Joe Biden can’t seem to get out of inflation’s way and this is a bit of a problem for him in front of the election.
Chicago is bracing for more riots after a Black man is shot by police. Let us look and see if the anger is justified.
And you won’t believe what is bad for the environment now.
Is It Ever Going to End?
According to the Wall Street Journal:
Stubborn inflation pressures persisted in March, derailing the case for the Federal Reserve to begin reducing interest rates in June and raising questions over whether it can deliver cuts this year without signs of an economic slowdown.
The consumer-price index, a measure of goods and services prices across the economy, rose 3.5% in March from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Wednesday. That was a touch higher than economists had forecast and a pickup from February’s 3.2%. So-called core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy categories, also rose more than expected on a monthly and annual basis.
Stocks fell, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 400 points to its lowest close in nearly two months. Yields climbed on U.S. government bonds, reflecting bets that the data could help delay and diminish future interest-rate reductions.
Biden did have a comment about this. It what I expected though did not want to hear:
This is a big thing. Is Joe Biden talking to the Feds? He’s not suppose to have anything to do with the Fed. They are suppose to be independent of politics. Of course, we know that’s bullshit and he is telling them what to do. That said, he is going to lower interest rates by May or June, whether it’s good for inflation or not, so he can say he lowered interest rates before the election.
I was going to go over all the bad news, but ABC News did it for me. Let’s listen:
Here are some basic stats of what inflation was with Trump and under Biden:
https://www.wsj.com/economy/inflation-march-cpi-report-interest-rate-239b7e5e
Guess What Happened
Of course, that is not quite what the story is.
According to the New York Post:
Graphic bodycam footage released Tuesday revealed the chaos that unfolded when plainclothes Chicago cops fired nearly 100 gunshots during a traffic stop last month, killing one young man and leaving another injured.
By the way, the other injured was the police officer!
Dexter Reed, 26, was killed during a March 21 traffic stop in Humboldt Park after officers in an unmarked cop car pulled him over for allegedly failing to wear a seatbelt.
The chaotic footage shows Reed rolling down the window of his SUV and then raising it before refusing to exit his vehicle as five officers scream commands and draw their weapons.
Preliminary evidence showed Reed had fired first at one officer during the shootout on West Ferdinand Street. Four other officers returned fire, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability said in a statement.
“Available preliminary evidence also confirms that officers returned fire approximately 96 times over a period of 41 seconds, including after Mr. Reed exited his vehicle and fell to the ground,” COPA said.
Just a little FYI, when someone starts shooting, the police unload their weapons. Each cop has between 17 and 19 rounds (some more with extended clips). There were five cops there. If each unloads a clip, that’s between 89 and 95 rounds. So, 96 rounds being fired is surprising or against police policy. Especially if one cop has already been shot.
The videos released show multiple perspectives, including from the officer who was shot, but there isn’t clear footage of Reed shooting at police.
A gun was later recovered from the passenger seat of his vehicle.
Fuck around and find out.
I Bet It’s Racist Too
According to the Daily Mail:
They might be an essential piece of everyday clothing, but scientists now say that even a simple pair of jeans could be bad for the environment.
Wearing a pair of fast fashion jeans just once creates 2.5kg of CO2, the equivalent of driving a petrol car 6.4 miles.
Scientists from the Guangdong University of Technology analysed the life cycle of a pair of Levi’s jeans from growing the cotton to their eventual disposal.
There’s a shock. Scientists from China think an American classic is bad.
They found that some jeans were worn only seven times – earning them the classifiation of ‘fast fashion’ – and produced 11 times more CO2 than jeans wore more often.
Dr Ya Zhou, the study’s lead author says: ‘The humble wardrobe staple – a pair of jeans – has a significant impact on the environment.’
I wonder what “Dr.” Zhou thinks of the tons of pollution pumped into the air by China every hour. Has he ever done a study about that?
To see how fast fashion affects the environment, the researchers analysed the lifecycle of a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans from raw cotton to their disposal by incineration.
During the product’s lifetime, the researchers discovered that fast fashion jeans had a carbon footprint 95-99 per cent larger than traditional fashion jeans, which are worn 120 times on average.
The biggest difference between the two styles of consumption is that clothes sold for fast fashion are transported faster and are worn less often before being thrown out.
Dr Zhou told MailOnline: ‘Changing fashion trends induce people to purchase clothing frequently and use them short-lived to keep following the latest trends.
‘Such the overconsumption has led to a significant increase in resource and energy consumption in the clothing industry by accelerating the entire clothing supply chain, including the production, logistics, consumption and disposal processes, thereby exacerbating the clothing industry’s impact on climate change.’
Question: Who wears a pair of jeans only six times??
Here comes the bullshit:
The researchers estimate that a pair of jeans produced for the traditional fashion market produces 0.22 kg of CO2.
This is higher than previous estimates since the researchers believe jeans are worn less often and washed more frequently than had been thought.
However, of that total carbon footprint, 48 per cent is caused by the washing, drying and ironing of jeans after purchase.
I agree with this. Jeans are not supposed to be washed more than once a month. It is actually recommended that jeans be put in a freezer for washing.
Who the hell irons jeans?
Meanwhile, the researchers estimate that jeans sold in fast fashion produce 11 times more emissions.
Since they are worn only seven times on average, these jeans produce 2.5 kg CO2e per wear, despite needing very little energy to wash and dry over their lifetime.
Unlike traditional fashion, the vast majority of the emissions in fast fashion come from the production of the jeans and fibre, making up 70 per cent of the total emissions.
The remaining emissions are largely created by the transportation of the jeans from factories to consumers, making up 21 per cent of total emissions.
Dr Zhou explains: ‘To achieve a quick response (to fashion trends) of the global supply chain, fast fashion model prefers transportation modes with shorter logistical times, such as cross-border transportation by air rather than by sea.’
Because fast fashion’s transport is much more energy intensive, their transport produced a staggering 59 times more CO2.
What’s funny about this article is that these are all estimates. There has been no science put into this.
Second, it assumes you are not going to wear jeans more than 11 times.
Finally the assumption is you wash your jeans after every wearing. This is not only not recommended, it is just dumb. Jeans do not absorb sweat will, so it takes a long time before they smell. Again, Levi Strauss recommends washing them once a month by washing them in cold water. They used to recommend putting them in a freezer of several hours, taking them out and letting them dry.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13267731/JEANS-bad-environment-Study-reveals.html
Just No
According to the New York Post:
What started as a humble canvas tote soon launched an expansive collection of handbags in CJ Robinson’s closet.
The 28-year-old New Yorker is now the proud owner of upwards of 30 handbags and is part of a growing class of men taking after fashion-forward A-list hunks who flaunt designer bags.
Aussie actor Jacob Elordi, a fashion “It” boy in his own right, has been lauded for his impressive collection of Louis Vuitton, Bottega Veneta and Fendi, while Harry Styles, Pharrell and A$AP Rocky have been spotted with various designer bags. Even athletes, like Travis Kelce, LeBron James and David Beckham, tout ultra-luxe totes.
“They’re something that I can carry around, I can still feel masculine, but it’s something that I can use and be fashionable at the same time,” Robinson, who works at Brandon Blackwood, told The Post.
For him, a bag is both fashionable and functional, looking chic while still holding the “million things” he tosses inside.
Jalen Noble, a New Jersey-based content creator, needs to carry his two phones, keys, wallet, eye drops and chapstick — and even men’s pockets aren’t large enough. So, he opts for a luxe leather bag.
“I noticed that when I would just wear pants with two pockets in them and that’s it, my pockets would look bulky,” Noble, 30, told The Post, adding that he needed a satchel “for convenience because I can carry so many things.”
“Some people might call them a bag, a satchel … or anything else that people want to label it, but to me, it’s just a crossbody purse. I love them.”
You know what you can carry a lot of stuff in but look less gay? A backpack.
All these people are Left wingers. The is part of the continuous femininization of masculinity. The best men are feminine. No, thank you. I like being a man. My wife likes me being a man. She would never allow me to carry a purse. She’s be embarrassed about it.
Gee, I Wonder Why This Is?
According to the New York Post:
Accelerated aging — when someone’s biological age is greater than their chronological age — could increase the risk of cancer tumors.
That’s according to new research presented this week at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.
“Historically, both cancer and aging have been viewed primarily as concerns for older populations,” Ruiyi Tian, MPH, a graduate student at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and one of the study researchers, told Fox News Digital.
“The realization that cancer, and now aging, are becoming significant issues for younger demographics over the past decades was unexpected.”
In the study, diagnoses in patients younger than 55 years old were considered early-onset cancers.
The researchers analyzed data from 148,724 people using the UK Biobank database.
They estimated each person’s biological age using nine biomarkers in the blood — then compared that to their chronological age.
Those with a higher biological age had a 42% increased risk of early-onset lung cancer, were 22% more prone to early-onset gastrointestinal cancer, and had a 36% higher risk for early-onset uterine cancer.
The researchers also determined that people born after 1965 were 17% more likely to experience accelerated aging than those born in earlier decades.
“The principal findings highlight that accelerated aging is increasingly prevalent among successive birth cohorts, potentially serving as a crucial risk factor or mediator for various environmental and lifestyle-related risk factors leading to early-onset cancer,” Tian said in an email to Fox News Digital.
“This discovery challenges us to reconsider the underlying causes of the increasing incidence of early-onset cancers among newer generations,” he added.
The hope is that these findings will lead to interventions to slow biological aging as a “new avenue for cancer prevention,” the researchers noted, combined with screening efforts tailored to younger individuals.
“It is vital for recent generations to become more health-conscious and consider the implications of accelerated aging,” Tian said.