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

Guns vs. Butter

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2013

Economics 101

When Children get their Allowance their Faces light up as they Think of all that Spending they’ll Do

Parents try to teach their kids to be responsible.  And to understand that they are not rock stars.  They can’t have “everything all the time.”  Because if you can you get bored.  And look for new ways to kill that boredom.  Like developing a coke habit.  (“There were lines on the mirror, lines on her face.”  Life in the Fast Lane.  The Eagles.)  Which is bad.  Very, very bad.  So this is where a weekly allowance comes in.  It teaches kids to be responsible.  And to budget their wants.  To make choices.  If they want more of one thing they learn they have to have less of another.  This is economic reality.  And the sooner they learn it the better off they will be.

So what does a kid want?  Food, candy, games, toys, comic books, going to the movies and consuming a lot of concession food and drinks.  And other stuff.  What does a parent want?  Their kids not to want so much of these things.  And not to whine.  Especially that.  They also want them to learn the importance of saving money.  To spend less and save more.  So later in life should they lose their job they will have savings to live on while they look for another job.  Without having to move back home.  So they may give a child an allowance of $100 a week.  Telling that child it’s for those things they want.  And for putting a little in the bank every week.  So they can have some money for later.  During a time they really need it.  And when the child gets that $100 his face lights up.  Thinking of all that spending he’s going to do.  While thinking nothing about saving.

Kids Allowance and Budget

The parent watches with proud satisfaction as their child budgets his wants.  For 5 weeks he pays for his school lunch.  Spends a fixed weekly amount on candy.  When he wanted to spend more on games, toys and comic books he cut back spending on movie night.  Even not going to the movies at all in Week 4 because he chose instead to buy an expensive game.  The parents are happy to see their child live within his budget.  But are disappointed that he spent all of his allowance without putting any of it in the bank.

With this Easy Credit he soon realizes that he can have Everything all the Time

Then the parents divorce.  The mother remarries.  The new stepdad really wants his stepson to like him.  While he is bitter about his parents’ divorce.  The stepdad keeps the same allowance structure in place.  But in a desperate attempt to get him to like him he is more than willing to make advances on his allowance.  Loaning money easily.  But charging interest.  To continue the lesson of responsibility.

Kids Allowance and Budget with Deficits

With easy credit and wanting more toys the stepson borrows money in Week 2.  $10.  And buys more games and toys.  Paying $1.10 for the allowance advance.  Liking the ability to buy more at the toy store he goes back for another loan in Week 3.  This time $20.  Paying $3.42 in total interest charges at the end of the week.  Losing the lesson of living on an allowance he goes back to borrow more.  This time $30.  Paying $7.10 in total interest.  With this easy credit he soon realizes that he can have everything all of the time.  And in Week 5 he borrows $40.  With his interest on the outstanding balance adding up to $12.28.  Which is almost enough to buy his school lunches for a week.

At the end of Week 5 he owes $100 in allowance advances.  Which he will have to eventually pay back.  Seeing how irresponsible the child got the stepdad refuses future allowance advances.  Upset the kid starts whining.  A lot.  Annoyed the stepdad calls in the loan.  He gives the child his $100 weekly allowance.  And then takes it back.  The child whines more.  For he can’t buy anything that week.  Not even school lunch.  Having to brown-bag it.  A peanut butter sandwich and an apple.  Making pizza day a living hell.  For he has no savings to live on during this difficult time.  As he was a spendthrift with his money.  Ignoring the sage advice of his parents to save for a rainy day.  So he suffers the most painful time of his life.  Extreme austerity for a week.

When they can’t reduce Defense Spending anymore they simply Borrow Money to keep Spending

This example is similar to how the federal government works.  The taxpayers are the kids.  And the stepdad are the politicians in the federal government trying to make taxpayers like them.  So they keep voting for them.  Only the politicians don’t want the people to learn to be responsible.  To budget their wants.  To understand that if they want more of one thing that they have to have less of another.  No.  They want them to believe they can have everything all of the time.  If only they vote for them.  How can they do this?  Unlike a parent the federal government can print money.  Making it the best stepdad in the world.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the federal government was to provide for a common defense.  After winning their Independence they couldn’t get the British to leave our soil.  Or prevent the Barbary pirates from capturing our merchant ships and selling our sailors into slavery.  The new federal government was to provide a military force to protect Americans.  The Founding Fathers wrote this into the Constitution.  What they didn’t write into it was all the social spending we see today.  Often at the expense of defense spending.  The great political debate of how to divvy up spending between defense and the social stuff we see today is the guns vs. butter debate.  Where strict constructionists wanting to keep spending per the intent of the Founding Fathers.  All guns and no butter.  The ‘butter’ being an issue for state governments.  While progressives and liberals want all butter and no guns.  Because they hate the military.  And think they can talk to our enemies and make them like us.  Most other people want something in between.  As shown by  this graph.

Gunds vs Butter

If you spend 80% on guns that only leaves 20% for butter.  If you spend 50% on guns that leaves 50% for butter.  If you only spend 20% on guns that leaves 80% for butter.  And so on.  Progressives and liberals want to move as far to the left on this graph as possible.  Because the farther left they go the more they please their stepchildren.  Who become accustomed to all that spending.  And show their appreciation by continuing to vote for their stepdad.  Of course they can’t reduce defense spending to 0% because there are people out there who hate us and want to hurt us.  So when they can’t reduce defense spending anymore they simply borrow money to keep spending.  So they can keep spoiling their stepchildren.  Whose faces light up when they think about all the spending they are going to do.  With the added benefit that they will never have to repay that spending.  Or learn economic reality.  Until, that is, the government gets so overextended they have to implement a little austerity of their own.  Only it won’t last a week like it did for that spoiled child.  Instead it will be more like it was in Greece.  It will last years.  And include some rioting.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT113: “In the liberal war on women their number one enemy are stay-at-home mothers not on welfare.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Plato’s Perfect State included Selective Breeding, State Rationed Health Care and Euthanasia

Liberals are fans of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.  And his utopian idea of the perfect state.  Which he passed down to us in his Republic.  His book of fictional conversations where Socrates engaged in dialogs to develop and advance his philosophy.  His utopia?  A totalitarian state.  Where everyone sacrifices for the good of the state.  Sound familiar?  Think of Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, National Socialism, Islamism, etc.  Where the state provides the basic necessities of life.  And frowns on luxuries, liberty and free speech. 

In Plato’s world everyone is equal.  Only some people are more equal than others.  The Guardians of the state are the wisest and brightest and make all the decisions of this perfect state.  These are the most equal.  Then came the state bureaucracy.  Those who manage things for the Guardians.  Then came the reeks and wrecks of society.  The expendables.  The undesirables.  Who are little more than slaves.  Or are slaves.  The workers who get their hands dirty while providing for the state.  The Guardians maintain these divisions through selective breeding and propaganda.  Making the people believe the separation of these classes is just and right.  And nothing to question.  Even to accept the selective breeding to produce a super race.  Or to learn not to question it.  The perfect state includes a national health care system.  To manage the super race.  That determines who to treat based on their usefulness to the state.  And who to euthanize because they have no state value.

Plato’s perfect state destroyed the family.  People lived communally.  The state took away babies from mothers and raised them ‘correctly’ to grow up to best serve the state.  Determining their level of ‘equalness’ and placing them accordingly.  Educating the children in the public education system.  Where the most equal make it to the Academy.  The state-run college.  Where the wisest philosophers of the state indoctrinated the new Guardians.  And educated the state bureaucrats.  To ensure that only the best stock entered their schools they managed the mating between men and women and forbade cross-class mating.  To maintain the purity of the classes.  Especially the higher classes.  A society where all children grew up loyal to the state.  Not to their parents.  To promote the superiority of the state.  And the subjugation of the people. 

Abortion and Birth Control helps the State Limit the Birth of People they Deem less Desirable

This is the liberal utopian view they see for America.  Where a kind and just government grows to protect the people.  Where the smartest people run things.  Who know what’s best for the people.  And decide for the people.  For the people aren’t wise enough to know what’s best for them.  Just like in Plato’s perfect state.  The wisest and brightest advance through the most prestigious of America’s universities.  And enter leading positions in the government.  After learning what the ideal state should be.  Progressive.  And subjugated to the state.  Lower universities train future state bureaucrats to embrace the ideal state.  Emphasizing fairness and justice.  And shared sacrifice.  Pointing out the cruel unfairness of capitalism.  And the kind, loving care of the government.  They will manage the state for the enlightened leaders.  While the lower classes are kept uneducated.  And dependent on the government.  Where they provide a critical service for the state.  By making the government necessary for most to survive.  To get around the repugnant restraints of democracy.  By having people continuously vote for the state to subjugate them.  Thus disciplining the masses.  And keeping them in their place.  At the lower end of the social strata.  And away from the upper classes.

The Holy Grail of large, interventionist government has always been national health care.  For it extends the state’s control to almost every facet of the people’s lives.  For they can tie anything into being health related.  And thus subject to the state’s regulation.  Also, this power over life and death serves another purpose.  Spreading limited resources over a larger group of people requires rationing of health care treatment.  As determined by the wisest and the brightest.  Who will direct their bureaucrats in the rationing of health care treatment.  Determining who’s too sick for treatment so they can use that treatment, instead, on someone more beneficial to the state.  A passive euthanasia policy.  Until the people will not object to a proper active euthanasia policy.

At the other end of the spectrum is abortion and birth control.  Which they make plentiful and easy to get.  Especially for the lower classes.  To limit the birth of people the state deems less desirable.  Those who give in to their animal passions instead of sacrificing for the state.  A common problem with the people in the lower classes.  Who lack a proper college education indoctrinating them into the proper behavior that best serves the state.  These lower class people are useful to the state by keeping the government necessary.  But at the same time they upper classes of government don’t want to be overrun with these people they see as inferiors.  Birth control and abortion helps the state to keep the births of this class at more acceptable levels.

Liberals hate Stay-at-Home Mothers because they Sacrifice for their Family and not the State

But this causes a bit of a problem.  By limiting the birth of the state-deemed undesirables they are also limiting the number of voters who will ask the state to subjugate them.  Which is a problem because the upper classes aren’t having a lot of kids themselves.  Women are too busy with their careers for the inconvenience of family.  Unless they’re rich and can afford to nanny it out.  As the properly educated higher classes enjoy sex without the consequence of children they cull the stock of the higher classes.  Leaving only one group embracing the family and having children.  Those who reject the state’s view of the perfect society.  Enjoy sex.  And like making babies.  Who they raise.  Some even becoming stay-at-home mothers.  Devoting everything to their families.  While their husbands provide their financial needs they take on the full-time job of parenting and managing the household.  On call 24/7.  Even taking their work with them on vacation.  And all without any help from the government.  Fully independent.  Responsible.  And free.  Which is a great threat to the ideal state as envisioned by Plato.  And every totalitarian state since.  These people who put family first instead of the state.  These people who don’t even need the state.

The state wants women to work.  If they have children, they want these women to return to work as quickly as possible.  To break up the family.  To separate their children from their parents as soon as possible.  Putting their children into state-sponsored childcare.  To begin the indoctrination process.  To make them loyal to the state and not their parents.  Which is why they love the two-parent income required to raise children today.  It helps to separate children from their parents.  Putting kids into after-school programs to further their indoctrination.  Better yet are the single mothers.  Who become fully dependent on the state.  And teach their children to love the state.  Because only the state provides.  Unlike the father that abandoned them.  These single mothers are the most likely to vote to further their state of subjugation.  To become fully dependent on the state.  And forever obedient.

This is why liberals today have a war on women.  In particular, the stay-at-home mother.  Who they hate.  And attack at will.  For choosing to be a stay-at-home mother.  For focusing too much time on their children.  For being too involved in their children’s education.  And for teaching their children to be independent and responsible.  Undoing years of the state’s indoctrination in the public school system.  These women are enemies of the perfect state.  Because they sacrifice for their families.  Not the state.  Worse of all, these most disobedient of women are having too many babies.  The real reason why the state hates them so.  Because if they can’t get rid of that problem they call democracy they will need to keep winning elections.  Which will be harder to do when each subsequent generation of like-minded voters is smaller than the last.  So their super race will disappear over time.  As will the perfect state.   For selective breeding will only work when people breed.  But not just any people.  It has to be the right people.  Not these stay-at-home mothers.  Who don’t sacrifice correctly.  And don’t subjugate themselves to the state.  As liberals believe they should.  Because liberals love Plato.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Electoral College

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers put Responsible, Enlightened and Disinterested People between the People and their Government

The Founding Fathers were no fans of democracy.  Election by popular vote was little more than mob rule.  It would lead to the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  And as Benjamin Franklin warned, once the people learned they could vote themselves money from the treasury, they would.

These feelings extended to the states as well.  The small states did not want to be ruled by the large states.  This is why every state had two senators in the Senate.  To offset the influence of the big states in the House of Representatives.  Where the people voted for their representatives by direct popular vote.  And to offset the influence of the new federal government, the state legislatures would elect their senators.  Giving the states a large say in federal affairs.

