All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.



Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!

2/10/2014

Dingbat Alert!

I've not done an Archie Bunker rant is awhile.  It's time.

From Buffalo NY.
A Buffalo, N.Y. community activist who is well known locally for pushing for a highly restrictive 2013 gun control law has been arrested for — wait for it — carrying a gun illegally at a public elementary school.
Experts Increasingly Contemplate End Of Smoking
ATLANTA (CBSMiami/AP) — Health officials have begun to call “end game” on cigarette-smoking in America.
They have long wished for a cigarette-free America, but shied away from calling for smoking rates to fall to zero or near zero by any particular year. The power of tobacco companies and popularity of their products made such a goal seem like a pipe dream.
Guns, ya gotta love guns.  Even if you don't own any you gotta love them.  What other inanimate object brings out such blatant hypocrisy in the bed wetter class? 

"Community activist" is code for communist member of democratic party, grievance agitator, a professional member of the left wing nut, busy body association.  He is a man (wait I can't call someone who makes a living off of grant money and telling other people what to do a man) a boy (can't say that either, then I'm a racist) an old women with a penis, a superiority complex and clinical dissociative decreolization disorder, actively keeps others from carrying a gun, at school, then does the same thing. 

How does a mind like this work?  "Guns are bad".  "Guns at school are bad".  "Lets pass a law keeping people from taking guns to school".  "Now when I go to school I'll be the only one with a gun, this is good". 

I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns at school.  I think they should.  Teachers should have guns.  Parents should have guns.  If the kid is over 18 he should have a gun too.  Let everyone in a public school carry a gun.  It's a public school.  Everyone who loves their kids got them out 20 years ago.  If not, and the parents think its safe, let them send their kids there.  It's not my place to say they can't. 

For what its worth, I think the police responded correctly.  They called out the SWAT team, the military grade equipment and were ready to shoot on sight.  Good for them.  This is the correct response for any time a psychopath, mental defective, Nazi, democrat gets within 100 yards of the education system.  Too bad we weren't doing this in the 50's.

He wanted it to be a felony to carry a gun into a school.  Let's see if he does any time for his crime.

Smoking.  Holy crap are cigarettes bad for you?  I hadn't heard the news.  The "experts", (how does one become a smoking expert, don't you have to smoke?) are now contemplating the end of smoking.  Well whoop de do!  Despite what they are saying, this is bad for America.  Let's break it down.  Social Security was based on everyone dyeing between the ages of 55 and 65.  That's why they picked 65 as the retirement age.  The government didn't save or invest any of those SSI taxes they collected.  They spent nearly all of it on high end hooch and hookers for congressmen.  The rest of it they wasted. 

In order for social security to "work" (other than in the sense it bilked generations of Americans into paying into a system from which they can't hope to receive a substantial benefit) people have to die off in large numbers BEFORE they reach age 65.  That's how it works.  The government collects money that they never intended to pay back to you, you die and they keep spending other peoples money, all in the name of providing for you.  It's a freaking brilliant con, unless of course people quit smoking and live longer.  If that happens social security goes broke and all those old people will have guns and they won't be happy.

Which is why we have to legalize pot.  If the broke boomers can stay high then maybe they won't notice that the checks aren't coming.  Marijuana has more cancer causing chemical per oz than a box of cigars, or so I'm told.  Maybe if we hurry up and get everyone smoking pot, instead of evil tobacco, we can save social security. 

11 comments:

  1. WaterBoy11:37 AM

    Res Ipsa: "Marijuana has more cancer causing chemical per oz than a box of cigars, or so I'm told."

    Depends on the source. From the NIH:

    "While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage.

    Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro [15].
    "

    (The part I bolded above was particularly interesting; that something can both kill and stimulate the same type of cancer cells, depending on the environment.)

    Another article:

    "Both tobacco and cannabis smoke contain the same cancer-causing compounds (carcinogens). Depending on what part of the plant is smoked, marijuana can contain more of these harmful ingredients.

    But a recent review of studies on the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke suggests that the cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis.
    "

    This one also goes on to say:

    "Research shows that nicotine and THC act on related pathways in the body, but they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. For example, Melamede says the cells of the lungs are lined with nicotine receptors but do not appear to contain receptors for THC.

    He says that may explain why marijuana use has not been linked to lung cancer as cigarette smoking has.

    However, Melamede says the effects of cannabis and cannabis-like compounds are complex and sometimes contradictory. The long-term effects of marijuana on an aging population of users are not known; the effects may become similar to what we see with tobacco. Also, marijuana is frequently used in combination with tobacco and the two drugs may interact in yet unknown ways.
    "

    (Again, the bolded sentence is important in that I think any studies conducted so far would have a very, very small sample size of a segregated group which only smoked marijuana and not cigarettes.)
    -------------
    That cigar smoke is not fully inhaled into the lungs as cigarette smoke is may lessen the amount of carcinogens present therein, but the tobacco itself carries just as much as in cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WaterBoy11:53 AM

    Addendum to the above, regarding cigars:

    "2.Are there harmful chemicals in cigar smoke?

    Yes. Cigar smoke, like cigarette smoke, contains toxic and cancer-causing chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers. Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke (3). Cigar smoke has:

    - A higher level of cancer-causing substances: During the fermentation process for cigar tobacco, high concentrations of cancer-causing nitrosamines are produced. These compounds are released when a cigar is smoked. Nitrosamines are found at higher levels in cigar smoke than in cigarette smoke.

    - More tar: For every gram of tobacco smoked, there is more cancer-causing tar in cigars than in cigarettes.

    - A higher level of toxins: Cigar wrappers are less porous than cigarette wrappers. The nonporous cigar wrapper makes the burning of cigar tobacco less complete than the burning of cigarette tobacco. As a result, cigar smoke has higher concentrations of toxins than cigarette smoke.

    Furthermore, the larger size of most cigars (more tobacco) and longer smoking time result in higher exposure to many toxic substances (including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ammonia, cadmium, and other substances).
    "

    ReplyDelete
  3. Susan7:09 AM

    It may not cause lung cancer because the toxins wind up stored in the body fat, like a woman's breasts, rather than the lungs. Explains why Linda McCartney died of breast cancer, which metastasized into her lungs and other organs. She was a heavy user, and it is said that they grew their own on their private farm.

    In regards to the upcoming SocSec disaster, I have always wondered what is going to happen when legal citizens try to collect, only to find out that their SS# is currently being used by an illegal or somebody else. I am suspecting that this is a very bad problem, because the SS administration clams up tight whenever the subject comes up about illegals getting SS#'s.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WB,

    I suspect that we have decades of data collected from large numbers of people using tobacco because it is legal. As time goes on and pot is more common and more people use it, we will probably have better data.

    The whole thing reminds me of tobacco companies having doctors advertise their products as "healthy". The thing is they were telling the truth. Cigarettes prevented some respiratory ailments, the chemicals that did that also cause cancer but hey no colds till then.

    I don't want to hear that cigars are worse than cigarettes. I always thought they were safer because you don't inhale. Of course when you don't smoke them that often its hard to develop an accumulative effect. Then again I'm not crazy about the oral cancer look.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WaterBoy2:58 PM

    Susan: "Explains why Linda McCartney died of breast cancer, which metastasized into her lungs and other organs."

    Well, she also smoked cigarettes for much of her adult life, so it's hard to pinpoint an exact cause in her case. My MIL was also a heavy cigarette smoker -- never touched pot -- and still developed breast cancer, for one counterpoint. Linda was also a vegetarian, which again has contradictory studies on whether or not that has any effect on the risk of breast cancer (with many studies saying it lowers it).

    Res Ipsa: "I don't want to hear that cigars are worse than cigarettes. I always thought they were safer because you don't inhale. Of course when you don't smoke them that often its hard to develop an accumulative effect."

    I was somewhat disheartened to read that, too. However, another article did say that a non-inhaling cigar smoker would have to smoke about five cigars a day to equal the effect of a pack-a-day cigarette smoker, so at least we're ahead of the game there.

    /rationalization

    ReplyDelete
  6. WB,

    I like a good cigar, but the way I like to enjoy them takes all night. When I smoke I want to sit, relax and maybe have a stiff drink. Thats all I do, just enjoy the smoke. A heavy night of smoking might involve two cigars. I can't hardly find the time for one. My annual cigar consumption still is averages less than 1 a month.

    Which reminds me, have you tried Davidoff?

    ReplyDelete
  7. WaterBoy2:54 AM

    Not sure, but I don't think so. Is there a particular one you recommend?

    I usually restock my humidor every two months or so, and I always get a box of Joya de Nicaraguas, plus a handful of odds and ends that I've either read about or that happens to catch my eye. This trip it was a brick of the house brand, some Arturo Fuentes, some VegaFinas, a MAXX (The Freak), and some Limited Edition Mike Ditka Throwbacks. And I'm always open to recommendations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Res Ipsa5:47 PM

    I've only had the Davidoff Perfectos based on those I'd give any of them a try. On the other end of the taste spectrum are the Man of War Ruinations, I've decided I like those when I want something with an extra kick.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WaterBoy12:22 AM

    "Man O’ War Ruination features a hearty concoction of Cuban-seed Honduran and Nicaraguan tobaccos. Furthermore, these tobaccos are mostly ligero leaves, which add a ton of spice to the blend allowing for a bold, robust experience. The wrapper is an oily Habano Ecuadorian leaf, chosen for balance since it features nuances of black pepper with a sweet aftertaste. This blend is incredibly rich with flavors ranging from earth and leather to hints of oak"

    Now there's a recommendation that's right up my alley! Thanks for that, I'll check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. WaterBoy12:39 AM

    "Man O’ War Ruination features a hearty concoction of Cuban-seed Honduran and Nicaraguan tobaccos. Furthermore, these tobaccos are mostly ligero leaves, which add a ton of spice to the blend allowing for a bold, robust experience. The wrapper is an oily Habano Ecuadorian leaf, chosen for balance since it features nuances of black pepper with a sweet aftertaste. This blend is incredibly rich with flavors ranging from earth and leather to hints of oak"

    Now there's a recommendation that's right up my alley! Thanks for that, I'll check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I understand that the Man of War Armada is even better but I haven't had one so I can't say. The Guerka Warlord is along the same line but not as robust, at least not as far as I can tell.

    ReplyDelete