Was Teen's Death the Media's Fault?

We all know we shouldn't shoot the messenger who brings bad news.   But, what about messengers who fail to deliver important information?

Early on the morning of January 4, 17-year-old Joshua Acorn [who preferred the name Leelah]  committed suicide by walking into the path of a semi.   Acorn had a male body but believed "herself" to be female.  The parents and those who support transsexuals  are blaming each other and both deserve part of the blame.    

However, much of the blame rests with the media which has failed to inform people of scientific research that demonstrates that transsexuals really do have a body of one sex and a brain of the other.  Homosexuals are afflicted with the same birth defect, but don't understand their condition.  As I discussed in the previous post, various brain scan related studies in the last decade by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicate that people who consider themselves homosexuals actually have the body of one sex and the brain of the other which is the definition of transsexuals.

The media should have distributed this information as it became available instead of acting like homosexuals were part of a different race or species of humans.

As Mark Twain once observed:  "That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Too many of those who call themselves journalists behave much like trained seals.  They spend their time sitting around and barking\ for someone to throw them a fishy story.  They wait for those with special interests to give them biased information.

Today's journalists have access to more information than previous generations of journalists. They don't need to rely on special interests to provide them with information.   Journalists don't have to try to schedule an interview to get information.    They can find ample amounts of information on the internet if they will only take the trouble to look for it.  

Various sites like http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/contain news releases about various physical and social science research projects.   Journalists need to be aware that those who conduct research may have their own biases.  Journalists should check for alternate views on the subject.   For example, research on whether coffee is good for you or bad for  you keeps changing with different studies.

 Information about research into the study of the brains of homosexuals has been available on the web for several years.  I mentioned the subject in my blogs over two years ago. 

The parents who called their child Joshua didn't understand that it wasn't that their child wanted to be a girl.   The child who preferred the name Leelah literally did have a girl's brain in a boy's body.    The parents might have understood if the media had informed them of scientific research that demonstrates some people really are born with a brain of one sex and a body of the other.

The families of transsexuals aren't the only ones who need to know about this research.     Homosexuals have the same condition, but don't understand.   The media need to inform homosexuals that scientists know why they feel the way they do and that a sex change operation might allow them to lead a normal life without the sexual confusion they have now.

Those who wish to help homosexuals change their behavior need to know that changing the body so it is on the sexual page as the brain is a much better approach than brainwashing..      It may come as a surprise to some Christians  that the Bible approves of sex change operations.  Jesus said in Matthew 18: 9 "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out...."  Or in other words if a defect in the body causes behavior that might be considered sinful the body should be changed so it won't cause "sin".

The fact that the body and the brain develop different sexual characteristics is a birth defect. Thus sex change operations are corrective surgery, not elective surgery.   Government health insurance programs should cover such operations.   The U.S. requirement that people purchase health insurance through health insurance companies means that these companies should sex change operations.

Homosexuality Involves a Treatable Birth Defect

Various studies in the last decade by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicate that people who consider themselves homosexuals actually have the body of one sex and the brain of the other which is the definition of transsexuals.     Thus homosexuals have a treatable birth defect.  

Changing the body's anatomical sex would put the brain and the body on the same sexual page and allow individuals to lead a relatively normal life instead of having to live in a kind of sexual purgatory.  .It may come as a surprise to some Christians  that the Bible approves of sex change operations.  Jesus said in Matthew 18: 9 "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out...."  Or in other words if a defect in the body causes behavior that might be considered sinful the body should be changed so it won't cause "sin".

The only difference between homosexuals and transsexuals is that transsexuals are perceptive enough to understand  their situation.   Homosexuals apparently don't understand that the brain, rather than the body, determines human sexuality.   The brain is the most important human sex organ.  Male bodies aren't attracted to female bodies.   Male brains are.  Female brains are attracted to male bodies.   If the brain of a person with a male body is attracted to male bodies it's because the brain is female.

Sexual chemicals called pheromones control the sexual behavior of other animals. Genetic programming may control how or when an animal responds sexually.  A male dog who smells a female dog in heat will try to get to her.

