Free Birth Control is no more Necessary for a Healthy Life than having Breast Implants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2014

Week in Review

Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage.  Because they want to be like traditional couples.  A man and a woman entering wedded bliss.  With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it.  Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.

Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents.  Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman.  And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.

So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be.  And some argue that tax money should pay to help them.  As well as rewrite our laws.  But how far should this go?  How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?

I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.

Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too?  As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives.  For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts.  As men tend to look at women with larger breasts.  Because men are pigs.  Yet these women want these pigs to look at them.  And suffer pain when they don’t.

One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue.  As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants.  But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them.  Which runs contrary to feminism.  Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually.  Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being.  Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism.  And the left.

Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling.  As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man.  While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Tim Gunn is under the Gun for Thinking Models Modeling Women’s Clothing should have Curves

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

Tim Gunn of Project Runway fame is under the gun for making some very sensible statements.  Anyone looking at this from the standpoint of business (for fashion is a business to sell clothes) can see no ignorance in what businessman Tim Gunn said (see Tim Gunn says he feels “conflicted” about transgender models by Katie Mcdonough posted 2/24/2014 on Salon).

In an interview with the Huffington Post that ran Monday, “Project Runway” mentor Tim Gunn said he feels “conflicted” about gender nonconforming and transgender models in the industry. Gunn framed his comments as being in support of positive body images and diverse representation in modeling, but he actually just reinforced destructive (and false) body norms and revealed his own ignorance about trans people, both in fashion and outside the industry.

Discussing Andrej Pejic, who self-identifies as gender fluid and prefers to use feminine pronouns, Gunn said, “The fact that fashion designers would put basically adolescent-shaped boys or men in women’s clothes is head-scratching for me because, anatomically, women and men have different shapes. So, to be looking at women’s fashion on a tall, skinny guy with no hips, there’s no way you can project yourself into those clothes…

When asked about his thoughts on out transgender models in the industry, Gunn called it a “dicey issue.”

“On one hand, I don’t want to say that because you were a man and now you’re a woman, you can’t be in a women’s fashion show. But I feel it’s a dicey issue. The fact of the matter is, when you are transgender — if you go, say, male to female — you’re not having your pelvis broken and having it expanded surgically. You still have the anatomical bone structure of a man.”

This is a very important point.  A transgender model who is modeling women’s fashion is not going to have the same curves as the women who may buy these clothes.  Which is not going to help women see what these clothes may look like on them with their more curvy frames.  Or help the clothing line sell their clothes.  What sells fashion is showing curvy women how their glorious curves will be even more glorious in their clothes.  From a business standpoint it makes no sense to use transgender models to model women’s fashions.  For the vast majority of their market has curves (according to a 2011 Williams Institute study only 0.3% of adults identify themselves as transgender).  You can make a political statement by using a transgender model.  But it’s probably not going to help sell your line.  Which is ultimately the business of fashion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Sperm Donor must pay Child Support for Lesbian Couple’s Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage.  And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can.  There’s just the matter of getting a child.  As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child.  But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child.  Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption.  For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it.  Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together.  Like with this lesbian couple.  The partner to the mother of the baby left.  Without providing for that baby.  So the mother and baby became wards of the state.  Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support.  Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby.  To make sure the child goes to a good home.  With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm.  Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children.  To conceive and bring children into the world.  In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children.  To give them a last name.  A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits.  So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits.  Where a mother and a father can both raise their children.  Each teaching them what they uniquely can.  Giving them as complete a childhood as possible.  Tied forever to their children by blood.  This is what marriage is for.  Children.  All the employer benefits of marriage.  All the legal advantages of marriage.  All the tax advantages of marriage.  They’re all there for one reason.  To facilitate the raising of children.  So parents raise their children.  And not the state.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrats will Condone any Bad Behavior if it advances their Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

The government has long warned us not to eat or drink things that are bad for us.  They banned Saccharin after mega doses in rats caused cancer.  They then determined that a rat’s physiology is different from humans.  And removed their ban.  They banned the use of Alar (used in apples and other fruits to provide a better harvest) when mega doses proved to be carcinogenic.  The consumption of healthy apples fell.  They told us not to eat eggs as they had cholesterol.  Even though no study showed egg cholesterol was bad for you.  So people quit eating eggs.  And many lost an excellent source of protein.  And it turned out saturated fats play a larger role in our cholesterol levels.  And that eating eggs really doesn’t affect our cholesterol levels.  So we’re eating eggs again.  Because they are good for you.

