Archive for the ‘edu’ Category

Sexuality, Women, Pedestrians

Women and pedestrians- vulnerable.

Everybody understands the pedestrian bit. There are common sense rules.

Don’t walk into traffic or jaywalk in dark clothing at night. Walk against the traffic, keep an eye/ear out for wayward cars, etc.

People break these rules all the time. Sometimes they pay with their lives. Most are sad but not sympathetic.

Somehow women are different.

Feminists and NGOs have persuaded their gullible sisters that they can break common sense rules with impunity. That they can ignore bad men. Society must fix men.

Well sure.

Bad men  should be punished according to the law, no question.

But until God descends and society becomes perfect, women, especially teens should obey time honored rules.

Don’t go out alone after dark. Don’t jog alone in bushy/lonely places. (see #4) Don’t dress provocatively unless you’re ready for the result – often desirable, but sometimes not (see #5). Beware frat parties. Don’t accept candy from drivers. Don’t become intoxicated at public events without backup. Don’t lose sight of your drink and nowadays don’t even drink from an open container. Plus all the rules about protected sex, etc. How many rules did Amanda Todd break? Why? Just a kid’s bad luck? Or more?

Let feminists scream from their safe studios about blaming victims – its the lone individual that gets raped, bears the child or dies.

Girls 16 years old have no idea what they’re doing, especially in a raving crowd. They get pulled into things. Why? The moment, peer pressure and invincibility of course, but also because they have been persuaded by society, the media, teachers and … aghast.. even parents, that they have RIGHTS.  Well, like pedestrians, sure.

Obey rules older than society itself or pay the consequences -without my sympathy. I’m not afraid to censure inappropriate behaviour. What was Rinelle Harper thinking? Was she not taught? Out after midnight? Two strange boys? …Left for dead.

Does this mean that police should ignore the rape? Or the men? No. Like I said, men and drivers cannot do wrong just because some women and pedestrians are idiots. But maybe, given the pervasive messages from media and feminists, some new penalties are in order.

It is against the law to leave your keys dangling in the car. Why is it not against the law to dress provocatively in inappropriate places? Why do these girls object to school dress codes? We have laws against prostitutes offering their services in public places. But is there no such thing as a slut anymore? Did humans change? Some gals like promiscuous sex, and they’re welcome to it. Just if she gets hurt when breaking unwritten rules, well.. she deserves blame. Society can and should charge men, but that hardly helps the woman. Or pedestrians.

Erasing the concept of slut was a mistake. It was only erased in politically correct minds, not in the minds of many males. Until society becomes perfect, it is still a useful label for frustrated parents to warn about. Society once used such warnings to encourage obedience. That obedience was a social good since it served to protect virginity. Don’t be a slut and expect sympathy, except from comfortable bleeding hearts. And you may not get the best police attitude/ processing either. They are only human – albeit a bad cop always should be penalized (but never seems to be).

Perhaps its time though to curtail the proclamations of feminists in the media. Just fire them, especially from public broadcasters like CBC, NPR, etc. They are a menace to society. Society should, and eventually must, reassert those age old unwritten rules for the protection of the most valuable members of our society – young girls. Until labs, cows or men are engineered to give birth, females are the only practical vehicle capable of bearing and properly rearing the next generation. We men are a dime a dozen.  We squander ourselves regularly in wars and dangerous sports. It is females that must be cherished – and protected – for the good of themselves AND society. Much as their strength is to be encouraged, they are not invincible. Any more than pedestrians.

There is a similar argument to be made about sexual practices. The logic is the same. Society’s age old unwritten rules both stood the test of time and provided a social good. Those who couldn’t toe the line often paid the price, both healthwise and mentalwise. And often their children. Modernity and medicine seem to have upended those rules but it seems that nature may have the last laugh. Excessive sexuality and ‘unnatural’ practices are prone to both health and demographic consequences. Cancer of the throat from oral sex. And in special irony, erectile dysfunction from excessive porn! And demographics. Conservative and or religious couples are having more children so it is logical to think that conservatives, especially those from the third world will ultimately swamp our licentious but wilting society. Europe first!

Who started this?

Is it just modernity? Or is there a hidden agenda? Conspiracy theory you say? Is Agenda 21 a conspiracy? Have you heard of this UN proposal – to rid the world of much of humanity. Are the Georgia Guidestones a figment? I didn’t put these monstrosities there but someone did -at great expense. Given that the media is corporate controlled nowadays, given that corporations have interlocking directorships, given Freemason history and involvement in the highest reaches of power, given the abilities of modern technology and globalist structures to pull all this together, it seems very likely to me that feminism and sexual liberation is a trick, a pleasurable trick but a trick nonetheless. Tricking society to abandon its roots, traditions, religions and precautions, so it will march willingly to its future of servitude that stems from student loans, materialism, free money, entitlements antithetical to independence. Loans necessitated by the very institutions that were supposed to safeguard human knowledge but instead became centers of politically correct, sexually exciting, corporate homogenizing, climate scam brainwashing.

Lets call them on it. Lets wake up and stop them in their tracks before its too late. Vote out the status quo by voting for anybody but mainstream parties. Stop feeding the beast by cancelling all big media subscriptions and buying your stuff as locally as possible, rather than from giant corporations. End the hedgemony of universities. Stop listening to feminist nonsense. Get a grip.

Obey unwritten rules, or pay the price.

Just some friendly advice from your cranky curmudgeon

———————————————————

Extra refs

Survey: Should schools enforce dress codes? Wednesday, December 3, 2014

There was an interesting exchange between CBC’s politically correct moderator about a third of this recording.

When a party turns dangerous Friday November 21, 2014

Big Media: Big Candidate Bias

Turnout is at all time lows.  Cynicism at highs.  Decline the vote and none of the above  initiatives increase.

Mark Twain: If you don’t read newspapers, you are uninformed.  If you read newspapers, you are misinformed.  If you ingest TV news or talk radio consider yourself contaminated.

Ok, ok, I know.

Thanks to the internet, we might eventually dispense with the old adage, also from Twain: Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”  I’d like to pick a fight.  I buy ink by the teaspoon.

Big media seared my brain when they played up a photo of PM contender, Robert Stanfield fumbling a football (after many successful catches) as if this was policy!  Trudeau later trounced Stanfield.  I remember a contrite CBC commentator admitting their role decades later.  That’s why Stanfield is now called the best PM that Canada never had. Canadians put up with this? Sheep.

Canada is down to half a dozen corporate entities that own most media outlets so it is easy to blacklist any journo who goes against the grain.  Big change from the old days.

Many writers have expressed disgust and pointed out the consequences more eloquently and academically than I can.

PACT, Party for Accountability, Competency and transparencey) points out that debates exclude a very legit Green Party while a contrary comment asks how could a debate include all 60 plus TO mayoralty candidates.  Compromise?

For now,  I’ll focus on the upcoming municipal elections. Here’s a local example of how big media discourages consideration of lesser known candidates.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/toronto2014election/2014/04/29/meet_the_longshots_mayoral_candidate_diana_maxted.html    By: 

Why the discouraging (series) title: Meet the Longshots?  Why not something more neutral like Mayoral Candidate X focuses on Y?

Note the juxtaposition of adjectives:  “Once a week .. we’ll introduce you to an obscure candidate vying to be Toronto’s chief magistrate.”

Ridicule is the first defence of the status quo. Ask yourself why.

Photo chopped off the top of her head? = brainless? Fair?

Interview questions

1 You want to be mayor, not a councillor. What makes you qualified to run Toronto?  Holy moley, a typo in the Star!

2 And how are you going to do that exactly?

These questions sound reasonable, even necessary.  A sneering hack pretending  diligence, toughness.

3 OK, so here’s the big question: You’re up against big names like Rob Ford, John Tory and Olivia Chow. How are you going to get your name out there?

For candidate Jeff Billard | Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/toronto2014election/2014/04/15/meet_the_longshots_mayoral_candidate_jeff_billard.html   By: 

Somewhat different questions.  BTW, there were other  germane questions about platform which I excluded so as to not try your patience too much. Still here? Thank you!

4 Some politicians start out running for school board or council before vying for mayor. Did you consider that?

5 How do you feel about major debates featuring only the high-profile candidates? 

6 What level of vote support would you consider a success? 

Let’s unpack.  First, the Star pointed out that these questions/answers were excerpted from a full interview.  Meaning these are supposed to be the most cogent information gleaned from candidates.  BS.  You can be sure that candidates got excited about their pet idea, but little of that reached the article.  What did reach us were inadequate answers to impossible questions.  Why impossible?

For Q1 & 2, who do you think runs Toronto?  The mayor? If you think that, especially under Ontario’s weak mayor system, think again.   Reality: full time bureaucrats run the city.  The mayor is only ONE vote –  on a council of 45.  The creation of actionable motions  and related reports falls to said bureaucrats.

Since the mayor can be outvoted so easily, he can only remind councilors that he/she is the only person elected by the WHOLE city.  If the public wants that vision and voted for it, then the mayor has a basis to call for cooperation.  Other than a few perks, THAT’S ALL.

Ergo, manipulative question.

The issue is crucial.  If most candidates want a grey city and one itsy bitsy candidate wants a pink city, then why should the media deflect attention away from pink?  Given exposure, the people might prefer pink over grey.  But we the people can only choose what’s ‘allowed’ by our unelected, unaccountable corporate masters.  No dark horses, no young mayors for them.  Sheep.

Q3 is just meant to belittle a candidate without a webpage.  Necessary?

Q4,  Trick question on running for mayor vs councilor.  Councilors have a 90% incumbency rate for a reason.  Unless they really screw up, their helping of  constituents, name recognition, picnics, occasional meetings are likely to leave a positive impression.  Even if one issue rubs a constituent the wrong way, there is always another more  favourable  issue.

So as Mr Billard pointed out, unless one is a malcontent, going for mayor is the straighforward best strategy.  Plus its much easier to put one’s views forward in the many interviews and debates.

Not to mention the crucial developer-fundraising issue that favours incumbents.  Arrg.

Q5.  Unless Mr Billard harped on it, the exclusion question is just there to introduce negativity and divert attention from the positive elements of his platform.

Q6 just drives home the point this candidate doesn’t stand a chance and would be a wasted vote.  Despite my support for decline, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Conclusion.

If you’re a candidate, avoid mainstream media like the plague.

If you’re a voter, avoid mainstream media like the plague!

Don’t worry, the best info is on the net. Even better, phone candidates of interest.

I guess we should be happy the Star didn’t use the perjorative word ‘fringe’.  If  you run across similar examples, please let us know.  What tricks have you noticed? I’ll edit this page accordingly.

Till then, I remain, your unelected curmudgeon! (Not that I didn’t try!)