Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

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

Military Children (and Children of Single Mothers) suffer Mental Health Issues due to Absent Fathers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Boys love their fathers.  And it’s tough losing them.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music.  During the Roger Waters’ period.  Whose concept albums were shaped by his experience growing up without a father who died in World War II.  As the children of Britain grew up in a dearth of fathers following World War II.  As so many of their fathers died in the war.  Waters went on to great success.  But he suffered for his art.  As all great artists do.  Who probably would have preferred to be happy instead of being a great artist.

The bond between child and parent is so strong that the parent doesn’t even have to die to affect the child.  Just periods of separation is enough to do damage (see Military deployments tied to teens’ depression by Kathleen Raven posted 11/29/2013 on Reuters).

Adolescents who experience the deployment of a family member in the U.S. military may face an increased risk of depression, suggests a new study.

Ninth- and eleventh-grade students in California public schools with two or more deployment experiences over the past decade were 56 percent more likely to feel sad or hopeless compared with their non-military-family peers, the researchers found.

The same kids were 34 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts.

So it would follow the more deployments (i.e., the less time the parent spends with their child) the more likely the increased risk of depression, feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts.  So the more time one parent stays away the less happy and the more frequent mental health issues a child suffers.   With the child no doubt suffering the most should that parent die in a combat zone.  Thus being removed from the child’s life forever.  Sad.  But intuitive.  For most probably didn’t need a study to tell them this.

The same can be said about single mothers.  And their children.  For it is the absence of one parent from their lives that reduces the quality of their lives.  Because that father isn’t there to toss the football around with him after school.  To attend a tea party with her favorite stuffed animals.  To be there to teach them what to do when they lose power during a thunderstorm.  And make them feel safe just by being there.

We take a lot of things Dad does—or did—for granted.  And the more time we spent with him the more we’re able to do the things he did when he’s no longer there to do them.  So the more time we have with Dad the stronger and more able we become.  The less time we have the less strong or able we become.  And if he’s not there at all it is like a child losing him in a military deployment.

The Democrats attack the Republicans and claim they have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to provide free birth control.  Abortion.  Or an expanding welfare state for single mothers.  The left really doesn’t want women to have children.  And if they do they want to help mothers raise their children without a father.  By having the state replace the father.  So women can remain free.  Pursue careers.  And not be condemned to stay-at-home motherhood.  The left does all of these things for women.  For it’s what is best for them.  Without ever considering what’s best for the child.  Two parents.  They will do studies to prove this if they can condemn the military for the effect it has on children.  But when it’s about women enjoying life to the fullest while treating pregnancy as a disease to avoid it’s a different story.  And for those women who become infected with pregnancy?  They don’t need a man in their life.  As long as there is the reassuring embrace of government to comfort her.

The Republicans don’t have a war on women.  But you could say that Democrats have a war on children.  As they always put a woman’s happiness over her child’s happiness.  For a child would rather grow up in a traditional family than be shuffled back and forth from daycare.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music if you don’t believe that’s true.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Ideal Age to have Children depends if you do What is Best for You or Your Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

If someone sees a pregnant woman smoking or drinking coffee they will give her a stern lecture.  Explaining what she is doing to her baby.  And telling her she must be more responsible now.  For it’s just not about her wants and desires now. She is bringing a new life into the world.  And she must do what’s best for her child.  Yet these same people will say being a single mom is perfectly fine.  Or waiting until she is 40 until she has her first child.  Or if she wants to have a late-term abortion that’s a decision that should only involve a woman and her doctor.  All of a sudden it’s no longer what’s best for the child but what’s best for the woman (see Survey Reveals the “Ideal Age” for Women to Have Children — and It’s Total Nonsense by Monica Bielanko, Babble.com, posted 11/13/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).

As Slate notes, according to a new Gallup poll, most Americans think that women should start having children by age 25…

Do you know what I was doing at 25?

Dancing on bars after 4 too many shots of Jagermeister. Dating as many men as possible to figure out that guys who kick in your car door probably aren’t the marrying kind. Working my way to the top of the journalism food chain, first at FOX in Salt Lake City and later ABC in New York City, both of which involved 10-hour workdays. I was traveling. New York City, Mexico, London, Italy … you get the idea. I was grabbing myself a big ol’ handful of life whilst trying very hard not to create it, because that wouldn’t have been ideal. For me…

These kinds of surveys are so annoying, yet they seem to immediately go viral and do such a disservice to women out their living their lives and making choices based on what’s right for them – decisions that likely already go against the grain of what society/our parents/religion/TV/movies tell us. Decisions like our careers, delaying motherhood, choosing to be a single mom … but that’s exactly what’s wrong with any survey related to the ideal kind of parenting: there are no absolutes. You should do what is best for your circumstances; breastfeed/don’t breastfeed, let your kid cry it out/pick him up every time he sniffles, feed him gluten/don’t fee him gluten … WHATEVER.

Ideal for me was waiting until I was in my 30s. For you, it might mean getting married out of high school and starting a family. For someone else it might mean never having kids. The ideal age to have a child is the age you finally decide you’re emotionally and financially ready to have a child.

Again, it’s all about what is best for the woman.  Not her child.

When I was in the 7th grade the school counselor came to my class and asked a boy in that class to come with her.  Why?  She was there to tell him that his mother had died.  The next few years I sweated bullets whenever someone came to my classroom looking for someone to talk to. 

A few years later my sister told me about a coworker who took his family on vacation.  That vacation included a visit to a National Military Park.  His two young sons (5 and 7 or there abouts) were excited.  For they were going to see men in period uniforms firing real muskets.  As they ran up a hill with their father their father suffered a massive heart attack and died.  Right in front of them.  My father had just started medication for high blood pressure.  Soon thereafter I went on a family vacation.  And sweated bullets every time there was a steep hill or multiple flights of stairs to climb.

Losing a parent is devastating to a child.  And it’s not what is best for a child.  What is best are healthy parents.  Fathers that can throw the football around with kids.  And run up hills with them without dying.  The greatest sight for most children?  Coming home from school and seeing their mother waiting for them at the door (not seeing her rush in to pick up her pain-in-the-ass at daycare that made her leave work before she wanted to).   This is what’s best for children.  Loving, healthy parents.  And the longer you wait to have your children the greater the odds a child may lose a parent during childhood.  Because as we age the odds of a parent dying from cancer, heart disease, lupus, etc., grow.

Also, the longer we wait to start our families the older our own parents get.  So instead of having grandparents around to help young parents older parents may be raising young children while caring for their parents, too.  The next best thing to having healthy parents is having a healthy Mee-Maw and Pop-Pop to spoil a child.  Not for a child to watch their Mee-Maw or pop-pop die slowly.

So what’s the ideal age to have children?  It depends.  If you do what’s best for your child probably when parents are under 30.  If you do what’s best for you probably later in life.  So your little pains-in-the-ass don’t cramp your style.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT183: “Conservatives believe chivalry is not dead while liberals want to destroy the dreams of little girls.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 16th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Liberals help Women delay Living Happily Ever After as Long as Possible

Conservatives believe in customs.  And traditions.  Those things that are tried and true.  Like the institution of marriage.  The foundation of the family.  Where a man and a woman pledge their love to each other.  To have and to hold.  From the day of their wedding forward.  For better.  For worse.  For richer.  For poorer.  In sickness and health.  To love and to cherish.  Till death do they part.  All the while living happily ever after.  As husband and wife.

Conservatives do not believe chivalry is dead.  Conservative men still place women on pedestals.  They stand up when a lady enters the room.  Holds her chair for her.  If it’s raining or cold outside a conservative will give his coat to her.  And open and close the door for her.  A conservative will shield her from danger.  And protect her honor.  Always treating her like a lady.

A liberal feminist woman, on the other hand, will say, “Don’t you dare open that door for me.”  For she is fiercely independent.  And wants nothing to do with chivalry.  She wants to be treated like a man.  Liberals, in fact, want women to have a career first then maybe consider getting married.  Or having children.  And not have the fairytale wedding all girls dream about.  Looking forward to the day when her Prince Charming will come along.  And sweep her off her feet.  No.  Liberals want to kill that dream.  And kill all romance.  Giving women birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill so she can avoid living happily ever after as long as possible.

