Women with Large Breasts beware your Next Trip through Airport Security

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

You ladies thought it was bad enough going through airport security?  Think again (see Fears Over Al Qaeda ‘Breast Implant Bomb’ Causing Long Lines At London’s Heathrow Airport by Pamela Engel posted 8/16/2013 on Business Insider).

Lines at London’s Heathrow Airport are “much longer than usual at this time of the year” because of fears that Al Qaeda terrorists have developed explosives that can be implanted in people, The Mirror reports.

Body scanners can detect items that people are carrying with them, but they aren’t able to catch devices that are inside of the body.

Heathrow Airport is reportedly concerned about women suicide bombers who conceal explosive materials inside breast implants…

U.K. officials reportedly have “credible intelligence” that terrorists are plotting attacks on airplanes flying out of London, and security staff have been told to “pay particular attention to females who may have concealed hidden explosives in their breasts,” an airport staff member told The Mirror.

This cannot go well.

“Hello, ladies.  Those are some nice breasts you have there.  Let me study them a moment.  Yes.  Nice.  Large.  Shapely.  Firm.  Supple.  Hmm.  Could they be hiding a bomb?  This will require a closer look, yes?  Perhaps a look beneath your brassier.  To look for any telltale signs of a recent surgery.  Or a gentle hand massage.  A kneading of the breast tissue.  To make sure there’s nothing but breast tissue there.  But there’s nothing to worry about, ma’am.  For I am a trained airport security screening professional.  Rest assured I don’t enjoy playing with women’s breasts all day long.”

Yeah, right.  The first time some college coeds come through the screening line it’ll be like a Russ Meyer film.  Of course, imagine the fallout should they single out a woman in Muslim garb for closer scrutiny.  The firestorm would be so great that you can just imagine that Muslims will not be searched as much as some other women.  Such as the ladies that could have had a starring role in a Russ Meyer film.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

The Democrats make the Poor travel for Hours by Bus to do their Grocery Shopping

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

The Democrats champion unions.  And the poor.  Which creates a bit of a problem for Democrats.  As unions actually help to keep the poor poor.  Union employees raise selling prices higher than non-union employees.  Which is why cars built in the union North are more expensive than cars built in the non-union South.  And why the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, can sell at such low prices.  Because their stores use non-union labor.  Which the Democrats hate.  And work actively to prevent them from moving into new neighborhoods.  Which may explain problems like this (see How access to fresh food divides Americans by Iris Mansour posted 8/15/2013 on CNNMoney).

Twenty-nine million Americans live in urban and rural food deserts, according the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). By this definition, Americans in low-income rural areas have to travel at least 10 miles to get to their nearest supermarket. While city dwellers from low-income neighborhoods have to travel a mile or more.

In America, where the car is king, a 15-minute, one-mile drive doesn’t seem unreasonable. But if you live in a dense city like Washington D.C., that may mean having to take two hour-long bus rides in each direction to get to a supermarket, with shopping bags in tow…

But why the supermarket shortfall..?

Brian Lang, Director of the National Campaign for Healthy Food Access at The Food Trust says supermarkets stay away because urban settings force them to rethink the shape and size of their stores. Walgreens (WAG) can’t transplant its standard rectangular layouts from the sprawling suburbs into tightly packed neighborhoods. TRF’s Hinkle-Brown highlights another issue. A supermarket’s employees tend to live very nearby. “If they’re operating in low-income areas, they’re less work-ready. It takes six months longer to train them, and insurance costs are higher in urban areas,” he says.

Jeffrey Brown has experienced these problems firsthand. He operates six ShopRite supermarkets in former food deserts and five in suburban areas. He explains that suburban grocery stores, like his own, can expect to make a 1% net profit after tax, while his urban stores initially showed a 4% loss, resulting in a 5% gap between urban and suburban profits…

Hinkle-Brown explains that in 2004 he couldn’t get a meeting with a national grocery store. But today Target (TGT) and Wal-Mart (WMT) are opening smaller urban stores. “They realized that the big business frontier of revolutionary growth was behind them,” says Hinkle-Brown.

Walmart has a made a commitment to open 275 to 300 stores in food desert areas by 2016.

Most of these food deserts are in impoverished parts of big cities.  That are Democrat.  Like Detroit.  San Francisco.  Seattle.  Boston.  New York City.  And Washington D.C.  Where the local Democrat governments have done everything within their power to keep Wal-Mart out (see Washington D.C. and Detroit say ‘No’ to Wal-Mart because they don’t need Jobs or Shelves full of Low-Priced Goods posted 7/20/2013 on Pithocrates).  Because they care more for their dues-paying union supporters than the poor.  Apparently.

Wal-Mart can make life better for so many.  And they want to.  But because they’re non-union the Democrats are keeping them away from the people that would benefit most from them.  It’s not the Republicans doing this to the poor.  It’s the Democrats doing this to the poor.  And they’re supposed to be the protector of the poor?  Let’s hope the poor remember this the next time they vote.  Of course, for that, the Democrats will drive them to the polls.  Because that’s what they really care about.  Their vote.  Not how many hours they have to travel by bus to do their grocery shopping.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Is the New York Times ready to blame Bill Clinton for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama likes to say that the Republicans only want to try the failed policies of the past.  And he’s both right and wrong.  For the Republicans do want to implement the policies of the past.  Because these policies did NOT fail.  Contrary to President Obama’s recurring bleat.  For the policies of President Reagan were based on classical economics.  Those same policies that made America the world’s number one economic power.  While the policies of the left, Keynesian economic policies, have failed every time they’ve been tried.  And reduced America’s economic prowess.

Before John Maynard Keynes came along during World War I the U.S. economy was steeped in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers.  Thrift.  Frugal.  Rugged individualism.  These are the things that made America great.  For over a hundred years Americans worked hard and saved their money.  Spending as little for the here and now.  Always planning for the future.  They put everything they didn’t have to spend into the bank.  As everyone put away these small amounts of money banks turned the aggregate of these numerous small deposits into capital.  Which investors borrowed at reasonable interest rates because we had a high savings rate.  Providing plenty of capital to grow the American economy.  Thanks to a sound banking system.   That exercised sound lending practices.  With investment capital a high savings rate provided.

This system worked so well because people balanced risk with reward.  Bankers made wise lending decisions based on the likelihood of those loans being repaid.  And investors with a history of wise and responsible borrowing had continued access to that investment capital.  While banks who took too great a risk failed.  And investors who took great risks soon found themselves broke with no further access to investment capital.  This balance of risk and reward complimented with a populace that was thrifty and frugal with their money created Carnegie Steel.  The Standard Oil Company.  And the Ford Motor Company.  Risk takers.  Who balanced risk with reward.  And paid a heavy price when they took too great a risk that had no reward.

But the days of Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Henry Ford are gone.  These men probably couldn’t—or wouldn’t— do what they did in today’s regulatory environment the left has created.  The higher taxes.  And the financial instability caused by the left’s destruction of the banking system.  As the left has made high-finance a plaything for their rich friends.  By transferring all risk to the taxpayer.  Allowing bankers to take great risks.  With little downside risk.  Giving us things like the subprime mortgage crisis.  Where President Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (1994) unleashed 10 federal agencies on banks to pressure them to loan to the unqualified or else.  So they did.  Using the Adjustable Rate Mortgage as the vehicle to get the unqualified into homeownership.  These with no-documentation mortgage applications, zero-down, interest-only, etc., put people into homes by the droves.  Especially those who could not afford them.  Of course, banks just won’t loan to the unqualified without some federal assistance.  Which came in the guise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Who bought those toxic mortgages from these lenders, repackaged them into collateralized debt obligations and sold them to unsuspecting investors.  And, well, you know the rest.

So Bill Clinton gave us the subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  It’s always the same.  Whenever liberals get into power they do the same thing over and over again.  They destroy the economy with policies that only benefit them and their rich friends.  America’s aristocracy.  Yet they talk the talk so well people believe that THIS time things will be different.  But they never are.  Already President Obama is talking about doing the same things to increase homeownership that got us into the subprime mortgage crisis.  And his disastrous policies didn’t even prevent his reelection.  Because he can talk the talk so well.  Just like Clinton.  So well that few look at the swath of destruction in their wakes.  At least, not on this side of the Atlantic (see The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary by Tim Stanley posted 8/14/2013 on The Telegraph).

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

A lot of people are scratching their heads as to why the New York Times would run this story.  For it is very out of character for a liberal paper to attack a liberal icon.  Could it be to air out this dirty laundry long before Hillary is a candidate for president?  What, that?!?  That’s old news.  We’ve talked about it already.  Talked it to death.  Nothing to see there.  So let’s focus on what’s important for the American people.

Or could it be that the left has grown tired of the Clintons?  After all, Barack Obama was the first black man elected president.  Something the young people can get excited about.  But will today’s young even know who the Clintons are?  Could be a problem for a party that historically gets the youth vote.  So is this the first sign that Hillary won’t be the anointed one in 2016?  And is this an opening broadside against Hillary?  A harbinger of what is yet to come?  Perhaps.  Or it could mean people are just not falling for the Clinton charm anymore.  Something our friends in the British media have no problem seeing through.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…

Wish America could see Clinton and Obama as plainly as this.  And not get lost in the gaze of their eyes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Ashton Kutcher didn’t ask for a ‘Living Wage’ when he was Working Entry-Level Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

Ashton Kutcher made a speech the other day everyone is talking about.  Conservatives.  And liberals.  It’s become very political.  Especially for this part (see Ashton Kutcher Channels Steve Jobs In The Best ‘Teen Choice Awards’ Acceptance Speech Ever by Kyle Russell posted 8/12/2013 on Business Insider).

“I believe that opportunity looks a lot like work,” he began. He goes on to describe his first jobs: helping his dad carry shingles to the roof, washing dishes at a restaurant, working in a grocery store deli, and sweeping in a factory.

I never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always just lucky to have a job. Every job I had was a stepping stone to my next job and I never quit my job before I had my next job.”

Could the repeating of the word ‘job’ have anything to do with his new movie “Jobs?”  Perhaps.  It’s something Greg Gutfeld pointed out on one of his umpteen television shows.  I think this comment was from The Five.  Funny guy.  And poignant.  In a warm, festering canker-sore of a way.  (Yes, you respect him.  Then you insult him).  One of my favorite libertarians.  But I digress.

Some on the left who reported this left out those earlier jobs he had.  Suggesting to the unaware reader he was talking about his acting jobs only.  And not those minimum wage jobs he was “lucky to have.”  That were merely a stepping stone to his next job.  These entry-level jobs gave him important work skills for his next job.  That’s what these jobs do.  They are not supposed to provide for a family of four.

The fast-food workers are striking to double their pay.  So they can remain in these entry-level jobs forever.  Which is not the point of these jobs.  These jobs are for kids entering the workforce.  Like Ashton Kutcher when he was a kid.  If they are unhappy they aren’t earning a ‘living wage’ in an entry level job then they should complain about the economic policies of the Obama administration that has left them behind in an entry-level job.

Anti-business policies like Obamacare have frozen new hiring.  And pushed people from full-time to part-time.  Or out of a job completely.  Leaving only entry-level jobs for many.  Who work one or two to replace the better and higher paying job the anti-business policies of the Obama administration destroyed.  This is what these people should be fighting for.  Repealing Obamacare.  And undoing all of President Obama’s anti-business policies that have left so many people working in entry-level jobs because they’re the only jobs available in the Obama economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is Probably as Good an Idea as High-Speed Rail

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

We transport heavy freight over land by train.  And transport people over land by plane.  Have you ever wondered why we do this?  Especially you train enthusiasts who would love to travel by train more often?  Here’s why.  Cost.  Railroads are incredibly expensive to build, maintain and operate.  Because there is rail infrastructure from point A to point B.  And at their terminus points.    Whereas planes fly through the air between point A and point B.  Without the need for infrastructure.  Except at their terminus points.  Making railroading far more expensive than flying.

If planes are so much cheaper to operate than trains then why don’t we use planes to transport all our freight?  Here’s why.  Price.  Trains charge by the ton of freight they transport.  And they can carry a lot of tons.  An enormous amount of tons.  Which makes the per-ton price relatively inexpensive.  A plane can carry nowhere near the amount of freight a train can carry.  It’s not even close.  Which makes the per-ton price to ship by plane very, very expensive.  So only high priority freight that has to be somewhere fast will travel by plane.  Heavy bulk items all travel by train.

We may be having an obesity problem but in the grand scheme of things people are very light.  But take up a lot of volume for their given weight.  The space their body physically occupies.  And the greater space around them containing the air they must breathe.  That holds the food and drink they must consume.  And the toilets they need to relieve themselves.  Now let’s look at a 747-400 with 450 passengers on board.  Let’s say the average weight of everyone comes to 195 pounds.  So the total flying weight of the people comes to 87,750 pounds.  Assuming flying costs for one trip at $125,000 that comes to $1.42 per pound.  If we add 15% for overhead and profit we get a $1.64 per-pound ticket price.  So a 275-pound man must pay $451 to fly.  While a 120-pound woman must pay $197 to fly.  Of course we don’t charge people by the pound to fly.  At least, not yet.  No, we charge per person.  So the per-person price is $224, where the lighter people subsidize the price of the heavier people.

The 747-400 is one of the most successful airplanes in the world because it can pack so many people on board.  Reducing the per-person cost.  Now let’s look at that same cost being distributed over only 28 passengers.  When we do the per-person cost comes to $4,464.  Adding 15% for overhead and markup brings the per-person price to $5,134.  A price so high that few people could afford to pay for it.  Or would choose to pay for it.  And this is why we transport people by plane.  That can carry a lot of people.  And we transport heavy freight by train.  That can carry a lot of tons.  And why this idea will probably not work (see Elon Musk Is Dead Wrong About The Cost Of The Hyperloop: In Reality It Would Be $100 Billion by Jim Edwards posted 8/16/2013 on Business Insider).

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s plan for a space-age Hyperloop transport system between Los Angeles and San Francisco would cost only $7.5 billion, he said in the plans he published recently…

But the New York Times did us all a favor by calculating the true cost of the Hyperloop: It’s going to be ~$100 billion…

The Hyperloop is a pressurized tube system in which passenger cars zoom around on an air cushion, at up to 800 miles an hour.

There is no greater infrastructure cost between point A and point B than there is for high-speed rail.  Because these rails have to be dedicated rails.  With no grade crossings.  All other traffic either tunnels underneath or bridges overhead.  These tracks are electrified.  Adding more infrastructure than just the tracks.  All of which has to be maintained to exacting standards to allow high-speed trains to travel safely.  Which is why high-speed rail is the most costly form of transportation.  Why there are no private high-speed rail lines as only taxpayer subsidies can pay for these.  And for all these costs these trains just don’t transport a lot of people.  Making high-speed rail the most inefficient way to transport people.

The Hyperloop will be more costly than high-speed rail as this is an elevated tube system of exacting standards.  Requiring great costs to build, maintain and operate.  While transporting so few people per trip (28 per capsule).  Not to mention high-speed travel is very dangerous.  Unless it is up in the air separated by miles of open air.  But on the ground?  When a high-speed train crashes it is pretty catastrophic.  And it can tear up the infrastructure it travels on.  Shutting the line down.  So traveling 800 miles an hour inside a narrow tube is probably not the safest thing to do.

Of course the biggest fear in a system like this is some politician will pass legislation to build it.  Because of all the taxpayer-subsidized union jobs it will create.  As they are constantly trying to build high-speed rail for the same reasons.  For the politics.  Not because it’s a good idea.  For any idea requiring taxpayer subsidies is rarely a good idea.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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