Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Tuesday News Day

So much news and so little time...

Liberal Outrage forces Komen Kollapse

Nothing outrages lefties like taking their free money away.  Just look at how the public union leeches turned things upside down in Wisconsin and Ohio at the prospect of having to pay for their own pensions and health care like the rest of us.

The New York Times called Komen cutting off Planned Parenthood "a painful betrayal."  Liberals, accustomed to other people’s money, were outraged, Outraged! At the Susan G. Komen decision to cut off funding to the abortion mills.

It only took a couple of days for the Komen people to surrender to The Sisterhood of Burning Rage. They will restore the funds even though Planned Parenthood does not perform breast cancer screenings.  They've managed to piss off both the right and the left in the span of three days.  I predict Komen's demise.

As usual, Mark Steyn has the absolute definitive take on the issue, The Liberal Enforcers.

Holder says there was no cover-up

…and I believe him. He’s not smart enough to hide anything, and why would they need to? There are enough genuflecting servile subjects in this country who believe government can do whatever it wants, so if Obama wanted to give Mexican drug gangs free guns, who are we to question it?

Vampire Capitalism

Mitt could be the nominee, so we will be hearing more about Vampire Capitalism from the Marxoids of all parties. The New Yorker has an excellent and concise article not about Mitt Romney, but Venture Capital, and surprise of surprises, takes a very even-handed view. Their beef with it is the same as mine: Government tax policy and perverse incentives encourage the demons of the venture capitalist's nature:

If private-equity firms are as good at remaking companies as they claim, they don’t need tax loopholes to make money. If we capped the deductibility of corporate debt, and closed the carried-interest loophole, it would not prevent private-equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial gimmickry and save taxpayers billions every year. (New Yorker)

The Brits wonder if Hillary is styling herself as a classic Bond villain, and this right after she unleashed a blistering tongue lashing to Basher Assad at the UN.

Assad had better watch his back.  Hillary made a similar statement about Ghaddaffi and look what happened to him.  If recent history is any basis, I predict Assad will be dragged from a rat infested sewer pipe and sodomized with a piece of rebar as Hillary stands laughing maniacally at how she came, she saw, he died.  And before the election season is all over, Obama will be bragging how he shot Assad like a dog in the street, just like he single-handedly parachuted into Pakistan and took out Usama bin Laden as Joe Biden circled watchfully above in the batcopter.

Buffett Rule:  a $50 billion loogie in a multi-trillion dollar ocean
The Congressional Research Service estimates that the Buffett Rule, requiring millionaires to pay at least the same rate as most middle-income taxpayers, would affect about a quarter of all millionaires, or 94,500 taxpayers. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal policy group, says the bill’s 30 percent rate would bring in about $50 billion per year.  (NY Times)
So for the $4 trillion annual federal budget, that’s about a 1.25% savings; a rounding error for our profligate federal money wasters.  And this meager savings depends on millionaires just sitting there as government plucks them like chickens.  I’m offering 50-1 odds they don’t…

This Explains the Obama Vote ...

Professor Jonathan Zimmerman explains that universities have no way of measuring success or failure, and when independent studies attempt to, the results are not encouraging:
My New York University colleague Richard Arum and the University of Virginia's Josipa Roksa recently tracked several thousand undergraduates as they moved through two dozen U.S. universities. They found that almost half of them didn't significantly improve their reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college.
And after four years, subsequent research showed, more than one-third of students still showed no significant gains in these areas. (Are College Students Learning?)
But I bet their self-esteem is high…

59 comments:

dmarks said...

Remember, Bashir Assad is one of the world's great socialist leaders, and his rule is rather typical for socialism.

Always On Watch said...

Our meddling in the Middle East is about to reap the whirlwind.

Bunkerville said...

Sooner or later, this fiasco of a foreign policy of Hillary will oome home to roost. Anyone else hearing the crickets regarding the American Prisoners in Egypt? Ray LaHood's son, no less? For trying to bring Democracy?? Says it all.

Infidel de Manahatta said...

I would not want to get on Hilary's bad side. Look what she did to Bill Clinton!

beamish said...

My Facebook friends list took a big hit when I suggested that since abortions exponentially increase the risk of cervical and uterine cancer I should start a group to pressure the Susan G Komen Foundation to pay for my cigarettes.

Lefties no like rationality. And really hate rationality with sarcasm.

beamish said...

If private-equity firms are as good at remaking companies as they claim, they don’t need tax loopholes to make money. If we capped the deductibility of corporate debt, and closed the carried-interest loophole, it would not prevent private-equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial gimmickry and save taxpayers billions every year.

YES!

I don't think we're too far apart, Silverfiddle. Another big key to the success of Romney's equity vampirism at Bain (taking the value of a struggling company and putting it in his pocket) is the social "safety net" he could push people "he loves to fire" into.

We all know that if Romney had been tasked to "turn around" the people he made jobless and homeless while an equity vampire at Bain Capital, he would have looked over their books and said "A-HA! These children you're feeding and putting through school are unnecessary expenses! The Welfare State can pay for that!"

Get rid of Welfare State "safety nets" for EVERYONE.

If there were no Welfare State, Romney may have come up with something different than shutting down steel mills to start up Chinese-made paper clip retailers.

Z said...

One Komen administrator near the top has resigned as of today; she is against abortion and can't live with I'm not sure a lot of those blinded by their abortion views understand quite what started Planned Parenthood or the fact that it really doesn't protect women's health, tho it says it does...just her right to kill her baby. They sure did surrender quickly, didn't they.

BY the way, who could conscientiously be against tax loopholes when looking for ways to bring more tax money into our coffers?

Z said...

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-komen-exec-quits-funding-flap-155421251.html

SF...Maybe you've already seen this article, but it sure does bring up questions about what prompted Komen's sudden reversal. The whole board had apparently agreed to taking the money from PP.

Ducky's here said...

More good news.

Komen executive Karen Handle, who once ran for governor of Georgia on a platform that included defunding Planned Parenthood just got shitcanned.

Of course the defunding wasn't a political exercise.

Look for more folks at Komen to get their teeth kicked in if they try this crap again.

Ducky's here said...

The New Yorker has an excellent and concise article not about Mitt Romney, but Venture Capital, and surprise of surprises, takes a very even-handed view.

------

Excellent magazine, why does it surprise you.

The conclusion that their congressional butt buddies are encouraging greed isn't a surprise, is it?

Ducky's here said...

they moved through two dozen U.S. universities.

-----

Which two dozen?

A valid sample?

Not that this shouldn't be studied but the article is lame.

But this is what happens when you privatize. Just bring in the sheaves and shear the suckers.

beamish said...

Look for more folks at Komen to get their teeth kicked in if they try this crap again.

Because breast cancer is bad, but uterine and cervical cancer is tasty.

Besides, what's the fuss? Planned Parenthood has cancer specialists on speed dial.

Silverfiddle said...

"Look for more folks at Komen to get their teeth kicked in if they try this crap again."

Modus Operandi of the intolerant, entitled left.

Ducky's here said...

The Ron Paul tribe having another turn at acting butch?

Z said...

Karen Handel resigned with an eloquent letter, DUcky. Misinformation doesn't help anybody.

Ducky's here said...

@FJ - beamish is all hat and no cattle.

---------

Come on Farmer, Beamish has faults but being a Texan isn't one of them.

98ZJUSMC said...

Z said...
Karen Handel resigned with an eloquent letter, DUcky. Misinformation doesn't help anybody.


...and refused an offered severance package stating it wasn't right to take one from a non-profit.

Silverfiddle said...

Beamish and the legion haunting him:

This is the last time I'm telling you. Take your hissy slap fight somewhere else.

One more off topic comment and you hit the spam bucket.

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

@ duckmeister...

A boy from Missouri with no "show me" has GOT to be all hat.

Anonymous said...

Take a Moment to PAUSE and PONDER a subject apropos for any fan of English Literature:

Today happens to be the two-hundredth birthday of Charles Dickens. I wouldn't have known if a friend hadn't informed earlier.

Impossible to let the occasion pass unnoticed and unnoted -- however inadequately:


Dickens at Age 200

His body had begun to molder
Long before we all got older.
In fact he was consumed by worms
Before we started our school terms.
And in a century or two
Worms will eat our bodies too,
But Dickens' stories will live on
For aeons after we've all gone.


~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Let FJ fill your spam bucket, Silverfiddle. He's certainly filled mine for the last 4 months.

That's why he's stalking me. I think he may even be under the delusion that he has something important to say.

I'm sorry he followed me here. You know how crazed fans can be.

Ducky's here said...

Farmer's fave

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

lol! I usually save that much slapping for Missouri hat salesmen.

Silverfiddle said...

As long as take it somewhere else I could give a crap what you do or how you do it...

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Upon further review, I guess The New Yorker article didn't surprise me. The city makes bank (ha ha) on the financial industry.

I thought it was a thoughtful analysis. If government stops rewarding unproductive and selfish behavior, there will probably end up being less of it.

Ducky's here said...

I thought it was a thoughtful analysis. If government stops rewarding unproductive and selfish behavior, there will probably end up being less of it.

------
In general we agree except when this is used as a cover for elimination of all social programs.

Quite Rightly said...

Graduating seniors at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke, and Berkeley were shown to have less knowledge of American history, government, and economics than they had as incoming freshmen, "with Harvard University seniors scoring a "D+" average on a 60-question multiple-choice exam about civic literacy."

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "The conclusion that their congressional butt buddies are encouraging greed isn't a surprise, is it?"

Every time they vote for a tax increase, they are saying 'Greed is Good'. Simply by being ultra greedy.

Country Thinker said...

If the Congressional folks think they'll really get $50 billion a year with the Biffett Rule, I challenge them to personally promise to make up the difference when the estimates fall woefully short.

Anonymous said...

Just read Mark Steyn's superb article on the Komen Foundation brouhaha.

With his usual breezy, devil-may-care style and caustic-but-always-good-natured wit, he elegantly skewers, then shreds the Liberal Establishment's assumptions, suppositions and doctrinaire pronunciamenti with panache and characteristic joie de vivre.

This rather ordinary sentence stands out as The Common Sense Solution to all such problems:

" A prudent observer would conclude that the best way to avoid being crowbarred by Cecile Richards [and everyone of her ilk in any and all fields] is never to get mixed up with her organization in the first place."

And to that we should all raise the sound of a lusty and sustained AMEN.

~ FreeThinke

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

ducky,

That position puts you squarely into beamishes camp, since there's NOT A SINGLE social program he can identify for elimination.

I guess NAMBLA's poster boy is too busy hat shopping to pay attention to details. But I suppose in his defense, he has been slapped rather silly.

Anonymous said...

I'm not at all surprise you found a New Yorker article to be "fair," SilverFiddle. I would be ASTOUNDED, myself.

While the quality of the writing, itself, is generally excellent -- though their articles are, and always have been MUCH too long, even for self-identified members of The Intelligentsia to digest with any degree of comfort -- the liberal bias of the journal has grown stronger and more nakedly apparent with each passing year, since I first started to read the magazine back in the fifties.

The Music and Art critics at The New Yorker can certainly write, but their reviews tend to be supercilious and self-congratulatory in the extreme -- almost as though they were ostentatiously preening their figurative feathers while saying "Look, Ma, I'm WRITING!" The elaborate displays of protracted, highly embellished erudition for the sake of displaying erudition teeter on the brink of being unabashedly obnoxious.

The poetry published in the New Yorker prides itself on being cryptic at best -- usually indecipherable -- and proud of it. Like much "Modern Art" -- The "Emperor" is buck naked -- and everyone among the "cognoscenti" is too fearful of being considered a "Philistine" to say so.

HOWEVER, I can no longer consider myself a proudly partisan conservative-libertarian, because "our" side -- if such a thing exists -- has revealed itself more and more to be tedious, redundant, woefully lacking imagination, wit, style, and too often every bit as doctrinaire and short on substance as those we vehemently oppose. "We" have also shown ourselves to be every bit as bigoted in our way as those we despise.

So I confess that occasionally I still enjoy reading such publications as The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers, even though their editorial policies are somewhere to the left of the late, not-so-great Walter Duranty. It's still a treat to see the language being used well.

That "we," Alas! appear to be well on the way to nominating yet another a slick, shallow, hypocritical, passionless, colorless, go-along-to-get-along type such as Mitt Romney to be our candidate gives ample proof that the Republican Establishment is as morally bankrupt as the Democrats. The only difference is that "we" are a great deal stupider than our ideological enemies -- either that or "we" are not-so-secretly having an orgy with them at "our" expense.

The political scene is disgusting and discouraging.

So, what ELSE is new?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmmmmm! Now that Hillary has come out of the closet at last, and has begun to dress like a member of Mao Tse Dung's cabinet -- or a General in the Revolutionary Guard -- she has become oddly more attractive. Sincerity, even when it reveals an essentially evil nature, is oddly attractive.

Back in the days when Her Heinous was still making a half-hearted pretense at appearing "feminine" [You never fooled me, you dreary old dyke!], the contrast with her true nature was palpable. Blatant phoniness of the kind she and her handlers ham-fistedly exhibited makes one desperately unattractive.

That Chillary survives as a public figure provides yet another piece in the growing pile of ample proof that our once-great nation is in steep decline.

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

Beamish: "Lefties no like rationality. And really hate rationality with sarcasm."

Personally, I hate it when one's sense of scale (assuming you ever had one) is abandoned or denied: relative risk for cervical cancer after 10 years increases by a factor about 2.4. This you compare with smoking, which carries a relative risk for lung cancer in the region of 13. If you don't think that's a big deal, look up what relative risk means and realise why comparing the two is tantamount to lying.

You also mention uterine cancer, and in so doing you're not just tantamount to lying, you actually lie. Please note: spreading misinformation about cancer is a serious business. Health decisions are important, and to pollute the pool of public knowledge flippantly exposes a rather off-balance sense of ethics IMO. In fact, a combined contraceptive pill offers considerable protection against uterine cancer. Likewise ovarian and certain breast cancers.

Much less important, but another thing I don't like is misuse of words like "exponential" -- it already means something quite beautiful, please don't reduce it to another synonym for "very".

beamish said...

Personally, I hate it when one's sense of scale (assuming you ever had one) is abandoned or denied: relative risk for cervical cancer after 10 years increases by a factor about 2.4.

Relative risk of cervical cancer increases by 3.22 after one abortion, up to 4.92 after a second abortion.

Thanks for playing.

jez said...

It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly request that you stop treating it as such.

Please keep looking for that sense of scale you misplaced (or did you never have one?) 13 (smoking) is a fuck sight bigger than 5.
I didn't know you were talking about abortions, but please note that even they significantly protect against uterine cancers, as well as colon and breast cancers.

God help anyone who's even slightly influenced by the misinformation you flippantly broadcast.

beamish said...

Again the gay Naderite stalker comes to class unprepared.

all adj \ˈȯl\

Definition of ALL

1
a : the whole amount, quantity, or extent of [needed all the courage they had] [sat up all night]
b : as much as possible [spoke in all seriousness]
2
: every member or individual component of [all men will go] [all five children were present]
3
: the whole number or sum of [all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles]
4
: every [all manner of hardship]
5
: any whatever [beyond all doubt]
6
: nothing but : only:
a : completely taken up with, given to, or absorbed by [became all attention]
b : having or seeming to have (some physical feature) in conspicuous excess or prominence [all legs]
c : paying full attention with [all ears]
7
dialect : used up : entirely consumed —used especially of food and drink
8
: being more than one person or thing [who all is coming]
— all the
: as much of … as : as much of a … as [all the home I ever had]


While you're still sputtering inanely over your failure to discern between military service pensions and a system of universal welfare safety net "entitlements" drunks and drug addicts get to cash in early on while your granny is dying, I want you to figure out which definition of "all" you want to pseudo-philosophically stick on stupid about for the next four months about.

Something a little less tedious than your present topic illiteracy.

beamish said...

It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly request that you stop treating it as such.

Having criticism for the Susan G Komen Foundation caving to pressures to renew funding to Planned Parenthood due to:

a) PP Inc. is not a cancer diagnostic or treatment organization. The best they can do is book a referral to an actual cancer specialist. Show me the Planned Parenthood cancer diagnosis statistics. What, there are none?

b) Abortion increases the risk of cervical cancer, more so with repeated abortions. Given PP Inc.'s life work towards making abortion services widely available and convenient (at least for urban minorities) should the Susan G Komen Foundation be picking and choosing what kind of cancer it is fighting?

You say my argument lacks scale, but how then are you prepared to say which cancer is preferable, breast or cervical?

And beyond that, how does a woman "plan" to be a "parent" if PP Inc's multiple, repeat customer abortion services increased risk factor actually causes her cervical and / or uterine cancer and after the radiology and chemotherapy regimens and a last ditch hysterectomy she can't have children?

I didn't know you were talking about abortions, but please note that even they significantly protect against uterine cancers, as well as colon and breast cancers.

Well shit, every girl should have an abortion then.

You're not serious.

Anonymous said...

AN OBSERVATION

A penchant to be disputatious
Foments an atmosphere ungracious.
Defaulting e’er to ridicule
Reveals an urge to fight a duel.
Recognizing others’ worth,
Showing just a trace of mirth,
Acknowledgement of others’ virtue
Helps bridge gaps, and could not hurt you.
Verse with wit’s unique, distinct,
Clear, concise, brief and succinct.
Engaging in a barroom brawl
Accomplishes nothing of value at all.
Pugnaciousness is not a crime
Instead it’s just a waste of time.


~ FreeThinke

jez said...

Beamish: well shit, every girl should be lied to about cancer risk factors. You are not serious.

Please notice that smoking is a completely different league of risk factor to any contraceptive. I notice you've still not found that sense of scale. Hint: if it looks really small, that just means it's far away.

beamish said...

well shit, every girl should be lied to about cancer risk factors. You are not serious.

Please notice that smoking is a completely different league of risk factor to any contraceptive. I notice you've still not found that sense of scale. Hint: if it looks really small, that just means it's far away.


So PP Inc's increasing the likelihood of occurance of cervical and uterine cancer in the abortion purchasing population is something the Susan G Komen Foundation should divert its cancer-fighting dollars into, but tobacco corporations increasing the risk of lung and throat cancer in the cigarette purchasing population is something the Susan G Komen Foundation shouldn't divert its cancer fighting dollars into?

Why not? Smoking doesn't cause breast cancer, in fact it decreases the risk of breast cancer. ;)

Oh wait, NOW you want to talk about actually fighting cancer.

Abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer, but do increase the risk of cervical and uterine cancer. Smoking doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer, but does increase the risk of throat and lung cancer.

Again, should the Susan G Komen Foundation be picking and choosing what sort of cancer it should fight and what sort of cancer it should promote in women?

Especially if PP Inc. is more carcinogen than cancer clinic?

jez said...

I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against whom there may well be a valid point to make. You are not making that point, because you're instead lying (you are wrong by 180 degrees about uterine cancer) and, almost as bad, drawing a false and potentially damaging equivalence between contraception and smoking.

I'm only talking about you. Enjoy the attention while it lasts. The Komen stuff is not what I'm talking about. I don't mind you taking them to task, I only request that you do so without spreading misinformation about cancer risk factors.

Anonymous said...

Add this name to your ENEMIES LIST:

DIANA DeGETTE, D, Colorado, who bears a close ideological and personal resemblance to Patricia Schroeder -- remember Patsy?

What REPULSIVE woman this DeGette creature is! On C-Span right now touting Women's Right to choose Womb-Based INFANTICIDE.

CRIB-based infanticide will surely be next. We wouldn't want any poor female cursed with the care of a newborn baby to be forced to endure the terrible stress it causes her when her infant starts to cry, would we?

And then there will be the problem of sharing FOOD, CLOTHING and SHELTER, which are growing ever more costly, with noisy little beings who contribute nothing, are not earning any money and serve only as a drain on the household economy. When they become burdensome or too annoying, any set of parents ought to have the right to dispose of them in any way they choose, right?

In fact once a child begins to feel more like a Nuisance than a Blessed Event, why SHOULDN'T the woman whose body gave it life be able to terminate that life at will?

After all, surely it's an affront to Human Dignity for any woman to be required to put up with anything that displeases her, right?

It's time for women -- that sorely oppressed class of martyred beings who've had to endure being fed, housed, clothed, sheltered, protected and otherwise supported by --- UGH! -- MEN! -- for countless centuries -- to realize that surely Woman's highest purpose in this benighted existence is the achievement of SELF-FULFILLMENT.

Anything that stands in the way of that Supreme Goal must be EXCISED and THROWN on HISTORY'S SCRAP HEAP.


After that the OLD, RETARDED, MENTALLY ILL, CHRONIC INVALIDS, and other MISFITS should be targeted for EXTERMINATION, right?

Does any of this sound familiar?

Think THIRD REICH, and you will be dead on target.

With all this in mind the whimsical, satirical term FEMINAZI brilliantly coined by Rush Limbaugh twenty-odd years ago seems chillingly appropriate.

DOWN with the DIANA DeGETTES of this world!

If anyone, it is THEY who should be targeted for extermination.


~ FreeThinke

PS: Good LORD! The verification word for his post is MATERS. It gets eerier and eerier, doesn't it? - FT

beamish said...

I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against whom there may well be a valid point to make.

That IS the topic of discussion, Sparky.

You are not making that point, because you're instead lying (you are wrong by 180 degrees about uterine cancer)

Don't tell me I'm lying. Go argue with the medical community and their scientific journal editors that keep clearing for publication all their data on increases in risks for cervical, ovarian, uterine, and liver cancers in women who've had an abortion.

I chide that they may laugh their asses off at your desperate bullshittery a little less charitably than I do.

...and, almost as bad, drawing a false and potentially damaging equivalence between contraception and smoking.

Hmm. Tobacco products have a mandated Surgeon General's warning on the label. Many oral contraceptives merely list increased risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer in their side effects documentation.

Thanks for playing.

Please, boil the Rice-A-Roni before eating. You may chip a tooth otherwise.

jez said...

"Don't tell me I'm lying."

stop lying, then.

beamish said...

"Don't tell me I'm lying."

stop lying, then.

This is where I demand verification that we're having an honest, productive, respectful discussion by asking you to admit that you're aware that you're a blithering idiot before we proceed.

beamish said...

Here ya go, Jez

Go argue with the "misinformed" folks over at the National Cancer Institute, dipshit.

jez said...

Beamish: read your own link. Read the 3rd bullet point. Don't worry about the apologies you owe me, just stop lying.

beamish said...

Jez,

From #1 - Researchers have focused a great deal of attention on OC users over the past 40 years. This scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent. The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of OCs, while the risk of breast and cervical cancers is increased

From #2 - A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers. However, 10 or more years after women stopped using OCs, their risk of developing breast cancer returned to the same level as if they had never used birth control pills, regardless of family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, geographic area of residence, ethnic background, differences in study design, dose and type of hormone, or duration of use.

From #4 - Evidence shows that long-term use of OCs (5 or more years) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the cervix (the narrow, lower portion of the uterus) [...] A 2003 analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found an increased risk of cervical cancer with longer use of OCs. Researchers analyzed data from 28 studies that included 12,531 women with cervical cancer. The data suggested that the risk of cervical cancer may decrease after OC use stops. In another IARC report, data from eight studies were combined to assess the effect of OC use on cervical cancer risk in HPV-positive women. Researchers found a fourfold increase in risk among women who had used OCs for longer than 5 years. Risk was also increased among women who began using OCs before age 20 and women who had used OCs within the past 5 years

From #6 - Several studies have found that OCs increase the risk of liver cancer in populations usually considered low risk, such as white women in the United States and Europe who do not have liver disease. In these studies, women who used OCs for longer periods of time were found to be at increased risk for liver cancer.

You may not be able to read, but hey, at least you've got a left-wing Naderite stalker fag cheerleading for you now.

That should count for something, right?

jez said...

You're admitting now, whether you realise it or not, that contraceptives reduce the risk of uterine cancer.That counts for something.
Now if you will only recognise that the magnitude of risk from smoking exists on a whole different existential plane, we'll have finally made a bit of progress.

beamish said...

I see your illiteracy extends to biology and anatomy as well. You probably even believe the uterus and cervix are two unconnected, unrelated body parts in a female, rather than that the cervix is a specific part of the uterus as all informed people are aware. You could have even read that at the National Cancer Institute website you claim is misinforming people.

"Evidence shows that long-term use of OCs (5 or more years) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the cervix (the narrow, lower portion of the uterus)"

Really Jez, you don't have to be stupid forever.

In analogy, you're trying to distinguish a phalanges from a finger and waving a flag thinking your've actually said something.

You really ought to get to that admission that you're aware of your blithering idiocy right now.

Next, we'll work on how a corporation that is increasing the risks of any kind of cancer in women is a bad and counter-intuitive thing for a charity working towards a cure for cancer in women to put its donor's money into.

beamish said...

Hint: uterine cancer and cervical cancer are not two different types of cancer, but rather the same type of cancer in different parts of the uterus.

jez said...

Oncologists identify uterine cancer with endometrial cancer. If you didn't mean the same, why did you name them both? stinks of post-hoc justification. uncool.

beamish said...

Jez,

Post hoc justification? Oral contraceptives were found to be increasing various cancer risks in women long before you began your campaign to call the National Cancer Institute "liars."

jez said...

Not the nci, beamish. You. The jfk doesn't claim th!t oral contraceptived increase risk of uterine (endometrial) cancer (quite the opposite): you do. They don't claim the risk is comparable to smoking: you do.

You can make your little point without lying, why keep doing it?

beamish said...

Now YOU'RE lying, Jez.

I've never claimed the cancer risks from getting an abortion, or eating oral contraceptives, or smoking are the same. Look above in this thread. You have no basis for claiming I've said that whatsoever.

What I have claimed is that all three pose increased risks for various forms of cancer.

Now, if you'd like to display literacy and reading comprehension skills that you so far haven't, address my actual argument and question:

Why should a charity dedicated towards finding a cure for cancer give it's donors money to a corporation that provides elective abortion services and contraceptive pharmaceuticals quite scientifically demonstrated thoroughly to be identifiable causes of elevated cancer risks?

When that particular cancer risk-elevating corporation does no cancer diagnostic, treatment, or research at all?

Why not finance cigarette marketing with cancer-fighting charity dollars too? Is sponsoring a corporation's business of increasing six different forms of cancer risks with cancer-fighting charity dollars somehow better than supporting the tobacco industry's business of increasing three different forms of cancer risks?

Why not both, so a "cancer-fighting" charity can be said to be funding the increase of nine different cancer risks?

It's not a question of scale, it's a question of intuitiveness.

Should "cancer-fighting" include financing cancer risk increases, or not?

jez said...

The reason it's a question of scale is because most activities elevate risk of certain cancers while protecting against other cancers. There are just so many categories cancers, if you think (try it, you might like it) about it, you actually should be surprised when an activity has zero effect on any of them. I quite expect that most of the things I do simultaneously elevate and reduce risk for two handfuls of cancers.

Smoking is so deeply causative of lung cancer, though, that the overwhelming majority of cases (up around 90%) are caused by smoking. This, to say the least, is an unusually strong link. It is therefore quite correct to think of smoking primarily as a cancer risk. On the other hand, it makes roughly as much sense to think of eg. the pill as a cancer risk as it does to think of it as a cancer preventive.

Hope that helps, and good bye.

beamish said...

Jez,

Smoking is so deeply causative of lung cancer, though, that the overwhelming majority of cases (up around 90%) are caused by smoking. This, to say the least, is an unusually strong link.

The same can be said of abortions being causative of cervical and uterine cancer and oral contraceptives being causative of ovarian, liver, and uterine cancer vs. the risks incurred by women who never have an abortion or never use oral contraceptives. Multiple abortions increase the likelihood of cancer, as does long-term use of oral contraceptives.

The cancer risk factors compound and accumulate from abortions and oral contraceptives just like smoking over a long period of time compounds and accumulates the risk factors. No one's getting a abortion every day, but oral contraceptives are taken daily, just as someone who smokes likely smokes daily.

So, you're back to arguing that some cancers are preferable for a "cancer-fighting" organization to support funding the causality thereof over others.

It's a nonsensical argument you're making, but at least you're no longer unaware that you're making a nonsensical argument, as you yourself have discovered and made quite plain.

jez said...

Oh dear. It didn't help.

Sorry kid, you're just too dumb. Maybe you're just stubborn, but either way is equally boring, and stubborn is a flavour of dumb, isn't it dumb-ass?

"It's a nonsensical argument you're making"

Argument I'm making, or your straw man? (Hint for the terminally hard of understanding: it's your straw man).