Liberals believe being a Part-Time Mother is Good Enough

Conservatives don’t like high taxes.  Because a generation ago taxes were low enough that most everyone could raise a family on a single income.  But with the rise of the welfare state taxes have steadily risen.  Taking more and more of our paychecks.  Making it difficult for a woman to stay at home and be a full-time mother.  Which is why, today, many women are forced to be part-time mothers.  So they can earn a second income.  So they have enough left over in their paychecks after paying for the welfare state.

The family is the center of the conservative’s world.  Which is why they work hard to establish a career.  And vote to keep the tax bite as small as possible.  So they can afford to buy a house.  And begin raising their family.  With the mother staying home to be a full-time mother.  To give her children the best possible of all childhoods.  Having all of their material needs met.  A nurturing environment.  Created by a loving father and mother.  Who teach their children the customs and traditions that their parents taught them.  And help them with their school work so they get the best possible education.  So they, too, will one day be able to earn enough to raise their own family.

Liberals, though, believe in childcare.  In fact, they want state-funded childcare so women can return to work as soon as possible after having their children.  Leaving part of the raising and nurturing of their children to strangers.  As if children are a burden.  Like cutting the grass.  Something that they can farm out to other people.  As a working mother has better and more important things to do.  Like earning a paycheck.  Which is why liberals want state-funded childcare.  Because they believe being a part-time mother is good enough.  A working mother’s children may disagree with that.  But liberals are old-fashioned in this one respect.  They believe children should be seen and not heard.

Liberals encourage Women to stay Strong, Independent and Alone

Conservative policies tend to favor families.  They promote families.  While liberal policies make the family obsolete.  By trying to make husbands and fathers obsolete.  Liberal policies allow a woman to build a career instead of a family.  Birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill allow her to engage in consequence-free sex.  Liberal policies enable so many women to give it away for free that men see no reason to marry them.  Women earn their own money.  And with no children there’s no need for a woman to get married.  So she can stay strong and independent.  And alone.

Of course, today, there are a lot of women starting their families in their forties.  As they’ve discovered they want more than just to be strong, independent and alone.  They want a family.  They want children.  Their own children.  Before it’s too late for them to have children.  As waiting too long physically complicates things both for the mother and the child.  And there can be some emotional issues.  For a young child entering school with a 50-year old mother will be different from other children who have parents in their twenties.  And when they graduate high school their parents will be ‘grandparent’ age.  Perhaps not being there for their children when they start raising their own families.

Conservative policies foster the bonds between parents and children.   And grandchildren.  While liberal polices weaken these bonds.  By encouraging a woman to exchange a career and casual sex for marriage and a family.  Who may later in life discover that she wants to be married and raise a family.  But because she was a devoted follower of devout liberal feminist dogma those things are harder now.  And most likely she will have to do them alone.  As the men these women rejected to pursue their career likely found other women who wanted to get married and raise a family.  And even if those marriages didn’t last happily ever after they probably have grown children from it.  And may not be interested in doing it all over again.  As their children may still be consuming a large percentage of their paycheck.  Especially if they’re going to college.

And yet with every election cycle it is the conservatives that hate women and children.  Not the people that are destroying women’s lives by telling them to forget their silly childhood dreams of meeting prince charming, having the beautiful wedding and raising children.  Instead they should stay strong, independent and alone.  Forcing many women to miss or delay the greatest experience of their lives.  Raising their family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT181: “Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit the Man Jesus had to Die

There are some Christians who still have bad feelings towards Jews.  Who they blame for killing their Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ.  Even though Christ died for man’s sins.  He knew the state was going to execute Him.  But He did not try to save Himself.  He accepted His fate.  Because His death was preordained.  It was all part of God’s plan.  For Jesus’ ascension into heaven.  To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit He had to die.  And He had to be crucified.  As horrible as that was.  To give the religion that would follow their most sacred icon.  The crucifix.  Or cross for the non-Catholics.

God’s will was done.  And because of it the Christians got a new religion.  Based on the life and death of a Jew.  The Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.  Which is why the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament.  To include the Mosaic teachings that Christ Himself taught.  So for Christians to hold a grudge against Judaism is illogical.  Especially when the ultimate instrument of Jesus’ death was politics.  Not religion.

The Jews lived under a Roman occupation.  An uneasy Roman occupation.  The Jews were a thorn in Rome’s side.  As they were quite burdensome.  With their not knuckling under as willingly as others.  So to keep the peace they allowed the Jews to keep their religion.  Or rather, they tolerated it.  Something the high priests and Pharisees were very conscious of.  And they didn’t want any trouble that would cause them to lose their privileges.  Like this young whippersnapper coming around and riling up the masses.  For they knew it wouldn’t take much for the Romans to lose their tolerance of them.  And they especially didn’t like His way of not revering them.  That especially cheesed them off.  So the high priests and Pharisees went to the Romans and said this guy, Jesus, is calling Himself king of the Jews.  Something they were sure would not please Caesar.  Emperor of them all.  Well, one thing led to another and they crucified Christ.  Because of politics.  Not Judaism.

Some of the Countries today enjoying the Greatest Liberties and Highest Standards of Living have a Christian Past

Jesus has done more to bring peace to the world than anyone else.  The golden rule?  It has done more to let people live peacefully together than any government law.  It made people kind to each other.  Instead of the brutes we once were.  Religion civilized us.  And Jesus did more than most to make that happen.  Would that have happened if the Romans hadn’t crucified Him?  Of course this is a moot question.  For it was God’s will.  What happened had to happen.  And we are better off because it happened.  (When people use religion to justify violence it’s a different story.  The horrific wars between Catholics and Protestants had nothing to do with the golden rule.  But people who in their zealotry forget the golden rule.)

Death by crucifixion was a long, painful death.  People hung by their arms until they could hang no longer.  Then they transferred their weight to their legs.  Standing up.  And this went on until death mercifully came.  So Jesus hung by His arms with His weight pulling His tissue and tendons against the nails through His hands.  And when He stood the weight of his body forced His tissues and tendons against the nail through his feet.  And up and down he went.  Forcing those nails through His flesh.  A horrible death.  But a death He did not try to avoid.  People make Him out as some hippy peacenik.  But He had guts.  Though it’s easy for a God to have that kind of guts.  Jesus was just a man when He died.

So something good came from something horrible.  The world became a better place.  Yes, there were a lot of religious wars when some bastardized Jesus’ teachings.  But some of the countries today enjoying the greatest liberties and highest standards of living have a Christian past (and are still predominantly Christian).  Like those that were once part of the Christian British Empire.  Where the rule of law and the respect for the individual—not the ruling powers—rule supreme.  And that would not have happened without Christ.  For even the atheist among the Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—thought that Jesus’ teachings were the greatest in the world.  So good things can come from bad things.  Like another good thing that came from one of the worst things there ever was.  Slavery.

There’s a Prosperous Black Middle Class and Black Millionaires in America thanks to Slavery

Africa is a horrible place.  Sadly.  In any metric you use Africa measures horribly.  More people live in poverty in Africa than they do anywhere else in the world.  Africa has the world’s highest infant mortality rates.  Africa has the lowest life expectancy rates in the world.  Africa has the highest homicide rates in the world.  Africa has the lowest per capita GDP in the world.  And Africa has the lowest Human Development Index in the world.  Which basically says that Africa is the worst place in the world to live.  Whereas Europe and the countries that were once part of the Christian British Empire consistently have the best numbers in all of these metrics.  Making them some of the best places to live.  Unlike Africa.

Of course, the slaves who traveled in the hellish conditions of the slave ships to the New World would have preferred to have remained in Africa.  In the world they knew.  With the family they knew.  Without suffering the horrors of that Atlantic crossing.  The slave markets.  And their brutal overseers.  But something good came from all that suffering.  Unfortunately it was not for them.  But their distant ancestors.  Who today can live in a prosperous black middle class.  Where they don’t have to live in poverty.  Where their children are likely to survive their childhood.  And grow up to live a full life.  Where they have a lesser chance of being murdered.  Where they can have a much higher standard of living.  And a higher Human Development Index.  Unlike in Africa.

Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.  Ironically, the ancestors of those who were lucky enough to escape the slave traders don’t live as good a life as those who did not.  Today blacks in America are CEOs.  Athletes.  Movie stars.  Hip hop-stars.  Doctors.  Lawyers.  Even president of the United States.  So in addition to a prosperous black middle class there are black millionaires in America.  Blacks who started with nothing.  And earned a champagne and caviar life.  Something that just isn’t happening in Africa.  Sadly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT180: “If diversity is best for our children than having a mother and a father must be best for our children.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 26th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

While the French embrace their Culture the Liberals in America attack their own Culture

What is multiculturalism?  It’s a philosophy of diversity.  Basically saying it’s our differences that make us great.  Something you won’t hear a whole lot of in France.  Where they have a single culture they promote.  The French culture.  And rightly so.  Because it is the French culture that makes France great.  Just as it is the British culture that makes Britain great.  As the Spanish culture makes Spain great.  As the German culture makes Germany great.  As the Japanese culture makes Japan great.  As the Mexican culture makes Mexico great.  Etc.

In the United States of America, though, it’s not American culture that makes America great.  It’s all of the other cultures in America.  Which is why they teach multiculturalism.  Where we must admire and respect every other culture.  And they don’t teach assimilation.  Where people in America assimilate into a single culture.  The American culture.  The one culture that is not worthy of admiration or veneration.  Apparently.

Where did this start?  It started with our educators at colleges and universities.  As well as at our public schools.  And the liberals controlling them.  Who decided to do something about their hatred of America.  In addition to the other things that they were already doing.  Instead of teaching about American greatness they taught about American imperialism.  They taught how the Founding Fathers stole America from the Native Americans.  They taught how the Founding Fathers were nothing more than rich white slave owners.  Who made a country to benefit rich white slave owners.  So while the French embrace their culture the liberals in America attack their own culture.  Basically saying America isn’t great.  But everyone else is.  That is multiculturalism.

Liberals are Smarter than Everyone Else and should be Running the Nation, not a Government of the People

Liberals hate America.  They hate it so much that they have worked incessantly to change it.  Like a cancer.  Working from within.  Invading our culture and institutions and slowly spreading.  Just as socialism consumed Europe.  The liberals wanted that in America, too.  But liberals were, and still are, a small minority in the nation.  Few think like they do.  So they’ve always found great resistance to their enlightened ideals.

Their Ivy League schools created and nurtured liberalism.  Rich people who inherited their money sent their kids to the Ivy League.  And when they leave these schools many go into politics.  Or policy think-tanks that influence politics.  So these few, this privileged few, can change America.  To reflect what they believe it should be.  And run by like-minded people like them.  An aristocracy.  Something America shouldn’t have.  But does because of people like them.  Who are better and smarter than everyone else.  And should be running the nation.  Not a government of the people.

Liberals hate the principles of the Founding Fathers.  They hate limited government.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Free markets.  A business-friendly regulatory environment.  Low taxes.  And the profit incentive.  The things that made America the number one economy in the world.  And the destination of choice for immigrants looking for a better life.  One free from government oppression.  Abject poverty.  Chronic hunger.  And corruption.  People who were tired of living in a society where everyone was equal.  Where some were more equal than others.  So they came here.  To get away from people like liberals.  Who think they are more equal than everyone else.

Liberals enshrine Single Mothers and Same-Sex Couples raising Children to help destroy the Traditional Family

Because liberals are a small minority of the population they face great opposition.  Which is why they have infiltrated our educational system.  To set the educational curriculum.  So they can take our children.  And make them think differently from their parents.  Who most likely think like the majority.  And not like the liberal, privileged elite.  The aristocracy.  This is the greatest enemy of liberalism.  Parents.  And the family.

Parents have some 5 years to teach their kids to think incorrectly.  That’s a 5-year head-start these parents have.  Which the liberals have to undo.  So they can start programming them to become good liberals.  So they attack the family.  To break the bond between the parents and their children.  So they can start building a bond between these children and the liberal state.  Which is a prime motivation behind global warming.  For it was these children’s greedy, thoughtless parents that caused global warming.  Because they were so greedy and thoughtless—or just too stupid—to care about the planet.

