The British Left will brand School Children Racist if their Parents don’t let them go on an Anti-Christian Field Trip

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

If you’ve ever watched The Five you’ve probably heard Greg Gutfeld (libertarian/quasi conservative) blame all of our woes on liberal college professors.  And heard Bob Beckel (liberal) say Greg Gutfeld is full of excrement.  And that whenever they play a video of a leftist professor saying something anti-capitalist/socialist/communist Beckel (the one liberal in the group of five) yells that they only put on liberal extremists.  Never a conservative extremist.  Which he said there are just as many as liberal extremists teaching our kids in college.

Of course he’s full of excrement.  Because conservatives aren’t in control of the curriculum.  Liberals are.  In the United States.  And in the United Kingdom.  And it’s because they control the curriculum that things like this happen (see ‘Refusal will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s educational record…’ by Daniel Hannan posted 11/22/2013 on The Telegraph).

As part of the National Religious Curriculum together with the multicultural community in which we live, it is a statutory requirement for Primary School aged children to experience and learn about different cultures.

The workshop is at Staffordshire University and will give your child the opportunity to explore other religions.  Children will be looking at religious artifacts, similar to those that would be on display in a museum.  They will not be partaking in any religious practices.

Refusal to allow your child to attend this trip will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s education record, which will remain on this file throughout their school career.

England has an official religion.  The Church of England.  Which is Protestant.  That is, Christian.  And it has a long history of being Christian.  Which makes this school action rather remarkable.  For it basically is telling British children to forget their culture and tradition.  And observe the greatness of people who are not British.

When an American high school choir wants to sing a Christmas carol referencing Jesus of Nazareth, who the Christmas holiday celebrates, the school authorities shut it down.  But they make a trip to expose students to other religions mandatory.  Why?  Because liberals hate Christianity.  And love anything that disparages Christianity.  Which is why they will brand any student who doesn’t attend a field trip that enshrines other religions (while banning high school choirs from singing Christmas carols referencing Jesus of Nazareth) as a racist.  Even though religion transcends race.

Liberals will say a cross submerged in urine is art.  But children not learning the glory of Islam and other non-Christian religions is showing an extreme lack of respect to those religions.  And is worthy of branding those children as racist.  Even though religion transcends race.

Bob Beckel is a Christian.  And is a vocal opponent of the anti-Christian acts of militant Islam.  Even condemning the whole Islamic faith as no one in that faith condemns these heinous acts.  Yet he fails to see the anti-Christian element in our public schools and universities.  Or refuses to see it.  For although Beckel is a Christian liberals in general don’t like Christian morals that frown upon premarital sex and abortion.  Things liberals are all for.  As are our public schools and universities.  As is evidenced by their handing out of free birth control.  And providing access to abortion services.  Even without parental consent wherever they can.  And this while one of those religions they want to expose our kids to, Islam, won’t let their women out of the house unless they’re covered from head to toe and in the company of a male family member.  There’s no premarital sex or abortion for them.  But this is a religion we must show tolerance to.  While showing no tolerance to Jesus of Nazareth during the holiday celebrating His birth.  Is that because conservatives are in control of the school curriculum?  No.  It’s because liberals are.  So Gutfeld is right.  And Beckel is wrong.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Nuclear Power is Green but Governments prefer Wind Power because its More Costly

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

To save the world from global warming we have to go to a low-carbon energy economy.  Say goodbye to coal.  And hello to solar.  And wind (see Energy firm RWE npower axes £4bn UK windfarm amid political uncertainty by Terry Macalister posted 11/25/2013 on The Telegraph).

Britain’s green ambitions have been dealt a blow as a big six energy company has pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest offshore windfarms, with the political storm enveloping the industry threatening the multibillion-pound investments needed to meet emissions targets and head off a looming capacity crunch.

Weeks after warning that the government was treating environmental subsidies as a “political football”, the German-owned RWE npower is pulling out of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel because the economics do not stack up.

