What Happens When the SAPR Knob Goes to 11?

Well ... I think over at the Severn School for Wayward Boys and Girls at the end of November, I think we found out.

I'm not sure more commentary on my part is needed or wise ... I'll just say BZ to the MIDN who gave the feedback in bold. We need more pushback like that.

---

---

...and yes, I think we'd all like to see the 13 suggested topics...for scientific purposes, of course.

The Civilian Side of the Terrible 20s

I'd love to bring you good news to help you try to move pass this horrible year, but that is not to be.

I posted on this topic back in June at USNIBlog, but I re-read it again last night and it seems to have become even more clear and I wanted to bring it back here.

You all know the warning I gave a decade ago about the upcoming "Terrible 20s" for our military, well it appears that there is a similar issue on the civilian side, the ‘Turbulent Twenties’
 

Read again Jack Goldstone and Peter Turchin's observations; 

Top leadership matters. Leaders who aim to be inclusive and solve national problems can manage conflicts and defer a crisis. However, leaders who seek to benefit from and fan political divisions bring the final crisis closer. Typically, tensions build between elites who back a leader seeking to preserve their privileges and reforming elites who seek to rally popular support for major changes to bring a more open and inclusive social order. Each side works to paint the other as a fatal threat to society, creating such deep polarization that little of value can be accomplished, and problems grow worse until a crisis comes along that explodes the fragile social order.

These were the conditions that prevailed in the lead-up to the great upheavals in political history, from the French Revolution in the eighteenth century, to the revolutions of 1848 and the U.S. Civil War in the nineteenth century, the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the twentieth century and the many “color revolutions” that opened the twenty-first century. So, it is eye-opening that the data show very similar conditions now building up in the United States.

In applying our model to the U.S., we tracked a number of indicators of popular well-being, inequality and political polarization, all the way from 1800 to the present. These included the ratio of median workers’ wages to GDP per capita, life expectancy, the number of new millionaires and their influence on politics, the degree of strict party-line voting in Congress, and the incidence of deadly riots, terrorism and political assassinations. We found that all of these indicators pointed to two broad cycles in U.S. history.

In the decades following independence, despite growing party competition, elites in office often compromised and voted together, and rising national prosperity was broadly shared. But that wave of positive conditions peaked around 1820; from there, political polarization and economic inequality rose sharply in the years leading up to the Civil War. The crisis indicators peaked in the 1860s but did not fall sharply after the war; instead, they remained high until 1920 (the years of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Gilded Age and violent labor unrest, and the anarchists).

Then, the tide shifted, and a second wave of greater unity and prosperity began to gather strength. Contrary to expectations, World War I and the Great Depression did not produce a rise in political instability indicators. Instead, the country pulled together. The reforms introduced during the Progressive Era and clinched in the New Deal reduced inequality and strengthened the economic share of workers; during and after World War II, the country agreed on new tax policies and increased spending on roads and schools.

The 1950s were a golden age of worker progress and party cooperation; even in the 1960s and 1970s, despite serious racial conflicts, the country’s leaders were able to agree on remarkably far-reaching reforms to improve civil rights and environmental protection. However, the 1960s were a high point in our indicators of political resilience; in the 1970s and 1980s, things began to turn, and by the 1990s, a new wave of rising inequality and political divisions was well underway, exemplified by Newt Gingrich’s policies as speaker of the House. In the next two decades, the crisis indicators rose just as sharply as they had in the decades before the Civil War. It was not just that by the late 2010s, overall inequality was rising to the levels not seen since the Gilded Age; median wages in relation to GDP per capita also were falling to historically low levels.

If you think anything will get better after the NOV election, you haven't been paying attention.

 This has already been, and will continue to be, a violent year in America. We need to brace for post-election violence and prepare bipartisan methods to ensure that the election outcome will be widely regarded as fair and legitimate. It will take heroic efforts to rebuild the political center, to join businesses and workers in partnership and consensus, and to restore fairness in both taxation and public spending. Only if all sides can again recover a stake in our government, no matter which party controls it, can we avoid sliding into a crisis that will undermine our Constitution and pit Americans against each other in a way we have not seen for generations.

Diversity Thursday

They will come after everyone.

When no hill is worth dying on, eventually your enemy has all the high ground and you are surrounded.

You can turn your head to the diversity industry and pretend you are not interested in them ... but make no mistake ... that just makes them more interested in you.

They will come after everyone ... and everything;

Ella Tennant, from Keele University’s Language Centre, said referring to ships as “she” is an example of how language shapes the way we see the world. There is “power and authority” in labelling, she says, and once that label is attached, “we have our own assumptions and preconceptions of what it is when we see that object”.

From a feminist language perspective, she adds, labelling ships, countries, and other inanimate things as female could be interpreted as “perpetuating the patriarchal view”, and as “slightly derogatory and patronising”.
...
David Mann, director of the Scottish Maritime Museum, said the decision to drop “she” for “it” was taken after two signs were vandalised. “The debate around gender and ships is wide-ranging, pitting tradition against the modern world. But I think that we have to move with the times,” he said.

Lloyds List, the 285-year-old daily maritime bible, abandoned “she” for “it” almost 20 years ago. Richard Meade, its editor, said the decision was made to bring the paper “in line with most other reputable international business titles and referring to ships as she seemed anachronistic”.

The battle is already well afoot.

The Imperial City; Why They Hate Thee

I first fell in love with DC back in its slightly grimy 1980s. Even when the crack wars were raging and the rents were so low in Georgetown that you could have punk bars on main roads - I liked the city.

Like I did, it grew up and cleaned itself up over the last few decades. A little less radical, a lot less dangerous, but the cost of living burn rate is much higher.

In the last year or so, the screed against the DC establishment has been over the top in a few places causing a bit of eye-rolling by those who live in a commute distance, but the baseline critique is sound and growing. Reality on the ground backs it up.

I think some of my DC friends are a bit tired of my "Imperial City" warnings that I have been giving for years - well before the last election. They don't see the disconnect, as they live in the bubble. They don't see themselves as "The Other" because they are The Other surrounded by The Other.

Those in the Provinces look to DC and do not see "of the people, by the people, for the people" and for good reason.

Because no one really hears you until you are sick of telling them something, The Washington Examiner puts it out there again for folks in DC to ponder and sniff if they wish.