So liberals enshrine single mothers.  And same-sex couples raising children.  To help destroy the traditional family.  And build a loyalty of single mothers and same-sex couples to the state.  By providing financial assistance.  Or new legislation to protect and help them.  Ensuring that these people will make these children think correctly from the get-go.  Which is why multiculturalism and diversity go out the window in the family.  A mother and a father are different.  They are a woman and a man.  Who can provide a much broader cultural education than a single mother.  Or a same-sex couple.  Who can only provide half of the cultural experience that a woman AND a man can provide.  So parenting is the one place in America that we don’t make better with diversity.  For when it comes to children in the household there is nothing wrong with having a single cultural experience.  No.  Multiculturalism only applies after these kids leave the household.  When they may start thinking incorrectly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Marriage, Babies and Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2013

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work.  To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in.  In a nice neighborhood with good schools.  After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child.  And the other children they have.  While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that.  It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead.  Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.  To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers.  But it doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child.  Deciding not to return to work.  Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children.  And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers.  Making it more risky to hire women.  Especially in this litigious world.  They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves.  And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities.  Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.).  For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees.  And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government.  If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee.  And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities.  Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women.  Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent.  It happens.  But not as often as it happens with women.  Because women have a biological clock ticking.  Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans.  For a woman has to leave work to have a child.  And to recover from the birth.  Men don’t.  Their lives can go on with little change.  And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child.  Which is a powerful force.  Mothers are very protective of their babies.  And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget.  For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home.  Forcing the new family to get by on less.  Government understands this.  And they design the tax code to help families raise children.  Because the government needs people to have babies.  And they need them to have more than two.  For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow.  These children will only replace their parents.  Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population.  But having more than two children is very expensive.  Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code.  To help offset the high cost of having children.  So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families.  Such as the baby’s last name.  A woman may hyphenate her name when married.  But you can’t do that with children.  For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check.  Put on a nametag.  Tradition has the father being the financial provider.  As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy.  He can keep working.  And providing.  So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life.  And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child.  Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children.  Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important.  Raise their children.  But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children.  Having children came first.  People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools.  Then civilization advanced.  The economy grew more complex.  This advanced civilization was costly.  Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children.  Governments and business help families have and raise children.  For we need families to have and raise children.  Businesses need an expanding population.  For a business needs more people to grow.  To buy the goods and services of their expanding business.  Just as government needs an expanding population.  To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government.  An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy.  And a growing and more generous government.  Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family.  Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children.  Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit.  Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  And it’s the same for government.  A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage.  The woman doesn’t leave the workforce.  She builds her career and earns more income.  Providing more tax revenue.  But there is no long-term benefit.  For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them.  So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least.  For marriage is not about civil rights.  It’s about lowering the cost of raising children.  Which both business and government needs.  For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand.  And it will age.  Making it more costly for government.  While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses.  A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive.  And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman.  From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy.  They will not lower the future cost of government.  And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name.  As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage.  During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love.  And these people lived together flaunting convention.  And tradition.  Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements.  These marriage-less committed relationships.  Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left.  If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world.  And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples.  If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone.  Then they could have everything they want.  The free love of the sexual revolution.  Low taxes.  And no reason to get married.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Gun and Knife Violence in UK Despite Ban on Gun Ownership

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 29th, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left loves the United Kingdom.  Not for their rich history of farming advances, representative government, laissez-faire economics, the Industrial Revolutions, etc.  No.  In fact, they’re not big fans of what made the English-speaking world some of the best places to live.  And for those of us lucky to live in that world we say thank you for making us English.  No, what they like is their National Health Service (NHS).  Which they hope to turn Obamacare into one day.  Despite the NHS suffering from massive costs, long wait times, shortages and rationing.  As a national health care system is wont to do.  And the other thing they love about the United Kingdom are their gun control laws.  In the UK the average person cannot own a gun.  Which, of course, according to the Left results in a safer and a less dangerous society (see Knife Crime: Funding To Tackle Youth Violence by Niall Paterson posted 12/27/2012 on Sky News).

The government has announced extra cash to help tackle youth violence and gun crime.

Half a million pounds [about $808,500 US] will be given to the voluntary sector, charities and other organisations working directly with young people at risk of becoming violent offenders and those already involved in knife and gun crime.

In addition, the Home Office intends to expand the “priority areas” in which its Ending Gang and Youth Violence frontline team works from 29 to 33.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: “Serious youth violence has a devastating impact on communities and needs to be stopped.

“We need to change the life-stories of the young people who too often end up dead or seriously injured on our streets or are sucked into a life of violence and crime.

