Miss Universe Was Possibly The Most Woke Ever!

You know, the show you no longer bother with because it no longer makes any sense

50 Shades of Gray: Was this really the most woke Miss Universe Pageant?

It was designed as a post-#MeToo pageant, from its all-inclusiveness to its message of body positivity—delivered by plus-size model, and one of the three pageant hosts, Ashley Graham.

But the main host was good old Steve Harvey—bumbling, funny, politically incorrect, and decidedly unwoke. His opening spiel alone roasted the inordinate spiciness of Thai food many, many times. When he asked Miss Canada a question, and she mentioned that she was both a model and engineer, Harvey quipped (and I loosely quote), “Engineering isn’t fun, just be a model and travel around the world and wear nice clothes.” But we expected as much from the host—and his presence was offset by the selection committee (I didn’t hear the word “judges,” though ostensibly that’s what they were)—an all-woman panel composed of ex-beauty queens turned philanthropists, renowned designers, scientists turned beauty queens turned Media CEOs. It seemed like it was a good time to be a woman in a pageant; the only misogyny came in the form of the almost benign titoness of Harvey. Of course, we couldn’t escape a few racist turns from Miss America— this being the Trump era after all—as she poked fun at Miss Vietnam and Miss Cambodia’s lack of English proficiency. It seemed a kind of poetic justice then when Miss America made it only to the top twenty, and Miss Vietnam made it to the top 5.

Of course there had to be some Trump Derangement Syndrome included, and some men hating. Plus, women who push body positivity, otherwise known as telling women it is OK to be overweight and out of shape, despite all the health issues this causes.

As much as I rooted for Catriona Gray, the other candidate I had set my sights on was Angela Ponce, who I missed in the montage introducing the beauty queens—and though I’d been hawkishly watching the segment, I did not see a Miss Spain perhaps that one moment I blinked.

Yeah, Ponce is a dude

(Deadline) On Sunday night, the Miss Universe pageant crowned Catriona Gray from the Philippines as the winner, but another winner of the evening was Spain’s Angela Ponce, who made history as the pageant’s first transgender contestant.

“What an honor and pride to be part of the history of @missuniverse,” she wrote in Spanish. “This is for you, for those who have no visibility, no voice, because we all deserve a world of respect, inclusion and freedom. And today I am here, proudly representing my nation, all women and human rights.”

Ponce did not make the final round of 20, but she claimed another victory with representation and inclusivity.

She took a spot from a real biological woman. Congrats, nutters: you are mainstreaming mental illness.

Read: Miss Universe Was Possibly The Most Woke Ever! »

NY Times: Say, Would Human Extinction Be Such A Bad Thing Or Something

Why, yes, this is all about ‘climate change’ and extreme environmentalism. Consider that this is being discussed via the very modern trappings that they want to wipe us out over. This opinion piece is by Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University and a philosophical adviser for the television show, “The Good Place” (I had to look that up to see what it was)

Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

There are stirrings of discussion these days in philosophical circles about the prospect of human extinction. This should not be surprising, given the increasingly threatening predations of climate change. In reflecting on this question, I want to suggest an answer to a single question, one that hardly covers the whole philosophical territory but is an important aspect of it. Would human extinction be a tragedy?

To get a bead on this question, let me distinguish it from a couple of other related questions. I’m not asking whether the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing. (In these pages, Samuel Scheffler has given us an important reason to think that it would be.) I am also not asking whether human beings as a species deserve to die out. That is an important question, but would involve different considerations. Those questions, and others like them, need to be addressed if we are to come to a full moral assessment of the prospect of our demise. Yet what I am asking here is simply whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings. And the answer I am going to give might seem puzzling at first. I want to suggest, at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing.

To make that claim less puzzling, let me say a word about tragedy. In theater, the tragic character is often someone who commits a wrong, usually a significant one, but with whom we feel sympathy in their descent. Here Sophocles’s Oedipus, Shakespeare’s Lear, and Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman might stand as examples. In this case, the tragic character is humanity. It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

He continues on in this vein, laying out a case that it might not be so bad for humanity to go extinct. Because these people are nuts. When studies talk about ‘climate change’ making people crazy, depressed, wackadoodle, etc, these are the very people being discussed, who have internalized the doom and gloom being pushed by the Cult of Climastrology elites. It’s a vicious circle, but, that’s the way cults work.

This is not the first time a Cultist discusses human extinction in a positive light, nor will it be the last. All over a tiny increase in the global temperature average, something which is utterly normal.

Read: NY Times: Say, Would Human Extinction Be Such A Bad Thing Or Something »

Draft Report Shows Scale Of Russia Russia Russia Operations

Interestingly, the question of “why didn’t Obama and the people under him do anything” is never asked

New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the operation’s scale and sweep

A report prepared for the Senate that provides the most sweeping analysis yet of Russia’s disinformation campaign around the 2016 election found the operation used every major social media platform to deliver words, images and videos tailored to voters’ interests to help elect President Trump — and worked even harder to support him while in office.

The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is the first to study the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), its chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), its ranking Democrat. The bipartisan panel hasn’t said whether it endorses the findings. It plans to release it publicly along with another study later this week.

The research — by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika, a network analysis firm — offers new details of how Russians working at the Internet Research Agency, which U.S. officials have charged with criminal offenses for interfering in the 2016 campaign, sliced Americans into key interest groups for targeted messaging. These efforts shifted over time, peaking at key political moments, such as presidential debates or party conventions, the report found.

“What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party — and specifically Donald Trump,” the report says. “Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting.”

Here’s two important points: first, the draft report, at least as far as the Washington Post’s reporting goes, doesn’t say that Team Trump was working with the Russians, only that they were trying to influence the election. And do they consider that perhaps it wasn’t so much pro-Trump (and had been pro-other Republican candidates prior), but anti-Hillary?

Second, there’s no mention in the story as to whether these operations had any real influence. Conservatives would support conservative positions anyhow. Me, I waited till election day and filled out the whole ballot before finally making a final decision on whether to vote for Trump or just leave that box blank.

The report offers the latest evidence that Russian agents sought to help Trump win the White House. Democrats and Republicans on the panel previously studied the U.S. intelligence community’s 2017 finding that Moscow aimed to assist Trump, and in July, they said investigators had come to the correct conclusion. Despite their work, some Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to doubt the nature of Russia’s interference in the last presidential election. (big snip)

The report traces the origins of Russian online influence operations to Russian domestic politics in 2009 and says that ambitions shifted to include U.S. politics as early as 2013 on Twitter. Of the tweets the company provided to the Senate, 57 percent are in Russian, 36 percent in English and smaller amounts in other languages.

Let’s look back

(Daily Caller)  U.S. intelligence overheard a Russian operative brag about targeting Hillary Clinton in the upcoming 2016 presidential election as payback for an “influence campaign” the former secretary of state ran against Vladimir Putin five years earlier.

Senior intelligence officials told Time that a Russian military intelligence officer with GRU said his group “was going to cause chaos in the upcoming U.S. election” to “pay Clinton back for what President Vladimir Putin believed was an influence operation she had run against him” during Russian elections.

Obama, with Hillary as his SecState, were interfering in the Russian elections at that time (the NY Times even noted this year that the U.S. interferes in elections in many countries all the time), and this may have been payback.

Putin and his operations didn’t seem to diminish the vote tallies for Hillary in Blue states, nor was it his fault she passed out on camera, demeaned millions of Americans, and failed to visit necessary states.

The report also notes how all the tech companies failed to deal with this. But, again, one big question remains: was it effective? Did it make a difference in the 2016 election outcome?

Because, really, we all know Russia was playing games. But, did it have an effect? Nor does this say anything about collusion. But you know the unhinged Trump haters will point to this as proof.

Read: Draft Report Shows Scale Of Russia Russia Russia Operations »

Warmists Drag Frosty The Snowman Into Their Cultish Beliefs

They have to ruin everything

Prevent Frosty’s climate change Christmas — Madeleine Para

I hope never to see “Frosty’s Climate-Change Christmas” on TV, as joked about in the “FoxTrot” comic strip last Sunday. But the cartoon made me think about communicating with children about climate change.

As a former first-grade teacher, I always felt children should be allowed to just be children, and I was pretty careful to not overload them with thoughts of a grim future. On the other hand, adults need to face problems and work together to solve them.

And there’s good news. Recently, two Republicans and three Democrats in the House of Representatives did just that. Led by Ted Deutch, D-Fla., Francis Rooney, R-Fla., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., they worked together to craft the strongest bipartisan carbon pricing legislation in a decade, called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Already two more sponsors have joined the original five, and I hope that Wisconsin’s congressional delegation will join them. This is sensible legislation that will benefit all Americans.

For Frosty and the children who love him, and for the millions of Americans who want to see reasonable solutions to the pressing problem of climate change, I hope we see swift action on this legislation. Find out how it works at energyinnovationact.org.

This bit of climanutbaggery was by Madeleine Para of Madison, which I would assume to be Madison, Wisconsin, as this is a Wisconsin paper, the State Journal. They fail to identify her, almost making her seem just like some any-old citizen, but, there is a Madeleine Para who is the Program Director of the uber-left Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Yes, because Frosty would melt when the North Pole stays below freezing. (full size here)

Read: Warmists Drag Frosty The Snowman Into Their Cultish Beliefs »

If All You See…

…is the remains of extreme weather from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on the revenge of the swamp.

It’s Santa week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the ducks are quacking and splashing and making lots of duck noise, and we’re just nine days from Christmas. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Climatism discovers all the climate refugees
  2. No Tricks Zone covers data showing that the global temp has dropped since 1850
  3. America’s Watchtower notes data scrubbing of Peter Strzok’s phone
  4. Blazing Cat Fur covers incoming Congress member Rashida Tlaib promising to wear traditional Palestinian garb
  5. Chicks On The Right covers the Blame Trump narrative for the death of the illegal alien child taking a big hit
  6. Creeping Sharia notes the media and most of Congress ignoring the victims of Sharia law
  7. DC Clothesline has the Border Patrol arresting lots of sex offenders in just one day
  8. Diogenes’ Middle Finger discusses NY’s newest AG thug
  9. Happy 42nd birthday to Jamie Jeffords at Eye Of Polyphemus!
  10. Geller Report notes the tolerant, loving Muslims in Germany
  11. Legal Insurrection covers yoga being banned over cultural appropriation
  12. LL 1885 notes NC Gov Roy Cooper vetoing the voter ID legislation
  13. Moonbattery covers moonbattery reducing the Boy Scouts to brink of bankruptcy
  14. MOTUS A.D. notes the left melting down over Melania’s blond locks
  15. And last, but not least, Powerline discusses the settled science of latte liberals

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Nations Agree To Report Their (Non) Progress To “Historic” Paris Climate Agreement

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig

Nations Agree On Rules To Put Paris Climate Agreement Into Action

Nearly 200 countries have agreed on a set of rules to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, a crucial step in implementing the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The rules describe in detail how countries will track their emissions and communicate with each other about their progress in the coming years and decades. But it stops short of committing them to the more ambitious emissions reductions necessary to slow climate change.

The meeting in the heart of Poland’s coal country unfolded in the shadow of a stark scientific reality about the threat posed by rising temperatures and in the midst of global political upheaval. In the months leading up to the meeting, a series of reports from the world’s scientists showed that global emissions are not just continuing to rise, but that nations are not on track to limit the rise of global temperatures enough to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. (snip)

One of the most fundamental parts of the so-called rule book negotiated at the talks is a section on transparency, which governs what information governments must disclose to each other about their greenhouse gas emissions. Not all countries agreed going into the talks about how much information they should be required to share about their progress — and as a result, the inner workings of their economies.

The final rules set a timeline for countries to update each other, and includes highly technical guidelines for what types of information they must provide, such as sources of emissions and explanations of their internal analyses.

Let’s put that in clear language: it does virtually nothing to implement the Paris climate agreement, it simply obligates nations to say “here’s what we haven’t done in reducing our carbon emissions.” It doesn’t actually obligate nations to honor their commitments to (destroy their economies) follow through on those reduction. Nor will they. They haven’t done so so far. There were less than a handful of countries that hit their Kyoto Protocol targets. Most were not even close.

But the talks also left many issues unresolved, including whether countries will commit to transitioning even more quickly to clean energy sources, and how much richer countries will help poorer countries pay for that transition.

Which upset the moocher countries, who want that sweet, sweet redistributed climate cash, which allows them to line the pockets of the elites, build more airports, get more fossil fueled vehicles, and not be beholden to the countries giving them the money.

The Malaysian delegation called for more money to flow from countries like the U.S. — the world’s largest economy and the second largest polluter — to help pay for damage caused by climate change, saying, “We owe this to the poor and vulnerable who are paying sometimes with their lives in our part of the world.”

See? When 1st World nations would give nations assistance, they expected something in return. Now turned it into something where nations feel they are owed this cash, with no beholding.

(Reuters) Nearly 200 countries overcame political divisions late on Saturday to agree on rules for implementing a landmark global climate deal, but critics say it is not ambitious enough to prevent the dangerous effects of global warming.

Just imagine how much carbon pollution could have been avoided if 15,000+ people hadn’t taken long fossil fueled trips to a meeting which complains about fossil fuels.

Read: Nations Agree To Report Their (Non) Progress To “Historic” Paris Climate Agreement »

NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Why? David Wallace-Wells, who forgets to tell us anything about giving up fossil fuels and going carbon neutral in his own life (I’ve asked him on Twitter, and fully expect to be blocked), explains

You, Too, Are in Denial of Climate Change

You, too, are in denial.

We all are, nearly every single one of us as individuals, even those of us who are following the bad news that suggests “the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve”; every nation, almost none of them meeting their climate commitments, and most (not just the United States) publicly downplaying the threat; and even many of the alliances and organizations, like the IPCC, endeavoring to solve the crisis. At the moment, negotiations at the organization’s COP24 conference, meant to formalize the commitments made in the Paris accords two years ago, are “a huge mess,” perhaps poised to collapse. Last month, scientists warned that we had only about 12 years to cut global emissions in half and that doing so would require a worldwide mobilization on the scale of that for World War II. The U.N. secretary general has warned that we have only about a year to get started. Instead, on Election Day, voters in deep-blue Washington rejected a modest carbon tax and those in crunchy Colorado rejected a slowdown of oil and gas projects. In France — conservative America’s cartoon of unchecked left-wing-ism — the worst protests in 50 years were provoked by a proposal to increase the gasoline tax. If communities like these won’t take action on climate, who, in the next dozen years, will?

But perhaps it should not be surprising that, even in many of the world’s most progressive places, even in the moment of acknowledged environmental crisis, a sort of climate NIMBYism prevails. The cost of inaction is sort of unthinkable — annual deadly heat waves and widespread famine, tens of millions of climate refugees, global coastal flooding, and disasters that will cost double the world’s present-day wealth. And so we choose, most of the time, not to think about it. This is denial, too, whatever you check on a survey about whether you “believe” the climate is changing.

He is sorta correct: lots of people like him Believe, but refuse to do anything in their own lives. They always want Someone Else to bear the burden for their beliefs. These are called “hypocrites.”

Another is that even those of us who believe in warming, and believe it is a problem, do not believe enough in it. The flat-Earth equivalents, those 14 percent, are simply not a large-enough constituency to matter — when not being elevated so dramatically by fossil-fuel money, like puppets buoyed up by oil fumes. But the rest of us are only moderately worried, perhaps in part because we imagine the worst impacts of climate change will hit elsewhere. Forty-one percent of Americans believe climate change “will harm me personally” — actually quite a high number, in absolute terms, but considerably lower than the 62 percent who believe it will harm those in the developing world or the 70 percent who believe it will harm future generations. But thinking climate change will only hit elsewhere, or only in the future, pummeling others but sparing you — these are delusions, too, ones powered by many of the same coping mechanisms that give rise to outright denialism.

There really is a simple explanation: most in the middle and lower classes who say they care, even care a lot, do not care enough to ruin their own lives for what is essentially an elitist issue, one for which we see those elites never making substantive changes in their own lives. The old Instapundit saying of “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis (in their own lives)” applies perfectly. These same people will not give up their own use of fossil fuels, won’t give up meat, won’t stop flying to see Grandma for Christmas, won’t stop taking fossil fueled trips for vacation, won’t spend $10,000+ to put solar panels on their homes, won’t buy a $125K electric car, won’t stop using AC, and won’t agree to be taxed out the ying yang, among others.

Read: NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing all the trees to have lots of food then die from eating too much, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on the extreme feminists having the answer to toxic whiteness.

Read: If All You See… »

TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House

There’s zero legal nor Constitutional basis to attempt to obtain Trump’s tax returns, which would those of a private citizen at the time, but, Democrats do not care

House Democrats to seek Trump tax returns: Pelosi

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that members of congress from her party will seek to obtain President Donald Trump’s tax returns when they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January – a move the White House is likely to strongly resist.

The House Ways and Means Committee will “take the first steps” toward obtaining the documents, said Pelosi, who has the backing of her members to become speaker of the House next month. As it is likely to be a challenging process, it will be up to the committee to figure out how to proceed, she said.

“There is popular demand for the Congress to request the president’s tax returns,” she told reporters in the Capitol.

“I’m sure the White House will resist and so the question is where do we go from there,” she said.

Trump defied decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax records as a candidate and after his victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. No law or rule compels a president or candidate to disclose their returns, but nearly every nominee and president has done so in recent decades.

As they prepare to take over majority control of the House, Democratic leaders have tried to walk a fine line in articulating their goals. They have said they plan to pursue policies popular with their voter base, but have also said they will not shy away from examining Trump, his personal business dealings and his presidency.

It’s a witch hunt, and under the law Congress has no right to obtain the tax returns of any citizen without a damned good reason, not a fishing expedition. This may be good red meat, er, sorry, upscale tofu for the Democratic Party base, but, how will it play out in Middle America when they see the House Democrats attempt to get those private tax returns in this manner? People already see Congress as authoritarian: this would very much help Trump in 2020.

The records would provide congressional investigators from various House committees with information crucial to efforts to determine if Trump’s business generates conflicts of interest.

Witch hunt. Fishing expedition. Hypocrisy

Facing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction.

As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today, while maintaining Romney should release more documents because of “custom” and “tradition,” Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues.

“We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.

The Minority Leader faced questions about the issue after a McClatchy News report showed only 17 of 535 Members released their tax returns when asked.

Why isn’t she releasing her own? As well as the rest of Congress? Show the people how you become a multi-millionaire on 174K per year. Pelosi has been in office since 1987, yet has a net worth of over $29 million.

She and the other Demonutters should remember that Team Trump can use the same laws to obtain the Dems tax returns.

Read: TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5829 access attempts in the last 7 days.