I suppose there's nothing immoral about separating fools or pet owners from their money

What's the provenance of that banana? 

What's the provenance of that banana? 

Free range chicken mixed with organic Quinoa and carrots are the new dog food. The link's to an LA Times article, but I've heard "sponsorship" ads for grass-fed beef / organic beets, etc. for dogs on, where else, NPR.

Who not only buys this stuff but worse, pays extra for it? I assume it's the same crowd of college educated ladies who purchase utterly useless homeopathic remedies at Whole Foods. These are the same people who're convinced that global warming is real "because the science is settled", yet abandon that faith when science proves that homeopathy is a fraud, carnivorous dogs don't need and can't use kale, and no dog on earth can distinguish between grass-fed and grain-fed beef, caged or uncaged chicken.

The world's aways had idiots, of course, but they used to be employed by villages to serve as a form of entertainment and jollity. Now they are the village.

Pray for our souls.

Which is why hellfire missiles are recommended instead

Screen Shot 2017-09-20 at 4.40.31 PM.png

The youngest of London's bucket bomber, 18, dropped out of England's "deradicalization program.

As ... reported here at PJ Media earlier this week, the still-unnamed 18-year-old Iraqi refugee who tried to set off an IED on the London underground last Friday had been arrested two weeks before the attack at the Parsons Green station where the device went off. But today information was revealed that the bombing suspect was part of the UK's "deradicalization" program.

From all accounts, Saudi Arabia's similar program is also a bust

From all accounts, Saudi Arabia's similar program is also a bust

On the proper use of real estate photos

First photo shown

First photo shown

Angela Swift's listing at 10 Shady Brook Lane, OG, $2.050, was reported as under contract yesterday. Take a look at the listing and notice what she did: the house itself was built in 1969 and from the outside, that's pretty much what it looks like. But the story is what the owners did inside,  namely, transform it into a clean, modern house. So, of the 21 pictures posted, the first 20 are of the interior and the best parts of the outside: pool and terrace. Only the last picture  is of the exterior front. 

Now obviously, buyers are going to want to visit the house personally before buying it, and will see what the exterior looks like before even exiting their car, but Swift's photo order may at least have whetted their appetite to see the interior they liked on the Internet, so they'll get past the unprepossessing front and through the door. Even before that, her great interior pictures probably kept them from clicking onto the next listing while prowling the online inventory. 

Photos certainly aren't everything, or even controlling: this house has been on the market since February, when it was listed at $2.695 million, and that price had to be conformed to reality before a buyer stepped forward, but if your home's Internet presence turns off potential buyers immediately, no one's even going to show up to tell you that your price is off. 

Nice job of Internet marketing and presentation.

living room.jpg
Final picture: "Oh! Did we mention it was built in 1969?"

Final picture: "Oh! Did we mention it was built in 1969?"

Google and its censorship

Google, show me images of "white couples"

Google, show me images of "white couples"

What images should appear when you Google “white couple”? Probably two people of European descent. If you search those words today, though, you’ll find almost exclusively black couples. The results are similarly skewed for “white man & white woman” and “white couple with children”. Try it. Strange, a bit annoying, and vaguely political – just imagine the reaction if a query for “black couple” turned up only whites. I suspect that wouldn’t fly at Google.

What results would you expect when Googling “American inventors”? Likely a mix of great innovators from our past and present, from a variety of backgrounds. Instead, Google tells us they’re almost all black. No Benjamin Franklin, no Samuel Morse, no Bill Gates. Without disrespecting Dr. Patricia Bath and her cataracts-surgery machine, the telegraph and personal computer merit a higher placement.

Somebody at Google is skewing the queries, in this case a form of digital affirmative action: conceivably another point scored in an endless matchup against “white supremacy,” whose presence at all turns is the greatest of progressive obsessions. The implication is that anything related to whiteness – even the telegraph – shouldn’t be searched for at all, and takes up “space” from the accomplishments of marginalized people. In both of the above examples, we receive a political indoctrination in lieu of sought after information. In the second one, we actually learn an altered version of history.

Google made its name by doing what no one before them could: Produce meaningful search results of the web’s nearly unlimited and completely un-curated information. Their results were, by far, the best — and it made the company untold billions.
Clearly that’s no longer true
Google, show me imges of "black couples"

Google, show me imges of "black couples"

Google, show me "AMERICAN inventors"

Google, show me "AMERICAN inventors"

The end of the RTM as a nonpartisan organization

Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 12.32.36 PM.png

In addition to the Soros group, "Indivisible Greenwich" setting its sights on an RTM takeover, another group, this one a branch of the anti-Trump pussyhats, has flooded the candidate petition lists with candidates.

In January Jenny Baird and Karen Giannuzzi returned from the Women’s March in Washington, DC where they were among hundreds of thousands protesting Donald Trump’s agenda the day after his inauguration.

The event, a shadow inauguration of sorts, cut across age, race, and socioeconomic status.  The duo from Greenwich, who had organized buses to transport Greenwich women to and from the march, returned to Greenwich eager to sustain the energy.

Toward that end, the women began to familiarize themselves with local government in Greenwich, in particular the Representative town Meeting (RTM), which is comprised of 230 members across 12 districts and meets eight times a year at Central Middle School.

“None of us knew about the RTM.  So many of the members are over 65 and dominated by men,” Giannuzzi said.

“We wondered where were all the women with children in town,” she said.

“We’ve recruited 40 to 50 candidates, predominantly women, but there are five men. Many have children,” Giannuzzi said on Friday morning. “We found that many people have an international focus but don’t know what’s going on in Greenwich.”

“We are Republicans, Democrats and independents,” Giannuzzi said of the March On candidates.

Unlike other offices, the November ballot does not indicate a candidate’s party affiliation. In fact, March On Greenwich meets at the YWCA under the understanding that the group is strictly non-partisan. [It might be interesting to challenge the YWCA's tax-exempt status over this - ED]

Giannuzzi said her group was grateful to all the current RTM members who are volunteers. She said the goal wasn’t to target them or necessarily bump them from office. But, she said, “Greenwich is racially and ethnically diverse and RTM doesn’t reflect that.”

Of all the arrogant, ignorant statements of Ms. Giannuzzi, this one stands out: 

“We’re focusing on a positive message. We’re trying to improve the diversity on RTM to make it relatable to people who use the town services – the parks, the athletic fields and the schools – so that they can have a greater voice on the RTM,” Giannuzzi said, adding that for almost all of the new candidates, it’s the first time they’ve been involved in government beyond voting.

"People who people who use the town services"? Who the hell does she think uses town services? We all do, and parks, schools athletic fields dominate most discussions of governing issues in Greenwich. RTM members, men and women, over-and-under 65, have been dealing with them for decades. I suspect what she means by the term is "people who use town services but don't pay for them", which is a typical liberal concern, but a bleeding heart alone is neither original nor useful. 

Where was Giannuzzi during  all the past decades, while her fellow citizens were spending countless hours, late at night, at school board meetings, RTM land use meetings, etc.? I haven't seen her listed as a member, or even  contributor, to the Friends of Binney Park, or The Greenwich Point Conservancy, or attending any of the citizen clean-up days around town. The lady got a bee up her butt over Trump's election, came back to town after cavorting in Washington and suddenly "discovered" the RTM, and decided she'd bring her Anti-Trump agenda into a truly nonpartisan governing group that's been operating just fine without her help for over a hundred years.

Giannuzzi has absolutely no idea what the RTM is or why it's been structured as a non-political governing body all these years, yet she wants to make it a platform for radical liberalism. What a jerk.

UPDATE: June, 2017: March on Greenwich, Indivisible Greenwich, meet, sign each other's RTM candidacy petitions.

Hang on to your pocketbook, because they're coming after it. And hang on to your children, because MANDATORY transgender classes are next.

Hang on to your pocketbook, because they're coming after it. And hang on to your children, because MANDATORY transgender classes are next.

No garage, no privacy, no land; what do you want for $1.179 million?

50 richmond.jpg

50 Richmond Drive, Old Greenwich, has sold. Hey, it's south of the Post Road, has had new mechanicals installed and, while I might quibble about the quality of the finishes, it's probably a brain compared to a NYC co-op.

Did I mention no privacy?

Did I mention no privacy?

Apparently the listing agent doesn't consider soffits a "detail", or she wouldn'thave promised that the builder "left out no detail"

Apparently the listing agent doesn't consider soffits a "detail", or she wouldn'thave promised that the builder "left out no detail"