The Beating a Woman takes Playing Football with Men won’t be as Bad as Hand-to-Hand Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

The NFL is coming under a lot of pressure because of concussions.  And the brain damage it may lead to later in life.  As players have never been bigger or faster.  And when they hit they hit hard.  The NFL has changed the rules to prevent the most damaging of these collisions.  Head to head contact.  There is even talk of eliminating the kickoff.  To prevent two ‘freight trains’ running into each other at full speed.  And those on the left are calling it a brutal game that we need to get rid of.  For it’s little better than gladiators fighting to the death in the Colosseum.  And we shouldn’t let our children grow up and play football.  Unless they’re gay.  Or women.  Then it’s a beautiful thing.  An openly gay man in the NFL.  Or a woman playing running back in the Indoor Football League (see Running Back Jennifer Welter Makes History By Playing In Pro Football Game by ThePostGame Staff posted 2/17/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Welter, who has starred at linebacker for a decade for the Dallas Diamonds of the Women’s Football Alliance, got her first carry midway through the third quarter. She took a handoff from two yards out of the end zone and scampered around the left tackle. But the 5-foot-2, 130 pound Welter was met by 6-4, 245-pound defensive lineman Cedric Hearvey for a one-yard loss.

Somehow, Welter was unfazed by the hit.

“I said, ‘Is that all you got?'” Welter asked Hearvey. “I didn’t want them to think I was intimidated…”

Welter had her number called twice more in goal line situations, but she wasn’t able to score either time.

If you follow the link you can see videos of her plays.  She looked like a child playing with men who towered over her.  And one hit just threw her like a train hitting something.  She got right up.  But with the men having a one foot height advantage and over a 100 pound weight differential these were traumatic hits.  A few more of these and she would be lucky to escape with only a concussion.  And these are the kind of hits the left wants to get out of the NFL.  Though I suppose they’re okay if it’s a woman getting the snot beat out of her.  It kind of reminded me of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life where the boys played the masters in a rugby match.  As the grown men just beat the snot out of their students.

As tough as she is she is just not as big or strong as the men playing at this level.  And that’s because men and women are different.  Which is why we shouldn’t have women in combat roles.  For the hand-to-hand fighting in combat is worse than any football game.  And just like in football the bigger and stronger combatant usually wins.  But unlike in a football game when you lose your matchup you just don’t score.  Or lose the game.  In combat when you lose you die.  And you weaken your team.  Giving the advantage to the enemy.  Which will probably cause more of your team to die.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Women to Serve in Combat despite having Lower Physical Standards and Private Rectal Exams in Training

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

Women are just as capable as men in combat.  According to people who say women should be allowed into combat roles so it doesn’t limit their chances for promotion.  Which would be all right if they went through the same training as men did.  But they’re not.  The Marines have lowered their physical requirements for women entering combat roles (see The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat posted 1/5/2014 on PITHOCREATES).  And the service academies have lowered physical standard for female cadets (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  This unfairness to men even extends to the military physical exam (see Men, Manliness, and Being Naked Around Other Men by Richard Senelick posted 2/3/2014 on The Atlantic).

I was already in medical school when I took my military entrance physical for the doctor draft. It was high school all over again. Grown men of different shapes and sizes, lined up to be poked and prodded. No one ever forgets being told to “bend over and grab your ankles.” With the increasing number of women in the military, I decided to research the current military physical exam. The article contains a section, “For Women Only,” where it proudly states that, “your visit with the physician will be in a private room.” Not so for the men, apparently. Six paragraphs down under a section titled “Do”, it says “Wear normal underwear. You will be sorry if you don’t!” Once again, a man’s modesty is a joke.

Why can’t women line up in their underwear, bend over and grab their ankles like the men do?  Are they too dainty to have a rectal exam in front of other women.  Like the men have to?  If so perhaps they are too dainty for combat.

Part of the reason for this public humiliation in training is because of the lack of modesty in combat.  If you have to poop during an artillery barrage and you’re hunkered down in your foxhole guess where you’re going to poop?  In your foxhole.  Even if there is another soldier or Marine in it with you.  You may try to defecate in your helmet and dump it outside your foxhole.  If you want to risk getting your arm blown off.  And you’re probably not.  So when you feel the call of nature you are going to drop trou, squat and poop while close up and personal with someone else.  With that poop remaining in you foxhole with you and your buddy.  And the thinking is if you lose all modesty in basic training you’ll have no problem pooping while hunkering down in a foxhole with someone else.  Or doing other unpleasant and/or embarrassing things.

