#hypocrites

Democrites

US Senator Ted Cruz gave a pointed speech around the hypocrisy displayed by the Democrats over the border wall, something they all passed in 2013 to build 350 miles worth when in power. Cruz unmasks the real modus operandi from 5 minutes into his speech.

Yes many can’t stand Ted Cruz but if a bill was put forward just to pay the Coast Guard during the shutdown the Dems all voted against it even though it was not contingent on the discussions over the wall. So insane is their hatred.

Oh, the irony

Oh the irony. Poor young Greta Thunberg was invited to speak at Davos. She may have wanted her audience to panic but it might have been better for her to focus outside her window on landing so she could see the utter hypocrisy of those she was addressing and their chosen mode of transport – 1,500 private jets.

Still, like the UN COP summit just past, we are supposed to believe that a 16yo has all the answers. Why go to university? What is the value in further education if a kid not even out of high school is smarter than all the adults in the room?

What a farce. The word “panic” says it all. It is hard to know who to believe. Thunburg? Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has only given us 12 years to live. Even The Pentagon wrote a report in 2003 that suggested by 2020 climate change would cause nuclear war, famine and natural disasters costing millions of lives. Not long to go til we get confirmation.

Davos: 50% jump in chartered jets to tackle climate change

Oh the irony! Air Charter Service reports a 50% increase in the use of private jets to get to Davos in 2019. 1,500 jets! As there is no airport at Davos, some are taking helicopters from the Zurich Airport to the summit.

Top debates at the World Economic Forum? 1, 2 & 3 are all about the climate. Go figure.

Like most elitists, they expect the peons to do their emissions saving for them. Actions not words.

Gillette Lecture Series – 2

What was Gillette saying in Lecture 1 about it being high time men deal with toxic masculinity? Is this picture what it really meant when it supported the #METOO movement? Hypocrites.

#MakeActivismGreatAgain

E35AAF93-69F6-4C3B-97A9-7158D4994E2D.jpeg

There is a sense of irony that Democrat Party protesters still fail to get. Boycotting business doesn’t work very well. In fact the opposite could well be true. This is a picture from the front of In-N-Out burgers on Sept 2, the day after Democrat activists called for a boycott for the fast food chain donating $25,000 to the GOP in California. Why didn’t they protest and call for a boycott when the same burger chain donated $30,000 to the GOP in 2016 and again in 2017? Shouldn’t they be embarrassed for their inconsistency? Perhaps they could thank the burger chain for reducing the size of the donation? One thing is for sure Democrats need to make blue caps with ‘MAKE ACTIVISM GREAT AGAIN”

When people boycotted the NRA post the Florida school shooting, membership surged. It seems more Americans are growing tired of this constant harassment.

There is a pattern from boycotts. People can decide for themselves if they abhor such donations. They don’t require a bunch of idle pot smoking basement dwellers to yell at them and tell them how to spend their hard earned dollars.

Even in Australia, activists called for a boycott of supermarket chain Coles for reintroducing plastic bags to convenience customers. Despite studies by the UK Environment Agency which showed that man made reusable “eco bags” we’re told are so green would have to be used 286x to match the environmental footprint of the single use HDPE disposable shopping bags they replaced. If people dispose of rubbish in these same bags (using them twice) then the eco bags would be required to be used 572x to offset the environmental impact. Ironically if people can’t use such bags for their rubbish they’re forced to buy plastic bags off the shelf to do so meaning plastic consumption is neutral, not reduced.

As these activists conjure up new schemes to makes us feel bad they probably do so sipping a latte from Starbucks in a paper cup. The cost to recycle the 500 billion (and rising) coffee cups consumed annually is so astronomical (it is hard to separate the wax that stops the cup disintegrating because of the energy intensity involved to do so) that over 90% end up in landfill. No one talks about that 300 million tons of virgin paper used to make these cups! How many of us give it one thought when we need a shot of caffeine? Right?! Although Starbucks is trialing a 5p latte levy for those that elect to use a paper cup. In any event no protest.

Boycotting businesses seems to help their fortunes so keep up the good work! Perhaps they should work it into being a platform policy such is the unbridled success

#boycottyourself next time you buy take-away coffee

26396013-B44E-41B5-AB6C-FCD86BA4D49E.jpeg

Poor old Coles. In an attempt to listen to its customers over plastic bag use, activists push for a boycott against the supermarket chain! Yet why aren’t these same activists openly protesting in front of department stores or retail chains who brazenly use plastic bags to help their customers carry often bulky items? Why aren’t take away food court vendors openly shouted at when handing over plastic cutlery? Why is Coles subject to social media thuggery when the plethora or other retail chains escape? Talk about double standards.

While we’re at it, do people realize that the majority of take away wax-lined coffee cups aren’t recycled even though you can feel good about yourself when disposing of it? How many people elect to have their brew poured into a ceramic cup? Look net time – hardly any! The cost to recycle the 500 billion (and rising) coffee cups consumed annually is so astronomical (it is hard to separate the wax that stops the cup disintegrating because of the energy intensity involved to do so) that over 90% end up in landfill. No one talks about that 300 million tons of virgin paper used to make these cups! How many of us give it one thought when we need a shot of caffeine? Right?! Although Starbucks is trialing a 5p latte levy for those that elect to use a paper cup.

A decade ago, Japanese retailer Fast Retailing publisher in its annual report:

Additionally, in December 2007 UNIQLO introduced polyethylene shopping bags using the “Nano Hybrid Capsule 2 (NHC2) additive.” These were researched and developed by Professor Masahiko Abe at the Science and Engineering Department of the Tokyo University of Science. NHC2 helps increase the strength of the bag and reduces its weight by roughly 20% and CO2 emitted during incineration by about 40%. This new shopping bag thus reduces about 60% of CO2 emitted altogether compared to the previous model.

Most supermarket shopping bags used in Australia before the self-imposed ban were biodegradable.

In 2006 the UK Environment Agency did a study on the effectiveness of alternative packaging solutions to HDPE (conventional plastic bags) in terms of lowering environmental impact. It said,

The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower [impact] than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused.”

So if conventional shopping bags are used to throw out garbage that means 6, 8, 21 and 262 days.

So we can virtue signal all we like. No one wants to see irresponsible use of disposable plastics cause damage to the environment but this idea that some think government intervention is the answer is palpable. In Australia’s case, after examining the most ridiculously incompetent stewardship over power generation in a country endowed with cheap energy sources (we manage blackouts and $1200kWh surges in spot pricing) they have none of the prerequisites to manage disposable shopping bags.

#SpareMe & #ThankYou

DEC1A621-096A-41D3-910B-5CDC944DDF1C.jpeg

They say pictures speak a thousand words. One wonders whether there are a thousand threads in these pictures at the Cannes Film Festival. For all of the sanctimony we hear from celebrities about how important the #MeToo movement is, what better opportunity to let down the side than to minimize cloth to skin ratios. These ladies know they are walking billboards, overtly flaunting their assets to gain attention in the hope they are short listed on the next blockbuster given the likelihood of widespread media coverage. Why else would they wear the equivalent of postage stamps held together by dental floss? Who can blame them? Where are the male actors strutting in sequin g-strings? Hardly fair that only women get to show off the flesh!

By all means, these ladies who graze on lentils and alfalfa while completing grueling gym sessions 6 hours a day, have every right to dress as they please given they work so hard cultivating those figures. Isn’t objectification the intention? Appreciating beauty is certainly not a crime and it does not border on harassment. Should red-blooded males be shamed for seeing protruding nipples and exposed cleavage fall into their peripheral vision? Can we honestly say hand on heart that some in the Hollywood set didn’t/don’t willingly trade flesh for a $5mn role? It is not to condone the behavior rather to say that if in the end a budding actor/actress is willing to ‘pay in kind’ to nail a big role that is still consensual. Jokes about Weinstein’s sexual antics were made for years at award ceremonies before he was finally outed. If he is convicted of sexual assault/harassment then may the full extent of the law deal with the crime. However #SpareMe the sanctimony about how none of them knew. Staying on the lucrative gravy train and buying more global property was more way addictive than doing the right thing by standing up for the true victims.

It is surprising that the feminists haven’t been up in arms about Cannes. They managed to take down the F-1 grid girls effectively enough. Isn’t it ironic that the people most upset by the ban were the grid girls themselves. They liked what they did, got paid handsomely to flaunt figures they no doubt work so hard to maintain and welcomed the attention. Now they are out of a job! Yet it’s is we who must get in step with the times. Perhaps the F-1 teams could have been asked to pay a grid-girl tax and donate the funds to promote charitable causes that the girls themselves felt passionately about. It will be interesting to see whether the MotoGP franchise owners, Dorna, go the same route as F-1 which will be pretty hypocritical given the web pages dedicated to the brolley dollies at each round.

Maybe the bigger laugh was the Israeli 2018 Eurovision song winner, Netti Barzilai. She said that in the auditioning process that she overheard whispers about whether they could field someone prettier or skinnier. So sex appeal was preferable to ability? When was the last time we truly heard a properly decent song that didn’t have some singer surrounded by scantily clad women twerking?

Still the virtue signaling continues. Cate Blanchett was on the stairs at Cannes demanding equal pay, when she herself is one of the higher paid actresses in town. Her mate Benedict Cumberbatch is refusing to star in movies unless there is equal pay.  Such actions are nothing but self-indulgent attempts to create free publicity. Say he is offered $25mn for a role and his never seen before female sidekick is not granted the same? Will he protest, divide his own pot or star anyway? One wonders.

Here is an idea for celebrities. CM thinks that Hollywood should be run by a government agency which will ensure equality in all outcomes. Movie roles will be distributed evenly. Each movie will have exactly the same budget. It will have equal numbers of men, women, LGBT, races, religious representation and sexual orientation regardless of how factually incorrect a true story may seem. Movie directors will have no say in who is cast for each part. Box office revenues will be evenly distributed at the end of each calendar year to ensure that flops will get subsidized by the hits. The actors who star in blockbusters will receive exactly the same outcome as those whose films end up almost immediately on Netflix.

All actors and actresses will be required to work exactly the same hours, have the same contract terms and be required to attend the awards ceremony in exactly the same garb. No makeup will be permissible, no eyebrow stylists flown around the world at last minute and no speech longer than 10 seconds. As there is to be equality at all costs, there will no longer be gender based awards at the Oscars. Or alternatively Best Actor – male, female and the 63 other gender categories. “The winner of the Best Actor in the hermaphrodite category is….”

So Benedict and Cate, will you join a union which levels the playing field and calls for equality or do you still prefer that your acting skills determine how the free market sets your prices? If you choose the former, just don’t speak to Jack Nicholson. He is still collecting royalties from Batman. Just what I thought.

These are the Oscar stats. A 40% decline over 5 years. Is this a sign of a format that is no longer sustainable? Is the disintermediation/disruption caused by video on demand such that making a ‘date’ to go to the cinema is no longer a priority? Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience? It would seem so. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead otherwise many of them will be staring at massive pay cuts. Or will that mean it is every man and woman for themselves again!?