Democrats push for Gun Control Legislation despite Fall in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The left hates guns.  They want to take away our guns.  And repeal the Second Amendment.  Which is why they exploit every tragedy that involves a gun that they can.  (Except for the horrible gun crimes in Chicago that rarely receive any media attention.)  To foment anti-gun sentiment.  And it’s been working.  For the America people believe that gun crime is out of control (see Mass shootings are up; gun murders down posted 9/21/2013 on The Economist).

On September 16th a former navy reservist, Aaron Alexis, shot 12 people dead at a military base in Washington, DC. Though rare, such tragedies are increasingly common in America. The past 30 years have seen 67 mass shootings (in which four or more people were killed by a gunman not involved in a conventional crime), says Mother Jones magazine. There have already been five this year, after seven last year. Massacres grab headlines, and so may explain why many Americans believe, incorrectly, that gun crime is on the rise. In fact, gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.

In 2012 there were about 500 people shot to death in Chicago.  Which receives scant news coverage.  But every time there is a mass shooting (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech) it is not only front-page news but there are calls for new gun control legislation.  Because gun crime is out of control in America.  This is the narrative.  And why the left loves mass-shootings.  For it inflames the people to perhaps accept something they don’t want in the heat of the moment.  Further gun control legislation.

But gun crime is not out of control.  Apart from the Democrat-controlled Chicago.  Actual “gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.”  Despite Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to the Democrats.  As they are apparently lying to the American people to take away our guns.  Which begs the question.  Why?  If gun crime is actually falling then why do they want to take away our guns?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Democrats’ War on Women creates Naive Women in the Porn Industry

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

Kids today are so much more mature and responsible than they were in prior generations.  Which is why the left hands out free birth control.  And makes sure our school kids have access to abortion.  And the morning after pill without parental notification.  Because our kids are just so mature, well-informed and responsible.  Unlike some professional sex workers (se ‘A piece of paper that says you’re clean doesn’t mean anything’: First porn star to go public over contracting HIV says she was naive to trust industry checks by Daily Mail Reporter posted 9/12/2013 on Mail Online).

Cameron Bay, the adult film actress who recently contracted HIV, is calling for more porn producers to encourage the use of safe sex on set.

The 29-year-old actress says she was naive to trust industry STD tests and said other performers told her not to ask for condoms.

‘I learned that there’s always someone younger and sexier, willing to do something you’re not,’ Bay told the Huffington Post. ‘I think we need more choices because of that. Condoms should be a choice.’

Bay performed in her first porn scene a few months ago but, after just nine more scenes, she tested positive for HIV.

So this makes her 28-29 when she entered the porn business.  Which is pretty old in the porn industry.  For it is a business for “younger and sexier” women.  Which just begs the question.  Why are there so many “younger and sexier” women just waiting to enter such a horrible business?  You hear stories like this often.  About how exploitative the porn business is.  Yet there is always someone “younger and sexier” just waiting to take someone’s horrible job away from them.

The actress does not know when or from whom she contacted the disease, but admitted that none of the male performers she worked with used condoms.

Bay said another actress told her: ‘Don’t even bring it up because they have somebody waiting to replace you…’

Bay, who also had to be treated in hospital after contracting a kidney infection after one film, said all but one of her scenes were filmed in Los Angeles, and one was filmed in San Francisco.

The San Francisco one, which involved bondage and anal sex, was the only set to have offered her the option of a condom, but Bay said she didn’t feel she needed one because her male co-star had a negative STD test.

‘I was new to the industry. When I was told that I was safe to shoot, I was like, “OK, cool”,’ she said. ‘I had no idea. I really didn’t understand…’

She was 28-29 and yet she had no idea and didn’t understand.  And yet we’re giving birth control, access to abortion and the morning after pill without parental notification to girls as young as 15.  Because they’re mature enough to make these decisions without parental notification.  How can that be?  A 15-year old girl is mature enough to be sexually active with multiple sex partners but a 28-29 year old woman is not?

The Democrats raised the whole Republican war on women during the 2012 campaign because the Republicans did not want to sexualize women as much as the Democrats did.  Giving them everything they need to be sexually active with multiple sex partners.  Just to get the youth vote.  For there is nothing more important to the young, cool crowd than acting like adults when it comes to sex.  Well, if it wasn’t for this sexually liberated attitude perhaps there wouldn’t be any “younger and sexier” women just waiting to take over someone’s horrible job in the porn industry.

After her HIV diagnosis, a six-day moratorium was put in place to prevent further cases being spread.

However, a week after the moratorium was lifted, two more porn actors, including Bay’s boyfriend Rod Daily, tested positive for HIV…

She added that had she been properly informed she would have demanded a condom each time she worked, adding: ‘At the end of the day, it’s about your safety. And a piece of paper that says you’re clear to shoot doesn’t mean anything.’

When people first started contracting HIV it wasn’t called the porn disease.  It was called the ‘gay’ disease.  Because it came out of the gay community.  If you ever watched the movie Cruising with Al Pacino you’ll understand why.  The gay scene in the Eighties was very hedonistic.  Men went to gay bars and clubs to meet and have sex with other men.  Sometimes without even leaving the club.  These men had so many sexual partners that the disease had spread throughout the gay community before they even identified the disease.

HIV is not a porn disease.  It is everywhere where people are sexually active with multiple partners.  In fact, the porn industry is probably the safest place to be to have sex with multiple partners without catching HIV.  For there is mandatory testing.  Unlike in the general population where people may have infected 10 people before they are diagnosed with the disease.  And only after exhibiting symptoms of the disease.  At which point they may keep that diagnosis a secret.  And continue to infect further sex partners.   Which they can’t do in the porn industry.  Because that diagnosis isn’t secret.

There aren’t many prim and proper virgins entering the porn industry.  To be able to have sex on camera requires a certain lax attitude about sex.  An attitude that develops after having so much sex that it really isn’t that big of a deal anymore.  Which begs the question.  Who gave HIV to whom?  Did some porn actor spread it to her and her boyfriend?  Did she give it to her boyfriend?  Or did her boyfriend give it to her?  Outside the porn industry?  Which isn’t that hard to believe.  Considering how much casual sex there is these days.  Thanks to the Democrats who have sexualized young people in exchange for their vote.

It’s sad.  Porn executives exploit young women to make a buck.  Just as the Democrats exploit young women to get a vote.  And if it weren’t for Democrats there would probably not be much of a porn industry.  As there wouldn’t be a long line of “younger and sexier” women waiting to enter the industry.  Making it the Democrats, then, who have a war on women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Knife Crime in Canada claims two Lives in Toronto in possible Murder/Suicide

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

Canada has stricter gun laws than the United States.  The American left would love to have some of their laws.  For there is simply too much gun crime in the United States.  From mentally unsound people killing people because of voices in their heads.  To murder/suicides that would simply not be possible if there was not a gun in the house (see Two dead after stabbing at Keele and Eglinton apartment building by Canadian Press posted 9/13/2013 on the National Post).

Toronto police are investigating a possible murder-suicide at an apartment building in the city’s northwest.

Officers went to the building (near Keele Street and Eglinton Avenue West) at about 7:30 a.m. Friday after neighbours called 911 to report a woman was found with stab wounds in the hallway…

Officers located the body of the man outside the rear of the building.

The United Kingdom also has strict gun laws.  And a knife-crime problem.  For it would appear taking guns away from people does not prevent people from killing other people.  Or themselves.

While a small percentage of any population may own a gun pretty much 100% of the population owns a knife.  Except, perhaps, the person living alone who never cooks.  And these instruments of death are often on full display in people’s kitchens.  In a big block of wood on the kitchen counter.  With the handle conveniently sticking out for anyone to walk by and grab.  A child.  An intruder.  Or a homicidal spouse.

But we don’t hear the same concern for knife-crime as we do for gun-crime.  Possibly because killing with a knife requires someone to get up close and personal to someone.  Unlike a gun.  Which can be fired safely from a distance.  Which gives a woman a better chance of defending herself from someone trying to harm her.  Because if she used a knife she would have to get close enough to her assailant that her assailant could probably take her knife away.  And perhaps use it on her.

Unless a woman has been trained in hand-to-hand fighting she will likely lose in a knife fight.  While her odds of winning a gun fight are just as good as her assailant.  That’s what a gun does.  It lets someone who is greatly out-muscled to defend herself.  And in this day and age where more and more women are living alone and raising their children alone perhaps they would like to even the odds with any would-be assailant.  And own a handgun with a large capacity clip.  So she doesn’t have to fight hand-to-hand to save her life.  Against someone twice her size.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Allegiant Air the most Profitable Airline despite being the least Fuel-Efficient

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

When people fly on vacation they’re about to spend a lot of money.  And a big cost is airfare.  Which they will try to book in advance to lock in some low prices.  This is what people think about when they are about to fly on vacation.  Not carbon emissions (see America’s greenest airlines by N.B. posted 9/17/2013 on The Economist).

IN THEORY, fuel efficiency should be a win-win proposition for airlines. Burning less fuel is better for the environment and the carriers’ bottom lines—fuel is generally their biggest single cost. That’s why one finding from a recent fuel-efficiency study is so surprising. In a new report (pdf), the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that Allegiant Air, the most profitable airline on domestic American routes between 2009 and 2011, was also the least fuel-efficient airline during 2010.

…The upshot is obvious: according to the researchers, the financial benefits of fuel efficiency have not been enough to force convergence—”Fuel prices alone may not be a sufficient driver of in-service efficiency across all airlines…. Fixed equipment costs, maintenance costs, labour agreements, and network structure can all sometimes exert countervailing pressures against the tendency for high fuel prices to drive efficiency improvements.”

So if the bottom line cannot force airlines to be more fuel efficient, what can? The researchers suggest that airlines can start by making more data available to the public…Cars come with fuel-efficiency ratings, and appliances come with energy-efficiency stickers. Maybe flights should include that kind of data, too, so that concerned passengers can make an informed choice.

Allegiant Air is a low-cost no-frills airline that caters to people going on vacation.  And when you’re on vacation you are taking a break from worrying.  About the bills.  The job.  Even the environment.  You may drive a Prius back at home.  But for two 4-hour flights a year (to and from your vacation spot) you’re just not going to worry about carbon emissions.  Because you’re on vacation.

Allegiant Air flies predominantly MD-80s that sit about 166 people.  An MD-80 is basically a stretched out DC-9.  These have two tail-mounted turbojet engines.  The least fuel-efficient engines on planes.  But these turbojet engines are small and can attach to the fuselage at the tail.  Allowing it to use shorter landing gear.  These planes sit lower to the ground and can be serviced with the smaller jet-ways you see at smaller airports.  Where Allegiant Air flies out of nonstop to their vacation destinations.  People like not having to make a connecting flight.  And will gladly dump a few extra tons of carbon into the atmosphere for this convenience.

The Allegiant Air business model includes other things to help keep costs down.  They are nonunion.  They also fly only a few flights a week at each airport.  Allowing a smaller crew to service and maintain their fleet.  These labor savings greatly offset the poorer fuel efficiency of their engines.  The airlines that have unions (pilots, flight attendants, maintenance, etc.) all share something in common.  Recurring bankruptcies.  Which Allegiant Air doesn’t have.  Despite their higher fuel costs.

Fuel costs are an airlines greatest cost.  Especially for the long-haul routes.  Which burn a lot more fuel per flight than the typical Allegiant Air flight.  Which is why the fuel-efficient Boeing 787 is so attractive to them.  As they need to squeeze every dime out of their fuel costs as they can.  To offset their high union labor costs.  Those very costs that return a lot of airlines to bankruptcy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

There is Great Income Inequality on the Set of the Big Bang Theory

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

It is hard to explain economic fundamentals to the public.  To explain how free market capitalism made this country great.  And how supply and demand set prices.  How unskilled workers are in less demand than highly skilled workers.  So highly skilled people earn more money than unskilled workers.  Which is why doctors earn more money than those working in fast-food.  Because there always seems to be a shortage of doctors.  While there is no shortage of minimum wage jobs.  So doctors are worth more because they are in greater demand.

Those on the left want a living wage for everyone.  Regardless of their skill level.  Unions are trying to unionize fast-food workers and Wal-Mart employees.  So they can force these businesses to pay them more than the market price for their labor.  As determined by the laws of supply and demand.  Like they do everywhere else.  Computer programmers were in high demand during the dot-com bubble.  Raising the salary of computer programmers.  And people went to college to learn how to be computer programmers to get those high salaries.

But try to explain this to the layperson when the left demonizes Republicans.  Calls them greedy.  Saying they want to take food away from children and the poor.  And throw Grandma off the cliff.  That they’re in the pockets of the big, evil corporations.  And that unfettered capitalism is corrupt, unfair and just plain mean.  What makes it especially difficult to explain these economic fundamentals is that the left controls the public schools and our universities and colleges.  And the entertainment industry.  So they’re teaching our children to hate free market capitalism.  And Republicans.  While the entertainment industry mocks and ridicules anyone who tries to advance sound economic policies instead of expanding the welfare state.  Instead they preach egalitarianism.  Where everyone should get a living wage regardless of their skill level.  And where we treat people fairly and with dignity.  Transferring and distributing wealth fairly.  From those according to ability to those according to need.

It sounds nice.  Caring.  And kind.  Despite every country that has ever tried that became a horrible place to live.  For that’s what they did in the former Soviet Union.  The People’s Republic of China.  The former East Germany.  North Korea.  Cuba.  Nations that had to use a brutally oppressive police state to prevent their people from escaping the kind of egalitarianism the left is constantly trying to bring to the United States.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing in trying to teach economic fundamentals to lay people is that their heroes in the entertainment industry are always campaigning for the left.  They attend fundraisers for the left.  Help them win elections.  And they constantly mock and ridicule those on the right.  Despite indulging in some of the most unfettered free market capitalism themselves (see ‘Big Bang Theory’ Stars Seeking Hefty Pay Raises by Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter, posted 9/17/2013 on Yahoo! TV).

Sources tell THR that Emmy winner Parsons (Sheldon), Galecki (Leonard) and Cuoco (Penny) will negotiate together — as they did in 2010 — and are looking for a considerable bump in pay from their current deal. According to a TV Guide Magazine report, the trio currently earns $325,000 per episode and may seek up to $1 million an episode…

The new deals for Bialik and Rauch, who joined the series midway through its run and were promoted from recurring to regulars, will see their salary jump from $20,000-$30,000/episode to the $60,000 ballpark, with increases each year taking them to $100,000 per episode by the end of their new contracts.

One million an episode versus $100,000 an episode?  Wow.  Talk about your income disparity.  There is no egalitarianism on the set of the Big Bang Theory.  There’s no fairness.  And just think how much food this could have bought for the children.  And the poor.  If these people were corporate officers they would be hated and despised for their greed.  Especially when the median household income (the income that supports an entire family) has been languishing around $53,000.  And here are actors making more than that each episode they film.  Is that fair?  When others have so little?

Yes, it is unfair.  But is it wrong?  No.  This is free market capitalism.  This is the top-rated comedy on television.  It has great writing.  And great characters.  Which the writers created.  But if you watch an early episode and then a later one you will see how these actors have evolved these characters.  In the first episodes Penny was the pretty neighbor Leonard was smitten with.  But watch her now.  And all the things she doesn’t say.  Her body language and facial expressions.  The little nuances that have transformed Penny into a real life person we look forward to seeing every week.  Kaley Cuoco has made Penny into what she is today.  As Jim Parsons has made Sheldon into what he is.  And Johnny Galecki has made Leonard into what he is.  The rest of the cast is probably the best ever fielded on a sitcom.  But it is the interactions they have with these three that make this show the number one comedy on television.

So, no, we don’t begrudge them from getting these unfair contracts.  More power to them to get as much as they can get.  Sure, it’s unfair to the actors that came before them.  When things were very egalitarian.  Where the actors made far less than they do today.  Even if that show went on forever in syndication.  Like Gilligan’s Island.  Making a lot of money for the owners of that show.  But not the actors.  No, they didn’t get a dime from that syndication.  Worse, none of them made close to a million dollars an episode.  They didn’t get paid a lot.  But everyone made closer to what everyone else made.  Because back then actors were more equal.  Unlike today.  Where there is great income inequality between actors.

So there is nothing wrong with Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco making these huge sums of money.  Or anyone else in the entertainment community.  It would be nice, though, if this community wasn’t publically against the very thing that they benefit so handsomely from.  Free market capitalism.  Which has been very good to them.  As it is very good to everyone.  But yet the entertainment community generally endorses the left.  And attacks the right.  Which helps the left raise taxes and burden business with more costly regulations.  Things that hurt the economy.  And keeps the median household income from rising.  Harming the middle class.  But making no impact on these superrich.  This is the problem we have with the entertainment community.  They’re hogging all the free market capitalism for themselves.  While forcing us to live in the miserable social democracy they helped to create with their endorsement of the left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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