Imagine that.  No guns but there is gun violence.  And a lot of knife violence.  Guess there is more to ending violence than just taking away weapons.  Some areas sound so bad that they could be the south side of Chicago.  Which is a city with very restrictive gun control laws.  And where there is a lot of gun crime.  Where the criminals have the guns to commit the crimes.  But the citizens subjected to this violence cannot own a gun to protect themselves from these crimes.

Guns aren’t the problem.  It’s people who are intent on hurting others.  Whether it is with a gun.  A knife.  Or pure blunt force trauma like that poor woman in India that just passed away after a vicious gang-rape on a bus (see Body of India rape victim arrives home in New Delhi by Adnan Abidi posted 12/29/2012 on Reuters).  People who are intent on hurting others will use the weapon available to them.  Whether it be a gun, a knife or a metal rod.  The choice of weapon may change.  But their intent rarely does by a simple weapons ban.

If they want to hurt someone they will find a way to do so.  Which is why new gun control legislation is a bad idea.  For it won’t change the intent of these people.  For unless we can change or interdict these individuals intent on doing harm they will find a way to do harm.  Perhaps even in a more harmful and indiscriminate way.

What we need is not new gun control laws.  We need a way to prevent these people from wanting to hurt others.  And the root cause for most of these people going astray lie in the policies of the Left.  Their attacks on religion and families (especially ‘predatory’ men) have left our inner cities virtually fatherless (see Fathers disappear from households across America by Luke Rosiak posted 12/25/2012 on The Washington Times).  And Godless.  Without a father to provide a positive male role model a lot of kids turn to the streets.  And gangs.  Inoculating them into violence.  While inoculating them from the Golden Rule.  Where they commit acts of violence with the ease and nature of an animal in the wild.  Who are also raised by a single mom.  And have no concept of the Golden Rule.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT148: “You only know what someone taught you.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

If we Grew up on a Deserted Island isolated from Hate we’d Probably Grow up Better Adjusted to live with One Another

No one is born a racist.  It’s something you have to learn.  Someone has to teach it to you.  If a parent is a racist chances are the child will be bombarded with racial slurs growing up.  And become a racist.  Just like his or her parent.  But if you raised a bunch of babies of different races together on a deserted island in isolation would any of them grow up to be a racist?   No.  For they wouldn’t even know what racism is.  Because the life they knew would be normal.  It would be normal for black, white, brown, red and yellow to live together.

Catholics and Protestants have spent a few centuries killing each other.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  People have been persecuting Jews since forever.  The Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas have been killing Israelis for decades.  Shiite and Sunni have also been killing each other for a very long time.  These people have hated each other so much that they just want to see the other dead.  Yet if you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Shiite and a Sunni baby from their parents and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t grow up wanting to kill each other.  They wouldn’t even know they were supposed to hate each other.

Europe was just itching to go to war.  Nationalistic fervor was just bursting at the seams.  Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, French, Russians and British were ready and waiting.  Filled with nationalist pride.  Just jonesing to open a can of whup-ass on anyone that wasn’t from their own great nation.  Having learned nothing from the Crimean War.  Or the American Civil War.  Thinking they would march their magnificent armies onto the field of battle, fight a glorious battle and watch the enemy throw down their arms and run away.  Even though tactics hadn’t changed much from the Crimean War and the American Civil War.  Though the weapons were far more lethal.  Making World War I one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  But had you taken a German, an Austrian, a Hungarian, a French, a Russian and a British baby from their parents at the turn of the century and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t have grown up wanting to go to war with each other.  As they wouldn’t know that they were supposed to hate each other.

Of all the Things the State did Poorly perhaps the Worst was being Husband and Father

When our parents grew up they often went to bed without locking the doors to their houses.  Even during the days of Prohibition when armed gangs shot each other in the street with automatic weapons.  Today we have deadbolts and alarm systems.  And metal detectors at our schools.  For kids today are taking guns to school.  And they’re shooting people.  This didn’t happen during the days of Prohibition when gangs were armed with Thompson 45-caliber submachine guns.  Why?  Because during Prohibition there weren’t violent video games, graphic violence in movies & television and rap & hip-hop songs glorifying gun violence.  So even though we have less lethal weapons on the streets today we have more gun violence than before.  Because kids have been so desensitized to violence that killing people just isn’t a big deal to them.  Raise these kids on a deserted island away from this violence in our pop culture, though, and they’re not going to kill indiscriminately.  Instead they’ll stay innocent kids longer.

Add to this violence in our pop culture our secular progressive culture.  The Left’s quest to remove religion and God from as much of our lives as possible.  And their attacks on Christianity.  For imposing their moral code on people.  And opposing free love and abortion.  They have gone so far as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from our government buildings.  And our schools.  Because teaching kids things like ‘Thou shall not kill” is a bad thing.  Or any other morality lesson.  For who’s to say what is right and wrong?  Of course when we teach our kids growing up that there are no moral absolutes it sure weakens the argument for them not to do bad things.  It detaches them from society.  And makes them lack empathy for their fellow citizens.  Making it easier to hurt them.  If you pulled these kids out of our public schools and put them and their parents on a deserted island away from this secular progressive culture and filled them with the fear of God for misbehaving they probably could sleep at night with their doors unlocked.  For hurting one another would be the last thing on their minds.

When LBJ passed his Great Society legislation it included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  An unmitigated disaster for poor people.  For it let men father and abandon their children.  Leaving women to turn to the state to act as husband and father.  And of all the things the state did poorly perhaps the worst was being husband and father.  It just decimated poor families.  Single mothers filled housing projects.  Their children, with no male role model, turned to the street.  Got into a lot of trouble.  And into drugs.  Even taking that behavior into their schools.  Which is part of the reason why metal detectors are needed today at our schools.  Forcing organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pick up the parenting slack.  Had these deadbeat dads lived on a deserted island untouched by AFDC there would have been less fathering and abandoning of children.  Like there was before AFDC.

Keynesian Policies have Historically Resulted in High Unemployment and Painful Recessions

After World War II the world went Keynesian.  Classical economics (that favored savings over consumption, low taxes, the gold standard, little government intrusion into the private sector and responsible fiscal policy as in DON’T spend so much) that made America a superpower went out the window.  In came the disaster we call Keynesian economics (that favored consumption over savings, deficit spending, printing lots of money, high taxes and a lot of government intervention into the private sector.  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge in the Twenties were the last of the classical economists.  Their policies gave us great prosperity.  JFK adopted policies of the classical economics variety to pull America out of a recession in the Sixties.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were big Keynesians whose policies destroyed America.  Ronald Reagan rebuilt America in the Eighties by returning to policies of the classical economics variety.  As George W. Bush did to pull us out of the bad recession caused by Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble bursting.

So the record shows the success of classical economics.  And the failure of Keynesian economics.  Yet about half the population voted for the Keynesian policies of President Obama in 2012.  Why?  Why did they vote for more of the failed policies of the past?  Because most Americans learn only of Keynesian economics in their economic courses.  While politicians, economists and the mainstream media endorse Keynesian policies as if they have a record of success.  They do this because Keynesian economics does something that classical economics doesn’t.  Empowers big government.  Sanctions class warfare.  Giving them the moral high ground when raising taxes.  And printing money.  Despite these actions causing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

President Obama won reelection for one of two reasons.  Either people want more free stuff.  Or they don’t understand economics.  Or the consequences of handing out all that free stuff.  For if they understood economics they would not have voted for a Keynesian.  For Keynesian policies have historically resulted in high unemployment and painful recessions.  So even if you’re voting for the free stuff you’d vote for the classical economics candidate.  For without people working there is no income to tax to pay for all of that free stuff.  But few people understand economics.  Which is lucky for President Obama.  In fact, few people understand the disaster that has been the liberal agenda as the liberals control the public schools, our colleges, the mainstream media and the entertainment establishment.  So few are learning the long record of liberal failures.  Which helps liberals win elections.  For you only know what someone taught you.  And if the liars are in charge of teaching us the only things we will learn are their lies.  Unless, of course, we can find some deserted island to grow up on where their policies can’t reach us.  Then when we come back we can make the world a better place.  A place with sound economic policies.  With no racism, no religious intolerance, no blind nationalist fervor, no culture of gun violence and no epidemic of deadbeat dads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries