Sunday, January 5, 2014

Men abandoned in the Ice-Floes

There we were trying to engaged in dissecting the costs to Taxpayers of rescuing 'Warmist-Mongers' in Antarctica when uproar broke out about Lana's defence of men yesterday. The conversation became ice-bound despite feminist hot-air.

I was going to say what folks were saying about the rescue; that 'passengers (the euphemism for global warming 'scientists' and hangers-on, including several media 'useful fools') were being ferried off by helicopter.

I was going to say what folks in the bars were saying about the enormous cost to taxpayers, internationally, of rescuing them; of the total lack of media comment about so many 'scientists' and 'tourists' in ships and planes and vehicles in the icy continent having the very 'anthropogenic' effect they were there to complain about. I was going to tell of the laughter at all these earnest warmists expecting to find melted ice but got stuck in ice that refused to melt for them.

Jo Nova was holding the attention with this at the time:
A third effect we are barely starting to see may ripple on for months — that’s when mass-media victims realize that the “Russian Tourist ship” was really a boat load of Australian and New Zealander scientists, paid for mostly by taxpayers and loaded and advised by supposedly “expert” climate scientists. This misinformation was despite the boat having BBC, and Guardian media on board, and Fairfax press in one of the rescue icebreakers.
She reported...: 
 The head of France’s polar science institute has voiced fury at the misadventures of a Russian ship trapped in Antarctic ice, deriding what he called a tourists’ trip that had diverted resources from real science.
He said the trip itself was a ‘pseudo-scientific expedition’ that, because it had run into difficulties, had drained resources from the French, Chinese and Australian scientific missions in Antarctica. 
Because of the rescue operations, French scientists had had to scrap a two-week oceanographic campaign this month using the Astrolabe, Frenot said. 
‘The Chinese have had to cancel all their scientific programme, and my counterpart in Australia is spitting tacks with anger, because their entire summer has been wiped out.’ 

But then Douglas chimed in with a more urgent matter. Health.

Australia doesn't care about cancer ..
if it is men suffering

I think most people agree that good health is important. Everyone's health. The Taxpayer funds a huge amount of research into illnesses and disease (when we are not wasting it on the Warmist Wind-Cult effigies) and we all expect to get some benefit from all the money and effort. But it seems that even there men get a raw deal in the funding bizzo.

Men's health ranked 36th for federal government health research funding in 2012, behind sexually transmitted infections and just ahead of parasitic infections, an exclusive analysis by News Corp Australia shows. 
Since 2003 women's health research received more than $833 million from the National Health and Medical Research Council compared to less than $200 million for men.

Other conversations in these bars have looked at the 'Pay Gap' where Feminists, feminist Government Ministers and so forth complain that men get paid more than women. "It not fair", goes the whine, which gets louder than a wind turbine in a gale. They never mention that men pay more tax too. Especially with the 'progressive taxation' rort. But does the tax money get spent on men?

Around the world, health spending on women tends to be notably higher than on men, even when ignoring maternity-related expenditure.
If you listen to the political dialogue, however, you could be forgiven for thinking that the opposite is true: feminist organisations often pick on corner issues to 'prove' that despite the evidence of budgets by national governments and most charities, men get more medical assistance than women. 
Men's Health Australia has highlighted an article showing the disparity on cancer spending in Australia. Greg Andresen from Men's Health Australia says health research funding shouldn't be a competition between the sexes but he admits men's health advocacy is decades behind women's.
A spectacular gender gap has resulted in men's health problems being allocated a quarter of the funding women's health research gets, ranked just ahead of parasitic infections. 
This is even though men die four and a half years earlier than women, and are 60 per cent more likely to die from cancer.  

Almost 20 years ago a detailed, long-term study was started on health but this was restricted to females only. Australia got its first men's health policy in 2008 and the Ten to Men longitudinal study into men's health only began in 2011 and to date, has not published any findings. 
The Cancer Council Australia says that "Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in Australia and the third most common cause of cancer death." Yet the Australian Government admits that it only spends a tiny fraction of its cancer budget on this male-specific cancer. 
The report, Health system expenditure on cancer and other neoplasms in Australia: 2008-09, shows, after adjusting for inflation, spending on cancer rose by 56% between 2000-01 and 2008-09, from $2,894 million to $4,526 million (excluding national population screening programs).
 The Australian Government, through Cancer Australia, has provided funding to the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) of $3.9 million over three years (2011-2014) to provide national, evidence-based information, resources and psychosocial support for men affected by prostate cancer and their families.  
While one side of the government boasts that it spent over $4,000,000,000 (That 4 Billion) annually on cancer and other neoplasms in 2008/9, another part of the government expects to appease men by saying that it spent an average of $1,300,000 (that's 1.3 million) per year - enough for one small room of science research- on the primary cancer that only affects men.
Since 2003 women's health research received more than $833 million from the National Health and Medical Research Council compared to less than $200 million for men.  
The Australian government will continue to ignore men's health just so long as men are willing to vote for politicians who don't care about them. Men are used to sacrificing themselves for others but 'charity begins at home' and it's long gone time when every man asked their politicians to care for men and children, as well as women.
And the fault? Well it is men's fault of course. Everyone agrees. Well everyone in the decision-making seats. Men do not look after themselves like women do.

Hello !!

Isn't that a good reason to focus a bit of attention there?

Children don't pay much attention to looking after themselves either. Do we blame them and refuse to fund their health needs? Do we blame the blind for being blind and bumping into things or not getting out enough? Do we  blame the global warmists for wasting taxpayers money on jaunts that can only make matters worse?

The lack of appropriate resources for men, and even the lack of any serious concern for the well-being of men is a significant part of the male suicide rate being so high. It is similar to the UK.

Jane Powell, CEO of the UK’s only national male suicide prevention charity, CALM, told BBC Radio 4’s today programme that the Department for Health was failing to target suicide prevention work at men, because unlike other special interest groups, “we don’t really see men as needing help in anyway or as being vulnerable”.

In 2010, there were 4,532 suicides recorded in England and Wales alone, of which 3,421 (75%) were males.

Suicide is the biggest killer of young men in the UK.

A new barrel or two is needed.

We might invest in a double-barrelled shotgun too. If only to stem the day when men are simply abandoned on the ice-floes like the Eskimos used to do when old age or illness came upon them.



  1. Mate, you should be abandoned in the ice floe. You make no fucking sense.

    1. You are mistaken sir. I am not your mate. Make an argument and behave, or leave.

  2. I understood that "abandoned on the ice flow" was actually a self determined fate, much like
    what "indigenous" folk in what is now the US practiced. Granted, inability to provide for "the rest of the folks", and dragging the anchor of the "tribe", influenced such thinking.
    Nobility? Integrity?

    I've recognized a repeated pattern amongst those "super genius" folk I used to host brunch with. No matter which "side" of a debate they tended to pursue, ALL agreed that their primary obstacle to educating "other" folks (tuition free) outside our (actually elite, by definition, and proved actual accomplishment) was an ignorance and denial in "learning" that they were ignorant, and /or in denial. I THINK there's a "scientific" word for it. I KNOW there're are a plethora of casual words for it, in SEVERAL languages. There SEEMS to be a disparate impact of this on the percentile most often known publicly as- anonymous.
    SEE: correlation

    But, I COULD be wrong.

    1. It is encumbent upon a Tavern Keeper to make sure his customers have enough to drink so that they are coherent.

      Have a few pints of clarity, Capt. On the House. You seem in need, sir, although I am sure that you are as yet not knocking the tables over.

    2. And, by the way, the crew of the ship were abandoned. The 'scientists' and assorted hanger-on were airlifted off. The crew were left to fend for themselves.

  3. Perhaps we should tell them that planet is cooler now that than it was in-between previous ice ages and that we are still in recovery stage from the last ice age?

    You might find the following link interesting. Our local newspaper led me to it when we had a particularly bad winter a couple of years ago.

  4. Mister Amfortas, In your next life you should come back as a woman. I reckon a whinging sod like you would morph into the biggest feminist ever.

    As for the Capt., he can be your soul mate in the next life. He doesn't make a lot of sense either. In fact, none whatever.

    1. Why on earth do you come into this Tavern if the company is so distressing to you? It seems to me it is you who are the whinger.

  5. *braaaaap* Ahh, much better.
    To clarify.....
    Well, I can't, not while desperately attempting to remain civil to another man's tavern guests.

    Oh, look! Is that a squirrel ?


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..