Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for June 6th, 2019

Michelin’s ingenious new tires ensure you’ll never get a flat again

with 4 comments

Mark Wilson reports in Fast Company:

There’s no force in the universe more humbling than a flat tire. Here you are, god of combustion engines, cruising effortlessly at 40 miles per hour in your Kia crossover with half a Costco’s worth of steamy rotisserie chickens in the back when, bdump bdump bdump. And then the inner monologue begins: Oh no. Not me. This couldn’t be happening to me. I drive a gently used 2016 Sorento! 

But now tire manufacturer Michelin and the car giant GM are teaming up to eliminate the problem. How? By taking the air out of tires altogether.

Michelin is developing a tire called the Uptis (or Unique Puncture-proof Tire System), which is a tire that cannot ever go flat or blow out because it doesn’t require oxygen to stay rigid. Instead, the Uptis features an internal system of flexible spokes that support the tire.

The Uptis is a working prototytpe that will begin testing on some Chevy Bolt models this year in Michigan. By 2024, the two companies hope to release the Uptis on a commercially available vehicle.

Airless tires are not an entirely new idea. They already exist in the world of cycling, and even Michelin sells something called the Tweelfor lawnmowers. The Tweel looks a whole lot like a mini version of the Uptis, with the same rubbery spokes in the middle of the tire. As the Tweel’s marketing materials explain, those spokes don’t merely replace the need for air, they work like mini shock absorbers, deforming to bumps to ensure a smoother ride than a bouncier, inflated tire offers today. Yet the car industry has been shy to adopt airless tires because, when properly contained, air is in many ways the perfect material for a tire. Air is virtually weightless, so it doesn’t impact a vehicle’s performance and efficiency. Air can also be hit with bump after bump and it doesn’t lose any structural integrity. After all, it’s just air.

For a moment I wondered, why would Michelin ever want to create a tire without air? Wouldn’t a tire that couldn’t go flat mean consumers would never buy tires again? But of course, Michelin isn’t in the air business; it’s in the tire business. Just because its Uptis tires can’t leak doesn’t mean they won’t still wear out. From the treads to the internal support structure itself, all of these elements seem susceptible to the ongoing punishment of pavement. That said, Uptis tires could last longer than conventional ones, Michelin claims, simply because drivers can never make the mistake of over- or under-inflating them, which can cost tires some longevity.

Indeed, it’s not just the promise of added safety, but the . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 2:37 pm

How Payday Lenders Spent $1 Million at a Trump Resort — and Cashed In

leave a comment »

In mid-March, the payday lending industry held its annual convention at the Trump National Doral hotel outside Miami. Payday lenders offer loans on the order of a few hundred dollars, typically to low-income borrowers, who have to pay them back in a matter of weeks. The industry has long been reviled by critics for charging stratospheric interest rates — typically 400% on an annual basis — that leave customers trapped in cycles of debt.

The industry had felt under siege during the Obama administration, as the federal government moved to clamp down. A government study found that a majority of payday loans are made to people who pay more in interest and fees than they initially borrow. Google and Facebook refuse to take the industry’s ads.

On the edge of the Doral’s grounds, as the payday convention began, a group of ministers held a protest “pray-in,” denouncing the lenders for having a “feast” while their borrowers “suffer and starve.”

But inside the hotel, in a wood-paneled bar under golden chandeliers, the mood was celebratory. Payday lenders, many dressed in golf shirts and khakis, enjoyed an open bar and mingled over bites of steak and coconut shrimp.

They had plenty to be elated about. A month earlier, Kathleen Kraninger, who had just finished her second month as director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, had delivered what the lenders consider an epochal victory: Kraninger announced a proposal to gut a crucial rule that had been passed under her Obama-era predecessor.

Payday lenders viewed that rule as a potential death sentence for many in their industry. It would require payday lenders and others to make sure borrowers could afford to pay back their loans while also covering basic living expenses. Banks and mortgage lenders view such a step as a basic prerequisite. But the notion struck terror in the payday lenders. Their business model relies on customers — 12 million Americans take out payday loans every year, according to Pew Charitable Trusts — getting stuck in a long-term cycle of debt, experts say. A CFPB study found that three out of four payday loans go to borrowers who take out 10 or more loans a year.

Now, the industry was taking credit for the CFPB’s retreat. As salespeople, executives and vendors picked up lanyards and programs at the registration desk by the Doral’s lobby, they saw a message on the first page of the program from Dennis Shaul, CEO of the industry’s trade group, the Community Financial Services Association of America, which was hosting the convention. “We should not forget that we have had some good fortune through recent regulatory and legal developments,” Shaul wrote. “These events did not occur by accident, but rather are due in large part to the unity and participation of CFSA members and a commitment to fight back against regulatory overreach by the CFPB.”

This year was the second in a row that the CFSA held its convention at the Doral. In the eight years before 2018 (the extent for which records could be found), the organization never held an event at a Trump property.

Asked whether the choice of venue had anything to do with the fact that its owner is president of the United States and the man who appointed Kraninger as his organization’s chief regulator, Shaul assured ProPublica and WNYC that the answer was no. “We returned because the venue is popular with our members and meets our needs,” he said in a written statement. The statement noted that the CFSA held its first annual convention at the Doral hotel more than 16 years ago. Trump didn’t own the property at the time.

The CFSA and its members have poured a total of about $1 million into the Trump Organization’s coffers through the two annual conferences, according to detailed estimates prepared by a corporate event planner in Miami and an executive at a competing hotel that books similar events. Those estimates are consistent with the CFSA’s most recent available tax filing, which reveals that it spent $644,656 on its annual conference the year before the first gathering at the Trump property. (The Doral and the CFSA declined to comment.)

“It’s a way of keeping themselves on the list, reminding the president and the people close to him that they are among those who are generous to him with the profits that they earn from a business that’s in severe danger of regulation unless the Trump administration acts,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of consumer group Americans for Financial Reform.

The money the CFSA spent at the Doral is only part of the ante to lobby during the Trump administration. The payday lenders also did a bevy of things that interest groups have always done: They contributed to the president’s inauguration and earned face time with the president after donating to a Trump ally.

But it’s the payment to the president’s business that is a stark reminder that the Trump administration is like none before it. If the industry had written a $1 million check directly to the president’s campaign, both the CFSA and campaign could have faced fines or even criminal charges — and Trump couldn’t have used the money to enrich himself. But paying $1 million directly to the president’s business? That’s perfectly legal. . .

Continue reading.

Trump is corruption personified. David Fahrenthold reports in the Washington Post:

President Trump arrived at his golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland, on Wednesday for a two-night stay — pausing between official events in Europe to visit a business that has cost him $41 million and never reported turning a profit.

Trump, coming off an official state visit to Britain, landed at Shannon Airport in the west of Ireland and met briefly with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar before flying to Doonbeg, about 40 miles away.

The Irish Times reported that Trump originally wanted to meet with Varadkar at his golf club, but Varadkar wanted to meet at another nearby hotel. The two leaders settled on an awkward compromise: the VIP lounge at the airport.

Trump will leave Doonbeg on Thursday, visiting France for D-Day commemorations. He will return to Doonbeg on Thursday night, before flying home Friday.

Despite the odd geography of that schedule — which requires flying hundreds of miles west to Ireland, then hundreds more miles back east to France — Trump said he stayed at Doonbeg for convenience.

“We’re going to be staying at Doonbeg in Ireland because it’s convenient and it’s a great place. But it’s convenient,” Trump said before he left Washington.

The visit marks the third time Trump has paused during an overseas trip to visit one of his businesses, which he has maintained ownership of as president. He made a brief stop at his Waikiki hotel in Hawaii on the way to Asia in 2017 and spent two nights at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last summer. . .

Continue reading.

The trip was just a way for Trump to dip a big scoop into the public treasury and take money for himself, ethics be damned.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 2:14 pm

Why Can’t Tech Companies Do the ‘Right’ Thing the First Time?

leave a comment »

I think the answer is that tech companies lack any sense of morality or indeed even any sense of common decency. Their entire awareness is focused on revenue and profit, and nothing else is really visible to them. They are not going to do the right thing unless forced to do it, and that is why they (like all other corporations) require regulation: to protect the public. Madison Malone Kircher writes in New York:

YouTube announced on Wednesday it has demonetized the channel of one Steven Crowder, a right-wing commentator who has spent months hurling slurs like “lispy queer” and “anchor baby” at Vox video host Carlos Maza, a gay Latino. Whenever Crowder would mention Maza in his content, Maza says he faced “a wall of homophobic/racist abuse on Instagram and Twitter.” One time Crowder’s fans even doxed Maza, finding his phone number and texting him repeatedly. So YouTube saying Crowder was out for “a pattern of egregious actions” that “harmed the broader community” and violated the platform’s policies seemed, on its face, like a proportional response. Right? Well, right, but only if you don’t know that at first the company did absolutely nothing to help Maza.

At the end of May, Maza, fed up with Crowder’s storied history of calling him out on his show, posted a compilation video of clips of Crowder. Almost a week later, YouTube replied, directly to Maza via its customer service Twitter account, letting him know that it had reviewed “the videos flagged” but that the language, while “clearly hurtful,” wasn’t in violation of policy. “Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site,” @TeamYouTube tweeted. In another tweet, YouTube made sure to tell Maza that the platform hosting Crowder’s videos was not an endorsement of his opinions.

YouTube’s response was quickly lambasted by media outlets and Maza for its lack of teeth. “I put myself out there and showed a bunch of people the abuse I had been experiencing. It was humiliating and degrading, and I can’t believe it STILL wasn’t enough to get YouTube to take it seriously,” Maza told Intelligencer. “I don’t know what LGBT people are supposed to do to get this company to actually protect us.” Not even a day later, YouTube course corrected and made the demonetization announcement. Which, while maybe not a perfect way to handle the scenario, was a markedly less anemic reaction than YouTube’s initial response.

As Maza pointed out on Twitter, Crowder’s brand and income are not solely tied to YouTube ad revenue: On YouTube Crowder has 3.8 million subscribers who are likely to buy his merchandise, notable his “Socialism Is for F*gs” shirts. YouTube responded that “in order to reinstate monetization on this channel, he will need to remove the link to his T-shirts.” [Brief pause here while I roll my eyes so far back in my head I am permanently blinded and unable to ever read another bad tweet.]

This second response could have been YouTube’s first response if it had just taken more time. YouTube, in its initial tweets to Maza, said it was still investigating Crowder’s channel. A lot of grief, for YouTube, could have been spared if the company had just opted to say, “Hey, we’re still looking into this.” (Maza told Intelligencer that no one from YouTube ever contacted him directly.) But also … this is par for the course with YouTube. Back when Logan Paul posted a video of an apparent suicide victim that he found hanging from a tree in Japan, the company’s first response was similarly nonresponsive. First it offered a nothing statement of apology to the family of the deceased and links to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Later, the platform, following further deliberation, announced that Paul would no longer be included in its Partner Program, the same one Crowder was booted from on Wednesday. (A month after that YouTube temporarily suspended all ads on Paul’s videos after he filmed himself tasering a rat.) Paul, however, later indicated that he wasn’t worried about money thanks to his merchandise line. His brand, thanks largely to YouTube, was strong enough to weather losing monetized ads. Crowder is in the same boat.

Doing as little as possible and hoping the public outcry isn’t big enough to warrant taking more of a stand is the norm not only at YouTube. On Wednesday morning, I woke up to an email from a fellow journalist working on a story on revenge porn. She’d discovered a Twitter account using a photo of me as its avatar. The account was purporting to be a 19-year-old girl and was selling nude photographs of “me.” The few tweets from the account were of semi-nude, headless women who are not me. I immediately reported the account to Twitter, explaining the situation. The platform responded saying the account technically wasn’t violating any of its policies — like if the avatar photo contained nude or pornographic content — and would remain. I tweeted about it immediately, complaining and tagging Twitter. Only after I did that, and after the tweet was shared by many accounts with significantly larger followings than my own, did Twitter send me a second email informing me the account had been suspended.

I’m lucky. I’m a journalist with a verified Twitter, which means my tweets are algorithmically more inclined to be seen. I have friends and contacts at Twitter. But if that wasn’t my situation, if I was just a typical Twitter user who found her likeness being misrepresented in a degrading and alarming way that skirted around Twitter’s terms of service, chances are the account would have remained online indefinitely.

