Environmentalists hate American Bald Eagles and Urge the Building of Eagle Killing Machines

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

We have spent billions building wind farms all over the world.  To fight the rise of manmade global warming.  By replacing dirty, filthy, polluting, carbon-producing, global-warming-generating coal-fired power plants.  Which haven’t replaced many if any coal-fired power plants.  Because we still need those coal-fired power plants to provide electric power when the wind doesn’t blow.  Or blows too strong.  Making the whole wind power industry a costly joke.  Well, a costly sad joke.  As those great spinning killing machines are killing some of our most precious natural resources.  American Bald Eagles (see Energy company to pay out $1m over eagle deaths at wind farms by AP posted 11/23/2013 on The Telegraph).

The U.S. government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two wind farms in the western state of Wyoming.

The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company…

An investigation by The Associated Press in May revealed dozens of eagle deaths from wind energy facilities, including at Duke’s Top of the World farm outside Casper, Wyoming, the deadliest for eagles of 15 such facilities that Duke operates nationwide. The other wind farm included in the settlement is in nearby Campbell Hill…

A study in September by federal biologists found that wind turbines had killed at least 67 bald and golden eagles since 2008. That did not include deaths at Altamont Pass, an area in northern California where wind farms kill an estimated 60 eagles a year.

Until Friday’s announcement, not a single wind energy company had been prosecuted for a death of an eagle or other protected bird – even though each death is a violation of federal law…

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don’t look up. As they scan for food, they don’t notice the industrial turbine blades until it’s too late…

Once a wind farm is built, there is little a company can do to stop the deaths. Some firms have tried using radar to detect birds and to shut down the turbines when they get too close. Others have used human spotters to warn when birds are flying too close to the blades. Another tactic has been to remove vegetation to reduce the prey the birds like to eat.

As part of the agreement, Duke will continue to use field biologists to identify eagles and shut down turbines when they get too close. It will install new radar technology, similar to what is used in Afghanistan to track missiles. And it will continue to voluntarily report all eagle and bird deaths to the government.

Here’s a thought.  Instead of spending billions to build wind turbines.  And additional God knows how much more for radar technology and human bird spotters to shut down the wind turbines when birds are near.  Or razing the earth to kill the ecosystem for the wildlife that eagles feed on.  Instead of doing these things why not just use coal-fired power plants?  After all, what do you think will provide our electric power when radar or those human spotters shut down those wind turbines?  That’s right.  Coal-fired power plants.

Of course the environmentalists hate the modern industrial world.  And using energy to raise our standard of living.  They’d like to go back to a time when we grew our own food.  And spun our own clothing.  For them the modern world is an obscene abomination to them.  With America being the worst.  As we are the most advanced nation in the world.

It’s bad enough the environmentalists are raising the cost of electric power with their renewable energy nonsense.  But they’re also killing American Bald Eagles.  Sure, the glorious American Bald Eagle may not be as important to them as a forest rodent (preventing the cutting of firebreaks in forests to prevent the spread of forest fires) or delta smelt (shutting down the irrigation pumps in California’s Central Valley that provides much of our food), but they are a living creature, too.  And should be allowed to live freely in their habitat.  Then again, perhaps they don’t care about the American Bald Eagle.  As it is America’s national bird.  And they just hate America so much that they hate our national bird, too.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Longer Wait Times, Rationing and Higher Mortality Rates are the Inevitable Outcome of National Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

The American left wants national health care. Just like the British have.  In their National Health Service (NHS).  But when critics say national health care will lead to longer wait times and health care rationing the left says balderdash.  Despite what’s happening in the NHS (see Hospital discharges: figures highlight impact of delays by Adam Brimelow posted 11/22/2013 on BBC News Health).

Last month the number of days “lost” by patients who needed the beds was the highest for more than three years.

Senior doctors working in accident and emergency departments say it is a major cause for concern…

“The delays are a key cause of overcrowding in emergency departments, which is associated with higher mortality,” he said…

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said councils had worked hard to protect social care services from the full impact of cuts, but added: “Unless local government finance is put on a sustainable footing, social care will remain substantially underfunded and services will suffer as a result.”

A shortage of hospital beds led to longer wait times in moving patients out of emergency departments and into a hospital bed.  Leading to higher mortality rates.  Which means longer wait times and rationing have caused more people to die.  This isn’t balderdash.  This is the inevitable outcome of national health care.  And the inevitable outcome of Obamacare.

As the Affordable Care Act rollout continues to crash and burn the Obama administration will soon be saying we tried fixing our health care problems the private health insurance route and failed.  Proving that the problem is the health insurance companies.  And the only way to fix this problem is with a single-payer system.  Or a true national health care system.  Like the NHS.  It’s coming.  Because it’s been the plan all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Medicaid, Medicare and Frivolous Lawsuits make the Best Health Care System in the World more Expensive

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

The American left loves Canada.  In particular their single-payer health care system.  This is what they wanted in the US.  Not Obamacare.  But they settled for Obamacare.  Until they get what Canada has one day.  Because it’s better.  At least, according to a chart.  That shows how wonderful Canadian health care is and how horrible American health care is (see The U.S. Health Care System Is Terrible, In 1 Enraging Chart by Mark Gongloff posted 11/22/2013 on the Huffington Post).

Yes, among this group of big countries, the U.S. spends far and away more on health care than any other. And yet it has among the lowest life expectancies of any developed country. People live longer in pretty much every country in Europe, including Greece, where the economy has been wracked by austerity for years…

Why is our system so terrible? Largely because it is built for profit. Unlike many other countries, the government has no role in either providing care or setting prices, and so prices skyrocket. It’s also too complex, which is one reason the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature reform law, has gotten off to such a bad start.

The health care law is supposed to help with the cost problem somewhat. But it is built on the existing privatized system, which means it will probably not make a significant difference. A public option, also known as a “single payer” plan, would help. But that still seems like a pipe dream — although maybe Obamacare’s clumsy rollout will bring it closer to reality.

First of all it should be noted that Canada has one of the finest private health care networks in the world.  Outside of their single-payer system.  Which is something they share with all nations that have some form of national health care.  A private health care network for those who want and can pay for it.  And why is Canada’s private health care network the best in the world?  Perhaps you can guess why when you hear the name of it.  The Untied States health care system.  Just south of the border.

That’s right, for those with the means don’t wait in line for less than the best of health care.  They spend their own money to go to the front of the line to get the best health care available.  In the United States.  Often administered by Canadians.  Because the US pays the best doctors and nurses more than they can get in Canada.  So Canadian doctors and nurses, too, travel south across the border.

The US is one of the only countries where their poor suffer from obesity.  Because of generous food assistance programs.  Also, because we are a for-profit nation our food industry has figured out to give us more food for less.  Our beverage sizes have gotten so big giving us so much value for the money that Mayor Bloomberg tried to limit the size of beverages in New York.  And all American restaurants give us free refills.  Because they can.  While some European countries will charge extra for a package of ketchup.  All of this more food for less has led to our obesity problem.  Giving Americans heart disease and diabetes.  Shortening life expectancies.

US doctors are dropping out of Medicaid.  And Medicare.  More so now that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is rolling out.  Why?  Because the government pays for these nonprofit programs.  And they are constantly trying to reduce their reimbursements.  Because the aging population is straining the Medicaid and Medicare programs.  And the government has addressed this problem by ‘discounting’ Medicaid and Medicare billings.  For years doctors and hospitals have tried to recover these shortfalls by charging more.  Especially insurance companies.  Greatly increasing the cost of health care and health insurance.  But the discounting grew so great that many health care providers just dropped these programs.  Because they couldn’t pay their people, their lab costs, their overhead, etc.  Especially since Obamacare has taken money from Medicare.  And ‘forced’ states to expand their Medicaid rolls.  But these discounted reimbursements aren’t the only thing raising health care costs.

While most of Europe has loser-pay laws to curtail frivolous lawsuits the United States doesn’t.  Because of the trial lawyers.  Who get quite wealthy suing doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals.  Exploding the cost of malpractice and liability insurance.  Which increase the cost of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals.  Forcing them to raise their prices to recover these costs.  Making American health care more costly.

These are the reasons why the US spends more per capita on health care than all other nations.  Because they have the best health care system in the world.  And the best costs more.  While the government forcing health care providers to work below costs (Medicare and Medicaid) and the cost of frivolous lawsuits raise these costs even more.

The American health-care system is not terrible.  Single-payer systems are.  Because they all have a private health care network.  Which they wouldn’t have if single-payer systems were the best systems.  Just ask the Canadians who use their private network.  The US health care system.  Who will probably be the second greatest losers under the Affordable Care Act.  After the Americans.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Left wants to Criminalize Cigarette Smoking while Decriminalizing Marijuana Smoking

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

If you’re a smoker one California town has a message for you.  “You are not welcomed here” (see California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls by ALAN FARNHAM posted 11/21/2013 on Yahoo! News).

The town of San Rafael, Calif., has passed a ban on smoking that city officials have called the most stringent in the nation. The new ordinance makes it illegal for residents to smoke in their own homes if they share a wall with another dwelling.

The ban applies to owners and renters alike, and it covers condominiums, co-ops, apartments and any multi-family residence containing three or more units…

As justification for the rule, she cited studies showing that secondhand smoke seeped through ventilating ducts and walls, even through cracks. “It depends on a building’s construction,” she said, “but it does affect the unit next door, with the negative health impacts due to smoke…”

Does this apply to smoking marijuana, too?  If so then where are you to smoke your marijuana?

You have an entire coast pushing hard to decriminalize marijuana for recreational use.  Because responsible adults should be able to do whatever they want to do inside their homes.  Unless they want to smoke cigarettes, that is.  Because smoking will kill you.  And anyone near that burning tobacco.

This just goes to show you how irrational the left is.  As one type of smoking will kill you.  While another type of smoking will do no harm.  For the left wants to control our lives.  Telling us what we should eat and drink.  And telling us what not to eat and drink.  Or smoke.  But they sure enjoy getting high.  Probably to escape the horrible reality they’ve created with their onerous rules and regulations.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Uncle Sam wants You in Combat if you’re an Ugly Woman

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Does a woman belong in a combat role in the Army?  If she is as strong as a man and as willing to get as dirty as a man, perhaps.  But if she is wearing makeup while deployed on duty in a combat zone?  I don’t know.  For it looks like  that woman is apparently more concerned about maintaining her femininity than the mission at hand (see U.S. Army told to advertise for recruits using ‘average looking women’ because they are perceived as more competent than prettier soldiers by Jennifer Smith posted 11/20/2013 on the Daily Mail).

A U.S. Army spokeswoman has said images of ‘average-looking women’ should be used in recruitment advertisement as photographs of more attractive soldiers confuse the reality of the roles in combat.

A leaked email that circulated revealed how a leading strategy analyst affirmed ‘ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.’

Colonel Lynette Arnhart, who is heading a team of experts studying how best [t]o integrate women into service, condemned advertising images used in the past as they ‘undermine the rest of the message’…

‘For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while deployed on duty.

‘Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered a hazardous duty’…

Ms Arnhart cited a photograph used last year that depicted a female soldier with mud on her face as one which ‘sends a different message’ in the email that was obtained by POLITICO.

‘(It is) One of women willing to do the dirty work necessary to get the job done.’

If a woman is wearing cosmetics in the field there goes any arguments of equality out the window.  For men don’t wear cosmetics in the field.  In fact, they are prohibited from wearing cosmetics (see Army Regulation 670–1, Chapter 1, Introduction, Hair and fingernail standards and grooming policies • 1–8, page 3).

b. Cosmetics.

(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniformity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. Females are authorized to wear cosmetics with all uniforms, provided they are applied conservatively and in good taste and complement the uniform. Leaders at all levels must exercise good judgment in the enforcement of this policy.

That’s not equality.  Why is a woman even wearing makeup in full combat gear while deployed on duty?  Because she wants to be pretty when she’s killing the enemy?  Because she wants to be attractive to her fellow soldiers?  To her superiors?  Just to feel pretty?  If so, why?  Why is this an issue for women in combat?  It isn’t for men.

No judgment is needed with men in combat.  No makeup.  Period.  To borrow a word from President Obama.  For women it’s a different story.  It’s not an objective black and white issue.  It’s a subjective gray area.  Some makeup is okay if it’s conservatively applied.  It’s a judgment call.  Where different leaders may have different judgments.  And this isn’t good in a world where there are no individuals.

There are no individuals in the military.  They drill that out of you during basic training.  Everyone dresses the same.  Everyone marches the same.  Everyone salutes the same.  For there are no individuals.  Only positions of rank.  But women are treated differently.  And complicate things.  Which can’t be good for the overall mission.  Especially when top brass are writing emails discussing how women in combat gear shouldn’t be too pretty and should wear mud on her face instead of makeup to send the right message.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,