Women with Breast Cancer suffer higher Death Rates in Britain’s National Health Service

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

The whole push for Obamacare was to provide quality care for all Americans.  Not just those who could afford it.  Health care was going to be classless.  There would be true equality.  No one would receive any better care than anyone else.  Because health care is not a privilege.  It’s a right.  Or so the proponents of national health care say.  And why they supported Obamacare.  A waypoint on the path to true universal care.  Where everyone gets the best health care whenever they need it.  Just like in Britain.  Whose National Health Service (NHS) is what those in America want Obamacare to evolve into.  So health care in America will be just as good as health care in Britain (see British women ‘dying quicker of breast cancer than elsewhere’ by Stephen Adams posted 3/1/2013 on The Telegraph).

Academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found the proportion of women in the UK surviving at least three years after being diagnosed was 87 to 89 percent, which was similar to Denmark.

In Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden three-year survival was 91 to 94 per cent for the period examined, between 2000 and 2007…

In Britain only 28 per cent made it to three years, but in Sweden 42 per cent did…

Dr Sarah Walters, lead author, said: “We should now investigate whether the treatment of women with later-stage breast cancer meets international standards. There is particular concern that this is not the case, especially for older women”.

Sara Hiom from Cancer Research UK, which helped with the study, said: “We need to investigate the possibility that fewer women with later stage breast cancer in the UK receive the best treatment for their circumstances…”

“The NHS is also working to ensure all patients are treated as individuals and receive care that meets their healthcare needs whatever their age or condition.”

National health care is great.  As long as you’re not old.  For those old people are very costly to treat.  Because they’re living longer into retirement.  Consuming ever more health care dollars (or British pounds) for a few months more of life.  If Britain wants to get their health care costs under control they could save a lot by not treating some of these highest consumers of health care.  Putting some of them, instead, on the Liverpool Care Pathway.  Where doctors can withdraw treatment to let terminal ill patients die with dignity.  While saving precious health care dollars/pounds for use elsewhere.  Cold and callous, yes, but it is happening.

They don’t call the Liverpool Care Pathway a death panel.  But it is one.  Especially when some people are placed on the pathway without consulting with the person’s family first.  Something to look forward to as Obamacare evolves more into a national health care system.  As well as higher death rates for women with breast cancer.  Where there will be more equality.  As we lower the quality of care for everyone by trying to do more with less.  As health care costs soar due to aging populations.  People living longer into retirement.  And tax revenues fall due to aging populations.  Fewer people entering the workforce to pay for those living longer into retirement.  Leaving death panels as one of the few ways for governments to cut costs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hugo Chavez returns to his Socialist Utopia (Venezuela) after Medical Treatment in Cuba

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left loves Hugo Chavez.  Because he is an anti-capitalist socialist.  In Venezuela they put people before profits.  And the Left loves that.  For it is only under socialism where there is true equality.  Where everyone is equal.  Rich and poor.  Government official and descamisado.  And everyone gets the best of everything.  Something the America Left is striving for in the United States.  So American can be as just and as fair as Venezuela (see Hugo Chavez Returns Home After Cancer Surgery posted 2/18/2013 on Sky News).

President Hugo Chavez has returned home to Venezuela after more than two months of medical treatment following cancer surgery.

Mr Chavez’s return from Cuba was announced in a series of messages on his Twitter account…

The 58-year-old, who has been in power for more than 14 years, was first diagnosed with cancer in 2011…

Mr Maduro said Mr Chavez will continue his treatment at the Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital in Caracas.

Of course, Hugo Chavez is more equal than everyone else.  When he gets cancer he goes to the finest health care available in the socialist world.  Cuba.  While the ordinary Venezuelan must suffer the Venezuelan health care system.  Which isn’t very good when it comes to treating cancer.  For Hugo Chavez didn’t get treated in Venezuela.

Note that Hugo Chavez has been making Venezuela a better place for 14 years.  A more just place.  And a more fair place.  Something the American Left applauds.  Because ordinary Venezuelans are better off than ordinary Americans.  For ordinary Venezuelans are pampered with cradle to the grave socialism.  Of course, for some, the grave comes a lot sooner than some would want.  Why?  Because after making Venezuela a better place for 14 years he still hasn’t built a decent hospital in the country.  And you know the Venezuelan health care system for the people is bad when he goes to a military hospital for his follow-up care.  For in the United States the better hospitals are not on military bases.  There in our cities.  Where they are available to everyone.  Unlike the ordinary Venezuelan pampered with cradle to the grave socialism.

The American Left can bad-mouth the American health care system all they want and laud Hugo Chavez till the cows come home but not one of them will leave the U.S. to get their health care needs in that Socialist utopia.  Venezuela.  Even if Hugo Chavez lets them use the military hospital in Caracas.  And given the choice the ordinary Venezuelan would probably choose the American health care system over their own.  And probably over the Cuban health care system as well.  For when it comes to socialist utopias they’re not very utopian.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

In the NHS all Britons are Equal only some Britons are more Equal than Others

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

One of the driving forces behind Obamacare was equality.  Everyone was to have equal access to quality health care.  Not just the rich.  That’s why the United States needed to move towards what the British have.  Their National Health Service (NHS) provides equality.  In Britain it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor.  Everyone gets access to quality health care (see Ministers pledge to reduce child mortality by Press Association posted 2/18/2013 on the guardian).

A new national pledge to reduce child deaths is to be announced by the government.

The all-cause mortality rate for children aged between 0 and 14 years has moved from the average to among the worst in Europe, figures show, while more than a quarter (26%) of children’s deaths showed “identifiable failure in the child’s direct care”…

New measures include increasing data so the NHS and local authorities can obtain better information to improve the health of young people; piloting a survey to generate details of local health problems such as drug and alcohol use; and launching colour coded health maps to highlight trends for conditions such as asthma and diabetes.

The health minister, Dr Dan Poulter, said: “For too long, Britain’s childhood mortality rates have been amongst the worst in Europe when compared to similar countries.

“In particular, there is unacceptable variation across the country in the quality of care for children – for example in the treatment of long-term conditions such as asthma and diabetes.

Apparently some people are more equal than others in Britain.  With children being the least equal.  Apparently.

Now does this show Britain hates children?  No.  They don’t.  Remember the 2012 Summer Olympic Games?  In London?  Where they celebrated their NHS with lots of happy kids in hospital beds?  Britain loves their children.  It’s just that national health care is not as great as people think it is.

Britain’s aging population is producing great cost pressures on the NHS.  As it will on Obamacare.  Forcing the British to do more with less.  Just as it will force the Americans to do more with less.  And when you try to do more with less people fall through the cracks.  As these children have.  As American children will.  For one thing for certain is that the more government is involved the worse things tend to get.  Just compare renewing your driver’s license to going to the store.  Which is a more enjoyable experience?  Which provides a better value for the money.  Which has more courteous people?  Which satisfies your needs more?  The answer is the one with less government.  Going to the store.  For many people love shopping.  While no one enjoys renewing their driver’s license.

People don’t like dealing with their insurance companies.  They don’t mind seeing their doctors.  But they hate fighting the insurance companies to pay for their health care.  Now imagine your doctors and nurses becoming more like the insurance companies.  Which they will under Obamacare.  For they will all have to answer to a government bureaucrat.  And one thing for certain is the more government is involved the worse things tend to get.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Some Feminists are becoming Pro-Life like the First Feminists

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2013

Week in Review

During the 2012 election George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney a question out of left field about birth control.  The next thing we knew we had another war on our hands.  A war on women.  Where the Left reduced women down to little more than their vaginas.  For the only important issues to women in 2012 (according to the Left) were birth control and abortion.  And nothing else.  The deficit?  The debt?  The high unemployment rate?  Benghazi?  These issues just weren’t for women.  Because they weren’t vagina-centric.  And, therefore, not women’s issues.  Those things were best left to the men.  At least according to the Left.

Those on the Right believe there is more to a woman than her vagina.  And that the deficit, the debt, the high unemployment rate and Benghazi are not things only men can understand.  Or that abortion is the only thing that empowers women.  Just like those first feminists (see Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive by Emily Buchanan posted 1/3/2013 on Time).

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality…

Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.

