Say, When You Purchase Underwear Are You Supporting Trump?

Remember last week when Barack Obama was calling out cancel culture, about people being too Woke? The Star Ledger Editorial Board doesn’t

Are you supporting Trump with that underwear purchase? | Editorial

What is Netflix doing with its money – covertly supporting Donald Trump?

We have the same question about the other companies we all patronize. Whose causes are they donating to? Wouldn’t you want to know?

Many are still hiding this information from you, and their own shareholders, according to the latest report by Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a nonpartisan group that’s spent years tracking the issue.

If you buy toys from Mattel, fly Delta, use TripAdvisor, Twitter or wear Hanes undies, you have no idea whose interests you’re helping to bankroll. These companies are among the least transparent in America about their political spending, CPA found.

It’s understandable that executives are leery of the backlashes we saw against SoulCycle, Nathan’s hot dogs, New Balance, Louis Vuitton and other brands seen as supporting Trump – or those like Nike, perceived as part of the resistance.

Yeah, it is understandable. Republicans might talk about boycotts, and even do one, but, we won’t be out front of the company protesting, we won’t be abusing the company, we won’t be going to the homes of the big wigs, we won’t be breaking the windows, nor all the other stuff the Woke crowd does. We won’t be trying to drive them out of business.

Of course, this really isn’t about underwear

But transparency is our last remaining hope against an America dominated by oligarchs. The fight about containing political money has been lost, thanks mostly to Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United. Their money is already contaminating our politics.

This has been a big bugaboo from the Democrats since the decision came out, even though Democrats take advantage of it constantly. But, the article still really isn’t so much about Citizens United as forcing compliance in order to beat up Republican donating companies

The least we can do now is force companies to publicly acknowledge it. Even the Supreme Court invited Congress to force disclosure of this spending.

The idea here, though, is to make companies divulge their donations so they can be “shamed”, bludgeoned, really, by Democrat forces for committing Wrongthink.

And it’s not just about one politician. It’s about issues like gun safety and climate change. Google, Bank of America and Coca-Cola all represented themselves as climate defenders, only to be caught donating to a GOP group seeking to undo limits on carbon pollution.

Companies with very progressive diversity policies might be discovered to be backing politicians who engage in racial gerrymandering or voter suppression tactics. They run a real risk of being attacked for hypocrisy

See?

When will the Star Ledger report what candidates, parties, and special interests they donate to?

Read: Say, When You Purchase Underwear Are You Supporting Trump? »

Do You Eat Alone? That’s Bad For ‘Climate Change’

The members of the Cult of Climastrology just can’t help themselves in getting involved in our business

Solo dining is bad for our mental health—and for the planet

Eating alone, once considered an oddity, has become commonplace for many across the Western world. Fast food chains are promoting eating on the go or “al desko.” Why waste time in your busy day sitting down at a table with others?

Surveys indicate that a third of Britons regularly eat on their own. OpenTable, an online restaurant booking app, found that solo dining in New York increased by 80% between 2014 and 2018. And in Japan, the world capital of solo dining, a trend for “low interaction dining” has taken off. Restaurants are opening which facilitate the ultimate solo dining experience: passing bowls of noodles through black curtains into individual booths.

Is this a worrying trend? We think so. Research is revealing the negative impacts of eating alone, which has been found to be linked to a variety of mental and physical health conditions, from depression and diabetes to high blood pressure. So it’s cheering that hundreds of food sharing initiatives have sprung up around the world which aim to improve food security and sustainability while combating loneliness.

Or, maybe some people prefer to eat alone. At lunch time, just let me read my book.

All this is capitalized upon by the food industry. Solo dining suits commercial interests across the food system, with the rising giants of the food industry keen to communicate a convenience culture around food—eat when you want, wherever you are.

Huh. It’s all a conspiracy from Big Food.

