I was getting low on the stream of data- information- and the Red Start Stream slows at that time of afternoon on the Potomac sliding through Cocktail Hour, dinner and the early call for bedtime in Switzerland while the activities of the still-busy day in Asia have other commentators living life rather than writing about it.

I had mined the five or six streams I find most reliable and was looking for something that combined “new” and “reliable.” The Brietbart site is one that dropped off the screen with their management and editorial change a couple years ago. I have rarely looked at it since, but I looked yesterday and saw an article that exemplifies the change we are experiencing.

I did not understand the article. Tone? Sure, I got that part easily: “Today’s Army is kind of screwed up.” I could capitalize the last five words to make it a headline. But what I could not understand was the factual basis for the story. There were over 700 comments below the article itself, many complaining about the same issues of comprehension. So, here is what I thought I read about:

“An Army family is in hard times. A male soldier went AWOL in May of this year. He apparently had a spouse under the Army’s new rules for acceptance and equity of same sex couples. That spouse- identified three times in the article as “trans”- was found dead in the home the now-abandoned partner could not afford. (Government housing? Never came up) “they? She? He?” had occupied. The active soldier also was reported to have showed up at some point around the discovery of the corpse of the dead spouse. I could not discern if “they” meaning “singular soldier” was a “person of interest” in the death, which was not characterized as manslaughter, murder, or suicide.

Upon the first close reading (something with which we are now familiar) my understanding was that a gay couple- XY, I assumed but could have been XX- had married under the new inclusive DoD rules. The active duty part of that couple disappeared two months ago, or at least stopped showing up for work. The stay-at-home trans part of the couple was found dead, the point of the article.

The soldier? 30 days is the limit for Absent Without Leave (AWO)L, so “they” are/is technically deserters- appears for a mention, but there is no explanation about who reported the death, nor the whereabouts of the deserter once a fatality was involved.

My limited understanding was that the “trans” part of the couple was likely one of a fairly large segment of individuals who get depressed and are subject to self-destruction. Perhaps the trans issue is part of the cause, not the solution. Available facts? Apparently the couple got together, since the soldier was “seen” in the reporting. My assumption was the encounter represented murder or suicide. The comments were even more emotional than my first read. The Army had wrapped the facts toegther in words that did not reflect criticism of current policy. So, the commentary largely reflected the fact that nobody could understand the article with facts and pronouns all ambiguous.

My take: Two male homosexuals marry under the new equity rules. One of them decides to pursue a gender change that doesn’t work out as intended. That story would be an article all its own, you know? If I were a gay male who married another gay male who decided to change sexes through surgical intervention- removal of the equipment required for satisfaction- I would find myself in an ambiguous situation that could cause me to not only lose libido but also withdraw from both the relationship and the Army in a sort of two-front war. Or, maybe it is the inverse of that, since they did not specify if it was the active soldier who was pursuing the change, and who exactly was unhappy with it. Unhappy enough for suicide or enough anger to prompt a murder? Or an unrelated accident during an emotional discussion?

The change in the name of the base where the deserter had been assigned was mentioned only once- “Fort Hood,” was referenced. Naming it for an old and generally gallant Confederate had been an attempt to reconcile old adversaries- was now “Fort Liberty” in an effort to draw in some of the current political forces arrayed against what had become traditional. Which led to this small observational piece that is longer than the article that prompted it, although much shorter than the befuddled comments about who did what to whom.

We have often mentioned the old Marxist strategy of changing the meaning of words from those commonly understood to completely new definitions. The comments section on a short and incomprehensible tale affects (at least my) ability to comprehend even simple stuff.

JR