Who would have known?  The first feminists were pro-life.  You wouldn’t have known that by listening to today’s feminists.  And it appears that some young feminists are reconnecting with Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Charlotte Lozier.  And rejecting the notion introduced by the feminists of the Sixties and the Seventies that to empower women you have to become sexual objects that please men.  Which unlimited birth control and access to abortion did.  Giving some men what they always wanted.  Casual sex with as many different women as possible.  Without having to marry anyone.  And having to spend the rest of their life with that one same woman.  No.  Birth control and abortion freed men from that dull and boring life.  Thanks to the Sixties they could swing.

Which of course has angered women as they can’t find a man interested in something more than a one night stand.  Growing ever more frustrated as their biological clocks tick away.  For contrary to the feminists of the Sixties and Seventies women still want to get married and raise a family.  Which is more difficult these days as these neo-feminists have ruined men.  By making women nothing more than vaginas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Mary O’Grady cites the Problems of Latin America as too Much Socialism and not Enough Economic Liberty

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2012

Week in Review

Latin America has the will and the way for prosperity.  If only they give up on oppressive equality (see Destroying Latin America: Journalist Mary O’Grady on Populism, Protectionism, and Prohibition by Zach Weissmueller posted 4/28/2012 on Reason).

“The inequality produced by liberty: This, for the socialist, is the soft underbelly of pro-market rationale and the best place to attack,” says Mary O’Grady, a columnist who covers Latin America for the Wall Street Journal. “I would argue that it’s the intellectual stream that prevails in Latin America, and it’s the reason the region can not hope to reach its potential any time soon.”

O’Grady made a presentation at Reason Weekend 2012, Reason Foundation’s annual donor event. [Sh]e talked about why Latin American countries are so susceptible to socialism and identified the “three P’s” of “Populism, Protectionism, and Prohibition” as the primary sources of the region’s biggest problems.

To briefly summarize the ruling elite in Latin America are anti-capitalistic.  Because capitalism leads to income inequality.  So they discourage any capitalistic activity.  The politicians and rulers.  Intellectuals.  And academia.  Which squashes the entrepreneurial spirit.  Because entrepreneurs could become rich.  And that wouldn’t be fair.  So they nationalized industries.  And forced equality on the masses.  Which has kept the masses mired in poverty.  Yet when these same people leave their forced equality and move into capitalistic countries their lives improve.  They become entrepreneurs.  Further expanding the middle class.  Adding more to the vibrant economies they’ve joined.  All of which they could have in Latin America.  If only they stop oppressing the people in the name of equality.

Good presentation by Mary O’Grady.  Watching this video is 32 minutes well spent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT114: “One of the most effective ways to get privilege is to force fairness on others.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Voters are so Greedy and Selfish with their Hard-Earned Money that they’re not going to Vote to be Subjugated

History is strewn with people oppressing others to gain privilege for themselves.  Kings, emperors and nobles were always a small minority of civilizations.  But they had the power.  And the wealth.  While the masses suffered abject poverty and went hungry.  Or suffered through famines.    And died.  With early civilizations this was just the way of life.  Because there was no middle class.  No free market capitalism.  And no rule of law.  Life was for the most part subsistence farming.  Where most ate only what they grew.  While the kings, emperors and nobles enjoyed lots of food and drink.  Even enjoyed having a little fun.  Unlike the impoverished masses.  Having privilege made life better.  Which is why the privileged worked hard to keep it.  By forcing others to work hard to provide that better life for them.

But times change.  Privileged ruling classes fall.  And middle classes rise.  Creating vibrant economies.  And representative government.  Then one day the privileged find that they are no longer privileged.  That wealth isn’t automatically theirs.  Instead it belongs to the people who earn that wealth.  And if the once-privileged want wealth then they, too, have to work to get it.  So they, too, can have nice things.  And that they can only have these things if they earned enough to afford them.  Which is a great problem if you don’t want to work.  Don’t have any ability to earn a high income.  Or if you have a feeling of entitlement.  Like in days of yore.  Where you didn’t need anything but a good last name to live the good life.  On the backs of those who didn’t live the good life.

Feelings of entitlement don’t die, though.  They don’t go away once the middle class starts sharing the wealth.  Well, not so much sharing it but earning it.  And keeping it.  Instead of giving it to a privileged ruling class.  Which poses a problem for those who aspire to join a ruling class.  Especially now that we have those pesky elections.  Because voters are so greedy and selfish with their hard-earned money that they’re not going to vote to be subjugated.  They’re not going to vote in a privileged ruling class so they can live like royalty.  While those who pay for that royal lifestyle don’t.  ‘Vote for me so I can live better than you’ is just not a winning political platform.  So that’s why politicians lie.

The Privileged Elite uses Class Warfare to take other People’s Wealth

What do you need to live a privileged life?  Lots of money.  No secret here.  But the secret is how to get that money.  In particular, how do those who don’t want to work or have no talent or have no ability create wealth?  Here’s the secret.  They don’t create wealth.  They take wealth.  By going into government.

Only government has the power to tax.  Which can be a great source of wealth.  Other people’s wealth.  Which is any privileged class’ second favorite kind of wealth.  Second only to the wealth they already took from others.  Because that’s what they want.  Other people’s wealth.  And they’ve found a clever way of taking it.  By making the world a fairer place.  And who’s against fairness?  They’re going to make sure that the poor and children have access to food and affordable housing.  And who’s against the poor?  The children?  You’d have to be a pretty vicious, heartless bastard to be against the children.  And the poor.  They’re going to make sure that women have access to reproductive health care.  For who hates women?  I’ll tell you who.  Anyone that opposes raising taxes.  They hate women.  Children.  The poor.  For the world is full of haters.  And just who are these haters?  Aanyone that earns a lot of money and doesn’t want to pay higher taxes.  These people hate anyone not as wealthy as they are.  Because they hate fairness.  And paying their fair share.  Because they’re greedy.  And hate women and children.  And puppies, too.

This is the way the privileged take other people’s wealth.  Class warfare.  And it’s very effective.  By being the party of the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies, they’re kind and benevolent.  With other people’s money, of course.  But those people are evil so it’s okay.  People hate them.  But they like their kind government benefactors.  Who are looking out for their best interests.  Not rich people.  Or corporate profits.  No, our kind government benefactors make sure those greedy rich people and corporations pay their fair share.  Because that’s all that they want.  It’s all anyone wants.  To be fair.

North Korea is pretty much at the End of the Fairness Road

Later incarnations of the privileged ruling class used the fairness approach to give themselves a better life.  While oppressing their people.  Even killing them.  Through famine.  Or deliberate acts of violence.  All in the name of fairness.  And nothing better epitomizes this than communism.  Where everyone was equal.  Brothers.  Comrades.  There were no profits.  No capitalism.  No competitiveness.  No.  Everyone was equal.  They paid everyone the same.  They dressed everyone the same.  They housed everyone the same.  They fed everyone the same.  Very little.  For one thing you never saw in a communist country was obesity.  Instead you probably heard the rumbling of tummies as most people were hungry all of the time.  There was no income inequality.  No gender inequality.  No.  In communism they had nothing but equality.  Life was fair.  Because no one had anything more than anyone else.  As they perfectly distributed the misery and poverty equally among the impoverished masses.

That was for the masses.  It was quite a different thing for the privileged ruling elite.  Those in the party apparatchik.  And the inner party members themselves.  Who were more equal than others.  These people dressed better.  They had better housing.  Even cars.  They ate better.  Some so well that they grew obese.  North Korea suffers from recurring famines to this day but Kim Jong IL had a bit of a weight problem.  As his son does.  Kim Jong-un.  No, life is very good for the privileged ruling elite.  And hell for those living under them.  Who the ruling elite let die of hunger.  And send to concentration camps if they dare speak of their displeasure.  For only under communism is life fair.  And they just can’t risk the unhappy masses to spoil it for the privileged few.

North Korea is pretty much at the end of the fairness road.  The country is so poor and impoverished and hungry that people will risk their lives to try and escape this land of fairness.  To get somewhere that isn’t so fair.  Like South Korea.  Where they have capitalism.  And inequality.  Where someone can come with nothing, work hard and earn a better life.  Allowing them to pay for housing.  And put food in their rumbling bellies.  For a fair and oppressive government surely cannot.  All they can do is create great inequality between the people and the ruling class.  Far greater than that between the rich and poor in any capitalist country.  For the poor in countries like the UK, Canada and the United States are living far better than anyone outside the ruling elite in North Korea.  This is where the fairness road ends.  But it starts with class warfare.  Where a privileged few live the good life through high taxes.  Taxes they use to force fairness on others.  While those at the top manage that fairness.  Skimming a lot off the top of those taxes for themselves.  And what’s left they spend on the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies.  Just enough to make sure the people love their very rich and wealthy government benefactors.  So they can win the next election.  At least while they still have to deal with those pesky elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT112: “You can have liberty or equality but you can’t have both.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Higher Taxes were Okay when it was Someone Else’s Money but they’re Just Plain Unfair when it’s your Money

People throw around the word ‘equality’ a lot.  Especially politicians.  To make life fair.  More egalitarian.  Where they make the rich pay their fair share.  For they won’t just voluntarily pay their fair share, will they?  Sounds fair, yes?  And just.  For no one should be ‘too rich’ when others have ‘so little’.  Of course the only people who agree with this are the ones who have ‘so little’.  Those who are ‘too rich’ are not all that supportive of using their wealth to help others be more equal.  Especially when the scale that measures what is ‘too rich’ is a sliding scale.  For someone believes a person is ‘too rich’ when they have more than he or she does.  And that holds true even if they win the lotto.

It’s open season on rich people.  Everyone attacks them.  For they are easy prey.  There are few of them.  So angering them won’t have a huge impact at the polls.  Which is why politicians whip up a fury of hate against them.  Which the people who have ‘so little’ are eager to join them in that hate.  Because they hate rich people.  They hate them a lot.  And there just isn’t anything good they can say about them.  They hate them so much that they buy lotto tickets in hopes of becoming rich people themselves.  Because that’s the only thing that can assuage their hate of rich people.  Becoming rich people.

People who have ‘so little’ will define anyone as having ‘too much’ if they have more than they do.  But if they win the lotto it’s a different story.  For rich people like them don’t have ‘too much’ then.  In fact they become downright greedy.  And become everything they once hated.  They don’t want to share their winnings.  (Even some in lotto groups who bought a winning ticket will try to keep that ticket for themselves, saying they bought THAT ticket with his or her own money and not the group’s money and therefore they don’t have to share THOSE winnings.)  And they sure don’t want to pay half of their winnings in taxes.  Higher taxes were okay when it was someone else’s money.  But they’re just plain unfair when it’s your money.  It’s just a fact of life.  People are greedy.  Even those with ‘so little’.

If there is No Incentive to Choose the Hard Jobs then Someone will have to Coerce People to ‘Choose’ Them

Consider this.  How hard would you work if you had to deposit your entire paycheck into a general fund?  Let’s call the fund the Equality Fund.  All workers everywhere on payday take their checks to the bank and deposit them into the Equality Fund.  And then they get their ‘equal share’ from that fund to live on.  So doctors and janitors earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  NFL franchise players and workers in fast food earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  Ditto for movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and lotto winners.  They all deposit their income into the General Fund.  And live on the same money as do hair stylists, Wal-Mart greeters, busboys and gardeners.  Even the people who don’t work.  Who love the Equality Fund.  Because with equality they don’t have to work.  Pretty sweet.  Don’t work.  And get paid the same as those who do work.  So they have no incentive ever to go to work.  And some of those who do work start asking themselves, “Why am I still working?” 

If there was an Equality Fund how hard would you work at your job?  Would you even work?  Would you choose a difficult career field that took a lot of costly education?  Would you work that hard to earn more money only to deposit those high earnings into the Equality Fund?  Instead of using those high earnings to buy a nice house?  In a nice neighborhood?  With nice schools for your kids?  Probably not.  Let’s say everyone is paid $50,000 from the Equality Fund.  Regardless of what you paid into it.  Either nothing.  Or millions of dollars.  Everyone lives on $50,000 per year.  Not too shabby.  Especially for low-income people or the unemployed.  They’re going to love the Equality Fund.  But those paying in millions will not be living in million dollar mansions.  Buying expensive cars.  Big boats.  Fly in their private jets.  Or even fly first-class.  No one will wear a Rolex watch.  Or other expensive jewelry.  Or high fashion.  No one will have these things.  Not when you’re raising a family on $50,000 per year.  Even if your work skills bring in the kind of high earnings that could afford them.  Because all of your pay will go into the Equality Fund.  Is that fair?  It’s equality.  But is it fair?

Let’s take this a little further.  Say everyone wises up and quits working.  Because they get the same amount to live on whether they work or not.  So why work?  Those who would like to tell the boss off and quit working are no doubt saying, “Sounds good to me.”  But this would cause a problem.  For what would you buy with your $50,000 annual allotment if no one worked?  For you need people to work if you want to buy a house.  A car.  A boat.  Fly.  Wear a watch.  Jewelry.  Clothing.  Sure, some will say we can just buy old homes.  And buy imported cars, boats, planes, watches, jewelry and clothing.   Sure, you could.  But you can’t import everything.  You can’t import road maintenance.  You can’t import port facilities and railroad infrastructure.  Or the people to operate them.  You can’t import restaurants complete with chefs, servers and busboys.  You can’t import emergency trauma care.  Maternity care.  Cardiac care.  A college education.  You just can’t import everything.  Someone has to work these jobs.  Even though they won’t get paid any more for working than they would for sitting at home collecting their allotment from the Equality Fund.  And when no one chooses to work at the jobs we can’t replace with imports someone will have to ‘help’ them change their mind.  To make them choose to work.  Even if it’s against their will. 

This is the problem with equality.  If we pay everyone equally no one will choose the hard jobs.  They’ll choose the easy jobs.  Worse, if we pay them equally whether they work or not they’ll simply choose not to work.  And if there is no incentive to choose the hard jobs then someone will have to coerce people to ‘choose’ them.

You can have Liberty or Equality but You can’t have Both

To choose your career you need liberty.  To choose to go to school to learn a high-paying skill you need liberty.  To work in a high-paying job you need liberty.  To keep your high-pay earnings you need liberty.  To work hard and to advance yourself to reach your personal goals you need liberty.  To play in the NFL you need liberty.  To be a movie star or rock star or pop star you need liberty.  To play the lotto and keep your winnings you need liberty.  To do all of these things you need liberty.  And one other thing that makes all of these things possible.  Inequality.

People working in fast food can’t earn the same as neurosurgeons.  Because if they paid their workers that much the cost of fast food would be prohibitive.  And no one would be neurosurgeons because it’s a lot less stressful working in fast food.  It doesn’t take years of training.  Or expensive malpractice insurance.  You don’t have to live with accidents that permanently disable or kill people.  Or deal with their aggrieved family members.  So that’s why we pay neurosurgeons so much.  It’s a very difficult profession that few choose.  Because so few choose this profession those that do are very valuable resources.  Demanding high pay.  And because they demand such high salaries it attracts the few who are willing to deal with all the things that come with being a neurosurgeon.  The high pay helps people choose this valued career despite the high personal costs.  So inequality is a good thing.  It provides incentive to choose the hard jobs.  Which is a good thing.  For who wants a low-paid person forced to be a neurosurgeon operating on his or her brain?

Everyone who has ever bought a lotto ticket agrees that inequality is a good thing.  They wouldn’t buy a ticket otherwise.  Because they buy those tickets to become rich.  To have more than other people.  That is, to be unequal.  Because everyone is greedy.  Just like football players, movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and, of course, lotto winners.  And not a one of them is going to work hard to develop their unique earning potential just to put the fruits of their labor into the Equality Fund.  They may talk the talk.  Support Democrats.  But they do that just so the people who have ‘so little’ leave them alone.  For they all still live in their million dollar mansions.  Because they like being unequal.  The more unequal the better.  They adore their pampered lives.  And when it comes to choosing liberty or equality they choose liberty.  As their comfortable lives clearly show.  For you can have liberty.  Or you can have equality.  But you can’t have both.  And that’s okay with them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #12: “Feminists will forgive misogyny if the misogynist is a self-proclaimed feminist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2010

MOST WHO CONSIDER themselves feminists aren’t very militant.  And most aren’t probably that hardcore on the ‘equal’ thing.  Men and women are different.  They know this.  And that’s okay.  Many feminists don’t mind when a man holds a door for them.  Or that they have to sit down to pee.  You don’t have to be a man.  You can enjoy your femininity and have a career.  No one says you can’t.  Well, almost no one.