So it is certain that food systems need to be reconfigured to meet many of the UN’s global 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. But achieving these goals will not be easy. People are increasingly disconnected from the food system, with an ever-shrinking number of people implicated in food production. As the then UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, argued back in 2014, one of the greatest challenges to creating a more sustainable and inclusive food system is how to ensure people are able to participate actively in it.

Government is the answer! And we need “food sharing”

The seeds for such a world already exist. Our research into food sharing initiatives over the last four years has demonstrated that reinvigorating opportunities to share food—whether that is eating, growing, or redistributing food together with others—can support greater food democracy as well as sustainability. So how do we get there?

How about you leave everyone alone and mind your own business? If people want to eat alone, let them. We don’t need climate nags to nag and force people to eat socially, grow food together, and more. And be nagged about being climate conscious while we’re eating.

What is certain is food sharing has the potential to really change how we think about the sustainability of our food system and the wellbeing of global populations. Of course, food sharing will not solve all the issues facing our flawed global food system but, at its best, it demonstrates how the food system can and should be designed for people and the planet, rather than just for profit.

This article just keeps going and going.

If such initiatives are to be a force for change, however, their benefits need to be clear. On the policy level, this means they need to be measurable.

Who measures it? Government, of course!

Governments tend to see food only as a commodity. They regulate food activities as if they were either solely commercial businesses or entirely private matters. As a result, the social, environmental, and health benefits that accrue from food sharing that don’t fit neatly in either of these boxes are often missed. The lack of holistic food policy departments, particularly at the local government level, does not help.

There’s way, way more in this screed. These lunatics need to mind their own business. But, they won’t.

Read: Do You Eat Alone? That’s Bad For ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the myth of social media meddling.

Read: If All You See… »

NY Times: Your Clothes Are A Big Problem For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

If you really cared about ‘climate change’ you’d either stop wearing clothes or just make your own, you know. This comes from the excitable climate cultist mind of Elizabeth Cline, the author of “The Conscious Closet: The Revolutionary Guide to Looking Good While Doing Good.”

Wear Clothes? Then You’re Part of the Problem

Climate protests drew millions around the world in September. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have rolled out ambitious plans to cut carbon while making the economy greener. There’s a sense of momentum to solve our planetary crisis. And yet a leading cause of climate change remains persistently overlooked or trivialized: clothing.

And billions didn’t protest, didn’t care. Anyhow, why were all those protesters who care wearing clothes?

The clothing and footwear industry is responsible for 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, nearly the same as the entire European Union, according to a study by the environmental services group Quantis. Without abrupt intervention, the industry’s impact on the climate is on track to increase by almost half by 2030.

But clothing does not appear to be mentioned in the Democratic candidates’ climate plans, nor in the Green New Deal proposed by House Democrats. And while it’s coming up more in coverage about low-emissions lifestyle changes, it’s still viewed as a problem mostly for fashionistas.

Indeed, caring about clothes is often considered frivolous, at odds with concern about the fate of the planet. The actor and environmentalist Woody Harrelson expressed this view when he hosted “Saturday Night Live” the week after the recent climate marches in New York. “I was always anti-fashion,” he said, “because it always seemed to me there were more important things to care about” — like melting ice caps, the Amazon burning, and the pollution of our water, air and food. Many people fail to see how the $2.5 trillion apparel industry is connected to our environment, which means we persistently pay no attention to how it might help us solve our climate crisis.

There’s always something new for climate cultists to complain about, and this is the newest push, having grown over the last year or so. Warmists have protested fashion shows and clothing manufacturers over that time.

Clothes are easy to ignore because they are made far away and have throughout history been made by enslaved, unpaid and low-paid laborers, often by women. But clothing affects every other environmental problem we care about. Let’s say you wear a cotton T-shirt — it required thousands of gallons of water to make. If that T-shirt is viscose rayon, it may well have come from a tree felled in the Amazon (viscose rayon is made from plants). And if it’s polyester, acrylic or nylon, you’re wearing plastic. When those plastic clothes get washed, they junk up our oceans with microplastic pollution.

Those things have nothing to do with ‘climate change’, but, the Cult of Climastrology always takes every real issue and puts it under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry.

Fortunately, some clothing companies are waking up to the climate crisis. A growing number of brands are bowing to grass-roots pressure and consumer surveys that show that sustainability and ethics are top concerns for young shoppers. In August, at the Group of 7 summit, 32 clothing brands got together to set “science-based targets” for emission reductions. Since then, two dozen more brands have signed this so-called Fashion Pact. Kering, the luxury conglomerate that owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, has set a goal for all of its brands to go carbon-neutral.

So, they’re pretending to Do Something to attempt to get these climate cultists to leave them alone.

The clothing industry, like most industries, is also stubbornly reliant on fossil fuels. They’re used to fire up boilers in textile mills, to make the pesticides dumped onto cotton fields and to produce the gobs of chemicals that dye and finish fabrics. Fossil fuels are also the feedstock of synthetic fibers, which now make up the bulk of what we wear. Getting clothing off oil will not be easy.

No, it won’t. Why would they give them up when most Warmists refuse to give up fossil fuels? What, exactly, are they supposed to replace them with? That cargo ship from China and Vietnam won’t run on wind-power.

Consumers have an important part to play in making fashion sustainable. We can work to extend the life of all clothes by switching more of our purchases to secondhand and online resale, renting for special occasions, and repairing clothes instead of throwing them away. We can choose remanufactured and upcycled apparel like those on offer from Eileen Fisher and Converse.

If the peons are all buying second hand, who’s buying firsthand?

We can turn our washing machines down to cold and consider air drying more of our laundry.

Good luck with that.

We also need activists, journalists, scientists, investors and academics who focus on sustainability to include clothing in their work. We need technological innovation and investment in new fibers and manufacturing processes, deeper research and more cutting-edge ideas.

She means Government needs to spend the money and force this.

And we need government action and innovative policy that accounts for the global impact of the stuff we buy.

See?

But first we need all people who care about climate change to understand that they’re part of the problem and the solution, just by wearing clothes.

How helpful is it to Blamestorm people in this manner?

Read: NY Times: Your Clothes Are A Big Problem For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

The Democrats Next Phase Of Impeachment Will Maybe Possibly Begin At Some Point

According to Democrats, President Donald Trump is a Very Bad Man who did Very Bad Things, and this is totally not about partisan politics. They say he needs to be removed to Save Our Democracy. And this is so important that they don’t really have a plan on how to proceed

This week: Democrats churn toward next phase of impeachment fight

The House is turning its focus toward the next phase of its high-profile impeachment fight, after formalizing procedures for the inquiry.

The House voted 232-196 last week, largely along party lines, on a resolution that establishes rules for open hearings and the questioning of witnesses by members and staff.

The public hearings are expected to happen as soon as this month. With the House out of town this week, and the week of Nov. 18, that gives them a narrow two week-window to hold hearings, absent a change to the schedule.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Bloomberg that she didn’t know a timeframe for the overall investigation, but she expected public hearings this month.

“I would assume there would be public hearings in November,” she said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) told ABC News that he expected public hearings “very, very soon.”

If this was So Darned Important, if it was about saving the nation, you’d think they would have a plan. They had to be pushed and prodded to even hold that vote on formalizing an impeachment inquiry, now they’re just farting around with some depositions, and will eventually get around to hearings. Which might sorta be open. They aren’t sure just how to proceed because this will expose this whole thing as a sham, a political witch hunt, one which began even before Trump was elected.

Read: The Democrats Next Phase Of Impeachment Will Maybe Possibly Begin At Some Point »

For Some Reason, British Mom Has To Defend Spending Money At Beauty Salon For Her And Daughters

Welcome to the Age Of Offended

Mom defends spending over $1G a month at beauty salon with 3 daughters: ‘We are fabulous’

Look good, feel good.

One glamorous mom in the U.K. doesn’t mind spending big at the beauty salon each month to ensure that she and her three daughters can feel like their most “fabulous” selves.

Hannah Skidmore recently revealed that she spends nearly $1,300 per month on facials, blowouts, manicures and pedicures for daughters Tia, 17, Brooke, 9, and Valentina, 1, and herself. Acknowledging that some people may think the luxuries are “spoiling” her kids, the proud mom argues that every penny is well spent for the sake of self-care.

In an interview published Friday, Skidmore described the frequent spa sessions as cherished mother-daughter bonding time.

“I am teaching my daughters how to look after themselves,” the woman from Birmingham, West Midlands, England said, The Sun reports. “We all adore our trips to the salon because it’s our time to relax, gossip and have a giggle.”

Why would she have to defend herself? Why is this anyone else’s business? Why was it necessary for The Sun to publish an article about this? If some people are Offended and have a butthurt, that’s their problem. If she wants to spend the money, that’s her business. Personally, I think it’s silly spending that kind of money, but, hey, if I were to simply blow $1k a month on something frivolous, she’d probably think I was being silly. Maybe traveling to different arenas to see my NJ Devils play? Doesn’t matter, it’s her money. In the Age of Offended, everyone has to get into everyone else’s business.

Read: For Some Reason, British Mom Has To Defend Spending Money At Beauty Salon For Her And Daughters »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon bicycle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on this being National Day Of Remembrance For Those Killed By Illegal Aliens.

It’s leather week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Natalia Ershova

Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in the United States. The sun is shining, we all got an extra hour of sleep, and my Devils finally won a game. This pinup is by Natalia Ershova, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Earl of Taint wonders why we should play Calvin-ball with Dems
  2. America’s Watchtower discusses the whistleblower not testifying
  3. American Elephants covers Beto dropping out
  4. American Power wonders if California can save itself
  5. Blazing Cat Fur notes a lunatic saying learning about WWII will harm Millennials mental health
  6. Climate Depot highlights people mocking Andrew Cuomo on his hurricanes idiocy
  7. Creeping Sharia notes a Muslim smuggling ring at the southern border
  8. Datechguy’s Blog covers things that need to be cancelled: Open Skies and Comcast cable
  9. DC Clothesline notes a man beaten to death over a racial slur that was a false accusation
  10. Evil Blogger Lady covers Liz Warren lying about being fired and the NY Times covering it up
  11. Gates Of Vienna discusses the Left being the bastion of Jew-hatred in Germany
  12. Geller Report News highlights what the Muslim Commissioner of Virginia Human Rights Commission said about gays (imagine the media outcry if a Republican said this)
  13. Jihad Watch covers Comrade Bernie wanting to take aid from Israel and give it to Hamas
  14. Legal Insurrection discusses Buttigieg vs Warren
  15. And last, but not least, Maggie’s Farm has some information on body fat

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). 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. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Democrats “Green” Plans Target Inequality Or Something

Remember, this is all about Science, about saving the Earth from having a fever. To attempt to stop a 1.5C increase in global temperatures. To stop the seas from rising. To stop the rain, dry, hot, and cold. To make sure kids do know what snow is. Right?

2020 Dems target inequality with green plans

2020 Democratic presidential contenders are giving new attention to the idea of “environmental injustice,” heartening green advocates who argue that polluting industries have gone unchecked.

A number of candidates have rolled out ambitious plans to tackle decades of pollution and harmful practices that have been concentrated in the nation’s poorest neighborhoods and communities of color.

“Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in a post unveiling her environmental justice plan in October.

“It is the result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.”

At issue are remedies for so-called frontline communities, the disproportionately poor and minority neighborhoods that have been a dumping ground for pollution and landfills or the site of factories and highways that spew harmful contamination into the air.

See, the problem here, as you can plainly see, is that the pollution mentioned in the last paragraph has little to do with anthropogenic climate change, excepting the methane released from landfills. Methane is not an actual pollutant. And then they yammer about justice and stuff. All this shows that the Cult of Climastrology has nothing to do with the actual climate, it’s all about their Progressive (nice Fascism) policy beliefs.

But, even as they talk about environmental justice on strictly environmental lines, the policies and solutions have little to do with helping the environmental and more about making these poor folks and “minorities”, often one and the same in Democratic Party run cities and states, because they like black people kept down just like they always have, be more dependent on Government and more controlled by Government.

The environmental justice plans have all been tucked into broader climate policy packages. Large green groups say that’s a good thing — many of the communities targeted by polluters are also the most likely to be affected by climate change.

They’ve also been living close to industries that spew climate change-accelerating pollution.

“It’s impossible these days to divorce environmental justice impacts from climate change because many of the same companies and industries that are causing climate change are pedaling environmental injustices,” said Charlie Jiang, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace USA, pointing to refineries and other polluting industries often located in such neighborhoods.

It’s not about science, it’s about politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even Nancy Pelosi is getting the idea that this stuff, along with the other policies being pushed, are dangerous for Democrats

Democratic House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) slammed the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates on Friday over their far-left policy ideas, warning that the country is not “San Francisco.”

“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi told Bloomberg News. “As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?”

Pelosi specifically raised the alarm over socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) proposed $93 trillion “Green New Deal,” which Ocasio-Cortez’s former Chief-of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted was about implementing socialism.

It’s a good thing the Republican president is like all the others and won’t fight back, right?

Read: Democrats “Green” Plans Target Inequality Or Something »

Totally Not Open Borders Advocates Ask California Governor To Stop Parolee Deportations

Once again, remember, the Open Borders advocates say they aren’t open borders, they just want to keep the good illegal aliens (and refugees and such), not the bad ones. What do they define as good and bad?

Groups ask California governor to deter parolee deportations

Immigrant rights groups called Friday for Gov. Gavin Newsom to end policies they say ease the transfer of prison inmates to federal authorities despite California’s efforts to provide a sanctuary to those who are in the country illegally.

The groups asked Newsom to stop prison officials from holding parolees until they can be picked up by federal immigration officials. And they criticized him for vetoing legislation that would have barred private security companies from coming onto prison grounds to pick up immigrants for deportation. (snip)

Cambodian refugee Borey Ai told about 100 supporters rallying at the state Capitol that he was paroled in 2016 only to be immediately detained by immigration agents for another 18 months, until Cambodia refused to accept him. The California Supreme Court last year took the rare step of blocking former Gov. Jerry Brown’s attempt to pardon Ai, who killed a woman when he was 14 years old.

He’s an angel

The violence in Cambodia had traumatized his parents, and both suffered from PTSD. Ai said his father was a gambling and alcohol addict and his mother was overburdened with six kids to raise. Searching for community, Ai started running with a gang in Stockton at age 10. He was a full-fledged gang member by age 12.

Two years later, Ai was trying to impress older friends, and joined them when they asked him to rob a store with them. During the robbery, Ai said he killed the owner of the store. He turned himself in, was tried as an adult, and at age 14, he was sentenced to 25 years to life for second-degree murder with a gun enhancement. Ultimately, Ai served 20 years before he was deemed suitable for parole in 2016.

Is this the kind of person we want to keep around? Original story

Ai said he was once a cellmate with Cambodian refugee Tith Ton, who at age 16 killed a rival gang member and has served 22 years in prison. He was recommended for parole in July, though Newsom has not yet decided whether to block his release.

“I’ve seen Tith transform his life,” Ai said. “He’s being punished again” if he is deported after serving his time.

No, party of the penalty is deportation. It’s rather in the rules for legal non-citizen residents and illegal aliens. Funny how the Open Borders advocates are now protecting murderers as if they’re part of the good ones.

Read: Totally Not Open Borders Advocates Ask California Governor To Stop Parolee Deportations »

Pirate's Cove