The White Male Oppressor Speaks

Here is one from the “Critical thinking” file. I found this story on CNN (who even the co-founder of the “news” organization called a joke). The title is “Kids of Lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggest.” Really? Well let’s see what CNN had to say on this matter first, and then look at the research. According to the story a study that was done over a 25 year period starting in 1986 (which I might point out was only 24 years ago) suggests that children who are raised in lesbian households were psychologically and academically better adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers of the same age group from traditional families.

This study, which was published Monday in the Journal of Pediatrics, had followed 78 children of lesbian couples who conceived through artificial insemination and followed those children’s well being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.  The study was authored by Dr. Nanette Gartrell who herself is a lesbian. (A side note for whiny activists: I did not bring up her sexuality as a way to discredit her or her research but merely to add better context to this review).  Her study was funded by the Gill Foundation, which is one of the nation’s largest funders and organizers of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender civil rights works, the Lesbian Health Fund and the Gay Lesbian Medical Association among others. On another side note I find that last one kind of funny The “Gay Lesbian Medical Association” as opposed to what, the “Straight Lesbian Medical Association” no offense to that group but I find the redundancy in the name funny? Before you start attacking my joke I am aware that their name is representative of both gay men and gay women.

So where to start. This story from CNN like a lot of their stories is horribly choppy and poorly edited. I say this because if you take the numbers that they give in the story this whole research project sounds like a load of crap. The ages of the children don’t match up with the research time-line, in fact little to none of it matches up with the research time-line.

With that said I found the research study an interesting read. You can read the whole report HERE. However, I do think that there are some questions that should be considered when looking at the bigger picture of this research that will undoubtedly be used by gay activist groups as proof that gay parents are better than traditional families.

Whiny victim activists disclaimer. The questions and observations that I am about to express are in no way meant to discredit the research or the researchers of and in this report (however I am sure to get comments or mail stating I hate gays or some other misinformed BS statement.)

The first observation is, that the funders of this research and the research team are made up primarily of lesbians and gay rights activist groups. This could lead to the potential skewing of the data to a predetermined end. Like any research project done by any research group no matter how qualified the research team is on the subject, when the research is done by researchers who would potentially have something to gain and funded by activist groups that have an invested interest in the data proving a predetermined ideology or agenda there is always a risk of misrepresentation or biased conclusions to what was being studied.

Next, using the accepted percent of the human population that is gay which is around 10%  which would be 30,000,000 people in the United States and even if we figure that half of that population is lesbian that would take us to about 15 million. Even if we speculated that all 15 million found a lifetime companion and decided to start a family we are left with about 8 million potential lesbian families. This study which used a base sample of 78 children would be hard pressed to, under any terms make a blanket statement (which they do) of saying that children raised in lesbian households are more socially and academically adjusted than peers of the same age group from traditional families.

Another thing to consider is this study was started in the 1980s when there was a much larger stigmatization of the gay community than exists today. Could this have put a pressure on the parents to over emphasize their children’s social and academic abilities on the questionnaire based on the fear, that some of the mothers expressed in the beginning of having their parental rights removed based on their sexual preference.

While Dr. Gartrells’ research team is more than sufficiently qualified in the area of this study and did use the Achenbach normative sample of American youth (CBCL/6 –18), which is a highly regarded piece that is known for its reliability and consistency and is a staple in numerous studies relating to childhood behavior and social ability. They did not also include the Achenbach Youth Self-Report or Teacher’s Report Form in this study which would have helped to give a more well rounded data sampling.

All in all I found this research paper interesting but it left to many potential questions that could play a major factor in data accuracy for me personally to accept this study as a solid unbiased piece of research. But, by all means read it for yourself and decide (that’s why I linked to it.) I do however caution, just like any research piece that is attempted to be passed off as gospel truth, to look at the data critically and you will have a better chance at finding the facts.

Until Next Time: Learn With An Open Mind.

Bookmark It

I know what you may be thinking, how can environmentalism kill millions? To answer that question I will give you three letters that have been seen as an acronym of evil and a rallying cry of environmental extremists for decades and that would be DDT or (Dichloro diphenyl trichloroetheane). Originally developed in 1939,  DDT was used heavily in World War II for an insecticide and was instrumental in the health of Allied forces. In fact in 1948, Paul Herman Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine “for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods.”

One of the greatest lies that have cost millions of lives is that DDT is a human killing chemical. This myth which ultimately led to the banning and vilification of this life saving chemical was perpetrated by environmental lunatic Rachel Carson who was a major opponent of insecticides and was successful in spreading lies and hysteria regarding DDT in her 1962 book “Silent Spring” which Peter Matthiessen said was “The cornerstone of the new environmentalism”. Of course what they don’t talk about is that DDT is probably the single most important chemical for the cessation of disease such as Malaria, Typhus, Yellow Fever, Dengue, Plaque Encephalitis and many other diseases being a problem in the United States. Malaria used to reach as far north as Boston but thanks in part to DDT being sprayed from planes  and improved sanitation, these diseases which kill millions are almost unheard of in the United States.

However, in less developed parts of the world according to the World Health Organization states that Malaria kills a child every 30 seconds in today’s world. If we break that number down that equals 1,051,200 children around the world that die every year from this one disease that could be virtually eliminated in part by the increased use of DDT. Pro-environmental activist groups that have been shouting since the early 60’s about the dangers have used all kinds of BS junk science to scare people about DDT. For example some of the claims that don’t hold up to actual science are as follows as described by Junkscience.com (where you can find the research notes to prove the following). DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells. Many experiments were done on caged-birds that demonstrated DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

Then we have one of the favorites for environmentalists: the cancer threat. Is this true? Sorry, not quite. DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in “Silent Spring” and a breast carcinogen in “Our Stolen Future.” Which has a forward by “The Prince of Environmental Peace” Al Gore, so you know its credible right? Unfortunately for these environmentalist according to Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers “A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.” Sorry to disappoint all of you bumper sticker environmentalists out there but the science just doesn’t support the claims.

The point is -  if people buy into the junk science and hysteria that these Earth first style environmentalists try to pump out through the mainstream media that are based solely on rhetoric and unfounded scientific evidence, millions of people needlessly die. But that doesn’t matter to these people who think a tree is worth the lives of people. Stop listening to these people and try to stop and do your own research and make an informed decision about what you believe. One last thing don’t just take my word for it do your own research and you will see the boundless benefits of DDT in saving human lives and learn the truth about the environmental impact for yourself.

Bookmark It

Over the last year we have heard all kinds of interesting propaganda from the progressives in Washington DC about socialist style health-care. We have been bombarded daily with rhetoric and bumper sticker slogans that sound good and are regurgitated like a cows cud from the former journalists at the major news networks that now act as nothing more than propagandists for the now co-opted democrat party.

Why do I say co-opted? The simple answer is that the democrat party which at one time cared about this country has been taken over by progressives. These progressives (including President Obama) have now, using rhetoric, bribery, and intimidation gotten nationalized health-care passed. But is it really what they claim it to be? Will it in fact cut the deficit? And is it all roses like the progressives want you to believe?

Let’s start by taking a look at the timetable. You have undoubtedly heard on the “news” that this will insure an additional 32 million Americans. Saving an estimated 44,789 lives per year. These deaths are supposedly linked to lack of health insurance. The truth is that this does not go into effect for the poor or those that they say need it until 2014 which means that those 44,789 people per year will still die which equals 179,156 or 123 people per day that will die from a continued lack of health insurance. However, this number could be a lot less, but because I am using their numbers, and they lie and say that the poor do not have access to health-care. The reality is that the poor and illegal immigrants do have access to health care. It is illegal for a hospital to turn away anyone for lack of ability to pay.

According to the Speaker of the House (thanks to Botox, her face hasn’t moved in almost a decade), The Congressional Budget Office, and the Kaiser Family Foundation, here is the progression of implementation for this 2700 page monstrosity.

Within the first year after the bill passes, it will provide a $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug plan beneficiaries whose initial benefits run out. Let’s not forget that a growing number of pharmacies and physicians are refusing to take new medicare and medicaid prescriptions and patients because the government does not reimburse these entities enough to even cover their costs in many cases.

Looking 90 days down the road, immediate access to high-risk pools for people who have no insurance because of preexisting conditions kicks in. You may have heard the term “High Risk Pool” before, but what is a high risk pool. According to the National Association of Health Underwriters a high-risk pool serves as the guaranteed-issue purchasing option for individuals who wish to exercise federal group-to-individual insurance portability rights. High-risk pools are also available in many states as a purchasing option for individuals who are eligible for the 65 percent federal health insurance tax credit provided by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act of 2002.

Six months after this bill is rammed down the throat of the American People it will bar insurers from denying people coverage when they get sick. It also bars insurers from denying coverage to children who have preexisting conditions. Another thing is that it removes the ability of health insurers to impose lifetime caps on coverage, and requires insurers to allow all people to stay on their parents health policy until the age of 26.

In 2011 it will require individual and small group market insurance plans to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services. Large group plans would have to spend at least 85 percent.

In 2013 it will increase the Medicare payroll tax and expands it to dividend, interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $250,000. (side note that is gross pay not take home pay.)

In 2014 it will provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level. Or, under current guidelines, about $88,000 a year to purchase health insurance. It also requires most employers to provide coverage or face penalties. Also, it requires most people to obtain coverage or face penalties of up to $750 dollars or 2% of total gross household income per year.

In 2018 it will imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance policies. In other words if you or your employer pay for the high tier insurance plans you or your employer will have to pay 40% more for the privilege of being able to afford not needing substandard government health-care.

And finally in 2019 it will expand health insurance coverage to 32 million people. But wait they were touting that there were 45 million Americans without health coverage during their pushes to get this passed. I guess to them the other 13 million people are an expendable overage.

Is this really what this country needs? Now let’s look at some facts that they conveniently neglected to tell us about or forgot to tell us about while they were pumping this and calling anyone who disagreed with it a racist or un-American.

First they claim that this bill will cost less than 1 Trillion dollars. But will it? No. using Enron style accounting and tricky budget gimmicks, health-care supporters have been trying to convince you that the cost of this bill is less than a Trillion dollars. However this is not true. These estimates leave out such things as the costly but inevitable “doc fix” and buries deep a new long-term-care entitlement. This whole thing is based on benefits not taking effect until 2014, even though taxes begin immediately. The true 10-year cost of this bill is at a minimum $2.5 trillion.

They also left out of the final numbers for all the wonderful bribes I mean kickbacks, oh sorry I mean “congressional district enhancement funds” for votes. The Senate bill still had the aptly named “Cornhusker Kickback” which was removed March 15 prior to the vote. It also contains the “Louisiana Purchase.”  which gives extra Medicaid funding to any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area. This was originally done to buy the vote of  Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) but when enough people complained it was expanded to any state that meets the same criteria as Louisiana. which would be roughly 5 states. The President promises to fix these in reconciliation but we shall see if he does or if more members of congress get even more sweetheart bribes, I mean kickbacks sorry there I go again I mean “Congressional district enhancement funds” to continue to go along with it.

Finally, probably one of the most contested parts of the bill. The public option. The Senate bill which is what the house voted on and passed, authorizes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) which is a  federal agency that oversees the civil service  to create government-sponsored health plans that would “compete” against private health insurance plans. These government health plans would have their premiums, profit margins, and benefit decided on and  set by OPM. This potentially could create a lop sided market that favors government health plans to private insurance. Ultimately driving private insurers out of business leaving only the government death-care option. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the insurance industry that would loose their jobs if that were to happen.

One problem with this is that insurance companies have to make pay roll and other overhead costs out of the profits received from premiums where as the government does not have to nor care if it makes a profit because it will just print more money (which devalues the dollar) or increase the tax burden on everyone to pay for it. This means that the taxpayers could be held to pay for any shortfalls that the government plan incurs. If you don’t think that that happens just look at Amtrak, The United States Postal Service, General Motors. All of whom loose 10’s of millions if not billions of dollars a year but you the tax payer keep supporting these loosing efforts of government.

As proof GM or Government Motors got $52 billion dollars in bailout cash which means the government owns a 62 percent controlling stake in the company, just released that it now has a $4.5 billion dollar profit loss. Whereas Ford Motor Company which did not take any Government money,(which means the government did not get a say in how it was run) has now gone into the black and has instituted profit sharing among its hourly employees. Who would you rather work for?

The bottom line is they have been lying to the American people from the beginning. They say it is bi-partisan but the Republicans were not allowed into the sessions where the bill was penned. And now that it has passed the House and is going to reconciliation, Harry Reed the senate majority leader stated that they will defeat all amendments put forth by the Republicans. So guess what? This bill and all changes to it, and damage caused by it are now and have been solely done by the Democrat / Progressive party. And we the American people need to hold those peoples feet to the fire to make sure that what is ultimately done is in the best interest of the people and not the best interest of the elected officials.

Bookmark It