Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been insisting that the armed forces of the United States need to return to a “Warrior Ethos,” along with removing women from any number of positions and eliminating anyone who isn’t “straight.”

Personally, I have a real problem with that crusade, and the way he’s approaching reforming the armed services is, in fact, an unthinking crusade. He’s also assuming that males of a certain physical type are the only ones with the “correct” mindset.

War is no longer, if it ever really was, just a massive struggle of big-biceped males. Even the Bible makes that point in the story of David and Goliath, where the slight shepherd boy destroys the giant with his skill and his sling, and in fact, back then most armies had slingers. And, so far as being gay, Richard the Lion-Hearted was, and he was certainly a “warrior,” if not always wisely, which might also suggest certain drawbacks to the “warrior” mindset.

Modern warfare requires an enormous array of skills from its soldiers. Even in World War II, infantry soldiers, who took seventy percent of the casualties, only represented fourteen percent of overseas forces.

In the Vietnam era, when I flew H-34s, each hour of flight time required between five and ten hours of maintenance, and I wouldn’t be here today if those techs hadn’t done their job. Today, for every hour of flight time, an F18E/F Super Hornet requires twenty hours of maintenance. The F-14 required 40-60 hours, one of the reasons it was phased out. An aircraft carrier requires 5,000-6,000 personnel onboard to support the operations of between 64 and 80 aircraft of various sorts, with roughly 180-200 pilots and NFOs.

The armed forces don’t require or need macho-muscled males to fill every position, and in terms of flying, women and shorter men can actually handle gee forces better than tall brawny males. While there are certain specialty positions in the military that require great muscular strength and abilities, they represent a small fraction of the skills necessary in a modern military force.

At a time when the United States is relying on an all-volunteer military force, and when the military is often failing to meet recruiting goals, does arbitrary and unwise removal of soldiers, sailors, and others make sense, when their only “detriment” is that they don’t fit an outdated “warrior” image?

This past weekend, General Stanley McChrystal made the observation on “Face the Nation” that Trump’s lack of character wasn’t the problem with the United States, but a symptom of a much wider loss of character in America.

While General McCrystal was absolutely correct, in my opinion, I would agree, partly because of what I wrote in February of 2018 (more than seven years ago):

“Trump is not so much primarily either solution or problem, but a symptom of what’s gone wrong in American politics and society…”

In part, in that earlier blog, I was talking about intransigence and not listening to anyone “on the other side,” but General McChrystal made that observation as well, and the fact that he did suggests that American beliefs – and the unwillingness to compromise with or listen to the other side – haven’t changed much, if at all, over the last seven years, except possibly for the worse.

The current budget legislation in the House of Representatives is a reflection of that. The legislation that failed in committee was essentially a mirror image of every budget proposal passed in the past decade – more spending for defense, mostly maintaining social programs currently, but with severe/modest (depending on viewpoint) budget cuts/reforms promised for the future. The Republican hardliners want more defense spending, heavy cuts in social programs and large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest taxpayers, while the Democrats want to maintain and often expand social programs, increase taxes on the wealthy, and cut defense spending, except where it impacts their own districts and/or states.

Neither side is being realistic, but it’s hard to expect realism from a nation that gorges on social media and reality shows, a nation that has watered down education so that everyone can pass, even if they haven’t learned anything and can’t write a coherent paragraph, and where far too many young people idealize cultures that are brutal and oppressive, while trashing their own country, which is far more open and freer than the cultures they support in their protests.

While Trump is, in my opinion, a miserable excuse for a human being, the majority of those voting elected him… and that strongly suggests that General McChrystal and I not only share views, but also are correct in viewing Trump as a symptom and not a cause.

I dislike touchscreens, iPads, and the like. Part of that is that, while my muscular gross motor control is good to excellent, I don’t do as well with fine motor control, one of the reasons why I gave up trying to be an artist, although I actually won a scholastic art show in high school.

The other reason is that I have flat oblong fingertips, which means that it’s a bitch to compose anything on my iPhone. That’s why I use a mouse on my surface pro when I travel. For me, precision is far easier and quicker with a full-sized keyboard and a mouse. As for signing anything electronically, on those occasions, my barely legible signature turns into abstract art.

In a way, I could claim that iPads and touchscreens are discriminatory against people with large hands and broad or fat fingers, but then, if we really look at the physical world, every device and structure could be said to be discriminatory against someone. In fact, even the environment discriminates.

The sun blisters fair-skinned people in tropical climes and induces vitamin D deficiencies in dark-skinned people living in arctic areas (unless they take vitamins or watch their diet carefully).

Genetics discriminate, because some people are born more intelligent or stronger or faster or more coordinated than others.

Societies and governments usually discriminate in various ways, sometimes for the public good, as in locking up lawbreakers and forbidding children to drive some killing machines (i.e., automobiles) while often allowing young teenagers to drive smaller killing machines (i.e., ATVs). Often, societies discriminate on the basis of appearance, skin color, gender, and age, or religious faith or the lack thereof, and the culture/society into which one is born determines the degree of discrimination and challenges faced.

We all can cite blatant and obvious cases of discrimination such as slavery and lack of civil rights for African Americans in the U.S.; the holocaust in Germany; the Armenian Genocide in Turkey – and that list is long. But moving away from the blatant and obvious, “discrimination” isn’t always so easy to define or remedy.

Recent studies show that family backgrounds, especially their degree of prosperity, have a great impact on children’s futures. So does the physical environment. But to what degree should governments address the conditions that disadvantage children?

Both the right and the left have been debating and fighting over this question for generations, and while conditions have improved in the U.S., in many areas, obvious discrimination still exists. At the same time, some groups have filed lawsuits against governments and universities claiming that certain anti-discrimination measures discriminate against them.

But how much discrimination is structural? How much can be addressed by laws? And how much is chance?

I have no sense of pitch or rhythm, and I’m extremely fortunate to have been born into a culture that doesn’t require a high degree of linguistic inflection and pitch change, because I’m fairly certain that I’d be at a great disadvantage in China, Japan, or Vietnam. I couldn’t even hear the changes in inflection and pitch in Vietnamese when I was being prepared to be sent to Vietnam as a junior Navy officer.

All of which illustrates, in an odd way, why dealing with “discrimination” can be fraught with pitfalls. Even laws requiring perfect equality of opportunity wouldn’t make touchscreens any easier for me or allow me to sing professionally.

And while that seems far-fetched, how far can we take “anti-discrimination?”

Last Thursday, David H. Souter died at his home in New Hampshire. The former Supreme Court Justice is likely to be remembered, at least by Republicans, as a Republican in name only, because he voted so often with the “liberal” justices.

From what I’ve read and heard, Justice Suitor had only two passions in life – the law and the outdoors of his home state of New Hampshire.

What few of those Republicans who felt “betrayed” by Suitor’s Supreme Court votes and opinions understood, or wanted to, was that for Souter, the law and the Constitution were sacred. He had few illusions that the Constitution was perfect, but he said, if not in so many words, that laws should be interpreted in the spirit of the Constitution. He also understood that, as I’ve written before:

Never mistake law for justice. Justice is an ideal, and law is a tool.

Justice Souter also understood that the way that tool was used – or misused – made all the difference for society.

There are two fundamental approaches to making or applying laws. One is along the lines that Trump is currently pursuing, which is to make and apply laws and regulations to obtain a predetermined goal, regardless of the Constitution and/or other existing law and precedents, while disregarding the harmful direct and indirect consequences of such a course.

The other approach, the one seemingly followed by Justice Souter, as best I can determine, is to interpret and decide laws based on both the text and the spirit of the Constitution. This approach used to be more common, particularly among moderate Republicans, and even some rather conservative Republicans.

Justice Souter, and his example, will be missed, not that most current Republican officeholders will ever understand why.

During the 2024 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump came out strong for states’ rights, particularly when it came to the abortion issue.

Trump has also trumpeted his support for states’ primacy on other issues such as disaster aid, education standards, public lands, and other issues where conservatives have opposed federal laws and initiatives.

Yet, for all the talk about states’ rights, since Trump became President for the second time, he’s attacked states and state programs that don’t agree with his rhetoric and agenda.

Just one day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove wrote a memo to the Justice Department calling on U.S. attorneys to prosecute state and local officials who do not cooperate with the deportation efforts of the Trump administration.

On March 25th, Trump issued an executive order directing an independent bipartisan federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission, to impose voter registration mandates on all fifty states; place restrictions on the deadline for states to receive legitimately cast ballots; and threatened to withhold funding for election safety programs if states fail to comply.

Tom Homan – Trump’s “border czar” — has threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors, despite the fact that past Supreme Court decisions have held that the federal government cannot force local authorities to carry out federal laws, nor to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.

Just this past week, Trump issued an executive order week directing the Justice Department to stop states from enforcing their own climate laws. The order targets a broad sweep of state policies, from environmental justice reviews to decade-old carbon markets, as well as taking aim at states suing fossil fuel companies for damages related to climate impacts. He also issued an executive order pushing the building of coal power plants and ordering attacks on state laws that would prohibit or limit coal fired power plants.

The bottom line?

The only rights and principles Trump supports are those that get him what he wants. When states’ rights suit him, he’s for them, but when the states oppose him, they’re the enemy to be destroyed.