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.
A Progressive Asks a Clarifying Question
Friday’s adventures in Twitterland was consumed with President Trump’s decision to reverse the Obama Administration’s inclusion of transgender individuals serving in the military. One woman from California asked me the following:
Valid question and clarifying. Exactly what am I afraid of? Mostly my son dying. It’s as simple as that. And while I have but one Marine related to me by blood, all of them, no matter what branch of the service they may be in, all are his brothers and sisters. For any of them to perish diminishes me and diminishes our country.
One of the talking points latched onto by her fellow progressives follows this line: “If someone wants to volunteer and is willing to die for our country, who are any of us to say ‘no?'” This very question is at fundamental odds with the purpose and intent of the United States military. To paraphrase Gen. George S. Patton, their objective is not to die for our country, but rather make the other poor bastard die for his country. We honor those that make that sacrifice, but we never seek to place them in a situation that guarantees it. Every minute of training is devoted to giving every recruit every chance of coming home.
Part and parcel of that is evaluating fitness for combat. While not every job in the military is designated as a combat position, war can be a funny thing. Just because you are not seeking combat doesn’t mean that combat won’t find you. That is why, for the Corps, every Marine is first a rifleman.
Which brings us to the most disturbing of statistics concerning transgender individuals: According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, at some time or another 40 percent to 50 percent of them will attempt suicide. Why the desire then to give them a weapon and put them into a situation where lives depend on emotional and mental stability under stress?
So asks J.R. Salzman. Salzman is a champion athlete who won eight world titles at the Lumberjack World Championships between 1998 and 2010. He joined the Minnesota National Guard on the 2nd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and was sent to Iraq in 2006. In December of that year he was injured in a blast that caused traumatic brain injury and the loss of his right arm below the elbow.
He writes about being stuck in the 105° heat, being both bored and frightened at the same time, and the toll it takes:
Any tiny little personal issue (with the youngest among his team) had suddenly became a mountain. And that [expletive] came out on that fire base. And they snapped mentally. After stepping on each other’s nuts living in the same can for five months, guys were at each other’s throats. The stress made it worse. Guys would literally snap over a Dear John letter. Their personal issues came out and they were instantly combat ineffective.
Now take someone confused about whether they are a man or woman. Take those psychological and emotional issues and put them in that environment. Take someone who is right off the bat not uniform or part of the same team. Give them special treatment because of their identity. Take that person, put them in that stressful war environment and watch what happens. It’s a [expletive] ticking time bomb.
You have to be incredibly tough mentally, physically and emotionally. War is not a [expletive] video game. It tests every ounce of your being. You can’t teach someone to be a fearless warrior in a [expletive] PowerPoint. You either have it or you don’t. You can hack it or you can’t.
The worst thing about the transgender advocates is that they have neither the experience or nor the family ties to the military. For them these are purely political exercises paid for by the blood of others and the anguish of families that they will never have to meet. If you believe your side of the argument is personal and about people, don’t treat the other side as a mere statistic.
Unfortunately, when I answered this woman’s question the conversation stopped. Evidently my answer was either unexpected or not included in her list of preconceived answers to everything.
Published in Military
Okay, so you agree about the leaks, but do you see how just saying ‘no’ over Twitter in a direct, professional statement of policy avoids leaks of embarrassing conversations about an embarrassment of a policy that was bequeathed to him by his predecessor?
Trump should be very wary of having a frank discussion with anyone about how he really feels about transexuals in the military. If details of his frank analysis of this pressing question were leaked to the press, it would be a much longer, more embarrassing story.
It’s very popular with the media, the left, the NT elites to disparage Trump’s tweeting.
Tweeting is Trump’s most powerful single tool and these people surely know that he used it to become president. They can’t live with that simple FACT.
This whole discussion has been about tweeting and proper communication. The single biggest problem in the country right now is the media’s takeover of communication and dedicating it to supporting the Democratic Party.
You people who want Trump to stop tweeting should at least have the humility to admit that he has used tweeting very very very very effectively. After admitting that, then weigh in with how he should have done things and should do things in the future.
@bloodthirstyneocon
I disagree with you. I think we’d be having this conversation either way.
I feel that it’s better to get everyone on the staff up to date and on the same page with the story so they can run a united campaign to defend a policy. I think it’s more effective to have them all stating the same message with the same planned talking points. Obama- for all his faults- was good at this.
We just had a President who claimed he learned of various scandals via the news media. The media had no problem with that, so what is wrong here?
