fuck fast food. that factory is unused. let's smash the doors down and get it running again.".

nobody is doing that, because there are very few socialists on this continent. there is no threat of something like that happening. rather, we're stuck in a situation of pointing out that it's something that could happen, if only people would stop wasting their lives working these pointless jobs.....