You’re Too Old For Halloween!

New rule: Halloween is for homo sapiens 12 years old and younger ONLY!

Over the weekend I once again witnessed the pure decadence of men and women in my surroundings and decided that some things should be for kids and kids only. Halloween, a “holiday” that has interesting roots, is an occasion that eventually morphed into an opportunity for children to dress up in “spooky” costumes while makeshift panhandling for candy. But now it has taken on a new face that has me seriously questioning my generation.

You see, there should be requirements concerning “trick or treating.” You should be under 12 years old and/or shorter than 4 feet 6 inches. At the age of 4, 7, or 9, Halloween is an innocent event that affords children the opportunity to catch up on all the candy that mommy and daddy wouldn’t let them eat throughout the year.

But after 12 years old, children should be cut off. And here’s why…

…as you enter your teen years, and your hormones begin raging, and adolescence sets in, so does deviant behavior. As we get older, we pervert innocent things like Halloween. And I’ve watched the progression. Halloween goes from dressing up in “cute” little outfits to pulling pranks on people (like egging cars and “tee-peeing” houses). I’ve even heard tell of middle teens “bag-snatching” from small children during Halloween.

But the decadence doesn’t stop there.

These illicit behaviors reach full fruition in the late teens and early twenties. All weekend long I witnessed hundreds and hundreds of young adult women dressed in, well, I’ll call it “revealing” clothing (in lieu of using a couple of other terms I can think of to describe it). It’s as if the goal is to be as trashy as possible.

Now check this out, I saw droves and droves of guys dressed up as women for their costume. And I was lookin’ like, “when did this become the standard male costume?” Dresses, pumps, wigs, jewelry, make-up carefully done, complete with boobs and bras. I mean, the guys really had the stereotypical female look down to a tee. They looked more like ladies than the women did.

I find it funny that the women are dressed in attire that is presumably supposed to be attractive to guys, while the guys are busy trying to become what women used to be.

Anyhow, all I’m trying to say is that the bawdry nature of Halloween today could be easily rectified if 13-year-olds (and above) were banned from participating.

If I should ever participate in handing out candy from my doorstep one day, I will be certain to take “roll call” before anyone gets a Snickers from me. And I don’t care if they’re dressed up like Jesus, if they’re 13 or older I’m going to slap them, and tell them to go home, and never participate again. Hopefully this will serve as a future deterrent, and spare Halloween from the debauchery that it has now become.

-Maelstrom

The Sidebar
So, like I figured, Bush nominated a new candidate for the Supreme Court before much of the country was even awake Monday. And I just have to hand it to the guys he’s got working for him; they push their corruption to the side and manage to frame everything in such a way that it’s a win-win for Bush.

I just wish that everyone would pay attention and see how often the administration champions an idea, and then jumps to the other side of the coin when the initial idea doesn’t work for them.

When Harriet Miers was first nominated, Bush glorified the fact that she didn’t have a tainted judicial past, and that she came from the second best law school in Texas as opposed to the typical Ivy League elite. Those notions were shot down by the Right, so then Bush nominates this guy Alito. Now he’s praising Alito’s 15 years on the bench (saying he has more judicial experience than any nominee in 70 years), and of course Alito comes from Stanford.

Not only does Bush do this back and forth dance, so does his party.

When John Roberts was going through the confirmation process, he essentially said “hi, I’m John Roberts, and I won’t answer any questions.” He certainly wouldn’t give his thoughts or opinions on Roe v. Wade. That decision, to essentially plead the 5th, by Roberts was praised by the Right. They said his nomination isn’t about one single issue and he shouldn’t have to answer such questions. However, when Miers was on the block, they wanted to hear her say that she would vote against Roe v. Wade. She didn’t, but to prove that she would, her minister spoke to members of the administration that tried to assure the Right that she’s “one of us,” touting her Evangelical Christian conversion (a distinction that has come to mean if you are in favor of abortion, you’re going to go to Hell 6 times and maybe a 7th for good measure).

So on this 1st Tuesday in November, I’m reminded of an election that took place 365 days ago; a time when the term “flip-flop” meant the certain loss of any chance at Presidency for Mr. John Kerry. With that in mind, I have to ask, if flip-flopping was bad for the country in the case of John Kerry (1 of 100 Senators), isn’t it even worse for the country if the person (and the party) running it is also doing the same thing?