Democrats make it Easier for Women to Drink, Smoke Pot and Catch Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2013

Week in Review

According to Democrats, Republicans are at war with women.  Because they hate women.  For they want to restrict abortion.  And they want women to pay for their birth control.  Republicans also want women to marry and raise a family instead of just pursuing a career.  The kind of thinking they had in the Middle Ages.  And the Republicans are always talking about God and religion.  Trying to shame women from enjoying their sexual side.  Preferring their women barefoot and pregnant.  Not out having a good time.  Drinking and smoking pot as they please.  And going home with anyone they please to enjoy sexually.  This is what being a modern woman is all about.  The freedom to do whatever the hell they want without any moral judgment.  Just like a man can.  Women have made progress.  But they have a long way to go (see Why female potheads still feel ashamed by Hayley Krischer posted 9/14/2013 on Salon).

Here’s the thing about women and weed: Women generally don’t want to discuss their habit out of fear of being judged or compared to a cartoon. Think Milla Jovovich’s stoner character in “Dazed and Confused” — she had no lines whatsoever and merely stared off into space, and, okay, she painted a Gene Simmons face on that statue. Worse, if you’re a mother, you keep your weed habit secret because you don’t want to be seen as a negligent parent…

Though movies have portrayed men getting high in groups for decades (just this summer Seth Rogen and co. smoked their way through the apocalypse in “This Is The End”), there’s a complete lack of women who smoke weed in pop culture, as Ann Friedman points out in New York magazine: “There are a few depictions of women smoking at home as a way to blow off some steam and bond with each other…

This is exactly why a 43-year-old friend of mine, and a mom of two young boys, won’t discuss her weed smoking with other women. “I don’t want to be judged,” she says. “I think in general women are supposed to be more responsible and something about it is irresponsible…”

Perhaps, eventually, the broader acceptance of smoking weed will spread to women. Two recent examples: Lady Gaga and Rihanna both dressed up as bedazzled cannabis queens last year for Halloween. (Rihanna dressed as a weed bride with a bouquet of bud. Lady Gaga covered her nipples with sativa leaf nipple pasties.) And there’s an opportunity for women to create their own statement about marijuana in the future without feeling so, ahem, paranoid. I saw some hope after a conversation with my 21-year-old cousin, a senior at Oberlin, who says most of her girlfriends freely smoke weed. “People think it’s cool if girls smoke weed.” And then as an afterthought she added, “It might also be because of my environment.”

For the most part smoking weed is illegal.  So it is irresponsible.  Especially if you have children.  As parents don’t want their children to see them breaking the law.  For if breaking the law is okay then it must be okay not to listen to your parents, too.  “Do your homework, clean your room, don’t drink until you’re of legal age,” says a kid’s parent.  “But you smoke pot and that’s illegal,” says the kid.  “Damn,” says the parent.  “Then I guess it’s okay if you break the law and drink.”

No doubt a lot of mothers want to hide their weed habit from their kids to avoid exchanges like this.  Which will be easier to do if they hide it from everyone.  If she smokes with another mother this other mother could talk to her husband about her getting stoned with her friend which can be overheard by this other mother’s kid.  That kid tells his friends who then tell their friends and the next thing you know they kick this stoner mother off the PTA.  So it’s still an uphill battle for women to get high.  But at least they are making progress elsewhere.  Closing the gap between men and women.  Something that should make Democrats happy (see Number of female DUIs soaring across the country, statistics show by Emily Alpert posted 9/12/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

Women make up a bigger share of arrests for driving under the influence than they did decades ago, but little attention has been paid to how to halt or handle the trend, according to a report released Thursday.

Federal statistics showed that women constituted nearly a quarter of DUI arrests across the United States in recent years. In 1980,  the number was just 9.3%, but the percentage has risen almost every year for three decades, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Yet most research on drunk driving focuses on men…

The Canadian group found some common threads among the female offenders: Almost all said they faced a stressful event such as a breakup or death in the family before their arrest. More than three-quarters said they used at least one prescription medication for anxiety, depression and other disorders. And more than half were single, separated or divorced.

The report also found that the women fit into three categories: young women who drink to “fit in” at house parties or bars; recently married women who drink to cope with loneliness after their children are born; and divorced older women or empty-nesters who begin to drink later in life.

When women married and raised families they were drinking and driving less.  Because they were happier.  For over half of the women with a DUI were single, separated or divorced.  That is, they were not married and raising a family.  They were not happy.  And because they were not happy they drank more.

So who, then, is fighting this war on women?  Those who are doing everything to make it easier to drink, get high and have sex?  That leads to more unhappiness and more drinking?  As well as an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases?  Or those who champion marriage and family?  That leads to more happiness and less drinking?  And fewer sexually transmitted diseases?

You probably should ask mothers what they want for their daughters.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Imagine what the Left would be saying if President Obama was a Republican

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 7th, 2013

Politics 101

President Obama added more to the Federal Debt in 4 Years than Reagan and Bush did in 8 Years

The Left hated Republican Ronald Reagan.  Because his policies worked.  He cut federal income tax rates.  And those cuts in tax rates increased tax revenue coming into the federal treasury by 75.8% during his 8 years in office (see Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017).  Even though the Left likes spending money and loves having more money flowing into the treasury they can’t stand that this growth in tax revenue came from a cut in tax rates.  So they focus on his deficits.

They say, yes, he generated great economic activity, but at what cost?  He added $1.69 trillion to the federal debt (see A History of Debt In The United States) in his 8 years ($2.51 trillion in 2012 dollars).  The Left say he was irresponsible, reckless and was mortgaging our children’s future.  While President Obama has added $5.39 trillion to the federal debt.  In only FOUR years.  That’s just over twice what Reagan added in only half the time.  On top of that tax revenue fell 2.19% from where they were in 2008.  Yet President Obama is not irresponsible, reckless or mortgaging our children’s future.  Instead the Left blames the Republicans because they won’t increase tax rates.

Republican George W. Bush added $3.15 trillion to the federal debt over his 8 years.  President Obama’s 4 years in office outdid that by 1.7 times.  And Bush beefed up homeland security after 9/11.  Fought the War in Afghanistan.  And the Iraq War.  Bush cut taxes, too.  Not as much as Reagan.  Probably explaining why he didn’t increase tax revenues as much as Reagan.  After his 8 years in office he increased tax revenues by 24.6%.  While President Obama decreased tax revenue by 2.19% after his first 4 years in office.  Yet George W. Bush was irresponsible, reckless and mortgaging our children’s future.  While President Obama is not.

President Obama vowed to Shut Down Gitmo and try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a U.S. Court

The Left really hated George W. Bush.  They didn’t just want to impeach him.  They wanted to arrest him for war crimes for his invasion of Iraq.  Among other things.  They called him every dirty name in the book.  Even accused him of trying to give himself dictatorial powers.  Which is what the Patriot Act did according to the Left.  There are few things that angered the Left more.  They hated the powers it gave the president in the War on Terror.  Even allowing warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

If an American citizen was talking to someone with known terrorist connections the Bush administration didn’t need to go to a judge.  They could just listen into private phone calls like in any other dictatorship.  The Patriot Act was everything that was wrong with George W. Bush.  And his assault on personal liberties.  But when President Obama renewed the Patriot Act the Left did not call President Obama every dirty name in the book.  Or accuse him of trying to amass dictatorial powers.  After he renewed the Patriot Act all criticism of the Patriot Act just went away.  Just as the daily body count in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan went away from the network news broadcasts once President Obama moved into the White House.

As the War on Terror progressed the U.S. started taking terrorists into captivity.  People who wore no uniform.  Who fought for no state signatory to the Geneva Convention.  Who followed no rules.  And killed indiscriminately.  Men.  Women.  Even children.  The U.S. incarcerated these most dangerous outlaws on the island of Cuba.  At Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.  Gitmo.  Including the mastermind of 9/11.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The Left called this a travesty of justice.  They wanted to shut down Gitmo.  Transfer these men to U.S. prisons in the United States.  And give them proper trials.  They even wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.  Not far from Ground Zero.  For these prisoners in Gitmo deserved the full protection of the American criminal justice system.  Not military tribunals.  President Obama vowed to shut down Gitmo if elected.  And give these outlaws the full protection of the U.S. legal system.

President Obama acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner when Targeting and Killing Americans Abroad

But that’s not the only thing the war criminal George W. Bush did.  He also tortured people.  He water boarded three terrorists.  And held people in foreign countries where they did who knows what to these terrorists.  To gather intelligence.  To help the U.S. interdict terrorist strikes against America.  And to ultimately lead us to Osama bin Laden.  But to the Left these things were just beyond the pale.  Crimes against humanity.  They wanted to do to Bush what Bush was doing to these terrorists.  They even applauded when foreign states issued arrest warrants for George W. Bush should he travel to their countries.  President Obama was going to reverse the damage Bush did to the reputation of the U.S.  And make America the law-abiding nation it once was.

It’s now 2013 and Gitmo is still open.  And those terrorists are still there.  Also, they’re being tried in military tribunals.  Not the American criminal justice system.  Yet the Left doesn’t call President Obama a war criminal.  Terrorist incarcerations are down, too.  Thanks to his policy of drone strikes.  And his kill list.  Instead of capturing terrorists he just kills them.  Without a trial.  Along with any innocent civilians who had the misfortune to be near these terrorists during these drone strikes.  Who are identified as terrorists after the fact.  So his drone strikes don’t kill any innocent civilians.  Not taking prisoners solves the problems of what to do with terrorists in American custody.  But dead terrorists can’t give us intelligence that can interdict future terror strikes.  While dead terrorists and dead innocent civilians incite anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.  That has led to al Qaeda recruitment.  And attacks on U.S. embassies.

But President Obama is doing something that George W. Bush never did.  While the Left attacked the Bush administration for their legal defense of enhanced interrogation techniques (what the Left calls torture) the Obama administration had a legal defense of their own.  But it wasn’t to justify water boarding three terrorists to gain useful intelligence.  It was for killing Americans in foreign countries who MAY present a threat to the U.S.   Which he has done.  Three times.  Without due process.  Where the president acted as judge, jury and executioner.  Like someone with dictatorial powers.  Yet the Left doesn’t call President Obama a war criminal.  Despite doing a lot of the same things George W. Bush did.  And worse.  Like targeting and killing Americans abroad.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Britain’s Liberal Democrats propose Lowering the Voting Age to bring in more Irresponsibility into Parliament

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2012

Week in Review

A teenage girl goes home to live with mom after her boyfriend left her.  And her unborn child.  Another teenage girl in high school saves her allowance for cigarettes.  A high school friend dies in a DUI accident that he caused.  A high school kid overdoses on drugs he took from his parent’s medicine cabinet.  Kids make a lot of bad decisions.  A lot drink while underage.  A lot drive while drunk.  A lot use drugs.  A lot engage in casual sex that results in a pregnancy or an STD.  This is why drugs are illegal.  And why we have a minimum age to drink.  And to smoke.  To minimize the effect of their bad decisions.  Because high school kids are really, really irresponsible.  Always putting ‘having a good time’ ahead of acting responsibly.  So based on that here’s a good idea.  Let’s have these same irresponsible kids vote (see Give 16 year olds the vote, say peers by Christopher Hope posted 10/22/2012 on The Telegraph).

New legislation published on Monday would extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds in all elections and referenda in the United Kingdom…

Lord Tyler, who was the Liberal Democrats’ former shadow Leader of the Commons, said: “It isn’t good enough for Scots young people to be heard, just once, on this vital question, and then ignored thereafter, and worse still that English, Welsh and Northern Irish young people will continue not having a say at all…”

He added: “What about the expected referendum on Europe? I visit sixth forms regularly, and find students there more engaged and knowledgeable about current affairs, the state of the world and the state of our country, than many of the older people I bump into here in the House of Lords. It is time to give them a say.”

Those old people in the House of Lords?  They probably are refusing to vote for more irresponsible spending.  Like more subsides for university students that they simply can’t afford.  And other government benefits.  Of course if you can replace the responsible people in Parliament (or Congress in the US) with irresponsible people you can probably keep spending money you don’t have.  And having irresponsible kids vote can make that happen.  Because they are always putting ‘having a good time’ ahead of acting responsibly.  And would love to have free college.  Including room and board.  And some spending money for after classes.  All paid for by government.  As well a lower drinking age (“if we’re responsible enough to vote at 16 we’re responsible enough to drink”).  A lower smoking age.  Even decriminalize marijuana.  And champion other pressing concerns high school kids have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,