53percenter's Blog

In recent days, many online essays have rightly ripped apart Gillette’s ugly new “We Believe” advertisement.  One online critic dubbed it “feel-bad liberalism.”

Carpentered by Grey Advertising for Proctor and Gamble’s razors company, it does not detail product attributes, encourage brand loyalty, instill warm feelings in buyers, or even show basic respect for consumers.  Instead, the grimly lecturing spot declares masculinity itself toxic, a peril to decent society.

“Is this the best a man can get?  Is it?” asks the painfully serious narrator, as a wrongdoing slideshow passes by.  ”We can’t hide from it.  It’s been going on far too long.  We can’t laugh it off, making the same old excuses.”

“I guess the guy at the ad agency missed the lesson about not taking a dump on the people you want to buy your stuff,” cracked comedian Steven Crowder.

“The guy at the ad agency” is actually philosophically unpleasant feminist Kim Gehrig.  Hiring her to court the male market is like expecting to accrue impressive rainbow flag sale numbers with spiels from Farrakhan. 

Jezebel reported an email message Gehrig sent CNBC: “At the end of the day, sparking conversation is what matters.  This gets people to pay attention to the topic and encourages them to consider taking action to make a difference.”

She’d previously made the bizarre ”Viva La Vulva“ spot for Swedish feminine hygiene company Libresse.  In that surreal ad, objects that included a conch shell, sliced orange, papaya, and coin purse stood in as ersatz female intimate parts.  For the ad’s nearly three-minute duration, these items were manipulated as unnatural “singers” of Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo Praise.” 

Gehrig’s new Gillette effort states her bias boldly by intercutting allusions to abusive acts with images of romantic heterosexuality.

A black-and-white cartoon scene that flashes past shows men whistling at a woman.  In another scant bit, a guy sees a pretty female pedestrian.  He steps after her but is restrained by a companion.  ”Not cool,” the restrainer admonishes.

Expressions of attraction and related pursuits are natural.  They lead to humans reproducing – which is how Gehrig got here, though she might be horrified to learn that.

Adweek pronounced Gehrig’s group libel the “Ad of the Week.”  Gehrig’s efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV. 

Therein lies an issue worth note.  Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted: “the only ones lauding the Gillette ad work in media/advertising. everyone else sees it for what it is: a smarmy, condescending virtue signal aimed at the hardworking decent men they have been price-gouging for years.”

At this writing, Gillette’s YouTube posting of “We Believe” has received 40,000 “thumbs down” votes and only 4,300 positive ratings.  Even when possible manipulations have been allowed for, that ratio does not bode well for the company.

Gillette executives may have hoped their brand would realize market uplift from public mind association with trendy messaging.  That may also once have been the wish of suits at Dodge, the NFL, Target, Lynx, Nike, PepsiCo, and Dick’s Sporting Goods.  They all suffered as a consequence of catering to P.C. prejudices.

The greatest ultimate harm caused by Gehrig’s Gillette advertising maliciousness may be this: irresponsible,”woke” parents bludgeoning their young sons with her message that just being a boy is unhealthy, a wrong for which they should forever hang their heads.

Poor kids.

DC Larson is the author of Ideas Afoot: Political commentary, cultural observations, and media analyses.  His writings have appeared in the American Thinker, the Daily Caller, USA Today, and other newspapers.  His political blog is https://americanscenemagazine.blogspot.com.

In recent days, many online essays have rightly ripped apart Gillette’s ugly new “We Believe” advertisement.  One online critic dubbed it “feel-bad liberalism.”

Carpentered by Grey Advertising for Proctor and Gamble’s razors company, it does not detail product attributes, encourage brand loyalty, instill warm feelings in buyers, or even show basic respect for consumers.  Instead, the grimly lecturing spot declares masculinity itself toxic, a peril to decent society.

“Is this the best a man can get?  Is it?” asks the painfully serious narrator, as a wrongdoing slideshow passes by.  ”We can’t hide from it.  It’s been going on far too long.  We can’t laugh it off, making the same old excuses.”

“I guess the guy at the ad agency missed the lesson about not taking a dump on the people you want to buy your stuff,” cracked comedian Steven Crowder.

