FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

One Passenger Airline charging by the Passenger’s Weight may offer new Funding Idea for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 7th, 2013

Week in Review

When the price of oil soars it doesn’t affect the railroads that much.  Because fuel costs are not their greatest cost.  Maintaining that massive infrastructure is.  For wherever a train travels there has to be track.  It’s different for the airlines.  The only infrastructure they have is at the airports.  And the traffic control centers that keep order in the sky.  Once a plane is off the ground it doesn’t need anything but fuel in its tanks to go somewhere.  And because the flying infrastructure is so much less than the railroad infrastructure fuel costs are a much larger cost.  In fact, it’s their greatest cost of flying.  So when fuel costs rise ticket prices rise along with them.  And they start charging more bag fees.  As well as any other fee they can charge you to offset these soaring fuel costs.

Boeing made their 787, the Dreamliner, exceptionally light.  To reduce flying costs.  They used a lot of composite materials.  Two large engines because they’re lighter than 4 smaller engines.  They even used a new lithium-ion battery system to start up their auxiliary power unit.  And made it fly-by-wire to eliminate the hydraulic system that normally operates the control surfaces.  They did all of these things to fight the biggest enemy they have in flying.  Weight.  For the greater the weight the more fuel they burn.  And the less profitable they are.

Freight airlines charge their customers by the weight of the freight they wish to ship.  Because there is a direct correlation between the weight of their freight and the amount of fuel they have to burn to carry that freight.  In fact, all shippers charge by the weight.  Because in transportation weight is everything.  But there is one mode of transportation that we don’t charge by the weight.  Passenger air travel.  Until now, that is (see A tax on overweight airline passengers: a brutal airline policy by Robin Abcarian posted 4/3/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

When teensy-weensy Samoa Airlines debuted its pay-by-the-kilo policy in January, I doubt it expected to set off an international controversy about fat discrimination.

But that’s what happened when news seeped out this week after the airline’s chief executive, Chris Langton, told ABC News radio in Australia that the system is not only fair but destined to catch on.

“Doesn’t matter whether you’re carrying freight or people,” explained Langton. “We’ve amalgamated the two and worked out a figure per kilo.”

Samoa Air, he added, has always weighed the human and non-human cargo it carries. “As any airline operator knows, they don’t run on seats, they run on weight,” said Langton. “There’s no doubt in my mind this is the concept of the future because anybody who travels has felt they’ve paid for half the passenger that’s sitting next to them…”

“Samoa Air, Introducing a world first: ‘Pay only for what you weigh’! We at Samoa Air are keeping airfares fair, by charging our passengers only for what they weigh. You are the master of your Air’fair’, you decide how much (or little) your ticket will cost. No more exorbitant excess baggage fees, or being charged for baggage you may not carry. Your weight plus your baggage items, is what you pay for. Simple. The Sky’s the Limit..!”

One bright note to this policy: Families with small children, who often feel persecuted when they travel, stand to benefit most from this policy. Since Samoa no longer charges by the seat, it will cost them a lot less to fly than it did before.

The appeal of this policy depends on your perspective.  If you’re of average weight sitting next to someone spilling over their seat into yours it may bother you knowing that you each paid the same price for a seat and resent the person encroaching on your seat.  But if you paid per the weight you bring onto the airplane then that person paid for the right to spill over into your seat.  Which they no doubt will do without worrying about how you feel.  As they paid more for their ticket than you paid for yours.  So the person who weighs less will get a discount to suffer the encroachment.  While the person who weighs more will have to pay a premium for the privilege to encroach.

Under the current system the people who weigh less subsidize the ticket prices of those who weigh more.  It’s not fair.  But it does save people the embarrassment of getting onto a scale when purchasing a ticket.  So should all airlines charge like all other modes of transportation?  Or should they continue to subsidize the obese?  Should we be fair?  Or should we be kind?

Chances are that government would step in and prevent airlines from charging by the weight.  Calling it a hate crime.  Even while they are waging a war on the obese themselves. Telling us what size soda we can buy.  And regulating many other aspects of our lives.  Especially now with Obamacare.  Because the obese are burdening our health care system with their health problems the government now has the right to regulate our lives.  And they have no problem calling us fat and obese.  But a private airline starts charging by the weight of the passenger?  Just don’t see how the government will allow that.  For it’s one thing for them to bully us.  But they won’t let these private businesses hurt people’s feelings by being fair.  So the people who are not overweight will continue to subsidize the flying cost of those who are overweight.

Until the government determines obese people are causing an unfair burden on society.  The obese have more health issues.  Which will consume more limited health care resources.  Also, flying these heavier people around will burn more fuel.  Putting more carbon emissions into the air.  Causing more breathing problems for everyone else.  As well as killing the planet with more global warming.  So while the airlines may not want to weigh people when selling them a ticket because of the potential backlash, the government won’t have a problem.  To cut the high cost of health care and to save the planet from global warming caused by carbon emissions they may even introduce a ‘fat’ tax.  Like any other sin tax.  To encourage people to choose to be healthier.  And to punish those who choose not to.  If they can force us to buy health insurance what can stop them from accessing a ‘fat’ tax?  Especially when they do have the right to tax us.

This is where national health care can take us.  When they begin paying the bill for health care they will have the right to do almost anything if they can identify it as a heath care issue.  Because it’s in the national interest.  They’ve painted bulls-eyes on the backs of smokers.  And drinkers.  With tobacco and alcohol taxes.  And you know they would love to tax us for being fat.  Perhaps even having our doctors file our weight with the IRS.  So they can bump our tax rates based on how obese we are.  If the tax dollars pay for health care they will say they have that right.  As the obese consume an unfair amount of those limited tax dollars.  Anything is possible with an out of control growing federal government faced with trillion dollar deficits.  Especially when they can call it a health care issue.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Study shows that Women are Getting Fat because they’re Slacking Off on the Housework

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

Talk about your war on women.  Here’s a salvo from the New York Times.  That reported on a study that said today’s women are fat because they don’t spend enough time cleaning, cooking, and doing laundry (see Does Less Housework Really Equal a Larger Waistline? by Lylah M. Alphonse posted 2/28/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).

A New York Times article about a study that links U.S. women’s expanding waistlines to the fact that they do less housework has sparked a wave of outrage online, where readers decried the piece for being sexist.

“Attn ladies, maybe if you put a little more time into housework you wouldn’t be so fat,” tweeted Taylor Lorenz as she shared the article, entitled “What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines.”

“Are you kidding? You just completely discredited yourselves as a newspaper,” commented Agnes Shugardt on the New York Times Facebook page. (Danielle Rhoads-Ha, director of communications for the New York Times, told Yahoo! Shine that since the outcry is over the study, and not the way the article was written or reported, the newspaper had no comment on it.)

It’s tempting to use a sexist expression here for comic relief.  But we shan’t.

Once upon a time women were angry that men didn’t appreciate how hard housework is.  Which it is.  And probably was the reason why women outlived men for so many years.  For as men got softer working office jobs women continued to work hard.  And remained strong.  So women were justifiably angry when men dismissed housework as simply resting on the couch eating bonbons while watching daytime television.  With a little dusting thrown in.  Now women are mad because their careers are not perceived as physically demanding as doing fulltime housework.  Which they aren’t.  For anyone given the choice would opt to work in the office during the day instead of doing housework.  For housework is backbreaking thankless work.  Few appreciate a clean toilet enough to keep it clean.  Unless you’re the one that cleans it.  But one thing certain about housework is that it burns the calories.  Better than any gym membership can.

Women, even ones who manage their homes instead of big businesses, are also less physically active now than they used to be. In 1965, women spent an average of 25.7 hours each week cleaning, cooking, and doing laundry. By 2010, women were spending an average of 13.3 hours each week on housework. Like their male counterparts, women who worked outside of the home are spending far more time sitting down in front a screen at the office these days, but Archer and his team were surprised to find that even women who stayed home were spending more time watching TV—16.5 hours per week in 2010, up from about eight hours a week in 1965…

Given the way technology has changed housework, it’s unlikely that more housework would make much a difference for either gender, though. Old-fashioned vacuum cleaners were clunky and hard to push, requiring a lot more physical energy to use than today’s lightweight models, and bending and stretching to hang laundry on a line in the 1960s burned more calories than transferring a load from the washer to the dryer.

Both men and women are getting softer these days.  Thanks to a higher standard of living.  And quality appliances at affordable prices.  Pity there’s a downside to all this convenience.  It’s putting us in an early grave.

Yes, women were healthier before they left the house to pursue a career.  And slimmer.  As were men.  If you want to see just how skinny we were watch an old movie.  Where all the leading men were skinny.  And borderline malnourished.  Or sit in an old theater.  The seating is pretty tight these days.  For we were a lot skinnier in the old days.  Not only gut-wise.  But shoulder-wise, too.  For if you sit in a theater that was built close to a hundred years ago you’ll be sitting with your shoulders pressing into the shoulders on either side of you.

We’re eating more and exercising less.  This is why our waistlines are expanding.  Especially for women.  For stay-at-home moms run a never ending marathon.  When they give that up to pursue a career they have to join a health club to make up for the exercise they once got for free.  Which they will eventually quit.  As most people do.  Because after a hard day at the office the last thing anyone wants to do is exercise.  They just want to go home and plop down in front of the television.  With a relaxing adult beverage.  Also not good for the waistline.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Kids are Fat in Canada, Too

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 10th, 2012

Week in Review

Kids aren’t obese only in America.  They’re obese in Canada, too (see N.S. to spend $2M to combat childhood obesity posted 6/7/2012 on CBC News).

The Nova Scotia government will spend about $2 million over the next year to help reduce childhood obesity and associated health problems…

“Nova Scotia is dealing with epidemic levels of childhood obesity, inactivity and unhealthy eating,” said Premier Darrell Dexter.

Their plan includes a “healthy start with a focus on breastfeeding.”  They’ll educate kids about nutrition and exercise.  Make healthy food and exercise readily available.  And spend money on trails, sidewalks and facilities to get these kids off of their fat asses.  Interestingly, there is no mention of a 16 ounce limit on sugary beverages.  New York’s Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to combat child obesity.  Though one could make the argument that breast milk is not a sugary beverage.

So if it’s not the soda pop making these kids fat what is it?

Among the surveyed Grade 3 students, about 80 per cent of both boys and girls met the physical activity standard on five or more days per week. By Grade 11, that number dropped significantly — about five per cent for boys and less than one per cent for girls.

Thompson blames electronic devices and poor attitudes for the problem.

Guess that would be cell phones.  Smartphones.  Computers.  Tablets.  And, of course, video games.  It appears that kids prefer gossiping and playing video/on-line games over physical activity.  Or they’re just so narcissistic that they have to share every thought and minute detail of their lives with their social network.  Which is just a more sophisticated way of saying “look at me, look at me, look at me.”  So they spend their passing hours with their electronic devices.  Instead of going biking or dancing they’d rather simulate that activity.  Gossip about a friend.  Or be the center of the universe.  All while getting fat in the process.

You know, it just may not be those large cups of sugary beverages causing our obesity problem.  It may be something else.  Wise words from the past come to mind.  From the wisest of wise.  The Oompa Loompas. 

Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-do
I have a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-dee
If you are wise, you’ll listen to me

What do you get when you guzzle down sweets?
Eating as much as an elephant eats
What are you at getting terribly fat?
What do you think will come of that?

I don’t like the look of it

Who do you blame when your kid is a brat?
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who’s to blame

The mother and the father

Those little orange bastards were wise.  Even if they were only characters in a movie.  Then again it’s hard to parent these days.  There are so many outside influences.  And because of the high cost of living these days it often takes two incomes to raise a child.  Leaving our kids without parental supervision for a few extra hours each workday.  Where they are more likely to pick up bad habits.  Perhaps we should be looking at that.  Why does it take two incomes these days to raise a family?  High taxes and inflation.  Both have shrunk real earnings so much that a single income can’t raise a family like it did before.  It was LBJ’s Great Society spending in the Sixties that caused the massive inflation of the Seventies.  And parenting in the US has never been the same since. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

More Delicious Finely Textured Beef, Please

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 1st, 2012

Week in Review

There’s a lot of talk today about ‘pink slime’.  That hamburger filler made by less choice parts of the cow.  And treated with ammonia hydroxide gas.  To make it healthier for human consumption.  McDonald’s stopped using it about a year ago.  But they still use it in our public schools.  Because it’s perfectly okay to feed to our kids.  To help prove this point one of the plants that make this stuff invited some state governors to look at the process (see “Pink slime” producer allows tour of plant to bolster image by Andrew Stern posted 3/30/2012 on Reuters).

First, a conveyer belt brought in scraps left over from a plant next door that produces steaks, roasts and other cuts of meat. The scraps were heated to around 100 degrees Fahrenheit to facilitate separation of the fat, then dumped into a huge meat grinder to pull out fat, cartilage, bone and connective tissue.

A centrifuge spinning 3,000 times a minute continued the separation process. Inside a third machine the material was treated with ammonia hydroxide gas to eliminate bacteria.

The treated bits of meat were moved into large roller-presses inside drums up to 14 feet tall, which flattened the meat and froze it down to 15 degrees, which lightened its color. The meat was pried out of the drums, then put in a grinder that churned out 60-pound bricks that were packaged individually for shipment…

Meat producers have predicted hamburger prices will rise as the spring grilling season begins because they will no longer be able to use the cheap filler to mix with the higher quality cuts of beef.

Mmm.  Just like Mom made.  I mean, just what’s so bad about this?  It’s not like they’re leaving the fat, cartilage, bone and connective tissue in the product.  And what fine cooking doesn’t include a centrifuge?  And ammonia hydroxide gas?  I’m sure Mom had that in her spice rack.  Right next to the fennel.

That should clear things up.  Delicious food.  The way it should be.  Shaped like a brick.  Yum.  The next thing you know people everywhere will be saying, “More finely textured beef, please.”

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,