Much of moderation on tech platforms is automated or, if it does pass through human hands, is done by people, often contractors, so low down the corporate food chain they aren’t in positions to effect real change and dictate policy. Which means the people — or computers — who have the most firsthand contact with issues like these aren’t the ones, ultimately, who decide how to handle them. Instead, the decisions are made by people who appear to lack full understanding of situational nuance — YouTube is still tweeting trying to clarify what it meant by that inane tweet about Crowder’s “Socialism Is for F*gs” shirts — and make knee-jerk decisions in the hope that doing as little as possible will be enough to quell flak. These companies could opt to take the time to make these decisions. They could opt to have their secondary reactions be their first. But they don’t. Because . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 1:18 pm

The last painting of Mary Pinchot Meyer

leave a comment »

Maria Hummel writes in Crime Reads:

On October 12, 1964, two days before her 44th birthday, artist Mary Pinchot Meyer set a fan on her canvas to help the paint dry, pulled on a blue angora sweater against the cold, and left her Georgetown studio for a walk. Meyer often took walks by the Potomac. Friends said that it was one way that she processed her grief over the death of her ex-lover the prior year. She passed a limousine, and waved to a friend, the wife of a covert CIA operative and member of the Washington aristocracy. Meyer traveled easily in the Washington elite—a graceful, serious blonde, a Vassar graduate, the ex-wife of CIA deputy director Cord Meyer. Her art-making seemed like another life altogether, part of the soul searching she’d done after her nine-year-old son was struck and killed by a passing car, soul-searching that include orgasmic therapy, LSD, and a deepening commitment to world peace that some Washington insiders have claimed led to her death.

Meyer had just entered a dense woods near the Potomac when her assailant seized her from behind and shot her in the head. She called for help and struggled free, leaving blood streaks on a nearby birch, but her attacker dragged her to the edge of the river and shot her again in the chest, killing her. Within ninety minutes, a crew of police had descended to the crime scene. By the end of the day, they had a suspect: a lone black man named Ray Crump, who had been witnessed standing near the body. The arrest and conviction fell into place fast, despite the fact that Crump’s diminutive physique and confused mind didn’t suit a killing so merciless and clean, or that the murder weapon was never found.

What motivated the lightning speed of the hunt? Meyer’s murder was high profile. Indeed, some members of the Washington intelligence community seemed to know about Meyer’s death before the body was even identified that evening, writes Peter Janney, the son of a CIA officer and author of an admiring book on Meyer called Mary’s Mosaic. The CIA operatives were already aware that Meyer was dead, Janney speculates, because it is possible that they had planned her killing. Perhaps Meyer had found out something fishy about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and its potential cover-up. And because she’d been both a longtime friend and a lover to Kennedy, according to witnesses and to Kennedy’s own passionate, hand-scrawled letter to Meyer, auctioned off in 2018, she’d wanted the truth known. Janney contends that this knowledge cost Meyer her life.

The summer after Meyer’s death, after a defense by a trailblazing black woman lawyer named Dovey Roundtree, Ray Crump was acquitted of all charges, and Meyer’s murder became once again unsolved. But in the years that have passed since then, a series of accusations and counter accusations among her former associates have connected her killing to conspiracies ranging far beyond her own private life and to the assassination of JFK, who’d trusted Meyer so deeply that she had been a fixture in the Oval Office in 1963.

Beautiful, self-possessed Mary Pinchot Meyer has inspired multiple books, articles, and most recently a limited TV series currently being written by David Seidler (The King’s Speech) for Warner Bros. Some tales dig into Meyer’s significant relationship with Kennedy and what she might have known that endangered her. Others assign her murder to Ray Crump after all, who went on to a career of rape and arson, and to align his acquittal within the rising racial tensions of America in 1965. A cornucopia of confusing stories abound regarding Mary Pinchot Meyer’s missing diary, also described as an “artist’s sketchbook,” and whether it held details of her affair with JFK or her thoughts on the conspiracy surrounding his assassination or simply color swatches and some personal notes. This so-called “Hope Diamond” of the Kennedy assassination investigation has allegedly gone up in flames—a loss not just to the country’s history, but also to our own art history.

Mary Pinchot Meyer became involved with members of the Washington Color School in the late 1950s, when she’d sought solace and self-exploration after the loss of her son Michael and her subsequent divorce. She painted, hung out at jazz clubs, smoked marijuana, and began a romantic entanglement with Kenneth Noland, one of the best-known American color field painters, whose paintings of concentric color rings now hang in many major museums. Noland “soak-stained” his canvases, which meant he applied thinned paint directly to unprimed cloth, causing it to absorb directly, and giving the artist “one shot” at getting it right. 

While this may seem a small difference in technique to us now, in the 1950s it was revolutionary. Noland sought a more direct artistic experience, an erasure of the emotional splashes of his predecessors for the sake of pure color and flatness. Taking away a painting’s priming and a painter’s ability to revise his work made the act of painting itself singular, intense, and immediate, an improv, like the jazz solos Noland and Meyer watched at clubs like the Bohemian Caverns and the Howard Theater. Noland’s process deeply influenced Meyer, and she joined him in the powerful and uncynical longing of the late Fifties/early Sixties bohemian culture to find new pathways to transcendence. The pair began taking weekly train trips up to Philadelphia for therapeutic bodywork sessions with an orgonomist, who helped them release psychological blockages to their orgasm function.

“What does Kenneth Noland have that I don’t have?” Jack Kennedy reportedly asked Meyer during that time, frustrated by her perennial denial of his advances.

“Mystery,” she replied.

But Noland wasn’t the final destination on Meyer’s pilgrimage. She would also turn to the mind-expanding power of LSD, personally visiting with Timothy Leary at Harvard and asking him to teach her how to guide another person’s experience with the drug. When Leary offered to mentor the person himself, Meyer refused. She had a very influential friend, she said, whose anonymity needed protecting, yet she did want him to experience the consciousness-awakening of acid. Meyer had finally transitioned from JFK’s friend to his lover, according to Peter Janney, and in 1962 she and the president were secretly and deeply involved. The affair cooled by 1963, but Meyer remained a trusted contact. . .

Continue reading. There’s more, including several photos in the article, including one of a Noland painting.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 9:22 am

Google Harassment

leave a comment »

Judd Legum blogs at Popular Information:

Carlos Maza, who works for Vox, is one of the most popular and talented creators on YouTube, a subsidiary of Google. His video series, called Strikethrough, is stylish, informative, and more than occasionally groundbreaking. Maza’s November 2017 video, “Why white supremacists love Tucker Carlson,” opened many people’s eyes to the Fox News host’s bigotry and extremism.

Maza’s series is very popular. All of his videos collect hundreds of thousands of views and its not uncommon for more than a million people to watch each episode. Maza’s Carlson video has racked up over 2 million views.

But Maza has also been the target of relentless harassment on YouTube by Steven Crowder, a popular right-wing polemicist. Crowder uses his videos to attack Maza with homophobic slurs and ethnic insults. Crowder has called Maza a “lispy spic,” “the little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” and “the gay Mexican,” among other things. Some of these bigoted attacks were delivered while Crowder was wearing a “Socialism is for fags” t-shirt.

Crowder’s videos received millions of views and regularly prompted a flood of bigoted comments from Crowder’s fans on Maza’s videos. For years, Maza just absorbed the abuse. But he recently complained to YouTube, which has policies against harassment, for allowing Crowder’s abuse to continue unchecked.

[And click that link and read the Twitter thread. – LG]

Eventually, YouTube publicly responded to Maza’s complaints. The company’s initial response was that it would do nothing.

What YouTube said

On Tuesday night, YouTube issued its response to the bigoted attacks on Maza on Twitter.

Thanks again for taking the time to share all of this information with us. We take allegations of harassment very seriously – we know this is important and impacts a lot of people. Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies. As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone – from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions within the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site. Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint.

There are many problems with YouTube’s initial response.

First, YouTube categorizes Crowder’s homophobic and racial slurs as “opinions.” Bigoted slurs are not opinions. They don’t invite debate or discussion. They are simply an expression of hatred. Calling them “opinions” that are essential for an “open platform” to allow is absurd.

Second, Crowder’s conduct clearly violates YouTube’s anti-harassment policy. No one forced YouTube to create this policy. The company chose to put it in place. Here is what it says:

Content or behavior intended to maliciously harass, threaten, or bully others is not allowed on YouTube.

If you see content that violates this policy, please report it. Instructions for reporting violations of our Community Guidelines are available here. If you have found multiple videos, comments, or a user’s entire channel that you wish to report, please visit our reporting tool, where you will be able to submit a more detailed complaint.

It is impossible to watch Crowder’s videos and not conclude he is harassing and bullying Maza. If Crowder’s videos don’t constitute harassment and bullying, those words cease to have any meaning.

Third, YouTube says that while the company “found language that was clearly hurtful” in Crowder’s videos, those videos don’t violate YouTube’s policies. But in YouTube’s anti-harassment policy, it gives examples of conduct that constitutes harassment. One example provided by YouTube is “hurtful and negative personal comments/videos about another person.”

Finally, Crowder’s content also violates YouTube’s probation on hate speech, which includes any content that:

Use racial, ethnic, religious, or other slurs where the primary purpose is to promote hatred.

Use stereotypes that incite or promote hatred based on any of the attributes noted above. This can take the form of speech, text, or imagery promoting these stereotypes or treating them as factual.

“Spic,” “fag,” and other slurs used by Crowder in his videos are prototypical hate speech. It is not a gray area. YouTube’s conclusion that Crowder’s content didn’t violate this policy is inexplicable.

Did YouTube read its own anti-harassment and hate speech policies before it decided Crowder’s vile videos did not violate its policies?

YouTube tries to explain

In a statement to Gizmodo, YouTube elaborated on the reasoning it was taking no action with respect to Crowder.

We take into consideration whether criticism is focused primarily on debating the opinions expressed or is solely malicious. We apply these policies consistently, regardless of how many views a video has.

In videos flagged to YouTube, Crowder has not instructed his viewers to harass Maza on YouTube or any other platform and the main point of these videos was not to harass or threaten, but rather to respond to the opinion.

This makes no sense. What YouTube is saying here is that you are allowed to harass others and engage in hate speech as long as the video is not “solely malicious.” In other words, you can spend a portion of your video harassing someone as long as there are other parts of your video where you are not harassing someone.

YouTube’s emphasis on the fact that “Crowder has not instructed his viewers to harass Maza on YouTube or any other platform” is perplexing. Crowder himself is harassing Maza. There is nothing in YouTube’s policies that requires a video to direct third parties to harass someone for it to count as harassment. Nor would such a requirement make any sense.

Regardless, an individual with millions of viewers on YouTube using homophobic and ethnic slurs to attack someone will inevitably subject that person to further harassment by others, with or without direct instructions.

YouTube recalibrates

As you might imagine, YouTube’s initial decision to do nothing did not go over well. It was generating headlines like this one in the Washington Post:

And this one in Gizmodo:

So the company reversed course and announced that it would demonetize, but not remove, Crowder’s videos.

Update on our continued review–we have suspended this channel’s monetization. We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.

At first blush, this seems like a significant step. But, as Maza points out, people like Crowder make most of their money from selling merchandise — like his “Socialism is for fags” t-shirt — not selling ads on YouTube. Demonetizing Crowder’s videos will not prevent him from continuing to harass Maza or from making money from that harassment.

Demonetization is a fairly common step that YouTube takes on a wide range of videos, including videos that promote LGBT rights.

Further, demonetizing is not what YouTube’s anti-harassment policy says the company will do in response to videos. Here is what the policy says:

If your content violates this policy, we’ll remove the content and send you an email to let you know. If this is the first time you’ve posted content that violates our Community Guidelines, you’ll get a warning with no penalty to your channel. If it’s not, we’ll issue a strike against your channel. Your channel will be terminated if you receive 3 strikes.

YouTube’s hate speech policy, which Crowder also violated, contains identical language about the removal of videos and termination for multiple violations.

The hypocrisy

YouTube initially defended Crowder’s content as within the rules and is still refusing to remove the videos. At the same time, YouTube is positioning itself as a champion of LGBTQ rights. This is what YouTube’s Twitter page looks like right now. . .

Continue reading. There’s much more, and it is infuriating.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 8:50 am

Posted in Business, GOP, Media

Honeysuckle and Starcraft, with Mamba and Tabac

with 2 comments

I think of my Phoenix Artisan synthetics I like the Green Ray best. It’s knot is more relaxed, not so tightly sprung. The Starcraft brush in the photo did a perfectly fine job, but it was not quite so soft on my face as the Green Ray (and I do understand that some may prefer the feel of the Starcraft). Nonetheless, the Starcraft did a fine job with Phoenix Artisan’s Honeysuckle shaving soap and made just the lather I like: thick, fine-grained, and fragrant.

Three comfortable passes with the RazoRock stainless Mamba left my face perfectly smooth, and a splash of Tabac ended the shave.

I read yesterday comment made in passing, “Shaving sucks.” There must be millions of men who still don’t know that shaving can be a great pleasure. Given that these men must shave and that they hate it, I wonder why word doesn’t spread more rapidly about how shaving can be a daily pleasure. Is it resistance to learning? or perhaps just a philosophy that life is in general unpleasant? I don’t get it. May naive idea is that people would be looking for ways to enjoy the things they must do. Perhaps they feel they have no control, no say in the matter, and they have resigned themselves to living with a kind of sub-critical level of depression.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 June 2019 at 7:39 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: