There has been much in the news recently about Arizona’s SB 1062, and about Gov. Jan Brewer vetoing it. I won’t go into the rationale behind the bill, the arguments for or against, or whether Gov. Brewer should or shouldn’t have vetoed it. But for those few people who 1) read this blog, and 2) have missed all the hubbub over SB 1062, it was a bill to amend a current Arizona law to give people an exemption from a state law if that law placed an undue burden on their free exercise of religion. The bill would have applied to restaurants and other businesses seen as public accommodations.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

I’ve seen variations of the above image posted in many businesses, stating that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, a bit like the Soup Nazi yelling, “No soup for you!” if a customer cheesed him off. But there are some legal limitations imposed on the ability of a business owner to refuse service. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that public accommodations cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Recently, the issue of businesses refusing service has hit blogs as wells as news with a number of lawsuits brought by gays and lesbians who were denied wedding cakes, wedding photography, and gay pride t-shirts, because the owners of these businesses were deeply religious and did not want to participate in an event they found morally objectionable. The business owners in question were promptly sued, and the law said that the businesses had to serve all customers. They are now compelled by the state to work for people they would choose not to serve, if they had a choice. There’s a word for being compelled to work for someone against your will: slavery. Is that word too harsh for your sensitivities? Fine, how about “involuntary servitude?”

“But Captain, a business owner who denies service to someone because of race, color, religion, yadda-yadda, is a bigot!” You can view such a business owner as a bigot if that makes you feel better, but is it illegal to be a bigot? Is it illegal to hate someone with every fiber of your being? Is it illegal to view someone as inferior to you just because of that person’s race, color, religion, yadda-yadda? In each of these cases, I would answer that, while morally objectionable, such an act is not illegal because each one is a state of mind. If the state wants to step in and make certain thoughts illegal, it would need to be able to prove what I’m thinking. It would also have to be able to supply one hell of a good search warrant because I’m not going to allow the government to root around in my head. Even if they could find a judge stupid enough to sign such a search warrant, I would immediately assert my Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against myself.

But I digress.

There is a simpler solution: how about freedom? Rather than crafting more and more laws regulating how and who a business must serve, let’s go the other way. As Matt Walsh puts it, “Business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” And I agree with him, but I know liberals won’t. Whenever liberals see something they do or don’t like, their first instinct is to cry out, “There oughtta be a law!” But that way lies a never-ending pile of rules, regulations, and laws telling people what they can and can’t do. It becomes impossible to wade through the morass of laws. That ain’t freedom. I prefer the freedom of allowing people to make their own choices. That means recognizing that a private business owner should have the right to choose to serve or not to serve people for any reason, or for no reason at all.

If a business owner chooses not to serve someone, that is a big flashing green light to the free market: here’s an opportunity to make money by providing goods or services to a target market that’s being underserved! The free market, when it’s not being screwed over by government meddling, tends to auto-correct.

“But Captain, what if some business owner chooses not to serve me?” Well, then, it’s his choice to be an asshat. If you disagree with his choice, the proper response is to exercise your freedom to find some other business. Then use your freedom of speech to let people know that you weren’t served because the owner is an asshat, and urge them to support non-asshat businesses. Problem solved. And there’s this to consider as well: do you really want the goods or services that you had to compel a business owner to provide? Do you worry about things like urine or Ex-Lax in your cake? What if your wedding photos came back with the heads cropped off, the images all poorly focused, or the photographs were all pictures of your guests’ butts? Do you want your event t-shirts to be crooked, smudged and misspelled? I sincerely hope that anyone who is willing to go on the record as being deeply religious would never act so small-minded, especially when it came to adulterating food — but human beings are imperfect, and when they’re being forced to do something they don’t want to do, they’re rarely on their best behavior. Do you want to take that chance with your special day?

