Meanwhile, At The Huffington Post:

I don't know what work you're talking about here. Modeling? Cause males have to use cosmetics too there just like females.

What Are Workplace Makeup Requirements?

Occasionally, employers implement "personal appearance standards" to govern how their employees should look. Some employers feel their employees' personal appearance is important to the job, and will typically either require that their employees wear make up or forbid them from doing so while at work. Typical occupations where makeup requirements may be found include:

- Beverage employees, such as bartenders or cocktail waitresses
- Restaurant waitresses
- Newscasters and reporters
- Clothing retail

Everyone wants you to look decent, but not that you must wear makeup.

intersectional feminist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jcpenney-sylva-stoel-shorts_55b7f582e4b0a13f9d1ab2b2?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women&section=women




A former JCPenney employee has taken to Twitter to illustrate just how hypocritical dress codes for women can be.

“Boss sent me home for wearing 'too revealing' shorts that I bought from the store I work at in the career section,” Sylva Stoel tweeted on Friday. She included a photo of herself in a pair of red shorts that hit at about mid-thigh.

Maybe if they'd let working women wear more-revealing clothing, they'd get more customers.

Maybe if they'd let working women wear more-revealing clothing, they'd get more customers.

As in the breastaurant business model?

I thought women wearing revealing clothing was part of feminism ?

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who has made varying statements on climate change this year, said Thursday that he believes humans are partly responsible for it.

"The climate is changing; I don’t think anybody can argue it’s not. Human activity has contributed to it," Bush said in an email interview with Bloomberg BNA.

The former Florida governor had said in June that he believes in climate change --although he didn't say if he thought humans were contributing to the problem, which is the scientific consensus. But in May, he said it is "arrogant" to claim that the science on the issue is settled, an argument he has been using since 2011.

Before Pope Francis released his encyclical on climate change last month, Bush said he thinks religion should be "less about things that end up getting into the political realm."

In Thursday's interview, the candidate said America should take some steps to deal with climate change.

"I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it," Bush said.

But he reiterated his support for limiting federal involvement in the energy sector, including the government's current encouragement of renewable energy sources.

"Power generation should reflect, as much as possible, the diverse attributes and needs of states and their citizens," Bush said. "The federal government should not be dictating what types of power should be used where. It should not be picking winners and losers."

Last week, Bush said he would get rid of all energy subsidies if he were president.

On Thursday, he also criticized President Barack Obama's veto of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, calling the latter "irresponsible and ineffective."

The 2016 Republican presidential candidates have offered a wide range of views on climate change. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and former New York Gov. George Pataki, who are both polling near the bottom of the field, have said they believe humans contribute to the problem. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) has said he believes "the climate is changing because there's never been a moment where the climate is not changing." Then there's Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), who claims there's no scientific evidence to support climate change.

It seems the notion of questioning what Jimmy Carter is up to strikes again and again.

Story is too long to quote.

Jimmy Carter Is Correct that the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings on Thursday became the latest Democrat to split with President Barack Obama over Iran, stating that he would not only vote down the nuclear agreement with the country, but would also draft an authorization to allow the U.S. to go to war with it to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

Hastings said he plans to introduce his war authorization on Sept. 8, the first day Congress returns from recess. The introduction will likely come before lawmakers can hold a vote on whether to rescind the president’s ability to waive sanctions against Iran, as required in the nuclear deal. The Florida Democrat called it an “absolute necessity” to clear the president’s path to use military force against Iran, “regardless of how Congress votes” on the overall Iran deal.

It is looking increasingly unlikely that Congress will have the votes necessary -- a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate -- to kill the nuclear agreement that was reached last month between Iran, the U.S. and five world powers. This means that Hastings' attempt to authorize military action against Iran is a forward-looking move aimed at pushing the next president to abandon the deal.

There is already a war authorization against Iran floating around this House, authored by fellow Democrat John Larson of Connecticut. The measure drafted by Larson, who plans to back the nuclear deal when it comes up for a vote, gives the president permission to use military intervention against Iran if its nuclear program becomes noncompliant with the terms of the agreement.

Estimates by military experts say that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities could set their program back two or three years, but could not irreversibly destroy the country's nuclear abilities. “The plain fact is, no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses,” national security adviser Susan Rice said at a conference hosted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group, in March.

Hastings’ push for a war authorization against Iran comes as other critics of the nuclear deal fire back at Obama for implying that opponents of the agreement are pushing the U.S. toward military conflict with Iran.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) came out against the deal, he explicitly defended his decision as one in support of diplomacy over military action. “I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy,” he wrote in statement. “It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.” Schumer insisted that the U.S. could abandon the agreement and renegotiate a better deal with more concessions from Iran.

Regardless, it is unlikely that this Congress will preemptively legalize a war against Iran. The U.S. military has been fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria for over a year, and lawmakers still haven’t gotten around to voting on the war authorization drafted by the White House in February.

They have arrived.
Lizard Man Emerges From South Carolina Swamp

A group of protesters in California took a stand against the influence of money in politics Wednesday by imagining what it would look like if lawmakers had to publicly advertise their campaign donors on their clothes à la professional stock car drivers.

The protesters placed cardboard cutouts of all 120 California state lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in front of the state capitol in Sacramento. Each legislator wore the logos of the corporations that back them in the style of NASCAR drivers' brand-filled uniforms.

The protest was arranged by Neighborhood Legislature, a group aiming to curb the influence of special interests and big money in politics via the Neighborhood Legislature Reform Act. The proposed legislation would reduce California's electoral districts to the size of neighborhoods, with the hope of minimizing the importance of donations by reducing the cost of campaigning.



"Everyone knows politics are corrupt, but no one knows what to do about it. We wanted to go to California's seat of power and say, 'the system is broken, these politicians have been bought, and we are serious about changing things,'" Neighborhood Leigslature's Andrew Sears wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. "Hundreds of people saw it yesterday and many were actually emotionally moved by it. It's a powerful image to see -- those people charged with safeguarding our state in the pockets of powerful special interests. Who is looking after us?"

Sears says the group plans to stage similar protests across the state in coming months.



In 2013, a White House "We The People" petition proposed requiring members of Congress to wear NASCAR-style clothing displaying their donors' logos.

"Since most politicians' campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events," read the petition.

That petition, however, did not receive enough support to require an official White House response.

In an administration embattled by harsh criticism from both sides of the political divide, Barack Obama today set off a new wave of hostility and derisive feeling by uttering a sentence containing the word the.

"I have never heard anything so blatantly socialist in my life," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Just blurting out the word the as if we are all supposed to foot the bill for that with our taxes."

And, from his own party, similar skepticism and unrest. "I want to back my president," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, "But when a man makes promises to his constituency about creating policy to advance the middle class and then tries to dodge the issue by throwing the definite article out there....well, it's unconscionable."

Reaction from the general public has been equally troubling.

"It's great that Bernie Sanders is out there pushing the progressive agenda right now," observed one prominent Midwestern businessman. "Because the Barack Obama who uses the word the in a sentence is not the Barack Obama I voted for in 2008."

"This is the right time for the Republican party to strike at the heart of what's wrong with the country and take America back as well as reclaim America," intoned a Republican small business owner in Massachusetts. "When Obama opens his mouth and the first thing you hear is the, then you know the flagrant abuse of all this country stands for has gone full bore."

Washington analysts claim that this is the largest instance of Obama-sparked outrage since the President made the mistake of implementing the word and as a coordinating conjunction while giving a speech to tool and dye makers in Trenton.

"We haven't seen the end of this," predicts one beltway insider. "All we need is one but and he can pretty much forget about legacy building."

That is insane.

The sheriff investigating a mass shooting at an Oregon community college that left at least nine people dead posted a video to Facebook in 2013 that raised questions about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin posted a link to a YouTube video called "The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed," which summarized conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting and quickly racked up millions of views, about a month after the massacre took place. The post was deleted or made private sometime after 2:30 p.m. Friday.

"This makes me wonder who we can trust anymore..." Hanlin wrote. "Watch, listen, and keep an open mind."

The video opens with text that reads: "In this video I will prove to you there has been a lot of deception surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting. This is a simple, logical video. No aliens, holigrams (sic), rituals or anything like that, just facts." It then intersperses news clips from the time with text raising questions about the "official story" presented in the media, including whether there was more than one shooter and whether grieving parents were actually so-called "crisis actors."

The viral video was quickly debunked in arenas as disparate as The Huffington Post and Glenn Beck's website TheBlaze, however.

Two days after posting the debunked video, Hanlin sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in which he expressed his view that stricter gun control measures would do nothing to prevent future massacres.

"Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings," Hanlin wrote in the letter. "Any actions against, or in disregard for our U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights by the current administration would be irresponsible and an indisputable insult to the American people."

He went on to suggest that he would not enforce executive actions or federal legislation regarding gun control.

"The United States Supreme Court has ruled that when a Sheriff chooses to enforce an unconstitutional directive, he is violating his Constitutional Oath," Hanlin wrote in the letter to Biden. "I will NOT violate my Constitutional Oath. Therefore, the second purpose of this letter is to make notification that any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the Constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Douglas County Oregon."

The letter earned Hanlin praise from the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a fringe group somewhat similar to the Oath Keepers in that its members swear an oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution.

View the post below:



A few months after Sandy Hook, Hanlin shared an account of a Columbine shooting victim's father's testimony before Congress. The account he shared dated back to a 1999 email chain letter that was accurate in quoting the victim's father but mischaracterized Congress' reaction to his statement as negative, according to Snopes.

Hanlin expressed support for a "Biker Patriot Army" that planned to confront "1 million Muslims in Washington" on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.



Many of Hanlin's posts involved sharing memes supporting gun rights.