Wet shaving sites may have too cozy a relationship with cosmetic producers or retailers.
They seem universally to urge men not to use alcohol based after shaves, and use something to do with putting oil on dry skin, instead.
Think of putting Jergens lotion on your face instead of on your winter-dry hands.
I can only guess this is even the least bit plausible as advice for men because since my own adolescence somebody has actually done away with acne.
Because back when it was a problem everybody knew for a fact that the skin on men's faces was way too oily and using an alcohol based after shave helped stave off zits.
Well, I never got the memo and neither did the skin on my face.
So it's Skin Bracer, Aqua Velva, or the like stuff for me.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Do they think she did it?
Pianist Vadym Kholodenko finds slain daughters at estranged wife's home
Texas police said an award-winning concert pianist arrived at his estranged wife’s home to pick up their two daughters and found the girls slain in their beds.
The Benbrook police commander, David Babcock, said on Friday that Vadym Kholodenko was not a suspect and that his spouse, who was being treated for multiple stab wounds, faced a mental health evaluation.
. . . .
Kholodenko stopped on Thursday morning to pick up five-year-old Nika and one-year-old Michela.
Babcock said he found his wife, Sofya Tsygankova, in an “extreme state of distress” and discovered the dead girls.
Kholodenko called 911.
Police declined to say how Tsygankova sustained the knife wounds, which are not believed to be life-threatening.
Officers are not searching for a suspect in the wounding or the two deaths.
Texas police said an award-winning concert pianist arrived at his estranged wife’s home to pick up their two daughters and found the girls slain in their beds.
The Benbrook police commander, David Babcock, said on Friday that Vadym Kholodenko was not a suspect and that his spouse, who was being treated for multiple stab wounds, faced a mental health evaluation.
. . . .
Kholodenko stopped on Thursday morning to pick up five-year-old Nika and one-year-old Michela.
Babcock said he found his wife, Sofya Tsygankova, in an “extreme state of distress” and discovered the dead girls.
Kholodenko called 911.
Police declined to say how Tsygankova sustained the knife wounds, which are not believed to be life-threatening.
Officers are not searching for a suspect in the wounding or the two deaths.
Demanding to be safe while doing risky stuff
A key theme of contemporary feminism is the demand that unsafe things be safe when they are unsafe because of the danger of criminal behavior by men.
It's a form of man hating.
To this day, they think if they shout enough about it they, or we, or somebody can "end rape and take back the night."
Oddly, men don't seem to think anybody can magically eliminate the risk from behaviors they may choose that expose them to special danger of crime, whether committed by men or women.
Must be one of those gender differences.
Women defend solo travels after murder of backpackers in Ecuador
What's to defend?
You want to do it, go ahead and do it.
Is it more dangerous than scuba diving?
Skiing?
Bicycling in traffic?
Dirt bike racing?
Sky diving?
It's a form of man hating.
To this day, they think if they shout enough about it they, or we, or somebody can "end rape and take back the night."
Oddly, men don't seem to think anybody can magically eliminate the risk from behaviors they may choose that expose them to special danger of crime, whether committed by men or women.
Must be one of those gender differences.
Women defend solo travels after murder of backpackers in Ecuador
What's to defend?
You want to do it, go ahead and do it.
Is it more dangerous than scuba diving?
Skiing?
Bicycling in traffic?
Dirt bike racing?
Sky diving?
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Something Trump is right about
Muslim communities are far more productive of terrorists than any others.
Best to keep their numbers down.
That is not bias or bigotry.
That is fact.
Attack on California university campus was Isis inspired, FBI says
But he is terribly wrong on much else, and especially about ethnic cleansing.
Respectable people - even Jews! - refused to take Hitler at his word, and we know how that went.
PA Dem primary is April 26
Starting to see ads.
Hmm.
Vote for the annoyingly, excessively pink social democrat?
Or vote for the pal of the likes of Goldman-Sachs who is certain to be too aggressive in foreign affairs and to confine her solicitude to favored identity-politics constituencies?
And perhaps will not be as reliable a defender of what we already have in Medicare and Social Security?
We old white folks, I mean, who apparently are so stupid as to vote Republican, mostly because of matters of race, it appears.
MSNBC scoops on Rachel M's show
A Neo-Nazi white supremacist family phone banked for Trump in Ohio.
The Mom was wearing various large supremacist tattoos and the Dad wore revealing tee shirts.
PBS ran a story on this without even realizing.
Also, Bernie in his interview with Rachel said he's all in and thinks when they get to the convention super-delegates maybe ought to vote for whoever won the primaries in their states rather than just supporting Clinton without a thought.
And he is arguing he is the more electable candidate, not Hillary.
Not going to stand aside.
So, a contested convention not just in Cleveland but also in Philadelphia?
Rachel pointed out that he already has more than enough money to go all the way.
Oh, and he defended people's right to protest Trump but opposed efforts to disrupt his rallies.
Update.
I suppose when the time comes Trump's oppo researchers will find people far more red than Bernie among his volunteers.
A smear is a smear, even if Rachel does it and even if, in a sense, the guy deserves it.
Remember that when they go after Bernie really hard, if he's the nominee.
God knows what they'll do to Hillary.
By the way, the whole sexism/misogyny thing they're running against The Donald is bogus.
As to that Republican ad, wow, talk about quotes out of context and tiny things made gigantic by PC, Jeez.
And he's not a Nazi or a fascist.
But there's no denying that ethnic cleansing thing, even if he's only pandering and doesn't personally give a shit.
Even if he's just an ambitious psychopath willing to do anything to reach power, in other words.
And if the people who really personally want mass deportations are not racist then they are pretty shockingly selfish, wanting to expel 11 million people just to tighten the job market, it seems.
What are the president's real intentions, here?
Hatch says GOP would hold hearings on Garland during lame duck session if Hillary wins the election.
That would deprive Hillary of the chance to name a black, otherwise nonwhite, or Hispanic woman given to liberal judicial activism, as it is widely thought she would do.
If Hillary wins and the Republicans start to move toward confirming Garland, can the president stop the process by withdrawing his nomination?
Nothing in the constitution says he can.
And for that matter there seems to be some notion he would not want to, that having appointed two relatively activist women he now wants to appoint a white man whose approach to the law is more satisfactory to him.
And his expectation and intention all along was that the GOP-controlled senate would confirm his choice during the lame duck session in order to deny Hillary her chance, but not otherwise.
It is said that Garland, unlike the activists who have give us the sexual and civil rights revolutions and numerous other liberal innovations since the Warren Court, prioritizes in his decisions deference to elective officials and their will, and that this is why Obama wants him on the court.
(Such deference and his reputation as a moderate liberal seem to indicate the constructions of American social democracy such as the regulatory state, Obamacare, CHIPS, and entitlement programs will be safe in his hands.)
Can senate Democrats prevent his confirmation by voting against him?
Are they sufficiently numerous?
Would enough of them want to do that?
That would deprive Hillary of the chance to name a black, otherwise nonwhite, or Hispanic woman given to liberal judicial activism, as it is widely thought she would do.
If Hillary wins and the Republicans start to move toward confirming Garland, can the president stop the process by withdrawing his nomination?
Nothing in the constitution says he can.
And for that matter there seems to be some notion he would not want to, that having appointed two relatively activist women he now wants to appoint a white man whose approach to the law is more satisfactory to him.
And his expectation and intention all along was that the GOP-controlled senate would confirm his choice during the lame duck session in order to deny Hillary her chance, but not otherwise.
It is said that Garland, unlike the activists who have give us the sexual and civil rights revolutions and numerous other liberal innovations since the Warren Court, prioritizes in his decisions deference to elective officials and their will, and that this is why Obama wants him on the court.
(Such deference and his reputation as a moderate liberal seem to indicate the constructions of American social democracy such as the regulatory state, Obamacare, CHIPS, and entitlement programs will be safe in his hands.)
Can senate Democrats prevent his confirmation by voting against him?
Are they sufficiently numerous?
Would enough of them want to do that?
Home truths, sad truths
The presidential race is down to this: political realism v reality television
Richard Wolffe at The Guardian.
We are now barreling towards a general election between a former secretary of state and a former judge of Celebrity Apprentice.
In the blue corner, a candidate who started her career at the Children’s Defense Fund.
In the red corner, a candidate whose legal defense fund is fighting claims of a fake university.
One candidate dotes on her granddaughter.
The other says he would date his daughter.
One watched the Osama bin Laden raid unfold in the White House situation room.
The other has watched Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room on CNN.
It’s time for political realism to meet reality TV.
Richard Wolffe at The Guardian.
We are now barreling towards a general election between a former secretary of state and a former judge of Celebrity Apprentice.
In the blue corner, a candidate who started her career at the Children’s Defense Fund.
In the red corner, a candidate whose legal defense fund is fighting claims of a fake university.
One candidate dotes on her granddaughter.
The other says he would date his daughter.
One watched the Osama bin Laden raid unfold in the White House situation room.
The other has watched Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room on CNN.
It’s time for political realism to meet reality TV.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Liars everywhere
People who support Trump support rather than oppose entitlements and Big Government and don't care at all about much of anything in the right wing agenda except closing the borders, deporting illegals, and reversing free trade.
All of that is anathema to Wall Street conservatives like George Will, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell.
It squares only with some parts of the agenda of the paleocons - the neo-Confederate, birther, and racist wing of the party.
Don't listen to the lie that Trump supporters are regulation conservatives throwing a tantrum, angry at "establishment" Republicans for not actually repealing Obamacare - and CHIPS, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, for not abolishing the IRS, for not abolishing deficit spending and the national debt, and so on.
All of that is bluff and ballocks.
Donald Trump is an unscrupulous, megalomaniacal demagogue who saw that the biggest and angriest and most totally neglected faction of the Republican Party was white working class people driven into the fold by the anti-white outlook so strong on the left and seduced by the dog-whistling Buchananism of the right.
And he has taken over the party and pushed conservatism aside by promising to at last give those folks their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)