Dateline 7/31/2019: Fort Sill, Oklahoma
ARMY CELEBRATES GRADUATION OF FIRST DIFFERENTLY ABLED FORWARD OBSERVER
MG Robert Terwilliger, has recognized PFC Earl Schieb of Rancho Cucamonga, California as the Distinguished Graduate of Field Artillery Forward Observer class # 501-19. PFC Schieb’s consistent attempts at meeting the required qualification tasks were “An inspiration to his classmates and in the finest traditions of the Field Artillery.”
Schieb admitted, “I was a bit surprised. According to my drill sergeant, my calls for fire weren’t even in the same county as the targets. But, I’ve come a long way. Two years ago I wouldn’t have even been qualified for enlistment on account of my blindness.”
Schieb will take up duties as an instructor in the Gunnery Department of the Field Artillery School. He does not expect to stay there very long. He’s already submitted an application for flight school.
@larrykoler
I think twitter is one of the largest problems facing this presidency.
It doesn’t matter if he can get his message out past the press, his undisciplined use of twitter is creating distractions for his office.
The problem with Quake was it was really just Cap’n Crunch, but didn’t taste as good. Quisp was much better.
Yeah, I ate a lot of cereal as a kid. Strangely, I don’t touch the stuff now – ever. I also don’t watch cartoons any more. Sometimes I think about getting Speed Racer or Jonny Quest on DVD, but I think my memories of those are probably better than the actual shows.
Do we know he didn’t do those things? And I agree – he could have done it that way, and it would probably be better. But they would be receiving the order regardless.
I’m quite sure that generals do not consult down to the Captain/LT level when they make decisions. They issue the order at the highest level and it flows down through the chain of command. No one has to like it or how they were told to do it. They are just required to execute it.
Did Barry ask up and down his chain of command about his initial transgender policy change? Did he hold town hall meetings, where he invited a member of each rank from all the branches of the military to chime in on their thoughts around his policy and how it should be implemented?
No? Then why should Trump? And why would any president?
Trump (to the Joint Chiefs): Trannies are gross. Why would we let them near our brave troops? The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are laughing at us. This is an embarrassment.
CNN: Pres. Trump calls transexuals ‘gross’ and ‘an embarrassment’. A panel discussion of the president’s bigoted comments after the break.
Nope, just squelch it. Just say no to a horrendous idea. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are smart. I’m very confident they will figure out how to transition transexuals out of the military.
Every second spent by our leaders talking about this ridiculous topic is a second not spent talking about North Korean nukes and Iranian nukes, defeating ISIS, etc. You’re just wrong about this.
Thank you! I think this will be my answer from now on whenever someone mentions this tweet again. Reading the comments here from the NeverTrumpers, you’d have thought Trump tweeted: “Duurrrrhurrr No trannies with my army guys!”
Keep in mind that you’re arguing with a guy who thinks Game Of Thrones is Quality Television.
That’s–at best–incompetence.
Donald Trump began his run for the Presidency with a showy ride down the escalator of his billion dollar building with his stunningly beautiful current wife by his side. He proceeded to attack and diminish everyone of his sixteen accomplished challengers until none were left to defeat. Then against the wisdom of nearly all the smart people he tenaciously defeated the ONE, the undefeatable Hillary. Everything he has done from the beginning has been unconventional. He appears to not know any other way. It is at once exhilarating and demoralizing for those of us attempting to support him. And yes there are millions of us and we are out here on his side because, like every post here, we agree with his stated goals while disagreeing with his methods of achieving them. Most of the time his methods work as we remain shaking our heads in either amazement or disgust.
So @loislane, I totally agree with you and others who have pointed to the value of the conventional method. For one it would save the President himself so much grief. But since my first turn to support Donald Trump for POTUS, I knew there would be many cringe worthy moments. In that he has not disappointed. This is Donald Trump. This is his way. I do not think he will change.
The good news is…we nearly unanimously all seem to agree with the policy.
And I think you’ve put your finger on it. “Turnabout is fair play,” is probably the most cogent explanation for the opinions and representations of many of President Trump’s most ardent and unambiguous supporters.
“Turnabout is fair play,” isn’t a statement of policy, though, and it’s not necessarily the best way to run a railroad. And it’s somewhat dispiriting that so many people, apparently, think it is.
I’m also a bit dismayed by the number of folks who portray President Trump’s Tweets as a purely defensive maneuver, made in a desperate attempt to outwit the leakers and the fools. I thought/hoped he would be able to run a tighter and more efficient ship than the one painted in that scenario. But the fact that, eight months in, so many of his hires are being “fired,” “resigning,” or being systematically and repeated denigrated by their boss, is leading me to conclude that he must have surrounded himself with fools and knaves. Thought he was better than that, too.
Trump said in his tweet he consulted his generals and military experts about the matter. I guess what the generals are saying is that the President didn’t ask for their approval before making the decision. News flash: He’s the commander-in-chief. He doesn’t need anyone’s approval to change the policy back to the way it was for the first two hundred some odd years of the republic.
Tyrrion Lannister wouldn’t agree with trannies in the military. I will be watching the new episode tonight though.
Welp, I guess we can look forward to at least four years of naysayers insulting people who support the president, as if that changes anything.
I did not intend this to be about POTUS and his twitter account. That said, “proper channels” arguments, well, those belong at the bottom of the flow chart. Last time I looked the president was at the top. For good or ill, it always flows downstream.
“Proper channels” in Washington now describes a process where someone makes a proposal, an interdepartmental study is commissioned, think tanks and universities are awarded study grants, opposition leaks to the press, cable news has a weekend orgasm, a congressional subcommittee issues subpoenas for testimony and all the while worst case scenarios promulgate, a mentally unstable person hands the nation’s secrets over to Wikileaks and the rest of the country stands there with its collective and individual thumbs up their rearends wondering why nobody saw this coming.
Proper channels, indeed. This is not budgetary. There is not an Constitutional advise and consent consideration. It is the civilian commander-in-chief announcing policy for the military.
But RightAngles, we’re just too blind to see how crass the man is! He’s a boor! For Goodness’ sake, catsup on steak! The horror!
OMG OMG I see it now! I’ve been so blind! Oh thank you for elucidating this for me so I can be smart like you!
Just like Obama did when he forced them on the military. Great answer.
Sorry your fantastic post (about the mental imbalance of the Left) got hijacked, but it really does boil down to that tweet, in the end.
I’m not disgusted with methods that work. I’m only disgusted with those that don’t work. See how that works?
This talk of decorum is really only in service to the left — we are still mostly in a binary situation. It’s either us or them.
For me the funniest part of this girl’s tweet was the part accusing us of “excluding people who are different from” us, when they’re the ones who do that. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. They actually believe that if they make an outer show of the kind of “diversity” you can see, such as skin color, race, ethnicity, and sex, that it makes them the lofty ones. But in the most important kind of diversity, that of thought and ideas, they not only exclude people who are different from them, but also have no problem destroying their lives and careers. Somebody put that in 140 characters and tweet it back in her silly face.
Trust me when I tell you this plays well in the Rust Belt. Don’t believe the coastal elites.
Hey! Listen up:
Early this month the House voted to require the Pentagon to pay for transgender surgery.
This in spite of Ash Carter’s 2015,study which estimated the cost of just 65 of those surgeries at “no more” than 4.2 million .
And people are saying the president acted improvidently? I just hope he isn’t too,late.
This might have been the motivating factor for Trump. 24 House Republicans voted with the Democrats to force the Pentagon to pay for transgender surgery. Good find @hypathia.
George Townsend
I agree with this entirely. You are a good and thoughtful person, E.J., to take the time to answer such a tendentious question.
The problem, as I see it, is that, most of us on the right take these things seriously. Most of those on the left just want to try to make their points. They are so sanctimonious that they consider whatever they think is the truth, and those who disagree with them are doing so out of bad motives. Therefore, when they are taken seriously, they are unable to respond in a series manner, and retreat into their cocoon-like existence.
Songwriter
EJHill: Unfortunately, when I answered this woman’s question the conversation stopped. Evidently my answer was either unexpected or not included in her list of preconceived answers to everything.
Conversation with a Leftist typically stops the moment one starts using facts and logic to counter their feelings.
Leftists do not end the conversation. Leftists do not retreat into cocoons.
Leftists change the subject to a counterattack about your intolerance.
Pardon me.
Let me complain again about the crappy editing tools in comments.
Really? You’re going to resort to this line of attack?
I’d like to know why my underlining was eliminated. I know we can’t use caps, but…is underlining for emphasis prohibited by CoC, too?
Also, Mattis was up against a July 1, 2017, deadline, imposed by BHO’s DoD secy, to decide whether trans should be admitted as new recruits.
(So, we got that? It is presently the policy that they not be.)
Mattis had gotten a 6 month extension.
Trump had to act.
Smart to do it ASAP, since the more time elapses before 2018 midterms, the better. Because undoubtedly the Left will try to make hay of it, casting it as “transphobic” rather than the sensible pro-defense policy it is.