Laws banning Alcohol and Drugs didn’t stop Alcohol Violence or Drug Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2013

Politics 101

Prohibition Violence spilled onto the Streets where Gangsters shot up each other with Thompson Submachine Guns

Men have always drunk in this country.  A lot.  After the working day was over they went to their corner saloon.  And drank away their pay.  Getting inebriated.  And making a lot of bad decisions.  Such as drinking away their pay.  Getting into fights.  Engaging the services of prostitutes hanging out at the saloons.  Catching a venereal disease or two.  Taking them home to the wife.  Worse, some of these drunken men were beating their wives.

Alcohol violence was taking a toll on the American family.  In particular on the women in those American families.  This alcohol violence was creating a war on women.  These drunken men were beating their wives.  And inflicting them with venereal diseases.  Causing great harm to their wives.  And destroying their families.  They needed to do something.  And that something led to the temperance movement.  Which ended in Prohibition.  An outright ban on alcoholic beverages.

And it worked.  Alcohol violence on women committed by their husbands decreased.  As did the rate of venereal disease infections on married women.  As Prohibition shut down the local saloons.  And all the problems they caused.  But it didn’t stop everyone from drinking.  There was such a large demand despite Prohibition that others stepped in to meet that demand.  Organized crime.  Prohibition violence spilled onto the streets where gangsters shot up each other, and innocent bystanders, with Thompson submachine guns.  As the profitability of the illicit alcohol trade erupted in violent gang wars.  Allowing crime bosses like Al Capone to take over cities.  And corrupting their police forces.  Causing even more trouble than the original alcohol violence on married women.  So they repealed Prohibition.  And the people could drink once again.  As they always wanted to.

The Illicit Drug Trade picked up where Prohibition left off in terms of Gun Violence

The British were addicted to Chinese tea.  They couldn’t get enough of it.  Or other Chinese luxuries like silk and porcelain.  The only problem was that the Chinese didn’t want anything from Britain.  So as the Chinese goods flowed to Britain silver flowed from Britain to China to pay for their goods.  Causing a huge trade imbalance.  Which the British corrected with the opium grown in India.  And being that opium was addictive more and more Chinese were using opium.  Which reversed the net silver flow.  Allowing the British to enjoy their tea, silk and porcelain.  Which they traded Indian opium for.  Causing an addiction problem in China.  And a destruction of Chinese society.  That the Chinese responded to with the Opium Wars.

Drug addiction has destroyed many families.  And societies.  Throughout the world.  Which is why hard drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal in most countries.  For they are very addictive.  Drug addicts lose their jobs.  Their wives.  Girlfriends.  And families.  As they sink into addiction without a job they often turn to crime to pay for their habit.  Become thieves.  Or prostitutes.  Where they often suffer abuse.  End up in jail.  Or catch AIDS from sharing needles with other intravenous drug users.  Cocaine use spread in more affluent circles.  While crack cocaine devastated poorer circles.  Which is why most of the world has criminalized these drugs.  Despite this demand remains high.  Cocaine use has fallen in the West.  But only because some users have switched to methamphetamine.  Which is cheaper.  More powerful.  And longer lasting.

Like with alcohol someone stepped in to meet this demand.  Organized crime.  And boy did they unleash drug violence onto the world.  From the street gangs shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to control turf.  To the cartels higher up the distribution channels.  The illicit drug trade is big money.  Very big money.  Picking up where prohibition left off.  For it is the criminal element that truly benefits from banning anything.  The drug trade is so lucrative that it is now even funding al Qaeda.  Even though Islam strictly forbids the use of drugs.  But they have no problem taking a percent of the drug trade that flows from South America through Africa on its way to Europe.  Where it can destroy European societies.  Something al Qaeda has no problem with.

People already Breaking the Law will not be Stopped by another New Law

There is an epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.  Committed not by people who support and defend their Second Amendment right to own a gun.  For wanting to do that is not helped by shooting lots of innocent people.  In fact if one is prone to conspiracy theories one could say that the rise in gun violence is oddly coincidental to the Obama administration’s pursuit of gun control regulation.  Especially following Fast and Furious.  A program used by the Obama administration to try and stir up anti-gun sentiment.  Like that the current epidemic of gun violence is stirring up.  Which the conspiracy theorist could find a little too coincidental.   But I digress.

The people committing these acts of gun violence are some pretty disturbed people.  They have mental health issues.  Or are extremely angry about something.  Perhaps because they can’t get a job in the worst economic recovery in U.S. history.  Thanks to President Obama’s economic policies designed more for politics and social justice than actual job creation.  Who knows?  The only thing for certain is that this rise in gun violence corresponds with President Obama’s time in office.  For he didn’t campaign on the need for new gun control legislation.  But like his position on gay marriage he evolved to this position.  After witnessing a rise in gun violence during his time in office.

Whatever the cause is will new gun control legislation change anything?  Well, if we can learn anything from Prohibition and the War on Drugs, yes.  It will change things.  It will give organized crime another lucrative illicit trade.  But unlike alcohol and drugs their customers will not be people just trying to get a drink or a high.  It will be hardened criminals.  Who are shooting each other on the streets to defend their turf.  And at all levels of the illicit drug trade going right up to the cartels at the top.  So the criminals will have their guns.  And there will be new gang wars as criminal elements fight each other to control the gun trade.  Which may even increase the gun violence in places like Chicago.  Which is already one of the deadliest U.S. cities.  Despite having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

So why do they have more gun deaths in Chicago than most cities?  Because there is a high demand for guns by the criminal element in Chicago.  Will a federal ban change that?  Will it put an end to gun violence?  Did it stop alcohol violence during Prohibition?  Does it stop drug violence now?  No.  A gun ban will not change what’s happening in Chicago.  For guns aren’t causing the gun deaths in Chicago.  It’s the people using the guns.  And people already breaking the law will not be stopped by another new law.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT140: “There’s more to women than their vaginas.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Republicans don’t Treat Women like the Taliban Treats Women despite what the Left Says

Is there a war on women?  You would think so if you listen to the Democrats.  Who are shouting from the rooftops that the Republicans are waging a war on women.  That they want to impose nothing less than Sharia Law when it comes to women.  To prevent women from having abortions.  To take away their birth control.  To take away their cancer screening.  Forcing women to give up their careers.  And forcing them into motherhood.  Keeping them barefoot and pregnant.  Doing nothing but having babies and raising kids.  Which according to the Left is worse than 18th century slavery.  Even though women with careers are still having families later in their lives.  Because despite motherhood being worse than 18th century slavery a lot of women still want to raise a family.

Of course this Republican war on women is nonsense.  For they said the same things during the 2 election cycles of George W. bush.  The one election cycle of George H.W. Bush.  The 2 election cycles of Ronald Reagan.  During these 20 years of Republican administrations what the Left warned about never came to be.  There was no Sharia Law imposed on women.  Women were as free as they ever were.  There were no morality police.  There was still porn, strip clubs and prostitution during these years.  Birth control was still available.  Abortion, too.  And, yes, even cancer screening.   Those of us with mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who entered these Republican times emerged from these Republican times with their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.  For the Republicans didn’t treat women like the Taliban treats women.  Despite what the Left says.

Those old enough to remember previous election cycles have heard this war on women rhetoric so often that it becomes white noise that we just tune out.  We don’t take it seriously.  We take it for what it is.  Subterfuge.  The Left’s policies have a record of failure.  Especially their Keynesian economic policies.  Which gave us the stagflation of the Seventies.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  For expansionary monetary policies extend economic booms allowing prices to rise higher than the market would have them.  So the recessions that follow to correct these prices are longer and more painful.  As those prices have a lot farther to fall.  So when your policies have a history of failure it is hard to run on those policies.  So you attack your opponents.  And not their policies.  Because they know conservative policies are better than theirs.

Because of Birth Control and Abortion Men don’t have to Bother with Romance

So who does this strategy work on?  Young people.  People without any real responsibilities yet.  Young women empowering themselves by having sex if they choose to have sex.  And the young men having sex with them.  The women want birth control to be able to have sex without getting pregnant.  And they want access to abortion.  Just in case that birth control doesn’t work.  Or if they surrender to their passions without taking any precautions.  While the young men are always for anything that increases their chances of having sex with the ladies.  So, yes, these young women may lead with their vaginas when it comes to politics.  And vote Democrat just because of their reproductive rights.  For it may be the only thing important in their lives.  As women’s reproductive rights empower women.  It lets them escape the tyranny of motherhood that is little different than 18th century slavery.  It lets them to proudly take control of their sexuality.  At any time they choose.  Whenever they please.  But it’s a different story with men.

Women don’t like men objectifying them.  Which is why they get exasperated.  And say things like, “My eyes are up here.”  Or, “Keep it holstered, buddy.”  As men have only one thing on their mind.  The empowerment of women.  That is, sex.  A lot of women are put off by the constant sexual advances of men.  They decry that all they want is sex.  That they don’t want to talk to them.  To get to know them as a person.  To take long walks on a beach.  Go ballroom dancing.  To take them to the ballet.  To simply hold hands.  Or discuss a book that changed their lives.  Men are just not interested in anything but getting them into bed.  They hit on the pretty ladies in the office.  Making some women uncomfortable.  Some even filing complaints because their behavior makes a hostile workplace.  So women can empower themselves with birth control and access to abortion so they can fully explore their sexuality whenever they want without any shame but when men think about sex they’re just a bunch of dirty old men and perverts.

So reproductive rights kind of send mixed messages to men and women.  It means women can be more sexually active.  Empowering them to explore their sexuality.  Freely and without shame.  Something men understand.  Which leads to them objectifying women.  Because with birth control and abortion men don’t have to bother with romance.  Or wait for marriage.  Because with birth control and abortion men just expect women to have sex without the bother of romance.  Just like Charlie Harper on Two and Half Men.  A character his female company grew to hate.  As shown in the opening of the new season after they fired Charlie Sheen.  Where many of his past lady friends attending his funeral lamented the closed-casket ceremony.  Because they couldn’t spit in Charlie’s face.  Funny.  Because a lot of women feel that way about men like Charlie Harper.  Men who enjoy nothing more than the empowerment of women.

Those on the Right don’t believe Women are One Dimensional

So this is what women are to those on the Left.  Vaginas.  One dimensional people.  Who care about nothing but birth control and abortion.  Which is rather sexist.  The reason why the Left wants to provide women with birth control and abortion is so they can have careers like men.  While still having a good time like men.  Who have careers.  And enjoy casual sex.

But while these men can also be interested in the economy, the unemployment rate, interest rates, the inflation rate, the federal deficit, the federal debt, the impact of the federal debt on their children, national security, property taxes, income taxes, the cost of gasoline, food prices, heating costs, their kids’ public schools, etc., women cannot.  No, they can have no other interests but their reproductive rights.  At least according to those on the Left.  Something those on the Right find offensive.  As they’re talking about our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.

Those on the Right don’t believe women are one dimensional.  They believe that there’s more to women than their vaginas.  We don’t believe those things men can be interested in are too complex for women.  For we believe women can be just as smart as men.  Even smarter.  And they can actually be interested in something other than their vaginas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

UK Study finds that Rape and Sexual Assault victimize One in Ten Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2012

Week in Review

Women have lost a lot since the hippy movement of the Sixties that turned them into sex objects for men to enjoy instead of becoming wives and mothers.  For it was a new world out there.  And women didn’t need to subject themselves to the horrors of wedded bliss.  For the women’s movement liberated them.  They could be whatever they wanted.  Do whatever they wanted.  And have sex whenever and with whoever they wanted.  Thanks to birth control.  And then abortion.  It was a time of empowerment.  And this empowerment led to a boom in pornography, strip clubs and prostitution.  And worse (see Rape Survey Shock: One In 10 Are Victims posted 3/12/2012 on Sky News).

As many as one in 10 women in the UK claim to have been raped, according to new research by parenting website Mumsnet.

The survey of 1,609 women found a tenth of those who responded had been raped and a third had been sexually assaulted.

More than four in five of the victims did not report their perpetrators to the police because of concerns over low conviction rates, embarrassment and shame…

Allison Saunders, chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: “I support the message of the We Believe You campaign, its aim to raise awareness of the extent of these crimes, and to challenge preconceptions.

“As a society we need to be aware of the myths and stereotypes that members of the public who become jury members may hold and which have the potential to influence court outcomes and ultimately lives.

In other words, women are NOT asking for it.  The problem is that the very people (liberals, feminists, etc.) who claim to support and defend women have objectified them.  Which is the unfortunate corollary to women exploring their sexuality and using birth control and abortion to empower themselves.  Because the underlying message is that women are NOT for marrying and raising a family with.  They’re for sex.  Sex without consequences.  Which can’t do anything but objectify women.  And when some knuckle-dragging Neanderthal can’t join in on some of that consequence-free sex when everyone else appears to be enjoying it their twisted little minds interpret that as a personal insult. 

Rape is not about sex.  It’s about power.  Control over women.  A violent response to a lifetime of rejection.  Or not being ‘good enough’ for a night of casual, meaningless sex.  These men blame women for their deficiencies.  Whatever it is that is wrong with them that prevents them from participating in the world of casual sex.  Because if everyone else is doing it and they’re not then something is wrong.  Either with themselves.  Which they refuse to accept.  So that leaves women.

The prevailing attitude about sex today is sending two different messages.  One that encourages women to liberate themselves from the horrors of wedded bliss and to go out and live life to its fullest.  And one that tells too many men that women are some THING just to have fun with.  Not a PERSON to honor, cherish, respect, etc.  And that is why our wives, sisters and daughters are suffering today from some of the most unspeakable of crimes. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s Bipartisan Commission’s Useless Report on Deficit Reduction

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 14th, 2010

Deficit Reduction:  Increase Taxes, Molest Our Women and Have Old People Hurry Up and Die

President Obama’s bipartisan commission has issued their report on deficit reduction.  A lot of unpleasant things in it.  But, then again, what do you expect from a commission/blue ribbon panel?  Politicians lie and kiss a lot of ass to get elected.  And they’re not going to throw that all away acting like they got a pair.  So they hide behind commissions and blue ribbon panels and say, hey, it isn’t me that wants to raise your taxes and cut your benefits.  It’s these guys.  These commission folks.  And they get a report that will meet with certain opposition and die in committee.  But they can say they tried.  And that’s how you do politics when you got no balls.

You know, Sara Palin probably could have done a better job.  She’s hunted bear.  She’s got balls.  Figuratively, of course.  That’s what you need to do the tough stuff.  Guts.  Pity Barack Obama is no Sarah Palin.

So what’s in this report that’s got everyone talking?  More taxes.  And spending cuts (see Fiscal Panel Chiefs Eye $1 Tril Tax Hike, $1.5 Tril Outlay Cut by Jed Graham, Investor’s Business Daily, posted 11/10/2010). 

  • Raise taxes by a cumulative $1 trillion through 2020.
  • Cut discretionary spending by nearly $1.5 trillion over the decade.
  • Raise Social Security’s retirement age to 69 and beyond.
  • Trim cost-of-living increases for current retirees and disabled beneficiaries.
  • Apply a 15-cent gas tax.
  • Cut $500 billion from Medicare and other federal health programs over 10 years.

Well, we know higher taxes don’t stimulate the economy.  So, to pay down the deficit we are going to prolong the recession.  Swell.  Well, at least old people won’t have to worry much.  They’ll be put out of their misery with the ‘hurry up and die’ provisions included.  Less money to live on.  And less health care so they will hurry up and die before reaching 69.  And, if they do, not only does the government not have to pay them their Social Security benefits, but they can keep all that money the newly deceased paid into the system (the deceased’s Social Security benefits don’t go to their heirs which explains why government is so opposed to private 401(k)s – those contributions can be bequeathed to surviving heirs).  And the cuts in discretionary spending?

They proposed cutting annual discretionary spending by $200 billion, half from defense and half from nondefense.

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous defense cuts.  Gotta have defense cuts.  But you know what?  I don’t think they’re going to sit well after this holiday season.  The fondling of our wives, mothers and daughters in our airports.  Strangers looking at semi-naked images of them.  It’s not right.  Is this the price of safety?  The molestation of our wives, mothers and daughters?  I think not.  There are other ways.  And I’m not talking about the apology tour.  And before all you peaceniks start blaming this on America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember this.  We weren’t in those countries before 9/11/2001. It’s better to violate 3-4 enemy combatants a year (say by water-boarding) than having all our women and children molested whenever they fly.  And if it takes a great big fat defense budget to do this, so be it.  Let’s have someone else suffer the fear and humiliation for a change.

Republicans and Democrats Disagree.  Centrists See a Way to Lie to Independents.

So what are others saying?  Well, The New York Times notes there ain’t a chance in hell of it being enacted as-is (see the Op-Ed A Deficit of Respect by Tobin Harshaw posted 11/13/2010 on The New York Times).

“Among Democrats, liberals are in near revolt against the White House over the issue, even as substantive and political forces push Mr. Obama to attack chronic deficits in a serious way,” reports The Times’s Jackie Calmes. “At the same time, Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.”

And The Washington Post dittos that (see Analysis: Deficit panel pushes Dems, GOP by Andrew Taylor and Charles Babington, The Associated Press, posted 11/12/2010 on The Washington Post).

Their plan – mixing painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare with big tax increases – has no chance of enactment as written, certainly not as a whole.

But they also point out warring sides could reach compromise.

On the other hand, a 1982 Social Security commission chaired by Alan Greenspan came up with a plan for solvency that earned the blessing of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Thomas O’Neill, D-Mass. It passed Congress easily and generated almost three decades of program surpluses.

Then again, President Obama is no Ronald Reagan.  Reagan listened to the people.  He communicated with the people.  Unlike Obama.  Who’s detached and aloof.  He pushed his agenda against the will of the people.  For him, it’s all about him.  And there are some Democrats who like him as much as he likes himself.  They look at this report and see not what’s best for the country. But what’s best for Barack Obama (see Deficit Directive Tracks GOP Aims by John D. McKinnon and Laura Meckler posted 11/13/2010 on the Wall Street Journal).

Centrist Democrats are encouraging the president to embrace bipartisan ideas for deficit reduction, even if these are unpopular with the party’s liberal wing. They say that among other benefits, that would help Mr. Obama regain credibility with independent voters he will need to win re-election in 2012. Independents backed him in 2008 but shifted to the GOP this year.

A fight with liberals might even be politically helpful, said Jon Cowan, president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. “If you’re looking at re-election, your No. 1 imperative has got to be winning back the center of the electorate,” he said.

It’s nice to know where some people’s priorities are.

Gridlock Can Reduce the Deficit.  So Can Repealing Obamacare.

Of course, all this bipartisan rancor can be a good thing (see Deficit report favors ‘do-nothing Congress’ by David Sands posted 11/11/2010 on The Washington Times).

The report’s scariest deficit scenario relies on a Congressional Budget Office projection that under what it calls “current policy,” the U.S. government’s debt will soar from the current 60 percent of GDP to 100 percent of GDP by 2023 and to twice the country’s annual economic output by the year 2035.

Current policy?  What’s that?

But “current policy” as defined by CBO does — in the sometimes upside-down world of Washington — require action. It assumes that Congress will pass and President Obama will sign a continuation of at least some of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire; that lawmakers will once again vote to ease the bite of the alternative minimum tax (AMT); that Congress will block a scheduled increase in estate tax rates; and that the government will continue to pass so-called “doc fixes” to shield physicians from mandated cuts in the payments they get under Medicare.

And all that means what?

But if none of those actions are taken — what the CBO calls the “current law” baseline — the deficit numbers look considerably brighter.

In layman terms, we haven’t spent a lot of this money yet.  If Republicans and Democrats simply agree to disagree and give us gridlock, actual deficits won’t be as high as projected.  Yes, there will be pain for some.  But the hole we’ll dig for ourselves won’t be as deep.

And this is really the frustrating part of this whole debate.  These are projections.  They haven’t spent the money yet.  So don’t.  Just don’t spend the damn money.  Repealing Obamacare should be a no-brainer.  That trillion dollar abomination hasn’t given anyone anything yet.  So kill it.  Now.  Before it becomes another entitlement like Social Security.  Come on.  Do the right thing.  And legislate like you got a pair.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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