British Mother-of-Three dies from Cannabis Poisoning

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

In the movie Leaving Las Vegas Nicholas Cage’s character, Ben Sanderson, commits suicide by alcohol poisoning.  Cage won the Academy award for his performance.  For his painful, long death was intense.  And painful to watch.  Making death by alcohol wretched to say the least.  For it takes a long time to drink yourself to death.  Unlike death by marijuana (see Mother thought to be first woman in Britain to die from cannabis poisoning by News agencies posted 1/30/2014 on The Telegraph).

A mother-of-three is believed to have become the first woman in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Gemma Moss, a 31-year-old churchgoer, collapsed in bed after smoking a cannabis cigarette that led her to have moderate to high levels of the class B drug in her system…

Deaths directly from cannabis are highly unusual. In 2004 a 36-year-old man from Pembrokeshire became the first person in the UK to die from cannabis toxicity…

“Cannabis is know[n] to increase heart rate and blood pressure. Cannabis these days is designed to be much stronger than cannabis used in the sixties to meet demand of users who want a stronger hit.”

Miss Moss, a devout Christian, had frequently used cannabis during her adult life but had stopped for two years before her death last October.

She started using it again to help her sleep after becoming depressed and anxious due to breaking up with her boyfriend.

An inquest heard Miss Moss smoked half a joint a night to help get her to sleep.

Her friend, Zara Hill, said she and Miss Moss smoked about £20-[$32.86] worth of cannabis together in the week before her death.

Miss Hill told police that Miss Moss smoked as much as £60 [$98.58]…worth of the drug a week, although this was disputed by her family…

“She was a healthy 31-year-old woman who had nothing wrong with her.”

Poor Ben Sanderson drank morning, noon and night.  And suffered terrible withdrawals when he wasn’t drinking.  Near the end of his life his hand shook so much he couldn’t sign his name.  Though it was only a movie it portrayed what severe alcoholism can do to you.  Had he only drank like this woman smoked marijuana (only a ‘half portion’ at night) he would not have died the horrible death he died.  But cannabis is growing so strong these days that a ‘half portion’ can kill a healthy 31-year-old woman who’s just trying to relax a little so she can sleep.

So much for the argument that marijuana is safer than alcohol.  And that’s without considering the health effects of that first, second and third-hand smoke in people’s lungs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , ,

Objectifying a Woman in a Sexy Cheerleader Outfit cannot bring Respect to that Woman as she dons her Air Force Uniform

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

There is a connection between lower physical standards for women in the military and sexual harassment and assault of these women.  Some men resent the women in the service academies because they can score higher by doing less (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  For in their eyes these women would not even be there had it not been for the preferential treatment they get in the form of lower physical standards.  They don’t respect them as peers.  And think of them only as the weaker sex.  Objectifying them.  Thinking that they are good for only one thing.  Perhaps thinking the only reason why some are still in the service is because they advanced through the ranks on their backs.  Pleasing their commanding officers with sexual favors in return for promotions.  And better duty assignments.  Which leads to these horrendous acts of sexual harassment and assault.

Man can evolve from Neanderthals.  And has.  But you can’t take the Neanderthal out of man.  Some can suppress it better than others.  But some can never lift their knuckles from the ground.  Figuratively, of course.  And will resort to bad/criminal behavior.  Women aren’t asking for this trouble.  Their government just gave it to them by creating an environment where men have to do more to score as high as women score.  And something like this just isn’t going to make things any better (see Seahawks cheerleader and Air Force first lieutenant Alicia Quaco by Jay Busbee posted 1/30/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Quaco, 25, is a first lieutenant in the Air Force. A graduate of the Air Force Academy, she had some work to do to convince her superiors that part-timing as a Sea Gal was a good use of her time.

Is she a sexy cheerleader who is also a first lieutenant in the Air Force?  Or is she a first lieutenant in the Air Force who is also a sexy cheerleader.  I wonder what the men who serve under her will think.  Will they be thinking about the mission at hand?  Or will they be thinking about that poster of her in her cheerleader outfit?  With her toned midriff exposed.  Her tight shorts that leave little to the imagination.  Her sexy top showing ample cleavage.  That gorgeous mane of blonde hair cascading down her shoulders.  Those long, sexy legs.  Yes, I wonder what the men who must report to her will be thinking about when they see her.

Her Air Force uniform is anything but sexy.  Because being sexy has nothing to do with the mission.  In fact, being too sexy may only distract from the mission.  As the teenage men serving under her are little more than boys who buy Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  Or magazines that are a little racier.  The kind of things many have tried to limit the sale of around military installations.  For they tend to demean and objectify women.  Which can cause problems when men have to work with women.

Empowering women by being sexy and empowering women with careers in the military just somehow don’t go together.  Parents tell their daughters not to send nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends because they will be out there in cyberspace forever.  Coming back to haunt them when they apply for their first job.  Or run for political office.  Imagine this first lieutenant reporting one day to an international command.  Attending a meeting as a staff officer with foreign dignitaries.  Who may be more interested in the cheerleader officer rather than the business at hand.

If women have had to work harder to be respected in the military this cannot help their cause.  For objectifying a woman in a sexy cheerleader outfit just cannot bring respect to that woman as she dons her Air Force uniform.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Minimum Wage isn’t a Living Wage because the Federal Reserve devalued the Dollar

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats like to talk about income inequality.  Which they say isn’t good.  So they want to raise the minimum wage.  To reduce income inequality.  Even President Obama said during the State of the Union address that he wanted to raise the minimum wage.  To $10.10.  To give them a living wage.  Because they can’t make it on the current minimum wage.  Of course, there’s a reason for this.   And it’s not because of the wage rate.  It’s about the depreciation of the dollar (see Hiking wages with worthless dollars by Seth Lipsky posted 1/29/2014 on the New York Post).

The most startling thing about President Obama’s State of the Union message is what he failed to say about the minimum wage. “Today the federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here,” he declared Tuesday night.

But wait, wasn’t the minimum wage $3.35 an hour throughout Reagan’s two terms? Isn’t it now $7.25 an hour? How does that add up to a drop in value by 20 percent? The president glided right past that point. Maybe he thought nobody would notice.

It strikes me that the president owed the country more of an explanation. After all, he spoke exactly on the 100th anniversary of the start of the Federal Reserve System. The central bank is about to begin its second century. Obama made no reference to any of that history.

Yet a century ago Congress refused to agree to a Federal Reserve until there was a promise about the value of the dollar: It insisted on having the Federal Reserve Act state that it would not lead to an end of the convertibility of the dollar into gold.

That legislative promise came to an end in a series of defaults that started in the Great Depression and ended under President Richard Nixon. By the mid-1970s, America had moved to a fiat currency, meaning a dollar that is not redeemable by law in anything of value. Only what one critic calls “irredeemable electronic paper ticket money.”

The minimum-wage crisis is a sign that fiat money is not working. It’s not, after all, that the nominal minimum wage has failed to go up (it’s been raised seven times since Reagan). It’s that the value of the dollar has collapsed. Today it has a value of only a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Obama took office.

Back in 1907 some people tried to manipulate the stock price of a copper company and long story short the Knickerbocker Trust Company collapsed and caused a panic in the banking system.  Enter the Federal Reserve System (the Fed).  A central bank that can inject liquidity during a banking crisis.  And forever eliminate these banking crises.  Or so went the theory.  But central banks have a nasty habit of devaluing their currency.  Because they can print money.  Fiat currency.  Well, the deal with the Fed was that they would not succumb to the central bank disease.  But, alas, they did.  Which is why minimum wage workers have less purchasing power today than they did during the Reagan administration.  Even though they are paid more dollars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Tesla has made it Possible to drive Cross-Country in an Electric Car

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Tesla has installed charging stations across the country.  You can now drive from Los Angeles to New York City.  As long as you want to take the scenic route and are in no hurry (see Tesla’s 800-mile cross-country detour by Chris Isidore posted 1/30/2014 on CNN Money).

Tesla owners can now drive across the country using the company’s network of charging stations to power their batteries — as long as they don’t mind going about 800 miles out of their way…

Tesla says the route…is…3,400 miles long…

The superchargers provide enough juice in 30 minutes to take a Tesla about 170 miles. There are 32 stations on the route between downtown Los Angeles and New York City, and more than 40 others mostly up and down both coasts.

The Model S, which starts at about $69,000, needs to be charged every 244 to 306 miles, depending on the battery size.

Sounds good.  But for those of us comfortable with ease of traveling with gasoline will not experience that same ease driving from one charging station to another.  Let’s look at this by first looking at a full-size sedan powered by a gasoline-engine.  Like a Ford Taurus.  They can get about 29 miles per gallon on the highway and have an 18 gallon gas tank.  Crunching the numbers for that 3,400 mile trip it will take about 117 gallons of gasoline (3,400/29).  With an 18 gallon gas tank it will take 7 fueling stops to complete the trip (117/18).  Assuming 5 minutes to refuel and another 10 minutes for incidentals (pulling in, pulling out, paying at the pump, waiting for a fuel pump to become available, etc.) that’s 105 minutes (7 X 15).  Or 1.75 hours (105/60).  Adding just under 2 hours to the trip for fueling.

For 32 charging stations to cover that 3,400 miles means they are on average 106.25 miles apart.  So a half-hour quick charge will take you to the next charging station with 170 miles of charge available on your battery.  Assuming 30 minutes to charge and another 15 minutes for incidentals (pulling in, pulling out, waiting for another car to complete their 30 minute charge, etc.) that’s 1,440 minutes (32 X 45).  Or 24 hours (1,440/60).  Adding 24 hours to the trip for charging.  Or a full day.  Or 2 days if you only drive 12 hours a day.  Or 3 days if you only drive 8 hours a day.

Now imagine a world where everyone is driving electric cars.  And there are three cars ahead of you at the charging station waiting for a charge.  Adding an hour and half waiting time in addition to your 45 minute charging stop.  If it was like this at every charging station and you drove 12 hours a day that would add 6 days of traveling to that trip.  Whereas the odds are less likely that you will have to wait for 3 cars ahead of you at a gas station.  Because there are so many more gas stations to go to.

Driving cross-country in an electric car could add 6 days to a 4-day trip.  Making the electric car a novelty at best.  Unless your vacation is all about getting there.  And not about being there.  Where you drive there, turn around and return home.  Because you have no time to spend there due to the time it took to get there.  You could do that.  Or drive a gasoline-powered car.  And do more than just drive on your vacation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Feminists want no Restrictions on Abortion unless a Woman Aborts a Boy because she wants a Girl

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently.  Conservatives sees it as killing a human life.  Liberals don’t.  To them a fetus is not a human life.  It’s just an inanimate lump of cells.  With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue.  Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014

Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and  completely unacceptable…’

What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…

The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…

Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal  than another..?

That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.

This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense.  Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion.  While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it.  A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby.  But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term.  This makes no logical sense.  Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.

In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born.  But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy.  Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore.  Because it makes no sense even to them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,