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
Maybe going around and telling other people what they should or shouldn’t do is not such a great idea, either. Want to have a dialog? Convince them that Obama is NOT a Marxist. I’m sure if you do even a halfway decent job of that then they will change their minds. I, for one, will find it highly entertaining watching you try. And if “getting upset” is a problem you don’t approve of, well…
That’s what the rebs said when they opened fire on Fort Sumter. ;-)
Are you intentionally ignoring the effect that the media had on Obama’s tenure and the attainment of his super-majority?
Ditto.
I read a fair number of these comments, as much as I had time for, and I see a lot of missing the point going on.
Tweeting is just a technology. Whether the president tweets or not is not the issue. It’s what is in the tweets that matters. He could do as much harm, or good, as the case may be, in short press releases or televised comments.
In this case, Trump was in error. The policy decision is one that I support. However, it is irresponsible for the president to make a decision and announce it publicly when he knows that his military brass are in the process of studying the issue.
It’s not just that it undercuts them by announcing the decision in public without any warning. But also, evidently, the decision was reached on incomplete information. Otherwise, why the need for the study? Why the rush? Why not wait for the study’s results and then make a decision? Not just for the sake of appearances, but also to get the decision right. Instead, Trump has given his enemies ammunition to accuse him of making the decision out of malice.
Well you have to give it to Atlee. He nationalized the coal mines. He didn’t try to destroy them.
It isn’t hard to check on the charge of Marxism. That’s for you to do. There’s tons of evidence and for him being anti-American and for fomenting racial hatred and violence. It’s not name calling if the description is accurate.
Do you know who David Horowitz is?
Who did I castigate?
The question about nationalizing is evident in Obamacare. BUT, that’s not how you find out about the charge of Marxism — that’s in his belief system and doesn’t have to be followed by any actions. Marxism is a way of thought, a political philosophy.
Well, Obama sees the world through the lenses of class conflict, colonialism and radical community organizing. He is pretty candid when he evaluates everything in a faux folksy historical arc.
Doesn’t sound like Richard Gephardt or Jim Wright to me.
Did he have a single formative influence who wasn’t a radical leftist?
Had the tea party not rescued the country and Obama enjoyed House and Senate majorities until 2014 or 2016, what percentage of GDP would the federal government commandeer? 50%? 55%?
Now, you’re doing his work for him. Don’t do too much because we all need to learn how to learn.
That did it, Larry. You are too smart for me. I give up. When our country starts electing more lefties, because of your arrogance, you can sit back, and tell them that at least you went down “fighting”!!!
There’s a difference?
I agree. The best person for the job is a pretty simple concept one would think. Because the transgender issue as defined by the left defies legitimate concerns, the left choses the same tactic as in any other issue. You are just wrong. It is weird, but where are the doctors performing lobotomies today? At one time it was a very well accepted practice. Moniz even won a Noble Prize for his new idea. In the long run, it wasn’t so good. I’d say conservatives are more long term looking than liberals. And remember that some liberals had to admit VP Quayle had a valid point about single parenthood. After they made fun and mocked him.
Did they ever admit that? Excellent. I just don’t remember that moment of truth on the Left….
Studies are bureaucratic ritual. In the government catechism it replaces prayer. Then when the ship hits the sand the pages of those studies are used to cover one’s nether regions like a blanket.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: If local authorities don’t send us the statistics that we ask for, then government figures will be a nonsense.
James Hacker: Why?
Appleby: They will be incomplete.
Hacker: But government figures are a nonsense anyway.
Bernard Woolley: I think Sir Humphrey want to ensure they are a complete nonsense.
The Atlantic did a piece entitled “Quayle Was Right.”
Like the underpants gnomes!! I get it now.