Humans respond to visual and audio cues which are compared in the brain to what the individual considers sexually attractive.   Some humans are primarily interested in physical characteristics.  Others may be more interested in intelligence or having similar interests in music or food. What is considered attractive varies from one person to another.  For example, some men like slender women. Other men prefer women who are extra large and will purchase pornography featuring such women. 

Scientists have known for many years that men's and women's brains have different structures and deal with some situations differently.  A growing body of research indicates that homosexuals have a brain of one sex and a body of the other.

Chemicals called pheromones govern the sexual behavior of most animals. Pheromones may be necessary for some animals to know when to have sex and which other members of their species are the opposite sex.  The existence of these chemicals in humans has been a controversial subject for years.  Humans don't need pheromones to activate their sexual programming.  Humans can learn about sex and be sexually aroused by reading books or watching tv.   Even if humans don't need pheromones they can be affected by them.

One study that tracked blood flow in  the brain indicates that two suspected human pheromones have a different impact on the brain activity of men and women and there is a difference between the way heterosexual and homosexual men respond.   Scientists say that a stimulus "lights up" the area of the brain responds to the stimulus. The study indicated that an estrogen like chemical from women's urine lighted up an area of hypothalamus in heterosexual men, but lighted up the general smell interpreting regions of the brains of  women and homosexual men. 

A testosterone derivative from men's sweat had  the opposite effect. It lighted up the hypothalamus in women and homosexual men, but the smell related region of heterosexual men  A subsequentstudy of homosexual woman indicated their responses measured by PET scans were similar, but not identical to heterosexual men.   

A study of the structure of brains using PET scans and MRI's indicated  the brains of heterosexual women were the same as those of homosexual men.  The brains of homosexual women and heterosexual men were the same.

Most of us were told in school  that  if a baby gets a "Y" chromosome from its father it will develop as a male.  If the baby gets an "X" chromosome from its father it will develop as a female.

However, reality isn't that simple.  In about  1 in 30,000 births a baby with  an "XY" combination of chromosomes will develop a female anatomy in what is called Swyer syndrome. Individuals with this condition have external female genitalia along with a normal uterus  and Fallopian tubes, but lack functional gonads (ovaries or testes).   They cannot produce eggs, but may become pregnant with an implanted embryo.  The development occurs because a defective gene fails to produce a functioning version of the  protein that is needed for development of male characteristics

In about 1 in 20,000 - 25,000 births a baby with an "XX" combination will develop a male anatomy.   Individuals with this condition can have normal sexual relations, but do not produce viable sperm.

The genes that control the development of the brain differ from the genes that control the development of other parts of the body.   It shouldn't be surprising that a defect in one or more  genes that affect development of the brain could cause the brain to develop according to a different sexual "blueprint" from the one  that controls development of the body.

Scientific research indicates that the sexual differentiation  of the brain begins before sex hormones play a role in development. A rare naturally occurring zebra finch is half male and half female.  One side of the body has male plumage, sex organs and brains and the other has female plumage sex organs and brains.   This dual development cannot be explained by sex hormones.
 
Doctors don't know how to change the sexual functioning of the brain, but they can change anatomical sex characteristics.  Currently the operation to transform a man into a woman is more effective than the operation to change a woman into a man.  Most homosexuals would need some psychological assistance because they don't understand they are transsexuals.   Psychological treatments alone cannot turn a transsexual/homosexual into a heterosexual.  The body has to be changed.

The fact that sex change operations correct a birth defect means that such operations are corrective surgery which should possibly be covered by health insurance particularly in children.   It would seem that both the British and American health insurance programs should cover this corrective operation.   Having the brain and the body on the same sexual page would seem to have major mental health benefits.

Is Obama Immigration Plan a Trap?

People who are in the United States illegally need to realize that President Barack Obama's immigration proposal [even if he is sincere] could a trap.  People who identify themselves to the government could be the first to be deported if Republicans can  get the courts to invalidate the plan or a Republican is elected president in 2016.  Those who are living in the United States illegally need to "stay in the shadows" until they can be guaranteed amnesty if they "come out of the shadows".