“But Captain, what if an entire town discriminates against me?” This is an interesting question, especially in light of American history. I’m a member of an American minority religion. In the 19th century, an entire state was legally encouraged to discriminate against people like me — and when I say “discriminate,” what I mean is “kill.” Members of my faith had sunk money and time into the land they’d bought, but in the end, they chose to leave it behind because they were being persecuted by their bigoted neighbors. If you should find yourself in circumstances where an entire town hates you and refuses to serve you, your best course of action is to pack up and go somewhere that’s hospitable enough to support and serve you. If you’re too pig-headed to move, your other option is to broadcast your situation to the nation. In this day of cell phones, Facebook, and YouTube, that’s not a hard task at all.

“But Captain, if we grant business owners the freedom to be asshats, we’ll see a return to segregated drinking fountains and lunch counters. Look at this photo of a sit-in in Jackson, Mississippi. Look at it!” Really? Do you honestly think America would return to the openly racist attitudes of the 1950s and ’60s in 2014? Sorry, it’s not going to happen. To think otherwise is to believe that there has been no change in American attitudes in the past sixty years.

For argument’s sake, let’s imagine that the events of this 1963 sit-in were somehow to be replicated at some Denny’s next week. But instead of a professor and two of his students, let’s imagine there are three Muslim imams being covered in ham, bacon, and pork gravy. Want to guess the amount of time that would pass between the first Moons Over My Hammy plate flying through the air, and the first tweet or post about it on YouTube? I’m guessing it would be a matter of seconds. And the social and economic backlash to that particular Denny’s, the entire restaurant chain, and the town in which the incident took place would inevitably follow. Not a single arrest or lawsuit would be necessary since images of each participant would shortly be online, and the public shaming would begin. Free people and market forces will socially police bigotry far better than the heavy hand of government ever could.

“But Captain, I want these people to respect me for who I am!” That’s tough. You cannot get people’s respect through the force of law. At best you may legislate the enforcement of tolerance, but you may also provoke silent loathing because of the law’s heavy hand over their business.

“But Captain, what about a monopoly? If that’s the only business, I can’t go elsewhere or use a competitor.” In the U.S., the only way a company may become a monopoly is due to government meddling. And in that case, the company isn’t private any more, but has achieved quasi-governmental status. As part of the government, it cannot discriminate. The U.S. Postal Service is a government-mandated monopoly, and as such, it is not allowed to discriminate against its customers for any reason.

People should be free to do business or not with others as they choose. Instead of government stepping in and telling people how to run their own businesses, we should allow people to make their own choices and live with their associated consequences. When given the choice between a bloated government and a free people, how about choosing freedom?

A discussion arose over at Morgan Freeberg’s House of Eratosthenes blog about equality, and the resident cuttlefish asked a worthwhile question: “Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?” This is a good question. If you are ever asked a similar question, here’s my suggestion of how to respond:  look to the Constitution.

Whenever there is a question of whether government has a role in something, my first act is to look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and see if the powers granted there to the U.S. legislature include that role. Since there are two parts to this question, child labor and education, let’s look at them individually.

Child Labor Laws

The only part of Section 8 that could be applied to child labor laws has come to be known as the Commerce Clause. Specifically, it states that the legislature has the authority to pass laws “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” That phrase has been the Constitutional justification for nearly every bill Congress writes that regulates any sort of economic activity, even in some cases when the people are not engaging in economic activity.

As interpreted by Congress, any economic activity falls under the Commerce Clause and may be legislated by Congress. I believe that Congress has used the Commerce Clause to legislate far beyond its intended scope, but for argument’s sake, I’m willing to grant Congress a role in ending child labor via the Commerce Clause. Since the resident cuttlefish has demonstrated difficulty with reading comprehension, he asked again, “Does government have a role in ending childhood labor?” So I replied:

Government has no role in ending childhood labor because government has already done away with it. When a college student is getting her first paycheck, the specter of preteen urchins all dirty from coal dust is a century-old issue that doesn’t apply now. If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up [at] a coal mining operation tomorrow?

A college girl getting her first paycheck is not the same as kids working in a coal mine.

Hint: These are not the same.

The cuttlefish never answered the question about how many preteen youths would show up at some coal mining plant if Pres. Obama were to obliterate existing child labor laws, but I’ll answer for him: not a one. They would be too busy messing around with TV, computers, games, and cell phones to bother with the responsibility of work.

The question of whether the U.S. government should legislate child labor is a moot issue now – we don’t have child labor, certainly not of the dirty-faced urchin variety, and it’s doubtful that we will ever have it again, not with the workforce participation rates we have now.

Childhood Education

So, what role does the U.S. government have in childhood education? The cuttlefish never got around to pointing out the piece from Section 8 (or any other section of the Constitution) that gives Congress responsibility over education. I must therefore assume that he never addressed it because there is no provision in the Constitution for education. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it clear that powers not delegated to the U.S. or denied to the states are held by the states or the people. This makes education a state issue, not a federal issue. And the states have assumed this responsibility, as typified by the Washington State Constitution in Article IX, Section 1:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

So, does the U.S. government have a role in childhood education? No. The U.S. and state constitutions show that this role is reserved for the states and the people.  That is what the primary law of the land states, regardless of the other federal and state codes that have sprung up since and attempted to usurp this power.

I did some travelling in 2013 (far more than posting here), and I saw some signs that made me think.  The first was a sign I spotted in one of the Disney World park restrooms.

Instructions on how to wash your hands.

How to wash your hands.

Uh, if you are old enough to be able to read the sign and you don’t know how to wash your hands properly, you have a problem that this sign alone won’t be able to fix. The good news is there are instructions to help.

The second sign appeared in a restaurant in Oregon, and it made me weep for the youth of this nation.

Please bo not wash hands.

Bo… or bo not, there is no try.

Please, if you are going to try your hand at graffiti, at least be able to spell two-letter words properly.

The restaurant redeemed itself with another bit of graffiti that made me laugh the first time I saw it.  Someone had altered the baby changing station logo.

Baby hanging station.

Baby Hanging Station

Evil. But funny!

I have lots of Stikfas toys, and I’m not above taking photos of them. Recently I was given a little toy and asked to include it with my Stikfas at work.

Stikfas and a Visitor

Some Stikfas toys and a visitor on my monitor.

From left to right, they are the White Ninja, Pirate and Skeleton buddies, Archangel and Demoness, Master Assassin, Chinese Warrior Monk, Beefeater, Breezie, and Black Samurai.

Yes, that’s Breezie from the My Little Ponies: Friendship is Magic television series who snuck in there. A certain someone in the home, who shall remain nameless but who is not a big fan of doing math homework, is a big fan of the show. And I’m man enough to admit that I like the show, too. But only in this hard to read font.

She also picked up Applejack, but she got placed on my monitor at home. And since I know you are dying to ask, I’ll tell you that my favorite My Little Ponies character is Big McIntosh.


Now hear this!I heard something I really liked when listening to my podcast of Jim Quinn‘s radio show last night as I was walking home. This morning, as I was listening to the next day’s podcast, I heard Quinn repeat his comment from the day before. Quinn read something written by Walter Williams back in 1997 that is well worth rebroadcasting here:

Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.

Apparently this recently appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s show, too. And Rush does a great job of showing the difference between capitalism and socialism. Quinn, after quoting Williams above, further explained on his show the difference of capitalism and socialism this way:

The problem is that pleasing your fellow man requires creativity and hard work. Looting and enslaving can be done by any thug with political connections. So what’s the purpose of Socialism then? Well, Socialism allows these same elites and losers to return us to the days of looting and enslaving, but while presenting it as a moral imperative sanctioned by the government. So I guess we can say that Socialism is a system of economics that allows men to loot and enslave other men while claiming the moral high-ground.

But not everyone likes and agrees with this quote by Williams. Case in point, Williams has an entry in the Daily Kos wiki that engages is some typical libtard bashing. It quotes Williams and then finishes off with “What Williams cannot say is that the African slave trade operated as a global capitalist market for centuries.”

Attention Daily Kos mind-numbed robots: the African slave trade was not capitalism. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services from one to another. The African slave trade was part of the “looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man” that was and is so common in mankind’s existence. And it is what Socialism will bring us back to if we allow it.

Williams finishes up his article with this very true statement:

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn’t do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

When it comes to economics, I’ll take reality over fantasy every day.

If you’re reading this, you are on the new Captain’s Comments site. Due to issues beyond my desire to explain, I moved my domain to a different server. And as part of the site transfer I have switched from my custom web code to using WordPress. One of the benefits of the transfer is having comments available again.

I’m also going thru and making sure that the internal links are working again. Since I am doing this manually, it will take a few more days to go thru the 800+ posts and make sure that all of them look good.

UPDATE (5/7/2013 3:09 PM): I think I have all the internal links fixes from pointing from the old format like /comments/804/ to /2013/updated-site/ that WordPress will be using on this site. Please let me know if you find any broken links in the comments to a page.

I’m going out on a limb and predicting that President Obama will talk about jobs in the State of the Union address tonight. It’s an easy bet because he has often claimed that jobs are a prime focus for his administration, just as he said back in 2010:

Oh yeah, President Obama has been great about creating jobs. Here’s a graph from the government explaining how we needed to pass a huge stimulus to help America recover from high unemployment numbers. And tacked on the government chart are the actual unemployment numbers. Looks like the stimulus was a success!

August 2012 Unemployment

But there’s a problem with the President saying he wants to create jobs: the government can only create government jobs. It is incapable of creating private-sector jobs. That is the responsibility of — hello! — the private sector. The force of government can best be compared to the brakes on a large truck. The brakes are incapable of making the truck go any faster, but they have a great deal of influence when it comes to slowing things down. Likewise, government isn’t designed to create jobs, but through its actions, laws, and regulations, government can exert a great deal of influence in slowing down the economy, which leads to job scarcity. The uncertainty of Obamacare, the way government has blocked the building of the XL Pipeline, and regulations by the EPA that are causing coal-fired power plants to shut down are three examples of government slamming down the brakes on the American economy.

Back in November 2011, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the following to Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, with regard to the American Jobs Act:

“Well, we’re not focused on polls. I mean, we’re a year away from an election. The president is focused like a laser on passing the American Jobs Act, on making sure that we can put people back to work.”

Like a laser, huh?

Focused like a laser on jobs

Here’s a question I’d like to see answered: when you leave your home, do you lock your door?

I can’t answer for you, but I do. The phrase, “a man’s home is his castle” certainly applies to me, and I rule here as a benevolent monarch, just as long as my wife allows me. I don’t lock up my house because I hate people, but because I want to know who is in my home. People have no right to enter my home without permission to do so.

“You’re just one of those weird types who hates people!” Ah, no, I just said I don’t. I just simply believe in boundaries, and no one should enter my home without being invited in first. Just like vampires. But if you’re invited, then you’re more than welcome in my home. Several years ago, I received a request from a friend passing through town. She wanted to know if she could crash for the night. I happily told her that she should consider herself at home, but she’d have to let herself in since we were out of the state at the time. I trusted her to be a good guest in our home and to make sure it was properly locked up once she left. She didn’t disappoint.

So you need to be invited to enter my home. I don’t care whether you come in to steal my stuff or just to clean things up, like Sue Warren.

Police in Westlake say Sue Warren of Elyria broke into a home last week and began tidying up, but she didn’t take anything. They say she then wrote out a bill for $75 on a napkin and included her name and address.

One officer says Warren told him she does it all the time. Only now, she’s in jail on a burglary charge.

Wow. Imagine being arrested for burglary, just for doing jobs that people don’t want to do. OK, that’s a little snarky, but I think you can see where I’m going. Just as my home is my castle, and I reserve the right to admit only the people I choose, this same principle extends to the borders of the United States. We have rules in place to determine who may enter and who may stay. We may choose to amend these rules, but if we simply ignore them and turn a blind eye to those who break them, it sends a clear message to scofflaws and squatters that they can trespass with impunity. If this goes on, eventually certain parts of our nation may become too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to inhabit.

