UPDATE III (12/13/018): A New Kind Of Bi-Partisan Non-thinking

Celebrity, Conservatism, Democrats, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Philosophy, Republicans

Wikipedia calls Candace Owens an “American conservative commentator, and activist.”

I call Samantha Bee a smarmy, left-liberal—one among many—who purports to do comedy.

Yet the aforementioned Owens calls Bee a “liberal thinker.” (I believe that such a pronouncement was made on Martha MacCallum’s “The Story,” or on another of those interchangeable programs.)

The above is a new kind of non-thinking.

So is the self-explanatory Samantha-Bee contretemps below:

Bee came under fire for calling Ivanka Trump a cunt. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child,” Bee said as the photo flashed onto the screen, “but let me just say, one mother to another: Do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless cunt! He listens to you!”

The moment faced harsh criticism, both from the White House, which called her statement “vile and vicious,” and from some on the left, who argued that calling women “cunts” reduces them to their genitalia and is a slur that’s meant to teach women that their bodies are disgusting and shameful. (Bee also received praise from others on the left, who argued that cunt is just a word and that the real issue is Donald Trump’s immigration practices.) In the wake of the backlash, Bee tweeted an apology to both Ivanka Trump and her viewers, saying, “I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”

UPDATE I (6/13):

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS Chris Cuomo, part of CNN’s thought-police enforcement. Here he goes after Republican Corey Stewart, who’s for the working man, by… calling Stewart a white supremacist and a racist. Is that’s all the filthy libs have?

UPDATE II (12/11/018):

MORE Little League cat fight.  My term for the bickering between two “giants” of conservative thought: Candace and Tomi, aforementioned.

 

UPDATE III (12/13/018): Speechless at the hubris:

PLASTIC POLLUTION: Bans vs. Recycling Solutions

Business, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Regulation

Independent Institute: | www.independent.org

… One need only compare Disneyland, for example, with a
national park or a public beach to see the environmental
benefits of privatization.

EPS (expanded polystyren) producers themselves have little incentive
to invest in recycling technologies, since creating
new EPS is cheaper than recycling it. Foam takeout
packaging is cheaper than most paper alternatives,
making it appealing to food vendors (particularly
small vendors).

Governments that already manage waste disposal have some incentive to try to control
the problem, but they may not be best equipped
to do so, or the most efficient at handling the
problem. As mentioned above, blanket bans of EPS
products in food service can generate economic
and environmental costs, and thus it may not be an
effective solution to pollution.
Private Action

Private recyclers and companies have made progress
in reducing the impact of EPS pollution. Some private
companies are making decisions to move away from
EPS of their own accord. Other private companies
are looking at making recycling more efficient and
more accessible.

Several large retail companies—Dunkin’ Donuts,
Target, McDonald’s, Crate and Barrel, and others—
have announced or implemented plans to phase out EPS
packaging in favor of paper and more easily recyclable
plastic options. Dunkin’ Donuts says that the shift is
“part of its commitment to serve both people and the
planet responsibly,” which echoes the sentiments of other
companies moving away from EPS.

Starbucks® recently announced a $10 million grant to encourage development
of a new, more environmentally friendly coffee cup.

Larger companies that can afford to shift away from
EPS products to more expensive alternatives may do so
in response to public pressure and in an attempt to be
better corporate citizens. If local governments are intent on
implementing EPS bans, they would do better to focus on
large companies that can afford to make the change, rather
than small, local businesses that get hit hard by EPS bans.

Other private groups are working to advance EPS
recycling efforts. Since most municipal recyclers do not
recycle EPS, most of the material ends up in landfills
or wherever the wind takes it. Some private companies
will pick up used, clean EPS and recycle it for a small
price. Unfortunately, most of those recyclers accept only
uncontaminated EPS and, even then, frequently operate
at a loss. Sedona Recycles, a nonprofit recycler in Sedona,
Arizona, says that recycling EPS costs them $725.85 per
pallet.

They continue to recycle, using donations, and
try to reduce EPS pollution with every pallet they process …

READ THE REST: “PLASTIC POLLUTION: Bans vs. Recycling Solutions.”

Israel: Wildly Successful Country, But Too Jewish, Hints Leftist Magazine

Economy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Multiculturalism, Nationhood

The quintessential ethno-state, Israel, is increasingly coming under attack from within and without for being … a Jewish State.

Israel at 70, grumbles The Economist, is a wildly “successful country.” Having made a successful “transition from a centralized economy,” it also sports a highly skilled labor force (May 19th-25th, 2018).

Israel’s only major problem (no, it’s  not the Palestinians aka the MOPE—the Most Oppressed People Ever): The country is marred by “xenophobia towards non-Jews and African refugees.”

AND: Israel’s “concept of citizenship, based on serving as a haven for all Jews, is hopelessly outdated.”

Time for a change, Israel! Get with it.

To retain respectability in polite circles, a developed nation-state cannot identify as a nation, or remain a nation in any meaningful way. So say the globalists, in not so many words.

It doesn’t occur to this idiocracy that Israel’s success in a failing region may have something to do with its … dominant ethnic composition.

POTUS Is Right: ‘Country-on-Country’ Trade Deals Are Better

Donald Trump, Economy, Europe, Free Markets, Media, Trade

A laudable sentiment unreported (except here) was expressed by President Trump, on June 1.

It is that the US would be far better off if it negotiated bilateral trade agreements, instead of multilateral deals. Of course, “county-on-country” agreements, as the president put it, are preferable to the multilateral maze we currently negotiate.

If you can’t have free trade—and we don’t!—smaller and less unwieldy agreements are preferable.

If you find a quote, please send it along. The rule is that the malpracticing media neglect or twist everything substantive Trump does or says.