THINKING ABOUT SEX

Those thoughts struck me when hearing media reaction to the May 23, 2104 U.C. Santa Barbara killings.

The media got an early Christmas (oops! Holiday) gift. The "control everything" element of our society now got to rant not only over their favorite control--gun control, but since this was a multi-weapon attack, they could also throw in knife control and car control. If they were really on a role, since the shooter, (who should get no name recognition. I'll just call him PL for Pant Load), was mixed race, they could also go for racism. These, as it turns out, were not enough for the 24/7 news cycle so some of the more creative media folks came up with---Objectification of Women.

Objectification in this case meant making women no more than sex objects. It would seem that PL snuffed out a number of lives because he had no luck with the ladies, even though he was not bad looking, was rich, drove a Beemer and was a sophomore in college, had never even kissed a girl (which if I remember is "first base") much less circled the bases. (Can you image what his personality must have been like for a rich college kid to spend all those years on the bench?)

The discussion of objectification of women got me thinking, and the more I thought the more confused I got. Is this strictly a Western phenomenon?

Looking at the man/women relationship from a macro viewpoint. Women, it is widely known, are a critical element in the continuation of the human race. So therefore, nature gave them things that would attract a male. So far so good, but then nature gave the male the greater sex drive. So, we have the women decked out to attract the male who is already predisposed to be "attracted." Seems like a waste of something.

Why are women in the west most often seen in the malls, schools and on casual Fridays at work in tight Jeans or short skirts always with some degree of "scoop" around the neck obviously designed to catch the already very easily catchable male eye? On the beach we have women wearing two band aids and a wedgie. On TV shows we see this beautiful, intelligent lawyer lady pleading her case in front of the Supreme Court wearing clothes designed by Larry Flynt. (Not that I'm complaining, I'm just saying.)

The guys, on the other hand, who I assume the women are ultimately dressing to attract, are walking around in relaxed Jeans (often times half way down their butt, exposing sexy patterned boxer shorts) and tee shirts with beer sayings on them. Wouldn’t it make more sense, in the grand scheme of human population growth, for the males to be decked out in thongs and halter tops screaming "take me, take me."and the women wearing fashionable moo moos?

To show we are all not one world, let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum. Here are some rules for Muslim women:

       You must lower your gaze from the bodies and faces of men.

• You must not bend, lift, carry and otherwise move in manners and places where men will see the outlines of your body through your clothes.
• You must not be alone with a non-mahram (non family) man at any time in private.
• You must not go out for meals even in public alone with men, be friends with them, or otherwise place yourself in a situation where indecent thoughts and desires may develop.
• You must not hug, hold hands with, or otherwise touch men.
• You must not project your voice in a manner that might be arousing to men.

With all of that, the Muslim population growth rate is 1.8% per year with the rest of the world trailing at 1.12%, and the Muslim ladies are walking around following those rules draped in a black sheet with eye holes cut out. I wonder how much "objectifying" is done under those conditions?

I am not making any excuses for sexual harassment, or worse. "No" means"no," but I really have to wonder when I look around how upset some women are at being objectified? "I'll do anything I want and dress any way I want. It's up to you to control yourself. " That philosophy works on 99% of the male population. Then there is PL.   

PRESIDENT--AN OUTDATED CONCEPT?

The Constitution, which seemed like such a good idea almost 238 years ago in a country with about 2.5 million people and 13 states, is really being stretched to the limit. I (and people who actually know what they are talking about) believe the Constitution is stretched beyond its limits.

We are now working with a federal Government just a few folks shy of the entire US population in 1776. We have added 37 diverse states and have tried our best to keep up by our constitutional amendments. We have added 27 amendments, the last addition was 22 year ago. I think it may be time to get the amendment train rolling.

As long as we're going to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, let's not fool around. My amendment would be to eliminate the position of ----President.

Here's why.

I am a financial and social conservative. Most of the Liberals I know are Liberal because they are passionate over social issues, and financing potential government assistance to almost 314 million citizens, plus a few million more illegals, requires spending much in excess of what can be extracted from the citizenry without riots. Liberals tend to create programs they feel are necessary, then try to find the money some where (redistribute or print) to pay for them. Conservatives look at the money they have, which then determines what programs they can fund. That's just one of the many differences between right and left. We each believe our way is the best for the country.

Here is where I believe we run into trouble. In order for Liberals or Conservatives to get their vision implemented we believe we have to vote for President the one person our party puts up, regardless of their ability to do the job.

Barack Obama did not have the ability to do the job. We were in serious financial difficulty and we elected someone who never even ran any business, even as difficult as a kiosk in the airport. He passed no significant bills as a state legislator, spent 140 some days in the Senate, most of which were spent running for President, had a very "atypical" life as a young man and hung out with questionable characters as he got older. What he did have going for him to be elected President of the United States? He was liberal, he was a minority (I believe more people voted for him because he was black than voted against him for the same reason, which is why the Liberals' cry of racism at every criticism drives me nuts), and the main reason he was elected-- he was not Bush. His second election was won because Conservatives didn't like the guy our party put up so they stayed home. Dumb move that I doubt will happen again.

I can't believe, as the leader of the free world, we hired some one who, to my knowledge, has never even lead a Boy Scout troop. We did and the reason is, and I'll say this again because it's important, he is a Liberal. Liberals had to elect Barack Obama if they wanted the Liberal agenda for the US. During his presidency we have found out he lies, and the answer to any "scandal" is that he is "very angry and will "get to the bottom of it", and "hold people responsible." Who was held responsible for Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS, VA? Where is the bottom of it? We have a President who talks a good game while sitting in front of his locker.

I don't mean to come down so hard on the President and what he had, or did not have, going for him. When running for President, the voters didn't seem to care ( or more likely, to know). But this sets up why I am suggesting maybe we, as a country/organization with 313 million "employees" and a budget shortfall of $17T, can't be governed by one person, especially one unqualified person, and what one person could be all-qualified to run the US government on steroids? Sure, the Congress is supposed to provide that balance, but each new President comes up with more and more Executive Orders and the Congress with single digit approval numbers seems OK with that. President rules. He or she better be damn good.

How about this concept as an amendment? Define and vote on the Liberal and the Conservative platform. Whatever philosophy wins the registered voters of that party get to elect a committee of say nine like thinking people, those nine elect a chairman and that group governs along with Congress. (Sure, there is a wrinkle or two to iron out but humor me and let's just go with the concept.)

That procedure should eliminate the need for Liberals and Conservatives to defend to the end the undefendable action of "our person".

If we don't update the system the next election I could find myself defending the actions of President Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty.