I'd like to take a minute and post about the date, April 20th, or "4/20" as the legalize pot crowd calls it.
Let me say this first -- Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I'm fine with you doing it in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not exposing it to anyone who doesn't want to smell it or just be around it. In fact, I'm all for legalizing marijuana. I believe that if we legalize it, the unemployment problem in this country would vanish. Just imagine how many jobs would open up after all the potheads light up for days following the great emancipation of "the chronic". Thousands would call off work and thousands would be fired as a result!
Anyway, that's another rant. The topic for today deals with just how annoying the "420" crowd can be. Just like clockwork, 12:00 AM this morning, people start posting on Facebook, "Happy 420, man! Light 'em up!", as if they are part of some secret inner circle and only they and a select few other "cool" people know what "420" means. I personally do know what it means and I find it ironic that so many people celebrate the "day" 4/20 when "420" has absolutely nothing to do with April 20th. I know that most of you probably know what it means too and that is why I don't find it necessary to go into explaining it. Google it.
But anyway, a message to the "420" crowd: You're making asses out of yourselves. I understand how you feel about pot, but give it a freaking rest, for chronic's sake. Jeez! We get it! You smoke pot. You engage in the ganja. You like to fire up a blunt. OK already! Quit your pissing and moaning about how "the man" is demonizing pot and actually get off of your lit asses and do something about legalizing it! Sitting around in circles and talking about how George Washington smoked weed and how the timber industry is against legalization accomplishes absolutely nothing. Get up, take a shower and write to your congressman. Try to be civil about it too. Don't get all hippy on them. Start a petition. Donate money to pro-pot publicity groups. Yes, we know that Bob Marley is your own personal savior and that you never missed a Grateful Dead or Phish concert, but don't sit there and pretend like this is your civil right movement. Don't even compare your struggle to those who faced fire hoses and had to sit at the "colored" table. Marijuana is illegal as of this moment. So, deal with it. If you decide to break the law, then fine... do it. You will be responsible for your actions and I won't feel sorry for you if you get caught. Fight through the legal channels to get it legalized and I just may light one up with you.
Me? Well, I smoked it... a bunch, and quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is... on either side. For those who think pot is an evil drug... no, it's not. If we're going to assign "evilness" to drugs, I would actually say that pot is less evil than alcohol. Now, to the potheads out there who think that marijuana/hemp is the cure for all that ails society, no it's not. I know, you can make clothes and rope and everything under the sun out of hemp, but I can make fertilizer out of my own poop... that doesn't mean that it's the best. I know that pot is used for medicinal purposes as well. There is a pill form of THC (the compound found in marijuana that makes it "sooooo awesome, dude!) but most doctors don't prescribe it because other drugs are much more effective than THC. Some people swear by it... I'm fine with that -- to each their own.
So my stance on the whole thing can be summarized like this:
"Legalize it! So they'll shut the hell up!"
Friday, April 20, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Not Another Isolated Incident
The comments last week by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen have sparked debate about the role of the stay-at-home mother. Rosen's comments should come as no surprise to anyone who regularly follows politics. The left have always despised the stay-at-home mom and the role she plays in our society, and there are 2 big reasons:
A stay at home mom is a threat to the women's movement. The traditional role of the woman in the home was always what you saw in the 50's and 60's TV shows and movies. The woman stayed at home, took care of the kids, cleaned the house, and had dinner and a pipe ready for the man when he walked in the door. That was how it was back then. I'm not saying it's right, but that was a woman's ideal role. Unless you were a teacher or a nurse, you did not belong in the workplace. The 70's saw a women's liberation movement... a well-needed one. Women started going to college en masse and entered the workplace. The pay was horrendous, as chauvinistic employers who retained the traditional thought that "a women's place is in the home" would either not hire women or just pay them much less for doing the same job that a man does. This led to equal opportunity laws that made it illegal to discriminate based on sex.
These were all positive changes in our society. However, with so many women entering the work force, there were an increasing number of homes with both parents working. My home was one of them. Kids would have to go to after-school day care or in the cases where the children were older, they would come home from school to an empty house. These kids soon earned the moniker, "latch key kids". Each home was different. For some, the situation was fine and the home didn't suffer. For others, the kids would start getting into trouble. Some parents, (mostly moms) started deciding that they didn't want to miss out on their kids' childhood. A lot of women who were heavily involved in the women's lib movement saw this migration back to the home as detrimental to their movement. "We worked hard for your freedom to escape the shackles of domestic bandage and now you want to return to your captor?" That kind of thing.
The women's lib movement found a home on the left. This was no surprise. As I illustrated, the single-worker family was destructive to their movement by promoting the "traditional" family of the man working and the woman staying true to her maternal instincts and staying home. But this disdain towards those women who chose to stay home was severely misplaced. The pre-lib woman stayed home because society said she should. The post-lib woman stays home because she chooses to do so. This freedom of women's choice is ironically frowned upon by the left-wing social elites in this country. The women's liberation movement reached an iconic status, almost to the point of dogma. If you're a woman, you have to go to college and get a "real" job. If you choose not to do that, you are inferior to those who do. It actually goes against the whole original idea of the movement of freedom of choice and actual "liberation". Now, non-working mothers are derided and shunned today almost the same way that working mothers were back before the movement. Personally, I believe that every woman has the freedom to do with her life what she wants. I also believe that single-worker families are ideal for raising children. In today's society there are even examples of double-worker families that allow one of the parents to stay home and work, and I think that's great. But it all comes down to what you believe in and what choices you want to make for your family. Stay-at-home moms (and dads) contribute as much to this society as anyone else.
I believe that it does "take a village" in that you obviously can keep your kid locked up in a cage until they are 18. Obviously, they need to interact with society. School, sports, the playground, the grocery store, etc. We all look out for each others kids. Growing up, I was just as afraid of getting caught doing something by my neighbors or my teacher or my friend's parents than I was my own parents. I knew that there was a communication network and that my folks would find out from someone that I was up to no good. For the most part, this kept me in line and that's how I was essentially "raised by my village". But in the end, my parents by far had the greatest role in raising me. Yes, as I mentioned before, I was a latch-key kid, but that wasn't until I was well into middle school. When my folks weren't there after school, my friends parents were. I would spend time at their house. It wasn't the ideal situation, by my parents had to support the household in any way they could and I respect them for that. They still were very active in my upbringing and I will always view them as the driving influence for the values that I have developed to this day.
However, the way the "village" quote is interpreted by many on the left is "you don't completely know what you are doing as a parent. The village will raise your kid while you go out and work." This mentality is so engrained in our society that we are often throwing in the towel on parenting and letting our schools run the show. Do you ever wonder why there is a constant push to make the schools more and more a part of the equation? There is a very strong notion, almost dogmatic as I've said before, that the schools (and therefore the government) can raise your children better than you can. Therefore, you will better serve society if you go out and over-pay for a four year liberal arts degree so that you can enter the work force like a woman is supposed to. Those that CHOOSE to go the domestic route shall be deemed "inferior".
This is an ideology that has been present in our society for 4 decades. I will repeat, I am not against working women! I know that those of you on the left reading this will immediately brand me as "anti-woman" and "sexist", but I have absolutely no problem with a woman who decides to enter the work force on her own free will. The left seems to think that free will only goes in one direction and they snub their noses and look down upon the stay-at-home mom. What Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney was not an isolated incident. She just made the mistake of being honest about how she felt. Ms. Rosen was merely expressing the view point that is held by several elitists on the left. Here are her comments as reminder followed by the distinguished Bill Maher <gag>.
Go to 4:40 to hear the comments specific to Ann Romney...
1. The Women's Liberation Movement
A stay at home mom is a threat to the women's movement. The traditional role of the woman in the home was always what you saw in the 50's and 60's TV shows and movies. The woman stayed at home, took care of the kids, cleaned the house, and had dinner and a pipe ready for the man when he walked in the door. That was how it was back then. I'm not saying it's right, but that was a woman's ideal role. Unless you were a teacher or a nurse, you did not belong in the workplace. The 70's saw a women's liberation movement... a well-needed one. Women started going to college en masse and entered the workplace. The pay was horrendous, as chauvinistic employers who retained the traditional thought that "a women's place is in the home" would either not hire women or just pay them much less for doing the same job that a man does. This led to equal opportunity laws that made it illegal to discriminate based on sex.
These were all positive changes in our society. However, with so many women entering the work force, there were an increasing number of homes with both parents working. My home was one of them. Kids would have to go to after-school day care or in the cases where the children were older, they would come home from school to an empty house. These kids soon earned the moniker, "latch key kids". Each home was different. For some, the situation was fine and the home didn't suffer. For others, the kids would start getting into trouble. Some parents, (mostly moms) started deciding that they didn't want to miss out on their kids' childhood. A lot of women who were heavily involved in the women's lib movement saw this migration back to the home as detrimental to their movement. "We worked hard for your freedom to escape the shackles of domestic bandage and now you want to return to your captor?" That kind of thing.
The women's lib movement found a home on the left. This was no surprise. As I illustrated, the single-worker family was destructive to their movement by promoting the "traditional" family of the man working and the woman staying true to her maternal instincts and staying home. But this disdain towards those women who chose to stay home was severely misplaced. The pre-lib woman stayed home because society said she should. The post-lib woman stays home because she chooses to do so. This freedom of women's choice is ironically frowned upon by the left-wing social elites in this country. The women's liberation movement reached an iconic status, almost to the point of dogma. If you're a woman, you have to go to college and get a "real" job. If you choose not to do that, you are inferior to those who do. It actually goes against the whole original idea of the movement of freedom of choice and actual "liberation". Now, non-working mothers are derided and shunned today almost the same way that working mothers were back before the movement. Personally, I believe that every woman has the freedom to do with her life what she wants. I also believe that single-worker families are ideal for raising children. In today's society there are even examples of double-worker families that allow one of the parents to stay home and work, and I think that's great. But it all comes down to what you believe in and what choices you want to make for your family. Stay-at-home moms (and dads) contribute as much to this society as anyone else.
2. "It Takes a Village"
We all remember Hilary Clinton's quote, "It takes a village to raise a child". This can be interpreted a few different ways, but let me tell you how I think the correct way to interpret it is and then I'll show you how it is used by the left as a reason to bash the stay-at-home mom.I believe that it does "take a village" in that you obviously can keep your kid locked up in a cage until they are 18. Obviously, they need to interact with society. School, sports, the playground, the grocery store, etc. We all look out for each others kids. Growing up, I was just as afraid of getting caught doing something by my neighbors or my teacher or my friend's parents than I was my own parents. I knew that there was a communication network and that my folks would find out from someone that I was up to no good. For the most part, this kept me in line and that's how I was essentially "raised by my village". But in the end, my parents by far had the greatest role in raising me. Yes, as I mentioned before, I was a latch-key kid, but that wasn't until I was well into middle school. When my folks weren't there after school, my friends parents were. I would spend time at their house. It wasn't the ideal situation, by my parents had to support the household in any way they could and I respect them for that. They still were very active in my upbringing and I will always view them as the driving influence for the values that I have developed to this day.
However, the way the "village" quote is interpreted by many on the left is "you don't completely know what you are doing as a parent. The village will raise your kid while you go out and work." This mentality is so engrained in our society that we are often throwing in the towel on parenting and letting our schools run the show. Do you ever wonder why there is a constant push to make the schools more and more a part of the equation? There is a very strong notion, almost dogmatic as I've said before, that the schools (and therefore the government) can raise your children better than you can. Therefore, you will better serve society if you go out and over-pay for a four year liberal arts degree so that you can enter the work force like a woman is supposed to. Those that CHOOSE to go the domestic route shall be deemed "inferior".
This is an ideology that has been present in our society for 4 decades. I will repeat, I am not against working women! I know that those of you on the left reading this will immediately brand me as "anti-woman" and "sexist", but I have absolutely no problem with a woman who decides to enter the work force on her own free will. The left seems to think that free will only goes in one direction and they snub their noses and look down upon the stay-at-home mom. What Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney was not an isolated incident. She just made the mistake of being honest about how she felt. Ms. Rosen was merely expressing the view point that is held by several elitists on the left. Here are her comments as reminder followed by the distinguished Bill Maher <gag>.
Go to 4:40 to hear the comments specific to Ann Romney...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)