Stem Cells from Cadavers promise more Hope than Embryonic Stem Cells ever Promised

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 23rd, 2012

Week in Review

One of the most politicized subjects is stem cells.  The potential miracle cure for the worst that ails us.  They could make the blind see again.  And the paralyzed walk again.  The Left politicized Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve.  Saying we could cure Fox’s Parkinson’s disease and Reeve’s paralysis with the miracle of stem cells.  But not just any stem cells.  Embryonic stem cells.  That is if it wasn’t for the rascally Republicans who wanted Fox and Reeve to continue to suffer their maladies.  Even die.  Because Republicans opposed using aborted fetuses for ethical reasons.  While the Left wanted the use of embryonic stem cells as they would give abortions a higher purpose.  The gift of life.  After extinguishing life (see Cadaver stem cells offer new hope of life after death by Jessica Hamzelou posted 12/21/2012 on New Scientist).

Dead bodies can provide organs for transplants, now they might become a source of stem cells too. Huge numbers of stem cells can still be mined from bone marrow five days after death to be potentially used in a variety of life-saving treatments.

Human bone marrow contains mesenchymal stem cells, which can develop into bone, cartilage, fat and other cell types. MSCs can be transplanted and the type of cell they form depends on where they are injected. Cells injected into the heart, for example, can form healthy new tissue, a useful therapy for people with chronic heart conditions.

Unlike other tissue transplants, MSCs taken from one person tend not to be rejected by another’s immune system. In fact, MSCs appear to pacify immune cells. It is this feature which has made MSC treatments invaluable for children with graft-versus-host disease, in which transplants aimed at treating diseases such as leukaemia attack the child instead…

While only limited amounts of bone marrow can be taken from a living donor, a cadaver represents a plentiful source of cells, says D’Ippolito. “From one donor, you could take the whole spine, for example. You are going to end up with billions of cells…”

… Chris Mason at University College London sees a potential hurdle in using such MSCs in therapy. “The work is novel and intriguing… but it would be better to use a living donor,” he says. That’s partly because medical regulators oppose treating individuals with stem cells from more than one source. “You can always go back and get more stem cells from a living donor if you need them, but if you use a cadaver, you’ll eventually run out.”

They’re making great strides with adult stem cells.  From living donors.  And now from dead ones.  But one thing you don’t hear a lot about are advances made with embryonic stem cells.  Could it be that the Left was wrong all along?  That they were just looking for a noble purpose for abortions?  Perhaps.

A big problem with embryonic stem cells was their rejection.  Or complications that resulted in things like tumors.  Things that didn’t happen with adult stem cells.  Especially those harvested from the same body.  And now apparently from dead people.  People who have died from some other cause other than abortion.

The continued advances in adult stem cell research leave advances in embryonic stem cell research conspicuous by its absence.  Despite all of the false hope the Left gave people like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve.  Suggesting that their arguments were more political than medical.  As everything with them is political.  For everything is about advancing their agenda.  And they were more than willing to lead medical research down a false path to advance their agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A War Against Women exists…in Egypt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2012

Week in Review

The Left unleashed a war against Republicans by claiming they were waging a war against women.  They shouted from the rooftops the evil that would befall women should Republicans get elected.  Scaring women with the specter of having to pay for their own birth control.  And paying for their own abortions.  Scaring a lot of women with the fear that should Republicans get elected they would force women into marriages against their will.  Raising a family against their will.  Cooking, cleaning and having sex with husbands against their will.  So women voted for President Obama.  To keep their birth control and their abortions.  So they wouldn’t ever have to get married.  So they could have happy fulfilling careers.  Instead of a loving family.  So they can die alone some day.

So this was the silly war the Republicans were waging against women.  It’s a pity the Left doesn’t speak out against a real war on women (see ‘Men don’t have to worry about being caught’: Sex mobs target Egypt’s women by Charlene Gubash posted 12/4/2012 on Workd News).

In the post-Mubarak era, activists and protesters have reported many particularly violent assaults on women. Some experts allege the government and security officials are failing to take the problem seriously. More than 700 claims of harassment were filed across Egypt over the four-day Id al-Adha holiday in late October.

“It is not a country of law, not a state of law anymore. It has given men a chance to harass women without being accused,” said Afaf Marie, director of the Egyptian Association for Community Participation and Enhancement, an NGO.

Some activists fear that women’s rights will suffer under the rule of President Mohammed Morsi, who is an Islamist.

Government inaction has allowed the problem to spiral out of control, Heba Morayef, director of Human Rights Watch for the Middle East and North Africa, told NBC News. Police no longer inspire fear as they did before the revolution. In addition, locals say it appears there are fewer police on the increasingly lawless streets — and often none in Tahrir Square.

“The state is failing to respond,” she said. “Men don’t have to worry about being caught.”

Interestingly, President Obama helped bring President Mohammed Morsi to power.  By telling President Hosni Mubarak that he had to step down from power.  When there was no organized opposition save the Muslim Brotherhood.  Who said they would not try to seize power.  Who the American Left said they would not seize power.  That it wouldn’t be another Iran.  But in the resulting power vacuum left with the fall of Mubarak the Muslim Brotherhood stepped into that vacuum.  And now their man, Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist, is now President of Egypt.

And any women who dare to leave their homes alone are being sexually assaulted.  As the Muslim Brotherhood want women in Egypt to be like women in Iran.  Oppressed and subservient.  And everything the Left accused the Republicans of wanting to do with women they’re actually doing in Egypt.  And worse.  Including sexual harassment and rape in public.  But where is the American Left?  Keeping their eyes on those rascally Republicans.  While their sisters suffer unspeakable cruelties in Egypt.  Suffering in large part due to the actions of President Obama and his misguided Mideast policies.  Who helped to make Egypt a less safe place for women.  By telling Mubarak he had to go.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Liberals attack Christians, God and Israel but are Silent on the ongoing War on Women all around Israel

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2012

Week in Review

At the recent Democrat National Convention the speakers said most emphatically that there is a war on women.  That Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan hate women.  Want to make women pay for their own birth control.  And won’t let women have any more abortions.  As well as deny them health care, an education, take away their right to vote and a host of other vile, nasty things.  Sad, really.  Can you imagine anyone oppressing women as much as Republican candidates for office?  The sad truth is yes.  For throughout the world there are women truly suffering discrimination (see Young Iraqis face religious fashion crackdown by LARA JAKES, Associated Press, posted 9/3/2012 on Yahoo! News).

A new culture rift is emerging in Iraq, as young women replace shapeless cover-ups with ankle-baring skirts and tight blouses, while men strut around in revealing slacks and spiky haircuts. The relatively skimpy styles have prompted Islamic clerics in at least two Iraqi cities to mobilize local security guards as a “fashion police” in the name of protecting religious values…

This is a conflict playing out across the Arab world, where conservative Islamic societies grapple with the effects of Western influence, especially the most obvious — the way their young choose to dress.

The violations of old Iraqi norms have grown especially egregious, religious officials say, since the Aug. 20 end of Ramadan, Islam’s holy month. In the last two weeks, posters and banners have been hanging along the streets of Kazimiyah, sternly reminding women to wear an abaya — a long, loose black cloak that covers the body from shoulders to feet.

A similar warning came from Diwaniyah, a Shiite city about 130 kilometers (80 miles) south of the capital, where some posters have painted a red X over pictures of women wearing pants. Other banners praise women who keep their hair fully covered beneath a headscarf.

Religious officials speculate young Iraqis got carried away in celebrating the end of Ramadan and now need to be reined in…

“Legs can be seen, there are low-cut shirts,” Jawad lamented. “And all, very, very tight. I think these Iraqis who are wearing these things have come back from Syria, Dubai and Egypt. They probably spent too much time in nightclubs. The families in Kazimiyah are conservative. These young people — nobody can control them. They should be given freedoms, but they should know their limits.”

Several young adults strolling the Kazimiyah gold market on Sunday accused the religious class of trying to pull Iraq back to the dark ages, a sentiment that human rights activist Hana Adwar echoed.

The women who put forth this Republican war on women are not fans of Christianity.  What with their moralizing.  And opposition to abortion.  Especially the Catholics.  Oh, they hate the Catholics.  Which is why they put mandatory birth control (including the morning after abortion pill) into Obamacare.  Forcing Catholics to go against their conscience to comply with the new health care law.  Yet Catholics don’t have a problem with women wearing pants.  Or showing a little ankle.  Which is a lot more than can be said for other religions.

Israel is a progressive democracy in the Middle East.  It is actually a tourist destination of the LGBT community.  Yet it is the other religion in the area that gets more tolerance from the Left in America.  Not the uber tolerant Israel.  Because of those moralizing Judeo-Christian values.  The bedrock of the American republic.  As all the Founding Fathers believed deeply in religion.  Even that possible atheist.  Thomas Jefferson.  But the Left hates Judeo-Christian values.  Because who’s to say what’s right and wrong?  And who is to deny a woman’s right to have casual sex?  So they always attack Christianity in America.  Saying Christians want to drag women back to the Dark Ages.  Yet not a peep about that other religion.  One that you could make a better argument about their wanting to drag women back to the Dark Ages.  Or simply keeping them in the Dark Ages.  Why?  Because in that other religion there is an extreme element that shares the Left’s hatred of Christianity.

You could see this on full display at the Democrat National Convention.  They had revised the Democrat platform to remove God.  And to remove things about Israel.  Like recognizing that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital.  Which drew a lot of media attention.  Sending Democrats scrambling to insist they are not godless people.  So in a televised process they proposed an amendment to put God and Jerusalem back into the platform.  A voice vote sounded 50-50 or slightly against putting these back in.  After three attempts to get two-thirds of the delegates to vote ‘yea’ and failing the chair read from the teleprompter and said, “In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative.”  And the convention hall booed.  Because the majority appeared to have voted to keep god and Jerusalem out of the platform.

But not a peep about that other religion.  Just attacks and boos for God and Israel.  And our Judeo-Christian values.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The NHS rations In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) with Long Waiting Times while Abortions are Readily Available

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

There may be no waiting list for abortions.  But there is a waiting list for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).  Even though both come with obvious time limits on these treatments.  Wait too long and you’ll either have a baby.  Or it may be too late for you to have a baby (see Third of women with right to IVF rejected by GPs who don’t know enough about fertility treatment by Sophie Borland posted 8/27/2012 on the Daily Mail).

One in three women are being refused IVF on the NHS even though they have the right to treatment, a report has found.

Health trusts are routinely denying treatment for women despite the fact they are eligible under official guidelines from health watchdog NICE.

Even if women are referred for IVF, many are forced to wait more than two years for it to start during which time the chance of success dwindles as their bodies age…

Recently a major study ranked Britain near the bottom of a European league table on spending for fertility treatment with even Serbia, Montenegro and Slovakia paying more to help childless couples…

The NHS also pays for abortions.  If the NHS wanted to improve their long-term financial outlook they’d transfer more of their current abortion funding to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) funding.  Because there is only one thing that will solve budget woes in countries with aging populations.  More babies.  Because babies are future taxpayers.

On a side note it is interesting how the NHS works on both sides of the birth/abortion issue.  They administer medical treatment to restore a normal biological function.  And they administer medical treatment to terminate a normal biological function.  (Though there appears to be less waiting times for an abortion.)  Making the birth/abortion issues a complex issue indeed.  And one we’ll probably never see resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  Apart from the moral issues the economics of the issue are interesting.  Those who favor abortion also favor large government spending.  And it is their most sacred cause, abortion, which is preventing the continued growth in that government spending.  Because it eliminates future taxpayers.

