The Beating a Woman takes Playing Football with Men won’t be as Bad as Hand-to-Hand Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

The NFL is coming under a lot of pressure because of concussions.  And the brain damage it may lead to later in life.  As players have never been bigger or faster.  And when they hit they hit hard.  The NFL has changed the rules to prevent the most damaging of these collisions.  Head to head contact.  There is even talk of eliminating the kickoff.  To prevent two ‘freight trains’ running into each other at full speed.  And those on the left are calling it a brutal game that we need to get rid of.  For it’s little better than gladiators fighting to the death in the Colosseum.  And we shouldn’t let our children grow up and play football.  Unless they’re gay.  Or women.  Then it’s a beautiful thing.  An openly gay man in the NFL.  Or a woman playing running back in the Indoor Football League (see Running Back Jennifer Welter Makes History By Playing In Pro Football Game by ThePostGame Staff posted 2/17/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Welter, who has starred at linebacker for a decade for the Dallas Diamonds of the Women’s Football Alliance, got her first carry midway through the third quarter. She took a handoff from two yards out of the end zone and scampered around the left tackle. But the 5-foot-2, 130 pound Welter was met by 6-4, 245-pound defensive lineman Cedric Hearvey for a one-yard loss.

Somehow, Welter was unfazed by the hit.

“I said, ‘Is that all you got?'” Welter asked Hearvey. “I didn’t want them to think I was intimidated…”

Welter had her number called twice more in goal line situations, but she wasn’t able to score either time.

If you follow the link you can see videos of her plays.  She looked like a child playing with men who towered over her.  And one hit just threw her like a train hitting something.  She got right up.  But with the men having a one foot height advantage and over a 100 pound weight differential these were traumatic hits.  A few more of these and she would be lucky to escape with only a concussion.  And these are the kind of hits the left wants to get out of the NFL.  Though I suppose they’re okay if it’s a woman getting the snot beat out of her.  It kind of reminded me of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life where the boys played the masters in a rugby match.  As the grown men just beat the snot out of their students.

As tough as she is she is just not as big or strong as the men playing at this level.  And that’s because men and women are different.  Which is why we shouldn’t have women in combat roles.  For the hand-to-hand fighting in combat is worse than any football game.  And just like in football the bigger and stronger combatant usually wins.  But unlike in a football game when you lose your matchup you just don’t score.  Or lose the game.  In combat when you lose you die.  And you weaken your team.  Giving the advantage to the enemy.  Which will probably cause more of your team to die.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Women to Serve in Combat despite having Lower Physical Standards and Private Rectal Exams in Training

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

Women are just as capable as men in combat.  According to people who say women should be allowed into combat roles so it doesn’t limit their chances for promotion.  Which would be all right if they went through the same training as men did.  But they’re not.  The Marines have lowered their physical requirements for women entering combat roles (see The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat posted 1/5/2014 on PITHOCREATES).  And the service academies have lowered physical standard for female cadets (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  This unfairness to men even extends to the military physical exam (see Men, Manliness, and Being Naked Around Other Men by Richard Senelick posted 2/3/2014 on The Atlantic).

I was already in medical school when I took my military entrance physical for the doctor draft. It was high school all over again. Grown men of different shapes and sizes, lined up to be poked and prodded. No one ever forgets being told to “bend over and grab your ankles.” With the increasing number of women in the military, I decided to research the current military physical exam. The article contains a section, “For Women Only,” where it proudly states that, “your visit with the physician will be in a private room.” Not so for the men, apparently. Six paragraphs down under a section titled “Do”, it says “Wear normal underwear. You will be sorry if you don’t!” Once again, a man’s modesty is a joke.

Why can’t women line up in their underwear, bend over and grab their ankles like the men do?  Are they too dainty to have a rectal exam in front of other women.  Like the men have to?  If so perhaps they are too dainty for combat.

Part of the reason for this public humiliation in training is because of the lack of modesty in combat.  If you have to poop during an artillery barrage and you’re hunkered down in your foxhole guess where you’re going to poop?  In your foxhole.  Even if there is another soldier or Marine in it with you.  You may try to defecate in your helmet and dump it outside your foxhole.  If you want to risk getting your arm blown off.  And you’re probably not.  So when you feel the call of nature you are going to drop trou, squat and poop while close up and personal with someone else.  With that poop remaining in you foxhole with you and your buddy.  And the thinking is if you lose all modesty in basic training you’ll have no problem pooping while hunkering down in a foxhole with someone else.  Or doing other unpleasant and/or embarrassing things.

Will a female soldier or Marine who has her basic training rectal exam in a private room be able to do this?  Or does she think she’s just going to hold it in until she gets to a proper bathroom off the line?  Either women and men meet the same standards.  Or they should not serve together in combat.  For the enemy only makes one type of war.  Not one for men.  And another less strenuous and more modest one for women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats Lie to Women about the Gender Pay Gap to get them to Vote Democrat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats tell women that Republicans have a war on women.  They, after all, don’t want to pay for their birth control.  They don’t want to allow them to have an abortion.  And they defend businesses that only pay women 77 cents to every dollar a man earns.  Yes, Republicans may prefer seeing women as something other than sexual objects.  Preferring they marry, raise a family and live happily ever after.  Instead of just being sexual play things.  While Democrats tell women that the only thing important to them at election time is birth control and abortion.  But that gender pay gap is simply not true (see Gender Pay Gap: When You’ve Lost Slate… by Walter Olson posted 1/30/2014 on Cato).

White House speechwriters couldn’t resist sticking an applause line into President Obama’s State of the Union speech about how women supposedly earn only 77 cents to every dollar a man earns in America. Even more depressing, it drew some of the night’s biggest applause. But as almost everyone familiar with the numbers has had reason to know for years and years, it simply isn’t true. Most, if not all, of the gap melts away once you factor in variables such as hours worked, choice of occupation, and midcareer family interruption, among others.

The big applause can only mean one of two things.  Either that those applauding are very ignorant of the facts they are debating.  Not a good quality in a representative of the people.  Or that they are lying about the facts.  Which is also not a good quality in a representative of the people.  So which is it?  Well, let’s see.  Are there any examples of Democrats lying to get something they want?  Why, yes there is. The lie of the year.  When President Obama said if you like your health insurance you can keep it.  Period.  It turns out that Obamacare wouldn’t work if people kept the health insurance they liked.  So they wrote the law to make it impossible for that to happen.

So there is a history of telling big lies.  Lies so big that they win the title of lie of the year.  So one would have to conclude that they are knowingly lying about the gender pay gap.  But why?  Because women are 50% of the electorate.  That’s why.  And if they don’t scare or anger them into voting Democrat they may just vote based on the facts.  And vote Republican.

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , ,

Abortion is Good in the United States but Bad in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Advanced economies with expansive welfare states are incurring large budget deficits and growing national debt.  Why?  Because of birth control.  And abortion.

These massive welfare states were implemented before the Sixties.  When people were having more babies than they are now.  Following World War II there was a baby boom.  Following the baby boom, though, there was a baby bust.  Fast forward to today and a lot of those baby boomers are leaving the workforce and collecting taxpayer-financed benefits in retirement.  While the smaller baby bust generation is paying the taxes for those benefits.  Resulting in less money going into the welfare state than is going out in benefits.  Giving those deficits.  And that growing national debt.

A declining birthrate is the death knell of a welfare state.  So if you want a healthy welfare state you need people to have more babies.  So each generation is bigger than the one before it.  So there is always more money going into the welfare state than is going out.  Allowing the state to pay for those generous benefits without going bankrupt.

So birth control and abortion can bankrupt advanced economies with generous welfare states.  But abortion can do something else (see One-Child Policy Is One Big Problem for China by Susan Scutti posted 1/23/2014 on Newsweek).

Late last year, China’s National People’s Congress eased the one-child policy. The government didn’t exactly admit it was a mistake; according to Chinese officials, the guidelines helped avert 400 million births and in so doing, accelerated modernization…

Enforcement of the one-child policy during the early 1980s was controversial not only in China but around the globe. Early stories emerging from the rural villages focused on coercive practices, including forced late-term abortions and involuntary sterilization, as well as the “neighborly” snitching on pregnant couples who dared to conceive a second child…

…In China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls.

Medical advancements and technology have played a key role in creating this surplus of boys. “The Chinese government contracted with GE to provide cart-mounted ultrasound that could be run on generators so that the most obscure village had access to fetal sex determination,” said Hudson. Given the ability to know the sex of their unborn children, many parents aborted female fetuses…

It appears that the outraged cries from within and without have been heard. The Chinese government has spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research into the implications of this radical skew in gender population numbers.

Having more men than women has led to a lot of single men who want to marry but can’t.  As there are not enough women to match up with men.  Which has caused a lot of these men to turn to prostitutes.  Something human traffickers are more than happy to supply them with.  Sending women there from neighboring countries to work in the sex industry.

The world is outraged over the number of aborted female fetuses in China.  Including the American left.  Yet they have no problem with abortion.  Aborting female fetuses is wrong.  But aborting male AND female fetuses is fine.  Apparently.  As abortion is sacred to those on the left.  Just mention that you want to revisit Roe v. Wade and see them go apoplectic.  For that is settled law.  And anyone who wants to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion is waging a war on women.  While in China abortion itself is the war on women.  So on the one hand abortion is the great liberator of women (outside of China).  While on the other hand it is the great exterminator of women (inside of China).  So it’s both good and bad.  When you use the imaginary logic of liberals, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Billionaires increasing Income Inequality is bad but Women Billionaires are Not

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

According to the left rich people in corporations are bad.  They’re evil incarnate.  That’s why they hated 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney so much.  He was a rich guy in the corporate world.  Who screw the people to enrich themselves.  Making rich people richer.  And poor people poorer.  Which is the new theme President Obama is using these days.  Income inequality.  Which just isn’t right.  Rich people having so much more than poor people.  Especially those billionaires in corporations.  They’re the worst.  Money-grubbing parasites.  These billionaires threaten human progress (see 85 people have as much money as half the world by Li Anne Wong, CNBC, posted 1/20/2014 on MSN Money).

The combined wealth of the world’s richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world’s population — or 3.5 billion of the poorest people — according to a new report from Oxfam.

In a report titled “Working for the Few” released Monday, the global aid and development organization detailed the extent of global economic inequality created by the rapidly increasing wealth of the richest, warning of the major risks it poses to “human progress.”

According to the report, 210 people have become billionaires in the past year, joining a select group of 1,426 individuals with a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion.

It added that the wealth of the richest one percent of people in the world now amounts to $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

Imagine that.  There are 1,426 of these money-grubbing parasites.  Who can only make the world a worse place.  According to the left.  For any one person having that much money is just wrong.  Unless, that is, she’s a woman (see Facebook’s Sandberg is now a billionaire by Chris Isidore posted 1/22/2014 on CNN Money).

A record high close for Facebook shares has made Sheryl Sandberg one of the youngest female billionaires ever, according to a ranking from Bloomberg.

Sandberg, who is the company’s chief operating officer, owns 12.3 million shares. That makes her stake worth about $720 million.

In addition, she owns 4.7 million options, which would net her $220.6 million at her exercise price.

She has also received stock awards which have not yet vested, the estimated value of which takes her over the $1 billion mark.

Female billionaires are still relatively rare. Bloomberg’s list of the 200 richest people worldwide shows only 17 who are women.

Forbes reported last year that there were 138 female billionaires worldwide, but that’s out of a total 1,426 billionaires worldwide.

And only 24 of the women billionaires on the Forbes list earned their wealth themselves; most inherited a significant portion of their fortune.

Not a bad word in this article about this billionaire.  For when a woman becomes a billionaire it is reason to celebrate.  For shattering yet another glass ceiling.  Not to lament that there is another good for nothing money-grubbing billionaire in the world today.  Who will only make that income inequality worse.  Funny how that works.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Democrat War on Women leads to Young Single Mothers and Abject Poverty

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2014

Week in Review

Doctors don’t just treat symptoms.  They order tests and procedures to find the cause for the symptom.  Because if they don’t the underlying problem may get worse.  Causing greater medical problems for the patient later.  Or worse.  This is how medicine works.  Because it’s not a government bureaucracy making medical decisions about the patient.  Now contrast that to how government programs operate.

When a government program shows symptoms that something isn’t right what do government bureaucrats do?   Address only the symptoms.  By throwing money at them.  While never addressing the underlying cause for those symptoms (high chronic unemployment, families below the poverty line, rising federal debt ceiling, etc.).  Instead they just politicize those who are struggling.  And blame everything else but the underlying government policies for their suffering (see Why you can’t “bootstrap” yourself out of poverty by Nicole Goodkind posted 1/17/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).

When money is at its tightest, cost-saving choices are often impossible to make, digging impoverished Americans deeper and deeper into the pit of day-by-day living…

A car…is a necessity for many jobs but the down payment can be insurmountably high. And even after the down payment poor drivers still face monthly payments, high gas prices, and the fact that low-income car buyers pay 2% more for a car loan than affluent people. Low-income drivers can also pay up to $400 more annually than wealthier drivers to insure their cars (for a car of the same model and with the same driver risk).

A lack of capital can also make it impossible to afford the security deposit on an apartment causing those in poverty to live day-to-day in expensive hotels…Those in poverty who are able to rent or buy homes are also more likely to get household appliances through rent-to-own companies and end up paying more due to added interest.

…banks often charge large fees for those who don’t have a minimum amount of capital in their accounts—this makes cash checking establishments, who charge incredibly high interest rates on pay-day loans, the only choice for many.

Ben Hecht, CEO and president of Living Cities, an organization that works to revitalize impoverished areas, joined The Daily Ticker to discuss why it costs so much to be poor.

“Many of us are salaried employees and many poor people, if they’re working, are hourly employees,” explains Hecht.

If you’re an hourly employee who needs to apply for benefits or even see a doctor, you’re missing out on vital pay, Hecht points out…

One of the biggest disadvantages that those in poverty experience is a lack of broadband Internet. “One of the fundamentals about poverty is a lack of access to economic opportunity,” says Hecht. “And we all know that the number one factor in economic opportunity is education and we know that in today’s world much education, even in public schools, is done online.”

A lack of broadband access is not why kids are doing poorly in school.  It’s because they spend too much time online with their social media.  Or spend too much time having fun with sex and drugs instead of doing their homework.  And those who do buckle down and study are being taught things like global warming and the unfairness of capitalism.  Instead of the math and science skills high-tech employers need.  It’s so bad that they have to hire foreigners in the visa program to fill their high tech—and high paying—positions.

What is this about being able to take time off with pay to run errands if you’re salary?  Every salary job I had didn’t work that way.  You were hourly until you reached 40 hours.  Then you were salary after 40 hours.  So if you worked only 36 hours because you took a half day for personal business you got paid for 36 hours.  But if you worked 65 hours to bring a project in on time you got paid for 40 hours.  Because you were salary.  And were expected to put in the hours necessary to get the job done.  The hourly guys laugh at the salary guys.  For if they work 65 hours they’re paid for 65 hours.  With 25 of those hours paid at a time-and-a half premium.

Banks have employees who don’t work for free.  And how does a bank pay for their employees?  In one of two ways.  From the interest they earn in lending your money.  Or the fees you pay when you don’t deposit enough money to lend.  Just look at the numbers.  If someone has an average balance of $3,000 the bank can earn about $4.62 a week on that by loaning it out.  Whereas if someone has an average balance of $25 the bank can only earn about 4 cents a week.  And 4 cents a week isn’t going to help pay anyone’s paycheck.  Even if you have 100 depositors.  Which would give the bank about $4 each week to pay their bills.  While having 100 $3,000 depositors would provide $462 each week to help pay the bills.  So they must charge fees for low balances.  Or lay off workers.

The reason why people can’t save for down payments and security deposits is because they don’t have the job skills to earn a larger paycheck.  Either they didn’t graduate from high school.  Or they are a young single mother who became a mother before getting higher-paying job skills.  For the path to a higher paying job is to graduate from high school.  Go on to college.  Establish a career.  Go to church.  Then get married and start raising a family (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Whereas the people most mired in poverty are young women who have children out of wedlock.

The system isn’t unfair.  The system works very well for those who do what’s best for their future instead of what’s the most fun right now.  We need to take care of the children born into poverty.  But we need to address the cause of this poverty.  The breakdown of the family.  And the abandoning of our culture and traditions.  Those things that made America great.  For the left can talk about the War on Women and Christian oppression all they want.  But it is their libertine attitudes that are putting young single mothers into poverty.

We need to listen to the wise words of Cary Grant in Operation Petticoat.  When the women came aboard the submarine accompanied by a ‘wow’ from the crew Grant’s character said, “Mr. Stovall, Lt. Holden’s influence upon you is starting to worry me. I suggest you “wow” less and “tsk tsk tsk” a little more.”  As a society we need to ‘wow’ less and ‘tsk tsk tsk’ more.  Promote marriage and family over the casual sex that so often results in abject poverty.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Democrat War on Women has given One in Six People Genital Herpes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Liberals say there’s nothing wrong with women being sexually active.  In fact, it’s empowering.  Young women naked on their backs with their legs spread pleasing men.  That’s the way liberals like their women.  Strong.  Independent.  Not enslaved in a marriage.  But out there having fun.  Enjoying life.  And to keep these young naked women on their backs liberals have given them free birth control in Obamacare.  And access to abortion when that fails.  So they can have all the casual sex men want to have with them.  And all of it consequence free (see New genital herpes drug shows promise in trials by Tracy Miller posted 1/16/2014 on the New York Daily News).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in six people between the ages of 14 to 49 have an HSV-2, or genital herpes, infection.

The currently approved drugs to treat genital herpes don’t fully eliminate symptoms and only partly reduce the risk of spreading herpes, Dr. Anna Wald, professor of allergy and infectious diseases at the University of Washington School of Public Health, told LiveScience…

The study found no serious side effects associated with this dose of the [new] drug, though previous research found high doses of pritelivir were toxic when given to monkeys, LiveScience reported.

The new drug will undergo more tests and “is still a few years from the market,” Tyring said.

Well, consequence free for five out of six people.  Which means if you’re in a group with three couples one of the six will have genital herpes.  Which isn’t too bad.  Unless you’re the poor bastard that has casual sex with that one.

A 14 year old girl is not thinking about getting married and raising a family.  No.  She’s thinking about empowerment.  At least, one in six is.  Imagine this girl in her twenties.  When she is thinking about getting married and raising a family.  And how much fun that will be trying to meet the father of her future children when she has genital herpes.  That’ll put a damper on her finding her Prince Charming.  And her fairy tale wedding.  Which is the biggest thing in a woman’s life.  As any guy getting married will tell you.  They’d be fine with eloping to Las Vegas.  Not their fiancés.  They want the $4,000 wedding dress.  And the big church wedding.  One thing she never dreamed of having?  Genital herpes.  Which she got thanks to liberals who told her to live life and empower herself.

And yet it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Left may no longer Love the Pope now that he went from Anti-Capitalist to Pro-Life

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Awhile back the left was loving the new Pope.  Because he sounded like an anti-capitalist.  Now they no doubt love the Pope about as much as Sinead O’Conner.  Who once tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL can called him the real enemy  (see Pope Francis Calls Abortion ‘Horrific’ by Eliana Dockterman posted 1/13/2014 on Time).

Pope Francis called abortion “horrific” on Monday…

“It is horrific even to think that there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day,” he said in his toughest remarks to date on abortion in his “State of the World” address, Reuters reports.

If the left had their choice they’d probably taken a pro-choice Pope over a capitalist Pope.  For even though those on the far left despise capitalism they just worship abortion more.  Because it helps with their war on women argument.  Which gets women and young people to vote Democrat.  And once they do then they can wage a war on capitalism unencumbered.  Which is their real enemy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »