Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
OK, ladles and gentlespoons, and (perhaps even) diverse others, such as ye may be:
I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that I’m not the only person on Ricochet who needed to hear on “Tucker,” via Chip Roy, or elsewhere that there’s a provision in the latest House-passed — endorsed by the Armed Services Committee — defense bill that mandates, on the part of “all Americans,” registration for selective service. I actually knew this was coming, because I pay attention to current events. So, no surprise, or even outrage, that this was “slipped past me” (because it was not).
The language in the bill sidesteps the difficult distinction (for some) between men and women by saying simply that the Selective Service System should be “modernized” to amend its applicability from “male citizens,” expanding its reach to just “citizens,” and to replace any offensive male pronouns in the descriptors relating to how the process goes with other words or phrases that might be less triggering to those with delicate sensibilities.
While I do understand that the proposed legislation isn’t quite the same thing as “drafting women,” no matter what any may say, it’s still a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. I mean, really. What if I identify as something else? Like a doorknob? Or a chicken sandwich? In that case, would I still be considered a “citizen” under the proposed legislation? And should I have to register for selective service then, just because doorknobs and chicken sandwiches should be considered as “citizens” and will add diversity to the social experiment that is the modern armed services?
I think not. (Although, in contemplation, I can envision some unintended consequences here, and this cheers me up!)
I don’t know about you, but I’m utterly fed up with the matter. As we all know, studies by any and all branches of the military (particular shoutout to the USMC) have shown that mixed-sex units and companies do less well in direct combat and even in preparedness exercises than do single-sex (male) groupings.
So I can’t, for the life of me, understand why conservatives might find this matter problematic. Or why any conservatives should pretend to being on the fringe, or to being reviled by their fellows, merely because they stand firmly against it. I think we’re pretty much all on the same page here, whether our reason for being there is biblical, political, pragmatic, or simply rational.
Am I wrong?
And so I ask you, therefore, why 135 Republican House members voted in favor of such a thing (including the provision that ALL AMERICANS [this includes women, ICYC] register for selective service), and I also ask for the temperature of the site (on the basis that we might be regarded as conservative) with regard to the idea.