Let me be clear about this: I don’t care where you came from. American citizens came from all over the world. We’re proud mutts, and most of us can trace our ancestry to half a dozen nations or more. Since America has always selected its citizens for excellence, the result has been astounding diversity, and we’re better and stronger for it. But would-be citizens have always had to go through the process of naturalization. We want more Americans, but we want them to be here legally. We welcome visitors from other nations, but they must maintain valid visas to stay here.

Bob Gorrell - Your house is our house

This Thursday will be our second Soup Night of the year. The last time we made three soups and had about ten people to gobble them up. So far we’re on track to entertain many more this time. We supply the soup at these gatherings, but people are responsible for bringing their own bowls and spoons, and maybe some bread, too. Since it was well received last time, we’ll probably continue Soup Night every month or two just because it’s fun. My wife reminds me it’s also delicious. But if we ever reach a point where total strangers start walking into my house, picking up bowls and scarfing down food like Goldilocks, we’ll stop having Soup Night.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I love guests, whether in my home or in my nation. But people who break in, regardless of their motive, get my dander up. It’s nice that some of them are cleaning up and doing chores around the place, but that doesn’t change the fact that they broke the law to get in. Such “guests” need to be shown the door. And if we lock our door at home, it makes sense to lock the nation’s door as well.

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.

Over time, I’ve noticed that liberals have four common tactics they use again and again and again. I’ve labeled these tactics as Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll. They don’t have to be tried in any particular order, but they do seem to pop up regularly. So let’s look at each one.

Demonstrate. This is the liberal cry of “I (don’t) want” as expressed by the masses of sign-holders or Occupy Wall Street squatters. In the first case, the union didn’t want non-union workers at the port, and in the second case the Occupy crowd wanted other people’s money. The tactic is pretty simple: browbeat verbally (or physically beat) your opposition into doing whatever you want.

Legislate. Liberals love democracy — as long as the vote goes their way. When the vote doesn’t go their way, they will bring the issue up again and again, but once it passes, however narrowly, the liberals will declare that the people have spoken and there should never be another vote on the matter ever again. To be fair, conservatives will bring an issue up for a vote multiple times, too. But conservatives usually understand that an issue voted on and passed one year can be voted on and repealed another. Once passed, laws are not set in stone for conservatives the way they are for liberals. Well, assuming that the liberal was pushing for the law in the first place.

Adjudicate. A common next step for liberals, after failing to get an issue passed by the people or representatives, is to go to the courts and force it through there. Since proponents of gay marriage were having problems getting the majority of voters to agree with them, their alternative tactic was to make it legal through judicial fiat. That’s how it worked in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. So if you can’t get 50% + 1 vote from the people or the legislature to pass what you want, then there’s always the option of having someone in black robes do the heavy lifting for you.

Steamroll. If all else fails, Liberals simply try doing what they want anyway, ignoring both votes and courts to proceed in their desired direction. Recently, Pres. Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), doing so by exercising his ability to appoint people to positions that require Senate ratification when the Senate isn’t in session. But the Senate considered itself to still be meeting in “pro forma” meetings. Senator Harry Reid started the process in 2007 of holding “pro forma” sessions to prevent then-President Bush from making these recess appointments. In January 2012, Pres. Obama used the “steamroll” tactic to recess-appoint four nominees, as the New York Times put it, “effectively calling the pro forma Senate session illegitimate.” A year later, the D.C. court of appeals ruled that Pres. Obama was wrong to do so. In response to this ruling, the NLRB chairman, Mark Pearce said that the NLRB “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” That’s a classic “steamroll” response. “Courts? Pfft. I’m gonna roll on. After all, who’s gonna stop me?”

Liberals seem to believe they should use any tactic necessary to get what they want. As Nancy Pelosi put it, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in, but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” And if they can’t get it to work with Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll, liberals will just pick one of the four tactics and try again.

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.