The move comes as figures show that energy firms reaped a 77% increase in profits per customer last year, due to bill increases that the big six say are partly due to government green levies…

The Renewable Energy Association (REA), which lobbies for more low-carbon power, said government infighting over subsidies was causing deep uncertainty in the industry…

“We need assurances from George Osborne in the autumn statement about where we stand,” said a spokesman for the REA. “Nick Clegg says one thing about the green levies, Michael Fallon [the energy minister] another…”

RWE indicated that the government might have to raise green subsidies – and thus increase bills or the burden on the taxpayer – after admitting that technical difficulties had pushed the price up so far that it could not be justified under the current subsidy regime.

But RWE has already pulled out of a £350m nuclear-power project, is selling its DEA North Sea oil business and last week disposed of part of its UK gas and electricity supply arm. Developers have been warning for some time that they would need more subsidies from the government if ministers were to realise low-carbon energy targets.

RWE was in partnership to build that nuclear project.  Which cost in total £696m.  Or 17% of the cost of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel.  Which they say will power one million homes.  Of course, that would be only when the wind is blowing.  But not blowing too fast.  For there is a small window for safe wind speeds these turbines can generate power at.  Giving them a low capacity factor (the amount of power they could produce over a period of time at full nameplate capacity and the actual power they produced over that period).  About 30% in Britain.  Whereas nuclear power is about 90%.  Which is why we use it for baseload power.  Because it’s always there.  Even when the wind is blowing too slow.  Or too fast.  So that Atlantic Array wasn’t going to provide reliable power for a million homes.  In fact, on a calm day it will provide no power to any home.  Which begs the question why spend £4bn for unreliable power when you can spend £696m for reliable power?

Worse, wind power requires government subsidies.  So much that companies won’t build wind farms unless they get government subsidies.  Something you don’t need to build a nuclear power plant.  And to rub salt in an open wound those subsidies are paid for with levies on the family utility bill.  Or higher taxes.  Forcing these families to get by on less.  While these green energy firms are seeing rising profits.  Because of the money the government takes from the households and gives to the green energy firms in the form of subsidies.  Which begs another question.  Why charge the British people so much more for clean energy when they can get it for far less from nuclear power?  At 17% of the cost for the Atlantic Array project?

When it comes down to it renewable energy is crony capitalism at its worst.  Huge transfers of money from the private sector to the public sector.  Where they turn around and give to their friends in green energy companies in the form of lucrative contracts and fat subsidies.  After taking some off the top for their expenses, of course.  If it wasn’t they’d be building less costly and more reliable nuclear power plants to be green.  Instead of building these green elephants all over the place.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Relying on Technology in lieu of Teaching our Kids to be Responsible Adults

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

There was an episode of Madmen showing Don Draper spending an afternoon drinking beer while working on a present for his daughter.  Then his wife said he had to go pick up the birthday cake.  He was not happy about this.  But poured himself a drink and left anyway.  Taking his glass of bourbon into the car.  And drinking from this glass while driving.

This is only a television show.  But a television show noted for its accurate portrayal of life in the 1960s.  People drank.  And drove.  With some crawling from their car to their front door because they were too drunk to walk.  And life went on.   Teenagers watched driver’s education films like Red Asphalt.  And still became Don Drapers.  Despite all that gore.  To this day we still drink and drive.  Well, for a little while more, at least (see Auto safety initiative seeks to reduce driver errors by Jerry Hirsch posted 11/29/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

Auto safety regulators are pushing for new equipment to protect motorists from their biggest threat: themselves.

They’re aiming to keep drunk drivers off the road with the help of onboard technology that immobilizes their cars…

Now NHTSA and a coalition of 17 automakers are working on the so-called Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. The DADDS system uses sensors in the cabin to measure blood-alcohol content by breath or touch to ensure a driver is below the legal 0.08% threshold for impairment…

But some have reservations about these high-tech minders. The restaurant lobby opposes what it sees as an encroaching nanny state. Some analysts predict the equipment could add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle. And even some car enthusiasts say that imperfect technology could alienate the public it’s supposed to protect.

Jack Nerad, an analyst with auto information company Kelley Blue Book, imagined a scenario in which sensors picked up alcohol on the breath of passengers, preventing the designated driver from getting them home.

“You are reliant on the technology to be 100% perfect or your car doesn’t start,” he said. “That makes people very, very angry…”

Mistaken alcohol readings or faulty seat-belt sensors could put motorists in harm’s way if they’re stranded during emergencies or in remote places.

Where the DADDS system will set the blood alcohol limit could also prove contentious.

NHTSA says it will be the .08% level at which a driver is legally considered impaired, a ceiling that is supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving…

But a slightly higher limit might leave a margin of error that reduces false positives without greatly increasing the frequency of drunk-driving crashes, said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety.

The majority of people who were killed in drunk-driving crashes last year were in collisions in which a driver had double the legal limit, according to NHTSA data…

“We are opposed to mandating this technology on all cars as original equipment,” said Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association. “You are not going to solve the drunk-driving problem, which is a small, hard-core population of offenders, by treating everybody like a criminal.”

She said drinkers could find ways to evade the technology. For example, they could quickly throw down some shots and already be on the road by the time their blood-alcohol level crosses the .08% limit.

“And then what is going to happen?” Longwell asked. “If you crash your car and you are well above the legal limit, can you sue the manufacturer? Who has the liability?”

Good point.  Who do you sue?  The bartender for serving the shots?  But why should the bartender worry about a patron’s sobriety when his or her car won’t start if this person is too drunk?  Which would be great for the drinking industry.  No more worries about someone leaving too drunk to drive.  Because the car will determine that.  So while the bartender may have cut them off after 3-4 shots there is no reason to cut them off at all now.  Because their car won’t start if this person is too drunk to drive.  So you can’t really hold the drinking establishment responsible.  For the new technology takes on that responsibility.

So do you sue the car manufacturer?  They’ll blame the American Beverage Institute who lobbied against the 0.08% limit.  Saying that raising it to such a high level (something above 0.08%) that it didn’t detect the drunkenness of the driver until after they started their car and entered traffic.  Will they require a time lapse between the driver’s last drink and the time they can try starting the engine?  A link between the bar’s POS system and the car?  This would be ridiculous.  Add more costs to a car.  And add more technology that can be ‘not perfect’.

What happens if some rowdy men spill a drink on a woman in a bar.  Who then leaves the bar.  But cannot start her car because of the alcohol spilled on her?  And then the rowdy men follow her to the parking lot.  And proceed to smash her windows to get at her.  While she can’t do anything because her car won’t start.  And they rape her.  Who gets sued then?

They used to hang horse thieves in the old West.  Because if you stole a man’s horse you put his life in great danger.  A car is the modern day horse.  Something you depend on getting you home safely.  And it is so reliable that we never imagine it not getting us home.  But now your car may strand you.  Leaving you to the dangers surrounding you.  And it may cause you to abandon your drunken friends to find their own way home.  Because you don’t want to take any chances your car won’t start.  By having their drunken asses in the car with you preventing you from getting home.

Of course it begs the question.  What will they do to protect us from people texting and driving?  Which has surpassed drinking and driving as a greater danger?  Technology that shuts off your engine whenever it detects a cell phone in use?  Imagine someone turning on their cell phone when you’re in a center lane on a limited access expressway.   Shutting off your engine.  And your power steering.  While you desperately make your way to the shoulder during rush hour traffic.

Perhaps we need a little less technology and a little more Red Asphalt.  For many of our problems would go away if we would only teach people to be responsible.  Instead of relying on technology to protect us from the irresponsibility of others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Military Children (and Children of Single Mothers) suffer Mental Health Issues due to Absent Fathers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Boys love their fathers.  And it’s tough losing them.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music.  During the Roger Waters’ period.  Whose concept albums were shaped by his experience growing up without a father who died in World War II.  As the children of Britain grew up in a dearth of fathers following World War II.  As so many of their fathers died in the war.  Waters went on to great success.  But he suffered for his art.  As all great artists do.  Who probably would have preferred to be happy instead of being a great artist.

The bond between child and parent is so strong that the parent doesn’t even have to die to affect the child.  Just periods of separation is enough to do damage (see Military deployments tied to teens’ depression by Kathleen Raven posted 11/29/2013 on Reuters).

Adolescents who experience the deployment of a family member in the U.S. military may face an increased risk of depression, suggests a new study.

Ninth- and eleventh-grade students in California public schools with two or more deployment experiences over the past decade were 56 percent more likely to feel sad or hopeless compared with their non-military-family peers, the researchers found.

The same kids were 34 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts.

So it would follow the more deployments (i.e., the less time the parent spends with their child) the more likely the increased risk of depression, feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts.  So the more time one parent stays away the less happy and the more frequent mental health issues a child suffers.   With the child no doubt suffering the most should that parent die in a combat zone.  Thus being removed from the child’s life forever.  Sad.  But intuitive.  For most probably didn’t need a study to tell them this.

The same can be said about single mothers.  And their children.  For it is the absence of one parent from their lives that reduces the quality of their lives.  Because that father isn’t there to toss the football around with him after school.  To attend a tea party with her favorite stuffed animals.  To be there to teach them what to do when they lose power during a thunderstorm.  And make them feel safe just by being there.

We take a lot of things Dad does—or did—for granted.  And the more time we spent with him the more we’re able to do the things he did when he’s no longer there to do them.  So the more time we have with Dad the stronger and more able we become.  The less time we have the less strong or able we become.  And if he’s not there at all it is like a child losing him in a military deployment.

The Democrats attack the Republicans and claim they have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to provide free birth control.  Abortion.  Or an expanding welfare state for single mothers.  The left really doesn’t want women to have children.  And if they do they want to help mothers raise their children without a father.  By having the state replace the father.  So women can remain free.  Pursue careers.  And not be condemned to stay-at-home motherhood.  The left does all of these things for women.  For it’s what is best for them.  Without ever considering what’s best for the child.  Two parents.  They will do studies to prove this if they can condemn the military for the effect it has on children.  But when it’s about women enjoying life to the fullest while treating pregnancy as a disease to avoid it’s a different story.  And for those women who become infected with pregnancy?  They don’t need a man in their life.  As long as there is the reassuring embrace of government to comfort her.

The Republicans don’t have a war on women.  But you could say that Democrats have a war on children.  As they always put a woman’s happiness over her child’s happiness.  For a child would rather grow up in a traditional family than be shuffled back and forth from daycare.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music if you don’t believe that’s true.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obamacare to create Great Doctor Shortages, Long Wait Times and Rationing of Health Care Services

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

How did African slavery arrive to the new world?  The New World was vast continents.  And there were just not enough settlers to farm on the scale required.  With a huge shortage of laborers the colonial powers tried enslaving the local population.  But it proved difficult to keep them enslaved.  As they were well familiar with the land.  And the indigenous population.  If they escaped they could disappear into the land and into the indigenous population.  Something an African slave could not do as well.  If at all.  Strangers in a strange land.  Unable to communicate with the indigenous population.  And unable to hide among them.  Who were probably just as hostile to them as they were to the white man taking their land.  Making escape from bondage much more difficult for the African slave than it was for the indigenous slave.  So the African slave proved to be a good fit for the colonial powers.  Allowing them to fill the shortage of labor by forcing the black man into bondage.  To provide their labor against their will to meet the demand of the ruling colonial powers.

Now there is a new demand that the government will struggle to meet (see Lack of Doctors May Worsen as Millions Join Medicaid Rolls by ABBY GOODNOUGH posted 11/28/2013 on The New York Times).

Dr. Ted Mazer is one of the few ear, nose and throat specialists in this region who treat low-income people on Medicaid, so many of his patients travel long distances to see him.

But now, as California’s Medicaid program is preparing for a major expansion under President Obama’s health care law, Dr. Mazer says he cannot accept additional patients under the government insurance program for a simple reason: it does not pay enough…

His view is shared by many doctors around the country. Medicaid for years has struggled with a shortage of doctors willing to accept its low reimbursement rates and red tape, forcing many patients to wait for care, particularly from specialists like Dr. Mazer.

Yet in just five weeks, millions of additional Americans will be covered by the program, many of them older people with an array of health problems. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that nine million people will gain coverage through Medicaid next year alone. In many of the 26 states expanding the program, the newly eligible have been flocking to sign up…

In California, with the nation’s largest Medicaid population, many doctors say they are already overwhelmed and unable to take on more low-income patients. Dr. Hector Flores, a primary care doctor in East Los Angeles whose practice has 26,000 patients, more than a third of whom are on Medicaid, said he could accommodate an additional 1,000 Medicaid patients at most.

“There could easily be 10,000 patients looking for us and we’re just not going to be able to serve them,” said Dr. Flores, who is also chairman of the family medicine department at White Memorial Medical Center in Los Angeles…

The health care law seeks to diminish any access problem by allowing for a two-year increase in the Medicaid payment rate for primary care doctors, set to expire at the end of 2014. The average increase is 73 percent, bringing Medicaid rates to the level of Medicare rates for these doctors.

But states have been slow to put the pay increase into effect, experts say, and because of the delay and the fact that the increase is temporary, fewer doctors than hoped have joined the ranks of those accepting Medicaid patients. “There’s been a lot of confusion and a really slow rollout,” Ms. Folberg said, “which unfortunately mitigated some of the positive effects…”

Dr. Paul Urrea, an ophthalmologist in Monterey Park, said he was skeptical of “blue-sky scenarios” suggesting that all new enrollees would have access to care. “Having been in the trenches with Medi-Cal patients who have serious eye problems,” he said, “I can tell you it’s very, very hard to get them in to see those specialists.”

Dr. Urrea said that when he recently tried to refer a Medicaid patient with a cornea infection to another eye specialist, he was initially informed that the specialist could not see the patient until February. “And this is a potentially blinding condition,” he added.

Travel long distances to see a doctor?  Long wait times?  A shortage of health care providers?  Low reimbursement rates?  Overwhelmed doctors?  A shortage of specialists?  You’d think your were reading about the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).  But this is just what the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is doing to Medicaid.  Which it will soon do to the rest of the American health care system.

So not only is the Affordable Care Act making health insurance unaffordable it will create doctor shortages that will lead to longer wait times.  Some waits stretching out over two months.  A wait so long that a patient may go blind from a treatable eye infection.  This is national health care.  People succumbing to their diseases as they wait for treatment that is being rationed out.  Which they have to ration as the number of patients far outnumber the number of doctors available to treat these patients.

So this is what Obamacare will do to the American health care system.  Give us longer waiting times.  Rationed care.  And people succumbing to their illnesses because of the long wait to see a doctor.  Funny as the Afford Care Act was to give affordable health insurance to all.  So everyone could live in a utopia where if they were sick they could go to a doctor and have everything covered.  Just pray you’re not one of those who can’t afford to pay the higher premiums and higher deductibles of Obamacare.  Because these people are being dumped into the overcrowded and underfunded states’ Medicaid systems.  Which will only get worse under Obamacare.  Especially with doctors leaving the Medicaid system.  Retiring early.  Or moving into concierge medicine.  Leaving ever fewer health care providers to tend to the swollen Medicaid ranks.

Not a good time to be a doctor.  For you have to be wary of a government that can’t find enough doctors to voluntarily meet the health care demand.  Especially one that has a Senate ‘rubber-stamp’ for its judicial appointments.  Thanks to Harry Reid and the nuclear option.  Changing the rules of the Senate by eliminating the filibuster for judicial appointments.  Which opens the door for a lot of illegal and unconstitutional law.  Such as new health care mandates issued by the executive branch that exceed its constitutional authority.  Which will be challenged.  But once these cases hit these Obama-packed courts you can guess the outcome.  Illegal and unconstitutional mandates will become law.  Which no doubt concern doctors in a health care system that has a doctor shortage and an explosion of new patients.

If a doctor wants to remain a doctor and get paid for his or her services he or she may find new requirements.  Such as mandatory salary caps.  Forced acceptance of Medicaid patients.  With ‘opting out’ made illegal.  Compelling doctors to work against their will.  Now forcing people to work against their will is nothing new.  When Roman taxes rose so high to pay for the bloated Roman state people quit their jobs to avoid paying taxes.  Then the Roman state made that illegal.  Bonding these people to their jobs.  And when they died their children were forced to continue in their place.  Giving Europe feudalism.  Where the masses worked the land against their will.  For the law prevented them from ever leaving the land they or any of their progeny were born on.  Could this happen to the American health care system?  If the state controls the health care industry and the courts, yes.  Which is why it is not a good time to be a doctor.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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