President Obama may mean well with his proposal, but,  considering his recent security problems, illegal immigrants can't be sure something bad won't happen to him before there is actual approval of an amnesty plan.   Considering how passionately some people have been on the immigration issue, Obama's action may increase the likelihood that some crackpot will try to attack him.

 Another potential problem is that his unilateral action may anger enough Congressional Republicans to reduce the potential for Congressional action.

There certainly will be one or more attempts to have the courts invalidate the plan.    With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress there could be a revival of the birth certificate issue that would force Obama to produce his real birth certificate or at least a better forgery than the last one.   The last "birth certificate" Obama posted on line was an obvious forgery because it listed his father's race as "African".   The word "African" cannot be used for race because two different so called races live in Africa:  a dark skinned "race" south of the Sahara and a lighted skinned "race" north of the Sahara that is considered "white".   If Republicans could proved Obama is qualified to be president than any immigration proposal he made would be invalid.  

A moratorium on deportation of otherwise law abiding immigrants is appropriate while there is a possibility of immigration reform.  It would be unfair to deport some family just before action that would allow them to remain here legally.

Are Redskins Ashamed of Their Complexion?

I'm attempting to understand why some of the descendants of the people Christopher Columbus called "Indians" say they are ashamed to be called "redskins".

The only explanation I can think of is they are ashamed that they are not white or perhaps they are simply ashamed of their heritage.

In the 1950's many black Americans were ashamed of their color. They tried to bleach their skin and straighten their hair to look more like white people.   In the early sixties someone discovered a statement abolitionist John Sweat Rock had made a century earlier.  Rock said, "black is beautiful".   Many black Americans recognized that Rock was correct.  

Black is just as beautiful as white and so is red.   Many white Americans think the complexion of  the Navajo, Cherokee etc. is so much better than theirs  that they are willing to bake themselves in the sun for hours to get their complexion the same color the Navajo and Cherokee are born with.  So why would those who are born with such a desirable complexion be ashamed?

Over 200 years ago leaders of the Piankeshaw, Osage, Santee Sioux and Meskwaki nations referred to themselves as "redskins".   The great Shawnee nation leader Tecumseh  in his speech to the Osage nation in 1811 used the terms "red men" and "red children [of the Great Spirit]".   If the original redskins found the term acceptable, why don't today's redskins?   Do today's redskins think they are unworthy of the name used by their ancestors?  

If people have a negative view of an ethnic group any word used to describe members of the group will be negative.  In 1850, one of the worst things you could call someone was "Irish".  In northern states they ranked below blacks.  On southern docks they were given jobs too dangerous to risk the lives of slaves on

There were numerous slurs for the Irish.  For example, blacks often called the Irish "white [n-word]s". Urban whites used the term "green [ n-word]"    However, people didn't need to use a slur for the Irish because of the negative attitudes people had about the Irish. This attitude was most commonly shown in "Help Wanted" signs that included the phrase "no Irish need apply".

Incidentally, centuries before Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee to Oklahoma, the English moved much of the Irish population from Ireland to North America and the West Indies.

The words "redskin" and "Irish" don't have any inherently negative implications as is the case with the n-word and the word "native".    Using the word "redskins" provides a unique one word name for the peoples of the various North American nations . 

Using color to distinguish one group of Americans from another implies the differences between them are only cosmetic and members of one group are not inherently better than members of the other group.

 Using the word "Indian" for redskins requires adding the adjective "American" to distinguish them from the residents of India. 

Using the word "native" requires adding the word "American" to distinguish them from all the different groups of peoples around the world called "native".  In old movies and television shows the term "native" was used for unnamed primitive original residents of the areas white people were visiting or had taken over.   The castaways on the "Gilligan's Island" television show were occasionally visited by "natives" from other islands.

  The Irish didn't let slurs and mistreatment keep them down.  They persevered and made "Irish"  a respected name.   

In 1968, James Brown released his most important song "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud".   It became the theme song for the black power movement.

Redskins nee d to take similar pride in their complexions.   They need to tell everyone they are proud their skin is "red".

The old leaders who called themselves "redskins" stood up to the white man. Native Americans take orders from whites.  

Redskins were free and independent people.   Native Americans often live on reservations overseen by the government.

The leaders who called themselves "redskins" were self reliant and self confident. Native Americans often appear to lack self confidence.

Did Ukraine Air Force Cause MH17 Crash?

Did a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25  in effect guide a missile from a Buk missile launcher to  Malaysian flight MH17?   Did Russian separatists fire at an Su-25 which had dropped down toward the ground after flying as an "escort"  and then began climbing back up toward MH17 with the missile on its tail? 

[Note:  I've delayed posting this because of recent reports attributed to unnamed American intelligence sources supporting a theory that a Ukrainian air force plane shot down MH17 after it deviated from the normal course.   Ukrainian authorities could have interpreted the different course as an indication of a plane controlled by terrorists.  We will need to watch this theory to see if it replaces the theory that a Buk missile brought down MH17.   For now the Buk theory seems to provide the best explanation.]

Russian authorities report that there was an Su-25 approaching MH17 prior to the disaster.  “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km [about 3 miles],” the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov told a press conference.   Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev said the Ukrainian  jet was "scrambling in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing."

The Russian descriptions of the Su-25's flight is consistent with a plane coming up to the MH17 as would have been the case if it had dropped down to investigate or attack a ground target.   If the Su-25 had merely been escorting MH17 it would have been flying at a constant height and been matching the speed of the  airliner.  It can climb at the rate of 2 miles per minute which means it could travel from near ground level to an elevation of 3-5 km below the MH17  in a couple of  minutes.  

Gen. Makushev's use of the word "scramble" is significant because the term is used to describe the behavior of a pilot getting in position to deal with a threat.    A pilot attempting to get away from a missile would fly in a similar hurried way.  

WashingtonsBlog reports that "a Youtube video made a month before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down alleges that Ukranian fighter jets were hiding behind passenger planes, pulling away temporarily, dropping bombs on Ukrainian separatists, and then hiding again behind the plane. "

The Aviationist reports that Su-27 Flanker jets had been escorting civilian jets over Ukraine.    

If Russian separatists were operating  a Buk missile system that shot down MH17, they likely  would have been inexperienced.   They might not have understood the transponder codes in the radar readout or been too preoccupied with shooting down the Su-25 to notice MH17.  Inexperienced operators would likely have relied on visual identification of potential targets and merely used the radar to guide the missile to its target.  Smart guerrilla fighters know to keep the radar turned off unless they know they have a possible target because the enemy could detect the electronic signature of the radar. They might have visually identified the Su-25 and quickly fired without bothering to check to see if other aircraft were in the area.  Aviation Week reports that the Buk system can have a problem distinguishing among different potential targets if it doesn't have the appropriate support equipment.

If the Su-25 was headed toward MH17, the MH17 might have been mistakenly been targeted or a slight change in course by the Su-25 could have resulted in MH17 becoming the target.   I'm not familiar with the handling characteristics of the Buk missile, but a missile traveling at 2,000 mph [0.5 miles per second] requires a significant distance to change directions.

Separatists could have thought the presence of the Su-25's meant the larger plane was a high value target.   

I recognize the possibility that Ukrainian troops might have shot down MH17 so they could blame the action on Russian separatists,   but it seems unlikely Ukrainian troops would deliberately have taken a chance on firing at MH17 with their own jets so close.  The site "abovetopsecret"  claims that   the U.S  has satellite imagery indicating Ukrainian troops, who may have been fooling around while  drinking, might have launched the missile either by accident or as a badly timed prank. Blacklisted.com also supports this scenario. We see this scenario occasionally in military themed comedy movies or television episodes but don't expect such things to happen in real life. This plausible scenario could explain why American authorities started calling the incident an "accident".    In the movies such accidents result in victims in tattered clothes and apparent soot on exposed skin.  Victims of real . life "accidents" are seldom so fortunate.

