Advancing Glacier hides 1952 Plane Crash Wreckage in Alaska

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

Those people who revere global warming and believe that manmade carbon emissions are destroying the planet incessantly point to the glaciers.  They say, “See?!?  The glaciers are melting.  Disappearing.  And they have been doing this ever since man began to destroy the planet.”

It’s been a one-way street ever since according to them.  A warming of the planet.  And a melting of the glaciers.  And if we don’t change our ways right now nothing will stop the melting of the glaciers (see Melting Alaskan Glacier Yields New Remains of Decades-Old Crash by Alana Abramson, ABC News Blogs, posted 7/12/2013 on Yahoo! News).

On Nov. 22 1952, an Air Force C-124 cargo plane crashed into Mount Gannett in Alaska. All 52 members were instantly killed. But 61 years later, a melting glacier is giving up the secrets of that crash…

Doug Beckstead, a historian at Anchorage’s Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, told ABC News that investigators immediately went to explore the wreckage but by Dec. 1 of that year, all evidence of the crash had disappeared, submerged into the glacier.

Now two things could have happened.  Either the wreckage was buried in accumulating snow.  Thus increasing the size of the glacier.  Or the wreckage burned so hot it melted into the glacier.  And then accumulating snow covered all traces of the melted glacier.  Thus increasing the size of the glacier.

Manmade carbon emissions took off with the Industrial Revolution (1760-1830ish).  And they have been growing ever since.  Which means they were growing before AND after that plane crashed into the glacier.  Yet the glacier grew after the plane crashed.  Hiding the wreckage.  And only when it melted back to where it was when that plane crashed could we see this wreckage again.

Once upon a time the glaciers extended down from the poles to near the equator.  Then they melted.  Receding back towards the poles.  Leaving behind things like the Great Lakes in North America as they melted.  Of course, back then no one was wringing their hands in fear of the coming global warming apocalypse.  No.  For life got better because that infernal ice no longer covered the life-sustaining earth.  You see, this happened before man made any carbon emissions.  As we were still hunters and gatherers then.  Cavemen, if you will.  Prehistoric.  When there was no gasoline burning in automobiles.  And no coal burning in electric power plants.  Yet the glaciers melted more than they have ever melted since man began making carbon emissions.

Glaciers melt.  Always have.  And always will.  With or without man’s help.  And fretting about global warming today shows a complete ignorance of the planet’s geological history.  Or a devious attempt to expand the government’s power over private industry through environmental regulation.  So there are your choices for the climate doomsayers.  They’re either ignorant.  Or devious.  Either way we’re far better off ignoring their fearful prognostications.  Which they deliver with a religious fervor.  Appropriately enough as believing in global warming requires a leap of faith.  Just like it does with any religion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Obamacare may cause up to 65,000 Needless Deaths based on what’s happening in the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

The problem with national health care is simple economics.  Supply and demand.  Things that cost more are in lower demand.  Things that cost less are in higher demand.  And free things are over consumed.

In Britain they have the NHS.  The National Health Service.  It’s not health insurance.  Like Obamacare is.  It is health care funded by the taxpayers.  What they designed Obamacare to become.  After causing businesses to drop costly mandated health insurance for their employers.  And making it near impossible for private health insurers to remain in the insurance business.  Once they meet these objectives then the government can transform Obamacare more into something like the NHS.  Where people get ‘free’ health care.  Paid for not by private insurance policies.  But from the tax revenue of the federal government.  Where they can over consume all the free health care they can get their hands on.  Such as demanding antibiotics every time they get the sniffles.

Sounds good to some.  Primarily to those who don’t have health insurance.  Because they choose not to pay for it.  Why?  Because it is so expensive.  And it’s so expensive because health insurance is no longer insurance.  Because it covers almost everything.  Instead of just the large, unexpected, catastrophic expenses.  The things insurance used to pay for.  While we paid for checkups and routine doctor visits out of pocket.  So we paid for the little things that we could expect and budget for.  While buying insurance for the things we could not expect or budget for.  And the system worked.  It kept costs under control because we were paying for most of what we were receiving.  Creating a direct relationship between the services we received and the money we spent.  Which introduced market forces into the equation.  But ever since health insurance became an employee benefit there have been fewer and fewer market forces in the equation.  Which has lead to the explosion in health care costs.