“The guy at the ad agency” is actually philosophically unpleasant feminist Kim Gehrig.  Hiring her to court the male market is like expecting to accrue impressive rainbow flag sale numbers with spiels from Farrakhan. 

Jezebel reported an email message Gehrig sent CNBC: “At the end of the day, sparking conversation is what matters.  This gets people to pay attention to the topic and encourages them to consider taking action to make a difference.”

She’d previously made the bizarre ”Viva La Vulva“ spot for Swedish feminine hygiene company Libresse.  In that surreal ad, objects that included a conch shell, sliced orange, papaya, and coin purse stood in as ersatz female intimate parts.  For the ad’s nearly three-minute duration, these items were manipulated as unnatural “singers” of Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo Praise.” 

Gehrig’s new Gillette effort states her bias boldly by intercutting allusions to abusive acts with images of romantic heterosexuality.

A black-and-white cartoon scene that flashes past shows men whistling at a woman.  In another scant bit, a guy sees a pretty female pedestrian.  He steps after her but is restrained by a companion.  ”Not cool,” the restrainer admonishes.

Expressions of attraction and related pursuits are natural.  They lead to humans reproducing – which is how Gehrig got here, though she might be horrified to learn that.

Adweek pronounced Gehrig’s group libel the “Ad of the Week.”  Gehrig’s efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV. 

Therein lies an issue worth note.  Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted: “the only ones lauding the Gillette ad work in media/advertising. everyone else sees it for what it is: a smarmy, condescending virtue signal aimed at the hardworking decent men they have been price-gouging for years.”

At this writing, Gillette’s YouTube posting of “We Believe” has received 40,000 “thumbs down” votes and only 4,300 positive ratings.  Even when possible manipulations have been allowed for, that ratio does not bode well for the company.

Gillette executives may have hoped their brand would realize market uplift from public mind association with trendy messaging.  That may also once have been the wish of suits at Dodge, the NFL, Target, Lynx, Nike, PepsiCo, and Dick’s Sporting Goods.  They all suffered as a consequence of catering to P.C. prejudices.

The greatest ultimate harm caused by Gehrig’s Gillette advertising maliciousness may be this: irresponsible,”woke” parents bludgeoning their young sons with her message that just being a boy is unhealthy, a wrong for which they should forever hang their heads.

Poor kids.

DC Larson is the author of Ideas Afoot: Political commentary, cultural observations, and media analyses.  His writings have appeared in the American Thinker, the Daily Caller, USA Today, and other newspapers.  His political blog is https://americanscenemagazine.blogspot.com.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro kept his campaign promise by signing a decree ending the good cause requirement for a self-defense firearm purchase.

NPR reports that Bolsonaro’s decree “[removes] the need to prove necessity” when purchasing a gun.

NPR’s Philip Reeves observed that the red tape associated with a gun purchase often meant that Brazilians who needed guns for self-defense had their purchases denied because of their inability to prove the need:

When he was campaigning to be president in front of crowds, Bolsonaro had a signature gesture. He’d hold his hand aloft and make his fingers into the shape of a pistol. That’s how he symbolized his campaign promise to give Brazilians far greater access to guns. Brazil leads the world in the total number of homicides. That promise did a lot to help get Bolsonaro elected.

Today, Bolsonaro took a step towards keeping it. Brazilian law already allows people over 25 to possess firearms under certain conditions. One was that they had to prove why they needed a gun. That sounds easy. In practice, the police frequently turned them down.

Alexandre Coelho is a firearms instructor in Brazil who believes Bolsonaro’s decree may cause criminals to rethink things before invading another home: “It gives me a chance to fight. I think the criminals will think twice to enter your home, to break in your home and harm you and your family.”

On January 2, 2019, Breitbart News reported Bolsonaro’s observation that “hoodlums already have guns” and it was time to level the playing field.  He tweeted: “By decree we intend to guarantee the possession of firearm for the citizen without criminal antecedents, as well as make its registration definitive.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

 

She refused to meet with them.

Via Daily Wire:

Families who have been impacted by crimes committed by illegal aliens stormed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office on Tuesday, demanding that the California Democrat “build the wall.”

Pelosi reportedly refused to meet with the families, who have lost family members to illegal aliens, which comes as Democrats have refused to work with the Trump administration to provide national security funding to secure the southern border.

The families gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol Building with Reps. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Women for Trump, and others to “put faces to the statistics of Americans killed or injured due to illegal aliens and the drugs that flow in the U.S. at the southern border.”

After the gathering, the families went to Pelosi’s office where they chanted “build the wall.”

Keep reading…

Congress is off until Jan.28. That’s why she’s saying the 29th, likely thinking there will be a deal by then.

Via Daily Caller:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeking to delay President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address until after the government shutdown is over.

“A State of the Union address has never been delivered during a government shutdown,” she said in a letter to Trump, adding “Given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.”

Pelosi referenced the lack of pay to the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security employees, and the possible effect on security surrounding the landmark yearly event.

Keep reading…

Statistics released by the Swedish criminal statistics agency Brå reveal that 42 percent of women aged 20 to 24 feel insecure in their everyday lives, fearful they could be victims of various crimes.

The new statistics come as part of the agency’s National Security Survey (NTU) of 2018, which found that the women surveyed claimed to have changed their route or mode of transport due to fears of crime.

Maria Söderström, an investigator at Brå, commented on the results, saying: “The fact that many people’s lives are limited by the fact that they have to change their travel routes and methods is a serious consequence of the insecurity and anxiety about crimes that young women say they experience.”

The report comes after another report released by Brå last July which showed nearly half of the women living in “vulnerable areas,” often referred to as no-go zones, felt insecure in their own neighbourhoods after dark.

The survey also found the across the board more Swedes are becoming wary of what they post on social media due to the possibility of being harassed or threatened because of what they post.

Sweden: Deadly Violence at Highest Level Since Records Began https://t.co/gr1IGLA0RP

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) March 28, 2018

Sweden has seen a surge in investigations and prosecutions over the last several years on those posting “hate” online following the work of “anti-hate” organisation Näthatsgranskaren (“Network Examiner”) which has reported hundreds of individuals to police since forming in 2017.

Last year, the group claimed to have reported around 800 cases of “hate posts” and most of the people they reported to police were older women, often over the age of 65.

The number of cases could rise once again following a new European Union infusion of cash into Sweden directed at helping individuals report “hate crimes” to police.

The EU is set to give the government 738,248 euros as part of a programme to help victims of such crimes, including showing alleged victims how to properly report the crimes to police.

Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com

Public school teachers in Los Angeles are
on strike, affecting half a million children attending some 900 public schools in
the district.

Although students in the Los Angeles Unified School District—the second-largest school district in the country—can still access the schools, classes are being taught by substitute teachers while teachers outside are striking.

Many students are staying home—leaving some
parents scrambling for child care.

Students who are going to school during the strike are passing the day playing games on iPads. Missing school or being relegated to busy work as a result of public education employee strikes are critical learning days lost. 

Students in Los Angeles can ill afford that: Just 18 percent of fourth-graders can read proficiently, a figure which jumps just one point to 19 percent for eighth-graders. Only one-quarter of Los Angeles fourth-graders score proficient in math, a figure that declines to 18 percent for eighth-graders.

Among the striking teachers’ demands are increased
pay and smaller class sizes, along with regulations on charter schools and a
push to increase the number of nonteaching personnel, such
as librarians and counselors.

Yet since 1992, nonteaching staff in
California has increased nearly 50 percent, greatly outpacing the 24 percent
increase in the number of students.

As economist Ben Scafidi of Kennesaw State University in Georgia found, had California just kept the nonteaching staff levels on par with increases in student enrollment, the state would have saved nearly $3 billion—which could have gone toward unfunded pension liabilities.

The state’s unfunded pension liability—the gap between benefits owed and funding available for that purpose—was $107 billion in 2018.

That $3 billion also could have funded 373,000
children with $8,000 education savings accounts.

The increase in nonteaching personnel only exacerbates
existing spending issues in the district.

As Chad
Aldeman points out, from 2001 to 2016, the Los
Angeles Unified School District increased overall spending by more than 55
percent. Public employee benefits in the district increased 138 percent.

