President Obama allows Wind Farms to kill Federally Protected Eagles for 30 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

We’re killing the planet with all of our manmade carbon.  So we have to stop using coal to generate electric power.  And instead build these spinning killing machines (see Wind farms get extended leeway on eagle deaths by Maria L. La Ganga posted 12/6/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

In a decision that highlights the clash between two cherished environmental goals — producing green energy and preserving protected wildlife — federal officials announced Friday that some wind power companies will be allowed to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty…

Kelley said the new regulations would “increase the protection of eagles and will help develop more wind farms, a leading solution to climate change, which is the No. 1 threat to all eagles and all wildlife…”

Kelley, of the American Wind Energy Assn., said that wind farms had had a negligible impact on bald eagles and that only 2% of the golden eagles killed by humans died because of wind farms. In addition, he said, the population of golden eagles in the West is stable or increasing slightly.

Hutchins, however, pointed to a recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimating that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed every year by wind farms.

Is it me or is there a contradiction here?  Global warming is the number one threat to eagles.  This is why we must build wind farms.  So we can shut down our coal-fired power plants.  But these very wind farms are killing these eagles.  But that’s okay because the eagle population is stable or increasing slightly.  Even though global warming is not chopping these eagles out of the sky.  The wind farms are.  So there would be more eagles alive today if it weren’t for these spinning killing machines.  Which would seem to make them a greater threat to the eagle population than global warming.

Something stinks here.  And it’s just not the rotting carcasses of the eagles these wind farms have killed.  You know what that stench in the air is?  Money.  Big money.  Going to the president’s friends in Green Energy.  This is why the president is allowing his friends to kill eagles.  So they can keep that money flowing from the taxpayers to Washington to the Green Energy firms and into the campaign coffers of the Democrat Party.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Objectifying Women was once Bad but now may be Good according to a Yale Professor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

Objectifying women is bad.  For it dehumanizes a woman.  Makes her a thing.  And not a person.  Then again, some are now saying that objectifying women actually humanizes them.  For when we see women in pornography we ascribe them feelings.  Feel empathy for them as they writhe in sexual ecstasy.  And feel compassion for them as they end a sex scene in the classic porn ending.  Which is why men watch pornography, I guess.  To feel closer to these women.  And lament that they can’t ask them how they feel.  And what they’re thinking.  At least according to a Yale professor (see New York Times Op-Ed Finds the Upside to Objectifying Women. What a Relief. by Amanda Hess posted 12/3/2013 on Slate).

What do we think about when we think about naked people? In the New York Times this weekend, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says that it’s time to rethink the theory of objectification. The feminist argument is that when people are depicted in sexualized contexts, “the objectifier (typically a man) thinks of the target of his desire (typically a woman) as a mere thing, lacking autonomy, individuality and subjective experience.” Bloom argues that the objectification process is actually more complicated: While focusing on people’s bodies as opposed to their minds does decrease our perceptions of their ability “to act, plan and exert self-control,” he writes, it can actually increase our perceptions of their capacity to “feel pain, pleasure and emotions.” When we look at people in a sexual context (or catch a peek at them without their clothes on), we’re less likely to ascribe them agency, but we’re more likely to ascribe them feelings. That could actually inspire greater empathy toward the objectified party—a silver lining to the focus on flesh…

To Bloom, the findings are hopeful. “Part of the effect of nudity that our study found is morally positive—it’s usually a good thing to be more attuned to someone else’s ability to experience,” he writes. Bloom’s interpretation of human psychology could even make us feel less bad about ourselves for watching porn. “It’s not literally true that women in pornography are thought of as inanimate and unfeeling objects; if they were, then they would just as effectively be depicted as unconscious or unresponsive, as opposed to (as is more often the case) aroused and compliant,” he writes. Looking at naked people can “trigger disgust, fear, and hatred,” Bloom says, but it can also “elicit empathy and compassion.”

Interestingly, the same week this article appeared this article was published (see ‘She wanted to be a superstar’: Never-before-seen photographs of Linda Lovelace, aged 24, reveal her attempts at becoming ‘a legitimate actress’ by Sadie Whitelocks posted 12/4/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Despite the two movies making her a household name, Lovelace later spoke out against pornography in speeches to universities and governments.

‘When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped,’ she boldly stated in a 1986 official inquiry into the sex industry. ‘It is a crime that movie is still showing. There was a gun to my head the entire time.’

For her old friends in the business, though, she was labeled a traitor; they sneeringly coined the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to describe former porn stars who later try to disown their seedy careers.

The exhibition’s photographs reveal, even before Lovelace made Deep Throat II, that she was keen to get out of the adult entertainment industry.

If you’re unfamiliar with the film Deep Throat you can look it up on IMDB or Wikipedia or some other online source.  Suffice it to say that this movie objectified Linda Susan Boreman (who was Linda Lovelace).  And then some.  Sadly she passed away in 2002 after a serious auto accident at the age of 53.

Boreman would probably not have agreed with this Yale professor.  Of course, she might have done so only because she wanted to disown her seedy career in the adult entertainment industry that objectified her.  But it does beg the question why is Yale studying naked women?  A bastion of liberalism.  And feminism.  I mean, this is the kind of thing you would expect to read in Playboy.  Not in a paper from an Ivy League university.  Then again Playboy has a special relationship with the Ivy League.  Putting out a few pictorial specials objectifying women of the Ivy League.  Maybe they’re planning a return to Yale.  And this is just to make the coeds comfortable in shedding their clothes in front of the camera.  So we can study their nude bodies.  Feel empathy for them.  And compassion.  As we study their nakedness.  For socio-scientific purposes, of course.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Manufacturers are Lowering Prices on Electric Cars to get us to Buy Cars we don’t Want

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

The government and those on the left may want us to all drive electric cars.  But you know who doesn’t?  Pretty much all of us (see Mitsubishi iMiev is now the cheapest electric car by Eric Evarts posted 12/5/2013 on Consumer Reports).

The biggest improvement electric cars need is in the price. And the latest electric-car maker to make that improvement is Mitsubishi, which just slashed the price of its golf-cartlike iMiev by more than 20 percent, to $23,845. That’s a $6,130 price drop from $29,975. (Toyota recently lowered the price on the Prius Plug-In.)

In addition, Mitsubishi has added some standard features, such as front heated seats, CHAdeMO DC quick charge port, rear door speakers, leather steering wheel trim, passenger-side vanity mirror, fog lights, and aluminum wheels. While these standard features sweeten the deal, they do underscore just how barebones the car was previously.

The iMiev is still eligible for a $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit that brings the price down to $16,345, or less where other state and local credits are available. Even at that reduced price, it still a lot of money for a car that feels like little more than an enclosed golf cart. The appeal lies solely in providing attainable access into the world of pure-electric cars. At this price, it becomes more feasible as a second, occasional-use car. (Visit our alternative fuel hub for more on electric cars and hybrids…)

The i-MiEV feels tiny, tinny, and slow, with clumsy handling and a bumpy ride. And its short cruising range—barely 60 miles in our tests—keeps you on a tight leash. Charging times are long, spanning between 6 and 7 hours for a full charge using 240-voltage.

The Spartan interior is cramped and unappealing, with seating limited to four people. Finally, the car’s small size and slow responses make you feel vulnerable sharing the road with “real” cars.

So to own an electric car you have to pay a fortune to get little.  You can’t drive further than 30 miles from your house.  And you must play ‘Russian roulette’ when you share the road with real cars.  As well as trucks.  You should never drive around a down railroad crossing gate.  Because in a car-train accident the car will always lose.  Just as in an electric car-anything-else accident the electric car will always lose.  Give me a big heavy 4-door sedan any day.  It’s big, it takes up space and pollutes the air (a quote taken loosely from the 1980 movie Serial).  But most of all it has space to survive in should you ever get into a non-train accident.

Any car that a manufacturer has to sell at a loss even with massive government subsidies is a car they shouldn’t be selling.  And it’s especially a car the government shouldn’t be subsidizing.  Especially when pretty much all of us prefer a car that’s big, takes up space and pollutes the air.  And will let you drive further than 30 miles from home.  While getting you home again.  Even if you get stuck in rush hour traffic.  In the middle of a blizzard.  When it’s dark outside.  Things that are not a problem when you have gasoline in the gas tank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

President Obama is Good for Wall Street but Bad for Main Street.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

The unemployment rate fell from 7.3 to 7.0 in November (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age).  With the government reporting 203,000 jobs created.  The economy must be turning around.  Things are getting better.  Especially for rich people (see Not fully inflated posted 12/7/2013 on The Economist).

TALK of bubbles is in the air again. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit an all-time high. A loss-making technology firm (Twitter) has floated its shares on a flood of investor demand. Private-equity groups are buying companies using amounts of debt not seen since 2008. A record price (more than $50m) has just been set for a penthouse in Manhattan. A triptych by Francis Bacon became the most expensive piece of art sold at an auction when Christie’s flogged it for $142.4m last month. Robert Shiller of Yale University, who correctly identified bubbles in tech stocks in the late 1990s and in property in the 2000s, has expressed unease about giddy American share valuations.

All this suggests that wealthy investors have become increasingly confident.

The rich sure are getting richer under President Obama.  But that’s Wall Street.  Where if you have friends in Washington you do well.  And Wall Street has a lot of friends in the Obama administration.  But what about Main Street?  How are the rest of us doing?  Who don’t have friends in Washington looking out for us?  Well, when President Obama took office there were 80,507,000 that were NOT in the labor force.  Under the economic policies of President Obama this number rose to 91,273,000.  Meaning that President Obama has destroyed 10,766,000 jobs since he became president.  It will take another 53 months at this pace to replace the jobs President Obama’s policies destroyed.  Or 4.42 years.

This is how Main Street is doing.  Not good.   Unlike the rich.  Who are doing very well buying and selling assets by borrowing cheap money.  Courtesy of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing.  Basically printing money.  Making more of it available to borrow.  And because there is so much available to borrow interest rates are near zero.  Allowing the rich to borrow all the money they need to buy and sell assets with.  And as the Fed devalues the dollar it takes more of them to buy those assets.  Allowing the rich to reap huge profits when they sell.  Following the simple strategy of ‘buy low’ and ‘sell high’.  But that inflation also raises the prices of our groceries.  Which consume a larger portion of our paychecks.  Which makes us, those on Main Street, poorer.

President Obama.  Good for Wall Street.  Bad for Main Street.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

College Degrees that are too Cool for School and Unwanted by Employers in a High-tech Economy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left is hammering millennials.  The young people.  Teenagers to thirty-somethings.  A strong demographic for the American left.  But they are just beating them up.  The latest being the punishing blows of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare).  Which transfers the cost of the old and sick to them.  By forcing them to buy costly health insurance policies that they can’t afford.  Because the millennials are suffering the highest unemployment rates in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

The economic policies of the Obama administration have forced over ten million people out of the labor force since Obama became president.  With this destruction of jobs the millennials graduating with a college degree can’t find a job.  At least not one using their degree.  That they financed with a large student loan.  And ended up working someplace that doesn’t require that costly degree.  Making far less than they expected when they took on all that student loan debt.  Leaving them struggling to repay that debt.

And if that wasn’t bad enough they encouraged them to go to college.  To get a college degree so they can make the big bucks after graduation.  They even took over the student loan program to make it easier to give these kids college loans.  The problem is that a lot of them did go to college.  But they got degrees like these (see College Majors That are Too Cool for School posted 12/8/2013 on Fact University).

Comic Book Art, Adventure Education, Cannabis Cultivation, Bowling Industry Management, Motorsports Science and Engineering, Winemaking, Folklore and Mythology, Comedy: Writing and Performance, Diving Business and Technology, Beatles Historian, Theme Park Engineer, Puppetry, Popular Culture, Entertainment Engineering & Design and Sexuality.

Is it any wonder the millennials are suffering some of the highest unemployment?  And why businesses have to use the visa program to get foreign college graduates to fill their science and engineering needs?

Our colleges and universities are giving our kids worthless degrees in a high-tech economy.  And it’s these degrees that the Democrats have been floating the idea of forgiving that student loan debt for.  After getting that money to their friends in higher education so they can mold their students into future Democrat voters.  And giving these kids 4 years of partying while working on degrees that are just too cool for school.  Guaranteeing a Democrat vote from each of them.  Until they grow up and experience the real world.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,