If you really want to understand why the rest of the country seems a bit insane, contemplate a bit if the problems isn't them, but you.

The two richest counties in America, and five of the seven richest, are in commuting distance of the U.S. Capitol. Big government is the cause.
...
Whereas Detroit once made cars, Hollywood makes movies, and New York finances the economy, Washington mostly makes government.

How does big government enrich D.C. and its denizens? What's the mechanism? There are a few ways.

Most straightforwardly but not most importantly, federal salaries are high and the benefits even higher. The average federal employee makes $84,153, about 50 percent more than the average private-sector worker. Sweet benefits such as health insurance for life make the gap even wider. Government unions argue that federal workers are underpaid. Their arguments are self-serving hogwash based on bad data and excluding benefits.
...
Home values have doubled since 2000 compared to a 35 percent increase in St. Louis and Milwaukee, to cite just two examples.

More federal spending means more wealth in the city that makes those decisions. More regulation also means more wealth there. A more complex tax code and higher tax rates means more and yet more.

The more businesses profit from federal contracts, bailouts, and regulatory arbitrage, the more swanky restaurants, opulent homes, and corporate headquarters Washington and its environs get.

I see no indications of the gap between the Imperial City and the Provinces changing anytime soon. As such, don't expect any coming together soon towards a trust in, and confidence with our government.

Between Surrender, Retreat, and Damage Control in the Culture Wars

In my dark moments, I easily fall back in to the place I was in October of 2015. I re-read it over the weekend after I used it in a reply over at twitter. I think it ages just fine.

You “stick to the maritime and national security issues” folks may want to stop now, as I’m going to indulge myself on some introspection along the lines of religion and culture – something I used to do more often here in the past. The long-term members of the Front Porch are used to this – but if you new kiddies don’t mind a little oversharing and more-than-usual scattermindedness, stick around. You might find something of interest.

Decoupling from a tottering structure is not an unusual place to be in the scheme of things. Sure, I plan on raging against the fading light, but what when the light is gone? Fun stuff, I know.

I’m not alone in this corner of thinking. Now and then I find someone I respect rhyming on that vibe in their own way, and I feel a little better about the funk that seems to come in and out of my consciousness like a tide.

The last day or so I’ve been pondering a writer I’ve been following for the better part of two decades. I used to read him a lot more than I used to, but when I see his by-line floating by, I always try to reach out and grab it before something else grabs my attention; I’m talking about someone I consider one of the better of GenX’s public intellectuals; Rod Dreher.

His interview over at NR about his new book, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, brought me back to the religious issue I’ve had since I left Hawaii a decade and a half ago; I’m an unchurched evangelical.

I’ll get back to the interview pull quotes later in the post, but let me flesh out that, “unchurched evangelical” phrase a bit. A few years before I got kicked off FB, I got a lot of strange notes from people – as is the case often with religion – so I’ll try to tell this story a bit better and ask that if anyone gets their feelings hurt, it is not my intention. If anyone wants to argue esoteric points of one confession or another, please don’t do it with me. Thank you, but I’ve fine with my journey at this point, as imperfect and flawed as it is.

Anyway, before “getting dunked” in my mid-30s and finding a great, small Southern Baptist congregation on Oahu, twice I had been part of and then left my ancestral confession, the Presbyterian Church, due to their obsessive focus on overt secular far-left politics. We left as a family in the late 70s when there was a huge dust-up over sermons supporting … Sunday after Sunday … Communist revolution in Central America. We literally got up and left and never came back. 

I tried again in college in the 1980s and left for roughly the same reason; I did not come to Bible study or your services to have you talk about what you read in the latest edition of The Nation – I wanted to hear about Jesus, not Chomsky. That was also the time I started to understand Calvinist teachings about predestination and wanted to dig in to that, but the conversation always drifted back to the evils of American imperialism, so that simply was not going to work. Off I went to do my best to keep pace with John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester for a few years instead.

So, for a decade and a half I wandered, thirsty.

At the turn of the century, I found exactly what I was looking for; a small, Bible based, welcoming, diverse, tolerant congregation - got dunked, and then for a bit over a year, was a Sunday and Wednesday night Southern Baptist. Then I transferred to Norfolk.

Megachurch country. I don’t like big crowds and intellectual confinement. I really don’t like judgmental diktat that is not Bible based. I also don’t like person “A” saying their sin is of less concern than person “B’s” sin – and to be mean and nasty about it. I also don’t like the atmosphere of the Prosperity Gospel where the pastor lives in a manner well above their average parishioner. A lot of that in Norfolk, at least where I tried. Could not find a home.

I then moved to Europe. Besides the high holidays when a RAF Chaplain held English language Anglican services, we were unchurched in a 90% Catholic area.

Move back to the USA and home … and still; no place to call home, and life. Could not find a home … mostly because I got tired of looking. My fault this time, really.

So, we keep it in the home … mostly. Well, mostly me; imperfectly. The kids got a mix of Christian and secular private education, but not since they were small were they really part of a Church community. They share their father’s philosophy about crowds and scolds I have found, so trying for force a fit would not have worked out well. A Christian family, yes. Church going? Not so much this decade.

That outlines where your quasi-humble blogger is coming from, now back to Rod. Rod is Orthodox – a convert - and that really isn’t an option here as I’m not Russian or Greek or Syrian – and the Orthodox Churches in my area code are exceptionally ethnic in this regard. That and I’m not a fan of all the “extras.”

Ditto the Catholic Church. I can’t be a member of that confession for a lot of reasons, but I do like to be a buttress – supporting it from the outside. Always impressed with Catholic priests and the exceptional intellectual work they do, but I just can’t take the whole package.

That is why Rod’s observations appeal to me. We are roughly the same age, both Southerners, share a similar world view in a few areas (see his 2002 essay, “Crunchy Cons” that turned in to the 2006 book) and have not dissimilar life experiences outside our professional lives.

Here are some pull quotes from the interview;

A number of people are under the false impression that The Benedict Option is a call to head for the hills. It’s not. The book is about the crisis of Western civilization and Western Christianity, and about how believers living in this post-Christian culture can respond faithfully to it. We are not called to be monks. Our vocation is to live in the world. But how can we do that while facing challenges that Christians have not had to face for 1,500 years? Pope Benedict XVI said that we are living through a period of disruption comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire. I think he’s right. That’s why I say we lay Christians of the 21st century need to look at how St. Benedict of Nursia in the sixth century responded to the collapse of his own civilization. There are lessons for us there.
...

...we have a lot to be alarmed about. In addition to the considerable geopolitical turmoil in the world today, the state of the churches in the West is weak. The faith is flat on its back in Europe. We have long considered the United States to be a counterexample to European secularization, but research over the past ten years is conclusive: America is now headed down the same declining spiritual path. The Millennial generation rejects religious belief in percentages never before seen. Older Christians like to comfort themselves by saying that the young people will come back when they get older. It’s not really true. Plus, the content of the Christian faith that people actually profess has decayed dramatically from its historic orthodoxy. Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith and his team have documented exhaustively that among younger Americans, the faith is only nominally Christian in terms of its content. They have cast aside coherent, biblically consistent Christianity for a shallow, feel-good counterfeit that Smith calls “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” This is not the kind of Christianity that will endure — but this is the Christianity that most Americans hold. In my travels to Christian colleges, both Evangelical and Catholic, I hear the same thing from professors: Our students are coming to us from churches, families, and Christian schools knowing next to nothing about their faith. Contemporary American Christianity is a house built on sand.
...
This is a book about Christian hope, which is not the same thing as optimism. I don’t believe that we have a lot of cause to be optimistic these days, but we have every reason to hope. Look at the Benedictines of Norcia, who are not defeated by the disaster they have suffered, but are drawing deeply on their faith and traditions to overcome it. I hope that my book encourages all believers to do the same.
...
When I started writing the book, I asked my friend Michael Hanby, a philosopher at Catholic University of America, for his advice. He said, “Ask yourself: ‘What would Karol Wojtyla do?’” I didn’t understand what he was getting at. He said that when the Nazis invaded Poland, they sought to crush the Polish nation by erasing its memory of what it meant to be Polish, and what it meant to be Catholic. The future Pope St. John Paul II and his circle realized that the most important form of resistance they could offer was to keep that cultural memory alive. They wrote and performed plays about the faith, and about patriotism. They did this under fear of death. If the Gestapo had found them, they would have imprisoned them all, and maybe killed them. But culture was that important to the survival of the nation, and those Poles risked everything to keep the story alive.
...
It is very practical, very much geared to everyday life. He is a saint for our time and place, just as he was for the sixth century. I hope that my book helps all Christians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox alike — find their way through the darkness, to Christ.

From a religious point of view, his journey to Constantinople found better rooting than my trip for a dunking at a beach in Hawaii. Good for him. As for his view of our future, I think he might be on to something. More pondering required.

What Kind of Message Does a SECNAV Publish on a Friday Night?

Profile in courage, I guess.

First glance takeaway; if you want a sex change but cannot afford it, join the military.

UNCLASSIFIED//

ROUTINE

R 051937Z AUG 16

FM SECNAV WASHINGTON DC

TO ALNAV

INFO SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
CNO WASHINGTON DC
CMC WASHINGTON DC

BT
UNCLAS

ALNAV 053/16

MSGID/GENADMIN/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC/-/AUG//

SUBJ/SERVICE OF TRANSGENDER SAILORS AND MARINES INTERIM GUIDANCE//

REF/A/SECDEF MEMORANDUM/30JUN16//

REF/B/DOC/DODI 1300.28/30JUN16//

NARR/REF A is DTM 16-005, Military Service of Transgender Service Members. REF B is Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28, In -Service Transition for Transgender Service Members.//

RMKS/1. On June 30, 2016, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Department of Defense (DoD) had lifted the ban preventing transgender
individuals from serving their Nation in the military. The Department of the Navy (DON) remains committed to ensuring that all who are qualified and wish to serve have the opportunity to do so. Until DON policies and procedures are released, interim guidance for the service of transgender Sailors and Marines is provided in this ALNAV.

2. Consistent with the policies and procedures set forth in references (a) and (b), transgender individuals shall be allowed to serve openly in the DON. These policies and procedures are premised on the conclusion that open service by transgender Sailors and Marines, while being subject to the same standards and procedures as other members with regard to their medical fitness for duty, physical fitness, uniform and grooming, deployability, and retention, is consistent with military readiness.

3. Applicability. This policy applies to all DON military personnel, including those serving in the Reserve Components.

4. Definitions
a. Transgender Service Member. A Service Member who has received a medical diagnosis indicating that gender transition is medically necessary, including any Service Member who intends to begin transition, is undergoing transition, or has completed transition and is stable in the preferred gender.
b. Gender transition process. Gender transition in the military begins when a Service Member receives a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that the members gender transition is medically necessary, and concludes when the Service Members gender marker in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) is changed and the member is recognized in the preferred gender.

5. Timeline for Implementation. Policies for the service of transgender Sailors and Marines will be implemented in stages over the next year-starting most immediately with addressing the needs of current Sailors and Marines, followed by training for the entire force, and ultimately accession of transgender applicants.
a. Effective immediately
(1) Transgender Sailors and Marines may serve openly, subject to the procedures set forth in this ALNAV.
(2) Transgender Sailors and Marines will be subject to the same standards as any other member.
(3) Sailors and Marines shall not be involuntarily separated, discharged or denied reenlistment, nor continuation of service, solely on the basis of their gender identity.
(4) A Sailor or Marine whose ability to serve is adversely affected by a medical condition or medical treatment related to their gender identity should be treated in a manner consistent with a member whose ability to serve is similarly affected for reasons unrelated to gender identity or gender transition.
(5) Exceptions to Policy (ETP). DON policies and procedures related to transgender service and gender transition to include completing a gender marker change in DEERS are being developed. In the interim, requests related to transgender service and for gender transition shall be submitted through the first General or Flag Officer in the chain of command, via Chief of Naval Personnel/Deputy Commandant (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and ultimately to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)(ASN(M&RA)) for adjudication. ETPs will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, following the spirit and intent of references (a) and (b).
(6) Sailors and Marines and Commanders and Commanding Officers with questions regarding service of transgender Service Members should contact their Service Central Coordination Cell (SCCC).
b. No later than October 1, 2016.
(1) The DoD will issue a training handbook for Commanders and Commanding Officers, transgender Service Members, and the force; and medical guidance for providing transition related care to transgender members.
(2) The Military Health System will be required to provide transgender Sailors and Marines all medically necessary care related to
gender transition, based on the guidance that is issued.
(3) Reference (b) is effective October 1, 2016. Sailors and Marines will be able to begin the process to officially change their gender in personnel management systems. Once the Sailor or Marines gender marker is changed, the member will be responsible for meeting all applicable military standards in the preferred gender and will use military berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with their preferred gender.
c. Between November 2016 - July 2017. DON will conduct training for every Sailor and Marine, with specialized training provided for Commanders and Commanding Officers and medical personnel.
d. No later than July 1, 2017. The Navy and Marine Corps will begin accessing transgender applicants who meet all standards. The gender identity of an otherwise qualified individual will not bar them from joining the Navy or Marine Corps, from admission to the United States Naval Academy, or from participating in Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps or any other accession program.

6. Harassment. It is DoD policy that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. DoD and DON issuances are being revised to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and to incorporate such prohibitions in all aspects of the DON Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) program.

7. Responsibilities
a. ASN(M&RA)
(1) Adjudicate ETP requests received from Sailors and Marines requesting gender transition.
(2) By November 1, 2016, promulgate a Secretary of the Navy instruction to establish policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe
procedures for the standards of retention, accession, separation, in-service transition, and medical coverage for transgender personnel serving in the military services.
(3) Ensure all DON and Service regulations, policies, and guidance are reviewed and updated, in accordance with references (a) and (b).
b. Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps
(1) Continue to ensure that all Sailors and Marines are able to perform their duties free from unlawful discrimination. It is DON policy that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
(2) As in all cases, ensure that all Sailors and Marines are afforded the opportunity to obtain mental health care and allowed reasonable accommodations to receive medical care as recommended by their medical providers. In-service medical care for issues related to transgender service or gender transition do not require exceptions to policy.
(3) Continue support of SCCCs to provide multi-disciplinary (e.g., medical, legal, military personnel management) expert advice and assistance to Commanders with regard to service by transgender Service Members and gender transition in the military and assist Commanders in the execution of DoD, DON, and Service policies and procedures.
(4) Effective immediately, provide a weekly update to ASN(M&RA) summarizing requests for ETPs for adjudication.
(5) Effective immediately, review all Service issuances, the content of which relate to, or may be affected by, the open service of transgender Service Members, and provide a list of affected issuances to ASN(M&RA).
(6) No later than November 1, 2016, create a Service-wide training and education plan, to include specialized training for Commanders and Commanding Officers and medical personnel. The training of Sailors and Marines across the DON shall be completed no later than July 1, 2017.
(7) No later than November 1, 2016, issue implementing guidance, addressing the military service of transgender Service Members, to include establishing a process by which transgender Sailors/Marines may transition gender while serving, consistent with mission, training, operational, and readiness needs, and a procedure whereby a Sailors/Marines gender marker will be changed in DEERS.
(8) No later than November 1, 2016, provide to ASN(M&RA) a list of facility changes that may be required to fully implement references (a) and (b), with associated costs.
(9) No later than July 1, 2017, update all existing Service regulations, policies, and guidance, or promulgate new issuances as
appropriate, in accordance with references (a) and (b).

8. Points of Contact. Questions on transgender service policy should be directed to the Navy and Marine Corps SCCCs:
a. Navy SCCC: Comm: 1-855-628-9311 or email: usn_navy_sccc @navy.mil
b. Marine Corps SCCC: Comm: 703-784-9386, DSN: 278-9386 or
email: USMC.SCCC@usmc.mil
c. DoD SCCC: https://defense.gov/transgender

9. Released by Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy.//

BT
#0001
NNNN
UNCLASSIFIED//

From Those to Whom Much is Given

Wrongs can be put right. In a free society, it can just take time - but more often than not - you get there.

In one of the more shameful events of a shameful time in our nation's history, it a fit of self-serving narcissistic pique, those who were receiving the greatest advantage in life from the greatest nation on our little planet decided that the hard work of ensuring liberty was for the little people;

As a young chemistry professor at Yale University in 1969, Gary Haller voted to boot the U.S. military's Reserve Officers' Training Corps program off the Ivy League school's Connecticut campus.

Like many American schools at the time it was gripped by protests against the Vietnam War. Yale's faculty considered the presence of ROTC, which trains future officers and provides college scholarships, to be tacit support for an unpopular war.

"People were just so outraged," Haller said.

The actual reasons and motivations were a bit more nuanced than that, but we should let the past be the past. Let them comfort themselves with their little fairy tales - they and we know their reasons.

Regardless, that has changed - and for the better for us all;

Four decades on, however, he views the ROTC through a different lens. “We want to produce students who are leaders in every segment of our society," said Haller, now an emeritus professor who led a faculty committee that helped pave the way for the ROTC's return to Yale. "Whether you like the military or not, it is a big segment of our society.”

On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited his alma mater for the first commissioning since the Vietnam era of cadets and midshipmen who participated in the program for all four years of college.

The ceremony is the latest evidence of a sea change in the attitude of elite universities, which shunned the military for four decades in part because of its controversial "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for gay personnel. Now they have come to realize that their graduates should have as much influence on a major instrument of American power as they do in the halls of the White House or the trading desks of Wall Street.

The return of ROTC to Ivy League campuses is a return to the norm that prevailed for more than 200 years, when graduates routinely marched, flew and sailed from campus to combat.

"I really do believe deeply that ROTC needs to be back on campuses like ours so that our students can have a truly hands-on, active role in shaping the next military," said Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway, whose father served in the Air Force.

John Lewis Gaddis, a prominent Yale historian who supported ROTC's return, said he was always struck by how few students had ever met anybody in the military.

Carter referenced that in his speech on Monday, noting that the ROTC graduates had "helped bridge a divide that has persisted for too long." "For some of your classmates, you're the first member of the military they've ever gotten to know."

For the record, the DADT excuse was just a holding action from the last holdout red diaper brigade, which we all knew at the time.

A small but correct gesture is to get ROTC back, even in small numbers. For those who wrongly like to badmouth this generation of young men and women, they are showing by their actions how they feel about serving their nation compared to those who came before. Keep that note handy.

Having more people from Yale and other top-tier schools serve will help bring the full perspective to citizenship to the Ivy League that needs to be there. For better or worse, those schools produce a high percentage of our nation's leaders, this will help everyone.