Will a female soldier or Marine who has her basic training rectal exam in a private room be able to do this?  Or does she think she’s just going to hold it in until she gets to a proper bathroom off the line?  Either women and men meet the same standards.  Or they should not serve together in combat.  For the enemy only makes one type of war.  Not one for men.  And another less strenuous and more modest one for women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Objectifying a Woman in a Sexy Cheerleader Outfit cannot bring Respect to that Woman as she dons her Air Force Uniform

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

There is a connection between lower physical standards for women in the military and sexual harassment and assault of these women.  Some men resent the women in the service academies because they can score higher by doing less (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  For in their eyes these women would not even be there had it not been for the preferential treatment they get in the form of lower physical standards.  They don’t respect them as peers.  And think of them only as the weaker sex.  Objectifying them.  Thinking that they are good for only one thing.  Perhaps thinking the only reason why some are still in the service is because they advanced through the ranks on their backs.  Pleasing their commanding officers with sexual favors in return for promotions.  And better duty assignments.  Which leads to these horrendous acts of sexual harassment and assault.

Man can evolve from Neanderthals.  And has.  But you can’t take the Neanderthal out of man.  Some can suppress it better than others.  But some can never lift their knuckles from the ground.  Figuratively, of course.  And will resort to bad/criminal behavior.  Women aren’t asking for this trouble.  Their government just gave it to them by creating an environment where men have to do more to score as high as women score.  And something like this just isn’t going to make things any better (see Seahawks cheerleader and Air Force first lieutenant Alicia Quaco by Jay Busbee posted 1/30/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Quaco, 25, is a first lieutenant in the Air Force. A graduate of the Air Force Academy, she had some work to do to convince her superiors that part-timing as a Sea Gal was a good use of her time.

Is she a sexy cheerleader who is also a first lieutenant in the Air Force?  Or is she a first lieutenant in the Air Force who is also a sexy cheerleader.  I wonder what the men who serve under her will think.  Will they be thinking about the mission at hand?  Or will they be thinking about that poster of her in her cheerleader outfit?  With her toned midriff exposed.  Her tight shorts that leave little to the imagination.  Her sexy top showing ample cleavage.  That gorgeous mane of blonde hair cascading down her shoulders.  Those long, sexy legs.  Yes, I wonder what the men who must report to her will be thinking about when they see her.

Her Air Force uniform is anything but sexy.  Because being sexy has nothing to do with the mission.  In fact, being too sexy may only distract from the mission.  As the teenage men serving under her are little more than boys who buy Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  Or magazines that are a little racier.  The kind of things many have tried to limit the sale of around military installations.  For they tend to demean and objectify women.  Which can cause problems when men have to work with women.

Empowering women by being sexy and empowering women with careers in the military just somehow don’t go together.  Parents tell their daughters not to send nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends because they will be out there in cyberspace forever.  Coming back to haunt them when they apply for their first job.  Or run for political office.  Imagine this first lieutenant reporting one day to an international command.  Attending a meeting as a staff officer with foreign dignitaries.  Who may be more interested in the cheerleader officer rather than the business at hand.

If women have had to work harder to be respected in the military this cannot help their cause.  For objectifying a woman in a sexy cheerleader outfit just cannot bring respect to that woman as she dons her Air Force uniform.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2014

Week in Review

We have antidiscrimination laws in place to prevent employers from hiring based on skin color instead of ability.  We drug test in sports to keep poorer athletes from using drugs to become better athletes.  As that isn’t fair to athletes who play by the rules.  People rail about unequal pay for women doing the same job as men.  Saying if they are doing the same job as a man they should get the same paycheck as a man.

We do these things to keep things fair.  So the best job applicant gets the job.  The best athlete wins the competition.  And everyone is paid according to their ability.  Without a lower pay scale for women.  Of course, all these ideas of fairness go out the window when it comes to the military (see Sexual harassment in the military: what female cadets have to say by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor, posted 1/10/2014 on Yahoo! News).

