Biden Appoints US Maritime Administrator With Zero Ship Experience During Worst Ship Crisis In Decades

Philips is completely bought into the Global Warming aspect, and it is sh*tbirds like her that cause us to expend huge amounts of money developing and implementing costly “green fuels” when that money is taken from training and operational budgets.

And, because the green fuel is so much more expensive, there is less of it for deployment purposes.

That was just one example of putting people like Howard and Philips into roles that bear on important military or industrial issues.

Some people thing this BS of putting these douchebags into these positions for social experimentation purposes doesn’t have any long reaching effects, but it damn well does.

When we have an enemy who is going to go toe-to-toe with us using hardware and tactics on a par with us, they aren’t going to be using damned “green bunker oil”, and sure as hell aren’t going to be worried about operations for transsexuals or women in combat units.

And is isn’t going to turn out well for us.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is the future tense of things not turning out well.

It may seem unrelated or a stretch but what I am about to tell you is about principles, what little exist are disappearing. I went to get firewood advertised in farcebook for $55 yesterday, $60 today, when I got there it was $70 after lunch. They had fun unloading two ricks off the trailer after trying to negotiate $65. I told them I would not take it now if it was free and that I would pay more and go further to buy it somewhere else now. They never understood why and never will even though I told the kid working there it is about principle and only because he seemed like there might be some hope for him. The manager,not so much, he got a little saucy and I told him they could either unload the wood or watch it leave and don’t be slow to unload it. I’m sure they wrote it off as just some goofy old white guy.

Just a story but the real point is that we are changing for the worse and will continue to be worse because the attitude of the staff is a reflection of the attitude of the management or leadership. We may have had sodomy before Clintoon was president but we didn’t discuss it and we must not have practiced it so much because it was not until after his example of “leadership” that oral herpes became notable.

Duplicity and outright fraud and failure are the examples of “leadership” we are getting now. Anything goes even when someone is looking, never mind what goes when nobody is looking. Character is what you do when there are no witnesses and the people setting the example don’t even know what it is.

Yeah, I remember oblunder’s green bunker fuel bought at multiples of the going price. Wonder who sold it?

What you say is 100% true-homosexuality is an example. It has been with man since biblical days (I have only just begun reading the Bible, and had to pause early on in Genesis when I saw “...men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” That took me aback, being unschooled in the Bible)

So it is nearly as old as man.

But we are in a situation where we are being forced to accept it as the equal of a male-female relationship. Actually, we are being forced not just to accept it-we must celebrate it.

It is principles we must stick to in order to combat this kind of thing. And it isn’t just homosexuality, it is everything from combating political correctness to getting a COVID vaccine against your will.

..Apparently it’s the same for Black officers are well, based on other posts...” commentary.

Wasn't that your view on Admiral Howard?

That said, from the perspective of these two female naval officers advanced during the Obama administration, for them it seems absolutely true that they were advanced through affirmative action.

And has there ever been a single female officer who wasn't advanced due to affirmative action? In your opinion, of course.

I defy you to look at the service history of the people in both cases they were promoted over and come to any other conclusion.

I don't know who they were promoted over, any more that I know who any given male admiral was promoted over. But looking at Admiral Phillips' career and comparing that with some of the current men admirals - thanks to navy.mil - it seems like she had the same kind of positions. But then again I keep forgetting that she just had to get all those jobs through affirmative action while every single male was promoted on merit alone.

So please forgive me if my refusal to accept less qualified people being shoehorned into slots (in a way that ensures a less qualified person will occupy it) where actual human life in the form of our valuable military personnel can be uselessly expended, and eventually, success in a conflict depends.

Then it gets back to my original question. In your perfect world wouldn't the only way to guarantee that a less qualified person is never placed in such a position is to ban women because they can never, ever, ever do the job as good as or better than a man can? If you did that then you would never have a ship run into another ship, never have an airplane crash, never have anything go wrong because guys would be running everything.

That is absolutely my view on Admiral Howard. I backed that up with my own research. It isn’t hard to do. The records of positions military officers of flag rank have held is not a state secret, so it isn’t hard to look them up and compare.

Because she is black and female alone does not make her an affirmative action hire, but the fact that IIRC there were as many as ten other officers being considered for that advancement slot had demonstrably far more operational and naval experience than she did who were passed over in favor of her, and the fact that she was part of the Biden transition team convinces anyone who has two brain cells to rub together, that she was indeed an affirmative action political hire.

Of course there have been capable women who have been advanced on their ability alone. Admiral Grace Hopper (who was the speaker at my graduation) was an extraordinary woman who was likely advanced over many men to her position. And there are others as well.

Women should not be in combat roles, or on combat ships. They are not physically as strong as men are. I don’t question their toughness and intelligence. It is durability, strength, logistical concerns, mission preparedness, and unit cohesion. That is the crux of it.

A woman who weighs 120 lbs will not be able to carry a 200 lb. shipmate up a ladder out of a fire. And a woman who weighs 180 lbs sure as hell won’t be able to do it, because women who weigh 180 lbs for the most part aren’t made up of muscle.

My concern is about our military in a combat situation. That is it.

In the civilian world, some of the finest people I have ever worked for, people I would go to the mat for and work my ass off for (and DO) are smart, strong, intelligent, capable women.

The military is NOT civilian life.

When people’s lives are on the line in a combat situation, every single bit of muscle fiber may be needed to save the situation, never mind save the battle or the war.

The military is NOT civilian life.

The US Army did a study in 1985 to evaluate how women might do in combat, and tested lifting capabilities based on MOS
demands as light, medium, moderately heavy, heavy (over 50 lbs.), and very heavy (100 lbs. which just coincidentally happens to be just about the weight of a 155 mm howitzer round). In the heavy lifting category, 82 percent of men and 8 percent of women qualified.

You may not think that is important. But if you are an infantryman in a unit being attacked, and you call in a fire mission that can’t be met because the 155 mm rounds have to be humped 30 yards because that is as close as the trucks can get for some reason...and half of the artillery unit is women where only 8 percent of them can pick up an move at least ONE of those rounds, well...you better hope it is your lucky day that the unit you call happens to have the guys on duty so they can move the rounds to where they can be fired.

If you can’t see that issue, then you have no business commenting on it. Or even asking a question like the last one you made up which isn’t deserving of a response.

Admiral Grace Hopper (who was the speaker at my graduation) was an extraordinary woman who was likely advanced over many men to her position.

Really? Grace Hopper spent 16 years as a commander and 10 years as a captain before being promoted to admiral. Not having been in the military I will have to count on your expertise but don't men usually move up the ladder a bit quicker than that? Or were all the men in her specialty slow learners?

And there are others as well.

Like who?

Women should not be in combat roles, or on combat ships.

What ship is there that doesn't go near combat these days?

I don’t question their toughness and intelligence.

You've been doing it all night. The only way a woman in the military gets ahead is through affirmative action. You've been very clear on that.

Admiral Hopper was a pioneer in her field, likely at a time when its importance wasn't being fully grasped, there probably weren't a large number of people competing with her, and if there were, she was ahead of them.

But that said, she entered the Navy a year before my father did, and she made Commander six years before my father did as a line officer. And she made Captain the year my father retired. He could have advanced faster and higher if he had continued to go to sea, but after his tour of duty as the XO on a destroyer that was involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he chose to ask for shore duty to be with his family, and once he made Commander, he wasn't going to go much higher after requesting shot duty.

That is the way it is. So, no. Admiral Hopper's advancement was not slow for someone who was assigned shore duty her whole career. It is the US Navy, not the US Shore Duty.

I leave it to you to find others who advanced. As a military enlisted man, I served only under male officers. As a civilian, I worked for a retired female Army Colonel whom I respected and who respected me. She just didn't reach her rank in combat billets but undoubtedly advanced ahead of many men. And she commanded the respect (if not open hatred) by most who worked under her. She was demanding and not easy to work for, but she got things done. She was no affirmative action hire, that was not among her faults.

The same cannot be said of these two women who advanced to flag rank, both of who were promoted under the Obama-Biden regime, and both who have or are benefiting from jobs within the regimes promoting issues like homosexuality and global warming instead of navigation, ship handling, or war fighting skills.

The fact is, that is the focus of my declaration in Post #40 about how the gender/race/political stew has replaced the focus of navigation/ship handling/warfighting (and that is not in question) which has resulted in poor training, poor maintenance, , poor mission readiness, mishaps with loss of life, and extremely low morale and not just in the US Navy, but in all the services.

And that is because in a zero sum game where every precious dollar, every minute, and every human resource spent on these ludicrous homosexual and climate goals is TAKEN away from real training and real mission goals.

And as I said in post #40, it is that EXACT mindset that has us where we are today.

DoodleDawg, I would rather not be crossways with you on this, but you seem to think I hold women in low esteem because I maintain that women should not be in combat units (and all US Navy ships apart from utility ships and certain support ships ARE or should be combat ships) and nothing could be further from the truth.

My point of view is not a misogynistic one, it is a realistic analysis based on facts, not a Hollywood feminist based view that women are completely the same as men, are interchangeable, and can do any job a man can do in combat. They cannot.

Men and women are biologically not the same, and the difference isn't limited to the fact that men have one set of equipment and women have another. The physical differences go far beyond the sexual apparatus. And that is a fact, not opinion. And it isn't just me who says this.

If you are at all willing to have a rational discussion of this, I suggest you read this paper written by Jude Eden, a female Marine who served in the Middle East. She is unsparing on this subject, and knows of what she speaks:

LINK: "Women in Combat: The Question of Standards" by Jude Eden

I feel very strongly about this. Our society has made the choice to fully open police and firefighting to women. And any man who criticizes that is going to end his career, thanks to people like these two women I mentioned, and those behind their political appointments.

So they can’t be criticized without being characterized as misogynist, in the same way those same people label as racist anyone criticizing someone who is black.

And they have done the same thing in the military.

Great environment for getting the best out of people. /s

So, we have made that decision on the civilian front, and we fully accept as a society any loss of life or other deleterious effects that might result from that. So be it.

But I won’t accept it in military combat units, where our foes won’t be making that same asinine decision.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.