Archive for May, 2013

Homosexuals in Boy Scouts a Bad Idea

May 21, 2013

Do those who want the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual boys to participate understand why it’s the Boy Scouts rather than the Boy and Girl Scouts? Do they think boys and girls should share tents on camp outs?

Male homosexuals claim they look at other males the way males look at females. If that is true than they sometimes look at other males as potential sexual conquests. They sometimes invade the sexual privacy of other males by imaging sexual contact with them.

I don’t know if the claim is true or not. I only know that scientific research indicates homosexuals are born with the body of one sex and the brain of the other. This Gender Identification Disorder seems to create confusion about whether their behavior should be consistent with their brains or their bodies.

Heterosexual behavior is based in part on a predator / prey model. For most that is a friendly relationship like in the old song “a boy chases a girl until she catches him.” The recent military scandal in which men assigned to protect women from sexual assaults assaulted them instead demonstrates that some men are unfriendly predators.

The natural sexual attraction process involves males imagining relationships with females. Sometimes these fantasies involve sexual intercourse. Human imagination sometimes becomes detached from reality with males and females imagining relationships that don’t exist. A boy sharing a tent with a girl might fantasize about having some level of physical contact with her.

Would a homosexual boy sharing a tent with another boy have a similar fantasy? The important thing is that the other boy might become concerned that the homosexual boy was fantasizing about him and react violently,

Males sometimes have trouble interpreting smiles. A male can mistake a female’s smile as inviting a relationship when the female is just being friendly. A similar mistake involving a male homosexual. could produce violence.

Women respond to unwanted attention as “prey” by “running away” or calling for help. Males may respond to imagined unwanted sexual attention as a predator would by launching a preemptive attack.

As boys pass through puberty they move from an attitude of “girls, yuk” to “girls, wow”. Boys don’t all make the transition at the same time. Boys who want to stay on good terms with friends who haven’t made the transition may have to deny an interest in girls. A recent “For Better or Worse” comic strip the son is interested in a girl, but denies it when his friends accuse him of liking her. She of course over hears his statement.

An accusation of a relationship by a heterosexual boy [I’ll call Billy] with a homosexual boy [I’ll call Jimmy] could produce violence. If some boys say, “Billy, we hear Jimmy’s sweet on you”, Billy may feel he has to beat up Jimmy to prove there is no relationship.

Puberty is a difficult time for children. Separating boys and girls reduces the potential for sexual tension between them. The current Boy Scout policy of not allowing homosexual members keeps sexual tension out of scouting activities. Allowing openly homosexual boys to join would risk introducing sexual tensions that could result in violence because boys in a situation they don’t know how to handle may respond violently.

The Boy Scouts should not allow adult homosexuals to supervise scouts for the same reason the Girl Scouts shouldn’t allow heterosexual males to supervise girl scouts. Not only is there a potential for child molesting to occur, there is the possibility of a child making up a story about being molested. The Boy Scouts would have difficulty defending themselves from a lawsuit, even one based on false charges, if the organization knew the alleged offender was homosexual.

Advertisements

WWWCD? What Would Walter Cronkite Do?

May 13, 2013

Reporters covering the investigation of the major al Qaeda victory at Benghazi should ask themselves: “what would Walter Cronkite do” if he were covering the story.

Let’s consider the facts. Most people familiar with the War on Terror knew in September, 2012, that there was a heightened risk of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. or at American installations outside the U.S. on or about the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.

The danger was particularly high at American facilities in Libya because of the very unstable situation there and the presence of al Qaeda personnel who were trying to take over the country. Military and CIA personnel in Libya should have been on a high state of alert and prepared to back up personnel at any facility that might be attacked. Their orders should have been to respond immediately to any attack without requesting authorization from Washington. Security should have been particularly tight in Benghazi with the Ambassador in the building.

With modern cell phone technology, personnel should have been calling the State Department as they took cover, grabbed weapons, etc. Both the Secretary of State and President should have been notified immediately. State Department protocol should have required the Secretary, or least the top undersecretary for the region, to monitor the situation using both audio and video from the site, possibly using devices such as smart phones . If a satellite was in position to monitor the situation someone in Washington should have monitored its video. Keep in mind the government has better quality cameras than Google on its satellites.

The Obama administration’s initial claim that the facility fell to a rag tag mob of demonstrators implies the facility essentially had no security. Any decent security protocol should have been prepared for the type of attack that Iranian students had used to take over the American embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. An attack by trained military personnel would have been more easily explained, although security personnel should have been prepared to handle such an attack.

Determining the significance of the successful al Qaeda attack is difficult because of the nature of the War on Terror. Significant battles haven’t involved large groups. Although the American casualty toll in the 9/11 attack was high, barely a dozen men conducted the attack. A similar sized American force killed Osama bin Laden. Much of the killing by both sides is done by remote control. Americans use aerial drones. Al Qaeda uses road side bombs.

The attack is at least as significant as the temporary Viet Cong capture of the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. The attack indicates that al Qaeda has successfully broadened the war and is now able to defeat the Americans in Libya and possibly elsewhere. The size of the victory isn’t as important as the fact that the attack was an al Qaeda victory. Al Qaeda may not be “winning” the war yet, but as a football sportscaster might say, al Qaeda “has taken the momentum”, as demonstrated by the recent successful bombing of the Boston Marathon. Al Qaeda can use its success as a recruitment argument.

The failure of the Americans to come to the rescue during the attack could be interpreted by al Qaeda as proving bin Laden was right when he said the Americans would eventually tire of the fighting.

Walter Cronkite began questioning the American handling of the Vietnam after the attack on the American Embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. I’m sure he would have asked questions about the War on Terror after the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi, particularly considering the allegations that someone in Washington prevented sending a rescue force. Cronkite knew that Presidents are sometimes mislead by their subordinates and it is the duty of journalists to learn the truth.