Monday, February 25, 2019

The Terminatress: Hasta La Vista, Selective Service?

Friends, there are all sorts of intriguing stories in the news.  First, a federal judge has found our all-male system of selective service to be unconstitutional, because, well, federal judges rewrite and re-imagine the Constitution willy-nilly these days, so why not?  In truth, the fact that women are exempted from mandatory military service in the US (and many other countries) does seem unfair, but on the other hand can we really sustain the illusion that men and women are equally capable of, and equally suitable for, military service?  The Left wants us to believe that gender is what you make of it, but at a certain point biological differences must be acknowledged, no?  No, probably not.  The liberals never let reality get in the way of a good utopian scheme.

In other news, AOC is speculating on whether it might be immoral to have children, given that the planet is going down the tubes.  She's thus confirming the essentially anti-human leftist dogma that undergirds much of modern environmentalism, as well as the conceit that we KNOW what "the planet" will be like in a generation or two, and it's all bad.  Drivel!

Speaking of climate change, keep an eye on the cresting wave of lawsuits that are designed to punish, and possibly to destroy, the fossil fuel industry.  The Left has made its modus operandi very clear in recent years: where democracy fails them, they turn to the courts to realize their wild utopian dreams, and quite often it works.  No one imagined that the courts would ever redefine marriage to suit gay rights activists, and for years such requests were summarily quashed, but the Left chipped away at establishment judges for many years, and in the end got its way.  Beware!

Finally, some good news.  It seems that the Trump re-election campaign is already swinging into high gear on Facebook.  That's excellent.  The news media will naturally be working in lockstep to destroy President Trump -- BEFORE 2020, if at all possible -- so it's essential that his campaign be on the ball.  As the Democratic field of presidential candidates narrows, we conservatives will also want to define these liberal standard-bearers as the radical socialists that they (mostly) are.  The upshot: the 2020 campaign is already underway!


  1. Dr. Waddy: A key question to ask is: how important in modern combat is hand to hand confrontation? Women are of course at a very great disadvantage in that due to their usually inferior upper body strength. I say that as one with some Karate training who found skilled women practitioners usually(not always) far less imposing than men in the field (and I was a consummate klutz). Doctrinaire feminists who reflexively and dismissively deny this advance absurdities and should be shunned by serious people. I would ask of those who KNOW, Iraq and Afghanistan vets, how much hand to hand hassling still goes on? Is it sound to advance combatants to the front who may be at decisive physical disadvantage?

    I see no reason why women cannot function well in those technologically rich combat settings in which close corporal contact with the enemy is not encountered. I'd also urge close attention to the experiences of the noble Israelis, who have long utilized women soldiers.

    There may well be no need for a draft anymore. The all volunteer military has been an outstanding success; a conflict as intense as to prompt consideration of a draft may well be decided by 15 year old hackers long before such numbers could be brought to combat readiness.

    If the draft continues I am of two minds on it. As the father of a daughter and 71 years old I would be incensed at her conscription. Those vindictive extremists in the feminist movement who maintain that obvious physical and psychological differences manifest in the general population are but illusions are arrogant, presumptuous,fatuous and thoroughly totalitarian sophists. They should have no more say in public policy than would a Nazi or a Marxist.

    However, I do think the argument of men's rights advocates that a male only draft and the registration for the same,is unjust, have much merit in their argument.

  2. Dr.Waddy: There is a fundamental and, I think,decisive difference between the Supreme Court's endorsement of the disgraceful attack on traditional marriage and the possible results of suits alleging harm resulting from official doubt about the human provenance of perceived unprecedented climatic change.

    Having lived through the 1973-74 oil embargo and the fear of a repeat in 1979, I experienced their onerous effect on EVERYONE. Such is not true of the nonetheless presumptuous and destructive endorsement of marriage outside parameters established by 5000 years of civilization.

    Go ahead, you profoundly anti social creeps: try to restrict the real America's access to fossil fuels, especially the natural gas proven now to be clean. We are EVERYWHERE! Do you really think you can overpower us, no matter how many improbable court orders you may arrange in settings defined by your bigotry? (eg, the 9th Circuit). Do you actually think you can force your will on us, to the fundamental and unjustified transformation of our day to day lives? If you persist, you'll find out and presently too.

  3. Dr. Waddy: The article on the already manifested campaign and your commentary are very encouraging. I'm inspired by the firm resolution already evident in the President's campaign. My, my, our Presidential selection process is madness, isn't it? But it is the product of one of the most stable polities ever and I rejoice that our President embraces it and bids his vicious detractors "bring it on" - a "happy warrior" he is and just the miracle we needed to defeat what at one time appeared a well nigh inevitable radical leftist triumph, ultimate and totalitarian. Instead it is they who face permanent marginalization now. They always wax presumptuous and overconfident when they believe themselves in the ascendent (eg. Cuomo's NY) but that it is nothing compared to the frantic and increasingly moonbeamish image they now recklessly and fecklessly manifest as their fear mounts. It may well yield them a 1972 or 1984 style whupping at the hands of a bemused real America which recognizes one of its own in this President. Even should one of the dangerous Dem "moderates" ( yeah well, I suppose Bukharin was a"moderate" Bolshevik ,yes, when he opposed Stalin's sociopathic evil - he would only have oppressed tens of thousands instead of untold millions) such as Klochubar (the dismissive MSM will never abide having to remember the spelling of her name), Ryan (really?) or Biden gain the nomination they will have to do feudal homage to their party's radical mob, in recognition of its "inevitable" triumph. We know - we've seen it before and we know we have a leader we can trust in meeting and defeating it.

  4. I share your ambivalence about the draft, Jack. It isn't needed, and yet someday it may be. It isn't fair to inveigle men only, and yet they are the ones most fit to fight. Your point that muscle power is less useful on the modern battlefield is well taken. In fact, as I understand it, something like 90% of modern "soldiers" never fight at all. The "tail" to a modern army is immense. Women can serve very capably in these roles. Where it gets stickier is in roles where, not only physical strength, but aggression and ruthlessness are required. The feminists love to remind us that the vast majority of rapes, assaults, and murders are committed by men. And that's true in EVERY society that has ever existed. Is this coincidence? I think not. Killing, even at a distance, takes a certain steely nerve, at the very least, and at times it takes even a taste for danger and a bit of bloodlust. How many women can deliver the goods?

    You're right, naturally, that we can't dispense with fossil fuels just yet. Even the liberals fly in airplanes and heat their homes with gas, oil, coal, and occasionally plutonium. The disconnection between their ideology and our shared reality is vast, though, so don't be surprised if they try to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It would be just their style.

  5. And yes -- the Dems' headlong rush towards socialist la-la land is extraordinary to behold. They seem DETERMINED to help Trump over the finish line. Who knew they were so generous and open-hearted?

  6. Dr. Waddy: Good point about the aggression necessary for lethal assult being far more often found in men than in women. Still, many big time women athletes display warrior spirits and women capable of all manner of mayhem, unjustified or just (eg. SS death camp guards) are found throughout history (eg. Boadicea, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher). This may suggest that a number of women with physical forcefulness in them sufficient to make drafting them practical may obtain. Basic training would find them out. The "great equalizer",a hard hitting handgun,may well give most people a chance in a close situation, reducing the need for actual hand to hand. Gun grabbers take note.

  7. Ha! Yes, firearms do even the odds... I guess my point of view would be, sure, there are women suitable for combat, BUT pretty much every society that has ever existed has assigned those responsibilities to men -- exclusively to men. The assumption must have been that gender differences were so marked that it was more efficient and rational to assign fixed gender roles than to investigate each individual's peculiar qualities. There's surely some wisdom in that. I hesitate to abandon any institution -- including the all-male soldiery -- that prevails so universally. After all, don't we face the danger that, under present circumstances, the military will be "feminized", and in the process may lose its lethal effectiveness? I also wonder how women are affected by the trauma of combat. It's hard enough on men. How do women react?

  8. Dr. Waddy: I think the Israelis are best suited to answer those questions. All my life I've assumed that the women I cared for were immune from conscription. Having lived through the draft I would resent having my 16 year old niece burdened with it. Yet, it may be arguably just. Up to about WWII, combat carried with it a strong chance of mano a mano; I know a guy who was in a bayonet fight in Vietnam. Clearly, throughout history up to then most women were at an undeniable disadvantage. The melee was the expected culmination of the attack prior to our civil war and there was still plenty of it afterwards.

  9. Yes, the melee isn't as common as it used to be, but it can't entirely be ruled out either, given our habit of fighting counter-insurgency wars.

    If you look into the role of women in the IDF, they are heavily concentrated in non-combat roles, and they are ineligible for certain combat functions. That's not exactly the egalitarian nirvana that lefties have in mind...

  10. Dr. Waddy: Re: the IDF: I wasn't aware of what you pointed out. American leftists may propose combat roles for women out of the completely and mindlessly doctrinaire egalitarianism with which they attempt to task our entire society. Most of them don't even know why. Many of them may advocate it out of conviction that it will fatally degrade a U.S. military they loathe. Feminists would do well to perceive in such a view their role in a country in which the radical left has triumphed.

  11. True, Jack. I think we can safely assume that the strength and effectiveness of the U.S. military are not primary concerns for the Left. Its subordination to left-wing orthodoxy is what they seek.