Of course, it's grandly ironic that Donald Trump chose the anniversary of the desegregation of the United States' Military to announce his re-segregation of the Military by banning transgenders from serving.
In the typical fashion of a Donald Trump pronouncement, this one arrived in several out-of-the-blue tweets yesterday morning that caught his staff and the Pentagon as much off-guard as the rest of the planet and has, as usual, left Trump's flunkies scrambling about trying to explain what it was their boss really meant, even thought they had no more idea than the rest of us,
In the typical fashion of a Donald Trump pronouncement, this one arrived in several out-of-the-blue tweets yesterday morning that caught his staff and the Pentagon as much off-guard as the rest of the planet and has, as usual, left Trump's flunkies scrambling about trying to explain what it was their boss really meant, even thought they had no more idea than the rest of us,
| ..as appeared to be the case with poor Sarah Huckabee Sanders yesterday as she stuttered her way through a press briefing during which she didn't have any answers as to when, why, how, or even if Trump's transgender military ban would be enacted. |  |
But here's what I was wondering yesterday: For all the fierce and immediate turbulence caused Trump's triple-tweet bombshell:
...does it actually mean anything in and of itself?
Does the President's tweeting something make the thing official policy? Doesn't the President have to sign an something, send down an official order to the the Pentagon, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secretary of Defense, or somebody?
Is there even such a thing as legislation by tweet?
And it was a tweet full of nonsense, at that, such as the line about transgenders causing disruption within the military: Among the 1.5 million members of our armed forces, there are only about 1,300 openly transgenders; and according to a Rand Study last year on transgenders in the military, there's no evidence that transgenders cause any more disruption among the troops than do cisgenders (people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth).
As for the "tremendous medical costs," the same Rand study concluded that transgender transition medical costs could increase the military budget by 2.4 to 8.4 million dollars a year.
The military budget is 50 billion dollars. Of that 41 million is spent annually on Viagra.
Well, as it turns out, I found the answer to my wondering this morning when I read that General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced in an official memo that:
"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines."
What do you want to bet that's the last we hear of the ban on transgenders in the military? What do you want to bet the whole transgender ban thing was just a Trump whim, something he thought he'd fly up the flagpole to see who'd salute?
Looks like nobody did.
But I'll bet you anything Donald Trump is sure getting a kick out of all the drama he's once again stirred up.
Does the President's tweeting something make the thing official policy? Doesn't the President have to sign an something, send down an official order to the the Pentagon, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secretary of Defense, or somebody?
Is there even such a thing as legislation by tweet?
And it was a tweet full of nonsense, at that, such as the line about transgenders causing disruption within the military: Among the 1.5 million members of our armed forces, there are only about 1,300 openly transgenders; and according to a Rand Study last year on transgenders in the military, there's no evidence that transgenders cause any more disruption among the troops than do cisgenders (people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth).
As for the "tremendous medical costs," the same Rand study concluded that transgender transition medical costs could increase the military budget by 2.4 to 8.4 million dollars a year.
The military budget is 50 billion dollars. Of that 41 million is spent annually on Viagra.
Well, as it turns out, I found the answer to my wondering this morning when I read that General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced in an official memo that:
"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines."
What do you want to bet that's the last we hear of the ban on transgenders in the military? What do you want to bet the whole transgender ban thing was just a Trump whim, something he thought he'd fly up the flagpole to see who'd salute?
Looks like nobody did.
But I'll bet you anything Donald Trump is sure getting a kick out of all the drama he's once again stirred up.
References:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.html
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/07/26/trump-says-transgender-people-will-be-barred-from-serving-in-armed-forces/?nb=1
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/07/27/donald-trump-transgender-people-military-ban-kth-ac.cnn
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/26/trump-said-transgender-troops-cause-disruption-these-18-militaries-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.html
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/07/26/trump-says-transgender-people-will-be-barred-from-serving-in-armed-forces/?nb=1
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/07/27/donald-trump-transgender-people-military-ban-kth-ac.cnn
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/26/trump-said-transgender-troops-cause-disruption-these-18-militaries-
 | "Equal And Opposite Reactions" by Patti Liszkay is available at http://www.blackrosewriting.com/romance/equalandoppositereactions amazon.com barnesandnoble.com Kindle Nook Gramercy Books in Bexley, Ohio |
RSS Feed