As a Southerner, my worldview towards service was skewed by the Old South and Tidewater sub-cultures I was raised in; military service in the upper-middle and even upper classes was not that unusual. In many families, it is almost mandatory. Once in the Fleet, it became apparent to me that other parts of the nation did not share the same feeling of obligation or interest in serving.

Spend some years in the military and you see that wardrooms are not balanced. Those of us who came from well to do families were almost all from Old South, Tidewater, and a higher than expected percentage of upper-Midwest families. Most were from land grant university type schools, with a few Washington & Lee, VMI, Citadel, William & Mary, Sewanee etc types thrown in for flavor. Part of that is culture, part of that is opportunity. When you included the not insignificant percentage of, "the military is a family business" officers - an upper-class Ivy League Yankee was along the lines of a unicorn sighting. 

We now have one less excuse for the part of society to whom much is given, to do what is expected. This in a small measure will produce a more well-rounded military, and a better perspective of military service among what, sadly, we can call the ruling class.

Back in July 2004 (yes, I have been blogg'n that long), I summarized this issue in a more personal way;

...a big advantage to getting more of the elite to VOLUNTEER to serve their country for a few years so I will have more people at work that understand Lacrosse and field hockey.

A little confession here; sorry Shipmates, I faked interest in NASCAR when the topic came up. One has to do what one must do to survive.

Enough of me. Bravo Zulu to the new Ensigns and Second Lieutenants.  You, your country, and your peers will all be better for your service.

Women's Uniforms: Yeah, I went there ...

... and I went there over at USNIBlog. 

After I wrote it, I'm not sure exactly why I did it. One way or another, I think I'll piss off everyone.

Head on over and give it a read.

The Age of Decadence?

Here's something Mrs. Salamander and I have talked about a few times over the last half-decade. 

With one Wee Salamander in college and the other in high school, I think back to when I was there in the 1980s. There really isn't all much difference between the decades. Some things have improved, some as gotten worse, but on balance - fairly close.

Then I think back to when my parents were in high school and college in the 1950s, and they were in the 1980s where I am now. 

What a HUGE difference between 1955 and 1985. Different worlds. 

In that respect, we are in perhaps a better place. Our kids, maybe not, but from a parenting point of view - and the ability to at least get a view of our kids' culture - sure. I take that as a plus. 

Oops.

This constancy may not be a good thing, at least from this perspective.

And then there’s pop culture itself. In the original Back to the Future, Marty McFly invaded his father’s sleep dressed as “Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan.” Thirty years later, the biggest blockbuster of 2015 was about . . . Darth Vader’s grandchildren. It is directed by a filmmaker who’s coming off rebooting . . . Star Trek. And the wider cinematic landscape is defined by . . . the recycling of comic-book properties developed between the 1940s and the 1970s.

Even fashion shows a similar repetition, as Kurt Anderson pointed out in Vanity Fair several years ago: Not long ago

. . . I came across an archival photograph of Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell with a dozen of their young staff at Morgans, the Ur-boutique hotel, in 1985. It was an epiphany. Schrager’s dress shirt had no collar and some of the hair on his male employees was a bit unfashionably fluffy, but no one in the picture looks obviously, laughably dated by today’s standards. . . . Yet if, in 1990 or 1980 or 1970, you’d examined a comparable picture from 27 years earlier — from 1963 and 1953 and 1943, respectively — it would be a glimpse back into an unmistakably different world.

Global politics since the Cold War feels stagnant as well.

We might have expected that by now we’d be locked in a race with China or Japan to colonize Mars — if, that is, we weren’t recovering from the Eugenics Wars that the original Star Trek expected to arrive sometime in the 1990s. Instead, we’re dealing with issues (from an aggressive Russia to, yes, Libyan-linked terrorist groups) that Marty and “Doc” Brown would recognize immediately. (Though in fairness, we do make movies about colonizing Mars, and the special effects are excellent.)

The word for this kind of civilizational situation is “decadence.” Not the decadence of pure debauchery — there’s some of that available today, but public morals in the West probably hit bottom in the 1970s, not in our own era of stagnation.

Rather it’s decadence as defined by Jacques Barzun: All that is meant by Decadence is “falling off.”

. . . The forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through. Institutions function painfully. Repetition and frustration are the intolerable result.

Barzun wrote these words in the late 1990s; today it’s hard to imagine a better distillation of our situation. And pace the doomsayers, decadent periods need not give way swiftly to declines and falls: They can last — especially in a society protected by oceans from the mass migrations presently yanking a decadent Europe back into history — for generations, until some external threat or internal revival finally ushers in a different, more dynamic age.

Which suggests an irony for Western and particularly for American conservatives. In a less decadent era, our forefathers hoped to stop the march of history, to redirect its rushing course. In our era, history seems to have slowed to a depressing, repetitious crawl, and it might be our mission to start it moving once again.

Still waiting for my hoverboard.

Do Not Welcome Your New Overlords

The Naval War College's Tom Nichols has a powerhouse of an article over at The Federalist that you need to take time to read in full.

... and yes, this is exactly the kind of subject a professor at a war college in a representative republic of free people should be writing about.

If there is no liberty, free conscience, or obnoxiously open dialog without a threat to one's life, liberty, or property - then what is the ultimate purpose of the military? What is it defending?

If the Constitution that we all swore an oath to no longer functions, what use is it all? Who are you serving? Why? To what end?

The Unites States is not a nation of a people, of an ethnicity, or even geography - it is a republic of ideas; and experiment in self-governance.

Those driven by power, ideology, or ego are always going to push back the border of individual liberty. If we are not always on guard against the creeping forces of oppression, they will advance. In our nation, when they advance far enough, the experiment fails. Something else is born - but not something this nation as constituted "is."

So yes - more important than SLOCs and pivots. Liberty is neither of the left nor right - it is not political in that sense. It is worth defending and is, to use a phrase, a hill worth dying on.

We need to not just understand who are the enemies - yes I use that work intentionally - of liberty, but to know their different flavors and as a result, be able to call them what they are when we see them.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment.
...
It is not enough for these Americans to say: “I have had my day in court and prevailed.” In effect, they now add: “You do not have the right to hold a different opinion, even if you lose in the public arena. You may not hold on to your belief as a minority view, or even as a private thought. And if you persist and still disagree, I will attack you without quarter and set others on you to deprive you of your status in your profession, of your standing in your community, and even of your livelihood.”

This attitude promises social warfare without end, because there is no peace to be had until the opposing side offers a sincere and unconditional surrender. It means that the people on the Left taking bakers to court, de-Africanizing Justice Thomas, and making Young an accomplice to rape will not be satisfied with winning. For the new totalitarians, prevailing in the courts or at the ballot boxes isn’t enough if there’s still a suspicion that anyone, anywhere, might still be committing thoughtcrime.

Most of all, they do not want you, Present Reader, to even think about agreeing with people like Thomas or Young. By attacking everyone in the public sphere from judges to writers, they’re sending a clear warning that there’s plenty of room in the bonfire. It is a vow that you will be held to account for your personal thoughts, even if you’ve already been defeated in a democratic or judicial contest.

No, even after losing, you will be forced to admit the error of your ways. You must accept that you’ve sinned. You must discard your own values and accept the ideas of your betters. You must denounce yourself for undermining the construction of a better world.

You, too, must love Big Brother.

Diversity Thursday

As someone who has supported women fully serving in all places they are physically qualified to do so since the 1980s, the latest developments on women in the service have been sad to watch. 

We have moved beyond a fact-based system of opportunity, in to a minstrel show of feminist theory and socio-political agenda pushing. It is insulting to the outstanding women serving today, attempts to deny their natural femininity, and promotes the political over the intellectual.

Here's a little I&W on what is happening next.

I'm not going to Fisk this for you - I want you to take the effort to Easter Egg hunt all on your own.

Here's what we have to start - new terms.

Of course we need new terms, as they help hide what we are actually talking about; a wholesale adoption of what is most kindly described as low-grade, 2nd tier undergrad gender-studies sociological theory. But, I'm doing your job for you.

Take some time and learn your updated newspeak, words and phrases like "Enriched culture" and "richness of solutions."

Evidently we do not have a rich culture if we don't have an artificially managed quota system for women. We all know how such systems are managed and metrics gained - quotas and discrimination against unprotected classes.

Then again, as we move through the Jenner-Dolezal era where evidently you can self-identify as any sex/gender ethnic group you want, maybe this will be easier to manage with just a few keystrokes.

That wouldn't work for the usual rent seeking, victimhood pimping, and grievance mongering cadres, they will always move goals and methods in order to secure their jobs and support their political masters' agendas.

Fleet Synch - Sailor of 2025 - Final by CDR Salamander

The "science" behind this socio-polical movement is so weak, lame and illogical, that it makes otherwise smart and mature people speak and produce such tortured prose as if they have had a stroke.

Here, sadly, is the the VCNO, who is starting to behave in a manner that only validates her critics. Behold!

"We celebrate the idea that women and men should share the burden of citizenship on the battlefield as well as have equal rights to vote, to run for public office, to shape the direction and laws of our countries. We are afforded the opportunity to make our visions happen and our voices heard with matched enthusiasm. We are granted uniform expectations. Equality and civic engagement are germane to our role and entitlement as citizens.

However, equality and gender integration are areas where numbers and percentages matter. Sheer numbers of women can mean all the difference between a culture of acceptance or an environment of prejudice. The magnitude and impact of what you can "make happen" becomes mightily constrained if your voice is lost because it is the sole feminine sound in the office, in the government or in leadership.

Once you attain a certain size of cohort, you reach a point where challenges diminish. Some refer to this threshold of presence as critical mass. Once you reach this level, issues like tokenism and stereotypes, that are filters for communication and understanding, start to fall away. There are enough women to build shared and common experiences with men. Both sexes become accustomed to working as a team and equally depending upon each other. Our natural contexts make significant differences in how women can contribute to security in their communities or defense. What remains constant is that women are capable of greatness. Women have the same obligations to employ their talents for the good of mankind."

As a wise men mentioned to me last night, there is a kernel of truth in a pile of gobbledygook - but it is the gobbledygook that is dominating.

That truth though, stands apart from others that need to be part of the discussion; truths that show many highly educated professional women, like Mrs. Salamander, will make a decision that they want more out of life than to just be what men are - they have found a spouse who they want to try to have a full life with in their manner, and that involves having more than one kid, raising that kid themselves, and to be a full partner in creating a steady, secure, and supported household.

You cannot have it all ... and that should be OK. 

Evidently, that isn't OK for some who, from a distance, seem to be resentful that others have chosen different paths in life. They seem to want to cast dispersions on those who took that different path. Either that, are they are in a deep hole of science denial; men and women are biologically different. Conceiving a your first child after 30 is much more difficult than in your 20s - and there is nothing wrong with those who recognize that fact and act accordingly.

You can always work 60-hr weeks later in life, you cannot have children, raise children, and work 60-hr weeks at the same time. Well, you can, but you will use most of your income paying others to raise your children. What little time you see your children, you will be tired, distracted, and inattentive. Oh, and your spouse who is also working 60-hr weeks - what about that?

Maybe you will be like two friends of ours who did make it work - their husbands left active duty and are full time fathers. Good luck finding more men like that. Do that, you can make the VCNO happy.

As for the VCNO, a little unsolicited advice: just be the best VCNO you can be - our Fleet desperately needs one. Be a VCNO that just happens to be a woman - don't be seen as a woman VCNO. Whoever is advising you to be seen as the later more than the former is not doing you or our Navy any good.

Hat tip P.

Love, Betrayal, Condescension and Poseurism-by-Proxy; Thank you for Your Service

Now and then in the various circles of acquaintances and friends my  personalities find themselves in, someone puts something out that resonates with me.  

Without further commentary on my part, I want to start the week with it - and I'll let you hash it out in comments.  

I publish it here, as otherwise besides just a handful of people, no one lease will read it.

If you want to know what the initiating event was, click here.

Via a great guy with one of the better nom d'plume out there, Andy Wahl. If you get it, you get it.

Standard Kristen warning below - a few tough but necessary words by Andy. 

You do not have to agree, but you do have to listen. What Andy outlines is what a lot of those who serve/d feel. Some just some of the time, some all of the time.

Over to you Andy.

---

I'm struggling to understand why Iraq is strategically irrelevant. Unless you were just being glib, of course.

I understand the emotional response to Dempsey's words, but it's more than just the words.

A few years ago, thousands of men were told to go and secure that province, those cities; because they were important. Men gave their lives because those places were important. Now, suddenly, they are unimportant. Now, their sacrifices are cheapened.

The value put on life is entirely emotional. There is no monetary value. There is no amount that can buy back the dead. Try as we might, there is no universal standard price on human life. There isn't even a national standard price. It is entirely emotional. The value of the sacrifice is also entirely emotional, and in this case open to much interpretation.

When we raise our hands and take the oath, we place trust in our leadership and our nation not to sell our lives and health cheaply. We ask that our lives not be risked for frivolous reasons, nor to satisfy the ambitions of one man or a small group of them, but only for the good of our nation. We also trust that our nation will not abandon us in the middle of that fight or piddle away what we fought for after the fact. War is political, and that will always be the case. It always has been. We, the veterans of this war, share some things with our brethren from Vietnam.

We fought in a war with no discernible outcome. If one were forced to label what we see, it would have to be called a failure because the job was half done. We won in Iraq before we lost. We fought to win, but the gains we made were abandoned for one man's vision of a superpower-less world. All gave some, sure, but some gave a hell of a lot more. Yet, after the blood has dried and the wounds are scarred-over, what was earned? What was saved? What was gained or lost? We are right to ask, "Why?"

I don't know about the rest of you, but I wonder. Perhaps some can see it merely as a temporary job in a longer career, but I can't. People died because of what I did. Real human beings who no longer live and breathe. This wasn't some drunk driving accident; it was for a purpose ... and now, it wasn't.

"I support the troops, but not the war," is an equivocation that led to the asinine withdrawal and squandering of the gains ... and therefore the lives and health of those who were hit.

This supposed ambivalence wasn't support at all. It was a socially correct door, left ajar so that those sacrifices could be made to mean nothing in the end... for convenience sake.

This country can retroactively reduce the value of your effort, your pain and even your life to zero without batting an eye. Our own countrymen do it, and they do it selfishly. They want safety, security, but they are unwilling to pay for it. Certainly not with their blood, sweat and tears; not even with their wallets.

A few of them do seem to enjoy donning accoutrements and mocking us, though. They like to pretend they paid the bill.

What we fought for, what we lost of ourselves or to ourselves to whatever extent, means more. It should, anyway. If it's not important, why do so many struggle with the meaning? This is a question that Vietnam veterans struggle with, and now so do we.

It didn't have to be this way. We have been sold out. I think perhaps this is ever the American way going forward; to "support the troops but not the war," until the political tide turns as it always does. Then, the troop's lives can be rendered moot after the fact.

I love this country, but I don't trust it. I don't trust the people. I don't trust the mass of this mall-going, Kardashian-watching, small-minded, consumer-driven, superfood-eating nitwit nation to keep a thought in its collective head for more than a couple of weeks.

This country will waste your time and your life and walk away from it like it never happened.

After that, they will seek to change the deal on what you earned, like your retirement, so that they can give free shit to those who won't do a thing for even themselves, much less anyone else. Tossing loaves into the crowd at the colosseum so they won't be hungry and bitching when you feed Christians to the lions ... or Bruce Jenner's testicles to the Kardashians or whatever mindless bullshit Americans are on about this week. Nevermind what we said to entice you, we've got other priorities. We got what we want from you, now we will welch on you ... because we can.

Because 1% ain't much of a voting block. Oh, and because fuck you.

They don't deserve what we did. Mindless, self-absorbed, superficial fucks. Remember; these idiots elected the bastard who pissed away what we fought for. Twice. We are sheepdogs for fat, retarded sheep ... and a smattering of retarded screaming goats.

They talk about the gulf between the "military class" and the rest of the citizenry. They blather about how to solve the conundrum. Bleh. I'll give them a clue; stop wasting our lives with your equivocating. You were all behind it when it started. Have the endurance to not drop the ball in front of your TV's. Have the endurance not to buy into Code Pink's bullshit. Have the courage to support the troops through it all, and never tell yourself that withdrawing IS supporting the troops. We know when you turn on us and sell our lives cheaply after the fact, and we disdain you for it. Fucking sheeple. I hate them.

GEN Dempsey has the job of explaining what is going on and why our response is what it is. Unenviable. Difficult. Saddening, I would think, unless he is heartless. He, of all people, should understand the impact of those words on those who sustained losses that can only be valued emotionally. At this point, he is a willing participant in the slamming of the door in the face of the few who went and the even fewer who have lasting, crushing pain as a result.

This war, and this administration, have made me distrust generals as much as I distrust our own memetic, soundbite society. Dempsey is just another one. No one should be surprised.

This wasn't the war to satisfy their boyhood dreams of martial glory, and so they couldn't be bothered to deal with the asymmetry. No, instead they preferred to argue over whether COIN doctrine was sound or counter-guerrilla doctrine was really needed instead. They did neither well enough to prove or disprove any of it, other than to confirm to the world... and our enemies... that we can't deal with asymmetry.

Apparently, it's exculpatory to disbelieve in the efficacy of any doctrine. So while you're fucking it up like a Stryker brigade in the Arghandab, your personal doctrinal proclivities are absolutely what need to be indulged. You are, after all, like the love child of Clauswitz and Sun Tzu. Oh, and it turns out that failure IS an option, and apparently it's quite legitimate.

The generals knuckled under to turn the military into a social petri dish in the middle of a shooting war, stressing an already stressed military to the breaking point. They turned the fight into a fight with ourselves for political and social correctness, just as they threw a war and garrison broke out.

We spend more time getting briefed on how to welcome gays than in learning to deal with asymmetric warfare and counterinsurgency. Rather than adapt to a type of warfare that we aren't good at, but are faced with and will continue to be, we are forced to adapt to gender-norming the combat arms. Because THAT can't wait until the shooting is really over with, which it isn't.

And we thought reflective belts were stupid.

Our society wonders why troops commit suicide. They put us under a dispassionate lens and examine us as if we were odd varieties of potentially dangerous insects. Myriad examinations of our suicides, relationships, domestic abuses and drug/alcohol dependencies litter the news and the web even as they tinker with our very construct. They don't even bother to correlate or compare these events and transgressions to the rest of society; because we are by our nature not part of the whole. They busy themselves with defining us as a class, even as they approve of reengineering the framework that provides any stability.

They separate us out, sell us out, then they wonder how to bridge the divide.

No, they don't deserve what was paid on their behalf. They are spineless will-o'-the-wisps who have the directional stability of a pebble in a blender and the solid character of a marshmallow in a kiln. The only fucks they have to give are reserved for Honey Fucking Boo Boo or whatever is #trending at the moment. Fuck these sheeple.

There. Now they have a fuck to give. They'll probably spend it on a #kardashian. Idiots.

Crossdressing a few hundred million dollars of social justice

How does one address this wonderful example of the power of satire - and the power of pushing back against absurdist policies that the powerful force in to those under their thumb?

Well, our good friend Chap gave me an idea I am more than happy to steal.

Shot:

More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.

Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as "I rarely count on good things happening to me." Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.
...
the internal data obtained by USA TODAY shows most soldiers today trending in the wrong direction. Two-thirds were borderline or worse for an area called "catastrophic thinking," where poor scores mean the soldier has trouble adapting to change or dwells on the worst possible things happening.
...
-- About 300,000 soldiers or nearly 40% didn't trust their immediate supervisor

Chaser:

In the “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event, cadets were required to wear high heels and march to “raise awareness of sexual assault against women.”

Is there a connection? There sure is. You make the larger connection for yourself ... but I want to dive in to the specifics of this pebble in the shoe.

There are so many ways to address it from here, it is difficult to know where to go.
- Regardless of what the ROTC leadership says, this was not voluntary any more than my wife saying, "I don't think I can even think about cooking dinner after a day like today," is a neutral statement about the odds of a full dinner for the family from the capable kitchen of Mrs. Salamander. Chinese takeout it is.
- There is something very wrong at the ROTC unit at ASU. Just look at their own pics; the fetish for the sloppy ACU everywhere (just look at their website) and the golf shirt by staff puts forth a less than professional image in general. The non-uniform wearing of the ACU during the off shoot of "Slut Walks" needs no further commentary from here.
- This does nothing to address the very real issue of s3xual assault, this is just rolling in the hot-house cause-of-the-moment faux-outrage pushed by agenda driven radicals in the only place they can get away with it; government college campuses and places where opposing viewpoints, and often facts, can be suppressed by intellectual fascist cadres.

The way the broader world knows about this is a reminder how the traditional media continues to fail. 

Bravo Zulu to the folks over at AWTFM - they did some top level work bringing fresh air and light to something that can't stand either ... and gave a voice to those whose voices are choked by toxic command climates. They don't mind being called names by bringing out uncomfortable absurdities of the reactionary college leftists and what looks like their Army supporters.

One of the sure ways that the SJW Cultural Marxists know they have been caught out in the open ... they try to cover their tracks. In the 24-hrs after their standard threats and bluff - the guilty parties have resorted to opaque statements and deleting their digital footprints.

Finally, let me quote Chap about a sinister 2nd order effect of forcing Cadets in to what is a humiliating communalist degradation - "voluntary" or not. Reminds the historically literate of;

... the signs on the Chinese they had to parade around during the height of the Cultural Revolution.

You have to, as always, look to the Direction and Guidance coming from leadership.

At ASU, Major MAJ Michelle Bravo, USA. What happened in your command? The folks at AWTFM have a solid track record on things like this - was this really you?

"I saw a comment posted by someone who made a false statement regarding Arizona State University Army ROTC. I am the Professor of Military Science for that program. We are having a "Walk a mile in her shoe" event tomorrow in support of the Chief of Staff of the Army guidance to support efforts to stand against sexual violence. This event is not mandatory and we are not wearing our uniforms. There is no retribution for someone choosing not to participate.

I would like to know the name of the individual that posted that information. They truly are misinformed and are clearly not representing our program or the Army in the way that a future officer should."

Not mandatory? When my commander defines something as a "mission" - I don't give it a pass. As a NROTC guy, I was focused on doing what was needed to get my commission and to stay out of trouble. The Commander has a priority? Well, it is my priority. Maj. Bravo knows this dynamic. If she does not, she is not in the right job.  

Uniform requirements? They seem rather clear.

Back to the actions of the guilty.

If it is such a great event ... who do you have to go to googlecache to find it now? All over the place ... googlecache is the only place to find it.

I was willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until everything started getting deleted.

I know that I am in the minority opinion that there is a horribly slack attitude towards looking sloppy in uniform in public - but that problem comes from the top. Just spend time in the DC Metro looking at all the combat uniforms, wrinkled, faded with only a shoddy civilian backpack over the shoulders hiding that slop from the public.

Here is another data point.

One would think that a 1-2 day a week ROTC uniform requirement could at least put on a professional veneer ... but again, I know I am the minority. Sloppy cross-dressing? Well ... the pics speak for themselves.

Major General Combs ... this is going on all over your command. I guess you're cool with it then?

A nation at war. At war with a brutal enemy who will be trying to get at our throats for decades to come. One of the only things we have going for us in the enemy's eyes is the fear they have of our military. 

In a world where face - especially for men - is critical ... and this is what we are doing to ourselves in front of everyone? And for what besides our own self-preening?

The senior Army officer, General Dempsey and General Odierno ... you're OK with this? Really?

---

UPDATE: Drudge is linking to a Doug Ernst WashTimes article on it ... so ... yea; lots of air and light;

“Attendance is mandatory and if we miss it we get a negative counseling and a ‘does not support the battalion sharp/EO mission’ on our CDT OER for getting the branch we want. So I just spent $16 on a pair of high heels that I have to spray paint red later on only to throw them in the trash after about 300 of us embarrass the U.S. Army tomorrow,”

---

UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: 

BEHOLD!

A spokesman for U.S. Army Cadet Command, Lt. Col. Paul Haverstick, said ROTC units across the country were directed to participate in Sexual Assault Awareness Month events on their campuses “to help stamp out sexual assault on the campuses where they have a presence.” But Maj. Gen. Peggy C. Combs, the cadets’ commanding general, did not direct how the units would do so, and had other events as options, Haverstick said.

“After receiving some comments about uniforms, we are currently reviewing how local universities implemented their participation in these events designed to raise awareness on the issue of sexual assault,” Haverstick said in an e-mail.

About 15 of the 120 cadets at Temple University wore uniforms for the event, said Army Lt. Col. Gregory Nardi, the professor of military science there. It was an optional event, and most of those involved wore their uniforms, he said. Temple cadets will adhere to any guidance that senior commanders have for the event in the future, he added.

---

UPDATE: The Navy has beaten Army ... again. 

Here be dragons.