A congressionally mandated Pentagon report, released Friday, gauges sexual harassment and assault at America’s service academies and catalogs comments made by students during focus groups….

The focus-group comments of the cadets offer some insights into why the cadets themselves think the problem is pervasive, and how to best handle it.

When sexual harassment and assaults are prosecuted on campus, they think it might be a good idea to publicize them a bit more, even while protecting the anonymity of victims.

“When these things happen, my concern is, Are they being at all like hushed up?” one West Point cadet told Pentagon interviewers. “I think if we wanted to raise awareness and like say that this is a problem, why isn’t it being publicized when it does happen, even anonymously..?”

A clear theme that comes through in the survey, too, is that cadets of both genders feel that because the physical standards for female cadets are not as strenuous as those for male cadets, the men may have less respect for the women…

Another female cadet noted that because the physical standards are different for men and women at the academies, it is possible for women to get higher scores than men – even though they might not have to do as many push-ups or run a mile as quickly. “That eats him alive,” said one female cadet of a male cadet friend of hers.

Sexual harassment and assault are unacceptable everywhere.  There are no excuses or justification for bad/criminal behavior.  Even if you create a hostile environment by placing men and women together in a competitive environment that makes the men work harder than the women to get a passing grade.

The bigger issue is that the military is now trying to integrate women into combat roles.  Like infantry units that actually use physical strength to survive in a life and death situation.  And the stronger you are the better your chances are of surviving.  Which means anyone getting through military training by meeting lower standards has a lower chance of surviving in combat whenever physical strength determines the outcome of a fight.  Putting these women at risk.  And reducing the fighting strength of the unit.  Which will lose fighting strength once the weaker members (those meeting lower standards during training) are killed off.  Which doesn’t seem fair to the women.  Or the unit.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Women serving in the military in Iraq were issued rape whistles.  To protect themselves from their fellow soldiers.  They needed the whistle to call for help.  As they could not depend on being strong enough to fight off a rapist.  Or a gang of rapists.  Which illustrates a point about men and women.  They’re different.  Men are bigger and stronger than women.  So women were given rape whistles to call for help when a bigger and stronger man tried to rape her.

Of course, that whistle won’t do much good in combat.  Which is where the left wants to put women in the military.  In roles that have been until now reserved solely for physically strong men.  Who can do 3 pullups.  Or more (see Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail by AP posted 1/2/2014 on USA Today).

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.

Officials felt there wasn’t a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said.

Because the change is being put off, women will be able to choose which test of upper-body strength they will be graded on in their annual physical fitness test. Their choices:

• Pullups, with three the minimum. Three is also the minimum for male Marines, but they need 20 for a perfect rating.

• A flexed-arm hang. The minimum is for 15 seconds; women get a perfect score if they last for 70 seconds. Men don’t do the hang in their test…

Military brass has said repeatedly that physical standards won’t be lowered to accommodate female applicants. Success for women in training for the upcoming openings has come in fits and starts.

But you are.  If you have different requirements for men and women you have lowered the standards for women.  Which will not only put their fellow Marines at risk.  But it will put these women at a disadvantage with the enemy.  Because blowing your rape whistle won’t stop the enemy from beating you to death.

There are many roles women can serve in the armed forces.  Even in combat zones.  From pilots to sappers.  And they have.  So close to the combat that they’ve been getting killed and maimed serving their country just like men.  But putting them into infantry units will get a lot of them killed.  Imagine a wounded Marine outside a foxhole exposed to enemy fire.  Who can drag that Marine safely into the foxhole quicker?  The Marine who can’t do 3 pullups?  Or the Marine that can do 20 pullups?  If a man is in that foxhole he may be able to reach out and grab that wounded Marine with one hand.  And drag him quickly into the foxhole.  While if it’s a woman in that foxhole she may have to get out completely and expose herself to enemy fire as she uses both hands to slowly drag that wounded Marine to safety.  And likely getting shot in the process.

Soldiers need to be strong.  The stronger the better.  And the more likely he or she will kill the enemy before the enemy kills him or her.  There should not be different requirements for men and women.  There should be only one requirement.  For Marines.  If women want to fight in combat they should be as strong as men.  Or they shouldn’t be there.  Just like we don’t have women in the NFL.  Which isn’t as hard as being a soldier.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Uncle Sam wants You in Combat if you’re an Ugly Woman

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Does a woman belong in a combat role in the Army?  If she is as strong as a man and as willing to get as dirty as a man, perhaps.  But if she is wearing makeup while deployed on duty in a combat zone?  I don’t know.  For it looks like  that woman is apparently more concerned about maintaining her femininity than the mission at hand (see U.S. Army told to advertise for recruits using ‘average looking women’ because they are perceived as more competent than prettier soldiers by Jennifer Smith posted 11/20/2013 on the Daily Mail).

A U.S. Army spokeswoman has said images of ‘average-looking women’ should be used in recruitment advertisement as photographs of more attractive soldiers confuse the reality of the roles in combat.

A leaked email that circulated revealed how a leading strategy analyst affirmed ‘ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.’

Colonel Lynette Arnhart, who is heading a team of experts studying how best [t]o integrate women into service, condemned advertising images used in the past as they ‘undermine the rest of the message’…

‘For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while deployed on duty.

‘Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered a hazardous duty’…

Ms Arnhart cited a photograph used last year that depicted a female soldier with mud on her face as one which ‘sends a different message’ in the email that was obtained by POLITICO.

‘(It is) One of women willing to do the dirty work necessary to get the job done.’

If a woman is wearing cosmetics in the field there goes any arguments of equality out the window.  For men don’t wear cosmetics in the field.  In fact, they are prohibited from wearing cosmetics (see Army Regulation 670–1, Chapter 1, Introduction, Hair and fingernail standards and grooming policies • 1–8, page 3).

b. Cosmetics.

(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniformity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. Females are authorized to wear cosmetics with all uniforms, provided they are applied conservatively and in good taste and complement the uniform. Leaders at all levels must exercise good judgment in the enforcement of this policy.

That’s not equality.  Why is a woman even wearing makeup in full combat gear while deployed on duty?  Because she wants to be pretty when she’s killing the enemy?  Because she wants to be attractive to her fellow soldiers?  To her superiors?  Just to feel pretty?  If so, why?  Why is this an issue for women in combat?  It isn’t for men.

No judgment is needed with men in combat.  No makeup.  Period.  To borrow a word from President Obama.  For women it’s a different story.  It’s not an objective black and white issue.  It’s a subjective gray area.  Some makeup is okay if it’s conservatively applied.  It’s a judgment call.  Where different leaders may have different judgments.  And this isn’t good in a world where there are no individuals.

There are no individuals in the military.  They drill that out of you during basic training.  Everyone dresses the same.  Everyone marches the same.  Everyone salutes the same.  For there are no individuals.  Only positions of rank.  But women are treated differently.  And complicate things.  Which can’t be good for the overall mission.  Especially when top brass are writing emails discussing how women in combat gear shouldn’t be too pretty and should wear mud on her face instead of makeup to send the right message.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Bureaucrats running the Army waste $5 Billion experimenting with a New Universal Pattern Uniform

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2013

Week in Review

The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster.  Now we’ve learned that they used ten-year old technology for the big website.  They didn’t test it sufficiently before going live.  And there are political operatives working as navigators collecting our most personal information.  Some even with criminal records.  In other words, it’s a real cluster [deleted expletive].  Or business as usual whenever the government tries to do something (see The Army’s $5 billion waste by Caitlin Dickson posted 10/14/2013 on Yahoo! News).

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.

The left loves to point to the military as a government success story.  But it’s not the government that makes the military the best in the world.  It’s the people.  Patriots who love their country.  Especially the junior officers and the noncommissioned officers.  Those closest to combat.  Who learn at a steep price the art of war.  Those grizzled veterans of their late teens and early twenties who survive pass their craft on to the kids coming up behind them.  This is who landed at Normandy and fought their way through those beach defenses and went on to win World War II.  These old men in their late teens and early twenties leading the younger guys through the fires of hell and back home again.  Not government.  For all the weapons and all the planes and all the ships would not have done a damn thing unless they were in the hands of America’s finest.

Those noncoms and junior officers who advance through the ranks and the officer corps to leadership positions command larger units.  Turning from tactics to strategy.  Crafting our war plans.  That those noncoms and junior officers carry out.  But, again, it’s these combat veterans that make the military great.  Not the bureaucrats responsible for buying the uniforms.

We can expect more of the same with Obamacare.  For the same bureaucrats that waste $5 billion on a bad uniform design will be running our health care.  Of course under Obamacare we won’t just be wasting billions of dollars.  We’ll be destroying the best health care system in the world.  Which will put all Americans at risk.  Our health.  And our lives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chelsea Manning wants the Government he Betrayed to pay for her Hormone Therapy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2013

Week in Review

Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a hilarious movie.  If you don’t own it buy it for your permanent collection.  When it came out it was blasphemous.  Religious groups hated and condemned it.  Which only made it more popular.  But who’s laughing now?  Probably not the left.  At least over this scene:

Funny, yes?  You want to laugh, yes?  But do you?  Can you?  Should you?

Bradley Manning’s recent conversion to Chelsea Manning makes this classic scene a bit impropriate these days.  Funny how time changes things.  First the left loved this movie.  As well as every man on the planet.  Except those with delicate religious sensitivities.  But today the left may have trouble laughing about poor Loretta and his struggle against reality (see The Fight for Trans Rights in the Military by Molly Knefel posted 8/26/2013 on the Rolling Stone).

In a statement released on August 22nd, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that denying Manning access to hormone therapy – considered medically necessary care for the treatment of gender dysphoria – could be a violation of her Eighth Amendment rights protecting her from cruel and unusual punishment.

No, it isn’t.  If Manning was not imprisoned or in the military Manning would still not be getting treatment for gender dysphoria.  Would a free person unable to afford hormone therapy/gender reassignment surgery be inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on him or herself?  If so who would they sue?  A child dying from cancer is pretty cruel and unusual.  Should we be suing someone for that, too?

One trans* service member, a second-year medical student with a full scholarship from the U.S. Navy, feels that the DADT victory was incomplete. “I’m literally the same exact person I was before, the same feelings, experiences, abilities,” says Jai, who identifies as non-gendered and prefers gender-neutral pronouns, and plans to begin taking testosterone in September. “The only thing that has changed is the words that describe me, but now I’m deemed unfit for service…”

As a medical student, Jai feels especially astounded by the discrimination trans* people face when it comes to accessing necessary health care. “It’s comparable to a person with type II diabetes or hypothyroidism not having their medication covered,” Jai says. Jai, whose father was a career military serviceman, saw the Navy as an opportunity to go to medical school and serve a population that needed care. Now, they’re hoping to avoid being discharged until figuring out another way to pay for school.

People join the Air Force for free pilot lessons so they can get an airline job after their EAD.  Because it’s free.  And airlines like hiring former military pilots.  Medical school is costly, too.  But it’s free if you have a military scholarship.  Of course, because it is so costly the government makes your EAD 5 years instead of 4 (this was the way it used to be but things may be different today).  Making you serve as a military doctor for at least one more year before leaving the service for a more lucrative career in private medicine.

Back before the Gulf War this was a pretty cheap way to get a quality education.  It’s a little more risky these days.  As there are more shooting wars than before.  But some still do this.  And some serve in combat zones.  Earning every dime of Uncle Sam’s investment.  But the military is different than ordinary life.  It trains killers.  Who are expected to go out and kill without remorse.  And all of this attention to sexual orientation and gender issues distracts from the mission.  As we are discussing the poor feelings of someone in prison who for all intents and purposes committed treason instead of the harm to national security he did.  Which endangered our military people.  As well as create more anti-American hostility.

The military is not a place for social experimentation.  We have the greatest fighting force in the world.  Nay, in history.  We get great peace with that strength.  Because our enemies know that we can unleash lethal killing force anywhere our enemies may be.  This is what we want our enemies to be preoccupied with.  Trying to avoid the wrath of America’s military might.  Not the soap opera about the cruel and unusual punishment we’re inflicting on a prisoner because we’re not footing the bill for this prisoner’s sex change.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A Broken Family and Bullying for being Gay drove Bradley Manning to the largest National Security Breach since the Pentagon Papers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

You get in trouble in the military if you have an affair.  Why?  Because that secret could give someone power over the adulterer.  This is the stuff they made spy movies about during the Cold War.  If the Soviets found out a person’s adulterous secret they would demand top secret information from the adulterer to keep that secret from becoming public.  A lot of traitors were made this way.  Which is why the military likes their people to be happily married.  With a regular, run of the mill boring life.  So there is nothing that can fester and boil over one day.  And compromise U.S. security (see Revealed: How an alcoholic mother and being kicked out of home for being gay turned a geeky Midwestern boy the biggest leaker in U.S. history by Dan Bates posted 7/30/2013 on the Daily Mail).

He was a ‘mess of a child’ who was tormented for being gay, kicked out of home at 18 by his father and once threatened to stab his step mother with a knife.

His own mother drank too much, he could not hold down a job and once literally crawled up a wall because he felt his family were ignoring him.

Perhaps it was no surprise then, that Bradley Manning was angry at the world – angry enough to hit back at any figure of authority that was within his grasp.

He has now been convicted of leaking classified information but given the troubled life he led Manning was always a time bomb waiting to go off…

Even at a young age Manning had a festering lack of respect for authority and refused to recite part of the Pledge of Allegiance to God…

In 2000 his already turbulent life took a turn for the worse when his parents divorced…

Manning spent four years there and, according to reports, was taunted by his classmates because he was gay and because he was American.

Rowan John, a former classmate who was openly gay in school, has said: ‘It was probably the worst experience anybody could go through. Being different like me, or Bradley, in the middle of nowhere is like going back in time to the Dark Ages…’

He met Tyler Watkins, a freshman at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA, west of Boston, who called himself a singer and a drag queen on his blog…

Manning made weekend visits to see Watkins and met the lesbian, gay and transgender community he was part of. He also got involved with the university’s hacker community…

He had already been noticed by those around him for his keenly developed political views, and even in Iraq he posted Facebook that he was ‘beyond frustrated with people and society at large’…

Three months after being stationed in Baghdad, Manning came home for leave for two weeks and told Watkins that he had ‘gotten his hands on’ some sensitive information and was considering passing it on to Wikileaks.

Manning was no doubt an angry young man – he is still only 25 today – and spent his life doing things his own way because he had no other choice.

So it is hard to believe that he was entirely acting out of the wider good when he gave 700,000 documents to Wikileaks, the largest national security breach since the Pentagon Papers.

How much of his motive was cold-blooded revenge for a lifetime of rejection, only Bradley Manning will know.

I never knew that Manning was gay.  I don’t recall the mainstream media reporting that small bit of information.  All they said was that Bradley was a hero.  For exposing the crimes of the Bush administration.  While condemning the treachery of Edward Snowden who exposed the crimes of the Obama administration.  That is, who compromised national security during the Obama administration.  For sneaky things are only crimes in the Bush administration.  Not in the Obama administration.  Apparently.

So he was gay.  An atheist (based on that thing about the Pledge of Allegiance).  Liked hacking computers.  And was angry at the world.  Particularly the straight world.  For the way the straight world treated him while growing up gay.  Which is, sadly, not that uncommon.  Bullying of gay kids.  Which does who knows how much damage to these kids.  Some are so distraught from this bullying that they have even committed suicide.

The Army needs to do a better job with their background checks.  If someone discovered this information now someone could have discovered it before he was put into a position where he could do great harm.  Especially someone who was involved with a university’s hacker community.  Which should have been enough to bar him from having access to any computer that is a portal to classified information.  For law abiding (and Army regulation-abiding) people shouldn’t be hanging out with people who illegally hack into computer systems.

One can’t help but think that had they kept Manning out of the Army for being gay he could not have leaked 700,000 classified documents to our enemies (who no doubt read these on the Internet like everyone else did).  Of course, banning gays from the military would only drive them underground.  Where gay servicemen would harbor a great secret that could give someone power over them.  Like an adulterer trying to hide an affair.  Then again, an adulterer would have to be found out.  A spy would have to discover the secret to apply pressure for information.  Whereas Manning just gave it up because he was angry at the world.  Making him more dangerous.  Less unpredictable.  And should have been easier to screen out of a position having access to classified information.  Something the military should consider before assigning anyone to a position with such access again.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries