Diplomatic immunity?

British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.

This is my body

(Pro-choice "This is my body" video

Once again, my progressive former classmate out on the West Coast presents me with some low hanging fruit.
His Facebook page rages about how wonderful this video “monologue” is. He cites his role as a leader in Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League/National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. (NARAL defined)
I respect his right to hold his opinions, but I question the rationality behind those opinions.
Ok, to begin with, the mantra that is repeated throughout the video by a succession of women is that it is their body and they have the right to do with it as they wish. They won’t get much argument from me about that. It is theirs to do with as they wish and as such they need to take responsibility for that choice: Which means that I or people who disagree with them or their choices shouldn’t have to pay for those choices. Why should I be forced to pay for their decisions?
Heck, I am not trying to stop them from having sex. I am not trying to stop them from having orgasms or pleasure. If that is what motivates them, then have at it.
However, at the same time, don’t ask me to subsidize their desire for contraceptives or the possible need for an abortion. I think that is wrong.
As for the abortions, well, in a sense, I am ambivalent. I can’t have one. I never could and never was in the position where I wanted/could have/needed to ask someone else to have one, so it really doesn’t affect me. I know people close to me who could have made that choice and chose not to and I respect them highly for their decisions.
Still, I am not necessarily “pro-choice” either.
My reasons there are a bit complex. First, my dear sweet wonderful wife, who is passionately pro-life (anti-abortion to those of you who don’t know the lingo), has given me much to think about. The biggest question is “when do we become human beings?”
Now, we are not necessarily talking about that in the philosophical sense. I mean we are not talking about when we become sentient. Heck, I know some people that I would question whether they will ever become sentient. Still, the question remains, when does that little ball of cellular material become a human being and stop being a little ball of non-descript cellular material?
Does it happen at the moment of conception, when the two cells (male and female) merge? Does it happen with the now fertilized egg, which already has undergone several cell divisions, when it becomes implanted in the uterus? Is it after the little form has begun to take human shape? Is it after the new life becomes reactive to pain and other stimuli? Is it once its little heart starts beating? Is it once it is born and takes its first breath? Does it happen when the person has enough self-awareness to begin making decisions on its own? Just when does this magical transformation occur?
I don’t know, but I do understand the argument that once conceived that little bundle of cells has the potential to develop into only just one thing and that is a living, breathing human being.
So, the question is to the women who proudly proclaim that it is their body: At that point is it really just yours or are there now two lives at stake? When does that consideration come into the balance? I know that once the child leaves your body, you become responsible for its health and care and if you fail in that responsibility, society has chosen that it has the right to punish you; but what about before?
I guess that is a personal decision. I am glad I will never have to face it.
Still, it nags at me. If it is wrong deliberately take another person’s life, then when does that rule go into effect? When is it not in effect? What are the circumstances that determine each and how can we know so that we, as a society, can respond appropriately.
For the women in the video, that does not appear to be a consideration. No, the only consideration is themself. It is all I, I this, I that and my choice and my body. I am not sure that is a position a true progressive wants to take. I know as a libertarian, it is a hard question for me to answer.
Is human life so cheap that women can just throw it away because it doesn’t fit with their plans for their bodies at the present time? I understand the exceptions for rape and incest and other forcible violations. Even then, you are stuck with the question about the unspoken life yet to be. But to argue that you have a momentary right to pleasure or enjoyment regardless of the consequences seems to me to be irrational.
Yes, these women have a right to govern their own bodies. As I said, I have no argument with that. My only argument is who takes the responsibility for the new life that has been created and who has to pay for that woman’s choice.
Why is it right for those women to demand that I accept their views, while they refuse and reject my views? Where is the justice in that? Where is the fairness?
Just a thought or two to ponder.

Difficult, huh?

Gay couples face big hurdles to parenthood

It seems that gay couples wanting to have children face significant hurdles to becoming parents. Ah, what part of Biology 101 did you miss?

The last time I studied the biology of various species, humans were not among those who could propagate without the involvement of two different genders: A male and a female. Now, I might be wrong, but I think that is what I remember. Now, it seems that most animals are that way. I don’t know why, but it seems to be the case.

However, I think there was a plan by God/Allah/Mother Nature/Evolution, etc., when the human species was not made asexual. I don’t know, but it seems to me that there is some reason why people are designed the way they are.

Marriage, beyond being a legal construct that we people use for divvying up various benefits from the state and some other mythologies, primarily was instituted among various and sundry cultures (amazing how it is almost universal among the human species) to provide a structure to protect, nourish and ensure the propagation of the members of that civilization’s next generation. Now, granted, in some societies, polygamy is permitted but then that goes back to the pack nature of man and the fact that the gestation period for humans is nine months.

So, if gay couples are the union of two members of the same sex, would someone explain to me how they naturally are going to propagate? I can see how, using modern medical techniques, it can be done, but that is artificially. Artificial methods, I understand can get expensive but then that is the price of technology. I also fail to understand how two males are supposed to accomplish this (females, being the new-life carriers, it is far easier to understand).

Ok, despite having the obvious biological hurdle which seems significant to me, I guess society has placed a few more hoops for people who want children but can’t have them have to go through.

I know I am wrong, but it just seems that some homosexual couples don’t realize the difficulties facing heterosexual people who for one reason or another merely want to adopt children. There are those people, who are not gay, who can’t have children naturally. For them, they usually seek to adopt children, but that process is not just going down to the local hospital and picking out a new son or daughter.

There are all sorts of rules that make it very difficult for heterosexual couples to adopt and the hurdles for single people (remember, they just represent one gender as well) to adopt are even more complex and difficult (although it has never been banned outright). So heterosexual couples have to go through a multitude of hoops (Just ask my dear wife, who adopted two in her first marriage – took 12 years) in order to have children and now same-sex couples are complaining. Give me a break.

In the linked article, it is interesting that all the cases involved two women. I didn’t see any involving two men. It would seem to me that in all fairness, the reporter should have included the problems two men would have adopting a child, given the difficulty a single man already faces. I mean, if we are going to equality here, it has to be equality before the law, right?

And then if two people of the same sex want to adopt, what about three or four? What about multiple parents? Why not? It seems to me that multiple parents would be a good thing. What about multiple parents with mixed genders? Oops, we are moving into the realm of polygamy, plural marriages and communal marriages.

No, unfortunately, this isn’t really about parenthood, or raising the next generation. Not really because it really is about individuals thinking merely about themselves and their own pleasure, sexual and otherwise.

Remembering that humans are bisexual and that therefore unisexual relations are basically a statistical aberration, it would seem that homosexual relations are indeed not the norm.

I realize that these people desperately need to feel accepted as individuals. We all need to feel accepted as individuals. However, they are not the norm and never will be (or the species will die off).

I say we tolerate their differences as long as they tolerate our right to disagree with them.

This is asinine, people

Chicago Seek to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.

Women in the Infantry

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-13/women-combat-military-marines/54942550/1

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Women in the infantry? Some want to see it, others don’t … count me with the others, at least not in mixed gender units.

It is an interesting argument and one that the US will have to wrestle with over the coming years as it tries to level the playing field, especial for women officers in the military.

There has been some (in my opinion, not enough) debate about what role women should play in the military. Should they be allowed in fighting roles or not? Well, I guess that depends on the service. Having not had experience in the air services, I cannot comment with any experience on that issue. But I have had experience both afloat and on the land (with on the land having had women in my unit) and those experiences have definitely brought me down on the side of those who say that women should not serve in infantry units.

Now, I am not saying – nor have I ever said – that women cannot make outstanding combat fighters. They can, without a doubt. In fact, I suspect that women can be far more ruthless killers than men but I can’t prove that or document it. I would just rather not have them in my unit, thank you, as it creates too many distractions and potential problems.

The Marine captain, in her article says women should get over it, “we are not all created equal.” That’s for sure, in so many ways.

The point I always argued was a) standards have to be uniform and b) how do you deal with basic biology and primal instincts. You see, at least in my experience, standards are not uniform because allowances “have to be” made for the differences in feminine physiques from the male physique. While in cardio fitness this may have some validity, but when it comes right down to it, if you have to hump 30 pounds of personal gear and ammunition, plus at least 70 to 100 pounds in a rucksack, then it doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman … if you want to do the job, you have to do it, period … no slacking.

That is life in the infantry, and as the captain pointed out, history shows that women, for the most part, are not able to do it over time physically.

But it is the other half, part b, which I have found to be really problematical. I am sorry, but to hijack an old cliché: Men are men and women are women and ever the twain shall meet. I don’t care what you do, or how you try to do it, hormones win every time. To think otherwise is to be incredibly naïve … if not stupid, but at least silly. You absolutely have to find a way to deal with the taboo subject of the sexual dynamic.

Granted, I grew up in a time when the male-female roles were fairly well defined and that is changing. Part of me always says “women and children first” and the guys take the hindmost and their chances. Sorry, I was well conditioned as a child and a young man.

As part of my observations, I noticed that a whole bunch of hue and outcry was made over the execution of an Afghan woman on video. Her crime, apparently, was she was sleeping with both of the rivals for the leadership of that particular Taliban group. That sums up my argument against women in my unit in a nutshell. No matter what happens that conflict is going to happen. Not might happen, it WILL happen.

Having been the non-commissioned officer in charge of taking care of 10 to 35 soldiers, I can tell you that it is a tough enough job without having to factor in allowances for the different genders. Nope, don’t want to go there, ever again. Been there! Done That! Lord, I wish I could lose the T-Shirt!

Having served on US Navy destroyer with a crew of little more than 225, I can attest that adding the sexual dynamic to that equation would have just made what was difficult at times, down right impossible. You pack 200-plus people on something that is maybe a football field long, about the width of maybe a four-lane street, with two or three decks, crammed with power-plants, workshops, living spaces and weapons systems (make a mistake in the first or the last and you definitely risk shortening not only your life span but everybody else on board) for extended periods of time and I guarantee you: Bad things will happen. Again, it is not a case of might happen. Bad things will happen.

When bad things happen in military formations, well, bad things happen at the sharp end of the stick and people die. You may not want them to die, but they will. Even when things are going swimmingly down in the trenches, people will die. It is what happens in war, which is what the military formations are designed for.

Ok, I will grant you, there are many roles for women in the military, but being in the infantry, or armor or on a small warship like a destroyer or a submarine is not one of them.