All right, back to topic.  So why are they making it so difficult to get IVF in the NHS?  Well, you probably figured that out based on the previous two paragraphs.  Money.

Susan Seenan, of the charity Infertility Network UK, said: ‘It’s shocking and blatantly wrong. Primary care trusts are just trying to ration treatment…

‘We know the NHS has limited resources but all couples want is to be treated fairly…’

In fact, 45 per cent of couples who responded ended up paying for the treatment privately as the waiting lists were too long.

IVF normally costs between £3,000 and £4,000 but nearly a quarter of those who went private paid more than £10,000 for the treatment, according to the survey.

It’s that aging population and a generous welfare state set up during a time before widespread use of birth control and abortion.  They built a pyramid scheme.  Where the people at the top, those drawing the majority of benefits, grew at a lesser rate than those at the bottom.  The young and healthy workers entering the workforce.  Based on these assumptions there would always have been an increasing amount of money coming into the government (even without raising tax rates) to pay for the few drawing generous state benefits (in particular pensions and health care for the retirees).  But that all changed when women stopped having the babies the state planners assumed they would have.  So with a baby-bust generation following the baby-boom generation you get an aging population.  And large budget deficits.

Whose fault is it?  It certainly isn’t the seniors.  Or the women who stopped having babies.  It’s the state planners who created an unsustainable welfare state.  Because they are the ones who created the great Ponzi scheme to pass the costs for one generation to another generation.  This is wrong.  Even if it worked when there was a growing population growth rate.  Because the future is uncertain.  Things change.  Like family sizes.  And life-spans.  Another thing the state planners never saw coming.  None of this would have been a problem if government allowed each generation to take care of themselves.  Because a family bases their decisions on their economic circumstances.  So they live within their means.  They save their money and exercise frugality in their spending.  But when you pass your costs on to a later generation you don’t save as much or exercise as much frugality.  Because you don’t have to.

As time passes and the number of new taxpayers gets smaller the government raises tax rates.  Leaving taxpayers with less.  Making it harder to support themselves.  Which leaves them little choice but to demand more from government.  Which only makes the problem worse.  Making some couples wait years for IVF.  Because with their tax rates they can’t afford to go outside of the welfare state for treatment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Tobacco, Smoking, Cigarettes, Sin Taxes, Obesity, Health Care Costs, Lost Tax Revenue, Abortion, Deficit and Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2012

History 101

The Government saves Money in the Long Run when People Smoke because they Die Earlier than Nonsmokers 

A lot of people like to smoke.  Before we knew any of the adverse health effects of smoking it was as wholesome as apple pie in America.  American tobacco was one of the first cash crops of the United States.  Because it was in such high demand throughout the world.  During the American Civil War many officers chain-smoked cigars.  We put cigarettes in our soldiers’ C-rations in World War II.  Some of the most iconic photographs of battle-weary soldiers, seamen and airmen have a cigarette dangling from their mouths.  Our favorite parents from the Fifties’ sitcoms smoked cigarettes in their homes with their children playing on the floor at their feet.  If you watch AMC’s Mad Men everyone smoked cigarettes.  All of the time.  At work and at home.  In restaurants and in hospitals.  Even while pregnant.  Then the attacks against Big Tobacco began.

First they started with the sin taxes.  Greatly increasing the cost of cigarettes.  Which increased their opportunity costs.  People had to give up other things to continue to enjoy their cigarettes.  Especially the poor.  The rich still could enjoy their cigarettes without making sacrifices in their life.  And kept on smoking.  Movie stars and rock stars always have a cigarette hanging out of their mouths.  To look cool.  Which is why teenagers started to smoke.  Not because of Joe Camel.  But to look cool like their favorite movie stars and rock stars.  So people kept smoking their cigarettes.  While the government bureaucrats started tallying the health care cost of smokers.  To recover the health care cost of smoking government bureaucrats sued Big Tobacco.

According to ‘health care experts’ in the government smoking costs the health care industry some $100 billion annually.  Which is why they’re constantly raising taxes on cigarettes.  Why they sued Big Tobacco.  And why they’re ostracizing smokers everywhere by making almost every area a nonsmoking area.  But they still haven’t made smoking illegal.  Why?  High sin taxes and lawsuits.  Smoking is a cash cow for government.  And the dirty little secret about smoking is that the government saves money in the long run when people smoke.  Because of those sin taxes.  And because smokers die earlier than nonsmokers.  Up to a decade or more.  And it is in that last decade of life that seniors cost government the most.  Another decade of Social Security benefits.  And Medicare and Medicaid benefits.  Those benefits smokers paid into all of their lives.  Who forfeit them when they die early (and they don’t get passed on to their heirs).  Unlike the nonsmokers who don’t have the decency to die before collecting all of their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Adding another decade or so for a whole sort of health ailments to inflict their fragile bodies.  Requiring more hospitalization.  Medication.  And nursing home care.  Expenses smokers help cut short by dying earlier.  Such as from an early heart attack before they even get a chance to have a lengthy and expensive hospital stay.

The Loss Tax Revenue from Abortions in the Eighties over Three Decades is Approximately $4.98 Trillion 

So government is increasing the opportunity costs of something people enjoy.  Smoking.  When in the long run smokers’ early deaths save the government money.   Not to mention those sin taxes fattening the tax pot when they’re alive.  So it’s a specious argument that the government is spending more on them in health care costs than nonsmokers who live another 10-20 years.  So why do they do it?  To boost tax revenues.  And smokers are just a convenient scapegoat.  Like the obese.  Where those on the Left make the same arguments.  Where according to ‘health care experts’ in the government obesity costs the health care industry some $150 billion annually.  Even though these people like smokers live shorter lives.  So while they’re consuming that $150 million the government is keeping about 10-20 years of their contributions to Social Security and Medicare.  So it is again a specious argument that the government is spending more on obese people than thinner, healthier people who live 10-20 years longer.  Who could, say, fall and break their pelvis requiring an extensive and expensive hospital stay.  As well as rehabilitation and possibly nursing home care.  And yet those on the left have campaigned to remove toys from Happy Meals.  And made it illegal in New York to buy a big cup of soda pop.  Why?  Again, to boost tax revenue.

All right, let’s go to the source of that tax revenue problem.  Let’s look at a decade of lost tax revenue.  From 1980 to 1983 there were about 1,300,000 abortions each year.  In 1984 there were 1,333,521 abortions.  In 1985 there were 1,328,570 abortions.  In 1986 there were 1,328,112 abortions.  In 1987 there were 1,353,671 abortions.  In 1988 there were 1,371,285 abortions.  In 1989 there were 1,396,658 abortions.  In 1990 there were 1,429,577 abortions. 

Had these abortions not happen in 2006 there would have been an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 26.  In 2007 there would have been an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 27 and an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 26.  And so on.  If you crunch the numbers over a 30-year period by decades you get an additional 72,006,665 people paying taxes at all levels of government in the first decade (2006-2015).  An additional 146,913, 940 tax-paying people in the second decade (2016-2025).  And an additional 88,169,092 tax-paying people in the third decade (2026-2035).  The average age in the first decade is 29.  It’s 32 in the second decade.  And 42 in the third decade.  Assuming those age 29 earn on average $30,000 annually, those age 32 earn on average $40,000 annually and those age 42 earn on average $50,000 we get the following incomes per decade: $2.16 trillion, $5.88 trillion and $4.41 trillion, respectively.  Assuming that we pay approximately 40% of all our earnings in taxes at the city, state and federal level the lost tax revenue (at all levels of government) for those same decades equals $864.1 billion, $2.35 trillion and $1.76 trillion, respectively.  For a grand total of loss tax revenue for those three decades of approximately $4.98 trillion.  Or on average $165.9 billion per year.  These numbers are conservative.  Yes, some of these people may not survive to become taxpayers.  But some of these could become millionaires and billionaires, paying more in taxes.  There could have been another Lady Gaga, Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Steve Jobs, etc.  A few of these added to the calculations would make the lost tax revenue numbers larger.

From the Government’s Perspective Abortion has a Far Greater Opportunity Cost than Smoking and Obesity 

This is the opportunity cost of the abortions in the Eighties.  So much loss tax revenue that the government has attacked smokers and the obese.  Whose health care costs are not adding much if anything to the federal budget.  Thanks to their early deaths compared to nonsmokers and thin people.  (If the government starts refunding remaining Social Security and Medicare benefits to the surviving family that may change.)  Yes they are costing the health care system.  But their costs are just brought up earlier in their lives as opposed to someone living 10-20 years longer making the nursing home to hospital to nursing home roundtrip a few times in the last 10 years or so of their life.  Because they have lived so long.  And had a chance to suffer every disease and trauma those smokers and obese can’t due to their early deaths.

It is interesting to note that the federal deficit in 2006 was $282.14 billion.  The lost tax revenue from the Eighties’ abortions was on average $165.9 billion per year in those three decades.  Granted not all of that money would have been federal taxes.  But with the conservative estimate of that loss tax revenue it is safe to say it would have come close to balancing the federal budget.  And if you factor in the abortions of the Seventies (there were fewer than in the Eighties but they would have been higher earners in the 2000s) the federal deficit may have become a surplus.  At least holding the federal debt to the $9.34 trillion it was in 2006.  Perhaps even reducing it.

Smoking and eating an unhealthy diet may be bad for you.  But it probably doesn’t cost the government anymore in tax dollars.  But they increase the opportunity costs of these things we enjoy to dissuade us from enjoying them.  So those who enjoy smoking and eating and drinking ‘bad’ things enjoy life less.  By not choosing what they want to choose.  Why? To pay for the lost revenue from another choice that government doesn’t try to dissuade people from.  Abortion.  Which from the government’s perspective has a far greater opportunity cost than smoking and obesity.  And yet government paints a bulls-eye on the back of smokers and the obese.  Why?  Because they’ve so demonized and oppressed them they can.  While the abortion issue too much of a sacred cow to those on the Left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT88: “Liberals say live and let live when it comes to sex and drugs but don’t you dare eat at McDonald’s or light a cigarette in front of them.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Liberals want us to Treat Kids as Adults when it comes to Sex and Drugs

Liberals want to hand out condoms in school.  And they want to teach school kids how to use them.   They want to give them access to birth control.  And abortions.  Because kids are going to have sex.  No matter what we say.  So live and let live they say.  Let these kids have their fun.  And we’ll deal with the consequences later.  Such as an unwanted pregnancy.  A venereal disease.  Or rape.  Should a young girl get scared and change her mind.  Should a boy not understand that ‘no’ really means ‘no’.  Or believes consent is nonrefundable.  Especially after getting all riled up in school learning about sex.  In an academic setting.  Where it seems like just good clean fun.  Rather than learning it the old fashioned way.  From a parent.  Who tells you to wait until you’re a responsible adult.  Because it’s not just good clean fun.  It’s serious.  And can have some serious consequences.

Liberals would like to decriminalize drugs.  At least marijuana.  Because kids are going to experiment.  No matter what we say.  Marijuana is harmless, they say.  And they poo poo the naysayers who say it can be a gateway drug.  Marijuana won’t make people tire of it.  And look for a higher high.  Because heroin, coke and meth addictions just happen.  Spontaneously.  Just like alcohol addiction.  Some people have a predisposition for addiction.  And the drugs themselves are in no way to blame.  It’s a person’s DNA.  So live and let live they say.  Because drugs don’t addict people.  People do.  Those with a predisposition to addiction.  But it’s not their fault.  They’re just hardwired that way.  So we shouldn’t blame them.  Or drugs.  It just happens.

You see, people are adults.  Even kids.  That’s why we need to treat them as adults.  And if we do they’ll make adult decisions.  Partake in sex and drugs responsibly.  Like adults.  And there will be no consequences we can’t manage after the fact.  Like adults.

Liberals aren’t all that Concerned about Unwanted Pregnancies, Venereal Disease or Drug Addiction

So kids may be adults.  But their parents aren’t.  Liberals don’t want them making ‘adult’ decisions.  Such as what to eat, drink or smoke.  Like kids can about sex and drugs.  No.  Liberals want to use the power of government to make these decisions for adults.  Because they can’t be trusted to make the right decisions.

They want to tax fast food.  And soda pop.  Like they tax cigarettes.  To make them very expensive.  So they can make people choose correctly.  To choose what liberals want them to choose.  And not what these adults want.

You see, liberals aren’t all that concerned about unwanted pregnancies, venereal disease or drug addiction.  But they are very concerned about trans-fat and sugar.  They don’t want you enjoying the occasional McDonald’s meal.  A bag of chips.  A Mountain Dew.  Or a cigarette.  And if they catch you lighting up a cigarette after a meal in a McDonald’s, look out.  You will get a look of contempt and pure hate like you’ve never seen before.  Because you’ve dared to expose children to second-hand smoke.  For kids smoking pot first-hand is one thing.  But breathing second-hand smoke is just unhealthy.  Wrong.  And could scar them for life.  Unlike an unwanted pregnancy, a venereal disease or a drug addiction.

Liberals want Kids to Think Sex, Drugs and Vote Democrat

Why do they want to help kids have sex and do drugs?  Because they want kids to like them.  And they will if they make high school and college as much fun as possible.  They want these kids to think sex, drugs and vote Democrat.  Because liberal Democrats need the youth vote.  For they can’t win elections without it.  And they don’t care if these kids get scarred for life from an unwanted pregnancy, a venereal disease or a drug addiction.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Drug Violence on our Southern Border and Catcalls in New York City are Related – Societal Decay Responsible for Both

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 30th, 2010

The drug cartel violence crosses the U.S. border.  Beheaded body found in Phoenix, Arizona.

It’s getting a little violent on this side of the U.S. border.  The latest?  This from AP’s Amanda Lee Myers’ Arizona beheading raises fears of drug violence posted on apnews.myway.com:

The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.

The police think the victim was stealing drugs from the cartel.  And this was a message to others who might be thinking about doing likewise. 

Decapitations are a regular part of the drug war in Mexico as cartels fight over territory. Headless bodies have been hanged from bridges by their feet, severed heads have been sent to victims’ family members and government officials, and bags of up to 12 heads have been dropped off in high-profile locations.

The crime appears confined to members of the drug trade.  It’s a little reassuring for the innocent bystanders close to the crime.  ‘Little’ being the key word.

“I’m terrified,” said [a neighbor], a 47-year-old housekeeper who lives two doors down from the apartment. “I’ve lived here for 20 years and I’ve never heard of that (decapitation) happening, and it was so close to us … Maybe they’re copying what’s happening in Mexico.”

But it hasn’t been exactly restricted to the drug trade.  There has been some collateral damage. 

While extreme violence has stayed south of the border for the most part, some of it has spilled over into the U.S.

In March, Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities believe – but have never produced substantive proof – that an illegal immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame for his killing.

In May 2009, a Mexican drug cartel lieutenant who became an informant for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was shot eight times outside his pricey home in El Paso. The lieutenant, Jose Daniel Gonzalez Galeana, was living in Texas on a visa that ICE gave him, and is believed to be the first ranking cartel member killed in the U.S.

Payan described the spillover as minimal, but said it could increase.

And what is the federal government doing to address border security?  Suing Arizona.  And putting up some signs that warn Americans about unsafe American territory.

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons on the rise in New York City.  Young girls harassed near their schools.

In a serious news story about women being harassed on the streets of New York (see AP’s NYC Considers a No Catcall Zone posted on www.nbcnewyork.com on 10/29/2010), the article starts off with a most inappropriate photo.  It shows a woman’s feet in what appears to be 6-inch stiletto heels.  The kind of shoes you’d see a stripper wear on stage.  Or so I’ve heard.  One thing for certain, though, any man looking at the photo is going to imagine a smoking hot woman attached to those feet.  The kind of a woman that burly construction workers would whistle at.  And, to be fair, a woman dressed like THAT may be disappointed if they didn’t.  So it’s a rather poor choice of a photo to use with this article.  For although we know:

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street.

Some men are clearly crossing the line. 

A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem.

And what is the city of New York doing about this issue?

Hollaback [an organization formed five years ago to stand up to street harassment] is pushing the city to commission a study, a public awareness campaign and perhaps even legislation, including “no-harassment zones” around schools to protect young women.

Madonna, Brittany Spears and Glee go too far in sexualizing young girls?

Now, what do these two stories have in common?  Although the victims aren’t responsible for the crime/harassment against them, the society that they are a part of is.

The Left wants to give condoms to our kids.  And make abortions available when a pregnancy happens.  We need to be progressive.  Kids are having sex.  We need to stop being so puritan and treat our kids as adults.  Like the television show Glee does.  In that show adults play high school kids.  And their audience is primarily high school kids and younger.  They’ve had some pretty questionable content on that show.  Madonna and Brittany Spears video parodies.  And they’ve appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine, dressed as high school kids.  But you could look up one of the girls’ skirt and see her little white panties.  And the same ‘girl’ just did a GQ photo shoot, posing inside a high school.  Again, showing her little white panties.   Of course, these kids are really adults. But they play kids. 

The Left attacks the world of Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best & Ozzie and Harriet.  But you gotta admit this; they didn’t objectify women.  You didn’t see any of them sexualizing young girls.  And New York City didn’t have council meetings discussing possible legislation banning catcalls around schools.

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and crystal meth supplied by Mexico to meet demand in the United States.

They’re trying to legalize marijuana again in California.  They say it’s no big deal.  It’s no worse than drinking.  And all that talk about it being a gateway drug to the stronger stuff?  That’s just ridiculous.  Then again, that stronger stuff is crossing the border along with the marijuana.  Which begs the question, why?  Who’s using the harder stuff?  People who’ve moved on from marijuana? 

The vast majority of drugs coming in from Mexico and causing all that trouble on the border is marijuana.  There’s big money in Mexican marijuana.  And it will get bigger and bloodier if California legalizes it.  More customers.  And lower prices (legal things tend to be cheaper than illegal things).  The drug gangs will fight to expand their territory.  And fight to not lose any of their territory.  So there’s marijuana.  Also coming in from Mexico is cocaine, black tar heroin and, of course, crystal meth.  Meth is a booming business since they restricted the sale of decongestants in the states.  They have factories in Mexico creating this stuff wholesale.  And shipping it to the United States.  Why?  Because we keep saying drugs are no big deal.

Sex and drugs responsible for societal decay?

Sex and drugs.  Everybody does it/them.  We need to accept it.  Treat kids as adults.  And when there are consequences to this behavior, we play the blame game.  It’s not school condoms and abortion on demand that is making people look at girls/women as sexual objects.  It’s men acting as animals.  For girls/women it’s empowering and liberating.  But it’s primitive animal behavior for men.  Of course, women can’t be empowering or liberating sexually without men.  So men are obliging.  And they’re apparently thinking about it all of the time.  Even when working on a construction site.

And when it comes down to pointing the finger of blame for the border violence, I don’t know if we can point it at just the drug gangs.  I mean, they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing if it wasn’t for all those Americans eagerly looking to buy what they are selling.

So, when men whistle at a girl/woman, or there is a drug-gang murder on the border, society’s to blame.  And it’s important to emphasize that the individual victims themselves are not responsible.  It is the societal decay that has preconditioned the predator.   They think it’s all right.  Because everyone is having sex.  And doing drugs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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