Now they tell us !!!
Remember when the homos and their media and political supporters
(including prominently such names as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Carl Levin)
were assuring us (lying to us is more accurate)
that letting the homos serve openly in the military would have no negative effect on the military's effectiveness?
Well, now, take a look at this article:
by Josh White
Washington Post, 2011-11-30, page A1
(the phrase in the heading is taken from the headline in the WP print edition:
“To experts, Penn State case fits a familiar mold”)
[From the article (emphasis is added):]
[P]olice, prosecutors and sex crime experts say that
Sandusky’s alleged abuse
is illustrative of sex predation across the country.
It is an extremely high-profile version
of what police departments and social services offices see regularly:
A man in a position of trust is accused of
abusing those who are most vulnerable.
Capt. Bill Carson of the Maryland Heights, Mo., police department,
a 32-year veteran who has studied imprisoned sex offenders,
noticed similarities between his cases and the Penn State case right away.
“I interviewed a lot of charismatic people
that would appear to be really nice people
if you didn’t know what they were in prison for,” he said.
“They came across as being very pleasant.
A lot of them had been in a position of trust.
They were youth pastors or school teachers or YMCA volunteers,
Boy Scout leaders, Little League coaches.
“They were well respected and well thought of in their career,”
Carson said.
“And when the charges came down, everyone was shocked.”
...
[T]he experts and law enforcement officials say the vast majority of predators share many of the same traits as Sandusky.
They are teachers, counselors, clergymen and coaches
who might be close to kids anyway,
so the amount of time they spend with children
and the close relationships they build
don’t raise too many questions.
...
“Just the fact that it’s a person in power elevates the situation.
From the victim’s point of view,
they’re put in the position of being a nobody,
and if they accuse the person of abusing them,
they’re going up against a powerful and well-liked person.
Who’s going to believe them?”
It is that concern that experts say keeps victims quiet, sometimes for decades.
Attorneys for accusers in Sandusky’s case said
the boys felt silenced in part because
they didn’t want to play a role in hurting Penn State,
which holds enormous community influence.
...
“But for this Penn State thing, we probably wouldn’t have known about this,”
said Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert.
“All these guys use their position of authority
to try to target vulnerable people.”
[
What should be obvious to any knowledgeable, honest, intellectually capable person
is the relevance of all this to the military.
The most basic characteristics of the military social structure are
authority and trust.
The higher ranks are given great authority over the lower ranks,
who in turn must be able to trust that their superiors are giving orders
not in the interest of personal gain
but for the good of the unit and the mission.
I am not trying stigmatize all homosexuals.
But I am trying to make a point
that the "elite" has systematically denied or ignored:
“That putting homosexuals in charge of troops of the same sex
is like putting a chocolate-o-holic in charge of a candy store.”
No matter how well-intentioned the homo may be,
the temptation will be there
(which it would not for a heterosexual supervising same-sex troops),
and some will succumb to the temptation
to use their power and authority for personal gain,
with a corrosive effect on unit effectiveness.
And the factors mentioned in the article
that made some victims reluctant to call out a revered leader
will apply in spades in the military.
It’s going to be a real mess, one the “elite” has ignored or denied.
And who is to blame for this?
What group has been most supportive of homosexual rights,
including their service in the military?
It’s not hard to accurately identify that group,
although to do so brings furious responses from the members of that group,
who cannot bear any criticism of their group,
no matter how justified.
I am not going to name it.
In any case, I think the homosexual lobby should be absolutely ashamed
for not recognizing the problem their selfish desires have created
for the military.]
New York Times lead editorial, 2012-03-09
The rate of sexual assaults on American women serving in the military
remains intolerably high.
While an estimated 17 percent of women in the general population become victims at some point in their lives, a 2006 study of female veterans financed by the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that between 23 percent and 33 percent of uniformed women had been assaulted. Those estimates are borne out in other surveys, and a recent Pentagon report on sexual assaults at the service academies found that in the 2010-11 academic year, cadets and midshipmen were involved in 65 reported assaults.
Too often victims are afraid to come forward.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta estimated that
the number of attacks in 2011 by service members on other service members —
both women and men —
was close to 19,000,
more than six times the number of reported attacks.
...
[Remember when the New York Times editorial board
was calling, nay, demanding,
that the military open its doors to open homosexuals?
Remember when they claimed that the only reasons to oppose such
was bigotry?
Now recall something else,
that the gay lobby asserted that homosexuals were just like heterosexuals?
Well, if so,
then we can expect that homosexuals
will commit acts of sexual violence and coercion
at the same rate as heterosexuals.
In other words, adding open homosexuals to the military
will only increase the rate of sexual violence
which the Times deplores in the above editorial.
Does it not seem like an act of total intellectual dishonesty
that the Times editorial board,
along with practically all of the rest of the MSM,
failed to point that out?
Surely it is not that hard an observation to make
for such "elite" people as have been chosen to be America's opinion leaders.]
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post, 2012-06-29
The Air Force is investigating a growing sexual-misconduct scandal
in its basic-training operations,
with a dozen male boot-camp instructors under suspicion of
assaulting, harassing or having sex with female recruits.
...
[The conclusion of the article:]
“For every instructor that assaults a recruit,
there are usually dozens of others who have known about the problem,”
said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine officer
and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network.
About 22 percent of the Air Force’s recruits are women,
but only about 11 percent of its training instructors are female.
Bhagwati called boot camp
“a target-rich environment” for sexual abuse
because instructors wield total authority over raw recruits.
“It’s the kind of environment where you’re being yelled at 24-7,
where you’re terrified of everybody around you,” she said.
“How are you supposed to ask for help
if you’re the victim of sexual assault?”
[The scandal uncovered here involved
the abuse of female cadets by male instructors.
But what about when the boot-camp instructors are homosexuals?
If, as the homo lobby and their many supporters and allies repeatedly told us,
the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is
that a homosexual is attracted to people of the same gender,
then this same problem will arise.
For women, the feminist movement and women in general
have created a strong support network,
with rich and wide access to the media,
to publicize and try to prevent the abuse of female service members by men.
But when homos pray upon people under their control of the same gender,
who will call out this problem?
And when the service itself tries to prevent the problem,
will not the homo lobby then accuse the service of being, you guessed it,
“homophobic”?]
(including prominently such names as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Carl Levin)
were assuring us (lying to us is more accurate)
that letting the homos serve openly in the military would have no negative effect on the military's effectiveness?
Well, now, take a look at this article:
2011-11-30-WP-Penn-State-case-fits-a-familiar-mold
Penn State case paints familiar portrait for police, experts, victimsby Josh White
Washington Post, 2011-11-30, page A1
(the phrase in the heading is taken from the headline in the WP print edition:
“To experts, Penn State case fits a familiar mold”)
[From the article (emphasis is added):]
[P]olice, prosecutors and sex crime experts say that
Sandusky’s alleged abuse
is illustrative of sex predation across the country.
It is an extremely high-profile version
of what police departments and social services offices see regularly:
A man in a position of trust is accused of
abusing those who are most vulnerable.
Capt. Bill Carson of the Maryland Heights, Mo., police department,
a 32-year veteran who has studied imprisoned sex offenders,
noticed similarities between his cases and the Penn State case right away.
“I interviewed a lot of charismatic people
that would appear to be really nice people
if you didn’t know what they were in prison for,” he said.
“They came across as being very pleasant.
A lot of them had been in a position of trust.
They were youth pastors or school teachers or YMCA volunteers,
Boy Scout leaders, Little League coaches.
“They were well respected and well thought of in their career,”
Carson said.
“And when the charges came down, everyone was shocked.”
...
[T]he experts and law enforcement officials say the vast majority of predators share many of the same traits as Sandusky.
They are teachers, counselors, clergymen and coaches
who might be close to kids anyway,
so the amount of time they spend with children
and the close relationships they build
don’t raise too many questions.
...
“Just the fact that it’s a person in power elevates the situation.
From the victim’s point of view,
they’re put in the position of being a nobody,
and if they accuse the person of abusing them,
they’re going up against a powerful and well-liked person.
Who’s going to believe them?”
It is that concern that experts say keeps victims quiet, sometimes for decades.
Attorneys for accusers in Sandusky’s case said
the boys felt silenced in part because
they didn’t want to play a role in hurting Penn State,
which holds enormous community influence.
...
“But for this Penn State thing, we probably wouldn’t have known about this,”
said Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert.
“All these guys use their position of authority
to try to target vulnerable people.”
[
End of article.
What should be obvious to any knowledgeable, honest, intellectually capable person
is the relevance of all this to the military.
The most basic characteristics of the military social structure are
authority and trust.
The higher ranks are given great authority over the lower ranks,
who in turn must be able to trust that their superiors are giving orders
not in the interest of personal gain
but for the good of the unit and the mission.
I am not trying stigmatize all homosexuals.
But I am trying to make a point
that the "elite" has systematically denied or ignored:
“That putting homosexuals in charge of troops of the same sex
is like putting a chocolate-o-holic in charge of a candy store.”
No matter how well-intentioned the homo may be,
the temptation will be there
(which it would not for a heterosexual supervising same-sex troops),
and some will succumb to the temptation
to use their power and authority for personal gain,
with a corrosive effect on unit effectiveness.
And the factors mentioned in the article
that made some victims reluctant to call out a revered leader
will apply in spades in the military.
It’s going to be a real mess, one the “elite” has ignored or denied.
And who is to blame for this?
What group has been most supportive of homosexual rights,
including their service in the military?
It’s not hard to accurately identify that group,
although to do so brings furious responses from the members of that group,
who cannot bear any criticism of their group,
no matter how justified.
I am not going to name it.
In any case, I think the homosexual lobby should be absolutely ashamed
for not recognizing the problem their selfish desires have created
for the military.]
2012-03-09-NYT-Editorial-sexual-violence-and-the-military
Sexual Violence and the MilitaryNew York Times lead editorial, 2012-03-09
The rate of sexual assaults on American women serving in the military
remains intolerably high.
While an estimated 17 percent of women in the general population become victims at some point in their lives, a 2006 study of female veterans financed by the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that between 23 percent and 33 percent of uniformed women had been assaulted. Those estimates are borne out in other surveys, and a recent Pentagon report on sexual assaults at the service academies found that in the 2010-11 academic year, cadets and midshipmen were involved in 65 reported assaults.
Too often victims are afraid to come forward.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta estimated that
the number of attacks in 2011 by service members on other service members —
both women and men —
was close to 19,000,
more than six times the number of reported attacks.
...
[Remember when the New York Times editorial board
was calling, nay, demanding,
that the military open its doors to open homosexuals?
Remember when they claimed that the only reasons to oppose such
was bigotry?
Now recall something else,
that the gay lobby asserted that homosexuals were just like heterosexuals?
Well, if so,
then we can expect that homosexuals
will commit acts of sexual violence and coercion
at the same rate as heterosexuals.
In other words, adding open homosexuals to the military
will only increase the rate of sexual violence
which the Times deplores in the above editorial.
Does it not seem like an act of total intellectual dishonesty
that the Times editorial board,
along with practically all of the rest of the MSM,
failed to point that out?
Surely it is not that hard an observation to make
for such "elite" people as have been chosen to be America's opinion leaders.]
Miscellaneous Articles
Here are some related articles:2012-06-29-WP-air-force-investigates-growing-sex-abuse-scandal
Air Force investigates growing sex-abuse scandalBy Craig Whitlock
Washington Post, 2012-06-29
The Air Force is investigating a growing sexual-misconduct scandal
in its basic-training operations,
with a dozen male boot-camp instructors under suspicion of
assaulting, harassing or having sex with female recruits.
...
[The conclusion of the article:]
“For every instructor that assaults a recruit,
there are usually dozens of others who have known about the problem,”
said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine officer
and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network.
About 22 percent of the Air Force’s recruits are women,
but only about 11 percent of its training instructors are female.
Bhagwati called boot camp
“a target-rich environment” for sexual abuse
because instructors wield total authority over raw recruits.
“It’s the kind of environment where you’re being yelled at 24-7,
where you’re terrified of everybody around you,” she said.
“How are you supposed to ask for help
if you’re the victim of sexual assault?”
[The scandal uncovered here involved
the abuse of female cadets by male instructors.
But what about when the boot-camp instructors are homosexuals?
If, as the homo lobby and their many supporters and allies repeatedly told us,
the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is
that a homosexual is attracted to people of the same gender,
then this same problem will arise.
For women, the feminist movement and women in general
have created a strong support network,
with rich and wide access to the media,
to publicize and try to prevent the abuse of female service members by men.
But when homos pray upon people under their control of the same gender,
who will call out this problem?
And when the service itself tries to prevent the problem,
will not the homo lobby then accuse the service of being, you guessed it,
“homophobic”?]
Labels: homosexuality, military, political correctness
posted by KHarbaugh at 20:00
