Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Australia Lifts Ban on Women Soldiers in Front Line Units

The Associated Press reported that the Australian Defence Ministry has authorized female soldiers to serve in any unit in the Australian Armed forces, including front line-type infantry units or Special Forces. This reportedly follows previous moves by Canada and New Zealand.

The societal current in the West is one of enforced silence on issues such as this. Those who dare raise their voices are met with mockery, outright hostility, or at best pursed lips and raised eyebrows. Anything that does not support the pretend-world that we have created is prohibited. We are effectively not allowed to make mention of the fact that women's and men’s bodies are appreciably different from each other. This applies to short-term bursts of strength as well and the ability to shoulder heavy burdens for long periods of time. It also includes standard infantry tasks like moving, wearing and employing increasingly heavy body armor, weaponry, ammunition, as well as manual labor such as digging and filling sand bags.

I have witnessed this topic being brought up on numerous occasions. This point will of course be dismissed as biased as currently in the US military women are still barred from serving in these unit, but the fact remains that men who have actually been in these units are not calling for women even to share the burden in the infantry. If anything, they would call for stronger restrictions on what men are allowed to be in the infantry. Barely a current or former infantryman exists who, weighed down by a machine gun, a tripod, water, ammunition, a base plate or tube for a mortar (Can't assume that all mortarmen are uninjured), optical equipment, radios, and more, did not have thoughts of dropping out of a formation due to exhaustion while simply moving the distance from Point A to Point B.
The reason that he did not was that his body has the ability to be pushed physically by his will to continue.
A person, even one who starts out in great physical shape, may have all the right intentions to push on, but if the body does not have the tools to do so, it will fail.

I served both in units that allowed females and those that did not. The women, although in good shape and spirits, simply did not posses the ability to perform this type of heavy manual labor that was required. The only people whom I have witnessed calling for such a move are those who have not been in that environment.
Today we define things from the outside. We decide things are what we would prefer they be.

An interesting note is that I have heard isolated support for allowances of this type from some civilian police officers. It is a known fact that females do indeed make fine law enforcement officers; especially since the days of needing the 6' 4" 220 lb Sheriff/Cop are long gone. Our tools, which include tasers, pepper spray, and vastly improved radio communications have eliminated much of the advantages of the big guys in this case.
Some cops who have never been in the military though, tend to heap much importance on their work tasks and thus equate their work more or less with that of infantry soldiers (This is particularly true with SWAT personnel). They move and communicate tactically, shoot military-type weapons, stay in better physical condition, etc. The similarities stop at that point. From there the infantryman picks up a long, extremely physically demanding grind of heavy and extended work that taxes every guy until he needs to call upon himself to continue, even if it is to avoid being ostracized by his peers for failing to keep up.

Now to address the issue of the few women who can in fact keep up:

OK, I get it. Yes, there are indeed women around the world that I have witnessed performing extremely heavy works tasks for lengths of time. One example I offer from my own experience is a farmhand who could throw bales of hay markedly further than could I. Honestly, I was not threatened but impressed as I could throw pretty well also. There are of course others, but we are talking about a tiny fraction of women who can do such work. It likely that, if we evenly distribute the women who not only want but are actually able to consistently do such work, each infantry platoon (or possibly company- size element) will have a mean average of less than one female soldier per unit.

So there we are; to appease the radical liberals we have one woman among either 30 or up to 120 men in an infantry platoon or company. What have we accomplished? The radical liberals are not out to set things right for women. They are on their path to dismantle every part of Western Civilization and the anti-male agenda is a big part of their strategy. So again we are supposed to politely pretend that this is going to work out well. The Australian Military now has little or no say on the makeup of its own combat units.

We can’t go on pretending that every restriction in akin to Major League Baseball when it formerly (effectively) prohibited blacks from playing. Some restrictions are indeed based on fact. At some point the voices will need to be heard before the primary line of defense or force projection of a country is of significantly less value than it once was.

Friday, September 23, 2011

More Finger-pointing at Israel

Today the General Assembly was requested to grant the full recognition of the Palestinian (Authority, people, region?)  as a member state. This was purportedly due to frustration with the last twenty years worth of negotiations with Israel. Mr. Abbas of course conveniently left out that if there was any entity that truly had cause to be frustrated with the results of the last twenty years, that entity was in fact Israel.

Even the most cursory look at a history of the results of Israeli attempts to get the peace process off the ground shows that each step was almost immediately followed by Palestinian aggression.
Shortly after the Police/Military wing of the Palestinian Authority was created, it began to engage in gunbattles with Israeli troops.
When Ehud Barak was ready to surrender even East Jerusalem to either international or bilateral control, it wasn't enough for them. That round of negotiations too fell apart and resulted in multiple Palestian attacks.
When the man widely recognized as the Hawk of Israeli politics, Ariel 'Arik" Sharon forcefully removed Jewish residents who had lived their entire lives in settlements in the Gaza strip, that region with barely a pause was transformed into a rocket base from which the weapons were launched repeatedly into Israel. Oh, and don't forget the tunnels that are employed, to mention one use, kidnap Israeli soldiers.

This of course leaves out all the usual attacks, from Southern Lebanon, suicide bombers (largely negated since the completion of the accursed wall), etc.

The Palestinian Authority is a corrupt organization. Millions of dollars worth of aid just seem to disappear. Hamas still runs Gaza and true to radical Muslim principles, cries foul when Israel blockades the zone to ensure that weapons do not pour into the area. (After they employ rockets against that country)

The Palestinians only have their name as a people because at one point it got applied to them. They are Arabs - not Edomites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Syrians, or any other entity that has roots similar to those of the Jews in that region. Palestine itself was the word that the Romans applied after almost losing to the Jews during their repeated revolts. They didn't want the region (Judea) being referred to by a name that brought the Jews to mind. Rome was fed up with the fact that someone came so close to beating them that they renamed the place after the infamous Philistines of long ago, a people who had ceased to exist long, long before. ( And were most probably Achaean Greeks displaced by the Dorian invasions)
No Palestinian state has ever existed. There is no reason why there cannot be one. Land swaps and other measures that will allow for a mutually secure border must be given consideration by the Palestinians before grandstanding before the circus that is General Assembly.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Ahmadinejad at it again.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is well-known for his bluster, threats, wild accusations and more. Today he appeared to have set the bar even higher. He unleashed a torrent at the United Nations General Assembly that pretty much accused the US of every bad thing that has happened ever since that nation has been around. Interesting was that, according to him, the travesty of the African slave trade seems to have been almost the sole work of the US. We also initiated both World Wars, killed Bin La din to cover up what really happened, and so on ad nauseum. Oh, and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. which according to him once was a good thing, is now another example of how bad the US is.

Absent was any mention of stoning people to death and Iran or what he planned to do to to help make life any better, even for now, for the Palestinians. He mentioned the situation there certainly, but it looks as if he had more fun using it for the purpose of having another arrow for the target(s).

I can't help but think that the only appreciable reason that the US would want to remain in the UN is that it holds the veto power with the rest of the Security Council nations. The UN itself comes across as a place where the US, Israel. and any other country that does not bow to the combined efforts of the Third World, with Moslem-dominant nations leading the way, can be conveniently smeared with no lack of media coverage.

We live in a culture where one's opinion is given such great weight that we are supposed to have no problem with anybody saying almost anything (unless it offends Muslims or radical liberals). People have no worry about backlash for any statement, even if it is batantly contrary to the most obvious facts. Years ago, people would at least have to fear some degree of soft ostracism if they wanted to make patently false statements.

Cheer up - Maybe we'll get to hear what Venezualan President Chavez wants to add about the US this time.
(Unless his recovery process prohibits him from also ignoring how he is running his nation into the ground and using the US as a means to avoid that ugly fact)

Also, at least a decent amount of delegations left shortly after the US walked out on Mr. Ahmadinejad's rants.
Thanks to those delegations and their respective nations.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

I found it nothing short of inevitable how Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell", itself a move to placate radical liberals by the Democratic President early in his first term, in its own turn became a favored target by the same radical liberals. These, in their efforts to piece-by-piece dismantle the foundations of the Western World, in this case the right of the Military to have the basic ability to exercise some control of those they would or would not have in their ranks, never intended to abide by this move by Clinton. The handwriting was on the wall even then that the radicals have no desire for compromise. DADT was the foot in the door. What they want is a West totally denuded of any of the factors that made it what it is. The fact that Mr. Clinton was himself the author of the policy was for the most part conveniently ignored. This policy was the Military's baby and it had to go. Doesn't the Military realize that in our society any speech, practice, or thought that does not emphatically hold that homosexual behavior and lifestyle is not only perfectly acceptable but must be itself accepted by all bar none is one of the main "Thou Shall Nots"?

Of course, to the radicals it means nothing that gays and lesbians are free to go about their business without being bothered, a fact that is far from the case in Islamic countries. No, they want it all. Marriage, something that existed long before Abraham was leading his band of Arameans into the land later to become the homeland of his ancestors, must go. The best way to get rid of it is to let everyone do it. How can they let it remain? Marriage is also one of the pieces of the foundation of Western Culture. The accomplishments of societies defined by the nuclear family be damned. Like the Socialists would say about the economic structure, we've created enough at this point so we don't need the individual any longer. We'll take from here. Radicals know it isn't marriage for gays that they want, it's the destruction of marriage that is their goal. So here we sit with States fumbling through attempts to define something that they themselves have no authority to define as far as substance goes. Any legislative product that seeks to authoritatively change what marriage is does nothing short of cause the state to erode its own credibility. Marriage exists apart from the state, therefore the state can only regulate it in the most minimal fashion. It can't decide what it is.

So now we will continue to hear that gays and lesbians have always served in the US Military. That was never the issue. The issue was that the Military had the ability to exercise some degree of control over who belongs in their ranks. The radicals get to ensure that the military is now largely impotent in that regard. Adulterers also always have served in the Military but the Uniform Code of Military Justice had provsions that allowed commanders to take action against those who by their lifestyle and actions could or would create a climate that was contrary to that which would be needed for an orderly military environment. The US Military has, thankfully, always obeyed the civil authority. It will be interesting to see what results from this.
I submit that anyone who asserts that there will arise no appreciable problems is not being naive or optimistic but completely dishonest.

The anti-male attitude in the West is so pervasive that Marriage and the Military are virtually guaranteed to always be in the sights of the radicals.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

That figures

I failed to do spell check on the last few lines and left "Christians" as ".Christains".
My apologies.

7th Day Adventists having another go at it? The Great Controversy is back!

An interesting thing occurred today that gave cause for my first post.

I had for some time been noting that, since the late 90s, I have heard or seen very little from anti-Catholic groups compared to the days before the Internet became accessible to most people. Now, I am not referring to anti-clerical people or those who are all over the Church for their pathetic failure to address the issue of pedophile priests until now. What I am talking about is the good old-fashioned anti-Catholic propaganda that we remember from Jack Chick tracts and others, those that paint as lurid pictures of the Church and her doctrines as possible. These were infamous for their taking the twisting and outright falsification of history to new levels. The Grandaddy of all of these was The Great Controversy. Ellen G. White, an extremely influential member of the early Adventist movement in the United States, authored the work in the late 19th century. In its 370 pages, in her effort to prove that Christians should be following Mosaic Law and thus worship on Saturday, Ms. White goes after the church almost page-by-page, rarely missing the chance to completely misrepresent the events to which she refers. Her utter lack of knowledge of the structure, practices, and beliefs of the early Christian church would not hold Ellen back. The spectacular claims of Christians worshiping on Saturday until Constantine (who of course created the Catholic Church according to her) is rivaled only by her empathy towards the German Emperor Henry IV as she recounts his treatment at the hands of Pope Gregory VII. From what we gather, to Ms. White it must have been perfectly fine for a lay ruler to keep for himself the right to appoint Bishops of his choice. Time and space forbid going into detail about the Investiture Controversy, but let's say that Ms. White would probably not have liked if the President or the Governor decided that he had the authority to appoint those who would be in charge of the 7th Day Adventists of her time.

A prologue to today's little spark: Shortly after returning home following the end of my enlistment with the Marine Corps in 1989, I began to note that what I then would have called "born again Christians" were not only highly aggressive in their proselytizing, it also that their work was so widespread. The efforts seemed to be almost entirely aimed at the Catholics in the workplace, among friends, at the mall (if that could be ascertained), etc. I would watch as Methodists, Presbyterians and others were left alone. (These groups have far more in common with Catholics than with Fundamentalists ie. belief in Baptismal Regeneration) Perhaps they were next on the list after the Catholics were beaten. Baptists and others who never the less worship on Sunday were also taking part in the free-for all against the poor, deluded Catholics. The 7th day Adventists seemed to be the most aggressive, even conducting repeated door-to-door campaigns that made the Jehovah's Witnesses look lazy. Their arguments were well-prepared and they sometimes really seemed to know what they were talking about. I myself felt that I was responsible to see if they were right and began reading and reading and reading. Ignatius Press and Apologetics organization such as Catholic Answers provided an in inexhaustible source of information.The more that I read, the more their positions subsequently weakened. This did not have the effect that I expected - those who were so full of enthusiasm to tell me how wrong my church was, once I began to explain that their arguments did not even start with firm foundations, now began to give answers that I would not have been allowed to give a few shorts months earlier. I would hear things like "Well I guess what matters in that you have faith". The proselytizing stopped almost immediately with most. The few who continued on like the poor WWII Japanese soldier found in the 50s on Guam too eventually to a one withdrew when faced with a whole new source of information - the Internet. All of a sudden, whole works of the early Christian Fathers and Catholic websites were available to anyone who could get their mitts on a computer with Internet access. The proselytizers seemed to have disappeared along with the advent of the new tool.  Even the facts about the founders of these organizations (including Ms. White) were within the reach of literally anyone. Aside from a few flare-ups, it appeared that the efforts of these people would from that point on  be confined to their own websites and blogs.

And today: In my mailbox was a copy of the Great Controversy. So here I sit and wonder. Are we in the West, while we keep an eye on those who would hope to bring Socialism and radical Islam among us, to go back to making sure that Christianity does not get subverted by others who themselves profess to be Christains but seek to completely redefine it?