Knowing history as they did, this was all very purposeful.  Indirect elections.  Putting other people between the people and the power of government.  And the treasury.  The people would vote for responsible, enlightened and disinterested people to represent them.  Then these responsible, enlightened and disinterested people would make policy.  And by doing this the Founding Fathers hoped that the new republic would survive.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a Federation of Independent States

Blacks make up about 12% of the population.  Gay and lesbians less than 1.5%.  In a true democracy it would not be difficult for the majority to win a popular vote to make these people illegal.  As crazy as that sounds a democracy could do that.  If that was the way the mob felt at the time of the vote.  This was the kind of thing the small states worried about.  As well as the Founding Fathers.  A tyranny of the majority.  Where anything goes.  As long as the majority says so.

Interestingly, a popular vote could have freed the slaves.  Which was a concern of the southern states.  The Three-Fifth Compromise was yet another provision the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution.  To get the southern states to join the new union.  This counted 3/5 of a slave as a person to determine representation in the House of Representatives.  Which would offset the numerical superiority of free people in the northern states.  And prevent them from ruling the southern states.  Which is pretty much what happened after the Civil War.  As the freed slaves tended to vote along with their northern liberators.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a federation of independent states.  For before there was a United States of America there were independent states loosely associated together.  Coming together only when they needed each other such as winning their independence from Great Britain.  Even during the Revolution the states were still fiercely independent.  And getting these fiercely independent states to join together in a more perfect union required a lot of checks and balances.  A separation of powers.  And indirect elections.  Which the Founding Fathers dutifully included in the new Constitution.  It wasn’t perfect.  But it was the best such a diverse group of people and beliefs could produce.

The Seventeenth Amendment Destroyed a very Large Check on Federal Power

Of course, this leaves the presidential election.  And the Electoral College.  Which grew out of the same concerns.  Of trying to prevent the large states from ruling the small states.  The Electoral College blended together the popular vote of the House of Representatives.  And the indirect vote of the Senate.

Each state had electors who actually voted for the president.  The number of electors in each state equaled that state’s representation in Congress.  The number of representatives in the House (population-based).  And the number of senators (state-based).  The electors typically cast all of their electoral votes based on the outcome of the popular vote of their state.  Which is why sometimes presidents win elections even though they lose the national popular vote.  An outcome designed by the Founding Fathers.  To prevent a tyranny of the majority from ruling over the minority.

Some things have changed since the Founding.  We extended the right to vote to black men.  And then later to women.  Both good things.  But not all changes were good.  Such as the Seventeenth Amendment.  Perhaps the biggest change from the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Ratified in 1913, it changed the election of Senators from a vote by the state’s legislature to a popular vote like that for the House.  Destroying a very large check on federal power.  Creating a much more powerful central government by transferring power form the states to the federal government.  What the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in the original Constitution.  With their checks and balances.  Their separation of powers.  And their indirect elections.  Including the Electoral College.  Which, if eliminated, would give even more power to the federal government.  And a greater ability for the majority to rule unchecked over the minority.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Drug Violence on our Southern Border and Catcalls in New York City are Related – Societal Decay Responsible for Both

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 30th, 2010

The drug cartel violence crosses the U.S. border.  Beheaded body found in Phoenix, Arizona.

It’s getting a little violent on this side of the U.S. border.  The latest?  This from AP’s Amanda Lee Myers’ Arizona beheading raises fears of drug violence posted on apnews.myway.com:

The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.

The police think the victim was stealing drugs from the cartel.  And this was a message to others who might be thinking about doing likewise. 

Decapitations are a regular part of the drug war in Mexico as cartels fight over territory. Headless bodies have been hanged from bridges by their feet, severed heads have been sent to victims’ family members and government officials, and bags of up to 12 heads have been dropped off in high-profile locations.

The crime appears confined to members of the drug trade.  It’s a little reassuring for the innocent bystanders close to the crime.  ‘Little’ being the key word.

“I’m terrified,” said [a neighbor], a 47-year-old housekeeper who lives two doors down from the apartment. “I’ve lived here for 20 years and I’ve never heard of that (decapitation) happening, and it was so close to us … Maybe they’re copying what’s happening in Mexico.”

But it hasn’t been exactly restricted to the drug trade.  There has been some collateral damage. 

While extreme violence has stayed south of the border for the most part, some of it has spilled over into the U.S.

In March, Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities believe – but have never produced substantive proof – that an illegal immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame for his killing.

In May 2009, a Mexican drug cartel lieutenant who became an informant for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was shot eight times outside his pricey home in El Paso. The lieutenant, Jose Daniel Gonzalez Galeana, was living in Texas on a visa that ICE gave him, and is believed to be the first ranking cartel member killed in the U.S.

Payan described the spillover as minimal, but said it could increase.

And what is the federal government doing to address border security?  Suing Arizona.  And putting up some signs that warn Americans about unsafe American territory.

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons on the rise in New York City.  Young girls harassed near their schools.

In a serious news story about women being harassed on the streets of New York (see AP’s NYC Considers a No Catcall Zone posted on www.nbcnewyork.com on 10/29/2010), the article starts off with a most inappropriate photo.  It shows a woman’s feet in what appears to be 6-inch stiletto heels.  The kind of shoes you’d see a stripper wear on stage.  Or so I’ve heard.  One thing for certain, though, any man looking at the photo is going to imagine a smoking hot woman attached to those feet.  The kind of a woman that burly construction workers would whistle at.  And, to be fair, a woman dressed like THAT may be disappointed if they didn’t.  So it’s a rather poor choice of a photo to use with this article.  For although we know:

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street.

Some men are clearly crossing the line. 

A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem.

And what is the city of New York doing about this issue?

Hollaback [an organization formed five years ago to stand up to street harassment] is pushing the city to commission a study, a public awareness campaign and perhaps even legislation, including “no-harassment zones” around schools to protect young women.

Madonna, Brittany Spears and Glee go too far in sexualizing young girls?

Now, what do these two stories have in common?  Although the victims aren’t responsible for the crime/harassment against them, the society that they are a part of is.

The Left wants to give condoms to our kids.  And make abortions available when a pregnancy happens.  We need to be progressive.  Kids are having sex.  We need to stop being so puritan and treat our kids as adults.  Like the television show Glee does.  In that show adults play high school kids.  And their audience is primarily high school kids and younger.  They’ve had some pretty questionable content on that show.  Madonna and Brittany Spears video parodies.  And they’ve appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine, dressed as high school kids.  But you could look up one of the girls’ skirt and see her little white panties.  And the same ‘girl’ just did a GQ photo shoot, posing inside a high school.  Again, showing her little white panties.   Of course, these kids are really adults. But they play kids. 

The Left attacks the world of Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best & Ozzie and Harriet.  But you gotta admit this; they didn’t objectify women.  You didn’t see any of them sexualizing young girls.  And New York City didn’t have council meetings discussing possible legislation banning catcalls around schools.

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and crystal meth supplied by Mexico to meet demand in the United States.

They’re trying to legalize marijuana again in California.  They say it’s no big deal.  It’s no worse than drinking.  And all that talk about it being a gateway drug to the stronger stuff?  That’s just ridiculous.  Then again, that stronger stuff is crossing the border along with the marijuana.  Which begs the question, why?  Who’s using the harder stuff?  People who’ve moved on from marijuana? 

The vast majority of drugs coming in from Mexico and causing all that trouble on the border is marijuana.  There’s big money in Mexican marijuana.  And it will get bigger and bloodier if California legalizes it.  More customers.  And lower prices (legal things tend to be cheaper than illegal things).  The drug gangs will fight to expand their territory.  And fight to not lose any of their territory.  So there’s marijuana.  Also coming in from Mexico is cocaine, black tar heroin and, of course, crystal meth.  Meth is a booming business since they restricted the sale of decongestants in the states.  They have factories in Mexico creating this stuff wholesale.  And shipping it to the United States.  Why?  Because we keep saying drugs are no big deal.

Sex and drugs responsible for societal decay?

Sex and drugs.  Everybody does it/them.  We need to accept it.  Treat kids as adults.  And when there are consequences to this behavior, we play the blame game.  It’s not school condoms and abortion on demand that is making people look at girls/women as sexual objects.  It’s men acting as animals.  For girls/women it’s empowering and liberating.  But it’s primitive animal behavior for men.  Of course, women can’t be empowering or liberating sexually without men.  So men are obliging.  And they’re apparently thinking about it all of the time.  Even when working on a construction site.

And when it comes down to pointing the finger of blame for the border violence, I don’t know if we can point it at just the drug gangs.  I mean, they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing if it wasn’t for all those Americans eagerly looking to buy what they are selling.

So, when men whistle at a girl/woman, or there is a drug-gang murder on the border, society’s to blame.  And it’s important to emphasize that the individual victims themselves are not responsible.  It is the societal decay that has preconditioned the predator.   They think it’s all right.  Because everyone is having sex.  And doing drugs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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