Nationalizing health care only removes market force from the equation further.  Which will, of course, raise costs.  As there will be nothing to keep health providers efficient while maintaining high standards of quality.  For if their customers aren’t paying them they don’t have to please their customers with efficiency or high quality care.  They just have to meet the minimum state requirements.  And keep asking the government for more money.  Until the government has no money to give.

And as a large health bureaucracy develops things become more impersonal.  More machine like.  Where patients are units of input.  That have to be processed according to strict bureaucratic guidelines.  Not necessarily what’s best for the patient.  The amount of paperwork rises.  And health care providers spend more time pushing paper than interacting with units of input.  Patients.  People at the hospital must bow to the distant health care authority.  Often following rules and regulations that don’t make sense all of the time.  Frustrating them.  And making them apathetic in their jobs.

Then efficiencies fall.  And costs rise.  Health care providers are forced to do more with less.  Spreading their limited resources over more and more patients.  Unable to provide high quality to everyone they do just the minimum for everyone.  While their apathy turns to indifference to their patients’ wellbeing.  You create an environment like this eventually over time you get this (see ‘Up To 13,000 Needless Deaths’ In NHS Hospitals posted 7/14/2013 on Sky News).

Up to 13,000 people may have died needlessly in NHS hospitals since 2005, according to a report to be published in the coming days…

The report, to be released on Tuesday, will criticise care standards and management failures, fuelling concerns about a problem with the NHS’s culture where whistleblowers are afraid to speak out and regulators often fail to do their job…

Sir Bruce examined not just mortality rates, but measurements including infection levels, the number of patients suffering from preventable and potentially fatal signs of neglect, and the numbers harmed by so-called “never events” such as operations on the wrong part of the body, or surgical instruments left inside a patient.

National health care will eventually poison the greatest assets of the health care system.  Its people.  Taking a good system and making it bad over time.  And you know it’s bad when ‘surgical instruments left inside a patient’ is a metric they track.  Apparently because it happens so often that it is something that they can count.

So take a good look.  This is national health care.  The ultimate destination of Obamacare.  Which will kill some 65,000 people over 8 years (the U.S. has about five times the population of Britain so they will have five times the number of needless deaths).  That comes to about 8,125 a year.  Which isn’t that far below the national homicide rate.  Imagine that.  Raising deaths in our health care system to near the national homicide rate.  That’s what we can expect with Obamacare.  As our health care system struggles to do more with less.  Overwhelming our heath care providers.  And making them grow ever more apathetic.  Just like they have in Britain.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Buying the Morning-After Pill without a Prescription or Parental Notification is OK but Porn Stars without Condoms is Not

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

When it comes to safe-sex there probably isn’t anyplace safer than the world of pornography based in Los Angeles.  No one tests more for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than porn stars.  Because they can’t work if they have one.  So they’re careful to remain disease-free.  Granted some disease slips through.  But if you calculated the incidence of STDs per sex act it’s not the porn world that will frighten you.  But that’s the place the good people of California want to make safer when they’re having their sex (see Porn Producers Say Unprotected Sex Is Free Speech Right by Edvard Pettersson posted 7/12/2013 on Bloomberg).

Pornographic movie makers told a judge that a Los Angeles County voter-approved measure requiring adult-film actors to wear condoms violates their constitutional right to free speech…

Los Angeles County voters in November approved the measure, the Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, which seeks to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through the making of porn movies.

The explosion of STDs is not in pornography.  It’s with our young people.  Who are more sexually active than ever thanks to free birth control passed out at high schools.  Access to abortion.  And now girls as young as 15 (or younger) can walk into most any pharmacy and buy the morning-after pill without a prescription or parental notification.  An especially dangerous change in the law as it will encourage girls to have more unprotected sex because they can take a pill the morning after.  Increasing sexual activity among our young people.  And with increased sexual activity comes an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

But we can’t tell these kids to stop having sex.  Because they won’t listen to us.  So we must do the best we can do.  And make it easier for them to have even more sex.  With the free birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill.  Somehow that makes sense to some.  Even to those who think the men in the porn industry should wear condoms in all their movies.  While the morning-after pill will no doubt decrease the use of condoms among sexually active high school kids.  Encouraging ever more risky sexual behavior.

It’s a pity our kids can’t be as safe and disease-free as some of our porn stars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Jane Lynch enjoys Traditional Marriage, files for Divorce and fights to prevent Losing Half of Everything she Owns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

The hardest thing about divorce is the children.  Who gets custody?  Who pays child support.  And who pays alimony?  A woman may give up a career to be a stay-at-home mom.  To raise a family.  Which is more difficult than going to a job 5 days a week.  Because you’re on-call 24/7.  And you’re responsible for more than just numbers on a ledger.  You’re now responsible for human life.  As well as numbers on a ledger.

In a divorce two things don’t change.  Someone still has to raise the children.  And someone still has to pay the bills.  Which is where child support and alimony come in.  So the children don’t suffer more than they have to by seeing their parents split up.  They can still have a full-time parent.  Typically the mother who gave up her career to run a household.  While the father visits occasionally.  And pays the bills.  This is the marriage contract.  And the divorce contract that often replaces the marriage contract.

This is what traditional marriage is.  The legal institution that facilitates the family.  And doesn’t leave the children or their mother out in the cold should the marriage fail.  It protects them.  And provides for them.  So they won’t be disadvantaged in their life because their parents divorced.  Getting the same opportunity to succeed in life as everyone else.  Things that are not issues in same-sex unions.  Because same-sex couples cannot bring new life into the world.  Which eliminates most if not all of the need of a marriage contract.  Yet they want it.  And they are getting married (see Jane Lynch Files For Divorce From Wife Lara Embry by Joyce Chen posted 7/12/2013 on US Weekly).

Just one month after announcing that she and her wife of three years, Dr. Lara Embry, are going their separate ways, Jane Lynch has officially filed for divorce in an L.A. County Court, TMZ reports…

According to the legal documents, the couple did not have a prenup, and will therefore split their marital assets 50/50. The pair have no children together (Embry has two daughters Haden and Chase).

Lynch is also filing to terminate the court’s jurisdiction to award Embry with spousal support, TMZ reports.

And they’re getting divorced.

There is nothing they could not have accomplished with legal contracts other than the marriage contract.  If they had lived happily ever after and wanted to leave their estates to each other they could have stipulated that in their wills.  But no.  They were married.  Now they’re getting divorced.  And Lynch now gets to enjoy a privilege once reserved for traditional marriage.  Spousal support.  Even with couples that brought no new children into the world.  Where both worked and had careers.  But the one with the less-paid career got a taste of a lifestyle the better-paid career afforded.  And now is entitled to continue that lifestyle after the divorce.  Because of the marriage contract.

Unless you’re bringing new children into the world there really is no reason to get married.  And our record high divorce rates would seem to indicate that a lot these people getting married (some more than once) probably shouldn’t have gotten married.  But they did.  And went through great transfers of wealth because of it.  As any rich person who is not quite so rich anymore following a divorce will attest to.  Especially when there are children involved.

Lynch wanted everything traditional marriage offered.  Well, everything but one.  She is fighting not to give half of everything she owns to her ex.  And you can bet the next time she gets married, if there is a next time, there will be a prenup.  Which are no longer the prerogative of foolish rich men marrying women young enough to be their granddaughters.  Today they’re just good business.  Especially when there are great disparities in wealth.  Interestingly, had she not been able to get married she would have had everything she wanted after their breakup.  To happily go their separate ways.  Without losing half of all of her stuff.  Something no doubt weighing heavily on her mind these days.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Anti-Smoking People fuming over Britain’s Failure to enforce Plain Cigarette Packaging

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

I was talking to a woman I knew who was in her 40s.  She took out a cigarette and lit up.  I asked her why she started smoking.  Was it the pretty cigarette packages?  The cigarette advertisements in her youth?  For back then the Joe Camel ads were still out.  As well as a slew of other cigarette ads.  Including cars painted up with Kool cigarette advertisements driving around town.  And the Virginia Slim ads were telling women they’ve “come a long way.”  Smoking advertisements were everywhere.  So did these things prove so attractive and irresistible that she could no longer withstand the lure of cigarette advertising?  No.  She started smoking because all her friends were smoking.

Kids want two things in life more than anything else.  To be grown-up.  And to be cool.  That’s why they start smoking.  Because smoking is only for grownups.  By law.  Which makes them look grown-up when they smoke.  Because only grownups smoke.

Then there is the cool thing.  Boys worship their rock heroes.  The guys who play their low-slung guitars with a cigarette dangling out of their mouth.  It’s just so cool looking.  Keith Richards.  Jimmy Page.  Eddie Van Halen.  Slash.  You name a guitar superstar and odds are there is a poster selling somewhere of him with a cigarette dangling from his mouth.

The stars in the movies they watch seem to all smoke.  For there is nothing cooler than a grizzled actor suffering through a stressful scene lighting up a cigarette afterwards to enjoy some soothing relaxation.  And few things are sexier than a femme fatale that seductively smokes a cigarette.  Our girls see this.  And they, too, want to be grown-up and sexy.  Which is why so many of them start smoking.  And when all of their friends are smoking, too, it just doesn’t seem like there is anything wrong with it.  And because all their friends are having sex that, too, seems okay.  It’s the softer side of peer pressure.  Well it can’t be bad if EVERYONE is doing it.

This is why this 40 something mother of 3 started smoking.  And she continues to smoke because she now enjoys it.  Like those grizzled actors in Hollywood movies.  There’s nothing like lighting up after a stressful work shift.  Even though today she is bombarded with warnings of what smoking will do to her health.  Despite anti-smoking legislation.  And the high taxes placed on cigarettes.  She still smokes.  Because she started smoking young to be cool and grown-up.  And now that she is a smoker her government attacks her with high taxes.  And legislation that ostracizes her like a leper.  Measures now coming to India (see Smoking bans, tax could save 9 million Indians: study by AFP posted 7/10/2013 on France 24).

Banning smoking in the workplace and levying a tobacco tax could prevent more than nine million deaths from cardiovascular disease in India over the next decade, according to a US study…

They found that smoke-free laws and increased tobacco taxes were the single two most effective measures, according to the study in PLoS Medicine on Tuesday.

These two measures alone would reduce heart attack deaths by six million and stroke deaths by 3.7 million, for a total of 9.7 million, over the next decade, the paper said.

The study compared five different tobacco control measures: smoke-free legislation, tobacco taxation, provision of brief cessation advice by health care providers, mass media campaigns, and advertising bans.

Interestingly, one measure is conspicuous by its absence.  This (see Delay on plain cigarette pack decision ‘sad day for child health’ by Sarah Boseley and Andrew Sparrow posted 7/12/2013 on The Guardian).

Lives will be lost as a result of the government’s decision to kick the notion of plain packaging for cigarettes into the long grass, say scientists and campaigners who accuse ministers of bowing to tobacco industry lobbying…

More than 200,000 young people under 16 start smoking every year. With advertising banned, cigarette packets are the only vehicle that companies are able to use to recruit children to the habit. The review said unadorned packs were less attractive to young people, improved the effectiveness of health warnings and reduced the numbers who mistakenly believed that some brands were safer than others.

Kids don’t start smoking because of pretty cigarette packages.  Or cigarette ads.  There are a lot of ads for kids to eat their vegetables yet many kids still resist those ads and refuse to eat their vegetables.  This has got to be the most asinine measure to get kids to stop smoking.  For if they really want to see who is at fault for getting kids to start smoking all they need to do is look into a mirror.

Liberal policies that attack traditional values and the traditional family have far more to do with kids starting smoking than Big Tobacco.  We’re giving high school kids free birth control.  Access to abortion.  And the morning-after pill.  Traditional values are ridiculed on television and in the movies.  Telling these kids that they’re not kids but grownups.  Who can make responsible decisions for themselves.  So they do.  They choose to be sexually active.  And we say we must respect their decision and not try to instill our morals on them.  Yet when they decide to start smoking we say that is wrong and blame Big Tobacco.  So much for our ‘grown-up’ children making responsible decisions.

And we’re never allowed to complain about the non-traditional behavior on television and in the movies.  Where getting stoned and having casual and consequence-free sex is now the norm.  And okay.  Our kids are seeing this.  As well as these people smoking.  They see this and want to imitate it.  Because if everyone is doing it just can’t be that bad.

If you really want to get kids NOT to start smoking then we need their heroes to stop influencing them into smoking.  We need them to be positive role models.  Not the ‘rebel against everything your parents and teachers tell you to do’ people that they are.  The bad boys.  And the naughty girls.  Who practice their art for the kids of the world to see.  And when life imitates art these stars say, “Don’t look at me.  Where are these kids’ parents?”

Not only does government endorse this behavior they facilitate it.  The liberal side of government.  The cool side of government.  Who want these kids to see how cool they are by not being like their parents or their teachers.  So they will vote for them.  And not those stuffy conservatives who don’t want them to have any fun.  Because they won’t vote for them once they wise up with some real education and real-world experience.  So they sacrifice our kids on the altar of politics.  By encouraging all kinds of bad behavior.  Like smoking.  Which they then blame on pretty cigarette packaging.  And not the societal decay they created.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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