Tag Archives: Liberal Anti-Business

I Can Feel My Ovaries Shriveling Inside of Me

Over at The Federalist Bre Payton has a piece on our continued cultural decline.

Any article that has the sentence, “Whenever I see a dude sporting a bun on top of his head, I can feel my ovaries shriveling inside of me,” is a must read.

The Ken doll was always considered a bit effeminate, even when I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s. That so many girls considered him an ideal mate for their proxy — Barbie (instead of G.I. Joe or even Action Jackson) — was a harbinger of things to come in the decline of the culture/feminization of the country.

It also demonstrates the liberal corporate suite stranglehold that is turning so many American corporations against traditional America. What could these people be thinking? Oh, wait, I know, virtue signaling to other like-minded libtards.

I bet the girls at GMA were cooing with approval.

United Folds?

Wow, that didn’t take long.

It seems United has already reached a settlement with “Dr.” David “It’s All About Me” Dao.

I’m not sure who blinked. Did United offer him some kind of outrageous wad of money? Did Dao’s shyster ambulance-chasing attorney inform that some of that tiny print on the ticket he bought says that United has the right to do what it did and, unless, they get the right freelancing judge they’ll lose so grab the money and run?

Of course United had to make a big deal of their cravenness. They took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal trumpeting their panty wedgie. The modern business liberal — surrender is a mark of honor.

In a printed letter signed by United CEO Oscar “Wienie Boy” Meyer… er… Munoz, he grovels — “We can never say we’re sorry enough for the shameful way one of our customers was treated…”

He used an Obamaesque phrasing, “corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values.”

What “shared values?” Disregarding the cabin commands of the flight crew? That’s a violation of federal law, Senor Munoz.

Seat belt light on? Eh, ignore it. What are they going to do to you?

So, people can light up on the plane now? You’ve undercut the authority. Light up, everyone!!!

Heck, go into the bathroom and disable the smoke detector and fire up that blunt. What’s the worst that could happen? It takes four weeks to get your settlement from the airline?

Here’s an interesting bit from the letter (that terrorists are salivating over): “Law enforcement will not remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.”

Ha-ha-ha-ha! Good luck with making those distinctions. Terrorists aren’t going to walk on with their bomb or knife out in the open. Besides, Dao was clearly a safety risk. Anyone that deranged (or drunk or on drugs, as he might have been) is a safety risk.

They don’t let drunk passengers onboard or will remove them if discovered and have landed planes to remove them. Who knows the limits of a Dao’s mania. This man is allegedly a doctor — supposedly someone calm under pressure.

I had a colleague almost refused boarding because he took an Ambien too early and was practically a zombie as we boarded. It was going to be a redeye flight. Needless to say, he snapped out of it as the gate crew detained him and he sheepishly reboarded as they held the plane a couple of minutes.

And don’t forget, they hung the cops out to dry on this one. Next time you need someone to remove a hostile passenger, Oscar, don’t look to the muscle. They should all quit because it will be just a matter of time before they offend the wrong angry passenger and the company CEO feeds some of them to the dogs because he’s actually more sympathetic to a deranged rich high society type that makes a stink than he is with the blue collar muscle. To purloin another Obamaesque phrasing, aviation cops should know that United’s CEO doesn’t “have their back.”

And imagine a whole generation coming up of young special snowflakes who spend their whole day looking for offense and confrontation with what they see as the forces of oppression, authority and backwardness.

Most of the rest of Munoz’s ad/letter was stuff I’d have figured was their policy already but they just highlighted it make themselves look concerned. I was surprised he didn’t hit the “diversity” button.

I’m not excusing United’s idiotic policy concerning the deadhead crew. That’s a prime example of the behavior of the soulless MBAs (like Munoz) now running corporate America. That’s why you have cramped seats and why some flights are mysteriously canceled and they don’t bother to bring in another plane. And it’s why meals are no longer served on planes and you’re paying $25 for a single bag (while way too many people are wheeling around jumbo ‘carry-on’ bags causing boarding times to skyrocket).

I can say that I will not be flying the friendly skies of United in the future.

State Street Hypocrites

The Wall Street Journal recently reported in one of those typical feel-good-right-side-of-history stories, written almost always by its female reporters, that financial firm State Street, based in, where else, Boston, is insisting that companies it does business with put more women on those company’s boards and that it would vote against board members who were insufficiently enthusiastic with such causes.

It’s giving companies a year to comply. Or else, I guess.

The CEO of State Street Global Advisors, one Ronald O’Hanley, not a woman, said, oddly,“If someone could convince us that the absence of diversity or gender diversity is not a problem, we’re leaving that open. Will they? I doubt it.”

So, Ronnie, would that little bit of business philosophy include State Street Global Advisors own “Leadership Team”? It’s a regular Boys Club — 23 men to 5 women. It’s parent company, State Street, features 62 men and 18 women in its “Leadership Team.”

Perhaps some of those chaps will be leaving and be replaced by someone with her sex organs on the inside? (An odd way to measure qualifications for employment in a financial company.)

No?

Hhhhmmmmm, the classic liberal behavior, do as I say not as I do; AKA hypocrisy.

What’s changing, increasingly, is that the liberals that have take over so much of American business are willing to employ those businesses as weapons against other Americans. They are also abandoning their fiduciary duties in service of liberalism, fascism and socialism.

But back to that March 7 story. It deploys the usual weepy statistics about the lack of women on boards and how those companies with women do so much better than the small handful that don’t have any; or at least they did several years ago when the “study” conducted by State Street (surprise!) said so.

The story has one last kiss — a picture of a Dega-esque statue that State Street planned to place in front of the famous Wall Street bulls statue. I gather she’s supposed to face them like that lone Chinese man faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Subtlety isn’t exactly a liberal specialty.

Historical accuracy isn’t one either. But then history doesn’t serve as history for history’s sake or to be learned from in the eyes of the liberal but rather slaved to the propaganda mission and if it has to be plasticized and recast into different forms as if it were Play-Doh, then so be it; it served its purpose.

Taxing the Fizz Out of Us

Perhaps you’ve heard on the news about one of the latest bright ideas from our wise, Ivy League-educated governing mandarins — a tax on sodas.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg popularized the idea a couple of years ago and now the idea seems to be spreading to other locales. It might even be on the ballot in a couple of cities.

The one I heard about was a one cent tax on a soda (or “soda pop” as we said when we were young). It didn’t specify what size this soda was but the news reporter said it was being enacted to combat the “obesity epidemic.” This would categorize this tax as an old-fashioned sin tax.

So, a one cent tax is going to somehow discourage people from drinking sodas.

Seriously?

Think about that for a moment.

Now, draw an imaginary circle of say five miles from where you live. You’ll probably know half-a-dozen grocery stores within that range. If you are a soda purchaser you’ll know immediately that the price variance within those half-dozen stores can be 25 cents or more. Between sales and specials it can balloon even more. The difference between brand name and store brand can be almost 50%.

A one cent tax?

That will have the same affect as blowing against a stiff breeze. None at all.

And the people behind the tax know this. I should say, the cynical power-hungry fascist liberals behind this know that.

The tax isn’t about curbing behavior or even raising money (that’s a side-benefit) but it’s about control.

First the tax will seem low. Then it will be raised. It will be continuously raised to the point where it begins to somewhat affect sales, wherein it will settle.

Likely soda companies will push to get waivers or carve outs — adding in a certain percentage of a sugar substitute or dropping the sugar level to possibly avoid the tax or some of it. Of course they’ll be able to do this because they’ll be pumping large amounts of campaign dollars into politicians’ campaigns — mostly Democrats because they are the ones pushing the tax campaigns and they are the ones running the cities and counties where most of these taxes are enacted.

The large corporations making most of the sodas — notable Coca-Cola and Pepsi — will also be donating tons of money to “civic” projects (almost always run by Democrat cronies) in those locales in what are really passive bribes. There might even be replays of activities like Jesse Jackson’s famous shakedown of Coca-Cola wherein Jackson’s brother suddenly became a new distributor with a very lucrative and exclusive Chicago market segment. Cha-ching!

Anyone not playing along will find themselves under investigation by various authorities, have permits or whatnot denied by those same authorities and be under attack by media entities and Democrat activists and their auxiliaries such as unions and NGO/nonprofits.

And this is how businesses are captured and turned into tools for Democrats.

The Children Are in Charge

Power Line noted this bit of corporate insanity at General Mills. I can’t add much beyond a couple of small points.

One, it’s a private company so it can do whatever it wants — of course answering to the shareholders. Hopefully they are making shareholders aware of their idiocy.

Two, let’s examine this concept of contractors and suppliers by “consumer” composition. I think they have erred focusing only on sexist and racist solutions since probably a majority of their consumers are actually children. So the contractors and suppliers, along with the boardroom, should probably be half children. It also should include some criminals since criminals eat breakfast cereal. Probably a couple of morons too for the board. Oh, wait, sounds like “moron” is already taken care of.

Maybe they should also stack the board and determine contractors and suppliers by states and locales where they sell the most product.

I’m thinking that General Mills didn’t think their progressive bona fides all the way through. No matter how they cut it they will still be evil, discriminating bastards. They have yet to figure out that life itself is one discrimination after another.

Oh, and they make the point that I continually beat on here, liberals are politicizing everything. Now they are into the cereal.

My final note is that I will not be buying General Mills products any longer…

A Bite Out of the Apple

Are you chuckling as much as I am about the European Union socking it to Apple for unpaid/back taxes on its European operations?

It couldn’t happen to a more politically correct liberal poster child than Apple.

Instead of saying, “Oops, our bad. We’re good liberals so we’ll just reach into our pocket and happily pony up the amount…,” Apple squealed like a stuck pig.

Don’tcha luv it when liberals are hoist by their own petard?

Hey, Timmy! You’re a big-time supporter of every liberal cause that rolls down the hill. You’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and probably Bernie Sanders too. You wanted these things like big taxes and governmental micromanagement, but are they just for other people or are you willing to live by them?

Apparently not…

Now, are you a liberal who’s being mugged by reality? Are you going to learn the lesson? Do you understand that the Eurocrats view you and your company as little more than a servant of their enterprise. You are a sheep to be shorn and provide them with wool. It might be really cool wool but you’re still a sheep in their eyes. Baaaaaah!

Are you going to join us or is your liberal fealty, possibly driven by your boastful homosexuality, your greatest concern? Is your sexual upside-down cake so important to you that you’d piss away $13 billion of other people’s money (and much more year after year if you knuckle under to the Eurofascists)?

About Those Anti-Trump“Tech Leaders”

You might have caught this piece ersatz political news – “’Tech Leaders’ Stand Against Trump.” Here’s the original “Letter” that spawned a bunch these so-called news stories.

It was, like so much political campaign news, really more of a primitive mating dance rather than a real event. What happens is someone from a Democratic campaign (this supposedly resembles some of the stuff hacked from the Clinton campaign) calls one or more of the media toadies and, voila!, a piece of “news” runs in newspapers and on TV news shows.

In this “news,” these “Tech Leaders” think that a Trump presidency will slow “innovation” down.

Somehow, I don’t think The Donald will slow innovation down. Seems to me he’d likely get more ahead of it, especially by trimming strangling regulation.

Hillary just wants to make “innovation” a creature of the government and several of these “Tech Leaders” simply want to clamp their lips on the government funding teat.

These “Tech Leaders” seem to think that “innovation” emanates from “diversity” rather than from intelligence and hard work. Actually, they know the truth which is why this whole thing is a disgusting charade.

Hey “Tech” guys (and gals), didn’t so much of this innovation (that made several of you insanely wealthy) happen while America was a backward bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. country?

So I take note of these abusers of their positions. Note to corporate heads, I will no longer be considering, buying or using your services.

If you looked at this list, you might be scratching your head because you might not have heard of a lot of these “Tech Leaders” or their companies. It should be noted that many of them are the heads of small, fly-by-night companies created simply to get acquired by a larger company and pay off early money investors (several of which are also on this list) and start-up executives. The acquiring company often ends up writing off the acquisition, hosing its own shareholders.

Oh, and some of that money finds its way into the coffers of the Democratic Party.

As for others on the “Trump will stop innovation” list – Vint Cerf, Barry Diller, Irwin Jacobs, Paul Jacobs, William Kennard, Pierre Omidyar, Jimmy Wales and Steve Wozniak should know better.

I don’t know about you but I really don’t consider Jesse Jackson (along with a handful of other political hacks on the list) to be a “Tech Leader.”

Vinod Khosla and several others on this list have long been wealthy Dem tech hucksters (think Al Gore).

So, these allegedly sharp “Tech Leaders,”  support the technophobe candidate who can’t secure her own email or is confused about her smartphone and other tech devices. Interesting.

Most of the comments seem to be hostile to these puffed-up courtiers but some are supportive. Amazingly, most of those supportive tend to be of the same type, an illustration of the classic libtard trait of  “moral signaling.” Hence most sound like, “I consider it an honor to include myself with this stellar group of technology thought leaders on whatever it is they are saying negative about people we don’t like.”