My colleague Jonathan Butcher closely followed teachers union strikes, which last year disrupted learning in Colorado, Arizona, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. He draws three important lessons from those strikes.

First, Butcher notes, strikes are hard on families, and send parents scrambling. Strikes can test parents’ patience, even when they support the demands of the strikers.

Second, it’s school districts, rather than
state lawmakers, who are ultimately responsible for teacher salaries. Third,
tax increases on California taxpayers will not necessarily lead to increased
teachers’ salaries.

Ultimately, school districts should be
transparent in their spending, making administrators’ salaries publicly
available, and they should reduce—not increase—the number of nonteaching
personnel.

Furthermore, they should reward excellent
teachers by basing teachers’ compensation on job performance.

During the strike, more
than 117,000 students in Los Angeles are still able
to attend school without being affected by the walkouts; namely, those in
charter schools.

So, most critically, parents should be empowered with choice, including more charter school options and private school choice options.

Increasing spending and the number of nonteaching personnel, and further regulating education choice options, such as charter schools, will only amplify a failed status quo in California.

Instead, California should immediately empower families to choose learning options that are effective and meet their needs by moving toward increased school choice opportunities.

Several top legal experts say the New York Times‘ report that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) launched a criminal and counterintelligence investigation into President Trump after he fired former FBI Director James Comey casts more skepticism on the FBI than on the president.

It was first reported in the Washington Post on June 14, 2017, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating Trump for obstruction, and that the investigation was launched days after he fired Comey. It was the first time an investigation into Trump himself was revealed. Previously, Comey had told Trump he was not personally under investigation.

But the Times report on Friday revealed more details about the investigation into Trump. It said in addition to a criminal investigation into whether he had obstructed justice by firing Comey, Trump was also being looked at in a counterintelligence investigation on whether he was acting on behalf of Russia by firing Comey.

Legal experts and political strategists on both sides of the aisle said the Times‘ report showed the FBI was motivated by revenge for Comey’s firing rather than by any evidence Trump was acting on behalf of Russia.

Mark Penn, a Democrat and former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, wrote in an op-ed on Sunday that the FBI and the Justice Department’s actions “appear to be wholly without justification — and were based instead on politically inspired emotion and hysteria.”

“I didn’t support Donald Trump, and there are lots of things he does I don’t support,” he wrote. “But the idea that he was the Manchurian candidate working for the Russians when he ran on an America First platform is patently ridiculous.”

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and senior fellow at the National Review Institute, argued that the only thing the report showed was that the FBI was out to get Trump all along. He wrote on Sunday that the Times‘ report was “clearly intended to be a blockbuster report.”

“But in truth, the only thing the story shows is that the FBI, after over a year of investigation, simply went overt about something that had been true from the first. The investigation commenced during the 2016 campaign by the Obama administration – the Justice Department and the FBI – was always about Donald Trump,” he wrote.

McCarthy argued that the FBI and DOJ had “rationalized” that Trump fired Comey to impede the investigation, and coupled that with a memo that Comey himself wrote and leaked to the media that alleged Trump had tried to impede the investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.

“Legally, none of this was obstruction. Yet, the FBI and Justice Department settled on this novel and flawed legal theory: Even though the president has constitutional authority to fire subordinates and weigh in on investigations, he may somehow still be prosecuted for obstruction if a prosecutor concludes that his motive was improper,” McCarthy wrote.

“The FBI, hot-headed over the director’s dismissal, concluded that this obstruction theory was a sound enough basis to go overt with the case on Trump they had actually been trying to make for many months,” he wrote.

McCarthy also noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the time had also discussed wearing a wire while talking to the president, and invoking the 25th Amendment, before appointing Mueller to take over the FBI’s Russia investigation.

“What this chain of actions supports is that there is a deep state — a group of unelected officials who now wield power far beyond their constitutional authority – who believe, like Comey, that they know best,” Penn said. “In this case it was aided by Obama administration holdovers who never accepted the outcome of the election and sought to prevent it and later reverse it.”

Neither Penn nor McCarthy supported Trump during the election, but have both frequently spoken out about what they believe is improper behavior at the DOJ and FBI.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and lawyer who has worked for both Democrats and Republicans, said the “real benefit” of the story is exposing the cognitive bias that has led to the “current quagmire.”

“What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?” he wrote.

Turley noted that the Times story does not suggest “any basis for the original allegation” that Trump was a Manchurian candidate controlled by Russia, and that the story even notes “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”

Instead, he wrote, there were two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. Turley wrote:

There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.

In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.

Republican lawmakers who have been investigating the DOJ and FBI are less forgiving.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Sunday that the FBI officials who would have launched the investigation into Trump all exhibited animus towards Trump, and have all either been fired, demoted, or have otherwise left the FBI, including former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Head of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, and former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker.

“These four people are the ones who have this extreme animus towards the President. They’re the ones who are saying to start this counterintelligence investigation on the President. It’s ridiculous,” he told Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

“And remember when it happened, it happened just days after their best pal, Jim Comey is fired. So remember that critical week, those critical eight days. May 9th, Comey gets fired. May 17th, Bob Mueller gets named Special Counsel. Andy McCabe is running the FBI.”

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) said in a statement:

This is yet more evidence that FBI leaders actually had no real evidence against the Trump team. Instead they were simply trying to undermine a president they didn’t like and avenge Comey’s firing. By relying on the Steele dossier — a fraudulent document funded by Democrats and based on Russian sources — FBI leaders were either complicit or too oblivious to notice they were being used in a disinformation operation by the Democratic Party and Russian operatives.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he found the Times‘ report “astonishing” and said he would investigate.

“To me, it tells me a lot about the people running the FBI, McCabe and that crowd. I don’t trust them as far as I throw them. So, if this really did happen, Congress needs to know about it and what I want to do is make sure how could the FBI do that? What kind of checks and balances are there?”

BY: Susan Crabtree Follow
@susancrabtree

January 14, 2019 3:34 pm

A San Diego television station has hit back at an Associated Press report that said it had “backed off” its belief that CNN decided against using one of its reporters for a border-fencing story because it didn’t fit the network’s narrative.

Steve Cohen, KUSI’s news director, issued a statement Sunday denouncing an Associated Press headline about their position as “fake news,” and clarifying that the rest of the AP story about the clash between KUSI and CNN is accurate.

“We are not backing away. The headline is a fiction, for the issue was never raised,” Cohen said. “The AP story is factual, but the headline is fake news.”

On Friday, the AP ran a story with the headline: “TV station backs off accusation that CNN played politics.”

The body of the story said that Cohen, in an interview with the AP, had “conceded” that he didn’t really know why the network turned down his offer to have KUSI reporter Dan Plante appear on CNN to discuss how the border fencing was working in the San Diego area.

CNN had called KUSI earlier in the week to see if one of its reporters could appear on a program discussing how the border barrier was working in the San Diego area.

When CNN never responded, Cohen decided to inform KUSI’s viewers that he suspected CNN declined to have Plante interviewed because Plante’s reporting had repeatedly concluded that the border wall there had worked well, and that such a conclusion might not fit the cable network’s consistent negative reporting against the wall.

He said he never got a call back and said he believed the reason was because the KUSI reporting didn’t fit the CNN narrative against Trump’s argument in favor of a border wall.

“CNN requests KUSI for local view on the border, declines our reporter after finding out wall works,” KUSI stated in a headline of a similar broadcast report with the same message.

“They didn’t like what they heard from us,” said anchor Anna Laurel.

CNN denied it had anything to do with Plante’s reporting conclusions and called the issue a “non-story.”

The network said it had reached out to reporters at other local stations about a possible segment but didn’t follow through when the plans changed.

“This happens many times every single day,” CNN said in a statement. “This is a non-story.”

Cohen admitted that he didn’t know why CNN go with his reporter for the segment, but that didn’t mean he believed the network’s explanation that it was simply because they decided to use someone else or let the issue slip.

“It’s certainly plausible that they didn’t want it for the viewpoint, or they just didn’t want it,” Cohen told the AP. “Both are plausible conclusions. I made one rather than the other.”

KUSI is not affiliated with any larger broadcast network. The San Diego Business Journal has described its general manager as “a longtime supporter of conservative causes and candidates in the broader San Diego area,” the AP reported.