University encourages Women to be Sexually Active with Consent Kits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Hardcore feminists hate the institution of marriage.  Unless it’s same-sex marriage.  Then marriage is the greatest thing in the world.  But when it’s the union of a man and a woman that’s another story.  For all that the institution of marriage does is reduce the woman to a second-class citizen.  A piece of property.  Human property.  A cook in the kitchen.  A maid.  And a whore in the bedroom.  To serve their husbands disgusting sexual desires.  Some militant feminists have gone so far as to call sex in marriage rape.  Except for same-sex marriages, of course.  Then it’s a beautiful expression of love between two people.

To make these feminists happy all married women should deny their husbands any sexual pleasure.  They should be sexually abstinent.  They should be asexual.  So they are not a sexual object for their husbands’ depravity.  But on the other hand, if they’re single women then they should explore every part of their sexuality.  To enjoy every sexual pleasure there is no matter the social norm or taboo they break.  To objectify whatever part of their bodies to pleasure a man. Outside of marriage that’s called empowerment.  While inside a marriage it’s called rape.  Unless it’s a same-sex marriage, of course.  Feminists at a university are even helping young college women objectify, I mean, empower themselves (see Consent kits given to Vancouver students by Ada Slivinski posted 3/19/2014 on Vancouver 24 Hurs).

Bright pink boxes created by the Women’s Centre at Simon Fraser University are being distributed to spread the word about sexual consent and counter what is often termed “rape culture.”

Louise Mapleston, who represents the centre, said the initiative is about “making sure that when people have sex, they are feeling comfortable and they’re 100% excited.”

The package contains a condom, lubricant and a sexual Mad Lib, in which students can fill in the blanks of what form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in…

The Women’s Centre is run by a collective of volunteers and staff. The group self-identifies as pro-feminist, sex-positive, pro-choice, trans and intersex inclusive and anti-racist.

What form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in?  Would this work in marriage, too?  Would the sex inside of marriage not be rape if the wife filled out a sexual Mad Lib first?

Sex inside a marriage is a beautiful expression of love between two people.  Casual sex with a random person is not.  It is a physical experience only with no emotional connection.  It’s just a hookup.  Where guys can go from woman to woman depending on their tastes for the night.  The girl next door?  A cheerleader-type perhaps?  Black?  White?  Asian?  Hispanic.  So many options.  Thanks to all of those women empowering themselves.

And for the woman looking to get married and settle down to raise a family good luck.  With the hookup culture so prevalent guys can satisfy their lust and then hang out with their friends.  As the hookup culture has objectified women like nothing else.  It’s so bad that a lot of men see no need to get married.  For whenever they feel a sexual urge all they need to do is to hook up with some random woman.  Satisfy that urge.  And get back to something they enjoy.  Hanging with the guys.  As the hookup culture has made women good for only one thing to a lot of men.  And it’s not marriage.  Or even spending time with a woman in a nonsexual way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

It turns out that there are some Similarities between Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Putin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler over his excuse to enter Crimea.  To protect ethnic Russians.  Much like the excuse Hitler used to enter the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.  To protect ethnic Germans.  Because the Czechoslovakians were oppressing them.  A trumped up charge.  Much like Vladimir Putin’s claims that the Ukrainians were oppressing the Russians in Crimea.  Clinton received some blowback for her comparison of Putin to Hitler so she walked it back a little.  But was she wrong in her comparison?

Actually, no.  For there are Crimea-Sudetenland similarities.  But it probably ends there.  For Hitler had much bigger goals.  He wanted to recover all of the Germanic lands lost in the wake of World War I.  For he felt the Germanic people were special.  Even thought of them as the master race.  And loved Germanic mythology.  Especially those featuring Germanic glory.  And the destiny of the Germanic master race.  Which is why he loved Richard Wagner.  And could listen to those 5-hour operas all day long.

He planned on taking Slavic lands (especially the breadbasket of Europe—Ukraine) for living space.  Lebensraum.  To take their food for the master race.  Leaving the Slavs to starve to death.  Expanding the borders of Greater Germany.  To fulfill the Germanic people’s destiny.  That’s what Hitler wanted.  But Putin surely doesn’t share any similar goals as these (see Vladimir Putin’s heroes: Russian president motivated by writers’ messianic view of country’s destiny by Joseph Brean posted 3/21/2014 on the National Post).

…a young mystic poet and philosopher named Vladimir Solovyov gave his first public lecture in Saint Petersburg. A “wild looking” intellectual gadfly with long hair and “fiery” eyes, he expressed a vision of Russian destiny that, a century later, has made him a philosophical hero of the man behind Russia’s latest Crimean adventure, the long-serving autocratic President Vladimir Putin.

“The lecture had a markedly conservative agenda, close to the Slavophile belief in Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission,” according to Solovyov’s biographer, Judith Deutsch Kornblatt. “In it, he criticizes the blind, monolithic power of the East as well as the fragmented power of the West; the former destroys the freedom of the individual, while the latter leads to unchecked egoism and anarchy.”

Solovyov’s argument — still so relevant that Mr. Putin reportedly assigns his political underlings to read him — was that “hope for the future resides only with a third people, the Slavs,” whose national character integrates the other two extremes…

Mr. Putin is a product of the Soviet Union and sees its collapse as the greatest disaster of the modern era, a view that is rooted in a deeper narrative about Moscow as the “Third Rome,” said Neil MacFarlane, Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, focused on the politics of the former Soviet Union.

The collapse of Russia under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, further strengthened Mr. Putin’s resolve to restore its former glory, and writers like Solovyov — obscured during Soviet rule, he rose in prominence following the 1980s Glasnost policy of openness — had a “visceral appeal.”

Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission?  Moscow is the Third Rome?  The collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest disaster of the modern era?  Return the former glory of Russia?  Perhaps Hillary Clinton didn’t need to walk anything back after all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Venice votes to Secede from Italy over High Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

I remember learning long ago that there were two Italys.  A prosperous north.  And an impoverished welfare state in the south.  Apparently that was and still is true (see Venice votes to split from Italy as 89% of the city’s residents opt to form a new independent state by Hannah Roberts posted 3/21/2014 the Mail Online).

Venetians have voted overwhelmingly for their own sovereign state in a ‘referendum’ on independence from Italy…

The floating city has only been part of Italy for 150 years. The 1000 year–old democratic Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia, was quashed by Napoleon and was subsumed into Italy in 1866.

Wealthy Venetians, under mounting financial pressure in the economic crisis, have rallied in their thousands, after growing tired of supporting Italy’s poor and crime ridden Mezzogiorno south, through high taxation…

Campaigners say that the Rome government receives around 71 billion euros  each year in tax from Venice – some 21 billion euros less than it gets back in investment and services.

The five-day poll came in the same week that Crimean residents chose in a landslide vote to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia.

Crimea is no Venice.  Venice was one of the great Italian city-states that rose after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  They were an economic powerhouse.  Trade made Venice the richest city in Europe.  Their navies dominated the Mediterranean.  And they helped usher in the Renaissance.  Venice was an independent republic for 850 years longer than they were part of Italy.  So Venice has some esteemed history.  And they know a thing or two about economic activity.  Such as income redistribution does not work.

If you keep taxing the economic producers more and more eventually they’re going to do something about it.  Such as moving their economy underground.  Out of reach of the greedy hands of the taxman.  Or they may just vote to secede.  That vote may not be constitutional.  But apparently that doesn’t matter these days.  At least it didn’t matter in Crimea.  But one thing for sure.  Based on the flow of money between Venice and Rome it is fair to say that Rome needs Venice more than Venice needs Rome.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

It Appears Obamacare was Designed to Fail so they could give us a Single-Payer System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats have longed for national health care.  Because if the government controls health care they control one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Which means one-sixth of the U.S. economy would flow through Washington.  That’s a lot of money.  And a lot of that can flow into politicians’ pockets.  Allowing them to spend more than they ever had before.  And the best thing about it is that once they get control of it they can scare the people into raising taxes.  “Unless the people tell their Congress members to raise tax rates we will have to make cuts in the national health care budget.  Which means some people won’t get the tests they need.  The treatment they need.  Or the surgery they need.”  Imagine the fear that’ll put into the American people.

So when President Clinton entered office his administration tried to give us national health care.  Hillarycare.  But the people said in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want national health care.  By voting Republicans in everywhere during the 1994 midterm election.  That was the end of Hillarycare.  And President Clinton moved to the center.  While the Democrats noted that if they were going to pass national health care into law they would have to be devious.  Which is what Obamacare apparently is.  A devious plan to get us to a single-payer system against our will (see Why Is the ObamaCare Mandate So Toothless? posted 3/19/2014 on Investors).

Health Care: Some think Democrats designed ObamaCare to fail so they could get to a single payer system. Seems a bit extreme. But it does help explain why they made the individual mandate so easy to avoid…

In fact, of the 30 million uninsured expected in 2016, 19 million will be exempt from the individual mandate, according to the Congressional Budget Office…

On top of this, ObamaCare includes various “hardship exemptions” — some of which appear to be so laughably easy to qualify for that it’ll be a shock if any uninsured pay the tax penalty…

The form even encourages people who “aren’t sure” to “ask for an exemption…”

What’s more, those who don’t qualify for an exemption could avoid the penalty simply by not paying it. Democrats specifically barred the IRS from charging civil and criminal penalties, imposing liens or seizing assets and bank accounts to collect unpaid ObamaCare penalties. It can take it only from a tax refund…

This leaves the question of why Democrats would make a key pillar of the ObamaCare structure so incredibly weak.

Were they worried about the political consequences of making the unpopular mandate too strict, not realizing it would undermine their reform? Or did they know that an ineffective mandate would ultimately wreck ObamaCare, hoping its demise would push the country toward a single payer system?

In other words, were Democrats dangerously incompetent or unbelievably cynical? Neither is a particularly good defense, but each underscores the need to scrap ObamaCare entirely and start over.

The health insurers were all for Obamacare.  At first.  Mandatory health insurance?  Cha-ching.  Easy money.  The government forcing people to buy their policies?  It’s like they died and went to insurance heaven.  But government is full of devious bastards.  The health insurers let their greed cloud that fact.  And now they may pay the ultimate price.  For with all of these mandate exceptions the young and healthy aren’t buying health insurance they won’t use.  Only sick people who will use that health insurance are buying it.  So the health insurers have far too much going out in claims and far too few premiums coming in.  Which won’t help a health insurer stay in business.  But, then again, that may have been the plan all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You just can’t Replace a Coal-Fired Power Plant with a Solar Farm

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

What’s unique about Windsor, Ontario?  The city across the river from Detroit?  It’s the only place you can drive south from the United States to get to Canada.  So it’s about as far south you can get in Canada.  But it’s no Florida.  No.  They have cold winters in Windsor.  They also have snow.  And clouds.  So it’s probably not the best place to build a solar farm.  Any rational person would see this.  So guess what the government in southern Ontario is doing?  Building a solar farm (see Airport land leased for Samsung solar farm by Chris Vander Doelen posted 3/19/2014 on The Windsor Star).

A “major” developer of solar power will lease hundreds of acres at Windsor Airport for a green energy farm, city council has agreed after years of negotiations with the company…

He said the company picked Windsor as the site for its investment because “we have more sun days than any other jurisdiction in Ontario.” That clearly suggests a solar farm, but Francis wouldn’t confirm that…

The agreement approved Wednesday – the meeting was closed to the public for legal reasons, Francis said – is believed to be the final, long-delayed piece of a massive deal the Province of Ontario and Samsung announced in January 2010.

That’s when former premier Dalton McGuinty announced that the province had signed a $7-billion agreement to produce renewable power with the Korean industrial giant – a contract that became so controversial parts of it were later renegotiated…

But the deal also became controversial as the costs starting driving up residential and industrial power bills, all of which will be affected by the renewable energy plan.

The controversy eventually led to reductions in some of the feed-in tariffs paid to producers of solar and wind power, which likely added to the delays of the solar farm not announced until this week. It also led to the renegotiation of additional incentives for Samsung, which were reduced to $110 million over 20 years…

Installation of the panels would generate many years of employment for an undetermined number of labourers and IBEW electricians. But once built there wouldn’t be much employment generated by the static field of passive solar collectors.

The solar farms were to be part of something called the Ontario Alternative Energy Cluster, claimed by Samsung to be “the largest of its kind in the world” at 1,369 megawatts of output.

They may have more sun days in Windsor than any place else in Canada.  But Canada is a northern country.  Even Windsor is in a northern clime.  And they just don’t get as much sun as they do in more southern climes (see The Climate and Weather of Windsor, Ontario).  In the sunniest month they have 9.5 average hours of sun per day.  Which means they have 14.5 (24-9.5) average hours of no sun per day.  And during these hours of ‘no sun’ a solar farm will not produce electric power.  Which means on average this solar farm will produce no electric power for half of the day.

And it gets worse.  The average hours of sun per day declines going into winter.  October (5.5 hours of sun and 18.5 hours of no sun).  November (4.1 hours of sun and 19.9 hours of no sun).  December (2.6 hours of sun and 21.4 hours of no sun).  January (3.4 hours of sun and 20.6 hours of no sun).  February (4.4 hours of sun and 19.6 hours of no sun).  March (5.4 hours of sun and 18.6 hours of no sun).  So, on average, there are 5 hours of no sun for every hour of sun for half of the year.  So you can install solar panels that could produce 1,369 megawatts of output.  But they seldom will.  So you will need another power source to provide electric power when the solar panels don’t.  Which means a solar farm can’t replace something like a coal-fired power plant.  For that coal-fired power plant will have to on average provide power 82% of the time.  Which is why building a solar farm is a real bad idea.

And it gets even worse.  December has 10 days of snowfall on average.  January has 12.  And February has 9.  Just under half the days in the winter months will have snow which will have to melt off when the sun comes out from behind the clouds.  If it comes out.  Or someone will have to clear the snow from the solar panels by hand.

Windsor also has some other climate statistics (see National Climate Data and Information Archive).  They have the most thunderstorm days.  So they have more high winds, hail and tornados to damage delicate solar panels pointed skyward than any other part of Canada.  And more black overcast days to block out the sun.  They have the most smoke and haze days to filter out some of the sun from hitting the solar panels.  They have the most humid summer which will coat the solar panels with early morning dew that will run down and drain off in blackened streaks.  Reducing the efficiency of the solar panels.

This is why no one is building solar farms without taxpayer subsidies.  Which raises the cost of electric utility bills to pay for the subsidies.  Eating into household budgets forcing families to get by on less.  And for what?  You can’t shut down a coal-fired power plant during the day and turn it back on at night.  It takes time to make high pressure steam.  That’s why they use these plants for baseload power.  They’re on all the time.  And when demand picks up they add a natural gas-fired turbine ‘peaker plant’ to provide that peak demand.  Or some other source that they can bring on line quickly.  Like another turbine at a hydroelectric dam.  So the good people of Ontario will pay more for their electric power without getting anything in return.  Not even a cleaner environment.  Because you just can’t replace a coal-fired power plant with a solar farm.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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