Ukrainian and American authorities have accused the Russian government of providing the Buk launcher to the separatists, but it isn't unusual for rebel forces to steal weapons and munitions from the government.   Individuals in government sympathetic to the rebels sometimes aid this process. Ukrainian separatists likely have agents in the Ukrainian military like the Viet Cong did in the South Vietnamese army.  Commanders who have had large items stolen might be reluctant to tell their superiors about their losses. They may lie and say the stolen items were destroyed.  In Vietnam, the Viet Cong sometimes used stolen weapons against us.  

If Russian weapons are being provided, individual commanders,rather than senior military officials   might be responsible.  Individual commanders  might occasionally  "loan" weapons to separatists who might be friends or relatives,    Military units sometimes rely on "unofficial actions" in such situations.   In the movies a crusty old 1st sergeant will take some action he knows his commanding officer wants done, but has been ordered not to do.  

Both Russia and the United States have assisted rebel groups in many countries in recent decades.   The Russian government is under pressure from friends and relatives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine to assist the separatists.  In the 19th Century the United States went to war with Mexico to support "separatists" in  Texas and California who wanted independence from Mexico.  

"Native Americans" a Much Worse Term than "Redskins"

The white hypocrites who complain about the term "redskins"  use the term "native American" which when used in the way they are using it isn't much better than the other n-word.   The word "redskins" is a physically descriptive term that doesn't have inherently negative characteristics.   The word is one of the English translations of the Ottawa term "Oklahoma".   If we consider the characteristics of the people the term "redskins" was first applied to, it's a positive term.

The word "native" has two different uses.  In general use the  term "native " followed by a geographic region is used to indicate people who live in the area in which they are born.  For example, a native New Yorker is someone who was born in New York and still lives there. In this context what counts is where the individual was born, not when his or her ancestors arrived from somewhere else. Those of us who were born in the United States are all native Americans even if we didn't have  ancestors who called themselves Cherokee, Cheyenne or Lakota. Except for the eleven months I spent in Vietnam I've lived all my life in the United States so I would be a native American even if I hadn't had an ancestor who moved to the frontier shortly after the American Revolution and married a woman who was probably Shawnee or Kickapoo.   Residents of Mexico and the other countries on the land mass called "America" are also natives of America.      

The context in which whites have used the term "native" when referring to non-whites is highly negative.  In movies made during the period European nations had colonies in Asia and Africa, when whites used the word "native" to refer to non-whites the implication was that the "natives" were inferior and possibly primitive, uncivilized or even "savages".   The best example of this practice is the old jungle movie cliche "the natives are restless tonight" which was used when the natives were beating on drums and making other sounds.  The white characters never considered the possibility that the "natives"  just wanted to listen to drum music.  If the natives were making noises they must have  been  "restless " about something.     "Native" is used as a generic term for local residents whose identity isn't considered important.

Whites have often used the word "savage" to describe non-whites who use violence even though whites at times have used the same type of violence.  The most recent example of white savagery is the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Those who criticize the term "redskin" ignore the characteristics of the people it referred to when it was used  centuries ago.   The original "redskins" lived on their own lands and provided for their own needs. They often lived alongside whites and sold land to them. They had their own medical knowledge, but much of it was lost because whites were too stupid to recognize its value.  They had their own culture including music and the visual arts  although they lacked an inexpensive permanent medium to record their literature.   The Hopi even had an extended creation account which included mass extinction events involving fire and cold as well as a flood like Noah's.  In recent years scholars who study earth's history have supported theories about mass extinctions caused by cold and fire.

The redskins sometimes lived at peace with each other and the white skins and at other times fought them.  The white nations sometimes lived at peace with each other and sometimes fought each other.   The white skins sometimes paid redskins to kill other white skins or paid for the scalps of redskins.     Redskins were warriors who fought to protect their way of life.   Captain French to Major Reno: "Too many blasted redskins with new Winchesters" defeated Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn.  

The redskins were not defeated.  They were inundated  by a flood  of Europeans.  

Referring to the original inhabitants as "redskins" is consistent with calling Europeans "whites". There is nothing inherently wrong with the color red.  It is the color used in both the British and American flags.  The British army during and after the colonial period wore red.   Roman Catholic Cardinals wear red.  In the Bible the words  of Jesus Christ are sometimes printed in red.    Various sports teams include the color red in their names: such as  Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds, University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Texas Tech University Red Raiders.

The redskins term  doesn't have any inherently negative characteristics.  Any negatives are based on the stereotyped view of the people it refers to.  

"Redskins" is a much stronger name than "native American".  Try sounding tough while saying "I'm a native American"  Now try it saying "I'm a redskin".  Redskins resisted being imprisoned on reservations.  Native Americans live on them.

I don't know if my limited North American ancestry is enough for anyone to claim me, but I would rather be called a "redskin" than a "native American"[except in the context in which everyone born in the U.S. is a native American.]

Many Republicans are trying to have President Ronald Reagan's face placed on the $50 bill to replace President Ulysses S. Grant.  A better choice would be to have Reagan replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.   Jackson's mistreatment of the Cherokee should disqualify him from having his face on money.

Is the NBA Above the Law?

The NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling controversy has a definite odor to it and it's not from sweaty socks.  In April,  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver decided that the NBA was above the law and thus didn't have to obey laws that interfered in the NBA's decisions.  In its haste to get rid of  Los Angeles Clippers owner  Donald Sterling the NBA violated a California law that prohibits use of statements made in secret private recordings as a basis of punishment for an individual.

On April 25, TMZ released a secretly made illegal recording of an argument between Sterling and his girl friend V. Stiviano about her male companions. A controversy developed when some claimed Sterling's comments were racist.  Four days later after what was likely only a cursory investigation, Silver  imposed a fine, banned Sterling from NBA events and ordered the sale of the team.  



California law explicitly bans recording a person's voice without his knowledge.  The law further states that such secret recordings cannot be used against a person in a court of  law.   If government cannot use such evidence to take a person's property, how can a private business do so?  Is the NBA more powerful than the State of California?  Is the NBA above the law?

Our system of justice is based on the philosophy that it is more important for government to obey the law than to  punish lawbreakers.  If a police officer fails to advise someone he arrests of the suspect's constitutional rights and the individual confesses to murder, the confession must be thrown out because the law requires that those who are arrested be advised of their rights.

It Sterling had confessed to murder in a secret recording, the state would not have been able to use the recording to convict him.   So where does the NBA get the authority  to punish him for saying something unpopular during a lovers' quarrel?   When people quarrel with people they are emotionally involved with they often say things they don't mean and wouldn't normally say.  For example, a  little girl arguing with her mother might say "I hate you" under the effect of the emotions involved in an argument.   

The fine and lifetime ban imposed on Sterling by NBA commissioner Adam Silver are illegal and should be rescinded.  The order to sell the team is also illegal, but the incident created such a negative public attitude to the Sterlings association with the team that Shelley Sterling  had no real choice but to sell. 

The negative attitude means  the new owner should seriously consider moving  the team and changing its name.   When people develop a negative attitude to an individual or organization the negative attitude may remain long after they have forgotten why they developed the negative attitude.  Many people will remember the controversial statements as coming from the "owner of the Clippers" rather than someone named Donald Sterling.  These individuals may ignore the change in ownership and think the new owner made the statements.

Some have suggested that Sterling has a "plantation owner's attitude" to the team.  I suspect many sports franchise owners have some degree of this attitude and it has nothing to do with the color of the athletes on the team.  For example the decision by National Football League owners to ignore a concussion problem among NFL players might indicate a "plantation owner's attitude".

Adam Silver's seems to have a "Godfather's" attitude toward those in his organization.   He feels he can ignore the law when dealing with those in his organization.  Our system of laws is of little value if private organizations can ignore the laws of evidence and impose whatever punishments they want to impose.  The word "vigilante" is used to describe those who convict individuals  and impose penalties outside the law,