There is a very loud, a very angry and a very militant group of feminists that beg to differ.  It’s not that big of a group.  It seems like it, but that’s just because they get some prime exposure.  In the entertainment industry.  Some media outlets.  And through some rich and powerful friends.

This group believes in absolute equality.  You don’t dare hold a door for them.  Or compliment them on their appearance.  And if you ever think about patting them on the fanny, just realize that you may lose that hand in the process.  And probably your two best friends as well.  Then they’ll say something like “how do you like me now, bitch” to the newly castrated man.

Don’t call them the fairer sex.  Or the weaker sex.  They don’t like it.  They can be crude in their speech for they eschew any preconceived notions of lady-like behavior.    They’ll drop the f-bomb at will and ask a guy how’s it hanging.  They like their behavior rough and coarse.  Just like a man’s.  Like I said, absolute equality.

THESE HARDCORE MILITANT feminists (HMFs) have one overriding concern.  And that is not to let anything interfere with their chosen career or profession.  Anything.  And they’ve had some successes.  Glass ceilings have been shattering and restraints on women’s advancement are falling.  Everywhere.  Everywhere but one.  The uterus.

The HMFs don’t just eschew lady-like behavior, they detest the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system.  The uterus has destroyed more careers than the exclusivity of any old boys club.  Pregnancy.  The scourge of unbridled advancement in the HMF’s world.  Bodily change.  Leaves of absence.  And the possibility that the temporary leave may become a permanent one.  Motherhood.  Children.  The very thought of it sickens them.  And infuriates them.  It just ain’t fair.

They fight this oppression with religious fervor.  And their vehicle is reproductive rights.  Abortion.  It is their holy grail.  They’ve fought long and hard to get it.  And, by god, they intend to keep it.  And they base their political world on it.

At least, that’s what one would surmise based on the historical evidence.

CONDOLEEZA RICE HAS had a remarkable career that set a lot of firsts.  She has an incredible resume and achieved everything on it on her own.  From her PhD in political science to the third most powerful position in the country, Secretary of State, and everything in between, she worked hard and advanced herself.  On pure merit.  Unlike Hillary Clinton whose rise to fame was courtesy of the coattails of a successful man.

You would think that between the two, feminists would hold up Rice as the ideal.  She made it in the man’s world.  Shattered ceilings.  Set records.  Was in fact more successful than most men.  Clinton had to go old school and rely on a successful marriage for political success.  But, of course, it is Clinton they hold up as the ideal.  Not Rice.  Why?

Clinton is a Democrat.  Rice is a Republican.  Clinton is pro-choice.  Rice is less so.  Though very religious, she is kind of libertarian when it comes to abortion.  She’s not pro on-demand abortion.  She believes there should be certain restrictions.  And that’s enough.  Between the two, Clinton supports abortion more.  So the HMFs hold her up as the ideal.

STAND BY YOUR man.  Not exactly a feminist dictate.  If a woman’s husband has a history of extramarital activity, few feminists would say to stand by that man.  They may say something like if he has a problem keeping it in his pants, then just cut it off.  For there are few things as hurtful and humiliating than infidelity.

Bill Clinton has apparently had a problem of keeping it in his pants.  There’ve been many accusations about many women.  The Clintons met all of these with righteous indignation.  His wife attributed them to political attacks from a vast right wing conspiracy.  And she stood by her man.  Even after the infamous blue dress.

Well, it turned out that at least one of the accusations were true.  Now, Bill Clinton was personable, but he was no George Clooney.  Or a Tom Jones.  Women weren’t throwing their panties at him.  He just wasn’t sexy.  So it wasn’t a passionate animal attraction.  No, it wasn’t that.  It was power.  He was the most powerful man in America.  And she was just a 20 something year old intern.  He was 50ish.  He took advantage of her awe of his power.  And stuck his penis in her mouth.  And a cigar tube in her vagina.  But it wasn’t a big deal.  Most men just joked about it.  Thought it was pretty cool.  As long it wasn’t their daughter’s mouth.  Or their daughter’s vagina.

MEN ARE PIGS.  It’s no secret.  So it’s no big shock that a lot of men were okay with a little oral sex in the Oval Office.  They look at the young women in their offices.  They talk about them.  What they would like to do with them.  Some go too far.  Abuse their position of power.  They make inappropriate remarks.  Inappropriate contact.  And then all hell breaks loose.  And rightly so.

Get a job today and you have to sit through compulsory sexual harassment training.  Before you start working.  Employers live in fear of sexual harassment.  If they don’t do enough to prevent it, or if they don’t act fast enough when it happens, the lawyers sue.  The lawyers sue even when they do.  It’s a minefield.  One misstep along the way and BOOM.  Lawsuit.  We will not tolerate any abuse of power.  Unless, of course, you’re president of the United States.

WHAT IS MISOGYNY?  A hatred of women.  Objectifying them for pleasure.  The attitude that women are good for only one thing.  Sex.  A misogynist may ‘love’ being with women, but he doesn’t necessarily want to be with them.  Talk to them.  Or see them still there the following morning.  And he may leave cab fare out so they won’t be there later that evening after he’s ‘done’ with them.  Think of Charlie Harper from the television show Two and a Half Men.

A man that habitually cheats on his wife is a misogynist.  He doesn’t respect his wife.  Or the women he’s fooling around with.  He’s just having a good time.  Using them.  To fulfill some animal desire.  Thinking with the little head.  Always.

JFK was fooling around.  Teddy, too.  Two women died as a result.  Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.  Did she want more than JFK was willing to give?  Did she kill herself because of this?  We’ll never know.  All that we know is that she had sex with JFK.  And that she was depressed.

Ted Kennedy was probably going to have sex with Mary Jo Kopechne when he accidentally drove off that bridge.  His pregnant wife was home in bed at the time.  Kennedy panicked and left Kopechne to die.  This may have dashed his presidential ambitions, but he remained in the Senate for another 40 years or so.  A stalwart liberal.  The HMFs stood by him.  And JFK (posthumously, of course).  Teddy was pro-choice.  And a Catholic.  Talk about a coup for feminism.  They loved this man.  And never abandoned him.  I mean, Catholicism is about as anti-abortion as you can get.  In another era, the church would have excommunicated Teddy for such blasphemy.

The feminists never abandoned Clinton, either.  Bill or Hillary.  Why?  They’re pro-choice.  And with them in power, the HMFs know abortion will stay a choice.  So they will forgive the misogyny.  It’s like a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  In their world, he just didn’t do anything that bad.  Unlike someone else.

SAY THE NAME and the invectives fly.  Sarah Palin.  My, how the Left hates her.  And the HMFs.  Here’s another successful career woman, too.  She earned everything herself.  Didn’t marry into anything.  Again, a feminist ideal they could hold up for all young girls to emulate.  But they hate her.  Why?

They hate Sarah Palin because she’s that 1950s mom AND a successful career woman.  That just ain’t supposed to happen.  Remember, having babies is the scourge of career advancement.  Add to that the fact that she didn’t abort her last pregnancy after already having had 4 children.  Compound that with the fact that she didn’t change her mind about abortion after finding out her last baby would be born with Down Syndrome. 

Palin makes a mockery of the HMFs version of feminism.  Babies destroy careers.  Ergo, to succeed in a career, you can’t have babies.  But, being in a modern, liberated age, accidents happen.  And no one should punish a career woman for doing anything more than a man did.  She should be able to keep her career.  And abortion lets her.  That’s the model.  And then along comes Palin and blows that model all to hell.

THERE ARE MANY more examples.  All with a common theme.  Misogyny is okay as long as you are a feminist.  You can do pretty much whatever you want.  They won’t attack you.  They will, though, if you are pro-life.  Even if you only ‘lean’ pro-life.  Because if you take away abortion, the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system will go on unchecked.  And absolute equality will be but a fleeting memory.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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