[Fortune] As president and CEO of a values-driven company that's known the world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the great symbols of American freedom, I take the responsibility of speaking up on the important issues of our day very seriously. We can't take on every issue. But as business leaders with power in the public and political arenas, we simply cannot stand by silently when it comes to the issues that threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work. While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing is no longer an option.
That's why Levi Strauss & Co. is stepping up our support for gun violence prevention. You may wonder why a company that doesn't manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it's simple. Americans shouldn't have to live in fear of gun violence. It's an issue that affects all of us‐all generations and all walks of life.
The stakes could not be higher. On an average day, 96 Americans are killed by guns, and hundreds more are wounded. Most are suicides or unintentional shootings. Our nation's gun homicide rate is more than 25 times the average rate of other high-income countries. Some shootings make the headlines; some you never hear of; but each one is a tragedy.
Continued on Page 49
Then young black guys in Chicago wouldn't get their asses shot off by other young black guys.
But only if they pull their pants up past their knees...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/07/2018 7:16 Comments ||
I'm not here to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners aren't responsible.
I've come to bury Caesar not the praise him.
In fact, as a former U.S. Army officer, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
BTW, you be amazed how many 'officers' don't know the Constitution. There's never a test to evaluate their knowledge on that subject. For them it's like millions of button clicking for Terms of Usage that pop up everyday for Accept or Don't Accept. How many actually read those through?
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/07/2018 8:41 Comments ||
I worked there for a few years in the early 2000's. Not a bad place at the time and they did do a lot of good community work but that's when they actually had a CEO who was business focused and not a SJW. Berg is comfortable with his own team - as they say and you can tell that by their commercials.
Their product never fit women well - as Mrs. Warthog can attest. At this point I mourn the loss of a true icon on the sword of PC bullshit.
Go woke go broke. Good luck Levi. You might try to parse this as even handed but once you joined up with Bloomberg you showed your colors.
(1) Allied with the NRA for gun safety classes (2) Paid for a national awareness campaign about securing weapons so that thieves and or your own kids on meds can't steal them. (3) Pushed for legislation that puts some kind of accountability on anyone that does a half-assed background check that allows known offenders and to purchase weapons and on mental health professionals that don't follow up on those they prescribe certain medicines known to cause a handful of folks to go bloody crazed.
Businesses doing charity work is ok. When the CEO goes directly after our constitution, it is unacceptable. Big business does not get to spend their capitol om changing our constitution. Big business cant be allowed to breach this.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/07/2018 13:47 Comments ||
I would guess it's a marketing campaign appealing to the uber-leftists.
[Hot Air] So says South Korean president Moon Jae-in, anyway, who has a big investment in pushing forward on the peace process with Kim Jong-un. After Donald Trump canceled a visit by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Pyongyang, the assumption was that the peace process started by the nearly impromptu summit between the two leaders had failed. Not so, says Moon, who claims that Kim has recommitted to denuclearization ‐ and to complete it in the next two years:
[WND] Monomaniacal Westerners ‐ they have one thing on their minds: it begins with an "R" ‐ have come to think and speak of apartheid as a theory of white supremacy.
It was not.
The South African policy of "separate development," as it was admittedly euphemized, was not a theory of racial supremacy, but a strategy for survival.
But first: To perceive the fundamental way in which the Afrikaner and American creeds differed early on we must first examine the former’s ideas of what a nation and a state were, respectively.
America, being a rib from the British ribcage, was built on liberal individualism; Afrikaner culture was first and foremost grounded in the survival of the Volk. See 'Battle of Blood River.'
This is not to say that Afrikaners were not fiercely individualistic; they were, even more so than early Americans.
For the Boers, however, the nation encompassed "the land, the culture, the terrain, the people." The state, on the other hand, had no such prestige for the Boers, who regarded it as just "the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians." Against this apparatus, above all, the Boer rebelled.
The 19th century found him still resisting majority rule, by which time Americans had thoroughly submitted to it. Although the Boer’s outlook remained passionately political, his preference was for parochial self-rule.
The big difference between the US and Afrikaans experience is the the Boars faced massive immigration from a single culture instead of a trickle from a dozen or more similar cultures. Assimilation was impossible. Doom was baked into the Afrikaans future from the start.
"Like most American Jews, I was raised with the delusion that Israel was a safe haven for me," Julia Salazar wrote on Mondoweiss, an anti-Semitic hate site, while denouncing the Jewish State.
Salazar’s rant had appeared on a racist site whose creator had complained that his publication had been banned from DailyKos because of "my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process" and one of whose editors had declared, "I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, but I can understand why some are."
In reality, Salazar had been baptized as a Catholic, her uncle was a Jesuit priest, and her brother made it clear that no one in the family was Jewish. The Jewish part of her past was as fake as the rest.
And it was this biography that the Democratic Socialists of America candidate was running on. Because as a Jew she can get extra points by attacking Israel? Would it really balance the points she'll lose from "Afro American", "Hispanic", and "educated" voters?
[Toenhall] The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.
Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.
Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.
Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. ... It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear." The fear of the "deplorables" who see themselves slowly, but surely, becoming second class citizens - while still expected to maintain their betters standards of living?
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.
...Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president's intelligence, character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a "crazytown" led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to be a member of the "resistance ... working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump's) agenda."
...For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
...The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.
...So, where are we headed?
...2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?
act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.
The Watergate break in involve an outside team trying to spy on the Donks. The entire Obama WH directed effort involved using the offices of the government to spy upon an opposition candidate. And still are.
[PJ] Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner decided in late July he won’t be giving any more money to millionaire Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson’s charitable foundation, and the African-American businessman decided he’s tired of white people telling him how to spend his money.
"I was raised in the South Jim Crow days," Wilson said. "I’m just tired of white people telling me what to do. It was with my own money, all right, I didn’t use taxpayer dollars."
Wilson, who owns several McDonald’s franchises in the Chicago area, along with the Omar Medical Supplies company, also produces a nationally syndicated gospel music TV program, Singsation.
Wilson, a Democrat, is running for mayor of Chicago for the second time. Wilson ran against Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2015, and lost. Wilson ran for president in 2016 as a Democrat and was the first presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, to buy ads in Iowa for that election.
Rauner is running for re-election against J.B. Pritzker, and the race is much tighter than the Republican would like it to be. A June Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll showed Pritzker leading Rauner by nine points. Another 26 percent of the voters surveyed said they’d just as soon vote for an unnamed third-party candidate. Another 11 percent were undecided. So the last thing the Rauner campaign needs is this kind of aggravation.
[American Thinker] The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed, purportedly penned by a "senior White House official" in the Trump administration.
Read the missive, and note that there are several clear "tells" in the piece ‐ clues that indicate the motivations and leanings of the author, whoever the coward is. And I will use that word, as someone with the character and fortitude claimed by the author would never write an anonymous piece, nor would he remain employed within an administration he so clearly despises. The Times has called the author "he," so I will assume a male is the person responsible
This first clue tells me that it is a member of the swamp, coming from the position that government is an entitlement belonging to an elite, never meant to be sullied by the hands of an "outsider."
He is also among those who oppose Trump's use of tariffs and opposed his taking NATO and the E.U. to task for their looting of our goodwill.
He grudgingly admits that good things have happened but immediately assigns credit to himself, not to the man who drove the initiatives, which is the hallmark of the committed "NeverTrump" and the spurned Obama holdover.
He further reveals himself by the use of such bromides as "rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels," along with petty and unsubstantiated shots at the president, apparently claiming psychic abilities, as he claims to know that Trump "fears such honorable men as McCain."
He ascribes to himself an admirable stoicism, never missing an opportunity to inform the reader of the terrible sacrifice he is making to save us all from our evil natures, as personified in the hulking frame of Donald Trump, whom we foolishly elected, knowing not what we do ‐ a position echoed endlessly by the self-righteous Obama apparatchiks tossed unceremoniously by the will of the people last November.
"So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until ‐ one way or another ‐ it's over."
Falsely confirming a suspicion could trigger a witch hunt within the Trump administration.
Different factions who would be fundamentally loyal to the admin's policy objectives would start to distrust each other needlessly.
Alternatively this really could be a plant by Trump. His adversaries have now acknowledged the existence of a permanent bureaucracy that has been operating outside the framework of the US constitution, probably for many decades.
Even Democrats who agree with this "Deep State's" opposition to Trump cannot defend this outfit's legitimacy.
Hence Warren's call for invoking the 25th Amendment. This would be a legitimate act by dissenters in the administration, while playing "Deep State" isn't.
Warren is actually disowning the resistance within the executive branch.
[Federalist] Americans are having fewer babies. In 2018, age-controlled fertility may fall to near the lowest level in our history. We aren’t alone in this: fertility rates have fallen across much of the western world, despite widespread economic expansion.
The main reasons for this are sociological: declining marriage, rising cost of childbearing, and related factors that amount to cultural norms and practices.
Recently, scientists have raised a different alarm bell: human biology may be changing. For decades, some scientists have been arguing that men are producing less sperm than they used to, but these studies were plagued by small sample size, non-randomly selected men, or other methodological problems.
Last summer, however, a research team in Israel (the country at the forefront of reproductive technology) assembled a massive dataset, combining hundreds of prior studies, creating a sample of tens of thousands of men across decades. They found that male sperm counts are indeed in decline.
While their findings aren’t universally accepted, they have succeeded in persuading a large number of former skeptics. The sample sizes are sufficiently large, the extra checks for possible counterarguments sufficiently robust, and the findings sufficiently clear in the data that it’s time to take seriously that men really may be losing some degree of their biological fertility.
Isn’t it more reasonable to assume the curve will be asymptotic? And that the trend can be reversed simply by increasing male competitive physical activity? Nobody suggests that professional athletes lack virility.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.