I like diversity. Without it, my life would be one boring continuous slog through sameness. I love trying different foods, meeting different people, seeing different scenery, and enjoying different experiences. But this diversity obtains because I desire it — there is no need for some bureaucrat to mandate it into my life. True diversity comes from the freedom to choose the best. In my professional life, I have worked with and befriended team members from Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Ireland, France, Italy, Turkey, Hungary, England, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Canada, and from all over the United States. These talented men and women were picked because they excelled in their chosen profession, not because of their looks or background. And because the companies I worked for wanted to pick the best people for the job, the natural outcome was a wide diversity of people, ideas and backgrounds. It was freedom, not the soft-racist cry for diversity at all costs, which made this outcome possible. And the companies were better off for having hired the best, not for filling some mandated quota.

That’s not how liberals see it, however. They believe diversity should be an end in itself. A hoary old chestnut of American liberalism is “Diversity is our strength.” Is that so? In my experience, it works the opposite way. When we look primarily for strength — the will and ability to accomplish the task at hand — diversity will be a natural side benefit. But when diversity is championed as the primary goal, it’s strength that suffers.

Don’t believe me? Well, let’s see what happens when filling quotas becomes more important than seeking out excellence. Let’s look at the police force of Dayton, Ohio.

The city’s Civil Service Board and the U.S. Department of Justice have agreed on a lower passing score for the police recruit exam after it was rejected because not enough blacks passed the exam.

Dayton has decided it is no longer seeking the best recruits for its police force; it’s more important for the police to look racially diverse. To fulfill this mandate, it decided to lower its standards, which means that less-qualified people are getting police jobs in Dayton. The quest for diversity for its own sake has resulted in lower-quality police officers. Diversity is our strength? Not in Dayton’s police force, it’s not.

This brings me to the main thrust of my article: the recent decision by the U.S. military to allow women into combat roles. I see this as another quest for diversity for its own sake, at the cost of getting the best soldiers for combat situations.

Lisa Benson

It’s often said that the primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. As a former military brat, I’d expand that saying: everything the military does should
fall under the rubric of its primary purpose. Whenever the military is asked to do something that reduces its ability to fulfill its primary purpose, the military should turn down that task. But since the American military is under the control of elected officials, it can easily fall prey to social experimentation and liberal do-goodery, such as putting women into combat.

In a scene from the cult film Joe vs. the Volcano, Joe’s boss Mr. Waturi asks repeatedly in a phone conversation, “I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?” Replace “he” with “she” and you have the key question to ask about placing women in combat roles. For the most part, women are neither as big nor as muscular as men. This means that women wanting to fill combat positions, where strength and endurance are key to survival, will be at a marked disadvantage from the beginning. If I were an army private wounded in combat, I would want my squad mate to be strong enough to toss me over one shoulder and run me out of danger. I wouldn’t care whether my mate’s first name were Sam or Samantha; I’m focused solely on the end result. But the likelihood of a Samantha being able to execute that life-saving task is far less than it is for a Sam.

“But Captain, there are strong women who can pass the physical requirements.” Sure, there are some very fit women who can pass the requirements, but they are the exception, not the rule. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that when the desired number of women fail to meet the physical requirements for military service, the number-crunchers’ first instinct will be to lower the requirements, just the way it was done in Dayton. End result: fewer prepared combat troops and more casualties in battle. How is this a good thing again?

Gary Varvel

There is also the question of unit cohesion and behavior of the troops during combat. John Luddy wrote the following for the Heritage Foundation back in July 27, 1994:

History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.

Ignoring the lessons learned from 1948, Israel decided in 2000 to put women back into active combat roles. My response echoes that of Mr. Waturi: I know she can get the job, but can she do the job? Time will tell, but hopefully not at a high cost in blood and lives.

“Diversity is our strength,” liberals like to claim. But when they value diversity more than strength — more than human life — the end result is often weakness, and it can have a terrible cost. That’s what happened to the police force in Dayton, Ohio, and it’s what happens each time liberals push for diversity for its own sake. In the end, liberals prove Quinn’s First Law to be in full effect: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.