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make large sugary beverages illegal in New York.  There have been bans on trans-fats.  They have tried to take toys out of McDonald’s Happy Meals to make them less attractive to children.  And let’s not forget the war on smoking.  They have put pictures of diseased lungs on the packaging to get us to quit.  They have made it illegal to smoke a cigarette pretty much everywhere to protect others from second-hand smoke (though no studies exist showing that there is even a risk due to second hand smoke just as there was no study showing egg cholesterol was bad for you).  They have even discussed bans on third-hand smoke (the ashtray smell you leave behind after smoking).

Government is regulating our lives to save us from ourselves.  Because we engage in behavior too risky for our own good.  Except for two behaviors.  Drugs.  As Colorado has decriminalized marijuana (without any regard to our diseased lungs, second-hand smoke or third-hand smoke).  And sex.  As they give out free birth-control to encourage our young people to have as much sex as they so desire.  And provide access to abortion when that fails.  Despite the slew of venereal diseases all that sex has given our young people.  Including AIDS (see A Resisted Pill to Prevent H.I.V. by DAVID TULLER posted 12/30/2013 on The New York Times).

Over a cup of tea at a downtown Starbucks, Michael Rubio recalled how four friends became H.I.V. positive through unprotected sex, all within a year…

The very existence of that option represents a startling turn in the too-long history of the AIDS epidemic. Many health experts hoped that the medication — Truvada, a combination of two antiviral drugs that has been used to treat H.I.V. since 2004 — would be exuberantly embraced by H.I.V.-negative gay men. Instead, Truvada has been slow to catch on as an H.I.V. preventive in the 18 months since the strategy’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. In some quarters, the idea that healthy gay men should take a medication to prevent infection — an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP — has met with hostility or indifference…

For 30 years, public health officials have aggressively promoted condom use during every sexual encounter as the only effective method, apart from abstinence, for preventing H.I.V. transmission. Still, 50,000 new infections are occurring annually in the United States; sexual transmission between men accounts for more than half of them, and a disproportionate number among African-Americans and other minorities.

Many experts hailed Truvada as an opportunity to reduce new infections among high-risk groups like young gay men, people in relationships with H.I.V.-positive partners, and prostitutes. The F.D.A. called for prescriptions to be accompanied by counseling, frequent H.I.V. testing, and continued promotion of safer sex, although research suggests that daily use of the pill alone confers close to full protection.

But a generational shift in attitudes toward H.I.V. among gay men may also be playing a role, some experts say. With advances in treatment, many younger men who did not experience the worst years of the epidemic are less fearful of the consequences of infection. Moreover, current medications can lower viral levels in H.I.V.-positive people to the point where the risk of transmission is negligible, further reducing the perceived need for PrEP among H.I.V.-negative partners…

Certainly, “condom fatigue” among gay men is real. The proportion who reported unprotected anal sex in the previous year rose to 57 percent in 2011 from 48 percent in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obamacare will pay for AIDS and HIV treatment.  But will people with AIDS/HIV pay more for their Obamacare?  Probably not.  Smokers will pay more, though.  Despite it being easier to prevent AIDS/HIV than lung cancer from smoking.  For you can still have anal sex without being at risk for catching AIDS/HIV if you wear a condom.  But you can’t smoke without putting yourself at risk every time.  Because when you smoke you pull in that cancer-causing smoke into your lungs.  Yet as preventable as AIDS/HIV is 57% of gay men have unprotected sex.  Which you can’t define as anything but willful and dangerous behavior.

But the left has no harsh words for the gay community.  Unlike they do for smokers.  Why?  Because the gay community votes Democrat.  As do young people.  Who believe that 30% or more of the population is gay.  While a 2010 study by the Williams Institute put the number at 3.5%.  But the young believe that 3 out of every 10 people (instead of 3.5 out of 100) identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  And want to be progressive and enlightened and cool and so unlike their parents that they want to show their enlightened support for them.  Which is another reason why they vote Democrat.  In addition to the sex and drugs the Democrats encourage.

Until gay men wear condoms all of the time or abstain from willful and dangerous unprotected anal sex AIDS/HIV will spread.  (If these young gay men were in monogamous relationships they wouldn’t be spreading AIDS/HIV).  And it won’t be just in the gay community.  Thanks to bisexuals, intravenous drug users and prostitutes the disease will migrate to others who think they are being progressive and enlightened to have as much sex as the Democrats encourage them to have.  Guaranteeing a large voting block for the anti-parents (i.e., Democrats) come Election Day.  And they don’t care how many lives they destroy in the process.  But if you want to enjoy a cigarette or a big juicy burger look out.  They are coming after you and your reckless lifestyle.  Unless, of course, you’re smoking a marijuana cigarette.  And eating that big greasy burger afterward because you have the munchies.  Because there’s nothing wrong with that lifestyle.  Because you’re likely a Democrat voter.

The temperance movement took off in large part due to the STDs husbands brought home to their wives after drinking away their paychecks at the local saloon.  And then making bad decisions when drunk.  Like spending what money they didn’t spend on alcohol on prostitutes.  Bringing home syphilis to many an unsuspecting wife.  Who passed it on to their unborn children.  It was the progressives that try to put a stop to that with Prohibition.  Including women like Susan B. Anthony.  Now look at the progressives.  Who are a far cry from those who once wanted to protect women and children.  Who now champion some of the most dangerous behavior women and children can face.  Sex and drugs.  Just to win elections.  Something Susan B. Anthony would not likely approve of if she were alive today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Senate sends LGBT Bill to House to Fail for Political Points in the Next Election

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 9th, 2013

Week in Review

There are millions of transgender people who are being discriminated against in the workplace just as there are millions of people signing up for Obamacare.  President Obama can say both.  But even he must know neither is true (see Senate passes LGBT anti-discrimination bill by Leigh Ann Caldwell posted 11/8/2013 on CNN).

For the first time, the U.S. Senate approved legislation that would protect gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace…

Opposition in the Republican-controlled House is strong, minimizing any chance the measure will become law. House Speaker John Boehner also opposes it.

Still, President Barack Obama urged the House to take the bill up and said he would sign it.

“One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do,” the President said in a statement. “Now is the time to end this kind of discrimination in the workplace, not enable it. I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law.”

The bill would provide the same protections for LGBT workers as are already guaranteed on the basis of race, gender and religion.

It would not be lawful for employers to discriminate based on a person’s “actual or perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity…

“The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, said.

Millions?  That must mean there are more than 2 million transgender people in the United States trying to get a job as this law basically adds “a person’s “actual or perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity” to a long list of federal protections.  According to a study by the Williams Institute only about 0.3% of adults are transgender.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau the U.S. population is about 313.9 million.  If we subtract those under 18 years of age (23.5%) and retirees (13.7%) from the total population that leaves 197.1 million people of working age.  Of this 197.1 million only 591,414 are transgender according to the Williams Institute study.  Which is 0.19% of the total population.  In comparison the latest Employment Situation Summary from the BLS shows the official unemployment rate (U-3) is 7.3%.  While the more accurate unemployment rate that counts all people who can’t find a job is at 13.8%.  But the more accurate picture of the economy is the labor force participation rate.  Which is now at 62.8%.  Meaning that there are 91.5 million people who have left the labor force because they can’t get a job.

There are not millions of transgender people being discriminated against in the workplace.  As there are only about a half million people who call themselves transgender in the nation.  But there are 91.5 million people who can’t find a job.  Perhaps that is the problem Congress should be working on.  Rolling back one of the most business-unfriendly environments ever to exist in the U.S.  To create jobs for the 91.5 million.  As well as the half million.

This legislation is, obviously, a political maneuver.  The Senate passed this bill so it can die in the House.  So they can say, “See?  House Republicans hate LGBT people.”  Which is how the left wins elections.  By making their base hate Republicans.  Which is why President Obama was able to win reelection despite his policies keeping 91.5 million people out of a job.  Despite a part of his base—the young—suffering the highest levels of unemployment.  But they will continue to suffer and vote Democrat.  Because Republicans hate LGBT people.  Even if it’s not true.  As long as there is a perception of it that’s good enough for them.  Even though it would be easier for LBGT people to get a job if there weren’t 91.5 million people on line looking for a job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FDR hated Gay Men and used Undercover Men to Deviously out Gay Men in the Navy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2013

Week in Review

When it comes to liberal icons they don’t come bigger than FDR to the left.  He is their god.  His New Deal began the transformation of the country into the quasi social democracy it is today.  And because of this they will never find any wrong with what the man did.  And he did what the left would call some pretty horrible things.  Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.  And this (see To crack down on gays in the Navy, FDR created a special unit that performed oral sex on men in order to out the gay ones  posted 9/1/2013 on OMG Facts).

It’s incredibly ironic, but prior to his presidency, FDR signed off on a secret Navy unit to seek out homosexuals…

It later became known as the Newport Scandal. Newport, Rhode Island’s Naval Base had numerous complaints of sexual solicitation by males around the base. So, FDR’s Navy unit sought to entrap these men. Surprisingly, the unit was ordered to perform oral sex on suspected homosexuals on base, including a clergyman! Once the story broke, FDR claimed memory lapse and never admitted to signing off on the operation.

Apparently liberal icon FDR didn’t care for the homosexuals.  He would have opposed having gays serving openly in the military.  And he would have opposed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Because he hated homosexuals and didn’t want them serving in the military.  Apparently.  Based on his entrapment policy of seducing gay men.  Even men who might only have thought about being gay.  What a mean, horrible man FDR was.

But the left worships him.  And will discount these things as being a part of those times.  Just like Senator Byrd being a member of the KKK.  It was just something that Democrats did back then.  It didn’t mean that they were racists.  And the fact that FDR persecuted homosexuals doesn’t mean that he was anti-gay.  But if Paula Dean should say the ‘n’ word back in those times, well, it’s obvious that she’s a racist today.  Because she’s not advancing the liberal agenda.  So she should never be forgiven.  And should burn in hell.  Apparently.

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jane Lynch enjoys Traditional Marriage, files for Divorce and fights to prevent Losing Half of Everything she Owns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

The hardest thing about divorce is the children.  Who gets custody?  Who pays child support.  And who pays alimony?  A woman may give up a career to be a stay-at-home mom.  To raise a family.  Which is more difficult than going to a job 5 days a week.  Because you’re on-call 24/7.  And you’re responsible for more than just numbers on a ledger.  You’re now responsible for human life.  As well as numbers on a ledger.

In a divorce two things don’t change.  Someone still has to raise the children.  And someone still has to pay the bills.  Which is where child support and alimony come in.  So the children don’t suffer more than they have to by seeing their parents split up.  They can still have a full-time parent.  Typically the mother who gave up her career to run a household.  While the father visits occasionally.  And pays the bills.  This is the marriage contract.  And the divorce contract that often replaces the marriage contract.

This is what traditional marriage is.  The legal institution that facilitates the family.  And doesn’t leave the children or their mother out in the cold should the marriage fail.  It protects them.  And provides for them.  So they won’t be disadvantaged in their life because their parents divorced.  Getting the same opportunity to succeed in life as everyone else.  Things that are not issues in same-sex unions.  Because same-sex couples cannot bring new life into the world.  Which eliminates most if not all of the need of a marriage contract.  Yet they want it.  And they are getting married (see Jane Lynch Files For Divorce From Wife Lara Embry by Joyce Chen posted 7/12/2013 on US Weekly).

Just one month after announcing that she and her wife of three years, Dr. Lara Embry, are going their separate ways, Jane Lynch has officially filed for divorce in an L.A. County Court, TMZ reports…

According to the legal documents, the couple did not have a prenup, and will therefore split their marital assets 50/50. The pair have no children together (Embry has two daughters Haden and Chase).

Lynch is also filing to terminate the court’s jurisdiction to award Embry with spousal support, TMZ reports.

And they’re getting divorced.

There is nothing they could not have accomplished with legal contracts other than the marriage contract.  If they had lived happily ever after and wanted to leave their estates to each other they could have stipulated that in their wills.  But no.  They were married.  Now they’re getting divorced.  And Lynch now gets to enjoy a privilege once reserved for traditional marriage.  Spousal support.  Even with couples that brought no new children into the world.  Where both worked and had careers.  But the one with the less-paid career got a taste of a lifestyle the better-paid career afforded.  And now is entitled to continue that lifestyle after the divorce.  Because of the marriage contract.

Unless you’re bringing new children into the world there really is no reason to get married.  And our record high divorce rates would seem to indicate that a lot these people getting married (some more than once) probably shouldn’t have gotten married.  But they did.  And went through great transfers of wealth because of it.  As any rich person who is not quite so rich anymore following a divorce will attest to.  Especially when there are children involved.

Lynch wanted everything traditional marriage offered.  Well, everything but one.  She is fighting not to give half of everything she owns to her ex.  And you can bet the next time she gets married, if there is a next time, there will be a prenup.  Which are no longer the prerogative of foolish rich men marrying women young enough to be their granddaughters.  Today they’re just good business.  Especially when there are great disparities in wealth.  Interestingly, had she not been able to get married she would have had everything she wanted after their breakup.  To happily go their separate ways.  Without losing half of all of her stuff.  Something no doubt weighing heavily on her mind these days.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Alec Baldwin apologizes for his Gay Slur tweeted in the Heat of the Moment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.  With a few women.  Even with (at least) one in the White House.  But he is still loved by the left.  Especially the ladies.  Because Bill Clinton says he is a feminist.  Someone who doesn’t objectify or sexualize women.  Even though a string of infidelities would suggest otherwise.  But that doesn’t matter.  For if you act like a feminist most of the time you can get away with some very bad behavior some of the time.  That’s a big perk about being a liberal.  You can get away with a lot.  All you have to do is say you’re sorry (see Alec Baldwin apologizes to NY gay group for tweets by Associated Press posted 6/28/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Alec Baldwin has apologized to a New York City-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group for a series of tweets that could be interpreted as homophobic.

Baldwin’s messages were directed at a newspaper reporter who accused his wife of tweeting during the funeral for the former star of “The Sopranos” James Gandolfini (gan-dahl-FEE’-nee). Baldwin says in a letter to GLAAD posted on its website Friday his tweets didn’t have anything to do with “issues of anyone’s sexual orientation.”

According to CBS News he called the reporter a “queen.”  In order to insult him.  For many men will insult another man by calling him a homosexual.  Because of all that testosterone coursing through their bodies.  Making some of these men wear their shirts open to show all that crispy chest hair.  And date women young enough to be their daughters.  Or even their granddaughters.  Because these manly men have so much heterosexual charms that they can get these young women.  While other men who aren’t as sexy as them walking on a European beach with their bellies hanging over their Speedo swimsuits might as well give it up and be a “queen.”  The ultimate insult a manly man with a young wife can hurl at another man.  For they are so hetero that they can get the young hottie as these ladies just can’t resist that crispy chest hair.  Or that glorious belly.  While these beautiful young women stay away from these other men as if they were “queens,” seeing them as so sexually unappealing that they can’t even imagine them pleasuring a woman.

So men hurl gay slurs at their friends.  For this is how men joke around with other men.  They insult each other.  And being called a “queen” impugns that they cannot satisfy a lady.  The greatest insult of all.  Throw in a few drinks and these can become fighting words.  For men are very sensitive about their bedroom skills.  And know that other men are, too.  So the gay slur is often the go to insult.

The men who use the gay slur may not be homophobic.  But they don’t want anything to do with that lifestyle.  As they are all about rocking their woman’s world in the bedroom.  And making sure that others know just how much of a swaggering stud they are.  Especially when their woman is much younger than they are.

Most times these gay slurs are harmless.  Because they aren’t directed at gay people.  And are not meant to attack gay people.  They’re used most times among friends.  And soon to be ex-friends.  But if someone on the right uses one they are accused of a hate crime.  While those on the left just have to say, “Sorry.”  And all is forgiven.

The left will attack anyone on the right for a momentary slip of the tongue.  Saying it is a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  Even if it was something they said 20 years earlier.  But if a liberal has a momentary slip of the tongue it is NOT a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  But it does make one wonder what a person really thinks when they go to a gay slur in the heat of the moment.  Not jokingly hurling the gay slur at a friend.  But at someone that fills them with a deep seething hatred.  Is he just going through the motions of being a good liberal?  Just so he can avoid being attacked for very bad behavior some of the time?  Who knows?  But one thing for sure if you don’t want to be held to a high standard every time you stick your foot in your mouth it is better to be a liberal.

It’s a pity that the left can’t be so forgiving to those on the right suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries