Religiously Conservative Parents kill their Teenage Daughter for Talking to a Boy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

A horrible murder of a 15-year old Kashmir girl by her own parents illustrates where there is a war on women.  And it isn’t in the United States (see Parents kill teenage daughter in acid attack in Kashmir by AFP posted on The Telegraph).

A mother and father in Pakistan-administered Kashmir killed their 15-year-old daughter by dousing her with acid after seeing her talking to a young man, police say.

Local police officer Tahir Ayub told AFP the father, Mohammad Zafar, was already suspicions about his daughter Anvu Sha and became enraged when he saw her with a boy outside their home on Monday.

“Zafar beat her up and then poured acid over her with the help of his wife. She was badly burnt but they did not take her to hospital until the next morning, and she died on Wednesday,” Mr Ayub said…

“The parents have confessed, saying that they suspected the girl had illicit relations with a boy,” Mr Ayub said. “We have registered a murder case against the girl’s father and mother.”

Pakistan is a deeply conservative country, where women, especially in poor rural areas, enjoy few rights and protection by the police.

This is a war on women.  It has nothing to do with birth control or abortion.

The American Left will have you believe that this is what will happen if the Republicans win on Tuesday.  That somehow making a woman pay for her birth control is comparable to being murdered for talking to a boy.  These are not equivalent things.  Women can go on and have a full and satisfying life even if she has to pay for her own birth control.  Oppressed women everywhere would eagerly swap their oppression for the oppression of having to spend an additional $20 or so a month.

As much as the Left tries to scare women into voting Democrat does anyone actually believe that life under Republicans will be like it is for 15 year old girls in Pakistan-administered Kashmir?  The Left hated Ronald Reagan.  But abortion survived 8 years of Ronald Reagan.  And the porn industry did well in the Eighties.  If the Republicans were going to go ‘Islamic’ conservative you’d think they’d have shut down the porn industry and figured out a way to overturn Roe v. Wade.  But no.  Women were free to do whatever they wanted with their bodies under 8 years of Ronald Reagan.  And under 8 years of George W. Bush.  From casual sex to porn to abortion.  Even if they had to buy their own birth control.

There is no Republican war on women.  And having women pay for their birth control doesn’t mean that Republicans hate women.  It just means Republicans think there is more to a woman than her reproductive parts.  And unlike the Left who think only men can be interested in things that are not vagina-centered, Republicans think women care about things like jobs, the debt, taxes, etc.  They don’t talk down to them as if they are only sexual creatures to be maintained by government.  Republicans appreciate their intelligence and independence.  And want to engage their intellect.  Not just relegate them to a sexual role in the current election cycle.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

With Obamacare People will quit their Jobs leading to longer Wait Times and the Rationing of Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) is currently trying to cut about $32.2 billion from their approximate $162 billion budget by 2014.  A 20% cut.  Why?  Because of the cost pressures of an aging population.  More people are retiring from the workforce than entering it.  And these retirees are consuming the lion’s share of health care resources.  So they have fewer and fewer people paying for a growing aging population burdening the NHS.  They have no choice but to find ways to cut costs.  Because the money is just not there.  Not like it once was when they had a population getting younger.  With more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  When people were still having a lot of babies.  To keep that population growing.  Further expanding the tax base.  But those days are gone.  They don’t have the money like they once did.  So they have to cut costs.  Which increases wait times.  And rations health care.

The US is in the same boat.  They, too, have an aging population.  And unable to learn the lesson of the British (national health care doesn’t work when you have an aging population) they went ahead and passed Obamacare.  It’s not yet fully implemented.  But already the CBO is projected bad news (see CBO: Health law to shrink workforce by 800,000 by J. LESTER FEDER and KATE NOCERA posted 10/2/2012 on Politico).

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Thursday that the health care law will reduce employment by 0.5 percent by 2021 because some people will no longer have to work just to afford health insurance.

So on top of an aging population some people will quit their jobs.  Because health care will be free under Obamacare.  Which must mean Obamacare will mutate into a full-blown national health care system.  Even though what they’ve told us thus far is that the key to Obamacare was forcing people to buy health insurance.  That individual mandate.  But if people are going to start quitting their jobs it doesn’t sound like they’re going to buy health insurance.  Which will make things worse.  More people collecting government benefits.  Fewer people paying for those benefits.  This can only mean one thing.  Longer wait times.  And the rationing of health care.  Just like they have in the NHS.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In Exchange for Keeping Ruthless Dictators in Power Loyal Military Officials live Very Good Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

The world has had some horrible dictators.  And still does.  Who have committed horrible acts of cruelty against their own people.  Even though dictators are only one person.  And couldn’t do these things alone.  So they get a little help (see Was a North Korean General Really Executed by Mortar Fire? by MICHAEL MADDEN posted 10/31/2012 on Foreign Policy).

Kim Jong Il had learned the importance of keeping his friends close and his generals closer. Until he assumed the role of supreme leader in 1997 (after a three-year morning period for his beloved father), almost all of his reported public appearances were field inspections of military units. This broadcast the military’s prominence as Kim Jong Il’s most valued political constituency. Under his “military first” policy, the military received priority in the allocation of increasingly scarce food and energy resources, as well as the rights to a number of lucrative foreign-currency generating economic activities. Having given his generals the butter churn, Kim Jong Il handed out the guns. Research and development into nuclear weapons continued, and the development and production of ballistic missiles thrived.

The number of military officials treated to the largesse of Kim Jong Il’s party economy steadily increased. They were permitted fine homes and vacation at exclusive retreats. On state holidays he gifted expensive automobiles, household appliances, and various luxury goods. As with Kim’s close aides in the party, military officials were allowed wide administrative latitude in how they managed the daily affairs of their respective agencies and units. This eventually incited fierce bureaucratic turf warfare among senior security officials. It suited Kim Jong Il’s interests as leader to have his generals squabbling among themselves instead of challenging him.

The key to being a dictator is taking care of the military.  You make sure they have the best food.  And the best stuff.  You make sure their lives are good lives.  In a country where most people quake with fear.  Fearing their government.  And famine.  This is life in North Korea.  Where it goes dark after the sun sets.  And looks like something out of medieval times.  While just across the border in South Korea life is good for all Koreans.  And there is no famine.  Where it is so good for some that Park Jae Sang (PSY) mocks their conspicuous displays of wealth in his Gangnam Style.  A world unknown to the people north of the border.  Unless you’re in the inner circle of power.  Or the military.

Of course you don’t have to live in a dictatorship connected to the inner circles of power to enjoy the very good life.  As governments grow in rich countries they have mountains of tax money to play with.  And those in the inner circles of power have a lot of privilege.  Who get generous portions of that vast tax revenue.  And live a far better life than most others could even imagine.  Even in the United States.  Where some of the richest communities with the highest real estate values are where?  Adjacent to our nation’s capital.  The suburbs of Washington DC.

In the US the ruling elite do not rely on the military to maintain their positions of power and privilege.  They rely on a loyal media.  The universities.  And public education.  Who help the people understand that they should vote for them.  And their very good lives.  Making it a lot easier for them to enjoy the very good life than someone like Kim Jong Un.  Who has to bribe the crap out of the military to prevent them from killing him.  And to put the fear of God into the people to prevent them from killing him.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Sad Times for Egyptian Women as Islamic Shariah Law is coming to Egypt instead of Democracy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

George W. Bush was criticized severely for nation building and trying to spread democracy.  Those who criticized Bush praise President Obama for bringing democracy to Egypt.  Of course, it’s not quite the same democracy Bush was trying to spread in Iraq.  He wanted a democracy that wouldn’t vote in a theocracy like they did in Iran.  Some 30 years on Iran still does not have a democracy because of that oppressive theocracy they voted in.  Now Egypt appears to be heading down the Iranian road (see Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says new constitution must be based on Islamic Shariah law by Associated Press posted 10/31/2012 on The Washington Post).

Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood says Islamic Shariah law must be the basis of Egypt’s new constitution, and legislation must be based on Islamic penal code.

The Brotherhood said in a statement Wednesday that a country ruled by Shariah would not become a theocracy. President Mohammed Morsi comes from the Brotherhood.

This is not good for the US.  It will be good for Iran.  But is sure won’t be good for the US.  Or Egyptian women.  Just ask the Iranian women.

Given the choice between oppression under Hosni Mubarak or oppression under a theocracy I think most democracy-loving people would choose the Mubarak oppression.  For few will argue that life for women in Mubarak Egypt was far better than it was/is in theocratic Iran.

Democracy fails when the wrong people rise to power and vote it away.  Which is what happened in Iran.  And looks like it may happen in Egypt.  And with the al Qaeda-trouble in Benghazi it may be well underway there.  Ultimately it may turn out that the Arab Spring was not good for democracy.  It just threw out the dictators who oppressed those who wanted to make their countries even more oppressive.  And the biggest losers in all of this?  The women in the Middle East.  Who yearn for the freedom and values they enjoy in the West.  Like they enjoyed under the 8 years of George W. Bush, the 4 your years under George H.W. Bush and the 8 years under Ronald Reagan.  Something these women would gladly trade for every chance they got.

You want to talk about a war on women?  I give you the Arab Spring.  And the march towards Iranian theocracy.  Something the policies of the Obama administration have helped along with their foreign policy decisions in Egypt and Libya.  And their snubs to Israel.  The country with by far the greatest women’s rights in the Middle East.  A country that already had a woman, Golda Meir, serve as the leader of their country.  Perhaps if the women of the Middle East were demanding birth control and access to abortion (women’s rights American style) the Obama administration would not advance policy that is so detrimental to women there.  Such as helping to make the way clear for a theocracy in Egypt.  But as these women want things that are not vagina-centered (freedom of speech, escape from second-class status, the right not to be beaten or murdered for not behaving, to be able to go to school, get a job, etc.) this war on women is not heard here by the Obama administration.  And these women will probably soon have the same fate the Iranian women had.  Another country where a poor foreign policy decision (not to support the Green Revolution) has condemned women to further oppression there.  While making the world a less safe place.  As the Iranians are moving closer to having a nuclear weapon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Britain’s High Cost of Government raises the Cost of Living despite having the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

One of the arguments for national health care is to relieve employers from paying the high cost of health insurance.  Allowing them to pay their employees more.  Also, without the need to find a job that offers good health care people could do whatever they wanted for a living.  It would allow them to make employment decisions less on what they have to do to pay their bills but more on what they want to do.  Because the great fear of losing or not having health insurance is no longer there.

During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker of the House) said just think about how many could chose a career as an artist now that they didn’t have to worry about health insurance.  Wouldn’t that be wonderful?  Instead of working for corporate America they could do something more meaningful.  Well, the UK has national health care.  Provided by the National Health Service (NHS).  And yet both employers and employees are still having the same problems (see Five million paid less than Living Wage, says KPMG posted 10/29/2012 on BBC News Business).

One in five workers in the UK is paid less than required for a basic standard of living, a report has said…

The rate stands at £8.30 [$13.30] an hour in London and £7.21 [$11.56] in the rest of the UK.

This rate is voluntary, unlike the National Minimum Wage – the amount that employers must pay by law, which is set at £6.19 [$9.92] an hour for those aged 21 and over.

The higher the minimum wage the higher the costs for business.  In wages and salaries.  And all the taxes and insurances that are calculated based on those wages and salaries each payroll.  So the higher the minimum wage the greater the cost of doing business.  And the less money left for a business to invest into the business to expand and hire additional workers.  The fewer people working the fewer people pay taxes to fund government.  Requiring higher tax rates on those who do work.  In part to pay the unemployment compensation for those who can’t find a job.  Which increases payroll tax rates.  Further discouraging employers from hiring new workers.  Further reducing the tax base.  And so on.

“Times are difficult for many people, but of course those on the lowest pay are suffering the most,” said Marianne Fallon, head of corporate affairs at KPMG, which has itself signed up to pay the living wage…

“The living wage is not a luxury, and means that low-paid workers do not have to make tough choices over whether they can afford the everyday things that most of us take for granted, such as their fuel bill or a winter coat for their children.

But Mike Cherry, policy chairman for the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “Every employer would want to be as reasonable as they possibly can, but in the current economic climate it is not going to be possible for those sectors that have traditionally been unable to pay the national minimum wage.”

He said rent and rates were becoming more expensive, and so were energy costs, so the living wage was an aspiration but not affordable for some employers…

However, one 23-year-old care worker told the BBC News website that life was tough financially – even when on the living wage.

She said that the cost of petrol, when driving between the homes of the people she cared for, took a big chunk out of her pay which totals £7.21 an hour.

Could it be that it’s not that these people aren’t earning a living wage?  That it is the high taxes and high regulatory compliance costs that are pushing the cost of living beyond people’s incomes?  I mean, why is it that gasoline costs so much more in Europe than it does in the United States?  Gasoline in Britain is currently selling for approximately £1.35 per liter.  Converting liters to gallons and pounds to dollars that comes to about $8.20 per gallon.  Why is it so much more in Britain than in the US?  When it comes from the same oil?  Taxes.  And regulatory compliance costs.  This is the cost of European social democracy.  And green energy.  The only reason they need a living wage is because government makes it so costly to live.

Employees want the highest pay they can get.  While employers want to pay the absolute minimum it takes to get good workers.  When times are good people can leave and find a higher paying job.  When times are bad the business owner struggles to pay their bills.  They pay their vendors slower.  They cut back on investments into the company.  Spend money repairing equipment instead of replacing equipment.  They do everything they can to conserve their cash so they can pay their bills.  Which is why they don’t like being too generous with the employee pay and benefits.  Because once you give it you can never really take it back.  Unless you want to make a lot of surly employees.  So when the economy goes south they don’t cut pay and benefits so much as lay off people.  So they can pay their bills based on their reduced revenue.  And keep the remaining employees less surly.

These are the realities of business.  And national health won’t change any of this.  For national health care isn’t free health care.  National health care is taxpayer-financed health care.  So it will give us higher taxes.  Raising the cost of business.  Forcing people to struggle in their lives.  Such as in Britain.  Where costs are high.  For if they’re paying $8.20 for a gallon of gasoline just imagine how much everything else costs.  Especially groceries.  They deliver food with trucks.  Trucks that use those expensive petroleum products.  Which raises the cost of food.  This is the future of Obamacare.  High taxes.  High gasoline prices.  High food prices.  Just high prices.  Because the cost of Obamacare will raise taxes like we haven’t seen yet.  Taxes that every price will include.  Which will make it just so costly to live.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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